BFRO and its tricks

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.

Patterson Film

Patterson's famous 1967 video still is the biggest piece of evidence for bigfoot today. When the video is stabilized so that the camera man's motion is taken out, it appears to be nothing more than a man in a suit.

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.

What luck!

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).

Evidence without bite!

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.

No Wonder Hillary Lost to Obama

When your running mate is mythical creature that doesn't exist, you tend to lose base with reality.

Jacob's Bear Photos Continued...

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:

1. Has a black bear face.
2. Is in an area where black bears are known to exist (Bigfoot can't even be proven to exist anywhere mind you).
3. Is interacting with bears, or at least visits feed sights at the same time baby black bear cubs do.
4. 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.
5. Walks on all 4 legs like a bear, not on 2 feet like a bipedal bigfoot.
6. Has the same bone ratios as a black bear.
7. It looks like a mangy bear.
8. 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.

BFRO, claims that the above is a bigfoot. Despite all of the evidence that it is in fact a mangy bear, BFRO insists that it is a bigfoot. Look at the picture below and notice the two eyes, and then your mind can make out a bear face, not a bigfoot/primate face.

Roger Patterson's Bigfoot Casts

The 1967 Patterson film of a Bigfoot has caused quite a stir in the 40+ years since its release.


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?