New Loch Ness development

[Morgoth]

As many of you may know, I've always been a bit leery of whether there is or is not a Loch Ness Monster. The evidence just never really seemed to be there, and, well, something just smelled rotten about the whole thing.

Well, now I'm back in the other camp, courtesy of a new development and a connection to what is going on over there that makes complete sense and explains why definitive proof of the monster's existence has never been unearthed. Please visit www.lochnesstooth.com (http://www.lochnesstooth.com) and see for yourself this strange tooth that was found - and confiscated - at Loch Ness. Then you may do well to visit www.theloch.com (http://www.theloch.com). The author of this novel, Steve Alten, has made the connection that has always bothered me. With all the attention focused on Loch Ness, by now we should know what the monster is - unless they don't want us to! Why wouldn't they want us to know what Nessie is? Because the truth is nasty, ugly, frightening and dangerous, not the sort of thing that a thriving tourist industry can continue to thrive upon. As Steve Alten puts it, the Loch Ness Monster is not a 'smiling plesiosaur', but something much more dangerous and terrifying. One of my dreams as a kid was going to Loch Ness, if that ever happens, you better believe I'm not going near the water.

Anyway, just thought fellow cryptozoologists here might find these sites of interest.

[Kiryu goji]

Oh my god.

I have allways been a believer, but I was recently beginning to have my doubts. But with this, all of them are squashed, and I, for the first time, think this is a beast to fear.

[Pkmatrix]

Hm...I had heard about the tooth before, but never took the time to listen to their story. Now, it completely makes sense why we haven't found anything despite all of the evidence...

I hope they can get the tooth back!

[biochemitra]

i dont get it. I checked out the links, what does nessie turn out to be? Why havent we found anything?

[Neo-Crucifer]

And people wonder why I stay out of the water.

[Cole Deschain]

I'm not 100% on this guys.... that deer carcass looks a mite... put up.

Also, I'm not sure I trust anyone who thinks that that tooth could have come from a bear, even for a second. I mean come on. A bear with a mouth that wide? In Scotland?

[Kaiju Fan]

I would be careful before accepting this so quickly guys...word on the street is that this is nothing but a hoax by Alten to sell more books.

[Neo-Crucifer]

That is certainly possible... though I wouldn't like to go swimming in the Loch just to prove it. :look:

[Cole Deschain]

Heh heh heh...

"The tooth is out there!"

[Tomzilla]

I would be careful before accepting this so quickly guys...word on the street is that this is nothing but a hoax by Alten to sell more books.

That is the most likely scenario at this time. This quote from the website alone makes me doubt this is true:

"Mr. McDonald says the tooth will prove his own theories apparently - developed for some author." It corresponds with what is being written in the actual book. In my opinion, it is an attempt to try and make readers think the book is based on true elements.

Still, this does have my interest. I have always believed there is something in Loch Ness, I'm just not sure this is entirely true. But if it is, well then, I'm never going near the Loch. Ever.

[Saruman]

I'm not buying this one for a second. I know I have seen that tooth picture some place else and it had nothing to do with "Nessie." Now if I could only remember where I saw it, but it was a while ago. I think it might have had something to do with another cryptid, but I know I have seen it before.

EDIT:

I just watched the movie, that sounded so staged it isn't even funny. Also that has got to be the cleanest deer carcas I have ever seen, LOL.:laugh:

Another interesting thing I noticed is that the end of the tooth is dark when the rest of the tooth is white. I don't know of any animal that has teeth like that, not even a dinosaur does. Teeth darken at the root not at the tip of the tooth. IMO, that looks like it was carved from a cow horn. My Uncle makes powder horns for Kentucky Rifles, and that looks exactly like the horns he uses. FYI, when you clear away the outer layer of a cow horn it is black underneath.

I definately don't buy this one at all now. Maybe these guys planned this or maybe someone else did and they just happened upon it, but I don't believe this at all now.

[Gojira2000]

I hope the Loch Ness Monster is real! As a kid I always wanted to go to Loch Ness to find it, and still do. However, Saruman, and others have made some very good points, so I'm just going to asume it's not to be taken to seriously untill I see some real-er proof.

[Morgoth]

interesting point Saruman, I hadn't connected the dots on the colouration of the thing and that throws a whole new level of suspicion on the matter. I'm not an expert on fish fangs, but I'm pretty sure they follow the same rule of dark root and light shaft.

If this is a hoax, which looks pretty plausible with Saruman's observation, it plays on what I always considered the most probable identity behind the Loch Ness Monster, namely that it is a species of giant eel. That would account for many things, such as the infrequency of its appearance on the surface (as in fish don't need to breath air) and also the land sightings (eels can travel on land) as well as explainging why the Scottish government might be extremely reluctant to have this sort of thing get out - a giant carnivorous fish is hardly the sort of thing that is going to have people bringing their families to Loch Ness for beachside picnics and rowboat rides.

[HolyGoji777]

as much as i think its fake...i wish so much it were true. its just hard to believe that something so big could go without any solid evidence of its existance for so long.

[Archaic_Avenger]

well, the tooth itself i doubted from the start. that story really sounds like one of those e-mails to get you to send them money. however, i still believe in the Loch Ness Monster, just as i still believe in Bigfoot. a giant eel could very well be what Nessie is, although

i'm a huge fan of cryptozoology, especially Loch Ness. i've seen around two or three movies on it, and even read a novel about it. i think there's something down there.

Rodan2000

[Melkor]

I've believed in the Loch Ness monster ever since I first heard of it, but I just don't think there is enough evidence to verify this story. IMHO, that story is too manufactured in order for me to find it believable; although it would be very exciting if it were, indeed, true.

By the way, and I know this is slightly off-topic, but what do you guys think of this picture, supposedly of the Inkanyamba aka the monster of Howick Falls?

http://www.americanmonsters.com/gallery/aquatic/images/inkanyamba2.jpg



Peace,



Melkor



:darklord:

[BS Digital Q]

It looks like it was hand drawn.

[Solar_Behemoth]

I've never really believed in the Loch Ness Monster, but I do think the other famous cryptids Mothman and Bigfoot exist. The evidence regarding Nessie is just not impressive to me- way too many photographs of it have been proven faked or underwater pictures that showed what looked like a head or a fin just turned out to be logs.

When I first read the tooth-thing I was pretty intrigued, and when I watched those videos of the supposed sighting, it was pretty creepy and seemed real (the same feeling I get from the Blair Witch Project). But after awhile, things didn't add up. Saruman and Cole Deschain already pointed out these suspicious details. This is most likely a hoax to get Alten's book sold, which I almost bought on ebay because it vaguely said the book had new evidence. But I guess it's just a work of fiction.

By the way, and I know this is slightly off-topic, but what do you guys think of this picture, supposedly of the Inkanyamba aka the monster of Howick Falls?

http://www.americanmonsters.com/gal...inkanyamba2.jpg


Ah yes, Inkanymaba. The creature that supposedly preys amongst people around his lair behind the waterfall. The picture, which I've seen more clear than the blurry one here, is obviously faked in my eyes. Nope, it wasn't hand drawn, but it kinda does look like it (in this blurry one, that is) It looks like a clay model of a serpentine head superimposed behind a waterfall background.

To me, the Inkayamba is as nonexistent as a Centuar.

[Bagoth]

Personally I think that Loch Ness Monster exists. But evidence have come to say that there is really isn't enough food for such a creature to eat and like venetta pointed out alot of the pictures were proven to be false. So in my mind there are three different possibilities. That it is pleasosaur or some ancient water reptile in the lake and possibly has a cave or a tunnel somewhere. So it could escape into the ocean to feed. Or it could be mystical in origin like some of the other sea serpents and that is the reason why it cannot be found. Or this particular sea serpent doesn't exist.

[kent]

I have always kept my mind open to the whole subject but I guess you could say I am more of a non-believer than a believer for this one main point: If such a creature exists, why haven't we seen it by now? Sure we got those old video tapes and what have ya, but if this creature is supposedly a relative of the pleasiosaur, it would have to surface somewhat often for air. Not to mention plesiosaurs had the ability to go up onto dry land and make trackways. How come no trackways have been discovered? I don't buy this guy nor this evidence. The tooth looks completely fake if you ask me.
I will still keep my mind open on the subject; but I, more or less, don't believe it.

[Saruman]

There is a much larger mystery than this that permeates the entire cryptid community.........

Why is every picture, of every cryptid, so blurry it isn't even funny?

I mean really, most cameras today have autofocus features. Not one person can get a decent picture of any of these cryptids? Do all cryptids have a magical aura that blurs camera images, LOL.:laugh:

[Kaiju Fan]

There is a much larger mystery than this that permeates the entire cryptid community.........

Why is every picture, of every cryptid, so blurry it isn't even funny?

I mean really, most cameras today have autofocus features. Not one person can get a decent picture of any of these cryptids? Do all cryptids have a magical aura that blurs camera images, LOL.:laugh:

I actually just read a good article from the BFRO that tackled that question, including the autofocus situation. Check it out here: http://bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=412. It makes sense to me, between the witnesses' surprise and fear, and the cryptid usually disappearing within a few seconds, there's hardly any time for a decent picture to be taken.

[Saruman]

I can buy some of those reasons, but there are a few that I don't agree with, numbers 1, 4 & 6. Ever watch shows like "Real TV, America's Funniest Videos, Animal Planet's Funniest Videos," ect.. So many people carry cameras and camcorders around with them it isn't even funny. And the autofocus features are almost instant now and most autostabilize as well.

Number 4 is just really wrong. Most people that go looking for these creatures don't go with the intent of photographing them? What is that? Of course they go with the intent to photograph them. The only way to prove these creatures exist is by either capturing it or photographing it.

[Zigra]

I mean really, most cameras today have autofocus features. Not one person can get a decent picture of any of these cryptids? Do all cryptids have a magical aura that blurs camera images, LOL.:laugh:

I'm not exactly up to date on recording technology, but I'm pretty sure that many of the more famous photos and film footage of various "cryptids" were taken before the autofocus features you speak of.

And photos are actually relatively rare. Many of the people who claim to have sighted strange creatures, if their stories are to be believed, weren't expecting the encounter, and often didn't get a chance to take pictures or videotape what they claim to have seen.

[Kaiju Fan]

I can buy some of those reasons, but there are a few that I don't agree with, numbers 1, 4 & 6. Ever watch shows like "Real TV, America's Funniest Videos, Animal Planet's Funniest Videos," ect.. So many people carry cameras and camcorders around with them it isn't even funny. And the autofocus features are almost instant now and most autostabilize as well.

Number 4 is just really wrong. Most people that go looking for these creatures don't go with the intent of photographing them? What is that? Of course they go with the intent to photograph them. The only way to prove these creatures exist is by either capturing it or photographing it.

The Funniest Home Video Shows usually involve videos taken in or around a house or neighborhood, not the woods where these creatures are typically seen. While I have heard of urban and rural sightings of these creatures, they typically do not venture into highly populated areas (at least to my knowledge), which is where 99% of people keep their cameras. Also, the autofocus, even if it is almost instanteous now, still requires the witness to get over their intitial shock of the completely unexpected encounter and properly aim the camera at the creature, during which time it has usually left the area.


#4 I happen to agree with myself, there are very few people who actually go out into the field and investigate, most are "arm chair" researchers as they phrased it who just read and analyze reports, not do active field work. Of course the ones who actually go out in the field are intent on photographing a cryptid, but it is such an expensive and time-consuming effort that very few people actually do it.

[Kaiju Fan]

I'm not exactly up to date on recording technology, but I'm pretty sure that many of the more famous photos and film footage of various "cryptids" were taken before the autofocus features you speak of.


The Patterson Bigfoot film was taken in 1967, before the advent of autofocus.

[Saruman]

I'm not exactly up to date on recording technology, but I'm pretty sure that many of the more famous photos and film footage of various "cryptids" were taken before the autofocus features you speak of.

Yes, but I was referring to todays technology. More recent photos seem to be even more blurry than the older photos you see.

And photos are actually relatively rare. Many of the people who claim to have sighted strange creatures, if their stories are to be believed, weren't expecting the encounter, and often didn't get a chance to take pictures or videotape what they claim to have seen.

Yet that dosen't stop all the pictures that we have seen now does it.

[Saruman]

The Funniest Home Video Shows usually involve videos taken in or around a house or neighborhood, not the woods where these creatures are typically seen. While I have heard of urban and rural sightings of these creatures, they typically do not venture into highly populated areas (at least to my knowledge), which is where 99% of people keep their cameras. Also, the autofocus, even if it is almost instanteous now, still requires the witness to get over their intitial shock of the completely unexpected encounter and properly aim the camera at the creature, during which time it has usually left the area.

You miss the point, which is people carry cameras and video recorders around with them all the time now. Some of them are so small that you can slip them into a shirt pocket, and this doesn't include cellphone cameras. Just about every place you go, you or someone around you is going to have some type of camera or video recorder, and that includes in the woods.


#4 I happen to agree with myself, there are very few people who actually go out into the field and investigate, most are "arm chair" researchers as they phrased it who just read and analyze reports, not do active field work. Of course the ones who actually go out in the field are intent on photographing a cryptid, but it is such an expensive and time-consuming effort that very few people actually do it.

Did you read #4 because you just disagreed with it. It says most people that go looking for these creatures DON'T go with the intent of photographing them. Sorry, but that is wrong. If your actually going out into the field to look for them, then you are going to bring a camera of some sort. The "arm chair" researchers don't go out into the field usually, but if/when they do, they bring cameras with them. It's the only way besides actually capturing one of them to prove it is real. If your not going to try and photograph it, then there is no point in going.

[Saruman]

The Patterson Bigfoot film was taken in 1967, before the advent of autofocus.

Yes, and Patterson admitted on his deathbed that it was a fake that he had setup.

[Kaiju Fan]

You miss the point, which is people carry cameras and video recorders around with them all the time now. Some of them are so small that you can slip them into a shirt pocket, and this doesn't include cellphone cameras. Just about every place you go, you or someone around you is going to have some type of camera or video recorder, and that includes in the woods.

I do agree with you that people do carry around cameras and other similar devices alot, but I don't think it is as widespread as you are making it out to be. Cellphone cameras and such yes, but most people do not carry real cameras around with them constantly unless they are sure they are going to need/use them, at least in my experience. Besides, the cellphone cameras are pretty much useless for this kind of stuff anyway because even if the cryptid waited around long enough for the phone to turn on and for you to set up the camera and everything, the pictures are always blurred, even more so than with a real camera.




Did you read #4 because you just disagreed with it. It says most people that go looking for these creatures DON'T go with the intent of photographing them. Sorry, but that is wrong. If your actually going out into the field to look for them, then you are going to bring a camera of some sort. The "arm chair" researchers don't go out into the field usually, but if/when they do, they bring cameras with them. It's the only way besides actually capturing one of them to prove it is real. If your not going to try and photograph it, then there is no point in going.

I might be reading it wrong myself, but I think the author is saying that there are very few people who actually do real field work as opposed to the arm chair type of research. Again though, I might be reading it wrong.

[Kaiju Fan]

Yes, and Patterson admitted on his deathbed that it was a fake that he had setup.

Patterson NEVER called the film a hoax of any kind, he stuck to his story until the day he died, as did Bob Gimlin his partner. The media loves to jump on any new hoax claims for the film, such as the recent nonsense with Greg Long and Bob Heronimous, but all hoax claims have so far been hoaxes themselves, the film continues to be the best evidence for the existence of Bigfoot yet.

[Solar_Behemoth]

the film continues to be the best evidence for the existence of Bigfoot yet.

Dude, I read many times that that film was faked, as said by Patterson himself. As far as I'm concerned it is a hoax. If you can tell me exactly why the media would just make up that Patterson said it was a hoax, then please tell me. Your reasons are vague.

The Bigfoot Patterson video (as well as the famous Surgeon's photo of the Loch Ness Monster) were proven to be hoaxed by the same people who did them. Only wild stubborn cryptozoologists find excuses to ignore these facts.

I research this stuff all the time, and I do believe in Bigfoot and "Mothman," but some people gotta realize that not every piece of evidence is real.

Clip from the Patterson video:
http://img262.echo.cx/img262/4125/f35215xy.jpg

The famous Nessie photo: (taken on April Fool's day in the 30s :sleeping: )


http://img262.echo.cx/img262/8506/ness7110qx.jpg

[Kaiju Fan]

Dude, I read many times that that film was faked, as said by Patterson himself. As far as I'm concerned it is a hoax.

I have heard many hoax claims for the film but never any that say that Patterson admitted to a hoax of any kind. Besides, to take a slightly cynical view for a minute, why would Patterson hurt the market value of his own film when it is worth so much more as a film of a real Bigfoot?

If you can tell me exactly why the media would just make up that Patterson said it was a hoax, then please tell me. Your reasons are vague.

I never said the media would make that up, or any claims, I said that they are quick to jump on such claims made by people and trumpet them as absolute truth, when in fact a careful analysis of the claims always reveals fatal flaws in them. For example, the recent claim involving Bob Heronimous (where he claimed to be the guy in the "suit") is flawed in two obvious ways, first off why couldn't he reveal a costume that actually looked like what was filmed back in 1967, and secondly how could Heronimous, who I believe is only 6'4'', match something that scientists analyzing the film have estimated at 7 feet or higher?


The Bigfoot Patterson video (as well as the famous Surgeon's photo of the Loch Ness Monster) were proven to be hoaxed by the same people who did them.

The Patterson Film was never, ever proven to be hoaxed, and once again here is an article from the BFRO about this debunking attempts: http://bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp.

As for the Surgeon's Photo, I do admit that may very well be a hoax, though there are reasons to doubt the validity of that "confession" as well, though I would have to get back to you when I have a chance to look in a book of mine. I do have something from cryptozoology.com though: A recent study shows that the claim by Christian Spurling, the man who claimed it was fake on his deathbed, may be incorrect. Many people noted that the angle was wrong for a one-foot high model out 100 feet in the water, but is more likely four-feet high and 400 feet out like the original account goes. The second photo shows the neck in a different position as well.


Only wild stubborn cryptozoologists find excuses to ignore these facts.

No, us "wild, stubborn" cryptozoologists read into these "facts" and realize them for the frauds that they are, and aren't so quick to accept to jump every claim that comes along as being the absolute truth.


I research this stuff all the time

As do I, I have spent the last 13 years of my life researching it, and have read professional and scientific works by authors such as Loren Coleman, Jerry Coleman, Jerome Clark, Nick Redfern, Stanton Friedman, Patrick Huyghe, Bernard Heuvelmans etc. In addition, I am a freuquent visitor at cryptozoology.com, ufoevidence.org, and bfro.net, and have read countless articles and papers on not only cryptozoology but the paranormal in general. In addition, I just recently became an active member of MUFON ^_^.


some people gotta realize that not every piece of evidence is real.

That is elementary


http://img262.echo.cx/img262/4125/f35215xy.jpg[/img]


Some reasons for the authenticity of the Patterson film:

The length of the creature's arms is virtually beyond human standards, possibly occurring in one out of 52.5 million people.
The length of the creature's legs is unusual by human standards, possibly occurring in one out of 1,000 people.
Nothing was found indicating the creature was a man in a costume (i.e., no seam or interfaces).
Hand movement indicates flexible hands. This condition implies that the arm would have to support flexion in the hands. An artificial arm with hand movement ability was probably beyond the technology available in 1967.
The Russian finding on the similarity between the foot casts and the creature's foot was confirmed.
Preliminary findings indicate that a human being could not duplicate the forward motion part of the creature’s walking pattern.
Rippling of the creature's flesh or fat on its right side was observed indicating that a costume is highly improbable.
The creature's feet undergo flexion like a real foot. This finding eliminates the possibility of fabricated solid foot apparatus. It also implies that the leg would have to support flexion in the foot. An artificial leg with foot movement ability was probably beyond the technology available in 1967.
The appearance and sophistication of the creature's musculature are beyond costumes used in the entertainment industry.
Non-uniformity in hair texture, length, and coloration is inconsistent with sophisticated costumes used in the entertainment industry

[Zigra]

The famous Nessie photo: (taken on April Fool's day in the 30s :sleeping: )

You know, awhile back, on one of these "unexplained mysteries" shows that use to be shown on Fox, the claims of the man who took that photo and said it was a hoax on his deathbed had come into question. The man claimed that he created the hoax by using a small handheld model that floated in the water and took a picture of that. However, when you see the entire photo (not just the close-up that you posted and is most often shown), the shoreline of the lake, along with various trees, can be seen in the foreground, showing that this must have been one huge model that he used if it really were a hoax.

Edit: Anybody have any follow-up information on this? I'm wondering because it's been quite a few years since I saw that TV program (I think I was still in junior high at the time), and I'd like to know where I can find more information on this, if anybody knows.

[Kaiju Fan]

You know, awhile back, on one of these "unexplained mysteries" shows that use to be shown on Fox, the claims of the man who took that photo and said it was a hoax on his deathbed had come into question. The man claimed that he created the hoax by using a small handheld model that floated in the water and took a picture of that. However, when you see the entire photo (not just the close-up that you posted and is most often shown), the shoreline of the lake, along with various trees, can be seen in the foreground, showing that this must have been one huge model that he used if it really were a hoax.

Edit: Anybody have any follow-up information on this? I'm wondering because it's been quite a few years since I saw that TV program (I think I was still in junior high at the time), and I'd like to know where I can find more information on this, if anybody knows.


I have a little bit in a book, just haven;t been able to gain access to the book yet. Here's something from my earlier response though: Many people noted that the angle was wrong for a one-foot high model out 100 feet in the water, but is more likely four-feet high and 400 feet out like the original account goes. The second photo shows the neck in a different position as well.

[MouthForWar]

I'm a huge cryptozoology nut, and I really DOUBT the Loch Ness monster's existence. I could write a book about why I dont think that thing is real. I've been a huge researcher of these things since I was a little kid and the evidence against Nessie's existence is amazing. Most die hard crypto fans really despise Nessie. I refuse to get into it here though. Its one of those topics that I have really strong opinions about and don't feel like talking about anywhere. But for anyone interested there are far more interesting and more realistic cryptids out there like Mokele Mbembe, Kongomoto, the Mongolian Death Worm, hell even the Ogopogo.

As for the tooth. The tooth is a clever marketing ploy by an author who just put out a novel about Nessie called "The Loch"- the site is in the book and its meant to coincide with the book's release. Its not real, its a hoax to sell more books. The author, Steve Alten also made a number of fake Loch Ness videos. The actual "tooth" is actually none other than the tip of a deer antler. Go cryptozoology.com for more (there are tons of topics about it on their forums). In addition to that, there's a whole article on it at the Global Underwater Search Team's website: http://www.cryptozoology.st/artiklar_American_cryptozoology_hoaxes.html

[Morgoth]

The Surgeon's Photo is a fake, it's been proven. The thing was an elaborate hoax that was supposed to make the Daily News look like fools, but then became so big the hoaxers didn't dare to reveal that it was a fraud for fears of being sued for exactly that - fraud!


The Patterson/Gimlin Film, however, has never been proven to be a hoax. Roger Patterson never said anything about it being a hoax (and he died in 1972 for frame of reference, so if he had, we sure as spit wouldn't still eb talking about it). Many spurious stories keep coming up surrounding the film. There have been claims by Hollywood stuntmen that they were 'the guy in the suit' which were later proven to be false (kinda hard to be in two places at the same time). John Chambers, who did the make-up for the original 'Planet of the Apes' was often accused/credited as being the guy who made the Bigfoot costume, and several times these claims formed the basis of newspaper articles. Chambers always denied that he had anything to do with the film, in fact a few times he expressed a wish to know how it was done (which to be fair does infer that he felt it was some sort of spfx makeup, though beyond his skill to reproduce). On Chambers deathbed, he was asked again if he had anything to do with the Patterson film and once again denied involvement in it. Two names often attached to this 'hoax' who on their deathbeds did the exact opposite of what would be so convenient for naysayers, they denied that it was fakery. Another huge aspect of this is that virtually everyone who has investigated into this film being a fake has said that Bob Gimlin is a very honest individual who was Patterson's dupe, brought along to add versimilutude to the film. Big problem here - Gimlin went in with a rifle. If this was a joke that he wasn't in on - well, I'm sure you can put two and two together and come up with a very surprised dead guy in a monket suit.

So to recap - Surgeon's Photo utter balderdash revealed by a deathbed confession. The Patterson Film - well, until a dead Sasquatch is brought in the jury is still out on that one.

[Morgoth]

I have an answer for why the media would try to debunk the Patterson film - because when you can't get any more mileage out of a story, then you can always turn it around and make a huge stir by proving it was fake. Happens all the time, with bright-eyed journalists running around with half-baked, half-legit theories to turn around accepted and usualy correct historical incidents. Yes, Bigfoot is another victim of revisionism. I saw a special on Discovery once that tried to recreate the Patterson film. While they lauded their efforts as 'proving it could be done', if you ignored the voice over you could plainly see that they did anything but. Using 90's technology, their Bigfoot suit did not have the incosistent hair of the creature in the Patterson film, it was an even coating of fur with no sign of either muscle movement or skin underneath (as can be seen in a few patches on the patterson film, where it looks like some hair has been rubbed away from the creature's thigh). Second, despite claiming that the walk of the creature would be easy to imitate, their stuntman couldn't do it. The only thing of value in the film was the revelation that the creature in the Patterson film was much shorter than the 7 foot mark, nearer 6'2 if I recall correctly, though looking at something like that, I can see where a bit of exaggeration on the part of a witness might be excused. I give them credit for not running like hell in the other direction.

[MouthForWar]

You know, awhile back, on one of these "unexplained mysteries" shows that use to be shown on Fox, the claims of the man who took that photo and said it was a hoax on his deathbed had come into question. The man claimed that he created the hoax by using a small handheld model that floated in the water and took a picture of that. However, when you see the entire photo (not just the close-up that you posted and is most often shown), the shoreline of the lake, along with various trees, can be seen in the foreground, showing that this must have been one huge model that he used if it really were a hoax.

Edit: Anybody have any follow-up information on this? I'm wondering because it's been quite a few years since I saw that TV program (I think I was still in junior high at the time), and I'd like to know where I can find more information on this, if anybody knows.

Actually, the full Surgeon's Photo reveals that the model was TINY (http://www.ultranet.ca/bcscc/bigwilson.jpg).