Posts
If we assume that bigfoot is a mammal, then we can conclude that the species is susceptible to parasites and diseases that are common among other mammals. Some common mammalian diseases include rabies, hemorrhagic fever, and the plague (yes- the plague still exists and cases are reported yearly in the the US). The presence of such diseases increases the odds of finding bigfoot that are acting abnormally (such as being conspicuous), that are severely weakened, or have died in unusual and obvious places. Of course, its doesn't guarantee that we will observe any of this, but it does improve the odds.
I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions from this tidbit of information.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A Note About the Patterson Film
Summary of points
1) The famous Patterson footage of bigfoot is hotly debated, but two aspects, considered separately from other aspects of the film, indicate that the film is not a hoax. These two aspects involve the bigfoot looking into the camera and the filmmakers firsthand accounts of the bigfoot.
So far my blogs have all been about the lack of evidence for the existence of bigfoot. But now I'd like to address the most famous piece of evidence, the "Patterson film". If you don't know it by name, you'd know it by sight. The Patterson film is the most widely played footage of bigfoot and offers the best glimpse of this supposed creature. The brief film, which was shot in the 1960s, shows a bigfoot walking briskly away from a stream bed and into the surrounding forest. The characteristic moment is when the creature turns it's head and looks into the camera for a brief moment.
There are two aspects surrounding the film that are intriguing and suggests to me that this film isn't a hoax. First, as I mentioned before the footage is defined by the brief moment when the bigfoot turns and looks directly into the camera. It is this look that strikes me as odd. If this film was a hoax, this would be a terrible directing call. The most obvious part of the costume would be the face. In other words, it seems that the face and head would be the hardest part to make authentic. By looking directly into the camera, the costumed creature would be exposing the weakest, or most easily scrutinized, aspect of the costume. Why would hoaxers choose to do this? I don't think they would, unless the look was an unscripted act on the part of the person in the costume.
Another aspect surrounding this film relates to statements made by the two people who made the film. When asked to give their impression of the stature of the beast, one said it was only about 6 feet tall and maybe 350 pounds. If the film was a hoax, wouldn't we expect them to say the creature was larger, since it is popularly believed be 8 -10 feet tall and about 800 lbs? Wouldn't they want to dispel any notion that it was a human in a suit? By admitting that the creature was only 6 foot and about 350 lbs, they're leaving open the possibility that it is a human. However, maybe the filmmakers realized that forensic analysis of the film could accurately describe the true height of the creature, thus they told the truth to retain credibility.
Regardless, these are two interesting aspects of this film that I haven't heard anyone discuss before. Considering just these two aspects, the film seems credible, unless the filmmakers were just careless.
1) The famous Patterson footage of bigfoot is hotly debated, but two aspects, considered separately from other aspects of the film, indicate that the film is not a hoax. These two aspects involve the bigfoot looking into the camera and the filmmakers firsthand accounts of the bigfoot.
So far my blogs have all been about the lack of evidence for the existence of bigfoot. But now I'd like to address the most famous piece of evidence, the "Patterson film". If you don't know it by name, you'd know it by sight. The Patterson film is the most widely played footage of bigfoot and offers the best glimpse of this supposed creature. The brief film, which was shot in the 1960s, shows a bigfoot walking briskly away from a stream bed and into the surrounding forest. The characteristic moment is when the creature turns it's head and looks into the camera for a brief moment.
There are two aspects surrounding the film that are intriguing and suggests to me that this film isn't a hoax. First, as I mentioned before the footage is defined by the brief moment when the bigfoot turns and looks directly into the camera. It is this look that strikes me as odd. If this film was a hoax, this would be a terrible directing call. The most obvious part of the costume would be the face. In other words, it seems that the face and head would be the hardest part to make authentic. By looking directly into the camera, the costumed creature would be exposing the weakest, or most easily scrutinized, aspect of the costume. Why would hoaxers choose to do this? I don't think they would, unless the look was an unscripted act on the part of the person in the costume.
Another aspect surrounding this film relates to statements made by the two people who made the film. When asked to give their impression of the stature of the beast, one said it was only about 6 feet tall and maybe 350 pounds. If the film was a hoax, wouldn't we expect them to say the creature was larger, since it is popularly believed be 8 -10 feet tall and about 800 lbs? Wouldn't they want to dispel any notion that it was a human in a suit? By admitting that the creature was only 6 foot and about 350 lbs, they're leaving open the possibility that it is a human. However, maybe the filmmakers realized that forensic analysis of the film could accurately describe the true height of the creature, thus they told the truth to retain credibility.
Regardless, these are two interesting aspects of this film that I haven't heard anyone discuss before. Considering just these two aspects, the film seems credible, unless the filmmakers were just careless.
New Feature
I've decided to add a "summary of points" at the beginning of each essay/blog, including the blogs already posted. I thought that having a concise summary at the beginning can give readers a heads-up on what to expect and hopefully pique their interest. Additionally, I hope the summary can help readers remember the important point when formulating their own comments. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)