Ivan T. Sanderson | Forgotten Father of Cryptozoology
While Ivan Sanderson was not the first man to chase after cryptids, he was the man who named the field that we all dabble in.
He and fellow zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans defined the actions of scattered peoples in the 1950s, gathering the idea into a name: Cryptozoology - the study of hidden animals. This concept encompasses both the "folklore creatures" such as sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster, and the animals considered extinct and perhaps also folklore. The term 'cryptid' is said to have been coined by J. E. Wall in 1983, meaning a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown.
The famous Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage is by far the most recognized bigfoot video on the plant. It has been debated, picked over, talked about, stabilized and enhanced to no end.
But now the footage has received a pretty impressive makeover. It has been given a 4k enhancement that might reveal more detail than we have ever seen before.
Here is another historical track and casting from Bluff Creek. I'm sharing these older reports to show that there was a history of bigfoot tracks in the area long before Roger Patterson filmed his famous "Patty" footage in 1967.
The casting below was originally cast back in 1960, by a world-famous big game hunter and bigfoot investigator.
This is a report that is very historic but is often overlooked or forgotten completely. This footprint was found by Pat Graves on Laird Meadow Road, near Bluff Creek, California in 1963. Pat was a Forest Service Timber Cruiser. Roger Patterson was informed about the track by Pat, himself.
Patterson would of course hurry to the area in hopes of seeing the foot tracks. He made it to the tracks, documented them and made castings.
Here is the one of the casting and more information about the tracks.
In this episode, we travel back to 1967 and follow two cowboys out on an adventure of a lifetime.
A unique look at the events surrounding the filming of the Patterson-Gimlin film. It's a glance back to a day that is still debated and talked about. The filming of a bigfoot!
This
post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the
cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto
Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of
unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild
land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.
Willow Creek
Rated: Not Rated, Running time: 80 minutes
Director: Bobcat Goldthwait
First let me start off with this, if you do not have an interest in Bigfoot or know a little about the history or behavior of Bigfoot, then do not even attempt to watch this movie.
This movie is about a novice Bigfoot researcher and his totally unbelieving girlfriend going to camp in the famous Bluff Creek area where Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin shot the famous Patty footage in 1967.
At first I found the film somewhat entertaining with the funny one liners and seeing all the Bigfoot related spots in the Bluff Creek area. I really liked the look of the Bigfoot Burger, I would like to try one of them. For those who don't know, the Bigfoot burger is a giant hamburger on bread that looks like a foot and let me tell ya it looked good.
There are also some interviews with people who tell about the area and sightings. During this part of the film it seems as if the subject of Bigfoot is being made fun of. It seems the opportunity was lost to really drive home the fact about Bigfoot sightings in the area. The interviewees come off as weird and slightly crazy. Oddly, the Cliff Barackman interview was left out of the movie but is offered in the bonus segment of the DVD. Barackman's interview was entertaining and informative, why it was left out of the final version of the film is beyond me.
In about the middle of the film there is a real lull. It takes place while the young couple is inside the tent and are awaken by odd sounds. During this part of the film the audio is so low you can't hear what the couple are saying and the odd sounds are hard to hear. Later as the sounds get closer you can hear wood knocks, howls and some rocks being thrown. Sadly this as close to a Bigfoot you get in the film.
Now for the ending, as the Bigfoots stalk the two young campers out of the area, we are treated with more howls and rock throwing. Once night falls the now lost couple are sitting in the dark and scared. Then we get a glimpse of a bizarre naked female figure, possibly a local missing woman ..... I'll stop right there with the details but let me finish by just saying I found the ending weird. Director Bobcat Goldthwait has a history of weird and thought provoking films to his credit, so for some this might fall into that category.
Overall the film had some moments but in the end I was disappointed in it.
You can purchase the film on Blu-ray by Clicking Here
Or watch it on Amazon Instant Streaming by Clicking Here
Rating:2 out of 5
Thanks
~Tom~
This post sponsored in part by
(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!)
* My apologizes to MK Davis, I did not know it was him who did work on this,Part of the video we used was some of his work,I spent hours looking at many videos from various youtube accounts, Never seen MK Davis on the account or Credit would have been given at the first. I did spend countless hours going frame by frame,zooming and trying to pull out details. I compared it to many different youtube Patterson videos. I did advance it by adding in the head turn and more. Once again my apologies to MK Davis.
Patty squatted down
So
You Still Don’t Think The Patterson-Gimlin Film Is A Real Sasquatch?
The
Crypto Crew Offers Some Reasons To Reconsider
By TCC Team Member
Dorraine Fisher
It’s
a neverending debate. Is it fact or faked?
But
after the countless scientific studies that have been conducted on the famous
Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film shot in Bluff Creek, California back in 1967, it
still hasn’t been disproven. But I’m always surprised to find how many people
still believe it’s a hoax. Didn’t several people confess to wearing the suit that
day? Yes, and that makes it easy for some to settle for the idea of it being a
hoax when they don’t know all the facts about the film. The story runs quite a
bit deeper than many imagine.
There
are numerous discrepancies. As the film has been studied over and over again,
many details can be found that point to it being the real deal...if one bothers
to look.
Patty's Toes are seen moving,original frames - photo from Themunnsreport.com
Up
and down movement of the creature’s toes is one. This kind of movement in a
costume isn’t possible. The creature’s calf muscles flex as she walks; also not
possible in a suit. Many have tried to duplicate this muscle movement in a suit
and not accomplished it as yet. And the open and closing motion of the mouth is
not possible if it’s someone wearing a mask. But the biggest problem with the
idea of it being a suit is that human proportions and ape proportions are not
the same. Apes have must longer arms and a much longer upper lip making it
impossible for a human to fit properly into a suit such as the one in the film.
Human arms would be too short and not able to function like a creature, and the
mask would not fit a human properly...and a hoaxer certainly would not be able
to move its mouth in a mask as it struggled with this inconvenience.
Bob
Hieronimous was one of the guys who confessed to wearing the suit that day. But the
subject in the film was found to be at least 6.5 feet tall. Other studies have
showcased the possibility she was closer to 7.5 feet tall. But either way, Bob
H. wasn’t tall enough to wear a suit that big.
Patty's Butt Crack
Another
thing that’s rarely discussed is a portion of the film at the very beginning
when the camera was shaking. Patty was squatted down on the ground, looking for
food, defecating, or drinking or eating. But with a little enhancement to the
film, her butt crack can be seen pretty clearly. This is a strong detail that
wasn’t being created in costumes back in the 1960s. It would have taken a lot
of time and meticulous work to create such a compelling detail.
And
lastly but certainly not least, on examining the ending of the film closer, a
second creature, possibly a male, can be seen moving near the creek bed. It
appears to be moving its arms and then moving its head to look back at Patty.
Is this another guy in a suit?Probably
not. It would be hard enough to create one suit, let alone two. The main focus
has always been on the subject, Patty, so there are many other details of the
film that have been overlooked. *******
Posts
