Friday, June 27, 2008
In 1996 the US Air Force started test a night vision system deployed by FLIR systems inc. This system was developed for the Air Force for use in the forests of Eastern Europe. It was tested at Edwards Air Force base the location of the Air Force Flight Test Center. That’s where the new raptor was tested. To test the effectiveness of this new system they deployed 16 Air Force Ridge runners (air force special forces) into a 500 square mile test area in northern California. The Troops were air dropped in at different location where giving a day to travel through the forest, and told to become invisible. The area is supposed to be protected land and off limits to the public. The new FLIR system was mounted on two Air Force A-10 Warthogs, which are armored slow flying tanks killers. A second group of men where flown in on choppers and directed by the Warthog pilots. Too make a long story short in about five hours all 16 soldiers where captured along with two groups of campers consisting of 7 people, 4 hikers, and a squatter. The pilots where able to easily pick out every human in the 500 sq mile test area. One of the pilots Lt. Coronal J. Dobes wrote that he was able to tell the difference between a squirrel and a rabbit. Coronal Dobes is also a hunter and said that he would love to take this new system hunting because no animal was able to hide from it. During his debriefing he was jokingly asked if he looked for Bigfoot to which he replied yes but did not see him.
After more test the Air Force purchased this system which was eventually made available to the public under the name Star SAFIRE HD. If you visit FLIR’s web site you will see the specs on this system and how wide spread it has been deployed 1,600 units have been sold to over 70 nations.
A civilian contractor that work on the Air Force test was ask if the Air force would look for Bigfoot he replied that he didn’t know if they planned too but if Bigfoot was real this system would not have a problem finding him. Several weeks after the contractor was interviewed the Air Force conducted it’s final two flight tests of the FLIR system under the codename: “Coldman” . They are the only two test flights that remain classified to this date, there is a petition under the freedom of information act to have them released but so far no luck.
The Patterson Film stabilized by Davis.
FYI Davis is a guy who blows up a grainy 1967 film and somehow sees more detail then is possible and it makes him a cult hero of the 'footer crowd. Some of his 'antics' include showing that the Bigfoot in Patterson's 1967 film has jiggling breasts. He does this by showing 3 frames...where:
- each frame has a different rotation
- the body of the bigfoot is turned to a different angle in relation to the camera
- through him altering the colors. All 3 of which can falsely appear to show jiggling
The sad thing is that apparently Davis and the Pattycakes don't realize that doing any 1 of the 3 above will skew results and he does all 3. You could even take 3 copies of the exact same image, change the color and rotation, and make it appear that there is movement -- that isn't even considering how bigfoot's body changed angle in the course of the 3 frames that he chose. If he could show Patty's breasts jiggling through legitimate means don't you think that he would? For Patty, the bigfoot in Patterson's film, any breasts the size of basketballs wouldn't be as rigid as they appear in the film.
Anyways, back to Davis' new claim. Davis got his hands on original frames of the film from Mrs. Patterson and they do not exactly match up with the film itself. This suggest that the film released to the public was altered from the original shot. Meldrum (of dubious intellectual merit) also had noticed that the film had been touched up a little. If they are right, then the Patterson film has been doctored.
Why would the Patterson 1967 Bigfoot film be doctored? What would they try to cover up? A bad hair day for Patty? A hoax, naw couldn't be... Davis, says they airburshed out hemoraging from Gimlin shooting bigfoot. LOL.... Great leap of logic. No wonder bigfoots are so rare Patterson and Gimlin massacred them all!
From the link:
M.K. indicated that Hancock’s materials did appear to be airbrushed inpart, in areas. Not that it was done by him! Dr. Meldrum concurred, and stated that he had previously discovered a modification in one of those frames as well.What is the typical pattycake response? To investigate why the film was altered? To demand that Gimlin finally take a polygraph? Or as GrayBear says:
8 glass slides that he obtained from Mrs. Patterson. The slides are taken from the original film. The slides show that the original film was “touched up” by the processor who is a friend of Mr. Patterson’s who worked for Kodak.
Make it go away! Leave it alone and let it die the lonely death that it so richly deserves."Make it go away!" The Patterson film is too important to us. So we won't question why the film was doctored, we will just say that it is wrong to make the jump that poor Patty was killed by Gimlin and Patterson and then have it burried.....ahhhh ignorance is bliss.
There is a reason one of the original reels was lost, and the other edited and now apparently doctored. It is the same reason that Heironimus who appears in the Patterson footage has passed 2 polygraphs that it is all a hoax and Gimlin won't take a polygraph.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Yes, I realize that this is a marketing gimmick, but especially with today's technology how can even a picture truly prove that something exists. At least it should temporarily stop 'squatch believers that tell me that they have friends who have clear photos of bigfoot and other irrefutable evidence, except that they won't show anyone since they can't make money and are afraid to be blasted by skeptics.
In other news, for a good laugh, check out this website. As they grow as a hoaxer, they will learn that using a modern video camera and trying to pass it off as an 'early 1970's' camera is a huge mistake as most people will then realize that you are completely full of it.
Recently I wrote a brief article on how I felt Patterson faked his footprints and Loren Coleman responded to me here.
What is funny, is that he not once addresses my point that the toes appear faked:
These are the tracks that Patterson claimed the Bigfoot made from his famous 1967 film. Notice the toes. How smooth and perfectly shaped they are. Also notice that despite the deep impression of the foot, the only part of the toe that shows in the plaster is the round tips of the toe. No other part of the toe is seen in the deep plaster cast. This suggests that it was not made by an actual fleshly foot stepping down and putting weight down. Shouldn’t the toes smoosh into each other, not maintain a perfect round form, and show more than just the tips of the toe from such a deep impression?Nowhere does he address the toes in his article. Instead he and his posse insults me and carries on with side issues all while avoiding what I said like an ostrich with its head in the sand.
So I guess Loren Coleman admits that there is something wrong with the toes, but refuses to defend it, hoping that it will go away.
What is hilarious is that Loren says:
Titmus also treated these “trophy tracks” as items to be “cleaned up” and some of the early letters talk of Titmus “scrubbing up” the casts. He wanted to have them without imprefections, to be presented as white, smooth objects. Titmus, furthermore, actually sold cast copies from the very beginning, and some examples from that time demonstrate the cast surfaces were worked on to look smooth, with plaster edges trimmed.If Loren was truly interested in science and having bigfoot researchers seen as credible people, she would be outraged at people who alter evidence, especially those who feel that they need to alter evidence for the motive of financial gain. Instead, she passes it off as acceptable, but I suppose you have to when your passion is lacking in concrete evidence.
Let us move back to Patterson and his bigfoot tracks. Since Loren Coleman is choosing to avoid the apparent telltale signs of fake casts in the toe region, I will put forth a bit more evidence towards fake casts from both an acquaintance and brother-in-law of Roger Patterson:
Loren Coleman then moves on to talk about Jeffrey Meldrum's mid tarsal break theory in the footprints seen. Yes, the same Meldrum who had to admit that he made an error in supporting the notion that there were dermal ridges on the Mount Onion Cast. Yes, that is also the same Meldrum who originally fell for the Fox hoax snowwalker video and falsely claimed that the creature was much taller than it truely was. Well anyways, what Loren Coleman and Meldrum don't tell you is that humans wearing fake bigfoot feet also leave a mid tarsal break - how convenient for them to leave out. What great evidence..."bigfoot makes tracks similar to humans faking bigfoot prints." That is the same as typical believer shenanigans like "bigfoot makes sounds like owls" as discussed in a different post of mine. So that any evidence can be seen as support for bigfoot - even an owl hoot. What a hoot!
Another important eyewitness Greg Long discovered is Harvey Anderson, the former owner of a gun and camera store in Yakima. Anderson claims that Patterson came into his shop one day with a plaster cast of a footprint allegedly left by Bigfoot and sought to rent a camera and get advice on how to film such a creature in the wild. According to Anderson, Patterson claimed he had not only seen a Bigfoot, but that it had touched his car and had actually lifted up one end. Anderson decided to go along with the story: "I was kind of getting a kick out of it, but I realized that he was lying to me or having hallucinations about the thing that came out of the woods and picked up his car."
After talking briefly about his alleged encounter, Patterson unwrapped an alleged Bigfoot cast. Anderson immediately doubted the authenticity of the item. "I said to him, 'It looks like it's too narrow on the front part because it couldn't stand erect. Based on the description you've given me of this tall man or tall animal, you have to have it broader at the ball of the foot. 'Oh, no,' he said, 'he stands right up.' I said, 'Well, it doesn't appear to be correct. It looks to me like it should be wider on the front where the ball of the foot is. For the length of the foot, it won't work.' He [Patterson] said, 'Well, I can solve that problem. I'll take some more casts.'"
Three days later, Patterson returned to ask Anderson for input on his latest efforts, showing him new casts and asking, "What do you think of that?" Anderson replied, "That looks better. That looks proportionate." Anderson says, "See, I did not know the guy, did not know his intention. You have to realize that people came in and out of the store all the time. You don't know them. You just wait on them and service their needs. I thought he was pulling a joke on somebody."
Patterson then told Anderson, "I have to ask you never to say anything about this because I've done this for my wife because I'm dying of cancer. I want to leave something for my wife." "What the hock," Anderson says now, "If people will buy it, why not? People will buy anything. He was giving me this sob story about his health, and he wanted to leave something for his wife, and you know, I wasn't doing it [shooting a fake film]. I was just listening to his story. I really didn't pay that much attention to it. It wasn't important."
Additional eyewitness testimony that Patterson faked Bigfoot prints COllies independently from Roger Patterson's brother-in-law Bruce Mondor: "Roger made the footprints, and he explained the whole damn thing to me. He showed me the big foot; it didn't have an arch in it. It had toes like it should have.... And I asked him ... 'What do you do, you pick this up and slam it down?' It had to weigh twenty-five or thirty pounds. He said, 'Yeah, that's what I do.' I said, 'Then what do you do there [in the impression on the ground]?' He said, 'I pour plaster of Paris in there.'"
Loren also points out the film of Patterson making the casts, there were 2 reels. Yes, in one reel Bob Heironimus (the guy who took 2 and passed 2 polygraphs saying it was a hoax) is seen in the film and Gimlin the guy who hasn't taken a polygraph is seen dressed up as an "Indian Guide." They from that point on lied to the public in early marketing of the film by continuing to say that Gimlin was an Indian Guide. One other thing of note with the 2nd reel is that there is a time discrepency that believers have came up with alternate, but contradictory theories as to explain how the film can still fit the story. My favorite given is Grover Krantz's from his book Big Footprints on page 32: "The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4)."
A quote from the man who has yet to take a polygraph, Gimlin.
"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now...and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]." -Bob Gimlin
My spin on that is, and it is purely opinion, but he sounds guilty for fooling so many people and making so many people dedicate so much of their life to a false reality. There is no conviction that what he filmed was real - given the circumstances there should be. He is saying, be mad at Patterson who is dead and not me!
Gimlin and Patterson could never keep their story straight. Basic parts of their story changed, yet none of this is suspicious to a believer. To a skeptic it is intriguing.
Left to Right -- Roger Patterson, John Ballard, Jerry Merritt, Howard Heironimus, Bob Gimlin (wearing a wig falsely disguised as an Indian Guide) and Bob Heironimus.
UPDATE: Loren Coleman is actually a male and I can sympathize with the name thing. What is striking is that Coleman is supposedly a bigfoot "expert" and is worshipped by believers. As someone new to the Bigfoot thing I have already made an expert avoid points and exposed the experts short comings in not doing homework himself. It is quite invigorating to go head to head with and show the shortcomings of a so called expert. Of course, people on Coleman's board have said that since I didn't initially know who Coleman was that my points should be ignored. Chosen ignorance is bliss, can't refute them so you ignore them. Of course, deep down when you have to resort to that you know your belief in bigfoot is BS. I have downgraded my personal belief that bigfoot might exist since this is confirmation that the field is apparently filled with people who have tunnel vision.
Monday, June 23, 2008
I see red panda bears.
In 1978, a red panda escaped from the Rotterdam zoo. Hoping to enlist the public in finding this rare and distinctive-looking animal -- it looks a bit like raccoon crossed with a small bear, but bright red -- the zoo contacted the papers and stories ran in the local press with descriptions and contact information in case the poor creature was seen. Just as the story ran, the panda was found, dead.So what we have here is a case where over 100 people honestly thought that they saw a red panda bear in a matter of a couple of days, when they clearly did not see a red panda bear. They were primed to see something that did not exist outside of the zoo, and they saw it. The human mind is fallible and will see what it wants to.
Over the next few days over a hundred red panda sightings were reported. Keep in mind, red pandas are indigenous to tropical India, not temperate Holland. There is no chance that some other red panda was being seen and reported to the authorities. It's also not likely that people were hallucinating, either. What is likely is that people were seeing some other animal or something else they couldn't identify immediately, and interpreting it as a red panda.
When confronted with an unknown phenomenon, the brain immediately attempts to impose some kind of pattern or meaning onto it. Apparently, the brain can't stand not knowing what something is. What happened in Rotterdam is that the news stories primed people to recognize anything mysterious or otherwise unexplainable as "red panda", despite the unlikeliness. In other conditions, the template for the unknown might be an angel, Sasquatch, a UFO, faeries, or a will-o-wisp. Since the brain is working with so little evidence, it essentially makes it up, making our observations highly suspect.
Speaking of Priming
The suggestibility of the brain extends to more than just the unknown and unusual. As it turns out, even everyday events can be shaped by subtle cues in our environment.
In one study, two groups of subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire, and offered a crumbly biscuit by a research assistant afterward. In the room where the survey was administered
to one of the two groups, there was a hidden pail of water with a splash of cleaning fluid, filling the air with a slight scent.
The survey was a McGuffin; the real object of the study was to see what subjects would do after they ate the crumbly biscuit. What happened is this: the participants in the room where the
smell of cleaning fluid hung in the air were much more likely to clean up the crumbs left by the biscuit than the others.
A subtle effect to be sure (they ought to try it with teenagers!) but a good example of what psychologists call ?priming?. Priming calls on deep memory associations in the brain ? like the
association of the smell of cleaning products with the act of cleaning ? which seems to trigger responses without any conscious awareness or intention on our part. Isn?t that great?
Sure, if you called in about a rabid dog and other people called in about dogs from hysteria - well at least dogs exist and people could misinterpret a dog for a rabid dog. This is not an adequate comparison.
There was only 1 (one) red panda and it was killed by a train the moment it left the zoo. Yet people said that they saw it all over town. They saw something that they didn't actually see.
The point is, the news said there was a red panda on the loose - and when people saw something that they weren't sure of, they falsely identified it as a red panda. So it is my belief that the news said there are bigfoots on the loose - and when people saw something that they weren't sure of, they falsely identified it as a bigfoot.
Now keep in mind that many bigfoot believers are saying that bigfoot mimics owl noises, this is just priming people even more to see bigfoot, whether it is actually there or not. This is even more absurd. Believers can't even prove that Bigfoot exists, so how can they attempt to prove that it mimics owl noises? Of course, bigfoot doesn't have any concrete evidence to prove its existence, so believers go in search of owl noises to prove its existence.
BFRO in a scramble to explain why there are no bones, fossils, or bodies of bigfoot have focused on the possibility of Gigantopithecus as being an ancestor of Bigfoot. In fact, recently on their front page, BFRO offered both the Patterson film and fossil evidence of Giganto as evidence of Bigfoot's existence. What is hilarious, is that this evidence is contradictory.
An analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film shows that frames 369, 370, 371, and 372 all show a slender lower mandible, that does not match the massive lower mandible of Gigantopithecus blacki, which, assuming that the Patterson-Gimlin film is legitimate, would eliminate G. blacki as a candidate for Bigfoot.There is not enough time for Giganto to have had such major evolutionary changes and so if Bigfoot exists it is not a descendant of Giganto -- unless that is, the Patterson film is faked or there are two large ape species with breeding populations undocumented by science, which is of course improbable.
Yet in the absence of real evidence, BFRO offers contradicting evidence, showing their true credibility.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Patterson and Gimlin went out looking to make a documentary of bigfoot and just so happened to stumble into one, at least according to them. Afterwards, they lied and said that Gimlin was an "Indian Guide" (perhaps to better market the video) and never returned the rented video camera, which got Patterson in a bit of legal trouble.
The story goes, Patterson, Gimlin, and 3 horses with their hooves clamoring on a rock bed sneak up on an unsuspecting elusive bigfoot that is kneeling down at the water's edge. The horses see the bigfoot and buck up - throwing Patterson off and onto the ground (and one of his versions the horse actually bucks up over and lands on top of him). Instantly Patterson is back on his feet with the video camera rolling as he sprints at the bigfoot creature while screaming to Gimlin, "cover me with the gun." All the while, the ever elusive bigfoot creature uses its wild animal instincts that has kept it undocumented from science after all of these years to casually stroll away with no panic or emotion down the clearing, taking the longer route back into the woods and even gives the camera one considerate look over. The video is quickly edited and then shipped out for profit.
Now let us consider Bob Heironimus, who is a proven contact with both Patterson and Gimlin. He claims that he was in the costume and it was all a hoax.
Somethings to back up Heironimus' story.
#1 He has passed 2 lie detector tests, Patterson died in 1972 and Gimlin has not taken a polygraph.
#2 He has half a dozen witnesses who saw him with a bigfoot costume in 1967.
#3 Photogrammetry science used by the BBC put the bigfoot creature at almost exactly the same height as Heironimus.
#4 A biologist was puzzled by the brightness of the glare coming off of bigfoot's right eye and Heironimus has a glass right eye.
#5 Heironimus is seen in Patterson's 2nd reel looking for bigfoot in Patterson's posse.
#6 Heironimus's horse is the 3rd horse 'used for cargo' that is seen in the 1st reel when they actually run into the creature.
#7 Some of Patterson's friends and family have said that he admitted that he would fake some of his bigfoot evidence -- if not the film, but once you fake evidence your credibility goes into the tank.
Believers have demonized Bob Heironimus for taking 2 and passing 2 polygraphs while encouraging Gimlin not to take one. If Bigfoot believers were serious and wanted to be credible, they would insist that Gimlin take a polygraph or they wouldn't let him in at their conventions or give him any money.
Why wouldn't Gimlin take a polygraph, or is he too busy suing Patterson's widow over money from the film and getting attention off of the film to take time out of his schedule to add credibility behind it?
Kal Kroff's article shows testimony from people who knew Roger Patterson and claimed that he admitted that he faked footprints, once claimed a bigfoot lifted the back end of his vehicle off of the ground with him in it, and that he hoaxed the film for his wife since he was dying of cancer (which he did in 1972).
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
I am willing to bet that if this dog was in this same position at night and caught by a game camera trap - that bigfoot believers would have their Holy Grail of evidence. Considering that a black bear caught at an odd angle where you can actually see the bear's face is still had onto as a primate, I can confidently say that.
Most believers will always see what they want to see. Even if it has a bear face, its a bigfoot.
A bear with mange.
An Anonymous poster wanted me to examine the other photo of the mangy bear and show how it looks like a bear. Well, I don't have to since many other people have. The above picture was found off of this website, which doesn't know who to credit for it.
Also, as The Plaid Lemur points out, this creature has the same bone ratios as a black bear.
People need to keep in mind that it is:
#1 At an odd angle, people aren't use to seeing bears from that angle.
#2 Suffering from mange, so it appears slightly different than typical bears.
#3 At night, so the clarity isn't good.
A mangy bear, by definition has less fur or no fur and therefore the legs will appear longer as the fur makes the body appear thinner. On top of it, mange can cause an animal to lose weight and therefore become thinner, making the legs appear even longer.
Roughly 50 percent of the area's bears have the disease, including over 80 percent of the adult females. Even the few females that don't currently exhibit the mange-like symptoms show signs of previous infection.
Granted, the above quote from National Geographic is about Florida bears, but it points out something that bigfoot believers have been avoiding. Adult Female bears are more likely to get mange, so it is possible for a mother bear to have mange and the cubs not to have mange. What do the 3 pictures show according to the skeptics? The 1st photo shows 2 cubs, the 2nd photo shows the mangy mother bear, and the 3rd photo shows a baby bear feeding off of the mother.
What we have here is something that:
- Has a black bear face.
- Is in an area where black bears are known to exist (Bigfoot can't even be proven to exist anywhere mind you).
- Is interacting with bears, or at least visits feed sights at the same time baby black bear cubs do.
- Has its front legs coming out of its shoulders as seen in photo 3 the same way that it does out of a bear and not out of a primate.
- Walks on all 4 legs like a bear, not on 2 feet like a bipedal bigfoot.
- Has the same bone ratios as a black bear.
- It looks like a mangy bear.
- Jacob's camera trap took pictures of what were black bears on past occasions.
A logical conclusion is that it is in fact a mangy bear.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
A picture of Patty's foot.
These are the tracks that Patterson claimed the Bigfoot made from his famous 1967 film. Notice the toes. How smooth and perfectly shaped they are. Also notice that despite the deep impression of the foot, the only part of the toe that shows in the plaster is the round tips of the toe. No other part of the toe is seen in the deep plaster cast. This suggests that it was not made by an actual fleshly foot stepping down and putting weight down. Shouldn't the toes smoosh into each other, not maintain a perfect round form, and show more than just the tips of the toe from such a deep impression?
However, are the so called dermal ridges found in some bigfoot castings actually dermal ridges or are they part of the casting process?
Here are two quality links that cast a major doubt on dermal ridges found in supposed bigfoot tracks.
Michael R. Dennett's article on Matt Crowley's research and Matt Crowley's website itself.
Essentially, what happens is when you make a cast, the material is poured and what materials you use can lead to tiny ridges on the cast. It is entirely possible to make an impression of a brick or smooth cereal bowl into the ground, then make a casting and get the same sort of thing that bigfoot enthusiasts claim are dermal ridges.
This research certainly takes away from the dermal ridge claim.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
BFRO shows in their database evidence of Bigfoots in 49 of 50 states - all but Hawaii. Yet other sources claim to have spotted a bigfoot in Hawaii.
So I am to believe that Bigfoots live in 50 of 50 states and all continents of the Earth, except Antarctica, and yet science cannot discover them?
How exactly would bigfoot get to the islands of Hawaii that were formed by volcanic activity out in the middle of the ocean? Are we to believe that Bigfoot makes his own open seas vessels for exploration?
Bigfoot evidence even comes from within and around Pittsburgh city limits. If Bigfoot did exist and therefore stayed hidden from science -- don't you think the odds are that it wouldn't be living in major metro area?
Using BFRO's (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) own statistics we see that New Jersey and Maryland are a bigger bigfoot hotspot than Oregon. This goes against tuition, since Oregon being in the Pacific Northwest has rain forest and vast stretches of wilderness. Yet, New Jersey the most densely populated state in the country, with much less wilderness, has more bigfoot sightings. I realize that more people can increase the odds of seeing a bigfoot, but how can there be a breeding population of bigfoots moving around undiscovered to science in a state with such limited wilderness?
New Jersey has 41 listings in 8,721 sq miles = 4.712 listings per 1,000 sq miles
Maryland has 25 listings in 12,407 sq miles = 2.015
Oregon has 201 listings in 98,381 sq miles = 2.043
As you can see Maryland per square mile is as much of a Bigfoot hotspot as Oregon and New Jersey is twice the bigfoot hotspot that Oregon is per square mile. In human population density, New jersey is ranked 1st, Maryland is 5th, and Oregon 39th. It does not make sense that densely populated states have the same or more density of bigfoot sightings as a state with a lot of wilderness like Oregon.
In my mind, sightings of Bigfoot in Hawaii and Pittsburgh do take away from the legitimacy of sightings elsewhere as surely the human mind is fallible and is imagining this creature in spots where it surely shouldn't be. Unless you are one of the believers that bigfoots get dropped off and picked up by UFO's which is another story.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I will make frequent posts throughout the summer taking on Bigfoot evidence.