Friday, January 11, 2013

Today in Bigfoot History | JAN 11 | "Zipper" Found on Patty "Bigfoot Costume"

Today, January 11, in 1999 the color plate of frame 352 from the Patterson/Gimlin film was carefully examined by imaging specialists at a color technology laboratory in Ventura, California. State-of-the-art scanners were used to magnify the image down to the color-point level.

All of this came about due to a press conference called by Cliff Cook and the supporting testimony of his associate Chris Murphy. Murphy claimed to of found a bell shape (aka zipper pull tab) within the grainy film image and even took the time to hand craft a pretzel-like, clay model of this bell shape.

The final image in the series shows the detail in question at approximately 1600% magnification. At this level of resolution the individual points of color are clearly visible.

Murphy's "bell-shaped object" is not readily discernible at any level of resolution. To the naked eye the "object" appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. At increasingly higher magnification this detail still appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. Several other parts of the bigfoot figure show similar blotches of light reflecting off the fur.

The detail in question has no clear edges, and has no visible "artificial" shape. The lab tests demonstrated that a clear magnification of the color plate does not reveal anything like the pretzel-like object displayed at Crook's press conference. The image analysts stated that Murphy seems to be relying on some "highly imaginative, Rorschach-like interpretations of fuzzy details in enlargements of the color plates."

It is important to note The Oregonian on this same day had a headline "BIGFOOT PROOF CALLED 'MAN IN MONKEY SUIT'" The article was released by United Press International and begins with these two paragraphs...

BIGFOOT PROOF CALLED 'MAN IN MONKEY SUIT'
PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 11 (UPI) _ Two longtime trackers of the legendary creature Sasquatch say grainy film footage that allegedly proves the existence of the beast also called Bigfoot shows nothing more than a ``man in a monkey suit.''

The Oregonian newspaper reports today that Bigfoot trackers Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy have determined that four magnified frames from the so-called ``Patterson-Gimlin Film'' show tracings of a bell-shaped fastener on the creature's waist, indicating that the image is likely that of a human being wearing a costume.


The Associated press chimes in as well with this report reprinted below...

CLAIMS AGAINST BIGFOOT FILM SET ENTHUSIASTS AT ODDS
By JOHN M. HUBBELL
Associated Press

BOTHELL, Wash. (AP) - In the hearts and minds of true believers, Bigfoot's existence has long been enshrined in a single minute of jerky, grainy footage of a startled sasquatch retreating into the upper California woods.

But two enthusiasts of the legendary being are alleging four magnified frames of the 16 mm footage show tracings of a bell-shaped fastener at Bigfoot's waist. They say the creature in the so-called Patterson-Gimlin Film can finally be dismissed as a man in a monkey suit.




"It was a hoax,'' said Cliff Crook, a longtime Bigfoot tracker who devotes rooms to sasquatch memorabilia in this suburb north of Seattle. "How can an artificial, manmade object end up on a Bigfoot?''

The film, purportedly showing a female Bigfoot fleeing a stream-bed, was taken by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin on Oct. 20, 1967. It has largely withstood independent scrutiny and, for many steeped in the lore of the man-beast, has become bedrock evidence of its very existence.

"There's no way of really detracting from it,'' said Ray Crowe, president of the Western Bigfoot Society in Portland, Ore. The image captured in the footage "has a fluid motion. It's a wild creature of nature.''

The film is important because many Bigfoot believers compare all plaster casts of telltale footprints against those made by Patterson the day he purportedly filmed the creature slinking across a sandbar in the Six Rivers National Forest.

Discredit the footage, experts agree, and the gold standard for Bigfoot tracks will be washed away.

Crook bases his assertion on computer enhancements performed by Chris Murphy, a Bigfoot buff from Vancouver, British Columbia, who maintains he discovered an aberration in the footage in 1995 while helping his son Daniel prepare a class project.

Murphy declined to be interviewed, instead supplying a written narrative detailing his discovery.

According to that account, the Murphys used a color photocopier to duplicate a frame of the Patterson film. Zooming in again and again, Chris Murphy became suspicious.

To him, something geometric - vaguely the shape of a bottle opener - seemed to take shape at Bigfoot's waist. Murphy maintains that four sequential computer-scanned frames of the film show the object in different positions, as if it were swinging. He theorizes something is cinching the sasquatch costume in place.

Murphy made a clay model of the object and in October gave that and the enlargements to Crook, a charter-bus driver transfixed by sasquatch stories since 1957. That's the year he made a camping trip with teen-age friends on Washington's Olympic Peninsula that ended with telltale signs of a sasquatch encounter: a rustling of brush, a throaty growl and an ever-worsening hallmark musk.

Decades later, at 58, spare rooms in his home are dubbed "Bigfoot Central,'' stuffed with photos, plaster casts and maps dotted with push-pins that chart sasquatch sightings.

Now his hoax assertion is giving rise to a howl that would make a Bigfoot proud. Longtime enthusiasts smell a deserter.

One recent e-mail was typical of the incredulity Crook's allegation of a costume fastener is up against.

"Cliff, Cliff, Cliff,'' it scolded. "That's matted feces.''

"There are two witnesses (and) there are footprints,'' said Rene Dahinden, a Richmond, British Columbia, researcher who shares the film's copyright. "We've never had anything like it previously, and anything like it since.''

Dahinden, 68, discounts Murphy as an amateur. "He wasn't involved in this until 1993,'' Dahinden said. "He couldn't spell the name 'sasquatch' before that.''
Grover Krantz, a Washington State University anthropology professor and Bigfoot expert, also believes firmly in the old footage.

"I fully accept the Patterson film,'' Krantz said. "If there was a fastener, it could not be seen in an enlargement. The film grain is such that it cannot hold an image of something that small.''

The truth of the Patterson-Gimlin film remains as elusive as Bigfoot itself. Enthusiasts such as Krantz and Crowe see the film as a building block for their faith. And the faiths of Crook and Murphy endure in spite of it.

Crook knows that, in dissent, he and Murphy are "far outnumbered.''

"There's a few broken friendships because of this,'' Crook said. "I just figured, 'This is a search for the truth. When it becomes something different, that's when it should stop.'''

Maybe a Bigfoot will one day view the film, Crook figures, and offer its own disapproving grunt.

"There's just too much evidence that these creatures do inhabit certain areas out there,'' Crook said, ever sanguine. "Even though the Patterson film is a hoax, it doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist.''

16 comments:

  1. this site is only trying to prove BF isn't real why?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, you have misinterpreted the meaning of the post. The alleged zipper was nothing more than a reflection or artifact. All attempts to debunk the PG film have failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comment is telling, though, isn't it? All the anti-skeptical, really, anti-scientific ranting that goes on has encouraged the less-curious among us to this kind of attitude. They attack any discussion, any legitimate questioning of evidence. Bigfoot is becoming a faith-based industry, or maybe a cult. It's not scientists who need to "open their minds," as the refrain always goes. Bigfoot fans need to develop the patience and maturity to read and reason.

      Delete
  3. A cautious skepticism is your best tool when dealing in this game. Unfortunately, most of the time these cases are hoaxes or misidentification. PG however has stood the test of time (and technology). It is healthy to be skeptical. Some individuals think that being skeptical of encounters or evidence means you are narrow minded or trolling. When in actuality it means that you require the full story to be presented before passing judgement. BFers of all people should know that there are attempts made to discredit us, by using our desire for discovery against us. Additionally, analysis and skepticism protects us from misleading and false characteristics ascribed to the subject. In short, if you can not approach the subject with objectivity then your viewpoint is skewed and biased.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent argument laissezfairescience. Speaking of the Patterson/gimlin film standing the test of time. I had a story I was going to publish about how Phillip Morris still can't duplicate the P/G film, even with today's technology. Craig Woolheater beat me to it at Cryptomundo. http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/philip-morris-debunks-bigfoot/

      This time he hired somebody to make a Bigfoot costume and still looks fake.

      Delete
  4. Thanks for showing me that cryptomundo thread, too bad they beat you to it. I think it is great that people are still trying to debunk Patty. It is a testament to the veracity of the footage, it would not still be "the" footage if it was not so astounding. Once again technology has failed to replicate the subject in question. I am not an FBFBite, but i do like their analysis of the gait/angle of Patty's step. The fact that it can only be recreated by running makes it very compelling (since Patty doesn't run away, just briskly walks). I try to tell people, "if I could debunk Patty I would, but I can't and neither can anyone else so far." It's just too good to be faked IMHO. I see Ray Crowe mentioned above. I haven't heard anything about Ray in quite a while. Has he left the field or having health problems? I was at Patty home plate the other day, made me think of him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Guy is this the begaining of the Bolb Sasquatch?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "highly imaginative, Rorschach-like interpretations of fuzzy details in enlargements of the color plates."

    There's been a lot of this on both sides of the debate. You should always proceed with a certain amount of skepticism but not to the extent that you cling to your interpretations as if you have tapped the source of all truth. Always have the humility to acknowledge you could be wrong and that the fewer pixels in the image the greater the possibility of misinterpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is this where MK Davis draws his greatest source of inspiration? If they could find a zipper pull, why didn't they also see the bullets and the carnage from government genocide taking place? Idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This was no hoax, and that's all I have to say

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was wondering why he failed to mention which fil he got the image from. The original, the original that was individually digitalized, from each frame, into HD, or the altered mega copies that have lost all their great clarification and gained add on's since the original! In my opinion, there was no way to make a costume look like a silver back Gorilla back in 1967 because no Gorilla's were known yet, and the Bigfoot, did not look like a man in a suit but a female animal. Even with today's attempts at making someone look like a Bigfoot has failed. Not only in the look of the fur, but the size, gait, and posture as well! Skeptics! Where would we be without them and Hoaxers, just need to go away quietly into the night, but they won't! LOL. I know I have seen and had a few experiences with Bigfoot. I'm no expert but I'm not an idiot either!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Any discussion of the possibility that the Patterson Bigfoot is nothing more than a man in a costume must also deal with two inescapable facts: first, since it is almost inconceivable that one person could have created such a costume on his or her own, it is extremely surprising that no one has EVER publicly and unequivocally come forward to claim, with accompanying proof, that they played a major part in producing this costume; surely photos would have been taken at various stages in the production process, which could be used to substantiate such a claim.

    Secondly, it is extremely odd that the costume, if it indeed exists, has never been found. Given that many special effects experts have argued that the technology did not exist in the late 60s to produce such a sophisticated costume, anyone who had manufactured one at that time would surely never have destroyed it, and indeed, would have wanted to bring it to the attention of Hollywood filmmakers, in the hopes of landing a lucrative contract, for anyone that much ahead of their time would be very much in demand.

    That a Hollywood special effects person entered into an agreement with Patterson to make a Bigfoot suit also stretches credulity. Why would anyone do such a thing? Patterson was not wealthy, and could hardly have made such a person a financial offer sufficiently large that they couldn't refuse. I cannot imagine anyone spending what must have been a considerable amount of time for a mere lark, at their own expense. The odd individual faking a few footprints is well within the realm of possibility; creating the Patterson Bigfoot, under such circumstances, is beyond belief.

    ReplyDelete
  12. you can take the worst felon who has not paid anybody a penny back in his life make a film of a bear walking across his back yard .you can have splices in the film you could have duck prints,horse prints ,hogprints,dog print or tire tracks in the yard.It doesnt matter if he stole the camera or owned it out right.He could have a gorilla suit or a bear suit in the trunk of his car . His neighbors could love him or hate him none of this matters.If he says its a film of a real bear and others say its not the only thing that matters is proving the image in the film isnt a real bear none of the other stuff matters.Now after 47 years if film analysis if you cant prove the bear isnt real then guess what the bear in the film probably is real.

    ReplyDelete
  13. its amazing how people totally dismiss the creature in the film..then grab at straws like zippers etc.to try to prove this film is a hoax...though they dismiss the fact that its impossible for a person in a suit can duplicate the creature.

    ReplyDelete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too.

Please read our terms of use policy.