TV Skeptic: 'Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide'

I will never forget my first encounter with Bigfoot. It was early one morning when I was in fifth grade. The school day had just started, and my desk was near the window, where I had a clear view of the adjacent forest and the rugged mountains beyond. Our teacher was handing out some reading material when I saw him. Big, hairy and scary, right there on the cover of the Weekly Reader. From that moment, Bigfoot captured my imagination. I read that little booklet from cover to cover, believing every word. 

But you grow up and things change. On Tuesday, the History Channel aired "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide," a documentary that promised to hold Bigfoot up to the standards of modern science. This is not the first time science has taken on Bigfoot, but so far, it seems, whenever the Bigfoot legend and facts have squared off, the legend has won.

This Canadian-British production brought together a panel of scientists to analyze reports of "Bigfoot" sightings from around the world. Unfortunately, the scientists start off on the wrong foot, with a rather misleading argument.

The team points to the recent discovery of the Bili Ape, a large relative of the chimpanzee that lives in the Bili forest of the Congo. They claim that if a new species as large as this has managed to live undetected for so long, other species of giant ape-like creatures might still be out there. 

The problem with that claim is that it was well known that chimpanzees lived in that same forest. The discovery was not that they existed, but that they are so different -- larger and darker in color -- as to constitute a new species. (Most new species discovered by scientists, including those found by team member Anna Nekaras, fall into that same category.)  

The comparison between Bigfoot and the Bili Ape would be relevant if we knew about a smaller primate, say a "Mediumfoot" or "Smallfoot," roaming the Pacific Northwest and discovered that the larger specimen was actually a different species.   

As part of their analysis, the scientists plotted Bigfoot sightings on a "global interactive map" that is never shown in detail on the program. But the map does illustrate one key point -- the number of sightings dramatically increased following the 1967 release of the "Patterson film," the famous footage showing a few seconds of an alleged Bigfoot. 

The best part of the program comes when the scientists disagree about the authenticity of the Patterson film. Two are certain it was a hoax, while another two believes it was an actual creature, arguing that the costume was too sophisticated for an amateur filmmaker. Meanwhile, one remains undecided.  

It's too bad they didn't do a Google search on the Patterson film. In a few seconds, they would have learned that a Hollywood special-effects expert claims that he provided Patterson with the costume, and that a friend of the filmmakers says he wore the costume over football shoulder pads. Patterson was shooting a film about Bigfoot at the time, and it is not unusual for documentaries to depict Bigfoot using a human in costume. What is unusual, though, is to release that footage with the claim that it is a genuine sighting.

"Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide" rarely rises above the typical crypto-zoology documentary. A big problem is the overblown script. While the scientists are careful and precise in their language and claims, the narration goes far beyond the scope of the science and reality.

When it comes to Bigfoot, the only thing definitive in the documentary is that nothing is definitive. The five scientists cannot reach a consensus. Two are "open-minded," another two are skeptical and one is "hopeful." But it still isn't clear if the panel is speaking specifically about Bigfoot or simply the idea that there may be a large, undiscovered primate species roaming somewhere in the world. 

So, if you're keeping score, mark this battle between science and the Bigfoot mythology as a draw. The only victory here is one for exploiting the public's interest in this mythical creature.

-- Ed Stockly

Photo: A human is pictured in a Bigfoot costume in a scene from "Bigfoot." Photo credit: Nicolas Marcoux / History Channel

Comments

[cleve hicks]

I am happy to see that the article refers to my work studying the Bili chimpanzees. I need to point out that there is no evidence that the Bili apes are a 'new species' of chimpanzees. Prof. Colin Groves has proposed that they are a new SUBspecies, but that is disputed by some geneticists. The Bili apes actually provide a good example of how over-hyped newly-discovered populations of animals can be ... (see early claims that they were hybrid chimps-gorillas). That does not diminish the scientific import of these animals, who, unlike other many populations of Pan troglodytes, seem to display behavioral continuity (in making ground nests, pounding open food, and dipping for ants) across an enormous geographical area, as I describe in my Ph.D. thesis.

[tom]

Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide - was horrible and a waste of 2 hours.

You are way off the mark on the patterson video.
"Hollywood special-effects expert claims that he provided Patterson with the costume" - this has been prove untrue many times.

"a friend of the filmmakers says he wore the costume over football shoulder pads" - Also proven to be totally untrue.

You need to google some more

[chris]

Talk about needing to do some work on google !!!!....you are making statements you know NOTHING about .Rodger Patterson passed a lie detector test. Those other guys never did..The fact is that if you really analyze the film you will see the pectoral,tricep and quadricep muscles expanding and contracting with every step...the hollywood technology in costume making,where muscle movement could be seen,was still 15 years from being invented!!! You will see the fingers and hand move , proving that there was no fake hand or some sort of extension making the arm longer,,wht is that relevent?? Because the arm length to body height ratio of the Patterson bigfoot is over 60%..only less then 1% of all humans on earth have a ratio over 50%...in over 50 years NO ONE can prove that that film is a hoax and NO one has been able to re create it with all the facts included,,,The 2 skeptic scientists could point out NOTHING as proof that the film is fake, They gave no evidence except but to say that they didnt believe a man who passed a lie detector test and swore the truth till he died..The fact that bigfoots exist is proven beyond a doubt in that clip and even more so as time goes by

[Cali]

Look idiot, that show was a waste of two hours, but you need to get your facts straight.

No one EVER confessed to making ANY costume. If you have that confession then post it moron.

You can google search your ass off and you will never find any site that PROVES the Patterson film was a hoax. Just like that show...you are being misleading.

If you have a site that PROVES the PG film a hoax, then post it.

Truth is, no one has EVER proven the PG film to be a hoax, and all sites that claim hoax, only do it in theory.

Bigfoot probably does not exist, but you need to be honest in your reporting...idiot.

[Karl]

It's ironic how some of your readers have viciously pointed out a few minor incorrections, while waving their own ignorance about in all its glory.

John Chambers, the "special-effects expert" never confessed to making the Patterson suit. Philip Morris is the one who claimed to make the suit, and though he provided costumes to Hollywood, he was not, to my knowledge, a special-effects expert.

[Rodney Weible]

Dear Ed Stockly,

I am quite disturbed by your shallow and uneducated review of the Bigfoot phenomena. I have researched this for many years and have seen the top documentaries on the Patterson film. TOP special effects artists, anthropologists, FBI experts and other primate movement experts have examined the Patterson film and have stated that it could not have been faked!
Just because you Google something like this and a bunch of idiots with "no proof" claim to be responsible doesn't mean the film is fake. Do you believe everything you read? If so maybe you should run for president or something. The truth is that there is much disinformation out there and now your article is part of it. If you are going to write about this stuff for a quality publication like the L.A. Times, try to make sure you know what you are talking about. OR should I just get all of my news from FOX NEWS!

Rod Weible
Cryptozoologist

[Linda Newton-Perry]

I believe once bigfoot is proclaimed a real animal there will be more sightings and more photos. Why? Because we will know to look for it. Linda Newton-Perry of Bigfoot Ballyhoo

[MIKE]

You are way to quick to dismiss the Patterson film. That piece has been anylized over and over yet no one can prove its a hoax..in fact with each look the evidence it seems to prove that the film is authentic.