RE ; Is It Possible ?

[hairyman2013]

HI,
To Dean and Lissa,
Is it possible that these Yowies are inter-dimensional, that is to say , they can dis-appear and re-appear when ever or where ever they like ?

Have you ever found a dead Yowie? or any remains such as bones?

These creatures of the dark are the same in the USA, as well, they even do the same things , like throwing stones, and also they have a really yukky smell too!!

Can any one give me some answers please?

Regards,

Hairyman 2013

[NotSoBigFoot]

Hi guys,

Before you get flamed for bringing it up here there is a whole section of the forum dedicated to all that paranormal stuff. This part of the forum is dedicated primarily with the flesh and blood and hard scientific fact side of the subject matter in mind. Don't get me wrong, not being narky, but just trying to make sure you remain to see this forum in a positive attitude as there are hardcore believers on both sides of the equation.

Cheers,

Stu

[Dion]

Your quite right Stu, as you will see it has now been moved.

[themanfromglad]

HI,
To Dean and Lissa,
Is it possible that these Yowies are inter-dimensional, that is to say , they can dis-appear and re-appear when ever or where ever they like ?

Have you ever found a dead Yowie? or any remains such as bones?

These creatures of the dark are the same in the USA, as well, they even do the same things , like throwing stones, and also they have a really yukky smell too!!

Can any one give me some answers please?

Regards,

Hairyman 2013

From my formal learnings from high school and college instructors, my participation in a US Congress Bigfoot field study, and also based on hundreds of personal observations, (some of which were within 10 feet), it is a lot more complicated than simply being interdimensional. Although interdimensional normally is attributed to invisibility, invisibility is not part and parcel to being paranormal. In a nutshell, most of the interdimensional forest people like the Bigfoot, have at least 3 phases. Which are 3-D bipedal or quadrapedal, orb and a very localized cloud phase. Some can also shapeshift into close imitations of other land and flying mammals. Which suggests supernatural powers. (Presumably the Bigfoot can also play around with cloud cover to brighten up your day for instance.) The orb and cloud phases default to weightlessness. But the 3-D bipedal phase can vary the extent to which gravity controls there apparent weight. They can be weightless in 3-D, or anywhere in between that and their full body weight. They also can be either visible or invisible while they are operating on some level of reduced weight. Although the orbs are weightless, they can be either visible or invisible, while still existing in another dimension that can pass through objects that exist in man's dimension. Same deal with the cloud phase. Trail cameras can pick up invisible orbs and invisible clouds, because they give off heat and have movement. There are several photos out there where the 3-D bipedal bigfoot does not have clear features. This would likely be due to them existing at that moment, in a dimension that is slightly different from man's dimension. Bigfoot can still be successfully contained within a high voltage holding cell, but be careful what you wish for. They are also highly telepathic and you have no secrets from them. Once they tune into your mind, your plans get put out on their internet and all other Bigfoot will know your plans within a large radius. Your plans may include plot watchers, trail cameras and microphones.

Collegiate educators at the University of California at Berkeley, along with Stephen Hawking, decided to kick TIME out of the 4th dimension, in the spring of 1975. And leave that dimension and it's infinite number of sub-dimensions, for the purpose of explaining Bigfoot invisibility. Stephen Hawking was simultaneously give the job of lumping TIME together with SPACE and writing a book about it. That book did not come out until 1988, and is entitled "A Brief History of Time". It was so brief in fact that he failed to mention the Bigfoot connection to the origination of SPACE-TIME. Apparently, he did not want to be accused of writing the Entire History of Time, and then leaving out the Bigfoot connection.

Experienced Bigfoot researchers have witnessed a Bigfoot walk into camp and then change on the fly, into a flying orb, without breaking the pace of the original Bigfoot. Kewaunee Lapseritis has a still photograph of a Bigfoot transposing into an orb. I have heard bipedal footsteps in the forest that then stopped, but was immediately followed by the noise of a localized electric cloud that moved toward and surrounded me. This has happened many times. This cloud then dissipated and I was left unharmed and untouched. The dozens of types of interdimensional forest people will be often making brief tiny to huge flashes of light, from probably either the orb or cloud phase. They can light up everything that you can see, as if it were daylight. But only for a split second. This activity is completely noiseless.

So, who here thinks that they are about to get a picture of a Yowie? And then is going to be able to make large inroads into deciphering everything that there is to know about that Yowie, from that one single picture. As the above description implies, still photos are virtually worthless for explaining this enigma locked within a conundrum, locked within the vaults of the US Department of Defense, from which the key has been thrown away.

Now, the intolerant ones can let me have it because I know that this explanation is going to get stuck sideways in someones craw, and they are not going to stand for it being discussed in the section that is reserved for it to be discussed.

Please notice that at no time did I add an "S" to the name "Bigfoot", in order to describe multiple Bigfoot, and thereby set the English language back a thousand years.

As I sit here revealing this enigma, I am getting electrical snaps coming from various places in the room. Now students, can any of you figure out what that means? Raise your hands if you have an answer. There are no wrong answers.

[Scarts]

Manfromglad, I know you hate questions but be fair. What years did you participate in the US Congress Bigfoot field study, and where can I get my hands on the findings of that study?

"Some can also shapeshift into close imitations of other land and flying mammals." Consistently, some years ago, I liaised with a fellow who swore black and blue he chased a big hairy humanoid which grew shorter and smaller as it ran, finally morphing before his very eyes into a big black feral cat.

This dimension you speak of, manfromglad, equates with the Etheric Plane, in esoteric teachings. The Etheric Plane in the study of alchemy, is empty space, or First Matter from which all secondary matter originates. This is the same empty space that separates our planet from the sun and the same empty space that separates atoms. Essentially what you are saying is while we are constructed of atoms and live in a world of atoms and molecules, these creatures exist in the space between what we can see, which is why we can't ordinarily detect them. Much like ghosts and poltergeists. To become visible, they charge the air around them with chi or mana, gather the atoms around them into a light blue tinged cloud which fills up their Etheric body template, and then allow it or will it to take on all the fine characteristics of their Etheric body, right down to the pores of their skin, hair and colour. This is a temporary physical body they can move around in for a while, until the electrical charge runs low, they lose physicality, and return to a less corporeal state. Am I on the right track?

You do realise, manfromglad, that if some hotshot hollywood writer gets his hands on this stuff, we're handing the basis for a scifi adventure movie over, on a silver platter!

[themanfromglad]

Manfromglad, I know you hate questions but be fair. What years did you participate in the US Congress Bigfoot field study, and where can I get my hands on the findings of that study?

"Some can also shapeshift into close imitations of other land and flying mammals." Consistently, some years ago, I liaised with a fellow who swore black and blue he chased a big hairy humanoid which grew shorter and smaller as it ran, finally morphing before his very eyes into a big black feral cat.

This dimension you speak of, manfromglad, equates with the Etheric Plane, in esoteric teachings. The Etheric Plane in the study of alchemy, is empty space, or First Matter from which all secondary matter originates. This is the same empty space that separates our planet from the sun and the same empty space that separates atoms. Essentially what you are saying is while we are constructed of atoms and live in a world of atoms and molecules, these creatures exist in the space between what we can see, which is why we can't ordinarily detect them. Much like ghosts and poltergeists. To become visible, they charge the air around them with chi or mana, gather the atoms around them into a light blue tinged cloud which fills up their Etheric body template, and then allow it or will it to take on all the fine characteristics of their Etheric body, right down to the pores of their skin, hair and colour. This is a temporary physical body they can move around in for a while, until the electrical charge runs low, they lose physicality, and return to a less corporeal state. Am I on the right track?

You do realise, manfromglad, that if some hotshot hollywood writer gets his hands on this stuff, we're handing the basis for a scifi adventure movie over, on a silver platter!

The study was probably filed in the same vault that contains the captivity study. The report would be inaccessible to the public. It was for 4th thru 12th graders. I know that a group of Congressman came into town in 1967, so that was probably when the study was concluded. It probably started about 8 years before that. They concluded that no matter what children were taught without having an actual Bigfoot in front of them, they were going to forget it. Most did. But what happens is that they aren't as likely to go into the massive psychological denial and concoct payback games that other fully educated persons who live in the big city, would have a tendancy to do. If you told the participants today that Bigfoot was real, they would more than likely just stare at you as if you weren't telling them anything new. Small town folk are more often exposed to the phenomenon on a more frequent basis, and have already determined that there is no great danger from the American Bigfoot. So they do not have the massive denial with payback on their minds, type of reactions. You can't say the same for the dog faced Bigfoot or Reptilians.


The Ether of the Etheric Plane is an ancient concoction that has no proveable theories, that I am aware. Henry Franzoni likes the Ether approach however, and wrote a book of which he left many loose ends regarding the Ether. "In The Spirit of Seatco" was his book. He believes that he is looking at all other researchers, in his rear view mirror. I have had lunch with him and he is highly intelligent. He just doesn't have the inside information because he was never in the right place at the right time. He has however, made some significant contributions on Peter Byrne's team, from which came The NASI Report "Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon " by Glickman.

As was mentioned elsewhere, atoms and molecules are not the smallest building blocks of what we are comprised of. In string theory, the smallest building blocks are quanta energy strings that have characteristics which apparently determine which dimension the constructed being will fully inhabit. Simple is better.

[themanfromglad]

Here is the Glickman Report, which is pretty much worthless:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

Here is Henry Franzoni's website from which you might be able to get his book:

http://www.henryfranzoni.com/itsos.html

[Wayne888]

a localized electric cloud that moved toward and surrounded me. This has happened many times. This cloud then dissipated and I was left unharmed and untouched.

I've experienced this once before many years ago with a few friends. A cloud 3 meters by 3 meters was stationary above a large pond, then when we reached the edge of the water for a closer look, it moved towards us, surrounded us and then disappeared. It was very cold and we all had an instant chill down our backs. It was not Yowie related as we were deep in the suburbs. About a 5 on my Weird Crapometer.

[Scarts]

Thanks, Manfromglad! You sound to have rubbed shoulders with a number of prominent researchers! The Glickman report is Patterson Bigfoot film specific. He argues that the bigfoot in the film could not have been a man in a costume. The problem is the resolution is poor which allows for paradoilia even from a researcher in an armchair. I have replica plaster casts of the Patterson Bigfoot footprints and they stand out as unusually flat-footed. That can be taken any way you like. I'll let you know what I think of Henry Frazoni's book and his take on it all regarding the ether.

I'll read up on quanta energy strings while I'm at it.

Thanks, Wayne888 for your interesting story regarding a freaky cloud.

[FM80]

The Glickman report is Patterson Bigfoot film specific. He argues that the bigfoot in the film could not have been a man in a costume. The problem is the resolution is poor which allows for paradoilia even from a researcher in an armchair.

The poor resolution is from the film being copied over and over. Apparently the original and earlier copies have much better resolution.

Even with the poor quality there are many features that highlight the very real possibility that this is genuine. There is a decent analysis of the footage in Jeff Meldrum's book.

There are things like:

> The visible herniation of the thigh muscle

> The fact that the footage is nearly always shown at a different frame rate from the original with the original frame rate producing the actual gait of the animal which is almost impossible for a person to reproduce

> The muscles visibly flexing

There's quite a lot more evidence pointing to it being legitimate footage than I had imagined (a lot more than the points I listed, they're just a couple I can remember off hand).

It definitely isn't a case of pareidolia due to low resolution, there's much more in that footage that can be used as evidence.

[forestguy]

And as an aside for those interested in further reading on the PGF, don't forget there's always the Munns Report:

http://themunnsreport.com/

[Scarts]

I appreciate what you're saying, FM80. I acknowledge there are a lot of points from various studies that suggest that film to be genuine. I mentioned paradoilia as the film is two dimensional, shot at a fair distance, depicting a three dimensional event. Early and original copies of the film having better resolution is easy to declare but is only a rumor. What may appear to be a muscle rippling, could be something else, or could be a muscle suit underneath a costume doing it's job. The jury is still out, but the handling and development of the film, as well as associations with movie and costume makers, adds suspicions.

It's interesting how this thread is taking a detour.

[FM80]

I appreciate what you're saying, FM80. I acknowledge there are a lot of points from various studies that suggest that film to be genuine. I mentioned paradoilia as the film is two dimensional, shot at a fair distance, depicting a three dimensional event. Early and original copies of the film having better resolution is easy to declare but is only a rumor. What may appear to be a muscle rippling, could be something else, or could be a muscle suit underneath a costume doing it's job. The jury is still out, but the handling and development of the film, as well as associations with movie and costume makers, adds suspicions.

It's interesting how this thread is taking a detour.

Well you brought up the film, guess that's where the detour started.

There's no way that was a flexing muscle suit, not in those days. If it was a costume it far surpasses any special effects available in those days too.

What else could the flexing muscles be?

I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that it is genuine, but it shouldn't be dismissed as a hoax too readily. It's either the best sasquatch footage ever, or a hoax, independent research suggests it isn't a hoax which is extremely interesting. I agree, the jury is still out.

[Scarts]

FM88, the detour happened when Manfromglad earlier posted a link to the Glickman Report.

Officially the jury may still be out on the Patterson film, but unofficially I believe the jury is in and the verdict has been delivered: HOAX!

Patterson's book, "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?", was self-published in 1966. About that time, the family of Ray Wallace state Ray had created fake feet to make fake footprints in the Bluff Creek area, initiating a footprint hoax. About that time, Patterson had been diagnosed with cancer of the lymph glands with a year or two left to live, and was desperate to provide financially for his wife. Patterson was known as a rascal who lacked principles, took shortcuts, was notoriously unreliable, and who had developed a strong interest in the bigfoot legend. A year later, Patterson found a studio to finance him making a pseudo-documentary on bigfoot, from which he used an advance payment to hire a movie camera. He and Bob Gimlin set off to Bluff Creek where Ray Wallace told them to go, to film footage for the Sasquatch documentary.

Phillip Morris, an established gorilla costume maker, claims to have made and sold Patterson the costume. Patterson was a skilled artist with an eye for musculature detail as evidenced in his horse paintings. Bob Heironimus claims to have worn the costume which Patterson had altered, and wore a football helmet and shoulder pads underneath the costume to increase his size and bulk. Gimlin remained suspiciously silent on the matter for over three decades. Patterson normally filmed at a speed of 24 frames per second which puts the Bigfoot's gait and stride as easy to replicate by a human being, even though he claimed to have accidentally filmed it at 16 frames per second, making it difficult to replicate. Stan Winston, Hollywood's number one creature effects costume maker, says he could make a costume identical to the one worn worn in the footage for less than $500, and in 1969 one could have been made one for less than $1000. It looks like Patterson used his advance payment well!

Patterson and Gimlin covered their tracks well, but the biggest hole in their story is they claimed to have put the film on a plane and flew it to Yakima, tp have it developed by Al DeAtley. The problem is it was discovered the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded due to rain and bad weather. FAIL! But in the end Patterson actually WON! Due to the sensation and controversy, he successfully managed to secure his wife's financial security after he passed away.

[forestguy]

Officially the jury may still be out on the Patterson film, but unofficially I believe the jury is in and the verdict has been delivered: HOAX!

Maybe your jury of 1, but many others have delivered the opposite verdict.

I've seen most (if not all) of the points you've raised be answered before - in the books by Napier, Coleman, and Meldrum, for starters. Also, the report by Bill Munns (himself a costume maker) is pretty comprehensive.

[didgmaster]

Sorry scarfs but i think your jury got it wrong.

Didge..

[themanfromglad]

FM88, the detour happened when Manfromglad earlier posted a link to the Glickman Report.

Officially the jury may still be out on the Patterson film, but unofficially I believe the jury is in and the verdict has been delivered: HOAX!

Patterson's book, "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?", was self-published in 1966. About that time, the family of Ray Wallace state Ray had created fake feet to make fake footprints in the Bluff Creek area, initiating a footprint hoax. About that time, Patterson had been diagnosed with cancer of the lymph glands with a year or two left to live, and was desperate to provide financially for his wife. Patterson was known as a rascal who lacked principles, took shortcuts, was notoriously unreliable, and who had developed a strong interest in the bigfoot legend. A year later, Patterson found a studio to finance him making a pseudo-documentary on bigfoot, from which he used an advance payment to hire a movie camera. He and Bob Gimlin set off to Bluff Creek where Ray Wallace told them to go, to film footage for the Sasquatch documentary.

Phillip Morris, an established gorilla costume maker, claims to have made and sold Patterson the costume. Patterson was a skilled artist with an eye for musculature detail as evidenced in his horse paintings. Bob Heironimus claims to have worn the costume which Patterson had altered, and wore a football helmet and shoulder pads underneath the costume to increase his size and bulk. Gimlin remained suspiciously silent on the matter for over three decades. Patterson normally filmed at a speed of 24 frames per second which puts the Bigfoot's gait and stride as easy to replicate by a human being, even though he claimed to have accidentally filmed it at 16 frames per second, making it difficult to replicate. Stan Winston, Hollywood's number one creature effects costume maker, says he could make a costume identical to the one worn worn in the footage for less than $500, and in 1969 one could have been made one for less than $1000. It looks like Patterson used his advance payment well!

Patterson and Gimlin covered their tracks well, but the biggest hole in their story is they claimed to have put the film on a plane and flew it to Yakima, tp have it developed by Al DeAtley. The problem is it was discovered the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded due to rain and bad weather. FAIL! But in the end Patterson actually WON! Due to the sensation and controversy, he successfully managed to secure his wife's financial security after he passed away.

Scarts, Since your list of alleged issues is too extensive for you to have personally compiled, why don't you help us out and tell us all the name and author of the book that you are quoting. I am pretty sure that I know which one, but I wanted to give you a chance to come clean so that you are not taking credit for outing these alleged issues.

I totally disagree with your Hoax verdict. The only people that I know in the States that are of a similar opinion to yourself, ARE EITHER PAID TO HAVE AND POST THAT THE PGF IS A HOAX, or THEY ARE LIVING IN DENIAL OF THE PHENOMENON ENTIRELY.

All the pieces are now falling into place, since you recently claimed that certain advanced aspects of string theory were pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is simply something that has not been put into a scientific hypothesis or theory, by scientists. For you to know the full world wide list of all scientific hypthesis and theories, would be quite impossible. Especially the list compiled by US Government scientists, who are generally 50 years ahead of where the public is, at any particular time. Therefore, like your opinion of the PGF film, your opinion of certain advanced aspects of string theory being pseudoscience, appears to clearly have no supporting evidence.

I am patiently awaiting the Australian field results of live monitored and recorded, highly amplified microphone studies, where the microphone is in plain sight but at least 50 meters from your comfy chairs. It is a shame that nobody in Australia has demonstrated the cahoanes so far, to attempt such a simple experiment. Last summer, I demonstrated it for a highly touted nature writer in the States, and he left with his jaw dropped and his eyes as big as saucers. We had quite an audio demonstration by the little invisible forest people, along with some Bigfoot providing background branch breaking noise. Except when we removed our headphones, and it appeared that not a single creature was stirring, not even the crickets. It was as if the forest people had erected a cone of silence around us, so that their noise could not reach us. Pseudoscience? No. Since this has been proven and can easily be duplicated under similar circumstances, then it would be a scientific principle that is not widely known.

[Rastus]

Themanfromglad you posted " It is a shame that nobody in Australia has demonstrated the cahoanes so far, to attempt such a simple experiment."

Im pretty sure there are a number of researchers on this very forum that are out there utilising both audio and visual equipment in a bid to record yowie activity in the Australian bush. For you to say no one in Australia has the balls to do so is plainly incorrect and arrogant to boot.

Fair enough I dont agree with your theories, but I have bitten the bullet so to speak in order to not comment on your theories again as you are fully entitled to your views, and I respect that now. You have mentioned the lack of bravery that you perceive exists in this country a few times now and it is quite belittling for you to think no one dare do what your high and mighty self suggests.

I spend around 10 hours a day sometimes longer , 4 days out of every week in the bush by myself ( bird photography nut ) and have at times as suggested by you cursed the hairy man in order to make something happen as you have said would occur. Nothing yet. Did I feel foolish ? Yes. Did it scare off wildlife in the vincinty? Most certainly. Was I scared? Nope.

You might think that placing a recording device or cursing yowies / bigfoot requires gonads the size of basketballs but to us Aussies it really is nothing at all. In that regard you probably need to harden up a little.

I am actually pro yowie and bigfoot also in case you wondered as i know some of my posts sound like I'm not.

Have a nice day.

[sapere aude]

I've seen most (if not all) of the points you've raised be answered before - in the books by Napier, Coleman, and Meldrum, for starters. Also, the report by Bill Munns (himself a costume maker) is pretty comprehensive.

G'day FG.

AFAIK, Napier claimed this footage to be fake (as did Heuvelmans). Although no real detail can be gleaned from it, he based it on the basic anatomy that can be gleaned (if memory serves, he also claimed it must have been male.....despite the rack )

the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film, which he concluded was a clever hoax: "the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind."

As to Meldrum, remember this one....?

Even with the poor quality there are many features that highlight the very real possibility that this is genuine. There is a decent analysis of the footage in Jeff Meldrum's book.

There are things like:

> The visible herniation of the thigh muscle

Bob H had to leave his wallet/keys somewhere (in his pocket ?).

> The fact that the footage is nearly always shown at a different frame rate from the original with the original frame rate producing the actual gait of the animal which is almost impossible for a person to reproduce

Even Meldrum agrees that the walk can be replicated (surprisingly easily) when he is talking to other scientists (as opposed to bigfoot believers) and there is nothing that rules out a man in a costume. I did see one anthropologist counter the claim about the odd walk, remarking that it would be difficult to walk any other way in floppy rubber feet. The walk actually lends credence to it being fake. To accentuate the effect, try walking with flippers on.

> The muscles visibly flexing

The problem is that for every rippling muscle, suit joins and other anatomical anomalies that shouldn't be there, can also be pointed out.

[themanfromglad]

Themanfromglad you posted " It is a shame that nobody in Australia has demonstrated the cahoanes so far, to attempt such a simple experiment."

Im pretty sure there are a number of researchers on this very forum that are out there utilising both audio and visual equipment in a bid to record yowie activity in the Australian bush. For you to say no one in Australia has the balls to do so is plainly incorrect and arrogant to boot.

Fair enough I dont agree with your theories, but I have bitten the bullet so to speak in order to not comment on your theories again as you are fully entitled to your views, and I respect that now. You have mentioned the lack of bravery that you perceive exists in this country a few times now and it is quite belittling for you to think no one dare do what your high and mighty self suggests.

I spend around 10 hours a day sometimes longer , 4 days out of every week in the bush by myself ( bird photography nut ) and have at times as suggested by you cursed the hairy man in order to make something happen as you have said would occur. Nothing yet. Did I feel foolish ? Yes. Did it scare off wildlife in the vincinty? Most certainly. Was I scared? Nope.

You might think that placing a recording device or cursing yowies / bigfoot requires gonads the size of basketballs but to us Aussies it really is nothing at all. In that regard you probably need to harden up a little.

I am actually pro yowie and bigfoot also in case you wondered as i know some of my posts sound like I'm not.

Have a nice day.

Rastus,

I don't recall ever suggesting that someone curse at the Yowie in order to get their attention, on this board. Could you please direct me to where I stated that absurdity?

You stated that there already are a number of researchers that are already utilizing audio and video equipment. Unfortunately, you appear to have missed my point entirely. You need to be real-time and observing the area around the highly sensitive microphone setup that is so powerful that it can record your every breath when positioned at least 15 meters/45 feet away. And simultaneously observe that there is nothing visible in the vicinity to make those noises. Dollars to donuts says that there is not one single researcher who has that quality of audio equipment, currently. Standard audio equipment carried by researchers, will not record a persons breath from more than 30 cm/12 inches from the microphone. Please note the difference.

Despite your initial lack of appreciation for the specific equipment required for this field experiment, I am quite impressed by how easily you throw out names meant to draw disrespect like, "arrogant, high and mighty". If I had screwed up my interpretation of a field experiment as badly as you appear to have done, and then confidently christened the person describing the experiment with a series of childish names, I think that I would be on my hands and knees right now, profusely apologizing. But hey! That's just me.

In order to speed up the timeframe for you to be justifiably amazed, might I suggest for audio equipment: a 1" diameter diaphragm XLR studio microphone with signal to noise better than 80db, a beachtek XLR adapter with phantom power, a Sony SR7 camcorder, most any headset and a comfortable chair. Apparently, Aussies come standard issue with cahoanes the size of basketballs, so any suggestion in that department would be boringly redundant.

[themanfromglad]

I've seen most (if not all) of the points you've raised be answered before - in the books by Napier, Coleman, and Meldrum, for starters. Also, the report by Bill Munns (himself a costume maker) is pretty comprehensive.

G'day FG.

AFAIK, Napier claimed this footage to be fake (as did Heuvelmans). Although no real detail can be gleaned from it, he based it on the basic anatomy that can be gleaned (if memory serves, he also claimed it must have been male.....despite the rack )

the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film, which he concluded was a clever hoax: "the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind."

As to Meldrum, remember this one....?

Even with the poor quality there are many features that highlight the very real possibility that this is genuine. There is a decent analysis of the footage in Jeff Meldrum's book.

There are things like:

> The visible herniation of the thigh muscle

Bob H had to leave his wallet/keys somewhere (in his pocket ?).

> The fact that the footage is nearly always shown at a different frame rate from the original with the original frame rate producing the actual gait of the animal which is almost impossible for a person to reproduce

Even Meldrum agrees that the walk can be replicated (surprisingly easily) when he is talking to other scientists (as opposed to bigfoot believers) and there is nothing that rules out a man in a costume. I did see one anthropologist counter the claim about the odd walk, remarking that it would be difficult to walk any other way in floppy rubber feet. The walk actually lends credence to it being fake. To accentuate the effect, try walking with flippers on.

> The muscles visibly flexing

The problem is that for every rippling muscle, suit joins and other anatomical anomalies that shouldn't be there, can also be pointed out.

Some of the best detail that I have seen in the PGF, is the enhancement of the toes pointing straight up, just before Patty plants her foot on the ground. Which is a simple exercise that humans either do not or cannot do. And certainly, would not have thought of in 1967. Therefore, Patty is not a human in a suit with synthetic feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r6JpFomm0

[sapere aude]

ps. Sorry about that, hit the wrong button before I was finished and the pic with the hoax that took Meldrum in, ended up right at the bottom. Would be nice to be allowed a half hours grace or so, to edit things like this.

The Munns report gives very good reasons why the whole thing should be taken with a grain of salt. It's up there with the moon hoax claims (IMO).

I will see if I can still find some links to objective scientists (not bigfoot hobbyists). I looked into the P/G bigfoot at one stage but gave up, as I found much of the bigfoot community to be more reminiscent of a group trying to fanatically prove a religious type belief, rather than objectively looking for the reasons why people see bigfoot.

The overwhelming and basically unanimous opinion I found is that whatever name people wish to call it, the subject of the film is a human. It has the basic shape, size, proportion and locomotion as well as an obviously modern western human face. It is only a very small group of people (believers) who claim otherwise. This leads to whether it could have been one of the millions of known humans, who do create hoaxes, or whether it was a rather fortunate encounter with a cryptid that just happens to resemble said man in a costume. Not good odds. Have always wondered what the fuss is about, I see it is a very obvious hoax and not even a terribly good one.

It's an odd thing to hear the bigfoot community claim it's "never been proven a hoax" etc. as if that means something. To the vast majority of people and far vaster majority of scientists it is irrelevant and will never be seen as legitimate until they find a bigfoot to go with it. As Napier pointed out, if that were to happen it would almost certainly show "Patty" for the fake it is.

It's almost a certainty there is no bigfoot. Some of the Asian cryptids are a chance, but they all seem to follow the same pattern. Sociology can probably explain much of bigfoot research and belief, but it still leaves the question of why people encounter it.

While I don't really believe the inter-dimensional hypothesis as portrayed (poor Dr Kaku might have a fit to learn that his string theory equations have found bigfoot!), I can see the probability that some exotic answer like this, that is beyond science just yet, could have some truth to it in some way. Without appealing to ignorance too much, there is an immense amount we don't yet know about physics. Yet it is what all chemistry, biology etc is derived from. We can't even account for 96% of the energy/ mass of our universe yet, as it seems to be in a form we can't detect. I remember reading some time back from a quantum physicist, the old addage "matter cannot be created or destroyed" might also one day be shown incorrect (the lack of ability to manipulate below the Planck length is stopping them at the moment).

I also can't help but note that much of what I have experienced, coincides with themanfromglad's claims (even if I don't yet agree with his conclusions).

[sapere aude]

Some of the best detail that I have seen in the PGF, is the enhancement of the toes pointing straight up, just before Patty plants her foot on the ground. Which is a simple exercise that humans either do not or cannot do. And certainly, would not have thought of in 1967. Therefore, Patty is not a human in a suit with synthetic feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r6JpFomm0

Fair enough.

Would you be able to give a source, so I could have a look?

[sapere aude]

Some of the best detail that I have seen in the PGF, is the enhancement of the toes pointing straight up, just before Patty plants her foot on the ground. Which is a simple exercise that humans either do not or cannot do. And certainly, would not have thought of in 1967. Therefore, Patty is not a human in a suit with synthetic feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r6JpFomm0

Fair enough.

Would you be able to give a source, so I could have a look?

Sorry 'bout that, darn no edit function. Having a look now.

[sapere aude]

Some of the best detail that I have seen in the PGF, is the enhancement of the toes pointing straight up, just before Patty plants her foot on the ground. Which is a simple exercise that humans either do not or cannot do. And certainly, would not have thought of in 1967. Therefore, Patty is not a human in a suit with synthetic feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r6JpFomm0

It could be flexing toes, it could be the rubber feet flopping, it could be (and probably is) an effect from an "artifact" that the film seems to be riddled with, further exaccerbated when such a poor quality film is zoomed in so far and image manipulated. I have known people to find little aliens using cloaking sheilds in Yowie footage the same way. Do you know of any close ups of this without image manipulation, just out of curiosity?

[sapere aude]

themanfromglad, I doubt such detail can be faithfully gleaned from this film. I have seen threads on forums run for hundreds of pages with people showing such things for and against that goes on endlessly. The only things that can be known from this footage is the basic make up of the claimed "bigfoot". For example it's basically a hairy human, with some strange anomolies such as a sagital crest (usually indicating male) with breasts (usually indicating female) yet covered in thick hair, for example.

Also, just to get an idea of the logic your using to arrive at your conclusions, if you think the toes "point straight up" before landing.....why would this make it a real bigfoot (as opposed to a garden variety human wearing prosthetic floppy feet)?

[Scarts]

Manfromglad, I obtained my information from three, maybe four, internet sources. None of what I said is original. My last post was more a summary of the highlights of that argument. I hadn't realised it is still after all this time, such a hornet's nest of a topic. I mistakenly thought it had been outed as a hoax since 2004 when the book, "Making Bigfoot", was released.

Regarding the Munns Report, I found it curiously concentrating on lenses, whereas the author's speciality is costume making. Regarding his conclusion regarding the possibility of the subject being a human in costume, I thought it odd he wouldn't have attempted to create a costume which when worn, would conform to all the nuances of the subject in Patterson's film. I also thought it odd that he concluded from his lens analysis, that the subject only stood about 5' tall.

Just to clarify, manfromglad, I'm not living in denial of the phenomenon, I conclude the Patterson Film is an elaborate hoax with all the obligatory holes in the story that go along with elaborate hoaxes. I also deem pointed up toes and muscle flexing, to be paredoila, or wishful thinking. I never claimed string theory was pseudoscience, I claimed the splintered version you draw upon, to be pseudoscience.

[forestguy]

G'day FG.

AFAIK, Napier claimed this footage to be fake (as did Heuvelmans). Although no real detail can be gleaned from it, he based it on the basic anatomy that can be gleaned (if memory serves, he also claimed it must have been male.....despite the rack )

the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film, which he concluded was a clever hoax: "the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind."

Hi Sapere,

Sorry about that, I meant that he answered some of the questions that have been raised about the film. Napier's a funny one regarding the PGF - he introduced Rene Dahinden to Dr Don Grieve an anatomist specialising in gait, and includes Dr Grieve's full report as an appendix in his book (the report concludes that the film is genuine if filmed at 16 or 18 fps, but cannot completely rule out the possibility of a hoax if it was at 24fps, although it would be very difficult to perform).

Napier seems pretty conflicted - the quote of his you used above continues "....yet no scientist to whom I have spoken and who has seen the film, has any direct evidence to prove that the episode was anything but what it purported to be."

Regardless, I don't think we're ever going to get a conclusive verdict one way or another now.

[themanfromglad]

Some of the best detail that I have seen in the PGF, is the enhancement of the toes pointing straight up, just before Patty plants her foot on the ground. Which is a simple exercise that humans either do not or cannot do. And certainly, would not have thought of in 1967. Therefore, Patty is not a human in a suit with synthetic feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5r6JpFomm0

It could be flexing toes, it could be the rubber feet flopping, it could be (and probably is) an effect from an "artifact" that the film seems to be riddled with, further exaccerbated when such a poor quality film is zoomed in so far and image manipulated. I have known people to find little aliens using cloaking sheilds in Yowie footage the same way. Do you know of any close ups of this without image manipulation, just out of curiosity?

See Bill Munns video showing extreme toe flexure in two consecutive frames F309 and F310 at the 0:16 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AnJWb2fs0

Two consecutive frames showing toe flexure exactly when and where is should be, proves that it is authentic. The degree of flexure is non-human.

Symmetrically splayed hair pointing away from the spinal column, did not exist in costumes in 1967.

Authentic mammory gland dynamic jiggle, did not exist in costumes in 1967.

If a toe wobbles to an extreme extent in a flexible rubber foot, then it would also be impossible for that flexible toe to leave an imprint like was left in the footprint casts of that event. Therefore, there were no flexible rubber feet as part of a costume. And since the extreme toe flexure is non-human, then the PG film shows an authentic non-human bipedal primate.

[FM80]

OK so if it was a hoax, why hasn't anyone done it again since then?

Many years have passed and the hoaxes since then have been really obvious to spot. Many people have had the chance to create a similar costume and recreate it or even create their own footage, but no one has successfully.

I've been looking and I can't find a costume with that much detail anywhere, so I doubt they had one back then.