It seems some news services are scrambling for updates on the recent Bobby Clarke Bigfoot video, and a statement on the case made by James Hare, a zoology professor at the University of Manitoba is apparently the best they`ve found. *Mr.Clarke is refusing interviews for the time being. "Despite mounting excitement over a reported sighting of Bigfoot in northern Manitoba, a zoologist is warning people not to believe the hype. 'I would say I'm very skeptical, because indeed most of these purported sightings prove to be hoaxes in the end,' James Hare, a professor at the University of Manitoba, said yesterday." He continues, 'There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch or whatever you want to call it.' - The Edmonton Sun "There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch or whatever you want to call it" ....This slightly biased sounding statement led me to question to what extent Hare has studied the subject. Before accepting this statement as fact, I decided to do a little investigating myself. Believe it or not, there are reputable scientists out there who consider not only the existence of Bigfoot plausible, but who warrant what little evidence we do have, as credible enough to merit serious study. Discovery Channel`s, Daily Planet offers a video clip in which Missy Flett, who has viewed the Clarke videotape, gives an audio description of what she saw, and her opinion on it`s authenticity. Also on the clip is an interview with Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anatomist, primatologist, and paleontologist with the University of Idaho who has been analyzing plaster casts of purported Bigfoot tracks. Daily Planet, Latest Show, "I See Bigfoot" In an 2003 article published on NationalGeographic.com, titled Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real, Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, a specialist in finger- and footprints, states that after analyzing a plaster cast of a foot print found in Walla Walla, Washington in 1987, he is convinced that Bigfoot is real, and why. The NationalGeographic.com article also gives a solid overview of the history of Bigfoot phenomena, including a view from both sides of the debate.... Michael Dennet, from the Skeptical Inquirer states - "It's the same kind of eyewitness reports we see for the Loch Ness Sea Monster, UFOs, ghosts, you name it," he said. "The monster thing is a universal product of the human mind. We hear such stories from around the world." - NationalGeographic.com Jane Goodall in an interview on National Public Radio - "Renowned chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall last year surprised an interviewer from National Public Radio when she said she was sure that large, undiscovered primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, exist." - National Geographic *Goodall Interview Transcript. To listen to the interview - NPR Archive If you`re interested in cryptozoology, or would like to learn more, cryptozoology.com is a great resource site. After scanning their message board, it seems that some members have contacts who have supplied a few further details on the Clarke case not yet reported. For instance, the video apparently was filmed with a digital video camera, and was equipped with a zoom lens. Other sources have reported that Clarke is no longer in possession of the videotape, which I would presume to mean he has found someone to enhance, and possible verify the videotape as authentic. Crypotzoology.com was spotlighted on Discovery Channel`s Web guide: Cryptozoology. The photo above is from the 1967 Patterson video 
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Danny
The Patterson video is a fraud.
2 - Nick Jones
The "Loch Ness Sea Monster"? Well, what would you expect from one of those Skeptical Inquirer assholes anyway.
3 - Bennett Dawson
LOL! Good of you to pick that up, Nick.
4 - Danny
Assholes... Rather than challenge their conclusive debunking of big foot fairy tales, you resorted to snide comments and peripheral nitpicking.
5 - Dave Nalle
Ok,, so where can we download this video to watch?
Dave
6 - Annie
The video hasn`t been released yet, Dave. The people who have seen it are friends and neighbors of the family.
I do know that Clarke has spoken to some authorities on the subject, and has taken the video to Winnipeg to be analyzed, and enhanced, and to speak with his lawyer.
Apparently the family has been inundated with inquiries from the media, and are holding out for the best offer, which I would do too!
From what I`ve read, I don`t think the video is a hoax, at least not on the part of the family.
I`ve heard that Clarke will be releasing a still from the video, and possibly holding a press conference soon.
As far as the Patterson video being a fraud, I`m not convinced. First of all, the figure seen in the film has obvious female breasts...I just can believe a hoaxer in 1967 would go to the trouble of designing a "gorilla suit" with natural looking, AND moving breasts.
Secondly, not just one "man in the gorilla suit" has come forward and confessed to playing the bigfoot role in the Patterson film, MANY have done so. From what I`ve read, as of yet, none have actually been able to prove their claims.
If anyone knows of a proven claim to the film being a hoax, by all means I`d like to know about it
7 - mikeymike
Bigfoot enthusiasts,
Read the letter below by a physician, in response to a Washington man claiming to be the guy in the suit in the 1967 Patterson film..
Dear Editor,
I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was
the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of
my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus;
allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the
film, you are a fool's fool. I have had the opportunity to examine
the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a
suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor
would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and
prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus
is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined
the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area
of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this
is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the
guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?
The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some
primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility
that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the
P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably
in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it
were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to
replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the
film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent
contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human
walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper
leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less
contrive.
Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is
the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected? Ah..
the mystique of it all.
Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist
Submitted by mikeymike
8 - Paul Roy
Hey, Nick. Skeptical Inquirer happens to be one of the best magazines going. - that is of course unless you are a bigfoot/Loch Ness monster/aliens/ghosts...believing moron.
9 - Eric Olsen
I used to live next door to the Hendersons
great post Annie, please keep us up on th story
10 - Eric Olsen
Annie, have you seen this Big Foot links site?
11 - sydney
What possess people to want to believe such ridiculous things? Why do people want so badly to believe superstitions?
Funny that big-foot is always caught on tape or in a picture. Never any scientific proof, just little snippets of tape. No corpses. no bits of fur. No signs of its existing.
Sasquatch must be the most illusive of all beings. More illusive than God himself. I mean, there have been more supposed witnesses to Christ's miracles than to this sneaky sasquatch species.
And the species is living right here in N.A. amongst 330 million people! And procreating for thousands of years, undetected, never leaving a trace of its self behind. It’s as though its all existence is designed to be unseen by humans.
Annie’s a god-damned idiot. Go see your analyst Annie.
MikeyMike you are a fool. You should check your sources.
For all you Americans out there; Canada is a big place but it's not that big. It's not like we have a species of 8 foot tall beasts living under our noses and don’t realize it.
I find this so hilarious, yet maddening at the same time. It doesn’t inspire much faith in mankind when you realize how naive and ignorant they can be.
12 - Joe
Sydney- you really should apologize, why do you want to be a dick to Annie and Mike? I mean from the multitude of comments you've posted today a casual observer could easily reach the conclusion that you're pretty naive and ignorant yourself. Big frownie face to you.
13 - sydney
Fair enough, I probably deserved that and I expected it.
I felt like being a dick, to be perfectly honest, because Annie and Mike's opinions make me angry and frustrate me.
I hope they don't take it too personally. I wasn't aiming to make them feel like shit after they hop up from their computer.. Just wanted to jostle them while they're writing about Sasquatches.
Anyway I apologize to Mike and Annie. Sincerely. I'm sure your nice people, and your opinions are likely no more outrageous than my own.
14 - Eric Olsen
there are perfectly respectable and reasonable scientists, like the one in the Discovery Channel video from Idaho, who think there is plenty of footprint evidence to believe a large undiscovered primate exists in North America. This does not strike me as on the same plane as ghosts or UFOs.
15 - Rio
Idiot of the year award--Sydney. How stupid are you? Dogmatic dismissals are a sign of the worst ignorance. I bet you sat your ass in church yesterday. What proof of God do you have? Yet there you are in church. Look at the evidence--1000's and 1000's of eye-witness sightings, pictures, video footage, tracks, and many hair samples that don't match any other known creature. Dumb ass retard Sydney, look at the evidence before you open your big dumb ass mouth.
16 - ClubhouseCancer
The real problem is, Sasquatch refuses to believe that the Skeptical Inquirer exists.
17 - Eric Olsen
Sydney apologized - it should be accepted
18 - Zorg
I'm having a flashback here. This heightened interest in "real film" of a "longstanding mystery" reminds me an AWFUL LOT of Ray Santilli and the "alien autopsy" footage of several years back. Not saying that the same people are involved, just that the same TYPES of people are involved. The same tricky bank shots. The same waiting-with-bated-breath true believers.
19 - Annie
Eric, I have been to that site...I`ve done a LOT of reading on the topic these last few days. Thanks for the heads up though!
Mike, thanks for the info. I`m going to read up on it.
Joe, thank you. :)
Sydney, as a matter of fact, Canada has one of the lowest population densities in the world, with almost 90% of it`s 9,970,610 square kilometers of land mass being uninhabited. Plenty of room for an 8 foot creature to not only hide, but thrive undetected.
If you don`t mind my asking Sydney, how you have come to your conclusions? Considering your strong stance, may I assume you`ve studied the subject? Or was this something you wrote off as too foolish to bother with?
Everyone should keep in mind that resorting to name calling does little to add credibility to your point of view, which I`ll assume is important enough for you to have commented here in the first place. Play nice!
Here`s a question...Twenty years ago, "Martians" were considered as plausible as the Boogy Man...Should NASA not have spent the billions of dollars it has searching for an impossibility ? Should they give up now?
Sydney, apology accepted.
20 - Duane
It never ceases to amuse and amaze me ... the things some people believe. Bigfeet in Canada!? Ha! With all the moose hunters up there, there is no way that a Bigfoot would not have been bagged by now. Every sane and educated person knows that the only genuine Bigfeet population lives in the Himalayas, where the locals know them as Yeti, or Bikfiti (the latter of which inspired the name "Bigfoot," by the way).
21 - Paul Roy
Don't you think by now, especially since everyone carries a camera or video recorder around with them for the last decade or so, that someone would have captured one of these guys on film, that is not a mile away, or undecipherably blurry, or shaky, or faked, etc.? That doesn't even count the professional search expeditions out there looking for the big guys. That is why I compare Bigfoot to space aliens. Hundreds(?) of reported sightings each year, but no hard evidence at all. Come on.
22 - Eric Olsen
Paul, I am a skeptic regarding all manner of unproved claims, but unclassified species are hardly a bizarre concept. Who would have believed a dinosaur fish could still exist before a coelacanth turned up in a net?
If these creatures are shy, somewhat intelligent, scarce, and remain in remote areas, it is hardly insane to think they could exist without yet having a specimen. There are footprint casts which a number of functioning breathing scientists, anatomists are convinced are not hoaxes and support the descriptions of large bipeds from a number of unrelated sources.
No one knows the answer yet, but an open mind is a terrible thing to waste.
23 - Paul Roy
Eric, I hear what you are saying about unclassified species, and I just think it is "unlikely", not insane, without having a specimin or other hard evidence by now. If Bigfoot does exist, I just hope he is friendly like when Andre the Giant played him on the Six Million Dollar Man.
24 - Eric Olsen
or Harry of the Hendersons
25 - sydney
Annie said:
"Sydney, as a matter of fact, Canada has one of the lowest population densities in the world, with almost 90% of it`s 9,970,610 square kilometers of land mass being uninhabited. Plenty of room for an 8 foot creature to not only hide, but thrive undetected."
-- Yes I realize this, I lived there for some time. I disagree that this is sufficient room for a species of animal to live undetected for 100's of years.
There are small, communities throughout nothern manitoba and all though I believe a reasoning, human being could elude us for a few years, perhaps, I don't see a animal eluding us for that long.
Nothern Manitoba is fairly heavily traversed in the summer time. There are fsihing camps, indigenous communities, cottages, and regular flights overhead.
The biggest evidence against the sasquatch idea has to be genetics.
One specimen of a species does not exist on its own. There would need to be 100's (if not 1000's) of these species in order to generate enough genetic variability to ensure suvival of the species (especially over 1000's of years). By now they would be so goddamned full of disorders, disease and retardation that they sure as hell would have a difficult time hiding themselves.
Secondly, Why is it these animals, unlike every other primate in the history of the world, avoid contact with other species', and are able (it would seem, conciously) to erase all traces of it's existence.
Thirdly, I don't believe a footprint is sufficient to prove anything. Nor do I believe it's possible that anyone can say a footprint cannot be a hoax. Regardless of the accuracy of the casting. DNA is about the only thing we have tha
I don't have a great science backround but I have a minor in biology and I've spent enough time reading about science related articles over the years (since I teach it at the highschool level). My better judgment suggests that any scientist banking his claims on a few foot prints would not/is not accpeted by the larger scientific community.
I also believe that many scientists make outrageous claims simply for fun, for money, and/or for recognition. Discovery chanel is suspect source.
So to summarize, I just think this is so incredibaly unlikely that people need not bother to specualte about the validity of the evidence, but rather investigate the possibility/or liekly-hood of the animals existance.
But as eric says, I'll try to keep my mind open... and try not to get so frustrated.