A few weeks ago I showed the MK Davis stabilized PFG to a lady friend whom I trust to have excellent instincts about most things. Her response went like this.

1st playing "Oh that's a man in a suit"
2nd playing "Well maybe not"
3rd playing "No that's not a suit"
4th playing "I don't know what it is"

Then she added "Maybe they filmed the last one of its kind. Maybe there was just a few left and they got one on film. But now they're all extinct."

Its that last comment that is worth considering. True that sightings by crediable people continue to trickle in but in the 40 years since PGF nothing has burst on the scene with that much impact. 40 years is a long time and it is more than enough time to allow a rare animal to be pushed into extinction by almost any number passive of factors such as habitat destruction and human incursion. It could very well be that Sasquatch required a huge range in order to stimulate breeding. As its range shrank although the immedate requirements of food water and shelter remained at a sustainable level perhaps its shrinking domain caused a decline in its ability and willingness to breed. Its worth consideration that land volume that we may consider as a viable habitat range might not be sufficient. I just read an interesting article how wind farms in the midwest may further endanger Prarie Chickens which require very specific levels of open space that is both unobstructed and quiet in order to breed. Wind farms are by most assessments pretty benign constructs yet are capeable of causing problems for at least one animal so far.

On the scene being the key phrase. I'm still of the opinion that greater or equal footage has been acquired and has to date not be released to the public.

What do you base your opinion on Sam?

Too many tracks since then,and sightings for it to be the last one

It's kinda funny because my reaction was completely reversed over time.

1rst viewing: That's a BF!

viewing after a little research: maybe not

viewing after a lot of research: look at that boxy rear end, it could be a suit.

now after reading about all the other stuff that went on: it's probably a suit.


It seems that over time, the circumstantial evidence that I thought likely to be legit has not withstood reasonable doubt IMO.

I'm leaning towards the idea that the internet has spread info/theories and this has produced a bunch of people (hoaxers) trying to exploit it for profit, fame or jest. It's sad... but the reality is that the hoaxes/misids/etc far exceed any plausible cases IMO and there are not many of those.

hey researchers interesting.... sasquatch thread indeed i guess oboy... thanks bill

And I do believe you're most likely right!

A hunch for lack of a better word.

Expanding on the idea that there may be greater or equal footage in exestence, and given that crap like the Manitoba footage gets big $ and fame - what would be the most probable reasons such film/video has not be brought forward?

I find your statement very interesting and confusing. Are you saying some one has footage and is not releasing it on purpose? Are you saying that better footage is out there but they don't know what they have? Why would some one have this footage and not release it? Have you heard something that you can pass on?

Please, a little deeper explanation or theory.

Xpert4u

Maybe they're just very good at avoiding us. Very, very good.

Again this is all just my opinion, but there are people out there that don't want money and fame, or at least aren't willing to sacrifice what they have in order to get it. There are also people out there that just don't care if the mystery is solved or not, or who do care but don't want to be around 40 years from now when it's still being debated to death.

I guess part of the reason I say this also is because I know if I were to obtain a video I wouldn't go public with it. Have it analyzed to the fullest yes, but you wouldn't be seeing it on a TV rag or local news broadcast.

I understand that completely.
Myself, I used to think I knew what I would do, and who I would try and contact if I got a great pic, or video. After spending some time on this forum, I've re-thought that to the degree where I'm not sure I would come forward at all. At this point, I would just be happy to personally know sas is real. That may sound selfish, and by and large it is I suppose. But the "evidence" would have to surpass the PGF mightily, and in this day and age of incredible suits and CGI most will still assume it's a fake, and I would be in no mood for someone like Bob H. to come down the pike and say he was the joker in the suit.
I'm still suspicious enough of a person to wonder if BF being such a joke to the general public is because of its hijacking by the tabloids, or if there is a concerted effort by some to make sure it appears that way -- it could explain the hijinks of certain people. Why this would be I'm sure there are many conspiracy theories for it. Not sure if I've heard one good enough, but I don't rule out the "idea" of it.

Out of curiosity, why?

I don't want to be the subject of the next sub-forum.

A video will never be proof, and I don't want to be sitting in a retirement home forty years from now reading about a bunch of people debating a video I published. I do however believe a video can be beneficial. Through proper analysis you might even be able to use it to help garner support for additional research. That, IMHO, is the true potential benefit of video. Not in solving the mystery, but in helping to establish support from those who might otherwise not commit their resources.

For all of those reasons and perhaps more...I think your hunch is a very good one.

I still say that there is a level of photographic quality that could blow this thing wide open - I'm not of the opinion that there has to be a body. We should have a physical specimen to publish a taxonomic description of what a sasquatch is, but even I don't necessarily need a body to demonstrate that there is a sasquatch.

As to the central question in the thread, if footprints, film, and sightings prior to 1967 were the result of encounters with actual sasquatches, then I see no reason to attribute such evidence produced since 1967 to some other source. If sasquatches existed pre-PGF, then they still do.


PS: Bitter Monk's hunch. I have met a man who claims to have known Ivory-billed Woodpeckers were alive and well in the 1950s, but he was part of a group that made a pact to swear secrecy because anonymity was the birds' best chance of survival. Makes perfect sense to me. Of course, these guys also weren't sitting on proof of that existence, they just had regular sightings.

How many organized expeditions, with good equipment (Patterson's camera will beat any modern camcorder for image quality, btw, unless you start forking out for the several thousand dollar 'become your own director' jobs) have there been? Not to mention Patterson's expedition put themselves quickly into the bush in a known sighting location within a couple weeks of a sighting (crucial, imo).

So, for all you researchers hoping to land the 5 million dollar footage,

- Small team
- Good Gear
- Get into the bush immediately after a sighting and have the resources to stay on it for a week.

I agree. I also agree with your hunch also.

I'd like to think that with good enough quality footage, the result could be different. Even the PG film spurred a lot of mainstream interest for a while, and better, clearer footage could do the same again. Technology has changed a lot in 40 years, and perhaps the chances of actually finding conclusive proof have improved accordingly.

Unless you are of the opinion that the best thing is for people to believe that Sasquatch is a myth, in which case obviously you should destroy your incredible footage and tell nobody.

BC, given that the Patterson subject was filmed on film, and a fairly high definition film at that(as far as I can recall), then at the same zoom and distance, you are correct.
However....
Modern camcorders have the ability to zoom in using optical zoom much closer then Patterson's camera did. Give that, and the chance that a modern film might simply be taken at closer range..the advantage of film over digital video may well be more then offset.
Hope that makes sense.

I don't think they are in danger of extinction.
I think the Minister of Information hit the proverbial nail right on the head. They are very very very good at hiding...and when we see them in the forests or along roadsides it's largely by accident or as a result of their curiousity about our activities. That, and i think we as humans have sometime too much belief in our sensory accuity despite their actually being fairly poor.
I also agree with saskeptic that there is a level of observational data including photos that will be considered by the mainstream as proof, but that ultimately lies in the data's ability to help us understand and therefore predict the behavior of the creature and then following a protocol crafted out of experience, one goes out with a with a vastly improved liklihood of getting clear pictures or other supporting evidence.

i agree there needs to be more interest from mainstream science and a good video might turn on the funds for large scale efforts in protecting and studying this beast.

but Bitter, you will achieve immortality ! but a point well made. you dont want to be the sasquatch equivilent of Janie Lane of Warrent
sitting there crying in his beer wondering why did I write that stupid cherry pie song.

dav

Somehow I can't picture you in a retirement home, unless it was a pretty cool home.

I also have a good hunch that there is already better film out there and that someone already has a body (but they aren't ready to come forward yet because it's still BBQ season).

Because it doesn't exist.

There has been no footage to equal the PG footage.




Maybe. But I doubt it.



Again, maybe.

But, then, somebody would have it. Several somebodies, in fact, because you'd distribute it to "analysts".

Eventually, it would be released.........

Right?........

I know that there are some people on this board whose personal convictions and beliefs would be strong enough to resist the lure of fame or fortune or the biggest reason - the ability to say "I told you so". But they are few and far between - IMHO.
I also agree with your last point - the only way to keep a secret between two people is for only one to know it!

I seriously doubt that better footage than PGF exists. If it did it would have to be sensational because PGF is very good. Sensational enough I'd wager that both mainstream media and mainstream science would pay some real attention as well as real mmoney for it. Now I can't imagine anyone with less than very comfortable means would pass up the opportunity to profit from a first rate genuine Sasquatch film, if they had one. After all the hoaxers and blobbers are more than willing to put thier crap out there, another potential real deal would be welcome AND profitable.

I am of the opinion that no footage in the day ange will be more sensational or pack anymore credibility than the PG film. With CGI and otehr advanced F/X and the proliferation of the hoxes on you tube and such I think the access to information and the power of the 'new media' would actually just destroy any proof that does not come in the dead, hairy and previously uncatalogued form.

That being said my friends always ask me what I would do if I managed to catch one on tape. Would I call the paper or the local news stations or just throw it up on youTube or whatever? I am just a middle class suburban dude so the allure of a windfall for my footage would be tempting but, honestly, who is gpoing to pay through the nose for this stuff anymore?

Even the Manitob/A CurrenT affair or whatever it was debacle was before the YouTube craze hit. Now you can find even better fake hoaxes for free on the web so how convincing would the footage have to be to even equal, never mind outclass, the Patty film?

To me it would have to be footage akin to the type Treadwell left behind in his tent in Alaska and even then I suspect the died in the wool skeptics would still refute not only the authenticity of the video but of the critter in it as well.