Modern Day Lost World

[Tone]

Skeptic or believer - you have to admit this is pretty interesting.

[url]http://www.sylvanic.com[/url]

Most interesting is "The Expedition", "Jay's Incident", "Conclusion", "Letters for Readers", and "2005 Sylvanic Chronicle" sections.

I can't see the videos at work - so I'm really anxious to watch these at home because from what I hear they are very very compelling.

[url]http://www.sylvanic.com/video/video1.mpg[/url]

[url]http://www.sylvanic.com/video/video2.MOV[/url]

And I guess there is a 3rd one out there somewhere... I'll check it out at home.

[Lloyd95]

The entire internet is at your fingertips, and this is the best you can come up with that's "interesting"?

[Tone]

K I watched the videos last night... some of my other e-friends at Unexplained-Mysteries.com seem to be pretty gullable... because those videos aren't impressive at all. In Video 1 you can't see anything at all, except snow falling off some trees. Suppose to be a "dark figure" behind the trees at 38 seconds. I couldn't see it. The "growl" is pretty fake sounding, and the dialog from the camera lady is phoney sounding as well.

In Video 2 it could easily have been a bear, or a person in a suite. Again, not impressive. Ah well, kept me entertained for awhile yesterday. :]

[DutchBoY]

wasn't really impressed either....seen more convincing stuff from other legends

[Tone]

Hey check this out.. stabilized version of the famous Patterson footage:

[url]http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif[/url]

[TAVS]

Oh it's famous now?

[Tone]

Hell yeah.. it's the most famous "Bigfoot" footage there is.

So yeah, famouse to cryptozoologist and other paranormal dorks.

[vashti]

You know the guy that made that film admitted it was a hoax just before he died, right? (I am pretty sure that it was this footage.)

[Tone]

No, you are wrong.

Roger Patterson, the guy who filmed it, took his word to his grave claiming it was real. A LOT of people have claimed to be the guy WEARING the monkey suit, but no suit has EVER been found... a couple of television groups have tried to recreate the video, with today's technology (film was took in 1967) and they can't recreate it... It could quite possibly be the most elaborate hoax ever created, or actual footage of an unknown species living in the American Northwest.

The other man who was with Patterson no longer will talk about it, but in past interviews he said if it was a hoax, no one told him. Which was very dangerous since he had a shotgun with him.

The film has been reviewed a lot... some of the most notable points are the length of the arms and legs... Human arms are just not that long. Also it looks like you can see muscle movement under the "fur" - keep in mind that this was filmed in 1967.

Damn. UM is down right now, when it comes back up I'll pull up a lot more facts about this footage. It's very interesting, to me.

[vashti]

[url]http://skepdic.com/bigfoot.html[/url]

[Tone]

From your article:

However, according to veteran Hollywood director John Landis, “that famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers,” who helped create the ape suits in Planet of the Apes (1968). Howard Berger, of Hollywood’s KNB Effects Group, also has claimed that it was common knowledge within the film industry that Chambers was responsible for a hoax that turned Bigfoot into a worldwide cult.

Does that look like the same costume from Planet of the Apes??

According to Bob Heronimus/Greg Long, this was the suit used...

Now to me they just don't look the same...

Look at the length of the arms... it just does not fit human proportions. The arms could not have been extended with a simple forearm extension, as the elbow would be displaced, and in the video, it is clear that the elbow is not displaced.

Look at the muscle movement...





Another big topic, is the hip bulge.





It is said to either be a bone, or some form of injury, some kind of skin contusion or something. For more info on why they think it is a bone, with some pretty good evidence:
[url]http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10229[/url]

Look at the thigh muscle tighten up, definately some muscle definition.

As far as why so many people say the common "But I thought he admitted it was fake?"

The Imposters Were All Debunked

None of the various men who claimed they were the "man in the costume" were able to build a vaguely similar costume to support their claim. Some of these men tried and failed to build an approximate replica, the rest never even tried.

Professional skeptical debunkers have tried and failed. The best funded and organized attempt (funded by the British Broadcasting Corporation) to make a replica of the Patterson costume unwittingly demonstrated some of the anatomical oddities involved.


The BBC's well-funded failure to make a reasonable approximation of this man-in-a-costume hoax, has become among the strongest scientific proof that it is not man in a costume.



In the mid-1990's there was a deceptive British tabloid program co-produced by the BBC (eventually shown on the Discovery Channel in U.S. and Canada) called "X Creatures". Many people saw this show and vaguely recall its assertion that the Patterson footage was a hoax.

The narrator said there is an audio recording of the man who accompanied Roger Patterson that day, Bob Gimlin.

Just before a commercial break, the narrator says the recording of Gimlin is a startling admission regarding the authenticity of the famous Patterson footage.

In the next segment the narrator explains that there is a tape recorded interview with Gimlin from the 1970's, and the interview contains Gimlin's "confession" that it "could have been" a hoax.

Indeed, there was a recorded interview with Bob Gimlin made years before. It was a long interview regarding the footage. Bob was asked many questions about the events surrounding the incident. One of the questions put to him was whether it was possible (with a big emphasis on possible) that it could have been a sophisticated hoax without him being aware of it.

As you know, people begin their reply to questions like that by acknowledgeing that, yes, it's possible ... As a humble man, Gimlin did so also, and then explained why it was very unlikely that it was hoax.

But X Creatures didn't play the whole interview for the audience. They merely zeroed in on Gimlin's reply that it was possible that it could have been a hoax..

So, in context, Gimlin's "confession" was the customary acknowledgement that it was possible, because anything is possible. Gimlin did not say he thought it might be a hoax.

A British tabloid producer took Gimlin's "possible" out of context, and spun it as the partner's "confession" about the footage, creating and propagating the impression that Gimlin believes it was a hoax.

Many people in North America today will tell you they recall a television program in the 1990's discussing the Patterson footage, and the "confession" of the guy who was there with him in Bluff Creek.

Gimlin still lives in Yakima, Washington. Ever since that day in October of 1967, Gimlin has said the footage shows a real animal.

Gimlin has no financial stake in the footage, and never earned anything from it. It was Patterson's footage.

And finally, here is a comparison of the original Patterson film, and the BBC re-make:

[URL=http://img472.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pattybbccomp4ln.gif][/URL]

Notice the difference in arm length and bulk.

Real or fake... Have to admit it is very, very interesting piece of footage. We may never know the real answer.

[TAVS]

We do know the real answer Tone. It's Fake.

[Tone]

You can't prove it!

[TAVS]

You can't prove it!

As far as I'm concerned I can. It's completelty illogical to believe Bigfoot exhists. There would need to be more than one to support the species and given the human density in the states; it's very very improbable.

It's like Loch Ness; it's completely irrational to believe there is a big serpent in the lake.

[Tone]

I agree for the most part, it is highly improbable. But I'm still open to the idea there might be an unidentified species of ape roaming the deep forests of the Northwest. I think great than 90% of all reports/stories/sightings are false.. either made up or someone seeing a bear out the corner of they eyes.

The number 1 case against "Bigfoot" is the lack of a body. You'd think by now a dead one would have been found? But who knows, maybe they eat their dead or something.

I don't believe in Loch Ness.