Today in Bigfoot History | JAN 19, 1999 | Bob Gimlin Hangs up on Wired Magazine

Bob Gimlin did not even dignify the accusation that the bigfoot in the P/G film was a costume. The arrow points to where skeptics believed a zipper was exposed

"I was there. I saw [Bigfoot]. The film is genuine. Anybody who says different is just trying to make a buck." Bob Gimlin's response to WIRED Magazine before he hung up on them.

This is a "Today in Bigfoot History" update to the zipper story from January 11th. Once Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy claimed to have seen a zipper-like shape on the costume, it created ripples among the community at the time and polarized some bigfooters.

It is ironic Cliff Crook is accusing anybody of an inauthentic picture of Bigfoot.  After all, he was the man behind this picture...

WIRED Magazine did some great journalism, getting reactions from respected P/G film proponents like Ray Crowe and Grover Krantz. They even ask independent imaging experts from Pegasus Imaging and Adobe, who both agreed an anomalous blob can be interpreted as anything.

Ray Crowe summed it up quite nicely comparing the Crook/Murphy analysis to looking for sheep in the shapes of clouds.

You can read the great piece of journalism below.

Sasquatch: Man in a Monkey Suit?

Joseph Rose 01.19.99

YAKIMA, Washington -- The scratchy movie footage shows a big, brown, hairy creature retreating over a stream bed into dense forest. But wait. Is that the glint of a belt buckle on Bigfoot? Or have skeptics gotten carried away with Photoshop?

Loyal Bigfootologists and some computer-imaging experts are giving disapproving grunts to two researchers who claim that a computer analysis of a famous 1967 film shows a man in a monkey suit, not the legendary giant of the Northwest woods.

Bigfoot buffs Cliff Crook of Bothell, Washington, and Chris Murphy of Vancouver, Canada, say enlargements and computer enhancements of the film's frames reveal an object hanging from the fur that resembles metal fasteners used on clothing at the time.

"When the guy in the suit turned to look at the camera, it probably snapped loose and dangled from the fur," said Crook, who has been searching for the elusive creature for 42 years. "It's a hoax. Why would Bigfoot be wearing a belt buckle?"

The claim has howling-mad Bigfoot enthusiasts branding Murphy and Crook as traitors on Internet newsgroups and attempting to discredit their findings as a publicity stunt.

"It's like picking a sheep out of the clouds," said Western Bigfoot Society president Ray Crowe of Portland, Oregon. "They've blown up the images beyond the size of recognition. So, they can pretty much see anything they imagine."

At issue is the footage taken 32 years ago, when Bigfoot trackers Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin of Yakima were investigating reports of sasquatch footprints in Six Rivers National Forest, near the California-Oregon border. They purportedly spotted a female Bigfoot darting across a sandbar, and Patterson let his 16-mm Kodak movie camera roll.

The minute of jerky, grainy film and the plaster-cast footprints Patterson made that October day became the veritable gold standard for trackers and enthusiasts, the evidence by which all things Bigfoot are measured.

Murphy began questioning the film's validity after discovering an aberration in the footage while helping his son with a class project in 1995. Using a computer, he zoomed in tighter and tighter on the frames, finding what appears to be a glimmering ornate latch in the shape of a bottle opener.

Four sequential computer-scanned frames on the film appear to show the object in motion, said Crook, who reviewed Murphy's findings, which were released 12 January. He said the object appears to be cinching a costume.
Murphy said he's convinced "there's something out of place" in the film. "I have now sent my material to an expert in the [photo-enhancing] field," he wrote in an email.

Steve Armstrong of Tampa, Florida-based Pegasus Imaging said he would like a shot at examining the evidence. He believes the film is such that it wouldn't capture an image of something as small as a buckle. And then there's the bit-mapped nature of digital compression and enlarging.

"Zoom in on an image too much, and you get a lot of blocky artifacts," Armstrong said.

The result, said Jennifer Polanski of Adobe Systems, might be "a blob" that looks something like a belt buckle. Even with Adobe's popular Photoshop software, it's hard to see how someone can take a faraway figure like that in the Patterson-Gimlin film and zoom in on a metal fastener, she said.

In Yakima, on the edge of the wooded east slope of the Cascade Mountains, there have long been rumors that the late Roger Patterson paid a Hollywood costume designer to make the suit and a big Yakima Indian to wear it for the film. Just last week, there was talk that the owner of the suit had hired a local attorney and was getting ready to bring it out of the closet for the world to see. Like the other rumors, that one has yet to be proven true.

While Patterson died years ago, Gimlin, 67, still lives in Yakima. He dismisses the rumors and the new computer analysis as "wacko."

"I was there. I saw [Bigfoot]. The film is genuine," Gimlin said in a telephone interview. "Anybody who says different is just trying to make a buck." And he hung up.

Washington State University anthropologist Grover Krantz, one of Bigfoot's stalwart backers in academia, agrees that the Crook-Murphy analysis is amateurish and irrelevant.

"Look at the way it walks," Krantz said, referring to the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin film. "Even if Patterson had hired someone to get in a suit, there's no way he could have trained him to walk in this manner. I know, I've tried to reconstruct the motion."

Today in Bigfoot History | JAN 11 | "Zipper" Found on Patty "Bigfoot Costume"

Today, January 11, in 1999 the color plate of frame 352 from the Patterson/Gimlin film was carefully examined by imaging specialists at a color technology laboratory in Ventura, California. State-of-the-art scanners were used to magnify the image down to the color-point level.

All of this came about due to a press conference called by Cliff Cook and the supporting testimony of his associate Chris Murphy. Murphy claimed to of found a bell shape (aka zipper pull tab) within the grainy film image and even took the time to hand craft a pretzel-like, clay model of this bell shape.

The final image in the series shows the detail in question at approximately 1600% magnification. At this level of resolution the individual points of color are clearly visible.

Murphy's "bell-shaped object" is not readily discernible at any level of resolution. To the naked eye the "object" appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. At increasingly higher magnification this detail still appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. Several other parts of the bigfoot figure show similar blotches of light reflecting off the fur.

The detail in question has no clear edges, and has no visible "artificial" shape. The lab tests demonstrated that a clear magnification of the color plate does not reveal anything like the pretzel-like object displayed at Crook's press conference. The image analysts stated that Murphy seems to be relying on some "highly imaginative, Rorschach-like interpretations of fuzzy details in enlargements of the color plates."

It is important to note The Oregonian on this same day had a headline "BIGFOOT PROOF CALLED 'MAN IN MONKEY SUIT'" The article was released by United Press International and begins with these two paragraphs...

BIGFOOT PROOF CALLED 'MAN IN MONKEY SUIT'
PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 11 (UPI) _ Two longtime trackers of the legendary creature Sasquatch say grainy film footage that allegedly proves the existence of the beast also called Bigfoot shows nothing more than a ``man in a monkey suit.''

The Oregonian newspaper reports today that Bigfoot trackers Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy have determined that four magnified frames from the so-called ``Patterson-Gimlin Film'' show tracings of a bell-shaped fastener on the creature's waist, indicating that the image is likely that of a human being wearing a costume.

The Associated press chimes in as well with this report reprinted below...

CLAIMS AGAINST BIGFOOT FILM SET ENTHUSIASTS AT ODDS
By JOHN M. HUBBELL
Associated Press

BOTHELL, Wash. (AP) - In the hearts and minds of true believers, Bigfoot's existence has long been enshrined in a single minute of jerky, grainy footage of a startled sasquatch retreating into the upper California woods.

But two enthusiasts of the legendary being are alleging four magnified frames of the 16 mm footage show tracings of a bell-shaped fastener at Bigfoot's waist. They say the creature in the so-called Patterson-Gimlin Film can finally be dismissed as a man in a monkey suit.

"It was a hoax,'' said Cliff Crook, a longtime Bigfoot tracker who devotes rooms to sasquatch memorabilia in this suburb north of Seattle. "How can an artificial, manmade object end up on a Bigfoot?''

The film, purportedly showing a female Bigfoot fleeing a stream-bed, was taken by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin on Oct. 20, 1967. It has largely withstood independent scrutiny and, for many steeped in the lore of the man-beast, has become bedrock evidence of its very existence.

"There's no way of really detracting from it,'' said Ray Crowe, president of the Western Bigfoot Society in Portland, Ore. The image captured in the footage "has a fluid motion. It's a wild creature of nature.''

The film is important because many Bigfoot believers compare all plaster casts of telltale footprints against those made by Patterson the day he purportedly filmed the creature slinking across a sandbar in the Six Rivers National Forest.

Discredit the footage, experts agree, and the gold standard for Bigfoot tracks will be washed away.

Crook bases his assertion on computer enhancements performed by Chris Murphy, a Bigfoot buff from Vancouver, British Columbia, who maintains he discovered an aberration in the footage in 1995 while helping his son Daniel prepare a class project.

Murphy declined to be interviewed, instead supplying a written narrative detailing his discovery.

According to that account, the Murphys used a color photocopier to duplicate a frame of the Patterson film. Zooming in again and again, Chris Murphy became suspicious.

To him, something geometric - vaguely the shape of a bottle opener - seemed to take shape at Bigfoot's waist. Murphy maintains that four sequential computer-scanned frames of the film show the object in different positions, as if it were swinging. He theorizes something is cinching the sasquatch costume in place.

Murphy made a clay model of the object and in October gave that and the enlargements to Crook, a charter-bus driver transfixed by sasquatch stories since 1957. That's the year he made a camping trip with teen-age friends on Washington's Olympic Peninsula that ended with telltale signs of a sasquatch encounter: a rustling of brush, a throaty growl and an ever-worsening hallmark musk.

Decades later, at 58, spare rooms in his home are dubbed "Bigfoot Central,'' stuffed with photos, plaster casts and maps dotted with push-pins that chart sasquatch sightings.

Now his hoax assertion is giving rise to a howl that would make a Bigfoot proud. Longtime enthusiasts smell a deserter.

One recent e-mail was typical of the incredulity Crook's allegation of a costume fastener is up against.

"Cliff, Cliff, Cliff,'' it scolded. "That's matted feces.''

"There are two witnesses (and) there are footprints,'' said Rene Dahinden, a Richmond, British Columbia, researcher who shares the film's copyright. "We've never had anything like it previously, and anything like it since.''

Dahinden, 68, discounts Murphy as an amateur. "He wasn't involved in this until 1993,'' Dahinden said. "He couldn't spell the name 'sasquatch' before that.''
Grover Krantz, a Washington State University anthropology professor and Bigfoot expert, also believes firmly in the old footage.

"I fully accept the Patterson film,'' Krantz said. "If there was a fastener, it could not be seen in an enlargement. The film grain is such that it cannot hold an image of something that small.''

The truth of the Patterson-Gimlin film remains as elusive as Bigfoot itself. Enthusiasts such as Krantz and Crowe see the film as a building block for their faith. And the faiths of Crook and Murphy endure in spite of it.

Crook knows that, in dissent, he and Murphy are "far outnumbered.''

"There's a few broken friendships because of this,'' Crook said. "I just figured, 'This is a search for the truth. When it becomes something different, that's when it should stop.'''

Maybe a Bigfoot will one day view the film, Crook figures, and offer its own disapproving grunt.

"There's just too much evidence that these creatures do inhabit certain areas out there,'' Crook said, ever sanguine. "Even though the Patterson film is a hoax, it doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist.''

Open Letter to BLC from David Rodriguez

In an open letter to The Bigfoot Lunch Club, David Rodriguez, a speaker at the Oregon Sasquatch Symposium defends Cliff Crook--or at least he claims we should not be so quick to judge. We have been public regarding our criticism of Crook, some would even call us down right dismissive. Without further ado, lets get to the compelling letter submitted to us by Mr. Rodriguez.

Bigfoot Lunch Club,
There's been a few mentions on blogs about Cliff Crook over the years. And with the latest, I feel its an opportune time to dispel some innacuricies floating around out there. As many know, I have recently been looking into another individuals outlandish claims from deep in the land of Sylvanic. Now I think it's time to pursue the truth in a different direction.

I don't see Cliff Crook fitting in the negative light that some have painted him in. I suspect that much of what has been said about him was initially born out of animosity within the field by a few, animosity that sometimes gets out of hand, and then the rest just assume the assertions to be the truth because they have a louder bullhorn. Well, this time I'd say its the criticism that is unfairly derived and poorly corroborated with any form of evidence.

So why do some consider the Wild Creek Photos to be a hoax and therefore Mr. Crook to be a hoaxer? This is one of the most screwed up conclusions I have seen in this field. The most popular reason people give is that its a small action figure made up to look like a bigfoot. We can see it repeated over on Cryptomundo right now and in many a blog or forum commentary. Well, everyone can write that unsupported explanation off their books! Cliff has been given a bum deal all these years by certain people in the bigfoot community. Sure there may still be questions about the photos, but I have a feeling he would have good valid answers, if people just asked before prejudging them. I've closely looked at a few photos in the sequence and I'm pretty confident about the following.


So its time to blow the 'small action figure' allegation out of the water. You see those tiny white spots in the water? That appears to be one of a few well known aquatic plant species, such as White Water Crowfoot, Water Buttercup or Fanwort. They each grow in slow moving streams or in ponds throughout the US and Canada. I see it in the rivers and ponds where I live here in Oregon, which is how I first recognized it in the photos. I also have some background in waterway ecosystems having once pursued the construction of a fresh water interpretive center. Depending on species, the size of the flowers (1/2" - 3/4") then provides some scale to the photos.


http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=RAAQ

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=231



Then I've read where people comment on the size of the grass as the reason why it must be a small action figure too. Well once again, that's a baseless and innacurate conclusion . That isn't lawn grass people! The grass in question is likely a well known invasive species called Reed Canary Grass or Phalaris arundinacea. The species grows very well along the water's edge and can reach 6' in height.


http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua011.html



It is possible that its a plant variety known as Rush if I see a bulb in the photo, but without more detailed images, its difficult to tell for certain. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=JUNCU Either way, other items in the photo combined provide an even better idea of scale, and in fact they would support each other's scale. Here we have two good biological reasons to rule out claims of it being some little action figure or that "forced perspective" was used. I can say without hesitation that the figure is larger then a human. There are other plants and leaves in the photos, and if their species was identified from better quality photos, they would provide additonal validation to size and scale of the central figure.

I've never looked at his original 35mm photos, but those I've been able to find a few online over the last few years that certainly don't automatically conclude hoax, despite what some forums and bloggers have repeated. I once posted some of this information about the aquatic biology over on BFRO in a thread there about Cliff, but this information was soon deleted from that thread. That didn't impress me in the least. Why would BFRO remove legitimate information about the surrounding biology visible in those photos? When an organization does that, then I cannot help but question if they are truly unbiased in their research. I guess I can say this now because I've also been removed from their elitist sometimes misinformed forum. (Oh and their Snow Mound mystery, is nothing more then decaying woody debris from the nearby dead stump that fell on the then deep snow and was subsequently torn apart by animals looking for grubs in the Spring. The decaying somewhat dispersed chunks then acted as insulation from the sun, leaving a mound of snow beneath. BFRO, do your own experiment validating this, but you have to be careful to not compact the snow too much around the decaying log.) Anyway, there is definitely a long-term animosity existing between Cliff Crook and Matt Moneymaker. Both Mr. Crook and Mr. Moneymaker have documents online about one another.

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bigfootcentral/moneymakers.html

http://www.bfro.net/REF/hoax.asp (Ironically updated two days ago)

I have to ask: What evidence does BFRO truly have that these photos are a hoax? (Matt, drop your grudge, its very unbecoming. As for other photos of Cliff's, should you be called a hoaxer too because you have presented a few blurry photos by others as well? Everyone just needs to just try acting professional!)

I think part of what we really have here is animosity between two individuals that goes back many years, and its silly. From what I have read, some of it stems from Cliff Crook alleging that he could see a zipper fob on Patty's waist. Well I don't agree with that either, and even if Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy did identify something in the Patty images, it could have another plausible explanation that they didn't fully consider. What if it was simply some human object of adornment, (like a hair clip) that Patty found and attached to herself? Sure, some may not accept this either, but these sasquatch have and do many things we don't understand. Heck, some even claim that sasquatch use braiding. What gall! lol The fact is, we don't know much about sasquatch behavior, and in fact they are often viewed as part human. So why not be some kind of manmade object she found and placed there by Patty herself? So it may be that Cliff needs to revisit some of his statements as well.

He also stated that the the Skookum Cast is hoaxed, well I think things just got out of hand in discrediting one another between BFRO and himself on that one. Cliff, you know that sasquatch are intelligent enough to avoid making tracks in a mudpit, especially when people and their scents are present, that's for sure.

It would seem that Cliff paid good money for the 14 images from the off-duty forester, and they were erroneously and prematurely shot down by the masses. And people, you can't judge a person by their last name either! Isn't that right Matt? That is just immaturity at its worst and has nothing to do with a person's character. Those 14 photos may very well be the real deal folks. Unfortunately it's become a sad circle of animosity by some bigfooters that prevents a valid assessment. Therefore we all lose!

I should also say that I met Mr. Crook once back in the mid 1980's. He had a booth at the Oregon State Fair up north in Salem. I had personally seen my first sasquatch years earlier and so did have an interest in the subject even though it was nothing like now. From what he said back then to what his website shows now, he was a sincere bigfoot enthusiast. http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bigfootcentral/index.html He didn't make outlandish claims like another person I have come across. Cliff appeared to be woods savvy too, something that the armchair researchers lack. I even bought a cast from him for like $5 or $15, I can't remember. I still have it too. Sure I have some questions about that cast, but it looks real, as far as sasquatch casts go. He also gave me copies of some interesting written materials. One being a letter from then Washington Governor Dixie Lee Ray which validated that some of Mr. Crooks efforts were clearly principled and altruistic for the time.

I simply haven't written Mr. Crook off as a hoaxer like a few have, and I wish I could have viewed his original photos more closely. We know that 35mm prints can't be manipulated like digital photos can, so his original prints and negatives may hold much more information then we realize. I had tried contacting him a year or so ago when I posted the related items at BFRO, but I think Cliff finds it hard to trust people in the field anymore. That's understandable I suppose but I wish he didn't feel that about me because I really was looking for the truth in those photos. I've had more then my share of encounters with these creatures, so at least I look at things with a level of belief and knowledge that the skeptics or armchair researchers don't have. I think what some of these people say about him is discourteous and without merit. It stems from those who either had a hidden agenda, or who never will have any kind of encounter while sitting at their computer. My assessment is, we're overlooking, even discrediting, some fairly good photos of a sasquatch and now we've all lost. I have to wonder if any of the detractors of his EVER analyzed the photos in true detail? I kind of doubt it. While it may not matter to Cliff anymore what others think, this photo evidence definitely deserves a second unbiased look.

From the beginning he stated that he bought them from a forester who did not want to reveal his name publicly. We know this is highly plausible as well, given the stigma people feared would be attached in their jobs, along with the fear of losing employment. If it was an 'off duty forester', it was then likely a government employee. Well, 10 years ago timber still ruled, so what other response would we expect? But what if now this forester is retired and willing to come forward to take credit for taking the photos? Sadly with the way this field sometimes behaves, can you blame him for not doing so in the past?

I suspect Mr. Crook is just like many others who have been in the field for a long time. He's had his independent ideas, and some of them went against the grain. Big deal, I have a few of my own that have yet to be shared. I think too many baseless accusations have been thrown around about Cliff. If Cliff wanted to share his evidence again with a proper biologically-educated group of people, he could probably emerge with his researcher reputation in good standing. I suspect he already has a good reputation with those who know him personally.

Unfortunately many individuals are at odds with Mr. Crook because of the past Patty and Skookum Cast controversy, and it seems this will prematurely influence at least their unbiased consideration of any evidence. So is it safe to say that some people will always be biased towards Cliff for purely unjustified reasons? Will Cliff ever be able to admit that he could also have been wrong in his claims about Patty and the Skookum Cast? Hopefully we don't have two old rocks that just won't budge.

Cliff has indeed been around a long time. His early encounters are also believable and often the norm for encounters in the woods. His ideas about sasquatch even back when I met him were what I can accept. Well, what I can remember anyhow. He was a technical advisor and even portrayed in the movie 'Harry and the Hendersons' as I understand it. While there may be a few issues that need addressing, I think Mr. Crook was unfairly treated by this often insensitive misinformed field, where forums will hang a person simply because a few of the vocal individuals lead the way. It's Groupthink at its worst in an online setting. And while it may seem I'm singling out another individual right now (Todd Standing), a lot of research went into that issue, plus its been boiling over in forums for 5 years now.

Back to the photos, granted, the alleged bigfoot in them is pretty damned ugly. But that isn't a reason to rule the photos out as being non-authentic either. It also doesn't rule out that he could have been hoaxed by someone other then Cliff who saw opportunity, but I don't think that's the case either because of the overall content within said images. From what I've read in reports, sasquatch can be as varied as we are in their looks and appearance. So yes, it is possible that Cliff may have 14 very good images of a very ugly bigfoot. lol I'd want to have a better look at the photos myself to see what else can be identified. Cliff if you are reading this, maybe this is something you would allow? And no, being willing to investigate something, doesn't 'allign' oneself with a person, as I have seen asserted with other people. If it requrired a few botanists to personally identify all the vegetation in the photos and write this up, well that's probably doable too. I don't have some preconceived notion Cliff is a hoaxer like some have done. In fact I see many elements of validity in the photos, and I can also separate those other past issues of controversy as well. Too bad some people can't.

People too often draw conclusions before they actually investigate the details of a claim thoroughly. There are definitely jealousies and animosities within this field, that's for sure. I've long had this unnerving feeling that Mr. Crook may have gotten a bad rap over the years and even I am guilty for not speaking out even though I tried at BFRO. Even I was afraid to go against the norm however. Well, screw that! Unfortunately when you do speak out in blogs, there are even one or two bloggers in this field who selectively choose whose points of view they will allow. That blogger knows who I am talking about and I won't enter that issue any further for now. I'm after the truth, and with the Wild Creek Photos, I've seen inconsistencies in the claims from the critics of the photo evidence, instead of from the person claiming them to be authentic.

As to whether he was the first bigfoot researcher, that's hard to say because there was no internet back then. Does anyone have knowledge of someone else to be doing it longer then Cliff? There probably have been 'people' going back a long time before, who saw something and tried to understand it. Do we call them 'bigfoot researchers', probably not.

Frankly, Cliff needs to be heard out before we allow the image builders/takers in this field, with their own unsubstantiated preconcieved ideas or agendas, to tear him down. Cliff has a theory about the Paluxy tracks. I'd think Jeff Meldrum would have an open mind as well, since he knows better then most what its like to go up against the typical brick wall of closed-mindedness. Too bad Mr. Meldrum couldn't have a look at the actual impressions himself. Obviously he was illinformed about cast separation methods in hard rock, so maybe he too should keep an open mind? Who was around when the tracks were made and can dispute their authenticity first hand? Nobody! There's much that science assumes to be the way it is because it is what young scientists were taught in school. Well, they weren't taught that bigfoot existed either and guess what! If religious belief is the reason for discounting the tracks prematurely, well then I ask what that has to do with science? The rules of hominid evolution have been broken time and time again. There is no question that these sasquach are a very capable species too, look how they've survived and evaded us. So who decided when they first came on the scene? Well, Cliff has at least earned some respect for his years of bigfoot research. I think we owe him that much. This is his passion just as it is ours. So let's at least hear him out before throwing the baby out with the bathwater like some always do.

I think it ironic that some treat others within our field in the same way we criticize those outside it for treating us. Maybe its time we learn something from our own observations.

David Rodriguez
February 2, 2010

Profiling Hoaxers: The Psychology of Fame

Money and power are handy, but millions of ambitious people are after something other than the corner office or the beach house on St. Bart’s. They want to swivel necks, to light a flare in others’ eyes, to walk into a crowded room and feel the conversation stop. --Benedict Carey, New York Times

The News Tribune of Tacoma Washington, ran a story today about Cliff Cook. For those unfamiliar with Cliff Crook he is responsible for the photo in Benjamin Radford presentation below. The photo has been revealed as a hoax and has become a trophy to skeptics, along with the Frozen Georgia Bigfoot. They will probably be followed soon by the Sylvanic Bigfoot video footage.



What motivates hoaxers? I always get the sense that they believe in Bigfoot, despite the hoax. There has to be a more complete answer to their motivations. I wanted to know the psychology behind it. Oddly enough, there is not a lot of studies on hoaxing, but that's because hoaxing is really a polite term for what these "hoaxes" really are. These "hoaxes" are really lies, fraudulent lies. Y'see a real hoax is like what you see on Candid Camera, April Fools, etc. Proven hoaxes are lies. I'm not trying to be harsh, but if we are honest we might be able to understand motives better.

So why lie? Some have speculated greed as the motivation. After all, there is money to be made in the Bigfoot/CryptoZ industry. The only issue is, any proven "hoax" has never been profitable in the long-run. Although you can argue "hoaxers" are short-sighted and gambling on the bet they will not be caught, I think there is something that is a far stronger motivator. Fame.

Before you say, "Duh!" Give me a chance to be more specific. Fame is much more than "getting attention," it is deeper than that, its fulfilling a "need." Understanding a hoaxer's desire to attain fame can provide a few clues to overall psychological make-up of Bigfoot hoaxers. Let me quote Benedict Carey of New York Times.

For most of its existence, the field of psychology has ignored fame as a primary motivator of human behavior: it was considered too shallow, too culturally variable, too often mingled with other motives to be taken seriously. But in recent years, a small number of social scientists have begun to study and think about fame in a different way, ranking it with other goals, measuring its psychological effects, characterizing its devoted seekers.

People with an overriding desire to be widely known to strangers are different from those who primarily covet wealth and influence. Their fame-seeking behavior appears rooted in a desire for social acceptance, a longing for the existential reassurance promised by wide renown.

In a 1996 study, Richard M. Ryan of the University of Rochester and Dr. Kasser, then at Rochester, conducted in-depth surveys of 100 adults, asking about their aspirations, guiding principles, and values, as well as administering standard measures of psychological well-being.

The participants in the study who focused on goals tied to others’ approval, like fame, reported significantly higher levels of distress than those interested primarily in self-acceptance and friendship.

Surveys done since then, in communities around the world, suggest the same thing: aiming for a target as elusive as fame, and so dependent on the judgments of others, is psychologically treacherous.

We think there is a lot more to to this, and although we can't assume whether a "hoaxer" is really interested in finding Bigfoot, we can assume finding Bigfoot is not their first priority. Don't get us wrong, we are extremely inclusive here at BLC, good research and theories can come from anywhere. As far as "hoaxers" go? We feel a "hoaxers" are repeat offenders. And we should always be leery when they appear back in the news.

Dislamer: I don't want anybody to think I am a "hater." I already have my claim to fame. My fame peaked in 2008 and I'm okay with that.

EXTERNAL LINKS
Cliff Cook Article at The News Tribune
The Fame Motive at The New York Times
Loren Coleman Weighs-in