Watch this Nolan Canova interview, a Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot skeptic [Video]
 |
| Nolan Canova |
Nolan Canova is a famed paranormal and pop culture expert in the Tampa area. He operates a website at CrazedFanboy.com. Canova says he don't believe the Bigfoot in the Patterson footage was a real Sasquatch. His reasons? Watch below.
Part 1
The Costume
The Costume
Part 2
Fraud
Everyone has tried to explain away the bigfoot in the patterson film...well then what about the second bigfoot in the patterson film? can they explain it way as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0mlUykA_Q
Lol this guys clueless..Theres no video of a costume like pattersons..The only thing out there is Blevins video where he spent ten years making a costume with all the modern technology available today to disprove the pg film..And then he filmed himself in it and its LAUGHABLE..I mean its horrible, not even CLOSE..So if Blevin couldnt do it with all the stretch fabrics available today and everything else how in HELL did pg do it fifty years ago ??
DeleteIt's absolutely true you can make money on mysteries forever, which is one reason why I'm skeptical about the existence of bigfoot (and anything else for which evidence is lacking).
ReplyDeleteHowever, Canova fails to explain how enhancing an image can create artifacts that look like bouncing boobies, skin stretching and flexing muscles. If he could show how this could happen, I'd write off the Patterson film.
The fact that he's willing to say BF could exist, says he doesn't have an agenda. People who totally refuse to believe BF could exist, are questionable at best when putting up a case. I appreciate what this man is saying about the context in which the film was done--this has always been the sticking point for me. I also think that at the point, whether or not P-G film is true, it doesn't change a damn thing. It can't prove its existence and it can't disprove it, because it's not flesh and blood. It still gets down to a creature or solid DNA evidence. It's fun to watch, but I have nothing invested in it being real or not because it's not helpful. It's like capturing a picture of Elvis and then trying to say it was taken after he was supposedly dead. I can only prove there is a person photographed who looks like Elvis, but I have no way to prove how it was taken, if it was fraud, but I still know that Elvis did at some point exist. We're still waiting for that proof that BF did exist, then we can worry about if the film is true or not.
ReplyDeletePatterson used a modified gorilla suit. He apparently fooled a lot of people with it.
ReplyDeleteI dont see it as a question of belief. That sounds quasi-religious. Really, it is a question of evidence and so far nothing is conclusive. I am not willing to issue a verdict either way. The PG film is a real mystery, and not easily dismissed.
ReplyDeleteIive in the Santa Cruz mountains in California and every day I see a relatively small portion of the total wilderness here. The areas I am able to observe even casually leave little question that a small population of animals could remain hidden fairly easily here, let alone in the entire pacific north west. In fact Mike Rugg's museum is a short 3 miles across town.
Remember folks, an open mind entertains all possibilities pro and con.
I agree with much of what the guy says as far as "mining the vein" and his perspective on the film being a hoax.
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn't find was any new insight on the PG film.Could it be a hoax,yes it could be.Could the film be genuine,yes it could be.This may be something we will never know.
No mention was made of the possible second Bigfoot as shown by Crypto Hunters and keefofus12 on YouTube.
He was nice enough to say that most researchers are genuine,it's something that I appreciate.If someone offered me money to do what I enjoy doing,would I take it?Yes I would,because it would allow me to devote my entire energy on the subject.It would all depend on the production company/benefactor/patron.
I don't begrudge anyone for that as long as they are sincere with their work.
I still don't know about the PG film.My heart says "believe" but my mind says "is there something I'm missing or not seeing?"I don't like being duped and I don't know anyone who does.
As with all Bigfoot related things,we need to keep an open mind and temper it with logic.
Just some random dude on a soapbox spouting old, debunked theories. Not really worth a post.
ReplyDeleteI think that people have a right to question the validity of the famous Patteron footage:
ReplyDelete1)According to what's on the internet about him, the guy (Patterson) was of questionable character and was always broke and looking for ways to make money.
2) Before the 1967 footage was taken, Patterson tried to get financial backing to make a low budget fictitious bigfoot film. The film's plot involved an Indian tracker guide (supposedly, some say, played by his friend Bob Gimlin wearing a wig) helping a group of cowboys track down a sasquatch.
3) Before the 1967 footage was taken, Patterson
wrote a self-published book about bigfoot. The book includes drawings of what bigfoot supposedly looks like. One illustration is of a female bigfoot with breasts.
4) Well known Hollywood costume maker Philip Morris, who never met Patterson in person, claims to have sent Patterson one of his professional gorilla suits prior to Patterson shooting his famous footage. Who knows if this is true? Why would Morris lie about it (some might say to advertise his costume business)?
5) Many have tried to put forth the idea that Patterson was too simple minded and unskilled to be able to pull off a hoax involving a complex costume made from a modified gorilla suit. Really? How does anybody know this? Because he was a cowboy involved with rodeos that makes him simpleton? Hardly. Patterson was a leather worker. Not only was he a skilled leather worker, but he owned a complete set of leather working tools. He was more than capable of modifying a costume, and he had the tools to do it.
6) Patterson drives from Washington to California for the sole purpose of filming a bigfoot. Lo and behold, he finds a bigfoot and succeeds in filming it (not only that, but it's a female bigfoot with breasts like his illustration in his pre-footage book).
Given what is known about Patterson's character and bigfoot (attempts at money making)background, it seems more likely that he created a hoax. A very good hoax, but a hoax nevertheless.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI found your third point particularly damning: "3) Before the 1967 footage was taken, Patterson
wrote a self-published book about bigfoot. The book includes drawings of what bigfoot supposedly looks like. One illustration is of a female bigfoot with breasts."
One of the selling points of the video for me was the fact the animal is female. Apparently, I underestimated Patterson's ability to think up something like that. Can you point me to the book he wrote?
I'd also very much like to see the commercial gorilla suit he bought. I'd like to know how he modified it.
If this was faked, Robert Gimlin went into hiding because he could no longer keep a straight face while talking with true believers. :)
44 years and counting since the PG film was shot. Hundreds if not thousands of qualified experts reviewing the film, trying to find any plausible evidence that points to a hoax. Things to consider:
ReplyDelete1.A cowboy and his buddy shoot the video using a hand held camera.
2. No one can reproduce the "suit" with todays technology.
3. No one can reproduce the footage with such graphic details as the original film. (Muscle flexation, natural hair movement, etc.)
4. Dermal ridging in the tracks left at the sight.
Wow, in order to create this "hoax" Patterson and Gimlin are the smartest, most technologically advanced, sophistcated brilliant minds that the world has ever known with unlimited financial resources to pull off such a hoax with technology that didn't even exist, OR THE FILM IS AUTHENTIC.
If the film is a hoax, maybe Patterson and Gimlin are aliens using high-tech computer imagery etc. That is another theory we could throw out there. This theory is as easily proved as proving this film a hoax has been.
There is no "dermal ridging" on any of the tracks left by the Patterson/Gimlin subject. The soil was too sandy to retain fine detail.
ReplyDeleteThe book that Patterson wrote prior to the famous 1967 filming is titled: Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Believe it or not, you can purchase a reprint of it via Amazon.com, also check E-bay. The Patterson book was republished as part of a book titled The Bigfoot Film Controversy. However, I do not know if this reprint (which makes up about two-thirds of this book) is 100% accurate to the original Patterson book or if any changes have been made to the contents. You can cut and paste this link to Amazon:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Film-Controversy-Roger-Patterson/dp/0888395817
A poster above wrote, "Wow, in order to create this "hoax" Patterson and Gimlin are the smartest, most technologically advanced, sophistcated brilliant minds that the world has ever known with unlimited financial resources to pull off such a hoax with technology that didn't even exist, OR THE FILM IS AUTHENTIC."
ReplyDeleteIs that really true? See point no. 5 from the poster the fifth post above this one. I agree with this comment. Many, including famed bigfoot researcher John Green, have tried to portray Patterson as not having enough upstairs to pull off such a hoax.
Stan Winston, who won four academy awards for his costume/make-up work in Hollwood movies said this when commenting on the Patterson film, "It's a guy in a bad fur suit, sorry!" He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".
Sasquatch, Legend Meet Science. There is Dermal Ridging in the prints from Bluff Creek.
ReplyDeletewhy hasnt bob h. ever mention the second man in a suit. ..the second bigfoot in the pgf...if bob was there he would have known about it and talked about it to make his case stronger..he would of known who was in the second suit. wonder why he's never mentioned it....because he was never there..thats why.
ReplyDelete