Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Ranae Holland Of Finding Bigfoot Talks About The Patterson-Gimlin Film


Finding Bigfoot's Ranae Holland is probably one of our favorite skeptics. Whether you love her or hate her, you have to give it to her for standing up for clarity on the subject. On the show, it's clear to most people that she's the most objective person on the team when it comes to searching for evidence. What's most liked about her is that she's coming from a place of respect and tolerance, which is unique in the playing field of "critical thinkers".

In an article from AfterEllen.com, Ranae states the importance of keeping an open mind: "Listen to other ideas. I mean, this is what makes you a better person. If we surround ourselves with people who think like us, then how are we going to learn and challenge ourselves?"

In the article, Ranae said that she doesn't think the Patterson-Gimlin creature is real, but she's open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists:

I think one of their strongest pieces is the [Patterson-Gimlin] film, and all four of us were fortunate enough to go down to California with Bob Gimlin and go to the exact spot. And I, as a skeptic myself, have no problem saying that I want to believe in Bigfoot. I just don’t have the evidence here that I can say "I believe it’s real, because the evidence is there." However, I just love watching the P-G film because I don’t believe that Bigfoot’s real, but I can’t explain how they did that. I mean, is that a guy in a suit? But how’d they do it, then? Show me how you did it. I think there is a BBC documentary and it’s a horrible attempt. They put their top guys on it — show me how they did it.

AFTERELLEN: But didn’t [Oscar-winning makeup and creature artist] Rick Baker or one of his makeup associates recently claim to have made the suit in that film?
[Note: I had misremembered that story. It was makeup artist John Chambers who was rumored to be associated with the suit. Chambers denies it, but apparently director John Landis has confirmed that rumor. Chambers is perhaps best known for his groundbreaking creature and makeup work on – Oh, dear – Planet of the Apes. - AD]

RH: It’s so interesting, because it goes back and forth. Someone will come forward and then somebody will show that they really didn’t. And there was a gentleman who who was affiliated in some way with Patterson and Gimlin who said he was the guy in the suit, and it turned out that he was discredited for the most part.

Here’s what it comes down to: It is arguably one of the most controversial pieces of footage. Right up there with the Zapruder film and the man on the moon. And there are people who don’t think man walked on the moon, and there are people who don’t think that Kennedy was shot by one man, and there are people who do and don’t believe that that is or is not an animal. And those three things were all shot around the same time, within a matter of a few years. And those films are all controversial and talked about to this day. We’re still arguing. And I would like to say let’s talk about it. We can discuss it rationally and respectfully. But I’m just fascinated by how to this day it persists.

This whole crazy adventure that I’m on really began because I as a little kid back in the ‘70s was watching Bigfoot shows and the Patterson-Gimlin film and In Search Of… with my dad, and that was our special time. And then I move out to Washington State and became a research biologist, and then he passed, and I have vivid memories of that special time together. And I wanted Bigfoot stories where I did fieldwork, and that’s how I met Matt[Moneymaker, of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization].

And then many years later, on a break from contracting at NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], I was supposed to be heading back to school, and I had this opportunity and I ran with it.

To be quite frank, this is in honor of my dad’s memory. And that only lasted so far, because it’s entertainment. It’s not, for me, true science. But before the first season wrapped, I’d see 6 to11-year-olds at the town hall meetings with their dads in the front row with the guys, and I’m like “Oh, my gosh, that was me 30 years ago.” It continued. This isn’t about me anymore. This isn’t about me and my dad anymore. This is about, wow, these little — maybe these little future scientists, or these kids who want to believe, and they’re in that explorative “I can be anything” phase, and think it might be possible.

I am all about making sure that these kids can learn that they can be objective, critical thinkers. And then get them going there, but then also talking from a place of respect and tolerance. Listen to other ideas. I mean, this is what makes you a better person. If we surround ourselves with people who think like us, then how are we going to learn and challenge ourselves?

So when parents come up to me and tell me that their 9-year-old put down his Xbox and he goes out in the woods, well, there you go. I’m on board. I question myself: “What am I doing? It’s 22 degrees, I’m eating the worst food possible, I’m surrounded a lot of times with people that normally I don’t agree with (but I can still respect), It’s cold, I’m tired, what am I doing?” And then I hear those stories. That’s why I’m doing it.

You can read the full article here.

104 comments:

  1. Thank you. Its good to explore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know how anyone can look at the MK Davis stabilization and not see a real animal. Other than that, I would'nt kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know how anyone can look at the stabilized film and not see a man in a monkey suit.

      Delete
    2. The opinions of trolls are like toilet paper. Done shit.

      Delete
    3. How am I trolling? In my opinion the PG footage looks like a guy in a suit. If having a differing opinion=trolling, you should seek help.

      Delete
    4. If Bigfoot used toilet paper we might have some evidence.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, at first glance it looks real but when you really sit down and examine it, its a guy in a suit to me. The fact that the glutes can't be seen "flexing" (or moving at all) during the walk puzzles me. I also see (the entire rear end section) "shifting" near the infamous frame. Then there's the horizontal line at the right hip which indicates a suit "scrunching" up to me. Add in the fact that Patterson was filming a documentary, was out of money and had drawn a female Sasquatch eerily similiar to the film subject and its pretty apparent to me what happened that day.

      Delete
    6. Why do you even waste time commenting here troll? There's almost a unison voice in this field that it's real and at second glance it actually becomes clear how it can't be a suit, most experts bigfoot and otherwise agree it's a real sasquatch. She's just too complex for 60s suits, muscle movement for one thing wasn't done this detailed. If car keys did the trick more suits would have 'em. People doubting this being's existence ought to snap out of that dream state and understand they're really looking at one in that film, there's also no comparison to any Patterson drawing female sasquatches get spotted too you know.

      Delete
  3. I have met Ranae. She is one of the kindest people I have ever met. Watching her interact with fans is amazing. It's all about respecting each other as individuals and sharing ideas and opinions. She is incredible and a credit to the bigfoit community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah .....but she is god damm dog ugly...those fucking trout lips are disgusting

      Delete
  4. ....regarding the John Chambers issue -

    I personally interviewed John October 25, 1997 at his care facility in Los Angeles. His prognosis was not good, he knew he didn't have long left - he denied any association with the film attributed to Patterson.

    I would only add that John Landis and Rich Baker cannot confirm anything. They were not present, they did no interview and they did not work for John Chambers.

    Chambers told me he had nothing to do with any ape suit creation for Roger Patterson, in fact he did not know Patterson and Gimlin in 1967, he was busy making "Planet of the Apes" at the time. Chamber's won the Academy Award for the suits the actors wore in Planet of the apes. Planet of the apes was Chambers best work and those monkey suits in no way resemble the Patterson film clip subject. The film is on Netflix..watch it. No resemblance.

    Mark Chorvinsky, editor owner of Strange Magazine printed wrong information. Chorvinsky never interviewed Chambers, Landis or Baker either. I own the videotape Scott Essman shot of the session Chorvinsky claims was his interview; Chorvinsky was not present - he outright lied.

    Chorvinsky also published misinformation in Strange as a way of life. There were no checks and balances in those days. Just a lot of rhetoric and bluster in Hollywood.

    The truth is, Chambers had nothing whatever to do with any ape suit creation for Roger Patterson. Move on!!

    There is more lies and deception in this research than anyone knows -

    Bobbie Short
    http://www.bigfootencounters.com
    Bigfoot_Newsletter_Online-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Author: The de facto Sasquatch, release fall 2012

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patterson's former co-worker Gil Fillbrick breifly owned a commercial costume shop in Van Nuys. They made ape suits after Planet of the Apes was announced, hoping that it would start a trend of ape movies and they'd get to do the fx. They weren't hired by any movie studios, and within 2 years they went out of business.

      Patterson helped Fillbrick empty the warehouse, and according to Fillbrick his payment was a box of costumes and props (Patterson had dreams of being a filmmaker)

      The Patty suit is none other than one of Fillbricks stock ape suits, slightly modified with lifts and arm extensions.

      Bigfoot may be real, but the PG footage is 100% a hoax.

      Delete
    2. LMAO Get outta here troll.

      Delete
  5. Patterson and Freeman films are the Only films that look like they are real beings! The rest look like costumes!!!!If it wasnt for these two videos I dont think anyone would even consider the possibilty that Bigfoot could be real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't forget to include the marble mountain video these three are the holy grail most everything else is trash, i think if you're like ranae and tell yourself you see it differently you're seriously kidding yourself which is kinda sad that people would want to do that.

      Delete
    2. Marble mountain... You mean the hiker?

      Delete
    3. Marble mountain is pathetic. Pink twine is holding the bigfoot structure together.

      Delete
    4. Marble Mountain? LMFAO! Good grief that one is so transparent. ZERO chance its a Sasquatch.

      Delete
    5. Marble Mountain i would not consider a holy grail of BF videos. If they could manage to recreate the video with same distance, camera and say a person of known height to (get some kind of height reference) walking same path, then who knows, but until then it's a hiker.

      Delete
    6. What trolls don't want to realize, which is why they're trolls, is that MM is probably even better visual proof of sasquatches than the Patterson footage. It's not clearer or nearer but it's longer and at no time does it indicate anything but a sasquatch, there's ZERO chance it's a hiker. TKW, it's been done and the subject estimated to be at least eight feet. Sasquatches didn't put any pink twine there past visitors or workers did. Or trolls. Long arms, exact same type of species Albert Ostman encountered, barrelchested hump on back. In fact, his story also supports the Patterson footage via his description of the woman sasquatch resembling Patty in every detail and decades before that film. We know trolls don't like to hear it but these three pieces of visual evidence represent the real thing.

      Delete
    7. Forget the videos. How about the thousands and thousands of eyewitness testimonies? Are you going to call every one of them lies?

      Delete
  6. Pseudoskeptics are, for the most part, horrible people. If they are part of the pseudoskeptic movement, then they are evil or stupid (or both). There are no exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. damn you are a stupid, hateful coward

      Delete
    2. Damn cuzz i know right, thats one ugly dyke

      Delete
    3. Anon 1:10 thinks James Randi is an attractive man.

      Delete
    4. What anon 1:10 really thinks attractive is your fat mom bent over your bed anon 9:08. Dont worry about that stain itll come out, just put your face in it in the mean time though, something to remember me by.

      Delete
    5. Anon 1:10 wants to nestle his nuts in the hair on James Randi's chin.

      Delete
  8. Renae is a woman? Seriously? I thought she was a man. Weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More importantly she's wrong in most of her views. Matt can be weird for seeing squatches everwhere no question about that, but she's just as weird for concluding everything's not a squatch. The sane part of the team's actually Cliff AND Bobo.

      Delete
    2. Everything is not a squatch unless a squatch is proven to exist.

      Delete
    3. > Everything is not a squatch unless a squatch is proven to exist.

      Wow, there are indeed SOME signs of intelligent life here...

      Delete
  9. Is Ms. Holland has one thing, it is a way with words.
    Furthermore, rock on! Her point on inspiring kids is very noble. It reminds me very much of the famous Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson.

    I have spoken with Ms. Holland myself and can confirm that she is genuinely decent and polite person. I have nothing but respect for her!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like what she said about her dad. I watched "In Search of" wtih my pop in the 70's and today watch crypto shows and FB with my own children. They like her, and so do I. She's a cool lady.

      Delete
    2. +1 If this was Reddit, you'd have an upvote.

      Delete
  10. Believers cling on to the pgf with dear life no matter how many times its shown to be a fake.

    The reason is simple. Without the pgf there is nothing left. Nothing.

    Time to face reality folks. The pgf is a hoax and there is no evidence for Bigfoot because it simply does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The PG film has NEVER been PROVEN to be fake. And, again, there may not be PROOF Bigfoot exists, but there is plenty of EVIDENCE. Learn the difference.

      Delete
    2. Lots of zero credibility evidence equals zero proof.

      Delete
    3. LOL @ the yawn comments, truth hurts I guess!

      Delete
    4. Denial that there is a total lack of credible evidence is serious denial.

      Delete
    5. There's a ton of evidence in favor of bigfoot and the pgf being real and on the other side nothing but fabricated wannabe debunker rumor nonsense, trolls just don't like to hear how wrong they really are in their denial so they make up their own little yawning escape worlds.

      Delete
  11. The thing is, if Patterson had a state of the art suit, why didn't he take better footage of it? Most of the details that people rave about like muscle movement aren't even very clear in the unedited version. So why did we have to stabilise and zoom the film years and years later? Why didn't Patterson film it up close with a steady camera? They could have said they were hiding in the bushes. Why didn't they film hours of footage that they could have drip fed out and made huge amounts of money, why just a short clip?

    I just think if they'd gone to all that work to obtain or build a state of the art suit why didn't they show it off a bit more.

    The stabilised and zoomed footage looks MORE real than the original, with a fake you would expect the opposite wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that its done on a nice grainy film camera with nice warm colours gives the impression of "muscle movement" and any other effects of the suit you wish to see.

      He didnt film it close up because it was too risky, the flaws in the suit which are visible to us now we have stablized versions, would have been painfully obvious when the suit was seen in person, so this is how he thought it would also look on film.

      Far away from camera, so less risk of giving it away as a hoax.

      Also a nice straight walkway to leave nice tracks to back up the film. LOL. You cant write this stuff. Patterson was not even a good hoaxer, its only a handful of diehards that still believe the footage. A film could come out showing hieronimous putting on the suit and taking practice walks, but the believers would never let the precious pgf film go.

      The fact is the pgf is holding back real research into this subject. The eye witness accounts of long arms (yes long enough to walk on all 4s as described by credible witnesses) not the ridiculous human sized arms on the patty suit. Dismiss the film, and we might get somewhere with this starting with some real hard evidence that does not come from extremely unreliable sources.

      Delete
    2. Whoa talk about bigfoot denial in full swing there, sure invest a lot in something you don't believe in. Maybe you should find a faith you actually believe in. No doubt this is the same asshole cluttering up youtube with this hoax claim shit writing posts nobody reads from mommy's basement thinking this unfakeable film's fake. Kid it's never been debunked okay, so you might as well leave it alone now your fan club's going to ruin and people seeing it's the best proof there is.

      Delete
  12. Fact: Bigfoot/Yeti/Sasquatch, whatever you want to call it exists.

    Fact: The PGF shows a real bigfoot.

    Fact: Ranae isn't sure what she's talking about.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact: Zero credible evidence makes Bigfoot highly improbable.
      Fact: Zero credible corroborating evidence to PGF means it is highly improbable that it is a real animal.
      Fact: Lots of credible evidence pointing to PGF as a hoax makes it even more highly improbable that it is a real animal.

      Delete
    2. anon 3:36 theres no place for logic and reason on this blog, please refrain from posting such blasphemy towards the pgf

      all hail bob gimlim, our lord and saviour of bigfooting

      Delete
    3. Gimlinology - Church of Hairy Tit Fetishism.

      Delete
    4. yes it's still the best damn film of a real bigfoot ever filmed, guess what, it's why trolls won't let it go.

      Delete
  13. the PGF Film is real, Bigfoot is real, just think people, no tech back them would allow anyone to make such a good looking suit, it's real Believe me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We landed on the moon then.

      Delete
    2. its not even a good looking suit, have you even watched the film?

      Delete
    3. What film? The pgf is the real deal, real bf if you think it's a suit good or bad you're equally delusional and a waste of air and space.

      Delete
  14. Marble Mountain video ? I dont think is real .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not unless bigfoot wears a backpack.

      Delete
    2. moneymaker said its real, whos to doubt him

      Delete
    3. One thing Matt's actually right about. No backpack but hump on back, same species Ostman ran into exactly same description of the big man even the woman he described exactly like Patty, both down to the last detail decades between the footage now how's that possible unless real. If denial pleases trolls in wild flight so be it, the harder they'll fall.

      Delete
  15. If patty is a guy in a suit then somebody please show me the suit, better still show me the suit put a guy in it and just reproduce the footage how hard can it be for crying out loud Patterson was virtually broke when he made that footage so it should be really easy to do, any average joe with that suit could do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. show me the bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.

      Delete
    3. Bring me the head of Bob Heironimus.

      Delete
  16. I like how she says that the four of them went with
    Gimlin to the exact spot where the Patterson footage was shot. Earlier, the article says that "she doesn't think that the Patterson-Gimlin creature is real."

    So, indirectly, it's like saying, "Hey Bob, thanks for taking us to the exact spot where the footage was shot. I know that you've been going around to bigfoot conventions with this great story that you've been telling for years, but I think that you're lying through your teeth."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really hope Bob got hoaxed by patterson, if not I dont know how he can sleep at night.

      Delete
    2. He'll justify it with the knowledge that he's made a lot of people happy. Why let them down now?

      Delete
    3. The ONLY thing that would end adherance to the Patterson footage would be for Gimlin to admit that it was hoaxed (if it was). Unless and until this happens, there will be people who will continue to cling to it as evidence for the existence of bigfoot.

      Delete
    4. Whatever Gimlin knows it wasn't hoaxed. Real Bigfoot alright only the circumstances of the event are a little misty, but there's no question the figure in the frame is a genuine female.

      Delete
    5. Come on! If there was no question about it, bigfoot would be an animal documented by science. There is plenty of "question" with the Patterson footage.

      Delete
  17. Ranae is a skeptic. Those people who write in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines are not skeptics, they're cynics. Skeptics keep an open mind, they are respectful, kind and wait their turn to speak. Cynics are extremely opinionated and always make up their mind before even doing the slightest but of investigation into a subject. Cynics also enjoy name-calling, trash-talking, and other childish antics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skeptic: There could be a Bigfoot but there is zero evidence to support it.
      Cynic: There could be a Bigfoot but there is zero evidence to support it you ignorant douche bag.

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot Dreamer: Theres a 10 foot ape running around north america. Its never been found though. They can detect trail cameras and avoid them. They shun electronics and can give off an electomagnetic pulse that can stun a human.

      Skeptic: LOL

      Cynic: LOL

      Sane Person: LOL

      Delete
    3. What are you doing on a bigfoot blog writing about it? Make all three there troll then you're correct. These unknown beings aren't apes anyway they're surviving relic hominins and undoutedly the powers that be know very well they exist already, in fact most of the trolls here probably are those guys. Otherwise it's a sad childish affair for today's teens, I think they'd actually abandoned the unfunny stunt long ago by now.

      Delete
  18. Has Gimlin ever taken a polygraph to validate his story? Passing that would go a long way towards the credibility of the Gimlin Patterson film. Or if he did not want to do that a microexpression expert as well as a voice stress analysis expert could work off of existing footage of Gimlin telling the story with or without his permission.J.D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. Speaks volumes. Hoax.

      Delete
    2. Polygraph tests are pretty much useless in these sorts of situations. "Pass" and "fail" are entirely up to the examiner's interpretation of results, sort of like all the other Bigfoot "Evidence." Give the same results to three different polygraph examiners, and you'll get three different interpretations. One pass, one fail, and one inconclusive.

      Delete
    3. Ah bologna. Its telling that Hieronymus has passed TWO polygraphs and Gimlin won't even take one. Something tells me you'd be praising the polygraphs accuracy if Gimlin had taken two of them and passed both while Hieronymus had not subjected himself. Am I right or am I right?

      Delete
    4. Anon at 6:40, you are right.

      Delete
    5. The only two footers that believe in lie detector tests are those two lying assholes Parnassus and Kitakaze. I think a couple other of the JREF closet bleevers do too.

      Delete
    6. No anon 6:40 you are wrong actually since the Hairyass' poly was staged that's what I'm hearing lately, not that any sane person ever thought differently. The only reason Gimlin thinks he might fail one is because the official film version may not be correct, that's all he could be guilty of whereas the filmed subject herself without any doubt is real.

      Delete
  19. Roger Patterson passed a polygraph test which was pushed on him by National Geographic back in the day.

    ReplyDelete
  20. According to people who knew him personally, Patterson was perenially broke and of questionable character. He attempted to make money with bigfoot before he shot the famous October 1967 footage. He wrote a self published book about bigfoot. He also tried to get a low budget bigfoot film off the ground in 1966. In this film, Gimlin (complete with long haired wig) was to play an Indian guide who helped a group of cowboys track down a bigfoot.

    Given the fact that Patterson was of questionable character and had tried more than once to make money with bigfoot sure makes it very hard to believe that he went to California looking for bigfoot and bam, he catches a bigfoot on film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's questionable, but no doubt he believed in bigfoot's existence. He wanted to capture one on film. He's not the hoaxer people like to label him as. If he was going to pull a hoax it would have likely been very sloppy compared to the PGF.

      Delete
    2. Not only is the film pure gold, the footprints Patty left are still considered real by Dr. Meldrum.

      Delete
    3. People look for years and never find bigfoot. Patterson and Gimlin go hundres of miles from their home to film a bigfoot and, lo and behold, they find a bigfoot. What amazing luck?

      Delete
    4. Not correct. Lots of people look for bigfoot and do have encounters, Roger and Bob rode about for a week before riding into Patty. This is the right way to do it too, single day trips get you nowhere you need to be out there for days before you'll experience any bigfoot action.

      Delete
    5. Lots of people look for bigfoot and have encounters? Yeah, maybe on the Finding Bigfoot show.

      Delete
  21. Holy shit, a semi-serious debate going on here. Can anyone out there read 5:35pm post (i agree with you) and 1:24pm (never heard that before) - These points for me really show it to be closer to a hoax - yet no-one esp. elievers ever argue with it, they just dismiss it.

    Also Renae, as a lot of people think are wrong about the BBC producing a documentary with their best people doing the costume.

    The BBC had already commissioned the documentary before seeing it. This was not their "best" guys doing the costume. The BBC do not have a "best costume guys" department, the BBC are not known for creating costumes period.

    This was producers selling a BF documentary to the BBC, when the corp guys actually viewed it, it didnt matter what they thought, having spent money on it already, they aired it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I found the suit you assholes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must've made one now then because there's not one anywhere else ever. TKW, the BBC costume is close to how costumes look anyway none have the same flexibility or detail we see in the pgf. Even today it'd be hugely problematic, better realize right here and now the species exists before your jaw will drop when it's official.

      Delete
  23. Multiple academy award winner the late Stan Winston said this after viewing the Patterson footage. Winston was arguably the best Hollywood costume/visual effects/make-up expert of his day, one of the greatest of all time:

    "It's a guy in a fur suit, sorry!" Winston also commented that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day."

    Of course a movie costume/visual effects icon like Stan Winston's expertise means nothing to you people who refuse to give in to the possibility that Patterson hoaxed this footage to make money (which is entirely in keeping with Patterson's character and pre-1967 bigfoot history) and that Patterson may have pulled the wool over your eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The P-G creature looks realistic except for one element: the bottom of the feet. Take a good look -- they're flat as cardboard! Phony as all heck.

    ReplyDelete