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

ensabah6

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

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

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

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

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...?

russ_watters

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

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

I agree with this.

turbo

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

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

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

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.