Off Topic Messages

Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:24 pm

Pete -

You wrote:
Genesim -
Given your recent absence from the board some of us were thinking you had disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle!


He had.

The Triangle rejected him.

Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:42 pm

Are you kidding....I haven't left this triangle since I found it!! :wink:

Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:43 pm

Colin -
I hear tell that many a ... ahem .... 'triangle' has rejected him. :wink: :)

Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:51 pm

One needs so many...the rest is just to tease.

Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:22 pm

Thw two most famous prooves about Loch Ness and Bigfoot turned out to be hoaxes. I am talking about the 1934 Nessie´s pic and the 70´s grainy Sasquatch footage. It did a serious harm to the cryptozoological hytpotheses.

Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:22 pm

SE -
The 1934 so-called 'Surgeon's photograph' is now widely considered to be a hoax. However, one of the two men responsible for exposing the hoax, Alistair Boyd, does himself believe in the existence of large animals in Loch Ness based upon his own 1979 sighting of a large, whale-like hump in the Loch.

As for the grainy 70's sasquatch footage I take it you mean the 1967 Bluff Creek film taken by Roger Patterson? There have been a number of claims over the past several years by individuals saying they were the man in the suit. However, NONE of these claims has ever been substantiated. Only one person has produced a costume, but they said it was not the original suit but just a copy. This 'copy suit' doesn't look particularly good or convincing, whereas even most sceptics of the Patterson film admit that if it's a man in a costume the costume was an impressive piece of work!
The film, when closely examined, reveals a number of anatomical and bio-mechanical details that make the man-in-a-costume theory highly unlikely. I recommend a dvd entitled Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:59 pm

If I am not mistaken, Patterson himself admitted that he had made up the hoax, as was known 2 years ago when he died.

Certainly there are tons of unexplained phenomena, like the Mokele Mbembe shot by a Jap TV crew in Africa in the 90´s. Or teh misterious footage from Lake Van, Turkey.

However, hoaxes are real harmful. They make people believe that all the cryptozoology stuff is made up to make cash.

Re: Cryptozoology

Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:34 am

Pete Dube wrote:Ok folks, this is WAY off topic, but is anyone here interested in cryptozoology? For those who don't know what cryptozoology is, it's the study of (or, to be more precise, the attempt to gather evidence for) animals that may or may not actually exist: Sasquatch, Yeti, strange lake & sea creatures (the Loch Ness monster(s)), giant monitor lizards, giant sloths, possible surviving dinosaurs. Those who are sceptical of this subject please refrain from rude remarks.

Yes it is a very interesting Subject i do believe there are still things out there that we have not found or or not enough proff to say they are real

Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:12 pm

Spanish_Eyes wrote:If I am not mistaken, Patterson himself admitted that he had made up the hoax, as was known 2 years ago when he died.


Roger Patterson died in 1972 (either cancer or Hodgkins disease, I can't remember which). Right up to his deathbed he swore to the film's authenticity. The other man present during the filming episode, Bob Gimlin, is still alive and still stands by the film - despite never having received a penny from it! Gimlin has stated that from his vantage point he could clearly see the muscles moving below the fur as the animal walked away.

A few years ago a fellow named Ray Wallace passed away. Wallace was a bigfoot track hoaxer. The media jumped on his story and claimed that he was the persona who got the the bigfoot myth started back in 1958. But the bigfoot research community knew about Wallace and his faked tracks for years, and were able to distinguish the real tracks from his (and others) inflexible wooden fakes. Some news reports even made the ridiculous claim that Wallaces wife was the person in the suit in the Patterson film (Wallace's son has denied that his father had any involvement whatsoever with the Patterson film).

spanish eyes wrote:However, hoaxes are real harmful. They make people believe that all the cryptozoology stuff is made up to make cash.


Yes, hoaxes do hurt the credibilty of cryptozoology. The media will jump on stories such as Wallace's, or the more bizarre type of bigfoot stories ("I saw bigfoot come out of a UFO") and unfortunately it's these types of stories that stick with the general public.

Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:28 pm

there was a great docu-feature film made in the 70s called "In Search of Mysterious Monsters" hosted by Peter Graves.

Examined Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie.

It had some scary moments.

To this day I vidily recall a couple of the sequences recreating "real incidents" involving eyewitness accounts of Sasquatch.

One incident was a high school cheerleader being let off by friends on a country road to wait for her father to come by and pick her up.

She had a several minute wait.

It got dark.

Soon her dad came along and she got in the car.

Just a few seconds later, they round a curve on this tree-laden backroad - THERE! - in the headlights was Bigfoot.

The car swerved - they gasped - and it disappeared.

The scary thought...
is that had that girl waited there a minute longer -
had her dad been a minute later -
that big hairy thing would've walked right up on her standing there alone.

It was already heading her way.

The timing of that account just gives you chills.

Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:15 pm

Check out this site: http://www.bfro.net/