Foil Hat Ninja

“I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault.”—Mitch Hedburg

 

Most of you have probably seen the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot video. You might not know that this is what it’s called, but you’ve seen it. I first saw it when I was seven, and it was one of the things that spurred my interest in the paranormal from such an early age. In fact, it was the most influential because something that you can actually see with your own two eyes is far more convincing than anything that you read or have been told. I still believed in Santa Claus at the time (and still do), so the reality of this thing which had been captured on film was something that I never doubted. I was too young and naïve to even consider the possibility that it could be a fraud. Adults weren’t supposed to lie. Now that I am an adult, I’m not entirely convinced.

Some of you probably believe that it’s real, maybe just because you want to. Others just assume it’s a hoax because they’ve already decided that this creature doesn’t exist, so that’s all that it possibly could be. It’s been nearly 50 years since its release, so one might think that by now its authenticity would have been proved or disproved, particularly with all of the advancements in computer analysis that have been made during this time, but the reality is that the debate goes on. Some claim that its fraudulence has been proven, but that depends on what you’re willing to accept as evidence. For some, the unverifiable claims of persons who say that they were involved in the hoax in one way or another is proof enough. Others maintain that such unsubstantiated testimony by those who can’t conclusively prove their involvement or the accuracy of their statements would never be allowed in a court of law. (The frequent use of jailhouse snitches as witnesses would seem to contradict this, but that’s a matter for attorneys to debate.) In reality, the authenticity of the film can probably never be proven to everyone’s satisfaction. No matter what experts might come out in support of it, there will always be those who maintain that you can’t have authentic footage of a thing which doesn’t exist. Until one of these creatures is killed or captured (highly unlikely in my estimation), they won’t accept anything as incontrovertible evidence, and they do have a point.

Rather than having just stumbled upon a Sasquatch while they were camping or hunting, Patterson and Gimlin were actively searching for the creature. Some critics find this to be highly suspect. They went looking for Bigfoot and, lo and behold, they just happen to find one. How convenient. Taken without any sort of logical consideration, this might seem to the casual observer to be a valid argument for a fraud, but when critical thought is applied to the situation, it reveals the sort of catch-22 that paranormal investigators face at the hands of the skeptics. If you find what you’re looking for, then they claim that this raises an enormous red flag of suspicion. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, they say that it’s because no such thing exists. In any case, you’re either a fraud or a kook. And it should be pointed out that the whole reason that they were in the Bluff Creek area to begin with was that there had been a number of recent Bigfoot sightings in that region. If you’re looking for something, then going to where others have seen it recently would seem like a reasonable course of action. On the other hand, it’s not like these people would accept this film as being legitimate if it had been made by a pair of birdwatchers or a couple out for a weekend hike.

According to Patterson and Gimlin, in the early afternoon of October 20, 1967, they were riding along Bluff Creek on horseback when they came upon a large, uprooted tree that had fallen at a bend in the creek. As they rounded the tree, they first saw the creature kneeling by the creek. They estimated it to be about 25 feet away from them. Patterson said that it took him about 20 seconds to dismount and retrieve the camera from his saddlebag. By this time, the creature had moved to about 120 feet away, and Patterson began chasing after it, filming the whole time. He stopped when he got around 80 feet away, which is when the film gets good because until then you really can’t see much. The thing can clearly be seen turning its head to look back at Patterson over its shoulder at this point. Its expression was one that Patterson later described as being that of “contempt and disgust.” I mention this primarily because I think it’s an interesting detail, although I seem to be the only one. Why would this creature have reacted to them in that way? It sounds like a celebrity showing her disdain for members of the paparazzi. If the story was made up, why would Patterson have chosen to include such an inexplicable detail?

During the time Patterson was filmong, Gimlin rode across the creek with rifle in hand and followed behind the creature for a short time before dismounting in order to get a more steady shot at the thing if it turned to attack them. He remained there until it disappeared into the trees. Both men later said that they wished that they had shot it in order to prove that their story was true. Hardly a noble sentiment in my opinion, but I doubt that it would have mattered. Plenty of people have fired at lots of different paranormal beasties over the years. So far, it doesn’t seem to have done any of them any harm. (Rubber chickens and dog whistles are far more effective forms of self-defense in these situations.)

After it was gone, Gimlin helped Patterson retrieve his horse, which had run off during the encounter. They then tracked the unidentified biped (aka Bigfoot) for about three miles before losing its trail. Then they returned to the original site of the incident, made two plaster molds of the best prints and measured the length of its stride. Later that day, they met Batman and the Tooth Fairy for lunch to discuss what they had seen.

Contrary to what one might think, the footage received almost no interest from the scientific community, even though it got quite a bit from the general public. Patterson appeared as a guest on two nationally broadcast talk shows and made a number of other appearances to promote the film. Gimlin preferred to keep a low profile, making only a few public appearances, most of them after Patterson’s death in 1972. Despite the fact that there seems to have been some hard feelings between the two (over money, naturally), both men are/were unwavering in their claim that this was not a hoax.

Another analysis was done by anthropologist Grover Krantz in 1972. He also concluded that the creature’s unusually wide shoulders could not be faked using some sort of padding without altering the natural range of motion shown in the film. In addition, he noted that the creature’s ankles were set further forward from the heel than a human’s, and that the distinctly visible musculature would be very difficult to fake. He interviewed Patterson and came to the conclusion that he lacked the skill and knowledge to have produced such a convincing hoax.

Dmitri Donskoy, Chief of Biomechanics at the USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture, stated that the movements of the figure shown in the film indicated that it was much heavier and stronger than a man and walked at a greater speed. Based on this, he concluded that “such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.” He considered the unusual gait to be authentic due to the fact that it was fluid, consistent and well-coordinated with natural arm motions. 

A fourth early analysis, this one by Geoffrey Bourne, Director of the Yerkes Regional Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta, resulted in some very different conclusions. Bourne thought that the figure’s gait was very similar to that of a human. He also noted that it had characteristics of both male and female primates, most notably a sagittal crest at the back of its head (most pronounced in male gorillas) and “pendulous” breasts. The breasts were also covered with fur, while female primate breasts are bare or only sparsely covered. Breasts that were covered with fur would make feeding a harried process.†

Over the years, computer enhancements, most notably those made by confessed Bigfoot enthusiast M.K. Davis,º have given us a much higher quality version of the film for analysis. I have so far assumed that it goes without saying that the skeptics claim that the creature in question is just a man in a gorilla suit. What these computer enhancements have allowed us to see with much greater clarity is just how well-defined the musculature of this creature really is. Such detail would be hard to fake with nothing but a handheld camera and no access to computer technology, as was the case in 1967. They didn’t even have Photoshop back then. Also, none of the “man in a gorilla suit” crowd have offered any opinions that I can find as to why Patterson and Gimlin would have added “pendulous breasts” to the suit. They certainly don’t sell them that way at any reputable costume shop.

What cannot be ethically swept under the carpet is that Roger Patterson was planning to make a pseudo-documentary about the creature which would include reenactments of various Bigfoot encounters. To do this, he would naturally have had to acquire some sort of ape-like costume, and that’s something which should concern all honest seekers after truth. So did he ever get his hands on such a costume? The fact that this scheme never got beyond the planning stage (basically meaning that he couldn’t find any donors to bankroll the project) could be taken as an indication that it’s unlikely, but that’s a matter of some debate. 

I’ll be returning to this point in my next installment, but before I go I feel that I must point out something that I find striking, but which no one else seems to think is important: the creature’s face. Even at its blurriest and most pixelated, this face doesn’t look like any gorilla mask that I’ve ever seen. If this is a fake, then either Patterson or Gimlin or someone else who was involved must have been a special effects makeup artist (and some say that one of them was, and a famous one at that: stay tuned). One detail that has been consistently repeated by alleged witnesses who have reported seeing Bigfoot at close range is how oddly human its face is, even while it is so obviously not human. Looking at closeups from the Patterson-Gimlin film, I’m struck by the same thing, albeit I’m certain to a much lesser degree. I can’t profess to knowing anything about the intricacies of film speed or primate locomotor characteristics, but I do know a face when I see one. And this one, by the way, doesn’t look anything like the guy who later claimed to be the one in the “gorilla suit,” but we’ll get to that next week.  

______________________________________________________________________

*How many frames per second the film was shot at is a major concern for many analysts. Even Patterson didn’t seem to know for sure at what setting he had the camera at the time. I don’t go into this much because it means nothing to me and probably not to most of you either. I don’t doubt that it’s important; it’s just that I have no idea why.

†For the sake of what small semblance of professionalism that I occasionally pretend to try to maintain, I shall refrain from making any comments about man-boobs. What I shan’t keep quiet about is the fact that Bourne’s assessment of the figure in the film was based entirely on its lack of similarities to known primates. That is, of course, his area of expertise and his right. 

ºJust under a year ago, M.K. Davis made an announcement that he had been able to stabilize and enhance frame 61 of the film enough to make out toes on the bottom of one of the creature’s feet. While this discovery doesn’t conclusively prove anything, it would, if valid, cast further doubt on the gorilla suit theory. Very few costumes of any kind are so detailed as to include individual toes.

 

 

 

 

“People don’t like wolves that can think like people, an’ people don’t like people who can act like wolves.”—Gaspode

 

After the Jersey Devil, probably my favorite lesser-known cryptid is the Michigan Dogman. Although he doesn’t restrict his appearances to just one state (or even one country) as his name implies, he is most often seen in northern Michigan. He’s actually more of a wolfman, just like the Mothman is more of a batman, but both of those monikers were already taken by the time these critters were named by modern Americans. There have also been multiple sightings of two or more of them together, so they might be more correctly referred to as Dogmen. And now that I think about it, I’ve never heard a single description of it/them where any sort of external genitalia was mentioned. Since one of the most unusual things about their behavior is that they are frequently seen walking upright on two legs, one would think that this anatomical detail would be easy enough to spot. In light of this, maybe they should be called Dogwomen.

The first recorded sighting of a Dogman (or woman) by a European was in 1804 when a French trapper reported an encounter with a loup garou (werewolf). As is usually the case, Native Americans in the area have been aware of these creatures for much longer than this, and their beliefs about them go beyond the idea that they are just an unusual variety of larger than average wolves that sometimes walk on two legs. I’ll get more into that later when I address some of the seemingly paranormal aspects of these creatures that will make the “cryptids are just unidentified animals” crowd cringe.

The first known Dogman sighting in what I suppose we could call the modern era was in 1936 and was not in Michigan but Wisconsin. A man was driving down a highway just outside of the town of Jefferson when he saw what he thought was a man digging in a field that was supposedly once a Native American burial ground. When the guy slowed down to take a closer look, the “man” in the field stood up and turned to face him. The driver then saw that the creature was what he later described as being part dog and part ape. It was covered with dark fur and had the body of a large, powerful primate, but with a dog’s head. And if that’s not hard enough to believe, this guy went back to the same field at the same time the next night to see if he could get another look at this thing, and he did. It was right there in the same spot, but apparently now it had lost its patience with being interrupted, because this time it growled what the man thought sounded like the word “Gadara” at him. That seriously frightened him and he sped away.

It has been pointed out by some individuals of a certain frame of mind that Gadara was the name of the town where Jesus cast out the “legion” of demons from a man and into a herd of swine. They take this as indicating that the Dogman is some sort of demonic beast, but I think that’s a bit of a reach. One even goes so far as to say that these things are actual werewolves who gained their shapeshifting abilities through a pact with Satan. There are a number of obvious problems with this theory, namely that it’s ridiculous. Also, there is some theological debate about exactly where this casting out of devils occurred, with Gadara only being one possibility. And Dogman’s eyes don’t even glow red like demonic entity’s eyes are supposed to, except for a few times when he was seen with headlights shining in his face, and lots of animals’ eyes do that. But enough about religio-paranoid stupidity.

The first modern encounter with the beast in Michigan was in 1961. A night watchman at a factory located in a rural area adjacent to the Haymarsh State Game Area outside of Big Rapids, Michigan saw a large shape moving around outside of the chain link fence surrounding the building. Since it was three o’clock in the morning, he was naturally suspicious and kept a close eye on the “person” to see what he was up to. As he watched, it became obvious that this was no man. It appeared to be covered with dark fur, was taller and broader than a human, and it moved on four legs, pausing now and then to stand upright. The guard managed to snap a picture of the thing as it moved under a light, which I’ve posted here. It doesn’t look like much to me, but it also doesn’t look like any sort of animal native to that region. He also said that the creature gave the impression that it was looking for something. It ran off into the woods just after its picture was taken. Cryptids are notoriously camera shy.

In the mid-1970s, three men paddling a canoe down a shallow river that ran behind a cemetery near Alpena, Michigan saw a large dog running down the shoreline behind them. They didn’t think much of it until they heard a splash. Looking back, they saw that the “dog” was now swimming after them, then rose out of the water and continued to follow them by wading through the water on its hind legs. Completely freaked out, they began paddling like crazy to get away from this thing, which they seem to have done rather easily. Apparently, the creature lost interest in chasing them down fairly quickly.

Most sources of information about Dogman simply detail a number of encounters, the majority of which are pretty similar, but with a few notable exceptions. One of these is the story of two young men who happened upon a deer in a clearing. As they watched, a huge dog raced into the clearing, snatched the deer and carried it off into the woods. That’s not typical wolf behavior. Another involved a local Michigan elected official who saw a Dogman standing by the side of a remote road late one night. The man stopped his truck to have a better look, and the two of them just stared at each other for a time until the thing ran off into the forest. The man got out of his vehicle with a camera and took pictures of footprints left behind in the mud. He estimated that the prints were about seven to eight inches long, which is only slightly larger than ones that other witnesses have reported finding.

I suppose that I should briefly discuss what is known as the Gable film, which purportedly shows a boy with a video camera being charged by a Dogman. The story goes that the film was recovered from the camera found lying next to the dismembered body of the child. Its creators have since confessed to fabricating the hoax, and I mention it only in case some of you might still think that it’s real. To me, the creature in the film looks much more like a wolverine than any description I’ve seen of a Dogman, so even if it was legit, I’d write it off an isolated wolverine attack on an unfortunate boy. As is almost always the case with unusual beasties, there are no claims that I’ve seen of a Dogman ever killing anyone. I’ve only found one account of a man being attacked by one, and he suffered only minor injuries. If a fanged, clawed beast weighing an estimated 300 pounds leaves you with only superficial cuts and scratches, I have to assume that either it wasn’t really trying to hurt you, or you’re making the whole thing up.

One of my favorite Dogmen stories is that of some teenagers who say that they saw a group of these creatures both walking on two legs and drinking from a stream. Rather than sticking their muzzles into the water to drink like normal canines would, these beings were kneeling at the edge of the stream and drinking by cupping their front paws together and scooping the water up to their mouths like humans. I think that’s adorable, but it freaked these kids out. If you’re wondering how they could even do this with paws, some of those who have gotten a close enough look have reported that their front paws have opposable thumbs, albeit clawed ones.

My absolute favorite Dogman story is the one where a ranger went to retrieve the body of a dead deer that some hikers had spotted near a trail. He loaded the carcass into the back of his pickup and was sitting in the cab looking at a map when he felt something jostle the vehicle. He looked in the rearview mirror and saw the top half of a large wolf that must have been on its hind legs. It was trying to use its front legs to awkwardly lift the deer out of the truck bed. The ranger was so unnerved by this sight that he started the truck and sped away in fear. I don’t remember whether the Dogman got the deer. I heard this story years ago and have been unable to track down the source.

Maybe the most famous and interesting alleged photograph of the Dogman is the one dubbed as the Beast of 7 Chutes, named after the region of Quebec in which the picture was taken. The photographer was taking a picture of a waterfall and was unaware that there was anything unusual about the photo until he noticed something strange in the bottom right corner. Advocates and Dogman true believers say that this is unquestionably a legitimate image of the beast. More skeptical analysts say that this is a classic case of pareidolia – the brain’s propensity for convincing us that we see things in what are actually random configurations of light and shadow. The jury is still out on this one for me, but I can’t blame the doubters. On the other hand, it is pretty cool, even if it’s an illusion. My question is: how did this guy even spot this in the first place? It’s not like it jumps right out at you. I could’ve had that picture hanging on my wall for years and never noticed anything out of the ordinary.

 

So what about those paranormal aspects of Dogman that I mentioned?

Like many assorted varieties of paranormal phenomena, the Dogmen have a propensity for showing up in the vicinity of water. They are also fond of cemeteries, abandoned buildings and crossroads. I couldn’t find and don’t recall any stories of them showing up on bridges, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they do that as well. Like most paranormal entities, there’s probably a huge discrepancy between the number of sightings made and those reported. There are at least two reported instances of them being hit by cars and suffering no significant injuries, which just isn’t normal. There’s at least one case where one was shot but stubbornly refused to show any ill effects from it, which is absolutely and inexplicably normal for cryptids. From Sasquatch to the wolf of Skinwalker Ranch to the Kelly goblins to the giant dogs of  Marley Woods to the Dogman, these things just don’t seem to care if you shoot them. Most of the time, they don’t even flinch, even if they are seen to bleed. Most perplexing indeed.

Between 1989 and early 1991, there was a rash of Dogman sightings near Delavan, Wisconsin. The summer before all of this started, about a dozen dead animals were found in a ditch, and one animal control officer has gone on record as saying that at least some of them seem to have been ritually slaughtered. Shortly after this, occult graffiti was found covering the walls of an abandoned house in a graveyard, and melted wax was found on some headstones. This led some to believe that the appearance of the beast in their neighborhood was the result of activities by Satanists. Maybe, but it’s worth remembering that these creatures have been reported before and since these occurrences and sometimes hundreds of miles away. The only reason that I even mention this is that John Keel thought that somebody practicing black magic in the area had something to do with all of the weird goings-on around Point Pleasant, West Virginia in the late 1960s, including the appearance of Mothman. Unfortunately, he never publicly elaborated on exactly why he thought this, at least not that I’m aware of.

And saving the best for last, there is a second-hand story of two young men who were driving down a rural road one night when they drove past a Dogman standing by the side of the road – always a favorite hangout for cryptids. As they passed by, it even raised its arms and snarled at them. They said that it looked like something out of a werewolf movie.

As they were excitedly discussing what they had just seen, they both noticed that they passed a familiar “Welcome to Sparta” sign and quickly passed through the little town. As they continued their animated conversation, they were both shocked to once again see the “Welcome to Sparta” sign and find themselves again passing through the town. Neither of them could understand how they had come to experience this alien abduction-like occurrence. Of course, there’s no proof that this was somehow connected to their Dogman sighting, but it’s hard to dismiss the possibility that these two trips through the Twilight Zone aren’t somehow connected. According to the story’s source, a friend of the two, both men are sticking to their original story more than 20 years later.

So that’s the scoop on Dogman, but before I wrap this up, I should mention that a Native American from this region told one investigator that we would never catch or kill a Dogman because they can step in and out of our world at will. He was obviously implying that Dogman is some sort of interdimensional being, and the same thing has been said about Sasquatch by multiple Native American sources in various parts of North America. Maybe that’s just a silly superstition, or maybe they know something that we don’t.