First, we have to start with the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film. Click on the picture to the left to see a "stablized" version of the original film. You'll be able to see the muscles moving under the hair of the female sasquatch. That alone should make one realize it's an actual creature. But the naysayers will tell you it's just a guy in an alaborate costume. We dare you to find a movie from the 1960s, or early 1970s, that had a costume that good. If Hollywood couldn't do it back then, how did Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin?
In spite of several individuals having proclaimed that they were the "guy in the suit", the two men who filmed the creature have never, ever recanted their story.
This footage was shot in 1994 by Paul Freeman. He was working for a Watershed District when he had is original encounter. In this video he is following up on some recent sightings near the Washington-Oregon border. He was following a line of bigfoot tracks into a grove of trees when he made this encounter. The creatures seen are very similar to the creature filmed by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin.
This is the Yeti de Bourganeuf. Basically a frozen corpse being displayed in France as part of a fair. However, the ONLY two people to examine this body both claimed it was a real creature. Scott Elliot White and hominologist Christian Le Noel staked their reputations on their claims. Keep in mind that no other men of science examined the body, so how they can claim it was a hoax is beyond me. We do know that the body was later replaced with a replica for whatever reasons, and the actually body was never found again. Mr. White and Mr. Le Noel were aware there was a switch after their examinations, but say they have the pictures to prove the difference between the two.
Which is actually pictured in the attached video we cannot say. But we do know that the few people we know that have seen this picture or video swear that it is exactly what they saw in their face to face encounters.
Finally, we will discuss the physical evidence that has been collected over the years.
Footprints: Thousands have been collected and in a varity of sizes. Many have been hoaxed and serious researches can differentiate between the lgetimate and the hoaxed. But all of that aside, why would someone wanting to create a hoax place a fake track in such a remote area that the chances of anyone coming across it would be astronomical?
Hair, Tissue and Blood: Yes, there have been samples found and examined. Obviously, some have turned out to be of known animals. But there have been those samples collected and examined that are of unkown origin. The favorite excuse by the non-believing scientific community is that when the DNA comes back as being "too close" to human, it must have been contaminated. Why? Couldn't it be that sasquatch is closer to human than anything else known? Since they don't believe that saqutaches can possibly exist, we believe their minds are closed to the evidence.
Sadly, there are far too many "scientists" that have closed their minds to thinking there isn't anything they don't already know, so investigating it would be pointless. We believe the time will be come very soon that the existence of sasquatch will be proven beyond any doubt. Then what will those scientists say?
One of the more interesting things that's happened recently is the release of the Munns Report. Bill Munns has taken on the process of examining the Patterson-Gimlin Film to determine what it was that Roger Patterson filmed that October day in 1967. Bill's site lists his qualifications, experience and accomplishments to date and is well worth your time to view it.
Professor Jeff Meldrum's presentation to the 2005 TBRC Conference,
Part 1. The Professor discusses scientific response to his work and midtarsal break in the foot of Sasquatch. Presented by Richard Noll.
Professor Meldrum continues his discussion of the midtarsal break.