Thursday, May 5, 2016

Interview With Family Friend Of Roger Patterson


From the Bigfoot Crossing youtube channel:

This episode of Bigfoot Crossing aired May 2, 2016, on WAKM AM-950. Our special guest is Larry Merritt. Larry grew up in Yakima, WA, and his father was good friends with Roger Patterson. Larry shared a wealth of stories about his family's friendship with the man who filmed a Bigfoot in CA.

45 comments:

  1. As Ben Roesch, editor of The Cryptozoological Review, noted in an article in Fortean Times, “Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence. . . . [W]hile physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process. . . . Also, reports usually take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewitnesses, and can mistake known animals for supposed cryptids [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sighting. . . . Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence” (Roesch 2001).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfoot investigators acknowledge that lay eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but counter that expert testimony should be given much more weight. Consider Coleman’s (1999) passage reflecting on expert eyewitness testimony: “[E]ven those scientists who have seen the creatures with their own eyes have been reluctant to come to terms with their observations in a scientific manner.” As an example he gives the account of “mycologist Gary Samuels” and his brief sighting of a large primate in the forest of Guyana. The implication is that this exacting man of science accurately observed, recalled, and reported his experience. And he may have. But Samuels is a scientific expert on tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying large primates in poor conditions. Anyone, degreed or not, can be mistaken.

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot tracks are the most recognizable evidence; of course, the animal’s very name came from the size of the footprints it leaves behind. Unlike sightings, they are physical evidence: something (known animal, Bigfoot, or man) left the tracks. The real question is what the tracks are evidence of. In many cases, the answer is clear: they are evidence of hoaxing.

      Contrary to many Bigfoot enthusiasts’ claims, Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of variation (Dennett 1996). Some tracks have toes that are aligned, others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the same unknown creature, or even species of creatures.

      Delete
    3. Not all prints found are footprints, though. In September 2000, a team of investigators from the Bigfoot Field Research Organization led an expedition near Mt. Adams in Washington state, finding the first Bigfoot “body print,” which-if authentic-is arguably the most significant find in the past two decades. The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it laid on its side at the edge of a muddy bank and reached over to grab some bait. This of course raises the question as to why the animal would make such an odd approach to the food, instead of simply walking over to it and taking it. As the log of the expedition reads, “One explanation is immediately apparent-the animal did not want to leave tracks. . . .” (BFRO 2000). This explanation fails on its own logic: If the Bigfoot (or whatever it was) was so concerned about not leaving traces of its presence, why did it then leave a huge fifteen-square-foot imprint in the mud for the team to find?

      Delete
    4. Hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources-"Bigfoot hair” turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected “Bigfoot blood” is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.

      Delete
    5. In his book Big Footprints, Grover Krantz (1992) discusses evidence for Bigfoot other than footprints, including hair, feces, skin scrapings, and blood: “The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made” (125). He continues, “A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber. A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type. . . . Final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a prod- uct known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair.” In his analysis, Winn (1991) noted that another alleged Bigfoot sign found at the site, tree splintering, had also been faked.

      Delete
    6. Krantz certainly isn't alone in his mistaken identifications. One of the biggest names in cryptozoology, Ivan Sanderson, was badly fooled by tracks he confidently proclaimed would be impossible to fake. In 1948 (and for a decade afterward), giant three-toed footprints were found along the beach in Clearwater, Florida. Sanderson, described as a man who “was extremely knowledgeable on many subjects, and had done more fieldwork than most zoologists do today” (Greenwell 1988), spent two weeks at the site of the tracks investigating, analyzing the tracks, and consulting other experts. He concluded that the tracks were made by a fifteen-foot-tall penguin.

      In 1988, prankster Tony Signorini admitted he and a friend had made the tracks with a pair of cast iron feet attached to high-top black sneakers. J. Richard Greenwell, discussing the case in The ISC Newsletter (Winter 1988), summed the case up this way: “The lesson to be learned within cryptozoology is, of course, fundamental. Despite careful, detailed analyses by zoologists and engineers, which provided detailed and sophisticated mechanical and anatomical conclusions supporting the hypothesis of a real animal, we now see that, not only was the entire episode a hoax, but that it was perpetrated by relatively amateur, good-natured pranksters, not knowledgeable experts attempting, through their expertise, to fool zoological authorities.”

      Delete
    7. Even when there is no intentional hoaxing, “experts” have been fooled. In March 1986, Anthony Wooldridge, an experienced hiker in the Himalayas, saw what he thought was a Yeti (Himalayan Bigfoot) standing in the snow near a ridge about 500 feet away. He described the figure as having a head that was “large and squarish,” and the body “seemed to be covered with dark hair.” It didn't move or make noise, but Wooldridge saw odd tracks in the snow that seemed to lead toward the figure. He took two photos of the creature, which were later analyzed and shown to be genuine and undoctored. Many in the Bigfoot community seized upon the Wooldridge photos as clear evidence of a Yeti, including John Napier. Many suggested that because of his hiking experience it was unlikely Wooldridge made a mistake. The next year researchers returned to the spot and found that Wooldridge had simply seen a rock outcropping that looked vertical from his position. Wooldridge admitted his misidentification (Wooldridge 1987).

      Delete
    8. Ultimately, the biggest problem with the argument for the existence of Bigfoot is that no bones or bodies have been discovered. This is really the 800-pound Bigfoot on the researchers’ backs, and no matter how they explain away the lack of other types of evidence, the simple fact remains that, unlike nearly every other serious “scientific” pursuit, they can't point to a live or dead sample of what they're studying. If the Bigfoot creatures across the United States are really out there, then each passing day should be one day closer to their discovery. The story we're being asked to believe is that thousands of giant, hairy, mysterious creatures are constantly eluding capture and discovery and have for a century or more. At some point, a Bigfoot’s luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a freeway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker. Each passing week and month and year and decade that go by without definite proof of the existence of Bigfoot make its existence less and less likely.

      Delete
    9. On the other hand, if Bigfoot is instead a self-perpetuating phenomenon with no genuine creature at its core, the stories, sightings, and legends will likely continue unabated for centuries. In this case the believers will have all the evidence they need to keep searching-some of it provided by hoaxers, others perhaps by honest mistakes, all liberally basted with wishful thinking. Either way it’s a fascinating topic. If Bigfoot exist, then the mystery will be solved; if they don't exist, the mystery will endure. So far it has endured for at least half a century.

      Delete
    10. Thnx stu,, now we All have to indure jotomi's tired old rebuttal cut n paste's.

      AC collins

      Delete
    11. There is no known method of measuring eyewitness testimony, until it is supported with physical evidence.

      "The Vadoma tribe lives deep within the confines of western Zimbabwe. Derogatorily referred to as the “ostrich people," the Vadoma suffer from a rare genetic condition called ectrodactyly, which affects one in four children within the population. Ectrodactyly, or “lobster claw syndrome,” can affect either the hands or feet. In the case of the Vadoma, the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned inward. Ectrodactyly is an inherited dominant genetic mutation. Some have theorized that the mutation may have adaptive benefit if it aids in tree climbing. It's more likely, however, that the defect remains prevalent in the Vadoma because of a small genetic pool among the Vadoma. It is against tribal law for members to marry outside the group."
      http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ostrich-people-zimbabwe

      Also... Some Track impressions have forensic data in them that is seen across different samples, decades & States apart, eradicating any chances of hoaxing.

      Within the Skookum cast, there were unknown primate hairs found there that have the exact uniform morphology to a collection Henner Fahrenbach has in his collection, to which some are currently being studied by Dr Bryan Sykes. And we just so happen to have dermals in the cast too. The scientist that lifted the dermals has also got thousands of track castings under his belt, practically totally eradicating any chance of casting artefacts being a contributing factor. There has also not been a source of scientific equivalence to have conclusively shown that the Skookum cast is not what the scientists at hand claim it is. Unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;
      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes
      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermals verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to an unknown primate leaving its sign.

      Delete
    12. Lastly, I wonder how many wildlife biologists would be so easily fooled if they had people presenting fake track impressions of recognised animals? People make mistakes... In the magical world of the pseudosceptic, this explains away evidences yet scientifically shown to be hoaxes and sightings reports that span multiple cultures, and occasions of multiple eyewitnesses at one time. That's quite a leap of faith.

      Delete
    13. "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White PhD

      The facts are that for 150 years, there are three generations of scientists who have contributed to reliable science journals that have documented large human skeletal remains across the US. The anthropological elite; The Smithsonian, as well as big hitters like Scientific American. It is also basic stuff to know that if Sasquatch were a non-human primate, that there is only a handful of teeth for a fossil trail for millions of years of chimps and gorillas living on the African continent.

      Delete
    14. Not watching Liverpool fake Brit?

      Delete
    15. You don't have to be British to watch Liverpool being 1-1 on aggregate.

      Delete
    16. Joto mi @ 12:38--------------------
      https//youtu.be/LDI7j1eftqk

      SCHOOLED BOYO!!

      AC collins :-))

      Delete
    17. Not if Sasquatch are Native American.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    18. LOL,, LOOK "Tome's" ,yes it might be true that you're a cut n paste "giant" however mentaly you're quit duh "MIDGIT" !! dat being said!------------------------------
      This Is for your edification ONLY!
      human ancestry- MADE EASY(4dimbulbs such as yer self)

      https://youtu.be/gW-Oby_hZYI
      --To Easy, Yawn!!

      AC collins

      Delete
    19. Gor blarmey futt me guvnah , strark a futtin` lart youzza cood blow me darn wivva fevva.

      Delete
    20. 12:58 is a villa fan. No further explanations are necessary

      Joe

      Delete
    21. Your link doesn't work, you silly alcoholic. And I don't take advice about genetics from someone who didn't know humans are primates.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    22. ^ "Indeed" !

      Uno who.

      Delete
    23. This for you joto mi,, try web search instead of cut n paste'n DULLARD!
      https://youtu.be/gW-0by_hZYI
      Schooled!
      AC collins

      Delete
    24. Let me get this straight Joe. You are now saying that sasquatch are native american?

      Delete
    25. Sorry, Alcoholic Collins... Like I said... I don't take genetic advice from someone who didn't know humans are primates.

      Laters!

      Delete
    26. Prove it you bald faced lier !
      YOU WON'T because you can't.HAAA HAAA WHAT A DUMB FOOL!
      AC collins

      Delete
    27. AC, quit goading Joe. its not very Presidential.

      Delete
    28. 95% of bigfoot enthsiast tend to be dopers, drunkards,loosers,sickos, and or perverts .. fact.

      Delete
    29. ^ pro tip #36
      if you are going to state facts please have them backed up and not read off bathroom stalls

      Joe

      Delete
    30. ^ knows what is on bathroom stall walls...he uses the phone numbers provided for secret "meets".

      Delete
    31. Pro tip # 1 you dont need to back up any anecdotal claims as your word is truth and Fact+95% of bigfoot enthusiast will SWALLOW HOOK LINE AN SINKER!
      that being said, thnx for the tip
      Joe.

      Delete
    32. ^^ pro tip # 96
      If you are a tosser like these two above please go shove off at the nearest intersection

      Joe

      Delete
    33. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot is the short 16 mm film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing (see figure 2). In many ways the veracity of the Patterson film is crucial, because the casts made from those tracks are as close to a gold standard as one finds in cryptozoology. Many in the Bigfoot community are adamant that the film is not-and, more important-cannot be a hoax. The question of whether the film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false.

      Grover Krantz, for example, admits that the size of the creature in the film is well within human limits, but argues that the chest width is impossibly large to be human. “I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly,” he claims (Krantz 1992, 118). This assertion was examined by two anthropologists, David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt (1999), who cite anthropometric literature showing the “impossibly wide” chest is in fact within normal human variation. They also disprove claims that the Patterson creature walks in a manner impossible for a person to duplicate.

      Delete
    2. The film is suspect for a number of reasons. First, Patterson told people he was going out with the express purpose of capturing a Bigfoot on camera. In the intervening thirty-five years (and despite dramatic advances in technology and wide distribution of handheld camcorders), thousands of people have gone in search of Bigfoot and come back empty-handed (or with little but fuzzy photos). Second, a known Bigfoot track hoaxer claimed to have told Patterson exactly where to go to see the Bigfoot on that day (Dennett 1996). Third, Patterson made quite a profit from the film, including publicity for a book he had written on the subject and an organization he had started.

      Delete
    3. In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution’s director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film (pp. 89-96; 215-220). He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is consistent with a man’s; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that “there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind.”

      Other films and photos of creatures supposed to be Bigfoot have appeared, perhaps best-known among them the Wild Creek photos allegedly purchased by Cliff Crook of Bigfoot Central from an anonymous park ranger (see figure 3).

      Delete
    4. Half way down this page;
      http://www.cryptozoonews.com/pancakes/
      ... You'll notice a comparison to Jim McClarin, where anyone can see for themselves the chest size of Patty.

      It is common knowledge that Roger Patterson had help in tracking the Bigfoot by some of the best trackers in North America at that time. Patterson and Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967. This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson. Furthermore, to suggest that nobody has ever accumulated evidence as good since, is rhetorical to the multiple other instances where footage and physical evidence has been collected. If I'd have just recorded one of the most astonishing pieces of footage ever, I'd make damn sure I'd make some money off it too... Especially is I was dying of cancer and had my family to think about.

      "I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all that it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be SOMETHING in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints. The evidence I have adduced in favour of the reality of the Sasquatch is not hard evidence; few physicists, biologists or chemists would accept it, but nevertheless it IS evidence and cannot be ignored."
      John Napier MRCS, LRCP, DSC(Lond.) "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality"- Sphere Books Ltd.
      ... To hold value in the opinion of Napier in respect to the PGF, would also require to hold the same value in the evidence he endorses, that he's actually qualified to pass judgement on. For example, there are suitably qualified experts who have interesting things to say about the walk of the subject in the PGF;
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2RjLzqOu3qc

      ... Oh... And got monkey suit?

      Delete
    5. ^ Has inhaled too many farts for his own good.

      Delete
    6. ^ kind of sums up the average intellectual approach to the points made.

      Delete
    7. ^ It`s because it is the only type of comment that adequately deals with the nonsense you post...so all in all it is very apt...and true.

      Delete
    8. ^ Sheesh , sad but oh so true!

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. You are here every day. I know they exist, and I'm not here everyday. You poor, poor man. Your life has to be miserable.

      Delete