Why has the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film never been exactly duplicated?

[ensabah6]

Why has the Patterson-Gimlin "bigfoot" film never been exactly duplicated?

Setting aside the issue of whether it is a hoax or real, why can no one exactly reproduce this film if it is a hoax, using technology present in 1967

 

[turbo]

Why would anybody want to bother?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why would anybody want to bother?

If skeptics [actually, I mean the debunkers] are to claim that the film is a hoax, then it fair to demand that another film of the same quality be made. Otherwise the skeptics become simple crackpots who refuse to back-up their claim. There is no way to prove that the film wasn't hoaxed, so the only test remaining is to show that the film could have been hoaxed.

 

[turbo]

If skeptics are to claim that the film is a hoax, then it fair to demand that another film of the same quality be made. Otherwise the skeptics become simple crackpots who refuse to back-up their claim. There is no way to prove that the film wasn't hoaxed, so the only test remaining is to show that the film could have been hoaxed.

This is a bit unsettling. If someone claims to have made a film of something of something that would require extraordinary evidence to be accepted, is the onus on the mainstream scientific community to try to duplicate the film in question to prove that the film might be a hoax? I don't see how this is justified. "Well, you've got some grainy 8mm film of Nessie, and unless someone else can duplicate your results, we'll have to leave Nessie's existence as an 'open question'. " I am an open-minded and inquisitive person, but I believe that it is incumbent on the person making the extraordinary claims to support them, and that it is not the duty of the scientific community to rebut them. Not to belittle the sasquatch subject, but we've got religious icons showing up in tree-knots and grilled-cheese sandwiches, and there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to duplicate these results.

 

[jostpuur]

Setting aside the issue of whether it is a hoax or real, why can no one exactly reproduce this film if it is a hoax, using technology present in 1967

Have some people tried seriously and still failed? If there has not been failures in attempting reproducing the video, then it is not justified to say that "no one can reproduce the film".

Some googling revealed, that at least some people think that there's been failures, but I wonder if those who have been attempting have been trying seriously.

Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film notes that for example the Space Odyssey had very convincing looking ape costumes. I was thinking about mentioning the Greystoke Legend of Tarzan myself, but I don't have the movie right now, and its probably better if I don't try to remember how flawless ape costumes and actors it really had.

Anyway the point is, that the ape costumes and the actors inside get better, when the people are being paid for succeeding!

 

[russ_watters]

"Planet of the Apes" came out in 1968 and the quality is far superior to that famous clip. So why would anyone think it could not be a hoax? And why would anyone need to try to duplicate it when better films of similar subject matter were made at the time?

I also agree with Turbo-1 - 'here's a video, debunk it' isn't scientific. The onus is on the person making the claim to prove it, not the people they are trying to convince to disprove it. If nothing conclusive can be gleaned from the video or analysis of the site, then that's all that can be said about it. The lack of duplication of the video isn't evidence of anything. So this video is interesting, but ultimately pointless.

Also, the Bigfoot myth is yet another example of the noise not improving with the signal. If anything, the myth has faded somewhat, despite increased human incursion into the wild and the proliferation of technology to image it.

And one more thing - there are too many convenient coincidences there. The shooters didn't know what speed the film was shot at, which makes conclusive analysis of the creature's gait impossible. It was also a very convenient stroke of luck that they found what they were looking for. Yes, they looked in a likely place, but they still faced odds longer than the lottery to find what they were looking for.

 

[jostpuur]

IMO the apes in the planet of apes don't look animals at all. They move like humans, or humans who are pretending to be something else.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a bit unsettling. If someone claims to have made a film of something of something that would require extraordinary evidence to be accepted, is the onus on the mainstream scientific community to try to duplicate the film in question to prove that the film might be a hoax? I don't see how this is justified.

Note that I edited a bit late [but before you posted ] to say "debunkers", not "skeptics". It is fine to say that it doesn't stand as scientific evidence for anything, but to claim for a fact that it is a hoax is another matter. So this does not hold all of science responsible. But when people write books and talk on TV and make money by calling other people liars, they are required to back up their claim as possible.

Note that they are not just rejecting the film as evidence, they are claiming a specific explanation - that it was hoaxed. So really anyone who states this as a fact has the burden of proof.

Maybe it was malformed bipedal bear.

 

[J77]

Did they not do this on The Simpsons...? :tongue:

 

[russ_watters]

IMO the apes in the planet of apes don't look animals at all. They move like humans, or humans who are pretending to be something else.

Granted, but if you change the playback speed of the movie and defocus it, it would become pretty similar. The fact that the mask is different is besides the point (I'm not saying they were the same costume, I'm just saying it could be done).

 

[russ_watters]

Note that they are not just rejecting the film as evidence, they are claiming a specific explanation - that it was hoaxed. So really anyone who states this as a fact has the burden of proof.

Sloppy wording aside, no scientist would state their conclusion as fact - it is a theory like any other (just one with pretty good evidence). Similarly, no one with a scientific mindset would assert as fact that it is bigfoot. You are trying to create a false dichotomy for the purpose of burden-of-proof shifting.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No I'm not. I said nothing about scientist. I said debunkers. I thought that was made very clear in the last post. Are you claiming that no one has ever called this a hoax?

 

[ensabah6]

If skeptics [actually, I mean the debunkers] are to claim that the film is a hoax, then it fair to demand that another film of the same quality be made. Otherwise the skeptics become simple crackpots who refuse to back-up their claim. There is no way to prove that the film wasn't hoaxed, so the only test remaining is to show that the film could have been hoaxed.

I agree with this.

 

[turbo]

Also, the Bigfoot myth is yet another example of the noise not improving with the signal. If anything, the myth has faded somewhat, despite increased human incursion into the wild and the proliferation of technology to image it.

It is really pushing credulity to claim that Bigfoot exists when every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days seem to be carrying cell phones with built-in cameras or nice compact digital cameras on their hikes and hunting and fishing trips. Amateur and pro photographers have always hit the back-country with cameras, but there's a whole new generation of people who cannot be separated from their cell phones, and many of those phones are capable of producing some really nice images. And it's no rare thing to meet up with some people on a trail and see them whip out some little pocket-sized digital camera and snap a shot or two.

 

[ensabah6]

Have some people tried seriously and still failed? If there has not been failures in attempting reproducing the video, then it is not justified to say that "no one can reproduce the film".

Some googling revealed, that at least some people think that there's been failures, but I wonder if those who have been attempting have been trying seriously.

Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film notes that for example the Space Odyssey had very convincing looking ape costumes. I was thinking about mentioning the Greystoke Legend of Tarzan myself, but I don't have the movie right now, and its probably better if I don't try to remember how flawless ape costumes and actors it really had.

Anyway the point is, that the ape costumes and the actors inside get better, when the people are being paid for succeeding!

Well BBC spent megabucks (I don't know how much) and recruited a professional custome studio (I don't know which one) on a BBC documentary on the Discovery channel (I forget the name of the documentary).

The special effects artists stated confidentally it was a hoax, in that it involved a man in an ape suit. They speculated they used yak hair (if i recall correctly) and proceeded to shoot the clip using the same equipment, time of day, sunlight, about same location. They had an man-actor over 6 feet to be in the custome. BBC deliberately did this to try to imitate the Paterson-Gimlin film as closely as possible. It was their intention to make it as identical as possible using 1967 custome technology.

here's a link with photos

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

one thing that proponents pointed out is that the BBC and this studio failed is that the arms of the creature in the Paterson-Gimlin film is much longer than in BBC attempt.


"The production money from the BBC was given to Packham and Appleby based on Packham's script, which confidentally proclaims success in recreating the hoax. The script was written a long time before they actually tried to make a matching costume. Packham and Appleby assured BBC executives they could easily do it. There was no concern about them failing...

...The BBC never came clean about the most profound revelation of their "investigation" -- it's basically impossible to recreate the Patterson costume. Their well funded attempt and failure strongly suggests that it is very difficult, if not practically impossible, to recreate the bio mechanical dynamics seen on the moving Patterson figure."


If this cut and paste with link violates PF copyright policies feel free to edit this until it does, but please don't mod me !

 

[ensabah6]

It is really pushing credulity to claim that Bigfoot exists when every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days seem to be carrying cell phones with built-in cameras or nice compact digital cameras on their hikes and hunting and fishing trips. Amateur and pro photographers have always hit the back-country with cameras, but there's a whole new generation of people who cannot be separated from their cell phones, and many of those phones are capable of producing some really nice images. And it's no rare thing to meet up with some people on a trail and see them whip out some little pocket-sized digital camera and snap a shot or two.

Perhaps bigfoot is now extinct.

What I wonder though is why the Peterson-Gimlin bigfoot film has never been exactly duplicated despite well funded attempts to do so?

 

[russ_watters]

No I'm not. I said nothing about scientist. I said debunkers. I thought that was made very clear in the last post. Are you claiming that no one has ever called this a hoax?

Any random idiot can say anthing they want (on both sides). The only people who'se opinions really matter are the scientists who have examined the film and provided real professional opinions. You seem to be inventing a class of people for the purpose of a strawman. So then it's both a strawman and a false dichotomy.

 

[arildno]

If skeptics [actually, I mean the debunkers] are to claim that the film is a hoax, then it fair to demand that another film of the same quality be made. Otherwise the skeptics become simple crackpots who refuse to back-up their claim. There is no way to prove that the film wasn't hoaxed, so the only test remaining is to show that the film could have been hoaxed.

Extraordinary claims deman extraordinary evidence.

The claim of Bigfoot's existence is the extraordinary claim, the dismissal of that claim is unextraordinary.

A grainy film from 1967 doesn't constitute extraordinary evidence for anything.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Any random idiot can say anthing they want (on both sides). The only people who'se opinions really matter are the scientists who have examined the film and provided real professional opinions. You seem to be inventing a class of people for the purpose of a strawman. So then it's both a strawman and a false dichotomy.

How about the family friend who claimed that Patterson lied, who produced a monkey suit after Patterson died and who claimed that this is the suit used in the film; an who got or is supposed to get paid for his story for a book. Is that concrete enough for you?

Also, I am not inventing a class of people called debunkers. Note the name of the forum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Extraordinary claims deman extraordinary evidence.

The claim of Bigfoot's existence is the extraordinary claim, the dismissal of that claim is unextraordinary.

A grainy film from 1967 doesn't constitute extraordinary evidence for anything.

If you guys would read what I said, you would see that I'm not disputing those points.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46714

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If one knows anything about this story, then one knows full well that people have been making money off of this story for decades - debunkers and promoters alike. I find it a bit disingenuous to act as if this is not the case.

Are you only interested in debunking the promoters? Debunkers are fair game for debunking. You [Russ] are telling me that I'm not allowed to be skeptical about the claim made in the link above.

 

[jostpuur]

It would be nice to see actually the BBC's video, and compare the walking. I didn't find it on google.

If the only failure is wrong color and shorter arms, it's not a very big failure. Although the arms should have been longer if the reproduction was claimed to be identical.

Wasn't the original film black and white btw, and these colored versions have come afterwards? Or was the original one colored, and then for some reason some copies have been made black and white?

Here's some bear hoaxing:



Isn't this proof, that the Patterson video could have been hoaxed? The bear costumes are flawless.

 

[arildno]

Even if the debunking is not iron clad, precisely because it makes no extraordinary claims on its own means that the threshold for sufficient evidence fort formation of a rational judgment on the matter is significantly less than the threshold needed to accept the bigfoot existence claim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if the debunking is not iron clad, precisely because it makes no extraordinary claims on its own means that the threshold for sufficient evidence fort formation of a rational judgment on the matter is significantly less than the threshold needed to accept the bigfoot existence claim.

This does not release the debunkers from the burden of proof. All that is required is that they produce a hoax that has the same apparent quality as the original film. The burden of proof for the believers is to produce a dead or live bigfoot, or at least irrefutable physical evidence of some kind [not sure what if anything else would qualify].

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is really pushing credulity to claim that Bigfoot exists when every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days seem to be carrying cell phones with built-in cameras or nice compact digital cameras on their hikes and hunting and fishing trips. Amateur and pro photographers have always hit the back-country with cameras, but there's a whole new generation of people who cannot be separated from their cell phones, and many of those phones are capable of producing some really nice images. And it's no rare thing to meet up with some people on a trail and see them whip out some little pocket-sized digital camera and snap a shot or two.

If you tell me exactly where the alleged bigfoots live, how they act, when they come out and for how long, how stealthy they might be, etc etc etc, then I will tell you if your objection makes any sense. Many of the stories describe an animal that keeps itself hidden from full view. Also, people do get videos and photos and they don't prove a thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a common error made by skeptics. First we require extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. So we reject the evidence that does exist because it is not extraordinary. Then, many will assume the position that because there is no extraordinary evidence, there is no evidence at all.

Late edit: It is not really true that we require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. For all practical purposes, we require proof. In most cases of extraordinary claims, I think that anything less than undeniable proof would be the subject of endless debate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't this proof, that the Patterson video could have been hoaxed? The bear costumes are flawless.

No. You would need to reproduce the Patterson film. What makes people think that the Patterson film is genuine is the detail in the movements of the body, the detail of the musculature, the relative proportions of the arms, legs, torso, etc, the way that it moves when it turns, and probably a dozen other things. Biologists, anatomy experts, film experts, human motion experts, animal motion experts, and a host of other experts have examined the Patterson film, and one reason that the story survives is that many experts were impressed.

Jane Goodall believes in Bigfoot [or at least believes that he might exist... I would have to check], and she is arguably the world's foremost expert on apes. Something must have gotten her attention. However, I have no idea what she makes of the Patterson film.

 

[arildno]

This does not release the debunkers from the burden of proof. All that is required is that they produce a hoax that has the same apparent quality as the original film. The burden of proof for the believers is to produce a dead or live bigfoot, or at least irrefutable physical evidence of some kind [not sure what if anything else would qualify].

Hmm..no.
We are still mystified as to how Saracen swords were made, or how the Egyptians pyramids were built, but that doesn't mean we are unjustified in assuming there is some sort of "natural" explanation behind.

To think otherwise is to demand knowledge of all things, which at the moment seems impossible.

 

[turbo]

If you tell me exactly where the alleged bigfoots live, how they act, when they come out and for how long, how stealthy they might be, etc etc etc, then I will tell you if your objection makes any sense. Many of the stories describe an animal that keeps itself hidden from full view. Also, people do get videos and photos and they don't prove a thing.

I can't tell you where a hypothetical creature lives. Nor do I know anything about the alleged habits of a hypothetical creature. I do know that the number of cameras carried around by tourists, hikers, and sportsmen has increased explosively in the last 5-10 years, so there are a lot more opportunities for Bigfoot sightings to be supported with graphic evidence.

As for the stealth issue, I spend a lot of time in the woods, and I see lots of tracks of fishers, bears, and other predators on my property and that of my neighbors. Fishers and bears are VERY stealthy and wary, and though I walk very quietly through the woods to photograph critters and birds, and to hunt grouse and deer, I have not seen either of these animals "in the flesh" for over a decade, though other people sometimes manage to get pictures of them in the wild. These animals also leave plenty of evidence of their existence in the forms of scat and tracks, disemboweled and eaten porcupine carcasses (fisher-the only animal around here that can pull that off) and demolished berry canes and eaten hornets' nests (bear). The fact that I have not seen these animals "live" in a few years does not make me doubt that they exist in this area because there is a wealth of evidence to prove that they live here.

If Bigfoot is the massive bipedal creature that is claimed, all its weight is on its two feet much of the time and unless it confines itself to walking on bare rock, it should be leaving tracks almost everywhere it goes. If it is large, it should also have significant dietary requirements and should leave scat behind. If Bigfoot exists in any numbers, one should die from time to time, and a carcass that size attracts the attention of scavengers (including vultures and ravens), and of hunters and ranchers, as well as naturalists and wildlife conservation folks and park rangers. Why no skeletons?

I'm not defending people who try to debunk with flimsy argumentation - just trying to point out that with a broad-based consideration of the available evidence, we can infer the existence of animals that we have not seen with our own eyes. Even small animals like voles, mice, etc leave signs of their activities. Bigfoot fails this test with flying colors. Given this situation and the lack of an upsurge in photographic evidence accompanying the increase in the numbers of nice, affordable digital imagers in peoples' pockets, I see little reason to argue that the film in question must be duplicated in order to prove that it could have been a fake.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't tell you where a hypothetical creature lives. Nor do I know anything about the alleged habits of a hypothetical creature. I do know that the number of cameras carried around by tourists, hikers, and sportsmen has increased explosively in the last 5-10 years, so there are a lot more opportunities for Bigfoot sightings to be supported with graphic evidence.

First of all let's be clear: I'm not a bigfoot believer, but the believers do have their reasons for believing. I am only defending their position here. As for opportunities, we don't know how evasive the alleged animals might be. If they hide and only come out at night, and I guess they are believed to be mostly nocturnal, then I don't know that we should expect any more than the fuzzy camera shots that can easily be found at YouTube and elsewhere.

As for the stealth issue, I spend a lot of time in the woods, and I see lots of tracks of fishers, bears, and other predators on my property and that of my neighbors. Fishers and bears are VERY stealthy and wary, and though I walk very quietly through the woods to photograph critters and birds, and to hunt grouse and deer, I have not seen either of these animals "in the flesh" for over a decade, though other people sometimes manage to get pictures of them in the wild. These animals also leave plenty of evidence of their existence in the forms of scat and tracks, disemboweled and eaten porcupine carcasses (fisher-the only animal around here that can pull that off) and demolished berry canes and eaten hornets' nests (bear). The fact that I have not seen these animals "live" in a few years does not make me doubt that they exist in this area because there is a wealth of evidence to prove that they live here.

Maybe we can't treat an intelligent ape or subhuman the same as we do bears. There is also the chance that if we knew what evidence to look for, and where, we would find it. Also, I believe that there have been cases where evidence [hair] from an unknown species was retrieved in conjunction with an alleged bigfoot sighting or tracking, but that is not definitive evidence that a bigfoot exists.

If Bigfoot is the massive bipedal creature that is claimed, all its weight is on its two feet much of the time and unless it confines itself to walking on bare rock, it should be leaving tracks almost everywhere it goes. If it is large, it should also have significant dietary requirements and should leave scat behind. If Bigfoot exists in any numbers, one should die from time to time, and a carcass that size attracts the attention of scavengers (including vultures and ravens), and of hunters and ranchers, as well as naturalists and wildlife conservation folks and park rangers. Why no skeletons?

Believers say they bury their dead. Also, people find tracks, but that doesn't prove anything.

I'm not defending people who try to debunk with flimsy argumentation - just trying to point out that with a broad-based consideration of the available evidence, we can infer the existence of animals that we have not seen with our own eyes. Even small animals like voles, mice, etc leave signs of their activities. Bigfoot fails this test with flying colors. Given this situation and the lack of an upsurge in photographic evidence accompanying the increase in the numbers of nice, affordable digital imagers in peoples' pockets, I see little reason to argue that the film in question must be duplicated in order to prove that it could have been a fake.

You are ignoring the fact that people [bigfoot hunters] do this because they claim to find evidence. A professor from Oregon State University was well known for this search for bigfoot - I think his name was Kranston [Cranston? and that he was a professor of anthropology. He used to say that he believed in bigfoot on Mondays, Wednesday, and Fridays; that he didn't on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays; and on Sunday he rests.

Don't you think as that a scientist he would have required evidence to get interested? And of course, he did have evidence; maybe not anything that would pass as scientific evidence for a bigfoot, but enough to cause him to devote decades to the search. Don't you think that Jane Goodall would require some form of compelling evidence to get her attention?

But this is bothersome.

I see little reason to argue that the film in question must be duplicated in order to prove that it could have been a fake

If you say that you reject the film as scientific evidence because it might be been hoaxed, that's legit. But if you say that the film is a hoax, then you have the burden of proof to duplicate the evidence; or at least to show undeniable evidence that it was hoaxed. A monkey suit in a box is hardly undeniable evidence that the film was a hoax. It might just as easily be evidence that the family intends to capitalize on this story while it is still possible and now that Patterson isn't here to defend himself.

Also, I made this point earlier. It could be that it wasn't hoaxed and that it wasn't bigfoot. For all that I know it could have been an ape that escaped from the circus. One of the biggest objections to any analysis is that the film quality is too poor to allow for any definitive conclusions.

 

[turbo]

You are ignoring the fact that people [bigfoot hunters] do this because they claim to find evidence. A professor from Oregon State University was well known for this search for bigfoot - I think his name was Kranston [Cranston? and that he was a professor of anthropology.

I am not ignoring the fact that believers believe they have evidence. Believers see evidence everywhere, substantive or not. Their imaginations provide a lot of details, like inferring that Bigfoot buries its dead because we have never found a carcass/skeleton. Humans bury their dead, too, and every year during deer hunting season in Maine, hunters come across human remains that have not been buried. I have carefully pointed out that animals that are rarely seen in the wild leave a huge bodies of evidence of their activities, including tracks, scat, prey carcasses and other food remains, as well as their own carcasses when they die. Large animals leave ample evidence of their existence. We all have impacts on our environments. Yesterday, I found the tracks of a varying hare in the snow (one set of many). From the spacing of the tracks, I could see that the rabbit was not in a hurry, and was not being pursued (or at least was not aware that it was being pursued). Superimposed on its track was the track of a fisher - moving slow, not loping (their easy Slinky-like locomotion when they are not simply walking or sprinting), and it was apparently following a scent trail or visually tracking the rabbit in an attempt to ambush it. There is a lot of information to be gleaned from such evidence. Have you ever seen a naturalist's interpretation of Bigfoot tracks, or any explanation of how Bigfoot exploits its terrain or hunts? I have hunted in the Maine woods for over 45 years, have friends and relatives that are registered Maine Guides and one of my closest friends is a former chief of the Maine Warden Service. When he was the head of training for the warden service, I volunteered to play the role of poacher during the final field training exercises of that year's warden trainees. For that week, I hunted, fished, and trapped illegally on an island (with no real animals being injured - only simulations) along with a couple of woods-wise volunteers and a number of senior wardens. The goal of the trainees was to catch us in the act, apprehend us, and make a winnable case. These guys (when they have enough experience and smarts) can make cases based on trails of turned leaves, occasional tracks, etc. If Bigfoot exists, skilled forensic investigators would already have found one, or at least compelling evidence for its existence.

If you say that I reject the film as scientific evidence because it might be been hoaxed, that's legit. But if you say that the film is a hoax, then you have the burden of proof to duplicate the evidence.

I never claimed that the film is a hoax. I said that there is no burden of proof on non-believers to duplicate the film exactly to prove that it could be a hoax, and I pointed out that unless Bigfoot can somehow defy the laws of nature and leave no tracks back to its lair, no anomalous scat, no signs of its particular form of grazing, scavenging or predation, and somehow experience no unattended Bigfoot deaths resulting in a discoverable carcass, we should have seen evidence of its existence by now.

 

[jostpuur]

Clearly some folks have been reproducing these kind of videos, but... did they do it by faking, or by shooting some real bigfoots?!

 

[setAI]

If you say that you reject the film as scientific evidence because it might be been hoaxed, that's legit. But if you say that the film is a hoax, then you have the burden of proof to duplicate the evidence; or at least to show undeniable evidence that it was hoaxed.

+1- I thought exactly the same thing ealier when I saw the old knee-jerk "claimant has the burden of proof"- I don't believe in or really know anything about bigfoot- but this was not a claim it was photographic evidence which even if it can be faked is still about the strongest form of physical evidence we can have- if a video looks basically legit then it's the ones who say it's a hoax that bear the burden of proof regardless of the object in the photo

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am not ignoring the fact that believers believe they have evidence. Believers see evidence everywhere, substantive or not. Their imaginations provide a lot of details, like inferring that Bigfoot buries its dead because we have never found a carcass/skeleton. Humans bury their dead, too, and every year during deer hunting season in Maine, hunters come across human remains that have not been buried. I have carefully pointed out that animals that are rarely seen in the wild leave a huge bodies of evidence of their activities, including tracks, scat, prey carcasses and other food remains, as well as their own carcasses when they die. Large animals leave ample evidence of their existence. We all have impacts on our environments. Yesterday, I found the tracks of a varying hare in the snow (one set of many). From the spacing of the tracks, I could see that the rabbit was not in a hurry, and was not being pursued (or at least was not aware that it was being pursued). Superimposed on its track was the track of a fisher - moving slow, not loping (their easy Slinky-like locomotion when they are not simply walking or sprinting), and it was apparently following a scent trail or visually tracking the rabbit in an attempt to ambush it. There is a lot of information to be gleaned from such evidence. Have you ever seen a naturalist's interpretation of Bigfoot tracks, or any explanation of how Bigfoot exploits its terrain or hunts? I have hunted in the Maine woods for over 45 years, have friends and relatives that are registered Maine Guides and one of my closest friends is a former chief of the Maine Warden Service. When he was the head of training for the warden service, I volunteered to play the role of poacher during the final field training exercises of that year's warden trainees. For that week, I hunted, fished, and trapped illegally on an island (with no real animals being injured - only simulations) along with a couple of woods-wise volunteers and a number of senior wardens. The goal of the trainees was to catch us in the act, apprehend us, and make a winnable case. These guys (when they have enough experience and smarts) can make cases based on trails of turned leaves, occasional tracks, etc. If Bigfoot exists, skilled forensic investigators would already have found one, or at least compelling evidence for its existence.

That's all well and good, but there are two problems that I see: First, any evidence that might exist could mistakenly be assumed to be from some other animal. Also, you assume that bigfoot hunters aren't experts on the surroundings. Clearly people who are local experts claim to find evidence in the form of prints and other trace evidence. Cranston was an expert on the Oregon terrain and he chased bigfoot for decades because of the evidence that he found.

You are also assuming that what is true in your neighborhood is true generally.

I never claimed that the film is a hoax. I said that there is no burden of proof on non-believers to duplicate the film exactly to prove that it could be a hoax, and I pointed out that unless Bigfoot can somehow defy the laws of nature and leave no tracks back to its lair, no anomalous scat, no signs of its particular form of grazing, scavenging or predation, and somehow experience no unattended Bigfoot deaths resulting in a discoverable carcass, we should have seen evidence of its existence by now.

I never said that non-believers have a burden of proof. But if one is to make a specific claim about evidence that allegedly shows the existence of an animal - direct evidence - and the film is claimed a hoax, then there is a burden of proof. No lack of circumstantial evidence changes this. If you're not saying that the film is a hoax, but that it might be, then you have no burden of proof.