Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Charlatan in a monkey suit?

  1. Sep 17, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Sep 19, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 17, 2003 #2
    "Disposition:Generally retiring,
    though occasionally
    agressive. Credited with
    tearing apart bothersome
    dogs."
     
  4. Sep 19, 2003 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Take my wife for example...

    This is what impressed me a bit:
     
  5. Sep 19, 2003 #4
    I agree. It would require alot of
    specific technical skill to fake
    this kind of thing.

    I happen to know a guy who is a
    makeup artist for TV and film.
    (You've never heard of him, not
    a big name), and I'm sure those
    guys could fake this pretty easily. The cuts are exactly the kind of thing they would be sure
    to include, in a case like this.
    One of the things makeup artists
    have to do is put wounds and scars on actors. They study them intently in medical books, they study their own and each others,
    and stare frankly at the scars on
    anyone they happen to meet.

    At the same time, they have a kind
    of code of ethics that they never
    use their superpowers for evil, in
    the same way a magician is never
    supposed to con someone offstage
    for gain.

    What I'm saying is that it is
    technically possible to fake a
    print like this but just about
    impossible to find a makeup artist
    who would do it, or want to do it.


    Could a bigfoot be well-hoaxed?
    He told me this story: Planet of
    The Apes, and 2001, were both re-
    leased the same year. Planet of
    the Apes makeup director John
    Chambers won the academy award for
    makeup that year. Someone started
    asking around as to why people
    didn't vote for the creator of
    the 2001 apes, which were much
    better. They found out that most
    voters had thought they were real
    apes. I don't know if I believe
    that story but that's what he
    told me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2003
  6. Sep 20, 2003 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    However, sometimes in situations like this we can find evidence that predates the modern techniques. This point would seem worthy of further investigation.

    Now that's irony!
     
  7. Sep 20, 2003 #6
    I agree. It would be nice to get
    the opinions of a few more
    print experts on these casts.
    And it would have been pretty
    damning if this one had concluded
    that the prints in the casts he
    examined looked inorganic, as if
    produced by a bad sculptor who
    didn't understand something essen-
    tial to all prints, human and
    simian.

    Some Bigfoot casts I've seen pic-
    tures of just don't look like feet
    that could be found in nature :
    toes all the same length forming
    a straight line at the front of
    the foot. Other casts look com-
    pletly anatomically feasable.
     
  8. Sep 20, 2003 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It breaks my heart to think that for 20 years, one of the leading researchers in this field [Dr. Kravits or Kranits... Kravoy... something like that. Does this ring any bells? I am terrible with names!]. He taught at OSU just a few miles from my home and my alma mater. By the time I learned of his work, he was already gone. Anyway, this guy argued that some other very specific information can be found in the apparently credible casts. One bone in the side of the foot was often found to be uncharacteristically offset as compared to a human foot. He argues that this would be expected as a feature in the foot of a 400 LB beastie; exactly this geometry is needed to support the extra weight. He was an anthropologist by profession.

    He also had a great way to look at this kind of stuff. When asked if he "believed" that Bigfoot exists, his response was that he does on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Tues, Thurs, and Sat he doesn't. On Sunday he rests.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2003
  9. Sep 20, 2003 #8
    This is an incomplete sentence.
    What was it that broke your heart?


    I don't think I've run into this
    particular information before.It
    sounds like it makes sence. It
    also strikes me as the sort of
    thing a makeup artist wouldn't know.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2003
  10. Sep 20, 2003 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Whoops. That he taught at my alma mater OSU, for 20 years; just up until the time that I learned about him.

    Yes this detail gets a little difficult for Jethro and Jim-Bob to manage with their plywood feet as well.

    Edit: Note also that possibly as in the case of our
    I can the get details of a story confused. I also am very good at getting the significant details correct. Still, it has been some time since I reviewed this information.

    That aside, I considered that plaster casts of guerrilla feet or something similar could account for this observation, however apparently this would require the construction of a flexible, anatomically correct foot that is correctly modified to something between ape and human to the satisfaction of an anthropologist. Now that is getting to be a stretch.

    Edit #2: And the correct weight must be applied to each impression made by the left and right foot...and with the correct spacing to account for the longer stride. Some of the prints were obtained by this professor directly.

    Of course, now our professor becomes suspect eh? The paradox of rare evidence.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2003
  11. Sep 20, 2003 #10
    It broke your heart that he had a
    job for 20 years?



    And that settles it then. You
    can't debunk a zoobie.
     
  12. Sep 20, 2003 #11
    My memory is often terrible.We
    both agree that a woman shot a
    sturgeon mistaking it for a non-
    ordinary lake creature and that it
    was found dead a couple days
    later. I say North America, you
    say Scotland.



    The particular casts you allude to
    here could account for the Che
    Guevarra sightings, certainly, but
    they contribute nothing to any
    bigfoot investigation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Charlatan in a monkey suit?
  1. Monkey business (Replies: 17)

  2. Brass monkey (Replies: 4)

  3. A Robotic Suit (Replies: 12)

  4. Poorly suited (Replies: 4)

  5. Monkey saddle (Replies: 12)

Loading...