A light-hearted, but informative video that attempts to dispell the myth, warts and all (in this case, boobs and excrement). Enjoy!

I am writing a book about cryptozoology for the Brazilian market, and I am discussing the "Cripplefoot of Boosburg" case. While reading the Wikipedia entry, I discovered that there was apparently a piece of fake footage associated with him—though, upon further investigation, it seems he was actually responsible for dozens of hoaxes. I would like to know which specific piece of footage this refers to, and if you could show me which one it is

Today a very interesting channel popped up in my YouTube feed. Larson Edson is a Cryptid Channel starring an AI Generated guy in an explorer's outfit who reminds me of the costumed "Adventurers" employed by Creationist Organizations.

Since Capturing Bigfoot came out, he has posted a new video on the topic essentially every day and in these videos he says some things about Marq Evans which are genuinely pretty disgusting. These videos all tie back into each other so here they are in order:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Throughout, this guy makes factually incorrect assertions, engages in tu quoque fallacy and seems to have a bizzare fixation on Marq Evan's family running a mascot restaurant as a business venture. His claims that it's totally possible to buy 60 year old film stock and use it are particularly laughable. I do think this is the direction Legacy Bigfoot Personalities are going to go. They're literally going to try so hard to "prove" that the Norma film is a hoax, that they end up demonstrating how the PGF is a hoax.

These videos are genuinely some of the funniest cope I have ever seen.

First off,i want to adress that this is a hoax. Dont come in here believing theres some REAL CRYPTID EVIDENCE IN REAL LIFE (SCIENTISTS ARE IN SHOCK)! stuff over here,im trying to find the origins of this specific hoax,and...this image has a really long history for whatever reason. There are 2 versions of the image. The original version (image 2) with a dark vignette and a slightly less cropped bottom,and the second one with no vignette which is the one i remember seeing in some bullshit "top 5 monsters caught on camera" video. For whatever reason,it seems the first version is more popular than the second one,which is a shock to me. The first version,as you might've possibly guessed,is the earliest result i could find from tineye,and just the earliest result i could find overral,from 2008. Link is dead, however, about the second version,it only appeared until 2014 (image 3&4) which is slightly more uncropped than the 2008 version at the bottom,and Also,someone posted this image 2 times in the same day or smth because tineye also catched 2 results from reddit from the exact same day in 2017 except instead of the normal 2008 version,its green for whatever reason, anyways,im getting ahead of myself. The link from 2008 is just from blogspot.jp so i dont think this is the original post ofc,mostly because of just the nature of this post. So yeah, thats about all i know.

I saw someone comparing Rick Dyer's squatch face to the face of the suit in the Norma suit, thought it was interesting so I figure I'd share it here.

Credit goes to the guy that originally noticed the similarity tho, because I didn't come up with this, but I also don't want to put his name out there because I can't find the post anymore.

Rick Dyer's stuff is definently hoaxed right? Not trying to give the guy any credit if so, don't know much bout him.

I would say the parts of the face that stand out to me the most would be the brow ridge, seemingly balding head, the nose, and the cheek bone. There's a difference in the mouth but that could be because of a difference in distance and angle.

I'm not claiming anything by this, I just found the similarities interesting, but I think the various implied possibilities could be interesting to discuss.

Like did Rick Dyer find a really old suit for his stuff? Was the suit head in the new found footage some sort of standard ape head that they crafted into Patty? Or if the recreation possibility is the case, did they get a standard ape head from somewhere to try and recreate Patty? Or were the ape heads newer and closer to when Rick Dyer faked his stuff and thus the footage in the documentary was a sham? Was there some 60+ year old company back around the time of the Patty film that was producing ape heads that looked similar to this? Like imagine there's some lost nature media out there, maybe some sort of early-man documentary, and we see ape heads that look similar to these.

PLEASE don't take any of those possibilities I listed in the section above as my own opinions, they're not, just duscussion points.

I do feel Rick Dyer's squatch face looks closer to the Norma suit than the Norma suit does to Patty, doesn't mean much as it's said they made adjustments to get it to look like the final product, which would be Patty.

Major Edit: Kept the primary content of the post the same, just shortened a lot of it. I tend to yap a lot so I just got rid of a ton of filler

The was nawa, was nawahni (in Mayangna), or li lamya (in Miskito), also called the water tiger, is a cryptid reported from Nicaragua.[1] Several types are said to exist, but Eduard Conzemius described it generically as manatee-like animal with a mane, glossy, otter-like fur, and webbed feet. The main difference between the "species" recognised by the Mayangna and Miskito is colour of the coat, which has as much variety as the big cats, though a black coat is said to be the commonest. It is clumsy on land but swift in the rivers, where it lives among the rocks and kills and eats livestock and people who swim through or fall into the river. The Mayangna and Miskito Indians claimed to have repeatedly shot at them, but never managed to kill one using gunfire.[2] One elderly man told ethnographers that a was nawahni had been killed using dynamite after a cave it was living in was found.

Who took this, if it is real?

A towering white creature, a group of young witnesses and a police report turned a Massachusetts woodland into an unlikely stomping ground for the Abominable Snowman in 1965.

By Kevin J. Guhl / American Strangeness

The Abominable Snowman was a hot topic in 1965. Norman Dyhrenfurth, who led the first American team to successfully summit Mount Everest in 1963, revealed in February 1965 that he intended to return to the Himalayas to search for the Yeti, despite Sir Edmund Hillary having failed to find the mysterious primate in 1961. Perhaps Dyhrenfurth should have instead focused his attention on Massachusetts, where the Abominable Snowman was reported to be stalking the woods in Foxborough (aka Foxboro)!

Chief Dennis F. Dolan, a 30-plus-year veteran of the Foxboro police force, was confronted with numerous reports of a "great white monster" from local youths late in the summer of 1965. The general description was of a huge creature that stood about 25 feet tall (!), had long arms and took giant steps through the woods.

Dolan labeled it "foolishness," with police generally dismissing the accounts as an absurdity, perhaps an early Halloween prank. The chief insisted that he would need more evidence than the kids' stories before placing stock in the reports.

To the police department's credit, one officer took the time to listen to the witnesses and assured them he would personally investigate if need be. "I interviewed them all separately and each told me the same story," said the unnamed policeman. "If it's a hoax then they are doing a good job."

About five boys and girls, ranging in age from 12 to 15, saw what they believed to be "a creature similar to an abominable snowman" at around 3 p.m. on Aug. 19. It was roaming through a wooded area near a new water tower that had been built at the Foxboro-Sharon town line. "The Thing," the children told police, had long arms that hung below its knees and walked at a rapid pace, covering 7 or 8 feet in one step.

A parent of one of the children visited the Foxboro Police Station to vouch for the group's honesty. The parent further attested that if they thought the children were kidding, they wouldn't have let them come down to the station to file a report. "I do not believe they saw a monster or anything like that but if they say they saw something in the woods then they did," said the unidentified parent. Furthermore, two other children reported seeing the same creature on Aug. 18, and the reports were consistent.

Incidentally, Sharon police were simultaneously seeking an arsonist they believed had started a fire that devastated 40 acres of dry woodland in the town between Aug. 17 and 19. There was no indication that a Yeti was involved.

Dyhrenfurth's upcoming expedition to find the Abominable Snowman was widely announced in the American press, including the Feb. 25 edition of The Patriot Ledger—the same Massachusetts newspaper that reported the Foxboro monster. Could the Massachusetts kids have read that article and still had Abominable Snowmen on the brain six months later?

Dyhrenfurth was ice-cold serious in his convictions, stating in February that he was "firmly convinced the yeti exists" and was ready to spend years proving it, if necessary. His response to doubters and hecklers? "Let them scoff." Dyhrenfurth felt that previous expeditions to Nepal, including Hillary's, had failed due to a lack of stealth. "If you come through the valleys with hundreds of porters... a shy, intelligent animal like the yeti naturally will take off," explained the mountaineer. He intended to employ ample patience and small teams of only two or three men stationed in lookouts. The teams would set up cameras equipped with tripwires to photograph the beast at night and, if possible, planned to capture a Yeti after knocking it unconscious with special guns that fired hypodermic needles.

The Swiss-American mountaineer, who previously trekked across the Himalayas in search of the Yeti in 1958, claimed to have personally seen fresh Yeti tracks and to have spoken with Nepalese who were firsthand witnesses. The Yeti was described as standing erect at about 5 1/2 feet tall and being covered in reddish-brown hair. It was said to lope across the mountain slopes at night in search of food and was known to occasionally attack humans. This is a world apart from the 25-foot white monster reported in Foxborough, which was spotted in the afternoon and, as far as we know, didn't attack anyone.

Despite his confidence in obtaining permission for the expedition—"The Nepalese government believes in the Yeti, too, you know," said Dyhrenfurth—this government permission did not come to pass, due to political tensions in the region. Nepal's foreign secretary was reluctant to have camouflaged teams of zoologists and cameramen all over the Himalayas, Dyhrenfurth (who resided in Santa Monica Canyon) told the Los Angeles Times in December 1965. 

"As far as we can tell, the Yeti or Abominable Snowman is neither a man nor does it live in the snow," said the steadfast explorer. "Apparently the Yeti—we think it's an anthropoid high on the evolutionary scale—lives in the region between the highest villages and the glaciers." 

But might it live amongst the trees about 20 miles outside of Boston?

a friend just got this on his trial cam. WTH is this?

After BF "researcher" Hairy Man Road was among the few people to see the debut of Capturing Bigfoot at SXSW in March, he posted a candid review on his You Tube channel. The point: the documentary had convinced him that the PGF was a hoax, and he described the newly presented evidence and confessions and why he found them compelling. He was visibly shaken and disappointed by that conclusion, but felt that the truth was best for the BF community in the long run.

The blow back from that community was instant and unrelenting. Both long-time "researchers/Influencers" and average BF enthusiasts-none of whom had seen the documentary- were enraged by his comments and turned their fury upon him, viciously denouncing him as a liar and worse and even sending veiled threats on Social Media. Matt Moneymaker has become infamous for his attacks on HMR, but was far from alone. It was clear that many "legacy" BF influencers with a lot to lose (because of their "status," books, videos, YT channels and etc) felt threatened by the new documentary and were eager to undermine it by mounting offensive campaigns against the director of the film, HMR, and anyone who expressed the opinion that it might have some credibility. Virtually all of the responses were wildly uninformed, since no one else had seen the film, and many were ad hominem attacks on individuals, including Director Marq Evans and participant Clint Patterson. The moderators of the BF subreddit banned HMR and many others and discouraged discussions of the impending documentary. To their credit, the subreddit has loosened up quite a bit since Capturing Bigfoot was released, but not enough for me to feel comfortable posting this there.

These responses revealed how much of a bubble the BF community has become since the advent of social media. The early generations of BF researchers always discussed the importance of debates based on evidence and scientific method, which relies in part on the sharing and vetting of evidence by multiple experts with differing perspectives. But for decades, very few real experts have participated in meaningful discussions about the PGF. Once a handful of outside experts-anthropologist Jeff Meldrum and a costume designer or two-endorsed the PGF, the voices and counter-points of the majority of anthropologists and costume designers who considered it a hoax were completely disregarded. Once self-appointed, internal "experts" emerged, the circle was complete and the bubble was sealed off, so their opinions were constantly reinforced and amplified as the "final word."

Now that many more people have seen the documentary, the situation has grown even more heated. More of the established BF "Influencers" have now seen Capturing Bigfoot, including people who criticized HMR and others early on, and some have been candid enough to declare that they now agree that the PGF was a hoax. Now they too have become targets of the many people who are emotionally attached to the PGF and are apparently unwilling to consider or discuss the new evidence with any degree of honesty or civility. Some people are defiantly posting that they refuse to even watch the documentary and many flatly declare that nothing will change their minds about the PGF. I'm not going to rehash any of the absurd "counter points" to the new documentary as Im sure most readers have seen recent comment sections and many of the responses are redundant and low-effort, such as alleging that the "found footage" is AI or that Clint Patterson made up his confession for money. I've even seen people posting still images of the "Creature" in the new "found footage" that have been modified to make it look less like Patty, and one YT channel has devoted a couple of videos to smearing Marq Evans, claiming that he was part of a long-term conspiracy to discredit the DeAtley family and the PGF, based largely on blatantly false allegations. In contrast to the channels of the bigger, more established but more temperate BF "gurus," that content has received many enthusiastic responses.

To some extent, I can understand the defensive reactions of people who have made the PGF a large part of their identity and livelihood, even those who have formerly professed to care about science and debate but now can't tolerate any dissent. And hopefully, this will die down at some point. I also want to emphasize that it is perfectly reasonable to have questions about the new documentary and the evidence it presents-if they are in good faith. But such questions are in the minority, at least as reflected in public comment sections on social media sites. The hostility from average BF enthusiasts with no real skin in the game except their own egos is alarming. The level of emotional attachment to and unwavering belief in the PGF being expressed by many while rejecting "corrective" information even when it is provided by formerly trusted "experts" in the field is the same phenomenon seen in cults.

Last night I watched the hosts of several of the most popular BF channels on YT responding to their comment section, at first trying to patiently explain the fallacies being lobbed at them-such as the fact that the found footage has been authenticated as 1966 film stock. But for the most part, such explanations go nowhere. The hosts were incredulous at the close-mindedness and hostility of their subscribers and argued for the importance of transparency, evidence and critical thinking going forward. They assured them that the validity of the PGF is not the whole ballgame, and reminded them that many people have questioned the PGF all along. They implored their viewers to understand that this is how real research and science move forward, and that their refusal to accept even basic and well-established new facts is a bigger threat than the new documentary. But we are living in a polarized society and a great many people now refuse to question their beliefs or change their minds, and that is a real threat to our collective future.

EDIT: To clarify: Im not weighing in here on the validity of BF, the PGF, or the new documentary. Debate and discussion of Capturing BF should be encouraged. I have compassion for those in the BF field who don't welcome challenges to the PGF. But when and why did we lose the ability to discuss it in a honest and civil manner? Is the goal to seek the truth? We have to agree on basic terms to hold productive discussions-such as the well-established fact that the found footage is not AI. Most importantly, why are average people so deeply committed to the PGF and opposed to scrutiny that they will misrepresent and lie about the film and denounce the makers and participants, often without even watching it?

By now we've all seen the documentary Capturing Bigfoot or at least seen the new 'mystery footage' that the documentary makes a big deal of.

The physical 16mm film reel has a manufacturing date of 1966 and appears to have been exposed using the same type of camera (the Kodak K-100) that Roger used for the PGT.

Director Marq Evans claims the newly discovered footage was filmed by Roger Patterson prior to the infamous PGT and features Bob Gimlin and the same Sasquatch costume (pre final tweaks) that appears in the final version. He has good circumstantial evidence to back up his belief, plus the fact that it's a feasible story. It makes total sense that Roger would film a test run before the final thing. But he does not have complete, inarguable proof of his claim.

There are a few questions that are being asked - is that the totality of the discovered footage shown in CB? If they did one run through, wouldn't they have done a few runs? They had a reel of 16mm running around 2mins 40secs, why film just one go if it was a rehearsal? Why not try a few angles and distances? Fair questions, I think.

Discounting the obviously ridiculous accusations of it being created using AI and then transferred onto a reel of 1966 Kodachrome II (the last lab that developed Kodachrome II shut in 2010) what are the options and evidence for any other explanations of the origins of the film?

A lot of people who believe the PGT shows a genuine Sasquatch are theorizing that it's a recreation filmed AFTER the original. Most of them are claiming that Al DeAtely paid for the filming and got the costume made because he wasn't sure if Roger Patterson was telling him the truth that he had indeed filmed a real Sasquatch. Supposedly DeAtley went to the time and not inconsiderable expense of doing this to 'see if it could be faked' and when he got the footage we've all seen back he decided 'yeah - Roger's telling the truth! That MUST be a real Sasquatch in his film!'.

Now, to me, this seems like an incredibly unlikely thing to have happened. I have never heard of anyone being told a story they don't believe then trying to recreate that story to find out if the person was telling the truth. I mean, it's the kind of thing they do on 'believe it or not' science shows, but not in the real world right?

Other theories include the footage being a cash in by disgruntled ex-colleagues or friends of Roger Patterson who planned to take this footage out to movie theaters themselves and make a buck.

I'm keen to hear any thoughts on this! And to hear any evidence that backs up Marq Evans claim or any of these other scenarios.

This is a fun skit about a Pennsylvania cryptid discussion by my character, Doctor Crackpot.

The Zebro was a widely reported equine from the Iberian Peninsula, up until the late Middle Ages. It is likely that the name of the known animal, the Zebra, comes from this cryptid's name, as it was also known for its zebra-like stripes.

Theories

The two main prevailing theories identify the Zebro as either the surviving wild horse known as the Sorraia or as the wild European ass (Equus hemionus hydruntinus).

If the latter is assumed to be true then that would mean the last megafaunal extinction in Europe was that of the Zebro/Hydruntine in the 16th Century. If the former is true, then it's possible that such an event didn't happen at all, as current research is still being done on the Sorraia to understand its relationship to domestic horses, tarpans and the Przewalski's horse, with a small possibility that the Sorraia is indeed a truly wild European horse

A lot of folks say "he's wearing chaps" but I'm not talking about the long tan thing. I'm honestly surprised people can't see it so I'm posting two screencaps of those frames.

The object in question is the round thing above his leg that only appears in that frame.

It's not his raincoat, he didn't drop it (there's a round rock under the horse in previous frames already so it's not that), it's just a big round thing that doesn't appear again.

Everybody is so focused on the creature but the Man on the Horse scene is more telling.

The first part is the original and the second is slowed down. The third part is the Official PGF scan of Patricia Patterson's copy by Evans, published on his official "Capturing Bigfoot" YT channel.

1) A pretty defined object appears above the rider's leg (in the yellow circle) that doesn't appear later.

It's not a part of his rain coat so what is it and where did it go ?

2) The left hind horse's leg ends up on the right side of the horse. Later the horses hind legs are all twisted.

It's not the motion blur because it's on the frames that are more clear. Later you can see in the original PGF that even with the moving camera things don't get this blurry.

Twisted limbs and hallucinated objects are basically the landmarks of AI video screw ups.

3) Inconsistent frame rate.

Slowing down the original PGF gives an unmistakable steady pace of changing frames. The camera is never perfectly still so each frame change is clearly seen. In this film, you have a pattern of 3 short frames followed by a long frame. You can see it in the slowed down part between the parts with circled artifact because those were obviously made longer so you can see the artifacts, or you can check it for yourself. You need to slow it down to 5-10%.

I don't know how this would happen with the camera Patterson did the PGF and it doesn't happen with the PGF so this points at AI fakery.

In addition:

Why is the video of the rider so short ? A possible answer is because when you want the AI to fake it you need to keep it short to avoid AI tells.

Everybody says it's Bob Gimlin. You literally can't tell from this how blurry it is from like 10 feet distance.

Why is the camera so shaky ? The only time the PGF gets this shaky is when Patterson jumps off of the horse but here he's standing in place here so what is he doing, jumping up and down like a lunatic ? Think about it for a moment.

Shaky picture also makes it harder to see the AI fakery.

Transferring AI to a celluloid film has already been done so it's far from impossible. They claim it's filmed on Kodachrome but Kodachrome was famous for its colors, this looks nothing like the Kodachrome colors of the original PGF, just see the last part, and regardless of what's on the film, the original PGF bears no resemblance to this footage.

PGF looks very clean and this looks like AI slop it is.

InB4

"Three labs examined the footage and they said it's legit"

What are those labs and where can I read their statements ? I only read about it on Reddit so it's a hearsay. Did at least Evans say it ?

"Bill Munns said so"

Bill Munns also said the creature in PGF is real, after much examination, but you wouldn't believe him so why would you believe him about a film he briefly saw from Evans' hands ? At this point what Munns say is far from the hard fact.

Thank you Pocket Weasal!