Bobby Clarke Bigfoot Video - Don't Believe the Hype!? - Comments Page 3

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 76 - Eric Olsen

  Apr 29, 2005 at 5:43 pm

  that's some amazing footage - too bad it's so short

• 77 - Sam

  Apr 29, 2005 at 5:43 pm

  I am no anatomy expert, but it has been suggested by those that are, that the upper leg bulge is a result of soft tissue pathology. The suggestion is that it may be associated with the iliotibial band or may be a rupture of the quadricep muscle.
  
  If that is what it is, it is speculated that an injury of this type would affect locomotion.

• 78 - jemezdave

  Apr 29, 2005 at 5:58 pm

  Gridbug, If you haven't seen the BFRO produced documentary "Sasquatch Legend Meets Science" you should check it out. One of the experts (I believe in musculature and bone strutcture, it's been a while since I watched it) believes that is evidence of an injury to the illiotiblio band which is a long ligament on the leg. I believe that the thought was that there was a tear in the ligament which allow muscle to bulge out. That video is a must see for anyone interested in this phenomenon. They show a lot of the PGF and other video as well. Also, check out the book "Meet the Sasquatch" by Chris Murphy. He has good sized photos of the PGF that really make the muscle structure visible.
  
  As far as steadying the camera goes let me say this: no one can tell what their reactions will be like in a situation like that until they have experienced for themselves. I have heard screams (which is the background of my interest in BF) on two occasions which I believe could have been a Sasquatch. Both times the screams were the same, the difference being volume which I associated with the distance from the creature. These screams had a human quality like that of a woman only more animal like and distinctly non-human. The first time I heard them the volume was INCREDIBLY LOUD! They started at a lower volume but got louder as if this thing were approaching me and my friends. At first I thought it was a dog way off in the distance (that was the relative volume). It kept getting louder and finally was at the point where we could tell that it was definitely not a dog or anything else that we could recognize. It got loud enough for all of us (3 young men and two women) to become frantic in our desire to leave the area. We all grew up in the mountains and spent much of our time outdoors in a variety of activities which provided some of us the insight into what sounds are made by certain animals in the woods including elk, bear, cougar, deer, etc. It was definitely none of those. The closest thing I've heard to it is the supposed Sasquatch whoop-howls heard on the BFRO site (# 1978 Whoop-Howl from Snohomish County, Washington
  # 1993 Whoop-Howl from Del Norte County, California). Sorry to digress a bit here but my point is that you can say that you'd be able to maintain your composure in the face of one of these beasts but in reality you have no idea how you will react until it happens. We were scared shitless. I woke up shaking the next day. The next night we planned to go to the same area well armed to see if we could here this sound again but as we approached the turn to that area we all agreed that maybe we should go somewhere else that night. And that was after merely hearing a noise. Many eyewitnesses report being overcome by great fear in their observations.
  
  Sorry, you'll have to copy and past the links as I don't seem to be able to get my BBCode to work properly.
  
  https://secure19.activehost.com/legendmeetsscience/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=2
  http://www.bfro.net/merch/catalog.asp

• 79 - gridbug

  Apr 29, 2005 at 6:32 pm

  Yep, I have a copy of the BFRO dvd, as well as a VHS copy of Mysterious Monsters and that dodgy X-Creatures episode with the HORRIBLE reenactment/debunking attempt of the Patterson video. Even without any footage or photographic evidence, I'm pretty certain that these creatures do exist based on the centuries-old testimonies themselves. Hundreds of thousands of people from multiple continents can't be wrong, even though Ray Wallace DID start the whole thing back in the late 1950's. *hardee har har* Despite my hesitancy regarding the Patterson footage, I'm still inclined to lean more toward the possibility that it's the real deal. :)
  
  Speaking of BF documentaries... I distinctly remember seeing one on TV back in the mid to late 80's that I'd never seen or heard of before in cinema or on TV. I can't remember the name of it, but it was pretty well done and had some decent re-enactments of encounters, one in particular that I'll never forget; it was a short incedental clip of a woman waking up in an upstairs bedroom in a log cabinish house at night to see a medium sized bigfoot sitting in her rocking chair across the room watching her sleep (!?!) and then tearing off down the stairs and out the door (the bigfoot, not the woman). I can't recall if she screamed or not, but it was a totally surreal/creepy/humorous bit and I've never forgotten it. I lived in Michigan at the time, but can't recall what station it was on and I've yet to come across anyone who recalls it, nor anything about that program itself. I'm almost certain it was a stand-alone special, not an Unsolved Mysteries sort of thing. If this trips anyone's memory circuit, please let me know!

• 80 - bill green

  Apr 29, 2005 at 6:43 pm

  hi everyone i think the bfro & other researchers are up at that area where the sasquatch was filmed. plus they are probley still talking to bobby clarke about his encounter. please keep me posted. thanks bill green :)

• 81 - joe smitt

  Apr 29, 2005 at 8:29 pm

  it never ceases to amaze me of all the things millions of people throughout the world continue to believe in and even teach their own children to believe in.when there is absolutely no (zero) tangible evidence.no sight,smell,taste or touch of ever by man of the thing(s) believed in by so many people throughout the world,and yet through the ages with the only thing going for their belief in them,is a story,these people put their life and faith into a god,jesus,holy ghost,etc...
  yet these same people will down play the dozens of photos ,thousands of experiences of people who glimpse a sight of a "bigfoot".people,there is nothing to be afraid of,bigfoot is just another living animal,as a chimp or human is.(yes,we may think were above other life,but as far as evolutionary time scale surviving,were a lower life form.why? well,the shark,whom has been around for millions of years,didnt need to deviate much of its original plan,because of it's efficiency for survival). man,on the otherhand doesnot really adapt anymore to his environment,instead takes the easy way out and tries to change things to suit him.big mistake,now we are de-evoluing.why doesnt the governt. want you to see actual proof that bigfoot exist or life may exist on another planet?the earth could change in a day.peoples beliefs systems would crash,possibly upsetting this delicate "un-balance" the governments have created over the years.............

• 82 - Pete Zablotny

  Apr 29, 2005 at 8:44 pm

  I truly feel they exist, but am having a difficult time with the enhanced Patty footage. The strides seem a little too short (not that I've ever seen a sasquatch walking)judging from the surroundings. Then when it turns it's head, I kind of see a bulging brow and what looks like a face outline/jaw line, but then as it looks at the camera, it just doesn't look right. It looks to me that there is too much light coloured skin around the eyes, and it's like it's a rectangular light patch that just doesn't look natural.
  I'd like to believe in this video footage, but am not sure, especially with all the controversy surrounding it.
  I can't wait to see the Manitoba footage!

• 83 - Dom French

  Apr 29, 2005 at 10:21 pm

  Regarding the Nelson River ferry siting by Clarke. There are bigfoots (mamemgishe in Cree) throughout that area. They have been seen around Grand Rapids, Manitoba and also on the opposite side of the lake so have to walk around Lake Winnipeg by Limestone Bay. I have been on that ferry so can easily believe this siting is true. The sounds and action tally well. There is a poulation that supposodly overwinters in caves near the Ontario borde east of Pauingasse, the people ther all know about them. If you want more information from me please let me know, but I am talking about the 1970s. Dom French, presently living in Medicine Hat, Alberta. Previously of Grand Rapids, Manitoba and temporarily the Berens River area.

• 84 - tyler

  Apr 30, 2005 at 12:09 am

  Wanted to address so many points, but most have been defended in some manner or other.
  Yes, BFRO,net is likely the best source of info out there - including estimates of populations (2-5000) and reasons why no physical remains have been found.
  I think one of the reasons for so much skepticism is that people still have it in their heads that this is some "mystical" "magical" supernatural animal, instead of accepting that nearly all the continents have primates, so why not North America? It is speculated that these animals (possibly Gigantopithicus) were hunted to near extinction in the psat, and so natural selection has left us with nocturnal, very skittish animals.
  As to why no one seems to get them on film, or shoot them?
  That's easy - for myself, it was not until I saw one, that I tried to find out what it was - so it's not like you are out there looking for one, when it crosses your path. Almost all incidents are less than 10 seconds, and you are startled, and possibly scared - the time needed to turn your battery operated camera on, (that you have off, to save the batteries) and the wherewithall to do so, are simply not there in sufficient quantities to enable you to act appropriately in those few seconds - and you are too spooked to stick around and try to collect evidence afterwards.
  Remains?.. there are one or two accounts that suggest they could bury their dead... When a gopher dies, he gets dragged back in the whole, and I believe, eaten. (wild speculation on this one - better reasoning at the BFRO)
  Food supply? - dear, fruit, fish, if Grizzlies can survive, no reason these animals can't.
  Lastly, (as has been touched on but maybe not forcibly asserted)is the point that the technology simply DID NOT EXIST to fake the Patterson footage, or the details of legitimate foot casts, back 40 and 50 and more years ago, when the casting started, and Patterson got his footage.
  And to repeat - there IS DNA evidence of primate hairs in North America that do not match any known primate/hominid.

• 85 - Victor Plenty

  Apr 30, 2005 at 12:31 am

  Bigfoot stole my wife. There's no other logical explanation.
  
  So now I'm a believer.
  
  (With profuse apologies to Ron Carlson.)

• 86 - Huey

  Apr 30, 2005 at 1:03 am

  I find that stabilized version of the Patterson movie very interesting. I just got the "Sasquatch: legend meets science" video as I go fishing in Sasquatch park in BC with my 2 boys (6 and 7) and they asked me about it.
  
  It looks to me as if there is a hernia in the IT band on the lateral thigh of the animal such that when it swings it's knee forward part of the quads bulges through. This would cause a fair amount of pain and watching the stabilized video linked above you can see that the animal limps: it slows down quite a bit on the right leg part of the walk.
  
  I find it credible (ie possible) that this animal does exist and it's very interesting now that there is some new footage. However, I think the only way to persuade most people of the fact that a very large, bipedal ape exists in the forests of North America would be to offer a large (several hundred thousand or a million) reward for recovery of a Bigfoot, dead or alive.
  
  Even then, only those hunters out in the bush at the right time of year with the right caliber weapon, considering that they might see a Bigfoot, and then able to shoot an animal that looks human, would be able to bag one.

• 87 - digger

  Apr 30, 2005 at 7:06 am

  I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed....
  I am upset because here we have had occasional updates of the news of the new footage fron Norway House for two weeks now, with no conclusion yet. Until this American show "Current Affair" decides on their own good time to air something, we are all still in the dark, except for the priveliged few of Bobby Clarke's family and neighbours who saw the footage. The rest of us poor suckers who have never seen a real live Bigfoot, but would like to get better confirmation one way or another, are left hanging in the dark again. Why couldn't some university, or official body have come forward, paid the guy what he got from Current Affair for rights to the footage, and published it for us all to see so we can make up our own minds? Its almost like the coverup stories; maybe the authorities just want to ignore this, hoping it'll it'll go away. Maybe they fear it'll hurt the tourist industry. I for one would be alot less likely to go camping in the woods knowing there is a slim possibility one these things might come a-visiting and scare the bejesus out of me!!! What do you all think about my reasoning?? Gotta go have a coffee. I'm teed off.

• 88 - Nancy

  Apr 30, 2005 at 10:13 am

  Current Affair hasn't decided yet how they're going to 'hype' it: as a discovery or an expose` (sorry 'bout that, can't get my accent mark to work). Also they haven't started the publicity buildup yet. I imagine their PR goons are working on that as we type. C.A. isn't going to air this until they can drum up & maximize public interest on this to get the most ratings/news bang for their buck, naturally. As for a cover-up, if someone pays them enough, of course they'll cover it up; commercial enterprises are there to make money, and don't generally care how they do it, as you should all know; their basic and foremost question is, what's in it for us, and how much? As for less bottom-line institutions like colleges or government, who knows how those people think (I've worked in both and I know the really loony "corporate cultures" prevailing in both)? I imagine elements in either do not want to be known as the institution that spent good tax funds on a bigfoot video. I, personally, wish some altruistic party would ante up so we could all see this - but you know it ain't gonna happen. When it does appear, depend on it, it will be HEAVILY edited, and we won't get to see the entire clip.

• 89 - gridbug

  Apr 30, 2005 at 12:12 pm

  I'm hoping that since the BFRO is involved to a certain extent with the Current Affair situation, they'll try and ensure that the program will handle the subject matter in a serious (as best as can be had) light. An unsubstantiated report said that Current Affair (or perhaps their network) paid a six-figure sum for the licensing rights of the footage, which in a way makes sense as I doubt National Geographic or the Discovery Channel would have ponied up that much cash for "Bigfoot footage". There's still a lot of positives/negatives to wade through, but so long as the footage gets out there so everyone can make their own judgement call on its authenticity, that's what's most important at this point. Perhaps the BFRO will be able to show some of the footage on its site? Also, there was another report over the past couple days that Bobby Clarke will supposedly release a still from the video very soon, though the licensing deal may have nixed that. Til then it's unfortunately all about the "wait and see".

• 90 - Annie

  Apr 30, 2005 at 1:57 pm

  I would imagine much of what Bobby Clarke says and does for the time being will be governed by his agreement with "A Current Affair". If they can provide a still from the video which is impressive enough to help build the hype, then they`ll release one for sure. When will that be? Who knows. I do know that Mr.Clarke took the video to Winnipeg to try and find someone who could enhance it, but had no luck. He returned home with the video. It was reported early the following morning that an American TV show had purchased rights to the video, which leads me to believe that if a still is released, it`ll be by A Current Affair, and out of Bobby Clarke`s hands.
  
  Since "A Current Affair" has licensed the rights to broadcast their same BF episode twice...My guess would be that they`ve reserved exclusive rights to the video until after the second showing, and who knows how long that may be. My hope is that Clarke will then license the video to a more scientifically oriented program...The validity of these sorts of things are usually equated with the reputation of the show it`s appearing on, and how it`s presented...If their reputation is to preceed them, it doesn`t look good. Then again, the show has been revamped, so they may have cleaned things up.
  
  My cable network doesn`t even offer the channel it`s to be aired on, nor does anyone else`s I know. I think a large chunk of Canada will be out of the loop on this one. Guess I`ll have to wait even longer to see it :(
  
  The one thing that strikes me with the Patterson video, is the face. As someone else mentioned above, the hair line around the face does seem strange...almost too squared. I think I`ll see if I can`t find a copy "Sasquatch: legend meets science", and take a better look.
  
  Bill, I`m sorry, I can`t give you any direct contact info for Bobby Clarke. As to recent sightings in the area...the only one I`ve heard about was by a retired ferryman who worked on the same ferry as Clarke. The gentleman claimed recently, that he`d seen a similar creature in the same spot as Bobby`s sighting the year before. He apparently watched it for about six minutes, before it walked back into the woods. No camera, and he never went to look for physical evidence. I`ll keep my ears open for you.

• 91 - Nancy

  Apr 30, 2005 at 2:14 pm

  Since we have a sasquatch blog going, I'd like to throw out a sort of outre question/idea: I've noticed in bigfoot encounters, whether in person or just hearing screams/calls, etc., that an awful lot of them start out with the human not being particularly concerned. It is only after a hiatus that a feeling of dread, or panic, comes over them and they then flee. I wonder (just being way off base, here) if anyone has considered if these guys have some sort of esper ability to protect themselves by projecting a feeling of danger (perhaps even their own?) so the intruder will be impelled to flee and leave them in peace? OK - yeah, I'm a goof. But, it's an interesting idea, considering the stories I've read.... Comments? Suggestions (besides referring me to a good shrink, that is)?

• 92 - gridbug

  Apr 30, 2005 at 2:53 pm

  It does kinda suck that Current Affair is the venue that will be debuting the footage, and I can tell you that their show hasn't been revamped that much from when Maury Povich hosted it way back when. Current Affair is largely like 99.9% of American infotainmment, including the "legitimate news" programs; ethical, responsible journalism taking a far back seat to sensationalism with top ratings as the primary motivation. Since I live in Los Angeles I see this first hand and it's pretty sickening. Funny then how that slanted approach to reporting works in the favor of getting airtime for the Manitoba Footage, even if it's a lousy tabloid show that's debuting it. As far as Canadian cable not carrying the program, I'll bet that soon after it airs it pops up on the internet somehow. I don't have cable myself, so I'll have to settle for watching it on a slightly-fuzzied picture as I still use an analog antenna to draw the signal. I'll help keep an eye out online though! :)

• 93 - Sam

  Apr 30, 2005 at 4:07 pm

  Nancy,
  
  In general, I would be quite surprised to learn that any creatures, including humans, have the ability to purely psychically influence the thoughts and feelings in another being.
  
  From my own experiences in dangerous situations where there was no precursive activity that hinted to the danger, I can tell you that while living the experiencing, I was not cognizant of the magnitude of the danger until afterwards. Upon reflection of what just took place and the realization of the gravity of the situation and how it might easily have been the last thing I may have done on this earth; that’s when the fear and panic set in.
  
  In my unprofessional opinion (I am not a psychologist) I believe the human fear response after the fact can be explained by basic human psychology.
  

• 94 - jemezdave

  Apr 30, 2005 at 4:22 pm

  Actually Nancy, the panic in my experience was a result of the volume of the screams becoming very loud. It wasn't a case of us hearing the noise at the same volume and then the feeling of panic coming on after some time, rather it was the fact that the volume continued to increase which gave the distinct impression that what ever was making this noise was approaching us. This happened 22 years ago so it's hard for me to put a time frame on the whole incident but I seem to remember the time between noticing that the sound was unique and becoming panicked was rather quick (a few minutes duration with continuous vocalizations at a rate of every 5-10 seconds).
  
  Digger, call me nuts but I actually make a point of going into areas where there have been sightings in the hopes of actually seeing one of these creatures or at least to hear the sound again. Two of my closest friends and I do a couple of backpacking trips a year with that intention.
  
  The best views I have seen of the female Sasquatch in the PGF are the stills in Chris Murphy's book "Meet the Sasquatch" as I mentioned before. The size and quality of these stills reaffirmed for me the legitimacy of this footage.
  
  

• 95 - bill green

  Apr 30, 2005 at 5:42 pm

  how many sightings of sasquatch were there in april in manitoba. does bobby clarke have a email so we can contact him or a mailing address etc. is there any radioshows planning on interveiwing bobby clarke this comeing up week. please keep me posted. also i wonder if bobby clarke will eventally write a book about the filmfootage etc. :)

• 96 - Greg in BC

  Apr 30, 2005 at 6:14 pm

  Hey Nancy,
  
  I spent several years in Africa as a kid...and in fact have had several experiences with large dangerous animals.
  
  In 1973, I was present for the death of a famous guide named Johnny Uys in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). We were following a herd of elephants through thick bush, and the matriarch decided we were a threat. When things went wrong, they went wrong very rapidly. Of the eight people there, only my Dad and one other tourist understood how much danger we were in. Johhny was killed, and I believe that if my Dad and his friend had NOT realize when they did that it was a terminal encounter, we would have all died.
  
  It didn't take any ESP sense, just a knowledge of elephant behavior for Dad to get us moving. The thing is, there is no knowledge base for sasquatch/human interaction, except for the sighting reports.
  
  I would add that the feeling of being watched is NOT psychic in nature...simply a vestigial response to man being hunted since antiquity by large predators. ANY large animal can be dangerous...that includes mountain gorillas and even chimps. My thinking is that this ape may have co-evolved with us, and we know that early man hunted and ate other primates. That would make Sasquatch very smart, very curious, but ESPECIALLY adept at avoiding us, and scaring the be jeesus out of us when contact is unavoidable.

• 97 - Victor Plenty

  Apr 30, 2005 at 10:01 pm

  Please remember to report all Bigfoot sightings to the Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs, which maintains a wealth of useful information on our hirsute distant cousins and their unique and priceless cultural heritage.
  
  Thank you for your support.

• 98 - bill green

  Apr 30, 2005 at 10:26 pm

  hi everyone i wonder if current affair will show a preview of the manitoba sasquatch footage segment in their website. thanks bill green. im sure bobby clarke is still getting offers from tv & radio shows & researchers etc.

• 99 - RogerKni

  May 01, 2005 at 2:33 am

  Oops: I posted this on the wrong thread--on the one about the book "The Field Guide to Yeti etc." (Please delete it there--sorry).
  =============================
  
  Regarding Gridbug's comment (#74) about the "fold" in the upper thigh as being perhaps indicative of a costume. First, it's unlikely that such an otherwise tight, form-fitting costume would have such a large area of loose costume flapping around. Second, the bulge appears and vanishes (I've read) within four frames, or .25 seconds. That's too fast (I suspect, not being knowledgeable in biomechanics or costume design) for a fold in a costume of fairly heavy material to pop and plop; a muscle twitch, which operates at high speed, seems more likely.
  
  As to the lack of flex in back and scapula motion, too-short strides (#82), etc., I think these are fairly minor red flags. That is, Bigfoot is an odd species, and would no doubt exhibit a few odd traits. I believe there is on one of the Bigfoot sites a link to a video of a chimp that has managed to walk upright. If its back muscles and scapula are similarly non-mobile, that would tend to diminish the suspiciousness of the PG creature's similar configuration.
  
  Re comment 82: The oddity of the clear rectangular area around the eyes is something I asked questions about on one of the BF sites; I was told (I think) that the contrast between the light and dark areas on the face was exaggerated because of overexposure, and that other frames in greater enlargement looked less suspicious. (And it would have been so easy for a hoaxer to have blurred over the straight lines around the bare portion of the face with little wisps of hair that it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have done so, given the great care that was taken to make other, more minor details look realistic.)
  
  Re comment 84, on the brief time window to get a videocam out and operating: There's now a $370 or so (Amazon) always-on, flash-memory based videocamera that should help with this. It's called the Deja View (Google for it); its small lens clips on to the frame of eyeglasses or the bill of a cap, and a cable runs down into a pocket where the main box is carried. The operator presses a button to capture the previous 30 seconds of footage.

• 100 - bill green

  May 01, 2005 at 10:13 pm

  hi researchers i wonder if bobby clarke now goes in the wildernesses of manitoba to look for sasquatch or its footprints etc with his camcorder & camera.i hope he does. plus im sure more sightings will be reported by people in manitoba. thanks bill green

• 101 - BJB

  May 02, 2005 at 1:54 am

  Nancy, Greg, et. al.-
  
  In regards to the fear response felt by humans during an encounter, I feel a much more plausible (and, I believe, scientifically verifiable) explanation would be the existence of a pheromone that elicits a fear response in an encounter with other animals/primates (possibly another example of evolution to avoid human encounters?) If you read enough eyewitness accounts, there are plenty which describe an intense feeling of fear either immediately preceding or coinciding with an encounter with a Sasquatch. This is a hypothesis I have been mulling over for some time, but I haven't really seen the possibility mentioned elsewhere. I believe this could help explain why so many people never encounter a Sasquatch in the first place--the pheromone would give a preliminary, sub-conscious "warning signal" that could alter behavior before an encounter took place (a "change of plans" without knowing why) if the Sasquatch was aware of an intruder early enough. There are pheromones for attraction in primates; why couldn't there be a pheromone for the repelling of other primates as well? Just a thought. (I am a high school English teacher who has always been fascinated by unexplained phenomena, and recently became very interested in this subject after helping a student with a research paper on the Sasquatch question.) Anyone who hasn't checked out BFRO.net should do so, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

• 102 - Nancy

  May 02, 2005 at 7:48 am

  You're right: I forgot all about my high school biochem. Pheromones! Of course! Sure a lot more viable theory, and more logical, than psi factors, LOL! This is what I get for being a long-time S/F fan.

• 103 - Charles Longway

  May 02, 2005 at 9:08 am

  On Pheromones and subliminal perception:
  Could pheromones influence humans in a subliminal way? The vomeronasal organ (VN) responds to smell, but does not send signals directly to the conscious centers of the brain. From answers.com -
  “Some scientists believe that in humans the vomeronasal organ is nonfunctional and regresses before birth, as is the case with some other higher animals, including cetaceans, some bats, and apes. These scientists also believe that in adult humans, there is no neural connection between the organ and the brain. Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that the vomeronasal organ does not atrophy and remains functional throughout a person's life. Thus, its function in these organisms and in humans, if indeed real, is still somewhat mysterious.”
  An individual with a defective VN organ may not feel the same sense of fear that others feel during an encounter with BF. If the VN organ could temporarily be knocked out with medication BF researchers may experience an encounter more rationally.
  Another conjecture is that the fear is subliminal perception. Some BF encounters are accompanied with a quietting of natural sounds. The unnatural quiet may be a trigger for a subliminal sense of fear. Another subliminal sound effect could be that BF may give a very low vocalization, below the ability of humans to hear. Elephants definitely do communicate with very low sounds. Humans do not have the same sense of dread around elephants, so this explanation is not a likely one.
  

• 104 - gridbug

  May 02, 2005 at 5:06 pm

  Hey! May 3rd BFRO Update on the Manitoba Footage!
  
  Includes descriptive analysis of the video and more info about A Current Affair's showing.
  
  From the sound of it, the PGF may still be the best we've got. :)

• 105 - Nancy

  May 02, 2005 at 5:46 pm

  Dagnabbit! Those sasquatch are doing this just to make us all crazy.

• 106 - Annie

  May 02, 2005 at 5:50 pm

  It doesn`t sound too promising, does it. He said he saw a copy of the master video...Does that mean Fox wasn`t able to enhance it at all?
  
  I hope they get some shots of a man standing in the same spot for a height comparison before they air it. That may be the only substantial evidence we can glean from all this.

• 107 - Eric Olsen

  May 02, 2005 at 5:54 pm

  maybe the one will finally turn up at a bus station on a seedy stretch of Route 66 near Albuquerque

• 108 - digger

  May 02, 2005 at 6:22 pm

  Phemerones, psi, fear factor; subliminal perception!! Holy smoke, thats too deep for me!! Hey, if I was casually walking through the woods and rounded a corner to stand face-to-face with a 500+ pound - 8 foot tall hairy, smelly gorilla-like creature, I am sure my response would be immediate, and not a result of anything nearly as complex as phemerones, etc. One result of my immediate response would be that I'd probably smell as bad or worse than the sasquatch! Hopefully, he/she/it would understand and not take offense!!However, if he/she/it let out one of those horrendous screams that have been attributed to these creatures, I'll bet I could still run like hell, regardless of the condition of my drawers!! And I suspect most of you would be right behind me!!

• 109 - bill green

  May 02, 2005 at 6:23 pm

  hi everyone good evening im so happy we all are going to this new manitoba sasquatch filmfootage on a current affair tommarrow or next week sometime finaly. but i dont see it mentioned on the a current affair website yet. i hope i get to see it becouse i live in connecticut im not sure which channel its on. thank you bill green ct sasquatch researcher. please keep me posted ok.

• 110 - Greg in BC

  May 02, 2005 at 10:14 pm

  Digger makes my point EXACTLY. As mostly urban dwellers, we are 'tuned out' to alot of the dangers signals that our more primitive cousins are tuned in to. Spend some time in the woods...and I mean the BIG woods, and you'll see what I mean.
  
  We shouldn't overcomplicate or mysticize this...it could just be a BIG, SCARY APE! Two of the three people I know who've seen a sasquatch related that it was months or years before they felt comfortable in deep woods again.
  
  The third one? She still insists that what she saw was a 'big monkey, probably an orangutan escaped from a zoo'. Next to the highway. At night. Below freezing. In Alberta. In January.
  
  Denial is a terrible thing.
  
  Disappointing news about the quality of the footage. Autofocus is the PITS. Learn to tape without it, and I promise, you'll be a better photographer.

• 111 - bill green

  May 03, 2005 at 4:45 am

  hi everyone good morning i agree the footage might be blurrey kinda but from what heard i heard on the bfro website from bfro researchers that it looks like a great piece of evidence. im realy looking forward seeing on a current affair tommarrow night. thanks bill green

• 112 - jemezdave

  May 03, 2005 at 11:00 am

  Looks like it will air tomorrow

• 113 - gridbug

  May 03, 2005 at 11:10 am

  In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, the latest from Globe and Mail
  
  It mentions that Manitoba Footage could be shown as early as tomorrow (May 4th) and -lucky for you Canadian folks- will be available for viewing on A Current Affair's website: http://www.acurrentaffair.com/index.php
  
  Hope it's worth the wait! :)

• 114 - bill green

  May 03, 2005 at 12:52 pm

  hi gritbug and everyone i totaly agree with all your posts im looking forward on seeing this sasquatch footage. bill green :)please keep me posted.

• 115 - the unsilent majority

  May 03, 2005 at 1:22 pm

  But lets not forget what proven fact we all have conclusive proof about............that, Danny is a total MORON.
  
  lol

• 116 - Sascrotch

  May 03, 2005 at 1:26 pm

  I was very excited about this, but now I think it's crap.
  
  This guy supposedly dropped the camera when the subject turned to look at him?
  
  Now I read that its a blurry blob? How could he see in full digital blocky zoom mode that it turned to look?
  
  And that "bringing the camera to work" story. This is too fishy for me.
  
  I'm a believer, but I don't like the looks of this one. I also detest the "feel like someone or something was watching me" routine that I read from time to time. When I read that, I also think it's bunk.

• 117 - td

  May 03, 2005 at 2:10 pm

  From what I have read most of the arguments go like this.
  
  1) Plenty of physical evidence exists, including thousands of footprints. 2) Only the Patterson film exists because it is very shy and lives in very remote parts of the wilderness.
  
  
  1) Every hair found at the scene of a sighting has been determined to be from a bear, elk, hoarse, etc. (Someone mentioned a hair that has been analyzed and determined to be unknown. Please provide a link.) No bones have ever been found. This might pausible if it was only a pop. 2-5000. But that would be current figures. How many thousands " millions have died in the past. Further, what is the evolutionary history. No bones have been found in North America, or anywhere else that show an Ape / Humanoid from which Bigfoot could possibly have evolved. Oh but that’s because we don’t know where to look. Hmm… maybe we should try the area’s where natives say they saw them all the time in the past. As pointed out, many animals, including large ones, are still being discovered. However, in every case another similar animal already exist in the region, or it was know to be introduced to the region by humans.
  
  Finally, the footprints. Of the thousands of foot prints accumulated, most are physiologically different from one another. Some have 2-3 toes, others have six. The shape of the foot varies as well as the weight distribution. Therefore most can be deemed hoaxes immediately. So you have a few that can not be proven to be hoaxes. Of these some probably are hoaxes, just no proven, and others are probably just flukes. Given the propabilities of nature, every once and a while a cliff face is going to look like a human face. Symbols will appear in tree bark. And footprints will appear in river banks. This is far from absolute proof.
  
  
  2) Well, which is it. Is Bigfoot a very shy creature that only lives in remote places, or is the Patterson film real? It’s hard to imagine both are true because if the creature that has managed to stay hidden for hundreds of years, why was it walking within 5 minutes of a highway, and why when seen by humans is its first reaction to keep walking casually along in plain sight. This is a pretty big hole in the logic of the argument.
  
  Am I saying that the film is fake? Yes. Patterson was a notorious con artist. He had been trying to film bigfoot for years, unsuccessfully. Why did he want to film it. Money. So he decides to fake a bigfoot film. Where does he get the costume? John Chambers, the guy who was making nearly identical costumes for Planet of the Apes and Lost in Space during 65 & 66. The initial attempts of these costumes were sold to novelty stores around the country. (If you look at the monster costumes he created for the Lost in Space series they are very similar.) You can make all the ‘scientific’ hypothesis you want about the creature on film, but there is no doubt that such a costume, with all the realistic features displayed, could have been created back in 66-67. Dozens of special effects masters have agreed on this.
  
  But Chambers denied creating the costume? True. But would you own up to it, and have hundreds of bigfoot fans showing up at your door trying to prove you wrong. The fact is, either he is lying, or dozens of others including Director John Landis are lying when they say Chambers admitted it to them in private. And as I said, this guy made dozens of similar costumes and plenty of prototypes that the studio has stated were sold to variety shops prior to the Patterson filming.
  
  
  Comment as you wish. I’m not going to go back and forth to arguing with fanatics that have already made up there mind. There is no scientific proof. And every ‘theory’ concerning how they came to be, and how they continue to exist has gaping holes in it. So until one of the thousands of hunters who supposedly have seen the creature decides to actually shoot one, the rest of the world will remain solidly unimpressed.
  

• 118 - Eric Olsen

  May 03, 2005 at 3:51 pm

  good points on both sides - that's why I'm in the middle

• 119 - jemezdave

  May 03, 2005 at 3:55 pm

  Do your research (Third to last paragraph).
  
  The existence of these "Dozens of special effects masters" is unknown to me. Could you site references please.
  
  If you wish to talk about footprints why not talk to this guy ? He seems to be convinced that these creatures exist due to the footprint evidence. I'd call him an expert in that area.
  
  And then there's this guy. He seems to be pretty convinced as well.
  
  

• 120 - Nancy

  May 03, 2005 at 4:34 pm

  The following are excellent sites to start out checking up on whatever you want to find out about sasquatch. The last especially is an really good reference site that has the websites of a good many others listed. Both BFRO & TBFRO (plus another named the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Org.; I don't have the website address but the Friends of BF does) and the others also have some pretty good Q & A sections that start anyone off well on the basics. BFRO also has all latest updates on whatever seems to be going on overall w/sasquatch-oriented news.
  
  www.bfro.org
  www.texasbigfoot.com
  www.friendsofbigfoot.org

• 121 - jemezdave

  May 03, 2005 at 5:08 pm

  Here's a good objective view from Dr. W.H. Fahrenbach on hair samples.

• 122 - td

  May 04, 2005 at 10:24 am

  Okay, I responded to your questions. Here’s mine (in emphatic jerry mcguire like fashion). Show me the body !!! Hair, Teeth, Bones, Saliva, Finger Nails, Blood, etc. etc. Thousands of reported sightings and not one piece of physical evidence other than footprints, that can not conclusively be ruled out as fakes.
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Do your research (Third to last paragraph).
  
  
  
  What? Where it says footprints found on a BFRO expedition match a ‘foot derived by Meldrum’? Is that the objective research I am supposed to believe. All these ‘scientists’ are able to say is that the prints found are not human. They cannot say that the prints are real prints. They might look like real prints. They might be hard to fake prints. Etc, etc. But are they evidence of real prints? Not without the foot they aren’t.
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  The existence of these "Dozens of special effects masters" is unknown to me. Could you site references please.
  
  
  
  http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=bigfoot.htm&url=http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,1959,00.html
  
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  
  If you wish to talk about footprints why not talk to this guy ? He seems to be convinced that these creatures exist due to the footprint evidence. I'd call him an expert in that area.
  
  
  
  I’d also call Russell Ciochon an expert in that area. And he seems pretty convinced that they don’t. In fact this article, posted on bfro, is a good example of the problem with the evidence. They quote many scientist who believe that the samples match what they would expect a bigfoot sample would look like. But other than Meldrum, none of them state that they could not be fakes.
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  And then there's this guy. He seems to be pretty convinced as well.
  
  
  
  Although none of his findings have been verified by anyone, I accept that Chilcutt seems certain that Fingerprints he found could not be made by a human foot. However, he does not rule out them being fakes. Just that the ridge patterns do not correspond with human samples. Without having the actual foot that made the prints you cannot say they are not fakes with any certainty. And it doesn’t help that the tracks he examined can from an admitted bigfoot hoaxer.
  
  
  
  Here's a good objective view from Dr. W.H. Fahrenbach on hair samples.
  
  Well, I’m not going to respond by saying ‘Why doesn’t he post his finds in Science, or Nature magazine’, or ‘Have his results verified by other parties like any respectable scientist does.’ Instead I will let the man tell it in his own words:
  
  Update, November 3, 1999:
  I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such).
  
  I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise.
  
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Concerning the following sites:
  
  www.bfro.org
  www.texasbigfoot.com
  www.friendsofbigfoot.org
  
  They are great for finding out what people believe is evidence about bigfoot. But the are not objective. The world is full of 1000’s of scientist who don’t care if Bigfoot does or doesn’t exist. Take your ‘evidence’ to them.
  
  
  
  Well, you provided your resources, all from BFRO suprisingly. Here’s another one to add to the list. National Geographic. http://www.nationalgeographic.com They have commented on most of the claims made by scientist like Meldrum. And produced several shows looking at research from an objective standpoint. They are as yet, unconvinced.
  

• 123 - td

  May 04, 2005 at 10:27 am

  Sorry. Forgot to post a link.
  
  Here is the article I was talking about in the third section of my responce.
  
  http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=328

• 124 - gridbug

  May 04, 2005 at 11:36 am

  I wonder why it is that some folks are so vehemently opposed to the possibility that Bigfoot exists? Why not entertain the notion and keep an open mind? To spend so much energy trying to disprove the phenomena seems (to me at least) to go against the acedemic and scientific standards that propel our knowledge forward. Sure, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but isn't it a lot more fun to say "what if" as opposed to "there's no way in hell that these things exist and you're all crazy if you believe it"?
  
  Oh, and there's an update on the Current Affair website which includes a promo for the show and a pretty nondescript still from the video. :/
  
  http://www.acurrentaffair.com

• 125 - gridbug

  May 04, 2005 at 1:47 pm

  PS: I just checked out the "promo" for the tonight's Current Affair episode via their website... the footage is awfully murky and heavily pixelated (lotsa blocks, super low definition) so I guess I'll have to wait for the broadcast tonight to see if I can get a better view.
  
  I'd love to hear everyone else's opinion of the footage!