Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although the DNA sequence of the human genome has been mapped and that of other animals too, the Bigfoot genome has not yet been mapped. So my understanding is, it cannot be matched against anything else because it is so-far unknown. I suspect that means that any testing will likely come back from the labs as "unknown" or "inconclusive" which is what happens.
How do you identify some DNA from a sample when you dont have the complete map of the DNA for the source species?
DNA is common to all of us. We share DNA across everything. I share DNA with you, Fisheye, cats and asparagus. As in — the same DNA strands.
So let’s try to look at this a bit more scientifically. Science creates a theory, then tries to prove the theory. So — let’s say if there is a Bigfoot, he is an earth creature. As an earth creature, he must share some of the DNA of ours as everything on earth shares DNA.
We get some DNA, and we test it. It tests as let’s call it earth DNA. We can compare it to other things and find it’s wolf DNA, or goat DNA. Or, it’s earth DNA, but something not known.
Then we’d start looking to see what it’s close to narrow it down to something. Is it closer to dog? Gorilla? Human? And we also know enough about DNA that we know this gene creates height, this gene creates hair — we might be able to get a broad idea of what the creature looks like.
Now, if it’s a creature not of this earth, we’d get a wonky DNA sequence, yes — but don’t forget, everything out there seems to be made out of the same stuff our planet is made of — at least partly, so there’ll be something common. There will be something to go on.
You have to start somewhere. Find some DNA and let’s get started. And our tests are so good now — it doesn’t take much.
But honestly — the TV shows and YouTube video guys aren’t out there to find Bigfoot, they’re out there for money. It’s not science, it’s entertainment. And since there’s no money in science for finding Bigfoot... he’s going to remain a mystery.
I personally don’t believe in Bigfoot, but I like living in a state of possibility. Thinking there might be a Bigfoot out there makes the world a little more mysterious and that makes me happy.
Now, if it’s a creature not of this earth, we’d get a wonky DNA sequence, yes — but don’t forget, everything out there seems to be made out of the same stuff our planet is made of — at least partly, so there’ll be something common. There will be something to go on.
The amino acids and nucleotides will mostly be the same, but genes consist of collections of nucleotides and their arrangements generate proteins, and chromosomes consist of collections of genes. This organization appears to be contingent on the evolutionary process which created the genes and chromosomes (meaning, there's no reason it *had* to evolve that way). We don't even know that the chromosome double helix DNA/RNA mechanisms which evolved here are a necessary part of the genetic structure/processes, or if there are other ways to organize genetic material (that's my bet). Which means, creatures from a distant star system will probably not have genetic structures like ours - unless DNA arrived here somehow via panspermia.
I read online that many attempts were made to discredit the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot but it was never conclusively proven to be a hoax.
I've seen footage on youtube that focuses on the bottom of the feet of the Bigfoot suit in the Patterson film, showing that it's a cloth sole. There's another video analyzing the gait of the "Bigfoot" in that film, demonstrating that the proportions of the body and where the joints are show that it's just a human in a custom-made gorilla suit.
I've seen footage on youtube that focuses on the bottom of the feet of the Bigfoot suit in the Patterson film, showing that it's a cloth sole. There's another video analyzing the gait of the "Bigfoot" in that film, demonstrating that the proportions of the body and where the joints are show that it's just a human in a custom-made gorilla suit.
Actually, the walking gait study done on the film, concluded it could NOT be a human in a suit, they tried a handful of different shaped people, and none of them could duplicate it, they used those little digital trackers placed on the body and it shows up on a computer screen...when you see the gait like this, its really strange looking.
The walking gait study was also the first time anyone noticed the visible hernia on the bigfoot in the video, naturally, this detail could not be seen with a guy in a suit.
In my opinion, there is a far better video clip of a Bigfoot on a snow-covered mountain moving up towards the summit of a ridge. This is seen and filmed from the other side of the valley. It shows a dark hairy biped moving swiftly through the snow in the middle of nowhere. I forget where I saw it unfortunately.
It has never, to this day, been proven that it was a gorilla suit or costume. That is just conjecture only. There is no proof that it was a costume.
There is no proof it wasn't a costume. From the Wikipedia link: "Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film. Heironimus says he had not previously publicly discussed his role in the hoax because he hoped to be paid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax, he could not be held accountable."
Then you have this statement in that link: "In 2002, Philip Morris, owner of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film."
There is other supporting information available and if that is not enough to say: "Maybe they pulled the wool over my eyes"; then you are not looking at all the information available.
There is no proof it wasn't a costume. From the Wikipedia link: "Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film. Heironimus says he had not previously publicly discussed his role in the hoax because he hoped to be paid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax, he could not be held accountable."
Then you have this statement in that link: "In 2002, Philip Morris, owner of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film."
There is other supporting information available and if that is not enough to say: "Maybe they pulled the wool over my eyes"; then you are not looking at all the information available.
According to people that worked in Hollywood, movie making at that time, they claim it would have been impossible to create such an impressive 'monkey suit'.
Plus, look around at suits made today, and how they compare to this one, even the modern ones can be easily identified as fakes.
According to people that worked in Hollywood, movie making at that time, they claim it would have been impossible to create such an impressive 'monkey suit'.
Incorrect. Hollywood FX has been crying foul and fake about the Patterson-Gimlin film for decades.
Rick Baker --- the single greatest "creature creator" in all of film --- has said repeatedly that not only is it a fake, but that it isn't even a very good fake. It's really bad.
Quote:
In 1992 on the television show Now it Can Be Told, Baker suggested to host Geraldo Rivera that the creature "looked like cheap fake fur." [Danny Perez, "Bigfoot at Bluff Creek," BigfooTimes, October 20, 1992, p. 21] Chambers and the Patterson Suit
Then you've got Bob Burns, famous for playing apes in Hollywood movies. He too said it is an obvious fake.
Quote:
I worked at CBS and we took the film up there. I put it on my Movieola and we went back and forth with it and went frame by frame. We gave it a really good and an honest shot, we really did. We projected it over and over and our honest opinion, from having worked in gorilla suits, was that it was a guy in a suit. The way it moved, it obviously looked like it had what we call a waterbag in the stomach area which is an old trick that Charlie Gemora, the greatest apeman ever, I think, devised for his suit back in the '30s. That's the sort of liquid stomach thing to make it look like real flesh when you wiggle around. Of course John would have known about the waterbag because he knew Charlie Gemora. I certainly consider Gemora-and so does Rick-the best gorilla man ever. His suits were the best. John Chambers had to know him because he finished his career over at Paramount as the head of their makeup department.
Then you've got John Vulich, another famous TV FX artist, saying the same thing.
Quote:
One guy wrote to me and said, "You know, Disney people looked at it and they said that it couldn't be duplicated." Well, Disney was never known for doing prosthetic effects. I'll tell you as a makeup artist looking at it, it's a guy in a suit. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a guy in a suit. They get into specifics like the way the head turns, that it turns like a gorilla. It turns that way because the suit was stiff and made from polyfoam and he couldn't probably turn his neck very well. Well if it's stiff then how could it be walking? Well, not every part of it is going to be stiff, the joints are going to be loose, etc. But I think it was a guy in a suit.
And finally, Stan Winston:
Quote:
Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." 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". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patter...%93Gimlin_film
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solly says — Be nice!
