David Hatcher Childress: Yetis, Sasquatch and Hairy Giants

Actually no, it is not. Oddly enough 35 years ago, I saw the very first Bigfoot not more than 400 yards behind this shot. Bob brought out his truck during a break in the stock car races. They parked a car with no tires on it in the middle of the track and Bob drove his very first Bigfoot very slowly in low range and stopped when his truck touched the back bumper of the car. The crowd was going crazy as he revved up the engine dropped the clutch and plopped the front tires on the trunk. He then rolled closer until the back tires were touching th ebumper and dropped the clutch again and with a little trouble climbed up on the car so the front wheels were on the hood and the back on the trunk. The crowd went WILD! He then very slowly dropped the front then back wheels on the ground and slowly drove away. That was the WHOLE monster truck show.

Here is the elusive Ms Bigfoot on the run after she spotted me. It is a bit blurry but not a bad shot considering how shook up I was after startling her.

most incredible was this shot of a Yeti or maybe a Bigfoot/Ram hybrid AND a shot of a crashed disk shaped object in the SAME photo!

I would echo that somewhat. I think if there were such a thing we'd have found their bones and artifacts by now. There would be (real) bigfoot bones and pelts in natural history museums. We don't have any of that. Personally, I think the whole bigfoot business is driven by hoaxers. The famous film is an admitted fake, the captured beast was fake, every "bigfootprint" I've seen looks terribly fake.

Growing up in N.C. I was exposed to many bizarre tales told by "good old boys" trying to impress, scare, or get some money out of the gullible. I will never forget the barber who liked to tell this intricate story of spotting a centaur while hunting. He'd have everyone in the shop hanging on every word. Everyone knew he was full of it (expect maybe some of us kids) but they really loved to hear the story.

Until last year, I *knew* that North American big critters like Sasquatch and Bigfoot were just figments of imagination, misidentified animals and hoaxes by people supplementing incomes with websites and 'bigfoot hunting tours.' Basically, gravy trains and bullshit.

No bones, no bodies, no roadkill, no young, no dung, no nests, not enough food to sustain populations. Logic and lack of evidence for their existence should be enough to rule them out.

After reading about some interesting reports, I'm now *almost* convinced they don't exist. An element of doubt has surfaced and I wonder why people keep reporting seeing these things?

I've seen it theorized that these big cat sightings might be connected to ancestral memories of predation from humanity's primitive past. I don't understand how this would relate to Bigfoot, though, as there's no evidence of such creatures having existed that I'm aware of.

There are probably several sociological/psychological reason for it. This sort of thing has been going on as long as we've been talking to each other. Weird scary animals are in our oldest myths and stories. Bubba has always been trying to get over on the snotty nosed city boys. Etc., etc., etc.

The dermal ridge stuff stuff is interesting, though apparently it could be caused in some cases by casting artifacts that look similar (though that's not to say that's true in all cases). There are some forensic details on some prints that show mid foot flexing etc that would be difficult (though not impossible) to fake.
With regards to the Patterson film, there are several competing claims to have faked it, so someone's not telling the truth! There's a good look at the claims in these articles:
CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: MICHAEL NEWTON: Patty Whacked, Part 1: Burbank Bigfoot
CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: MICHAEL NEWTON: Patty-Whacked, Part 2: Unusual Suspects
CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: MICHAEL NEWTON: Patty-Whacked, Part 3: Heironimus Botched
Obviously, debunking the claims of specific hoaxes doesn't mean the film shows an unknown primate, just that those claims to have faked it are iffy.
While it's not impossible that a large primate, especially if it's close to human in intelligence could remain hidden in remoter parts of North America, there are reports from areas that a primate just couldn't exist- for instance, there are reports from the UK! I think also the Australian Yowie is troublesome in that regard- the environment there may well support a creature like that, but providing a model how that creaure got there is much harder, given that most Australian mammals are marsupials. I've even seen passing references to a report from Antartica! That suggests that people are inclined to see hairy human like creatures under certain, as yet undetermined, conditions.
Having said that, that doesn't negate the possibility that unknown primates could exist in remoter corners of the world- the oran pendak is a good candidate for being a real animal. The Centre For Fortean Zoology brought some hair back last year, and recent analysis suggests that it was similar to oran utan hair (there's no oran utans anywhere near the location they were found, so even if it's an undiscovered population of oran utans, it's still potentially significant).

I have heard of many instances of primate-like hair being found in bigfoot hotspots around the world that has been analysed and verified as non-human, and is the hair of no naturally occuring local wildlife. Why is this never front page news. Surely an unknown primate stalking the backwoods of the US is newsworthy ?
Are these hair samples proof ?

I doubt that there is anything that the right artist could not reproduce. The real proof is a carcass. Everything else is just a tease.

I'm extremely skeptical of bigfoot in any form biological or paranormal. That said I do enjoy the stories. ON the Patterson film there was always something about the way the "bigfoot" turned his body and seemed to look at the camera. Well, last winter I had on a hoody and was walking on a road (I don't say this to debunk just to say it was interesting.) I turned to look back at an approaching car. As I turned I had to compensate for the "hood on my sweatshirt" It got me to thinking that the way I "turned" was very similar to the way the "creature" in the famous film turned. As if he/she/it were "compensating" (imo) for a "suit,mask,hood." Anyway, just a thought.

Without a type specimen (i.e. a known bigfoot) to match unusal hairs against, all it can really said is that they don't match known primates or local wild life. Hair samples, foot prints, droopings, even dna evidence, are interesting and may suggest there's a real creature there but the only way to definitely prove bigfoot exists is for one to be captured, found dead or killed, and scientifcally described like any other species.
As far as I know, there's been no comparison between the different hair samples etc- it would be interesting for this to be done to find out if there's a consistency there.

I think you are talking about the The Patterson-Gimlin Film. The guy in the suit (Bob Heironimus) came out and admitted it was a hoax.

yes he did and an analysis of his gait was compared and matched to the Patterson bigfoot.

There are a number of problems with Heironimus' testimony such as contradictions in details of the suit, location and so on- dealt with in detail in the third of the articles I posted on the other page if you're interested. There's been quite a few contradictory analysis of the film over the years, some saying it could be replicated by human, other not, some varying depending what speed the film was shot at. There are something like 3 or 4 conflicting claims over who actually made the film.
For me, Kal Korff's involvement with Heironimus' tale is a bit of a red flag, and his analysis of the film I'd take with a bucket of salt. At the resolutions involved, I'd no more believe that he can tell whoever's in the suit had a glass eye than I would those to claim they can see a baby bigfoot clinging onto Patty!
For me, it's not been convincingly proved one way or the other. If it is the real thing, the question remains why no-one has taken footage of this quality since. If it's a man in a suit, the question is which man in which suit, and also why no-one else has managed a fake this good (and let's face it, virtually every other piece of alleged BF footage I've seen is either very clearly a man in a suit, or so blurry it could be anything).

I recall seeing an episode of the show Monsterquest, where the hoax theory was poo-pooed. They got a big guy of roughly the same size as the ' creature' in the original film, and went through rigourous means of replicating the film by ways of measuring, and frame by frame movement . It was impossible for the human guy in the suit to get into some of the positions that the thing in the original movie appeared. Muscle definition and gait were all wrong. not to mention the thing was taller.
I would surmise that the alleged ' hoaxer' who 'admitted' to being in the suit , just wanted some attention, and had nothing to do with the Patterson footage. For me , at least, this film is still in my grey basket. Something still gives me the chills when i watch it.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

And I helped Billy Meier fake HIS photos. The guy might just want attention ?