Since I did not see Fox's 'World's Greatest Hoaxes' I had no intention of commenting on last week's television show. I did find it interesting that both Fox and the producer of the show were the same People who earlier had promoted, as authentic, the same Alien Autopsy video they were now debunking. I guess that's show business.
But on this Monday, CAUS has decided to share with you an excellent article written by a friend of the CAUS, Lloyd Pye, who is an expert on our secretive hominoid 'cousins.'
FOX TELEVISION HOAX EXPOSED! By Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com)
INTRODUCTION:
On Monday, December 28th, the Fox Television Network aired a show called "World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed." The show was heavily publicized and was seen by millions of basically uninformed people who would be inclined to agree with and accept the show's basic premise: That the events discussed are generally accepted as factual, thus requiring such a show to "expose" the multiple deceptions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In general, the show revealed nothing new. For several months now the "alien autopsy" has been known to be a hoax and widely exposed as such. It is also widely known that several--and perhaps all--of the above-surface photos of the Loch Ness Monster are hoaxes, though the underwater shots are accepted as genuine and were indicated as such in the program. Furthermore, nearly all serious UFO researchers consider Billy Meier an outright fraud. Crop circles were conspicuously unmentioned in the program because, no doubt, the patent absurdity of the "Doug and Dave" explanation has become untenable even to the media establishment that promulgated it.
This brings us to the opening sequence of the show, the only one where supposedly "new" evidence was offered, the ultimate exposure as a hoax of the Roger Patterson film of a female bigfoot striding across a sandbar at Bluff Creek, California, in October of 1967. Anyone watching that segment and not knowing any better would no doubt consider it a paragon of valid, unbiased, well-researched information. However, once again, nothing could be further from the truth. It was a slick piece of utter disinformation with no basis in fact and riddled with blatant distortions.
BACKGROUND:
Roger Patterson was a feisty little outdoorsman from the Pacific northwest who had previously encountered a bigfoot and knew they were a real phenomenon. Not long after his first sighting, he made it a personal goal to film one, so he began taking horseback rides through the heavy montane forests where most bigfoot sightings occurred. He did not believe in killing one, so he would take his rides armed only with his old-style 8 mm movie camera. Knowing this, his friends would often ride with him carrying hunting rifles, to protect him if he encountered a bigfoot and trouble ensued. On the October day he finally hit paydirt, he had such a companion with him, Bob Gimlin. Patterson's rules for such companions were simple: No firing unless they were attacked.
As they rode along a the banks of Bluff Creek, their horses caught the first whiffs of the bigfoot's powerful body odor. They bolted, but not before Patterson had spied the female at the creek bank, probably washing food, as all four hominoid types are known to do. His horse reared and fell over with Patterson still in the saddle, but he managed to scramble out from underneath and retrieve his camera from inside the saddlebag where he carried it. Bob Gimlin had all he could do to steady his own agitated horse, catch and hold Patterson's terrified animal, and keep an eye on the bigfoot in case he had to grab his rifle and start firing at it.
Patterson ran toward the creature, filming as he ran, which the jiggling film clearly shows. Then he paused in his pursuit to try to get a few steady frames, at which point the female sensed his pause and turned to glance at him. All of this action is clearly visible in the film. Then she turns away from him and continues her measured retreat back into the woods flanking the creek. At that point Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin have made history: They have captured on film undeniably genuine proof that hominoids exist. And while it is not the first such proof by any means, it is certainly one of the most compelling.
HOAX HALLMARKS:
True hoaxes have certain hallmarks, and such is the case with hominoid hoaxes. In fact, the Fox TV show used two such "genuine" hoaxes in an effort to smear the Patterson film by association. A hoaxed hominoid film will usually not be attributable to any specific person, it will be provided anonymously, so whoever filmed it cannot be grilled by specialists who will be able to quickly expose the fraud. Also, the place where the filming occurred with not be provided, so experts cannot return to the scene and check for footprints, measure the creature against items (tree limbs, rocks, etc.) in the background, or bring tracking dogs to see what their reaction will be. (Because of a hominoid's overpowering stench, even tracking dogs will recoil from it, while a human in a suit will be pursued as if the suit did not exist.)
In contrast to a hoaxer's typical behavior, Roger Patterson went right out from the sighting and called several area experts, begging them to come to the scene and to bring tracking dogs. None of the experts would come. However, several friends within the community of bigfoot hunters did come to the scene to thoroughly examine it for several days afterward, so there is no doubt that the creature was there, she left numerous clear tracks that were photographed and caste in plaster, and her weight was in the 600 to 800 pound range because the tracks she left sank a full inch into the hard-packed sand at the creek bank, while a 200 pound man walking near her tracks sank only about a quarter of an inch. These facts are utterly undeniable, and they were utterly avoided in the piece presented as fact on "World's Greatest Hoaxes."
TECHNICAL EVIDENCE:
1) It was a bright, cloudless day with sunlight glinting off the creature's hair as she walked. In close-up and at very slow motion it is easy to see her muscles rippling in her right shoulder and in her right thigh, just as they would be visible in a human with those body parts exposed. If it had been a human in a suit, the suit would have to have been glued to the skin to achieve such an effect, but in the act of gluing, the subtle interaction between muscle and skin would be lost. Even today, in 1999, Hollywood special effects wizards find it extremely difficult to portray such subtle subcutaneous movements. In 1967 it was flatly impossible (check out "Planet Of The Apes").
2) The creature's arms are markedly longer than human arms, with elbows that clearly articulate well below where the elbows of a human in a suit would articulate. The added length of the humerus (shoulder to elbow) is four, five, or even six inches, which in anatomical terms is a light-year, and which causes the hands to swing down near the knees, whereas in a human the hands reach only to mid-thigh or above. There is literally no reasonable comparison between the two.
3) The creature's breasts are large, pendulous, and quite noticeable when she turns to face Patterson as he films. In close-up and slow motion (conspicuously avoided in the Fox show), it is easy to see their fluid sway as she turns, and their distinct "bounce" as she takes two steps. They are indistinguishable from human mammary tissue in motion, yet if they were an attachment to a modern body suit they would move more like silicone or gel implants. And in 1967 they would no doubt have looked like the original implant "nosecones."
4) The creature's body is extraordinarily thick throughout all of its parts and in every dimension, much more so than a similarly proportioned human (as seen in the accompanying "true" hoaxes). The thighs are massive and flow quite naturally into equally thick buttocks. When the creature turns to observe Patterson, the movement begins with a smooth shift of the hips that follows up through a swing of the entire upper torso, which reveals a shoulder width of approximately 30 percent more than humans have. Such outsized dimensions are not possible to duplicate with a human in a suit and still retain even a semblance of the "natural" movements seen in the film.
5) The creature's walk has been carefully analyzed by specialists in biomechanics in both England and Russia. Their conclusion is that its walk is completely natural, yet unmistakably non-human. The torso never rises above several degrees from vertical, while humans walk with their torsos at or near vertical. The knees never lock, maintaining a clear bend through the "carry" of each step. Humans lock their knees with each step. So once again, there is no reasonable comparison to be made except that humans and the Patterson creature walk upright on two legs.
WHO IS HOAXING WHOM?
In "World's Greatest Hoaxes" insurance agent Jerry Romney was "revealed" as the person wearing the suit in the Patterson film. That he flatly denied any involvement was of no importance to the Fox TV team. They simply filmed Romney walking, flashed his walk momentarily against the walking bigfoot, and gleefully announced that the two walks were suspiciously similar. Anyone who taped the show can see what an egregious breach of journalistic ethics this was. In matching the two gaits you will see that Jerry Romney walks extraordinarily erect, and clearly locks his knees with each step, and his hands swing just below his hips rather than down near his knees. Again, there is no reasonable comparison that can be made between the two.
As for the alleged "zipper line" seen down the back of the creature as she walks, let me refer again to the bright sun shining that day. The creature obviously is covered by black hair. The sun glints off her upper back and both sides of her lower back. But down the middle of her lower back and down into the crack of her buttocks there is indeed a dark line. What is it? A shadow caused by the indentation of muscles along the spine of any upright walker. There is nothing at all unnatural or suspicious about such a dark line in precisely that place.
Now, as for the idea of a zipper, imagine how difficult it would be to manipulate one placed in such a place. Any surfers out there? You know a wetsuit has a backside zipper, and to zip it up requires a string attached so it can be opened and closed. If going to the trouble to make such a fantastically convincing suit, why put the zipper in back so someone else will have to help you into and out of it? And for that matter, if making a suit for Jerry Romney, why go to the trouble to add breasts to it? Just so you can rag on poor Jerry about having to sashay around as a female?
Another point the Fox TV crew made is that Roger Patterson worked for a film outfit called American National Enterprises, or ANE. They said he was on their payroll. Fine. I've been in this field as a researcher for many years now and have never heard that story, but I'm in no position to deny it outright. However, I am in position to suggest that pay stubs with Patterson's name on them should have been presented on the program in addition to the unsupported statement that he was indeed on their payroll. Again, I see this as an egregious breach of journalistic ethics.
One more such breach that needs to be mentioned is this: Bob Gimlin is still alive, yet his name was not mentioned in "World's Greatest Hoaxes." Why? Because Gimlin has insisted all of his long life that the film is genuine. Now, to question the authenticity of the film is to question the integrity of Bob Gimlin, and that is not easy to do for the following reason. When money for the film began to roll in, Roger Patterson ruthlessly cut Bob Gimlin out of any participation in the proceeds. If the film had been a hoax and Bob Gimlin had known about it, that would have been an insane move for Patterson to make. All Gimlin would have had to do was expose the hoax to make the $25,000 that was being offered at the time for conclusive proof about it one way or the other. Gimlin did not offer such proof, even at the lowest point in his relationship with Patterson.
What that means is this: If Patterson did indeed fake the film, he clearly did so without Bob Gimlin's knowledge. And that means the person in the suit (Jerry Romney if you believe the Fox TV hoaxers) was parading around in front of a man armed with a high-powered hunting rifle who would have been well within his legal (if not moral) rights to shoot him dead and take him home as a priceless "trophy." So it seems unlikely that Jerry Romney, or anyone short of a complete imbecile, could have been talked into getting into that suit on that particular day.
CONCLUSION:
For whatever reason, Fox TV and the producers of "World's Greatest Hoaxes" consciously conspired to disseminate a hoax of their own, at least as far as their expose of the Patterson film is concerned. I have no idea what their agenda might have been, other than to make those of us in the "fringe" look bad for believing in it. But I can say this without fear of contradiction: Anyone who has legitimately studied the Patterson film (as Kal Korff said on camera that he has been doing "for 25 years") knows the evidence supporting its reality is literally overwhelming on so many practical and technical levels as to make the issue beyond dispute.
The Patterson film remains one of the best pieces of evidence ever produced in support of hominoid reality, and the only reason that reality has not been accepted is because the media conspires to keep it discredited with hatchet jobs like "World's Greatest Hoaxes." I hope everyone reading this essay will mention it to friends and acquaintances who might have been hoaxed not by the Patterson film, but by those individuals claiming to be exposing it as a hoax. And to those responsible for that Fox TV travesty, I sincerely hope that someday you become as thoroughly ashamed of yourselves as your mothers would be if they knew what you had done.
CAUS thanks Lloyd Pye for sending us this report. Hope everyone has an eye-opening Monday and of CAUS...watch the skies!
References Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment