Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Science

Man Admits to Bigfoot Hoax 113

Posted by timothy from the disappointing dept.
JCMay writes "You know that film we've all seen on TV where a large, hairy creature is walking through the woods, looks back over his right shoulder at the camera, and continues walking on? WorldNetDaily is reporting that a man has admitted to a 1967 bigfoot hoax where he was filmed walking through the woods wearing a gorilla suit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Admits to Bigfoot Hoax More

Man Admits to Bigfoot Hoax

Comments Filter:

  • the funny part (Score:5, Funny)

    by termos ( 634980 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:29AM (#8521190) Homepage
    Ok, now the funny part of this is that it's under the science section ;)

    • Re:the funny part (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In all honesty, Timothy seems to post alot of crap... His articles are old/repetitive (ie they cover discussion in older threads often) and they usually are on stupid subjects. This is a great example of why slashdot should really rethink some of its content aprovers.
      • I'd like to second that motion. 9 out of 10 times when I come acroos articles that I would consider to be outdated or irrelevant, they are posted by Timothy

        This bigfoot hoax thing old news.

      • Re:the funny part (Score:2, Informative)

        by fpga_guy ( 753888 )
        This is a great example of why slashdot should really rethink some of its content aprovers.

        There is an easy solution - login, go to Preferences -> Homepage, and under "Exclude Stories from the Homepage", put a little tick next to Timothy. You'll never see anything from him again!

        BTW judging from recent form I'd have to agree with you

    • Re:the funny part (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bob_jordan ( 39836 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @11:40AM (#8521902)
      Which is where it should be. What was thought to be anthropology turned out to be psychology.

      Bob.

    • Re:the funny part (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Night Goat ( 18437 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @02:43PM (#8524028) Homepage Journal
      It is science. It was a theory which people have tried to prove, some using the scientific method, which now has been proven to be a hoax. As long as theories are being tested with proper methodology, it's science. Jane Goodall, a scientist, was quoted as saying that she's still open to more facts on Bigfoot. She didn't immediately dismiss all Bigfoot sightings as hoaxes, as you seem to be doing with your flippant post.
    • Should be under the Pseudo-Science category along with all of the Astrology info and pictures of Logs floating in lakes that look like dinosaur heads. lol.
  • It's a hoax!?! No, it can't be!!!!!!

  • Already known (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Uma Thurman ( 623807 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:32AM (#8521222) Homepage Journal
    That piece of film was exposed as a hoax long ago, but it didn't affect the true believers. This is a bit similar to the crop circle believers. The people who invented the crop circle came forward and explained how it was done. The true believers think they are lying, and that crop circles are really made by aliens.

    And, I read a book by James Randi a couple years ago where he talks about a cold reader that he trained (like John Edwards). The cold reader did his little tricks, and even after the hoax was exposed, his marks still thought he had some psychic abilities.

    Therefore, I predict Bigfoot believers still have a long and profitable future ahead.

    • Re:Already known (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:39AM (#8521301)
      Absolutely. Another example, probably closer in circumstances to the Bigfoot hoax, is the Loch Ness Monster. Again, the person who took the photograph admitted it and showed how it was made, but belief in the monster is still high enough to attract thousands of people per year to the lake with cameras, video cameras, SCUBA gear, boats and God knows what else.

    • Re:Already known (Score:4, Interesting)

      by zhenlin ( 722930 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:58AM (#8521467)
      It is called the True-believer syndrome [wikipedia.org].

    • Re:Already known (Score:4, Interesting)

      by netringer ( 319831 ) <maaddr-slashdot@ ... Do.com minus bsd> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:21PM (#8522293) Journal
      I could have predicted that the true belivers who had no problem believing the original Bigfoot film clip was real with little evidence would immediately say there was not enough evidence the hoax story is true. They will dig for minor nits to invalidate the hoaxter's story when they gloss over a hundred problems with the original story.

      The same thing happened when it was revealed that the Loch Ness Monster picture was actually a toy submarine [csicop.org] and when the Air Force released the true information on the formerly Top Secret Project Mogul which is what really happened at Roswell [csicop.org].

      "It can't be true! Why did they lie all this time? What were they covering up?"

      Maybe it was because the project was Top Secret, get it?

    • Re:Already known (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Deflagro ( 187160 )
      Bigfoot is a possibility I suppose but that video was obviously fake, interesting but not real.
      As for crop circles though, sure those British gents admitted to the hoax but it doesn't explain that it has been happening for hundreds of years all over the world. Maybe not in the crazy detail they created, but nevertheless...

      Just like the golden Egyptian space shuttle replica, or the cave paintings of typical Alien beings, some things are our history and we'll probably never really understand it.
      • ...but it doesn't explain that it has been happening for hundreds of years all over the world.

        Do you have a source for that claim?

        Obviously some things are lost to the sands of time (unless someone invents a time machine) but that doesn't mean it was aliens or gods or even little pink faeries. Let's try to keep the distinction between fact and fantasy in mind.

      • Re:Already known (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Brandybuck ( 704397 )
        but it doesn't explain that it has been happening for hundreds of years all over the world.

        Of course it doesn't explain it. It can't, because it hasn't been happening for hundreds of years all over the world.

        Irregular unpatterned crop "circles" can be formed by normal weather. I've seen it *happen* myself. But no one today calls these evidence of UFOs, aliens or other twaddle. But in the past it might have been different, and there may have been some silly reports of "strange devilish circles in me barle
        • Almost exactly right. People have been dreaming up reasons for things happening that they can't explain for years. Aliens are melerly the modern werewolves, witches, or gods. Not to say that none of those can or do exsist (and people today still think they all do), because that would be just as ignorant. But coming to conclusions on circumstantial evidence is the mark of a fool.

      • Re:Already known (Score:2, Interesting)

        by shpoffo ( 114124 )
        This information on crop circles is correct - the effect has been happening for hundreds (if not thousands of years). Just because someone goes on TV/book/media and says that they're the 'culprit' does not make them the origin of all phenomenon. (it's almost the equivalent people wondering where the Earth came from, and the I go on TV and telling everyone I made the Earth. Doesn't mean I did it...)

        the truly scientifically unexplained crop circles are formed within an hour, have high levels of radiation

    • Re:Already known (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:50PM (#8523434)
      A rather famous example of this happened between Arthur Conan Doyle and Erich Weiss aka Harry Houdini. Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes stories was an ardent spiritualist. Houdini, as a magician, knew the tricks mediums played on the gullible and had Doyle write a message in private which Houdini then reproduced by having a paint-covered ball "write" the message.

      Houdini would not explain the trick, and Doyle insisted that Houdini must be using supernatural powers. Despite their disagreements, the two men remained friends for some time.

      This site [prairieghosts.com] tells about the friendship between Doyle and Houdini.

    • Re:Already known (Score:4, Informative)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @02:46PM (#8524045) Homepage Journal
      The people who invented the crop circle came forward and explained how it was done.

      Not only did they come forward, they presented a video of themselves making the crop circles.

      One ufologist said before seeing the film that it was impossible for humans to create this particular crop circle because of the "woven" stalks, lack of footprints, etc. Then after being shown the film, she said "well that may explain this one, but it can't possibly explain all of the other unexplainable circles!"
    • Randi has a foundation [randi.org] and posts a weekly commentary about the latest doings in the skeptic community, including attempts to claim the $1 million prize for reproducable paranormal phenomen [randi.org]. Sometimes his weekly column degenerates into a rant (he's not known for his diplomacy), but overall it's an interesting read.

      Other interesting sites are CSICOP [csicop.org] and Skeptic Magazine [skeptic.com].

    • Re:Already known (Score:4, Informative)

      by sckeener ( 137243 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @04:21PM (#8525174)
      was exposed as a hoax long ago, but it didn't affect the true believers.

      evidence that can't be proven is a religion. You've either got faith or you've got facts.

      and there is a ton of faith in the world.
      • Bull. Religon isn't inherently devoid of facts... Some may choose to believe despite the facts, but if your religion says that there are gods on the top of Mount Olympus, you can verify that, and probably choose whether or not to believe in that religion based on those facts.

    • Re:Already known (Score:4, Funny)

      by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @07:48PM (#8527350) Homepage
      This video is a hoax. Okay, one sighting has been debunked. One among thousands! Before you decide that there is just no such thing as Bigfoot, read this. [uncoveror.com]

      The pictures are not a bear or a guy in a suit.

      • Ah... as a test, I checked the pixel colors... while not a common occurance, on one of the pictures was pure white... which can't exist on a photo... those pictures were faked.
        • Ya ya, I know, replying to own post is bad... but did you even look at the rest of that site?

          "Perfume sprayers testing biological toxins!!"
          "POWER OUTAGE HID MARTIAN INVASION"
          AL QAEDA TERROR MESSAGE HIDDEN IN BARNEY SHOW"

          gee, maybe this isn't the place to be getting proof for bigfoot.

      • Re:Already known (Score:2, Informative)

        by Jexx Dragon ( 733193 )
        Look like gorillas in a zoo to me.
    • I recently saw a TV show on some of these things.

      From what I saw I learned that Bigfoot is very likly real, since the DNA samples taken from hair were definatly simian (IE Monkey) and the tracks were too much alike across the world to be anything else.

      As for crop circles... Well, I doubt that they are more then complex hoaxes, because there certianly aren't any aliens out their who, being advanced enough to travel great distences extreamly fast and without being detected, would be dumb enough to contact

    • It was proven a hoax, yes, but like you said: Proof doesn't prove anything to most people.

      A lot of people still believed the alien autopsy was real, despite the mountains of conclusive counterevidence. Hell, even after Fox admitted they faked it and lied to sell it for $60 a copy, some people STILL believe it.

      When the hoaxter admits they lied (can you say moontruth.com, who have been caught in multiple forgeries and forced to admit the truth - but are STILL considered a credible source of information by s

  • Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:33AM (#8521231)
    Next thing I know, they'll also tell me Santa doesn't exist!

  • Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:37AM (#8521267)
    Does the truth matter? The Bigfoot kooks will still insist that the footage is real. Likely, they will claim some sort of conspiracy that caused the man to deny that his real footage was real.

    Ever hear of the "Viking explorers went to Minnesota" theory? I bet you haven't heard that the guy who made this one up admitted it was fake years ago.

    The same thing with crop circles. The guy who started this admitted it years ago, but the mistique and belief (mistaken belief?) remains.
    • this link [google.com] is yet another reason not to beleive everything you see and gear on the net w/o doing some research on credibility
    • This bit of film is just a tiny bit of the evidence supporting the existence of one or more species of large primates surviving in remote locations. If it's real, and this guy is just trying to make a buck (wouldn't be the first time) then it's a great bit of film. If it's not real, that's ok, it's not a critical piece of evidence.

      Check out http://www.bfro.net/ for an idea of the scope of evidence for this creature.

      Remember, mountain gorillas, bonobos, and plenty of other large animals were all thought to
      • This is just like UFO's as "alien spacecraft". Almost all the "evidence" is fake, and none of what little evidence that remains supports the case.
        • An interesting statistic for people in their mid-30s now...

          More people in this age bracket believe in UFOs than believe that they will ever see a penny of social security money.

          When will the government get us out of this Ponzi Scheme - But wait, it must be true, I get a statement every year from the government telling me what is in my "account"

    • While I remain very skeptical of the Kensington Runestone, it should be noted that unlike the Bigfoot film and numerous crop circle hoaxers, the claim that the runes are hoaxes was not a first person or an eye-witness account.

      It was rather the son of a neighbor of the person who "found" the stone, who claimed that this person had once discussed "fooling people."

      It's still potentially damning, but not quite at the same level.

      • Found a buried tablet.... (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        That era was full of "found a buried tablet" hoaxes. In fact, there is a major religion based on one. Next time you are in Utah, check it out.

  • No, he's real.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Scaba ( 183684 ) <joe@joefrancia. c o m> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:46AM (#8521365)
    How do I know? In 1976, Steve Austin - the Six Million Dollar Man - revealed [sixmillion...site.co.uk] to us that Bigfoot was an experiment by aliens [sixmillion...site.co.uk].

  • So he lied and now he is telling the truth? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @10:58AM (#8521469) Journal
    One way or another this proves nothing. I am not even talking about the existence of bigfoot. I am talking about the shot being a hoax.

    If bigfoot does not exist then that does not make the film a hoax. The filmer could have believed what he saw was real. Most people who see the Lochness monster ain't lying they just thought they saw something wich looked like the monster in their mind. A hoax is deliberate misleading.

    And if the movie is a hoax or a honest mistake then this proves nothing about bigfoot. Sad thing is that it is really hard to prove a negative. Those who believe will simply say we haven't found it yet. Those who don't will be hard pressed to prove their is nothing to be found. In a way I think bigfoot is charming. It certainly is one of the less harmfull conspiracy theories you can follow.

    • If bigfoot does not exist then that does not make the film a hoax. The filmer could have believed what he saw was real.

      Umm, it would still be a hoax, it's just that the camera man wouldn't be considered one of the hoax-ers.

      Besides, as it's been said many times before... The two men were out hunting, and had rifles in-hand. It would have been very easy for them to prove this once and for all.

  • They got to him first! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @11:10AM (#8521582)
    They got to him and made him tell everyone it was a hoax! Who? The government, probably. Likely, when its useful purpose (to distract Americans from bigger, scarier happenings) was served, they decided it was time to say it was a "hoax."
  • Bigfoot is real, I tell you. The reason they are so hard to find is that somewhere years back, Bigfoot crossbred with the Squonk [eaudrey.com] of Pennsylvania. All Bigfeet have Squonk genes now.

    When scared or tracked, a frightened Bigfoot has its Squonk genes take over and it melts into a puddle of tears. The same thing happens when one dies or is shot. This is why there are no bones or other fossil remains of Bigfoot to be found.

    "The Squonk is of a very retiring disposition and due to its ugliness, weeps constantly. I

  • Me real (Score:4, Funny)

    by gRa ( 588044 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @11:33AM (#8521810)
    Me is real, just hinding. Silent, not like cameras, big foot not big mouth.

  • And to think I thought bigfoot was real science... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Captain Rotundo ( 165816 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @11:33AM (#8521820) Homepage
    Sometimes I listen to Coast to Coast... and ussually the guests are so outragously wrong, or dumb (the people who 'record' ghost voices onto 'blank' tapes come to mind, thats so funny its sad) I can't stand more than five minutes.... but occassionally I hear someone talk about Bigfoot, or Crop Circles, or some other nonsence and they actually sound sane... you think 'if this evidence is valid, then....'

    So I wonder for a second or two, why is there no one putting as much effort into showing the faults, or conversly if it is real why hasn't the entire media gone ape-shit over it?

    And suddenly I remember, to most rational people the faults are obvious if you stop for a few minutes and look at the 'evidence' (take a look at Richard Hoagland's wonderful blown up martian images). And to the believers everything that points against them is either from close minded "establishment" scientists, or some grand conspiracy.

    You could give UFO nuts immediate access to EVERYTHING the US gov't has ever produced, and when they found no records of the grand Alien-Gov't summit they would claim that it was all removed.

    While the concept of 'bigfoot' isn't as ridiculous and absurd as aliens coming all the way to our planet is supposedly faster-than-light craft to anally probe whitley steiber, drawn in some wheat, and possibly do things to people that can ussually be otherwise explained with real psycological/physialogic explainations its increasingly closure that that level when NOONE has ever taken a remotely clear photo / video or capture/killed one. Its a figgin lare animal in a relatively well traveled and populated region people!
    • The errors in my Slashdot posts are embarrasingly bad. I am sorry. I will have to pay more atention in the future :)
    • I could care less about what the nuts, errr true believers, think. They are a self-propigating fringe society and take the X-Files way too seriously. We will never be able to convince them they are wrong just like an atheist can't convince a Christian their wrong (not saying they are, just saying they can't be convinced).

      What scares me is the people out there who don't understand how science works seing these *documentaries* on big foot, loch ness, aliens or whatever (This is why I boycott the Discovery
      • We either need more emphasis on the scientific method in schools or we need to enforece these documentaries to have a disclaimer that all content is considered BS by the mainstream scientific community.

        Well, I don't know if that kind of reponsibility should be placed on 'the scientific community.' It'd have to be someone's job, right?

        I know that a lot of people believe complete bullshit, but is that really a problem? Who cares if some schmuck things that magnets will cure their athelete's foot or whatn

        • I know that a lot of people believe complete bullshit, but is that really a problem? Who cares if some schmuck things that magnets will cure their athelete's foot or whatnot? It's good (if unscrupulous) business. :)

          Well, in a democracy citizens are the ultimate policy makers (at least in theory) and since the government funds a great deal of scientific research, I think it is important that people understand the scientific method so that when they hear about the government funding research for something th

  • Washington Post, not Worldnet Daily (Score:4, Informative)

    by yelvington ( 8169 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @11:34AM (#8521833) Homepage
    The Washington Post reported this, [washingtonpost.com] not Worldnet Daily, which just pilfered the news.

  • This confirms an earlier confession... (Score:4, Informative)

    by north.coaster ( 136450 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:28PM (#8522410) Homepage

    In December 2002, Ray L. Wallace made a death bed confession that BigFoot was a hoax. CNN [cnn.com] had all of the details. I remember seeing accounts that showed photos of the wooden feet, etc.

    /Don

  • "It's time people knew it was a hoax," Heironimus told the Washington Post.

    Umm... Everyone with a non-zero IQ already knew that.

  • Anybody who bothers to read The Oregonian [oregonian.com] knew this last year when the guy announced the hoax. It even made national television news and he was on Good Morning America. Whoa, this one got past the editors why?
    • Dude, I live in Portland and I don't "bother to read" the Oregonian because it's one of the most useless papers in existence. Nothing but reprints from the wires and a few happy homemaker articles salted on top.

      When you say "anybody who bothers to read the Oregonian," you're sounding like "well, of course every enlightened individual reads the Oregonian". In my experience, bright people are off reading something else.

      • Exactly! Same goes for Good Morning America. Who works 8-5 and watches that swill?

        Besides, us granola Oregonians would rather find news online than read all those dead trees.
  • Seriously, aside from people selling plaster footprints, was there ever really any doubt that this was fake? I can remember seeing this video when I was like seven, and telling my dad "Man in a halloween costume"
  • Man admits Bigfoot hoax confession was in fact a hoax.
  • Bigfoot (Harry) even had a sitcom comedy [tvtome.com] on TV! ;)
  • About a year ago, I had an interesting conversation with the cab driver who was taking me to the airport. It went like this:

    Cabbie: I'm only going to live in Arizona for a year more. After that, I'm going to live in Alaska
    Me: Oh really? What will you be doing there?
    Cabbie: I wanna be a Gold Prospector. And I wanna look for fossils.
    Me: Sounds Interesting. What kind of fossils will you be looking for?
    Cabbie: Well, anything I can find. But what I really wanna find is a fossil of Big Foot.
    Me: Oh...
  • Sheesh ... first, I now believe in the JFK-single-bullet-theory, now this. And, you can't see the wall of China from space, either!

  • bigfoot research at bfro.net (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3 sets of 3 ( 258351 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @02:46PM (#8524046)
    Even if you discount 90% of the reports on http://www.bfro.net there will still be enough with actual details that you'll believe bigfoot is capable of evading human capture. There is so much wilderness just in the lower 48 of the USA that a semi-intelligent hominid can easily find refuge as long as it's got a food source. Maine is 98% forest, the states of Washington and Oregon have thousands of square miles of temperate rain forest that is suitable habitat. favorite search terms: dermal ridge bigfoot
    • self-correction: Maine is 90% forest land.

      "Maine has the highest percentage of forest land in the country, nearly 90 percent, equating to over 17 million acres."
      http://www.ume.maine.edu/~MIAL/products/m aine_cd.h tm

    • Hey, if Eric Rudolph (The Olympic Bomber) can hide out for 5 years in North Carolina, then I have to admit that Bigfoot could stay hidden in Oregon or Washington state for a lot longer.

      • The problem with that theory is that Rudolph was spotted many times. However, the people who spotted him were other ultra-conservitive right-wing Christians who agreed with his idea that blowing up gay bars and abortion clinics is a good idea. Hiding out is a whole lot easier when you have complicit supporters.

        Rudolph wasn't caught until a *cop* saw him and did his duty. It's entirely possible that there were even some sympathetic cops who put their religion before their sworn duty and looked the other

  • Hoax claim a hoax (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JMax ( 28101 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @03:19PM (#8524389)
    So this guy claims it was him all along; that it was a hoax. Why should we believe him? There is no more evidence to support his claim than the claim that it was really BigFoot out there. Maybe it was somebody *else* in a suit. This claim is meaningless, just like the guy that claimed to be responsible for the classis nessie shot. No proof, not supporting evidence; just a claim.
  • Several posters have commented on how the paranormal community will deny the hoax report, instead claiming conspiracy. WHile not directly related to the bigfoot issue, I thought it might be nice to point out a few skeptic sites:
    • James Randi Foundation [randi.org] - Randi is a stage magician who now spends his time in the debunking business. His weekly column sometimes degenerates into a rant (he's not known for his diplomacy), but overall it's an interesting read. He also offers a $1 million prize for reproducable [randi.org]
  • Just don't tell the Sasquatch Militia [zapatopi.net]!! If you do, they'll kick the fur out of you next time you visit Cascadia [zapatopi.net].
  • So you mean I can't really get 800 more gigabytes out of my Bigfoot? [maxtor.com]

  • I don't know...there are a lot of factors in there to suggest that it's not a hoax. There are a few things that bother me:

    • I've never seen anything approaching the quality of the "suit" from that time period or a good decade after (consider that 2001 was made a year later with a huge budget and the apes were not as good).
    • If you were going to fake something like this (and remember that this was the first ever video footage), you'd surely ham it up a bit and do something a bit more pantomime than walking l
  • I ask /. readers this. How big and bulky were the cameras of the time this footage was taken? I have seen this footage as many people have. I saw nothing in the film that would lead me to speculate as to whether it was a hoax or not. The fact is, what are the chances the cameraman had his gear setup at the right spot to get that film? Also large apes tend to be territorial, look at mountain gorrilas. I find it hard to believe that a female hominid would just walk away from the filmer without so much as a gr
  • This is all to distract us from the real hoax. The figure in the film is wearing a gorilla suit (this is blatantly obvious to anyone who watches it, especially someone who's spent as much time "working" with gorilla suits as I have (don't ask, you don't want to know)), but what they don't mention is that it's in fact Bigfoot wearing the gorilla suit and deliberately trying to walk like a human. Look closely: you can tell that the suit is too small for him, despite the well-known fact that gorilla suits are

Slashdot Top Deals

"Today's robots are very primitive, capable of understanding only a few simple instructions such as 'go left', 'go right', and 'build car'." --John Sladek

Close