By Bluemouth 3 Comments
The Patterson-Gimlin footage of 1967 is still the best evidence of what may be a giant bi-pedal ape living within the forests of North America. The animal (see below) was filmed walking across a clearing in a remote forest of north west California. At one point, the creature turned to look at the pair, apparently drawn to the noise made by Gimlin's horse as it crashed over the underbrush. The full movie, which is copyrighted so I can't put it up here (although it's the second highest pirated piece of film in history), shows a frighteningly realistic figure of such proportion, making it extremely hard to imagine a human being beneath a suit.
In fact, because science is so skeptical, numerous tests were done (using the most advanced technology of recent times) in an attempt to prove the footage as a hoax. Firstly, the movement of the creature in the video has been unsuccesfully replicated on every occasion. The slumped figure, long dangling arms and huge stride simply cannot be copied nor could they have been made by a person, particularly by two low-paid men back in 1967. Secondly, if this was indeed a hoax and a person was actually beneath a suit, then how come the most expensive attempt at a reconstruction (made by the BBC in 1998) could not create something anywhere near as realistic as the original, some 30 years after the original incident? Furthermore, how can skeptics explain the obvious muscle definition along the legs and torso as the creature walks? What about the appearance of breasts? And the face (which has recently been maximised and made clearer) shows amazing similarities to that of other primates, such as a protruding bottom lip - something which can already be seen on chimpanzees.
Of course, there was a surge of material following the release of the Patterson footage. A great number of hoaxes and sightings started to pile in, and it is these that have tampered with the credibility of the original footage. People send in eye-witness reports each year. Most of them can be discounted, but amongst the thousands there has to be some truth. Many of the witnesses are in fact seemingly credible, and their stories are consistent with previous accounts. In some cases, evidence has been found at the scenes - footprints, fur, "stick creations" (a common male primate warning sign). Most interesting, upon scientific analysis of the fur and footprints, is evidence of dermal ridges and DNA sequences that belong in the primate family, yet are not consistent with any currently documented species.
So how come Bigfoot hasn't been found yet? Well, that question almost answers itself. Bigfoot has been found, there's just no solid, biological evidence sitting before scientists. For this myth to finally be rid, someone is unfortunately going to have to shoot (or perhaps tranquilize) one of these creatures and bring it out of the wilderness. But how would someone even go about finding a Bigfoot? They have thousands and thousands of miles of forest to hide in, and as reports suggest, they are very shy animals. We've found signs of them, but we just haven't dedicated enough time to actually capturing one. And the media isn't helping, constantly promoting the mystery of Bigfoot as a joke on society. As a result, no company in any industry has been bothered to fund a proper project to attempt to find the elusive creature. The question I have is why the media doesn't listen to the scientists who do say there is a strong possibility of a giant ape living in North America. All one has to do is look at similar stories from the world. Take the ferocious giant ape recently discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Up until recently only natives have witnessed it, but now a researcher has seen it, recorded it, and the species has been labelled as fact. There are numerous cave paintings of Bigfoot in North America and footage has been taken, but we still can't seem to accept it ...
The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) dedicates as much time as possible in the hunt for bigfoot. Over the years they've discovered some interesting evidence, while also compiling a number of stories from eye-witnesses. An interesting method they use, like so many others, is to set up a number of special cameras over 5-mile radiuses deep within the forest. These cameras are motion sensitive, and if anything walks in front of them a picture will be taken. The cameras are also Infra Red and can take the all-important night-time shots. Salt licks and other attractions - ranging from dangling CDs and windchimes are used to hopefully attract animals towards the camera. And they work. Many of the animals documented are deer and bears, but there have been a few exceptions. The most recent, and most interesting, has been the following:
The second picture of the possible Bigfoot.
Is it possible that these photos show us Bigfoot? The article on the site goes on to explain that the length of the arms almost certainly rules out a bear, yet more evidence of a "mangy bear bending over" are required. I recommend checking out the article and the rest of the site if the topic interests you - it's a great resource. *Note* Since the writing of this article the images were analysed and determined NOT to be of a bear, mangy or healthy.
The best video I've seen so far (I believe from the History channel) is split into 5 parts on Youtube. It's fascinating viewing and the start is one of the most intense introductions to a documentary I've ever seen, if not the most. The first part is here and you can link to the rest from there with ease: