"Squatchers"

I've never read where the men at "Ape Canyon" said they were lying about what they claimed, nor have I ever read someone stating they'd SEEN something, later say they were lying.

Then you have never researched the subject very deeply. I might add that ape canyon is actually pretty much in my backyard. Been there many times over a 40 plus year period and have never known anyone else to make a creditable big foot sighting around the area.
 
Then you have never researched the subject very deeply. I might add that ape canyon is actually pretty much in my backyard. Been there many times over a 40 plus year period and have never known anyone else to make a creditable big foot sighting around the area.


There's nothing stating the men at "Ape Canyon" went on record as to the story being made up.
ANY bigfoot sighting is not credible to some people.

I'm sure what some find "creditable" others will say is not.
http://lindajm.qondio.com/credible-bigfoot-sightings
 
Last edited:
I've been mistaken for a Squatch at times :)

george-the-animal-steele.jpg
 
In a previous post, like I said, there is a witness who was there( Bob Gimlin) when the Patterson film was made. They should, under the threat of arrest and prosecution, make him tell the truth and have the technology to know if he is lying. He has stated on TV recently, that what was filmed that day was indeed real. It can end right there if he is lying and if he is not, I guess would be the basis for more research. I don't see any reason why they should not prosecute anyone involved in hoaxes cause someone is surely gonna die oneday trying to hoax a Bigfoot in a suit. As much media attention that this is getting, I know there are people who would drop the hammer in a second if they saw what they believe is a BigFoot.
 
Last edited:
A local logger and long time big foot promoter stated pretty much on his dead bed that he had faked that film in California. Kind of hard to put that to a polygraph test now but I don't know why he would feel it was necessary to lie about it before dieing
 
This has been an interesting read. I personally will believe it when i see it. If I happen across one when I'm hunting, I am certainly going to shoot it to end the debate.

As far as the discourse on evidence, reading through all this has made me wonder: which has more evidence for existence, bigfoot or god? Yet millions of people still believe.
 
A local logger and long time big foot promoter stated pretty much on his dead bed that he had faked that film in California. Kind of hard to put that to a polygraph test now but I don't know why he would feel it was necessary to lie about it before dieing

If you are referring to the Patterson film, I've never heard that before. How about a link?

In fact I did find this...
http://bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

"Deathbed Confession?

The most commonly heard false fact about the Patterson footage:

"The guy who got the footage admitted on his deathbed that he faked it."

This is not true. This is a mixup. Here's how the mixup started.

The man who obtained the most well known photo of the Loch Ness monster (not bigfoot) admitted on his deathbed that he faked that photo.

The story of his confession popped up in newspaper headlines around the world. The story didn't last long as a news item, but every new agency, in every country, on every continent, ran the story.

The story mutated in the press, from a crypto story about one photo from Loch Ness being debunked, to "Mystery of Loch Ness Finally Solved."

Around the country and around the world people were interested to hear that the famous monster mystery was solved, because the most famous monster photo had been debunked.

Frame 352 from the Patterson footage is the most famous, purportedly authentic, "monster" photo known to most Americans. They are more familiar with that than with the 1930's photo from Loch Ness.

This was the foundation for some of the confusion. It got worse later.

The Patterson footage was mistakenly associated with a "deathbed confession" related to a famous "monster" mystery.

The Loch Ness deathbed confession story grabbed such big headlines, it was inevitable that someone would try the same formula down the line. It only took a few more years.

The heirs of a man named Ray Wallace initially reported his "deathbed confession" about faking the first famous bigfoot tracks in Northern California.

Ray Wallace left behind a few pairs of wooden feet for making fake tracks. He would sell plaster casts of fake tracks at his roadside tourist shop.

His heirs later recanted the "deathbed confession" part of the story, and instead said they "just know he started the whole thing."

The initial "deathbed confession" element helpd get the story onto the AP Wire. It became "The Father of Bigfoot Dies".

The story was circulated word-of-mouth and similarly transformed into a story about the Patterson footage.

The Patterson still images are the most famous images associated with bigfoots.

The Wallace story had to do with the most famous track casts.

The track casts were obtained 10 years before the Patterson footage.

The Wallace story didn't have anything to do with the Patterson footage.


Wallace's heirs were well aware that the Loch Ness "deathbed confession" made world headlines years earlier. They were just taking advantage of an opportunity.

Ray Wallace did not start the bigfoot mystery. He was not involved in the first track finds either. Graphic evidence disproves the claims of Ray's opportunistic heirs.

For more info on the Wallace family, click here.

The man who obtained the Patterson footage, Roger Patterson, died of cancer in the early 1970's. He was emphatic to the end that he filmed a real animal in October 1967.

The man who was with Patterson at the time, Bob Gimlin, is still alive. He is also adamant that it was a real animal.


If you chat about the bigfoot subject with a group of people, someone will jump in and claim they heard "the guy who got that famous footage admitted before he died that he faked it."

Try it sometime.

There are no written sources whatsoever suggesting Patterson admitted to a hoax on his deathbed. No one in his family has ever claimed that Roger admitted to a hoax before his death. All of the assertions in that regard began circulating after the Loch Ness story came out.

This mixup story has become an urban legend."
 
Last edited:
More on the Patterson film......

http://bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=751

"The longer answer:
The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.

Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably. The side-by-side results are shown below.

Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities.

If you hear debunking claims in the future, be ready to ask the obvious questions:
Where is the costume?
If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard?
Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide?"
 
Ok so there are large unknown great ape type primates living virtually next door to me that leave no real impact on their environment and turn invisible during hunting season when every inch of our backcountry is crawling with people. They also must migrate down into the lower elevations (which are all second growth timber these days) during the winter. Very little food of any kind in the higher snow fields and it would be too easy to spot them moving around. I might add that all of the mt. caves and rock shelters are well known to long time locals. I've been in many myself without seeing much other than coyote and bear sign. Very tricky these critters!
 
You don't believe in bigfoot, Sidehill or think it's possible people do see them ever, that's your right. It's really not a huge deal and I myself wouldn't have believed it without knowing people that did see it and hearing something I couldn't explain more than once. Where I live we have hunters almost everywhere during deer season, too. But, the fact remains gorilla like beast was sighted around here and the local law enforcement did have a search party, complete with a helicopter, 7 tracking dogs and volunteers looking for it. (because it caused a huge stir) I'm not saying I know what bigfoot is exactly (who does), but I do believe there's something to it. We will just have to disagree on it and if you do ever see proof of it, then your mind may be changed.
 
Thanks for the info Jill!My Dad knew Roger Patterson,he was'nt very happy thinking that Roger was full of $hit.
 
More on the Patterson film......

http://bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=751

"The longer answer:
The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.

Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably. The side-by-side results are shown below.

Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities.
If you hear debunking claims in the future, be ready to ask the obvious questions:
Where is the costume?
If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard?
Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJkmvYEqRVE

i've heard this before, but it sure seems like the guys in Harry and the Henderson's got it right. most of the footage of "real" bigfoots is out of focus, bouncy, unsteady or just plain short. could be because of the terrain or that could just be a convenient way of covering up and getting a hoax out.
all we have for size comparison is the word of the 2 guys that filmed bigfoot as to the distance they were from the bigfoot to make a size estimate.
who knows maybe they were closer and misjudged or just exaggerated.
a few experts have said the size estimate is off and that the animal could well be 6 foot which is person size instead of bigfoot size.
a lot of people do see something tho, who knows.
 
I gave you the example of the Mission hoax.
The only reason they came forward was because of the intense public search and police investigation.
One of the hoaxers was one of the people on the bus that had a sighting.
Search Todd Standing and make your own mind up about his second photo
I can get you a link if you want for the sasquatch witness at Garibaldi park that was caught throwing rocks at researchers investigating his claim
The man in Ape Canyon also claimed they are inter-dimensional beings not the best witness imo
The simple fact that some people where caught hoaxing would indicate that some sightings have to be hoaxes as well
I never said there wasn't hoaxers, I said I've never read of a sighting, where the person reporting it suddenly declared they just made it up. Like Erasmus, for example. or somebody I know that claims they've seen it. (The man that was at Ape Canyon, did not say the story was fabricated either)
 
I respect people like Erasmus that come forward with these reports.
My brother-in-law had a sighting and found tracks, his is a black and white type of guy that doesn't believe anything unless he can see it for himself.
He is also a hardcord hunter and outdoorsman, so it is interesting to speculate on what he saw

Personally I wouldn't rely on the BFRO for my information, just watch finding bigfoot if you want to see how objective they are (cough, cough, skookum cast)
 
Does the Brother-in-law believe now that he's had a sighting? He probably does and isn't that the way it goes, after all the entire deal isn't really very believable without some sort of personal "proof". At least not to the vast majority of us it isn't.

As far as BFRO, they are the ones doing something to research and try to prove this creature. Naturally much of the information available comes from what they've found. Even if they are overly enthusiastic about it, they still are the ones looking and everything they find can't be discounted.

What I meant about not knowing of anyone just seeing a bigfoot, and coming back later and saying it was fabricated, was just a person seeing one, not hoaxers. Which was what Sidehill had stated, "fake a bigfoot sighting" I took to mean just say they'd seen one and later retract the statement. (The man at Ape Canyon, no matter what he believed about the creatures, still did not say they had made that story up either)

As far as Standing goes, I don't know anything about him and yes the pictures posted here, accredited to him, I agree look fake. Of course there's people out there that fake this stuff and try to gain fame and fortune from it. I still believe there's something behind the bigfoot phenomena though that isn't fake. If others don't think there's anything at all to it, besides hoaxes and outright mistaken identity, that is 100% their right!


I do believe this, too:

"Americans in rural regions have been telling and hearing encounter stories for hundreds of years. The stories generally never mention the Patterson footage at all. Respected elders in many rural communities are eyewitnesses. Their stories are taken very seriously. In vast regions, most people either know an eyewitness personally, or know someone who knows an eyewitness. That's the foundation for the consistent interest in the U.S. and Canada, not the Patterson footage."







I respect people like Erasmus that come forward with these reports.
My brother-in-law had a sighting and found tracks, his is a black and white type of guy that doesn't believe anything unless he can see it for himself.
He is also a hardcord hunter and outdoorsman, so it is interesting to speculate on what he saw

Personally I wouldn't rely on the BFRO for my information, just watch finding bigfoot if you want to see how objective they are (cough, cough, skookum cast)
 
Last edited:
There is a similar type clip floating around from the Discovery Channel show Swamp Loggers. If you search for Swamp Loggers and Bigfoot I'm sure it will pop up.
 
Back
Top