Views From Our Readers

#V0001

Posted by D-dirt on January 03, 1999 at 20:00:39:
In Reply to: Hoaxes Revealed? Yeah, right. posted by paul on December 28, 1998 at 23:06:43:

: The Fox Television show that had been advertised as finally revealing, among other things, the truth behind the Patterson footage aired tonight (12.28.98) without a single shred of concrete evidence discounting the authenticity of the film's capturing of a Sasquatch. Their so-called expert re-hashed the same tired "man-in-a-suit" claim that has been used to discredit the event since it first was made public, and in fact, the person himself perported by some to have been that supposed actor absolutely denied without hesitation that he took part in this film. There was NO smoking gun. NOTHING to convince me of a hoax. I am not a gulliable person, and am fully open to being proven wrong if the evidence puts me in my place, but this was nothing more than a lame attempt to make nothing out of something. To lump it in with 2 other anonymous video taped bigfoot "sightings" that scream fraud, along with the "Alien Autopsy" sham was a disgrace. So there.
I've got to agree insofar as I was terribly let down by that show. I don't own a TV, and went to somebody else's house specially to watch the show.
Now let me state right off that I am NOT a true believer in bigfoot, I rank as an interested skeptic (I wish bigfoot were real). My problem with that show is that it gave absolutely no intelligent information one way or the other. They would have needed at least the full hour to do justice to any of the issues they "covered". For instance, they had the one "expert" screaming into the camera that the footprints could not have been made by the creature in the film then went merrily on their way without showing us HOW this claim was true.
In my opinion there are compelling reasons to doubt the authenticity of that film, but the FOX show did not cover any of them. First, Patterson was a known con artist AND a professional photographer, so what more natural candidate to pull the hoax could you find? Second, the question still stands as to what exact speed the fim used. Scientific analysis holds that of the two most popular f-stops (pardon my stepping into photographic terminology that I don't really understand myself) that might have been used, if it's one speed the film shows a nonhuman creature but if it's the other then the film clearly is a man in a monkey suit. On this head, we've got a 50-50 chance of authenticity, but since Patterson always declined to give the specific information (I think he claimed he didn't know - again, he's a pro so shouldn't he know?) on which speed he was using, we've again got a pretty good case for a hoax. Third, we have the question about examining the film for clues as to whether it's a monkey suit, which FOX completely missed the boat on. I hadn't seen this film in many years, and I after watching FOX's version I have to say the area around the hips does look suspiciously "bunchy" - I've read this criticism somewhere. It looks a little like a poorly-fitted costume around the butt. Also, the show failed to bring out the oddity of the foot apparently having a backward projection of the sole at the heel. Finally, one final question occurred to me personally after watching the FOX show, so I wonder what other people think. Patterson always explained the first frames that are jerky and not focused on the creature as having to do with his horse rearing and trying to get away. I am highly suspicious after seeing that film again, because wouldn't it take an incredibly strong man to hold a horse that's trying to get away with one hand and keep the camera as NEARLY on target as he does in those early frames? Specifically, it seemed like all the movement in the frame was UP AND DOWN, but with a horse pulling away from him shouldn't most of the camera movement have been SIDEWAYS? It really looks to me like a guy firmly anchored in one spot (i.e. without an 1100 lb. animal tugging on him) who's jerking the camera up and down enough to keep the creature just out of the frame.

To Read more on this topic of discussion Click Here to read viewpoint Posted by Brian on January 09, 1999 at 19:43:24:
In Reply to: The FOX TV Show posted by D-dirt on January 03, 1999 at 20:00:39: