A man with a skeptical bent, Greg Long, has published a book, The Making Of Bigfoot — The Inside Story, in which he claims to have found not only the man who wore the gorilla suit in the famous 1967 film of a female Bigfoot but also the guy who supplied the suit. There is no doubt that the film has been the best — although not the only — piece of evidence for the animal. It is about 60 seconds of hastily shot footage of a female Bigfoot ambling across a clearing in northern California. Two men, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, claimed to have stumbled across the creature as they wandered through the woods. The odds against acceptance of the film should have been pretty high. After all, the two men had announced in advance they were out looking for a Bigfoot and no other convincing visual record of the animal has turned up since. But even though there were plenty of people who immediately dismissed it as a hoax, the film is still taken seriously by many. This is where the "science" comes in: An endless number of self-proclaimed experts has analyzed the film (each asserting that his analysis has been "frame-by-frame," each using the latest technology) and found evidence that the creature in the film must be the real thing. The movements of the muscles underneath the skin can be seen clearly, something that would be impossible for a man wearing a loose-fitting suit. The timing and length of the strides are not human; the rotation of the torso as the animal glances back at the camera couldn't be accomplished with a suit; the arms are too long to be human — the list goes on and on. These analyses have been muddied by the fact that Patterson wasn't sure whether the camera was set to film at 16 or 24 feet per second. One of the best studies, decades ago, claimed that at 24 feet per second, the movements were human, but that at 16 feet per second, they couldn't be. How handy for the perpetuation of the story that there was this uncertainty!
View: Full Article | Source: The Star
Nevermind.
Why should this be any different.
besides that, point is, california forest isnt as dense as some may believe
i wasn't offended...just trying to clarify a point....
AbductingU, please, i apologize on account of my skepticism in many of the threads and topical discussions here...i am just trying to get a proven fact...i do believe in a lot of the things here, i suppose i just like playing devil's advocate. AbductingU, i would gladly leave the forum if it were to upset you this much and i hope that we can continue to co-exist on this forum with my skeptic approach and your hard-lined belief in things...i think it makes great for debate in the forums. I apologize if i have offended you, i do have my own beliefs and do not wish for them to offend anyone.