Bobcat on Bigfoot and Willow Creek

Bobcat Goldthwait understands what Bigfooting is all about.

"...when I got to Willow Creek, this just seemed to be the movie to make because of the people I met there. And I found the town very interesting." --Bocat Goldthwait

Recently while promoting his stand-up performance for this weekend (Friday, Aug. 16, and Saturday, Aug. 17, 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.) at the Liquid Lounge in Boise, ID, Bobcat Golthwait talked about his recent found footage Bigfoot movie Willow Creek.

Read the excerpt below from BoiseWeekly:

[Bobcat's] latest, Willow Creek, is currently making film festival rounds and is probably his biggest step in a different direction--not only from his early stand-up, but from the canon of his film creations: Willow Creek is a found-footage film about Bigfoot. And although it is not without humor, Willow Creek, is definitely a horror movie.

"It's a scary movie. It's a departure from my other movies. There's comedy in the beginning but then it goes pretty straight-up horror," Goldthwait told Boise Weekly.

Willow Creek, which was shot on location, is about a couple who hikes into the remote woods near the small hamlet of Willow Creek, Calif., searching for the site of the famous Patterson/Gimlin footage--the few seconds of grainy film showing a giant, hairy man-like creature walking through the trees.

Comparisons to Blair Witch Project are inevitable. Found-footage is a well-trod genre and Goldthwait's film contains the standard ingredients: young people, scary place, mythical creature. Goldthwait said he knows the found-footage format is kind of played out, but his take on it is different.

"I only have 67 edits in this movie," Goldthwait said. "Usually you have 1,200-1,400 in a movie, but I wanted it to feel like they really were just turning the camera on and off."

Goldthwait also included something he felt was missing from other movies in the genre.

"I think sometimes in found-footage movies, they don't concentrate too much on the chemistry of the [characters]. And that was really important to me--that you believe these are real people," he said.

That authenticity was important to Goldthwait, which might be an odd thing to consider in the context of Bigfoot, but makes perfect sense considering Goldthwait's longtime love of the legend.

"I took a Bigfoot vacation," Goldthwait said, with no trace of irony. "I actually put 1,400 miles on my car just driving around to all the famous Bigfoot sites in California. And when I got to [the community of] Willow Creek, I was kind of thinking of a different movie. But when I got to WIllow Creek, this just seemed to be the movie to make because of the people I met there. And I found the town very interesting.

"The other thing was, I always wanted to try my hand at a suspense movie. I'm always jealous when I watch a Tarantino movie and you're at the edge of your seat most of the time and there's nothing going on. I'm like, 'How do you do that? How do you make suspenseful stuff?' That was my goal."

Reviews of Willow Creek would indicate Goldthwait achieved his goal.

Indiewire.com called it "the monster movie of the summer," adding that the film is "a unique representation of the tension between those who scoff at the Bigfoot legend and others willing to accept the mythology as gospel."

Fearnet.com said Goldthwait's film "is a refreshingly matter-of-fact horror/thriller ... a calm, cool, creepy little winner."

While Goldthwait has no plans to retire from stand-up, it's anyone's guess what Willow Creek may mean for his career. Regardless of what happens, he has a new subject to mine for stand-up material and, in making the film, Goldthwait learned something about himself.

"[The vacation] was a gift to the 8-year-old me," Goldthwait said. " I've always been fascinated by [Bigfoot] and what it represents and how it shows up over and over again in so many different cultures. And it took me a while to realize it, but I like the outdoors. If you go looking for Bigfoot and you don't find him, the byproduct is you went camping."

Charity Event with Cliff Barackman and Bobo in Portland, OR

Meet Cliff and Bobo in person! Click image to enlarge

Save the date!!! This Wednesday, August 14th 2013 you can meet cast members of the hit show ‘Finding Bigfoot’! Cliff Barackman and James “Bobo” Fay will be on hand to sign autographs and talk Squatch!

WHAT: Sippin’ with Sasquatch featuring Cliff Barackman and James “Bobo” Fay!

WHERE: Barlow Tavern 6008 N. Greeley Ave. Portland, OR 97217

WHEN: Wednesday, August 14 2013 at 7:30pm. Doors open at 6:30pm.

COST: $10 Cover. 100% of the proceeds raised by the door charge go to benefit the Animal Shelter 

Alliance of Portland

SPONSORED BY: The Barlow Tavern, Batch 206 Distillery’s ‘Counter Gin’, Olympia Beer, Drink Think and Missing Link Toys.

RESTRICTIONS: 21 years of age and older only. ID required.

Come enjoy a fun-filled evening with the cast members of the hit show ‘Finding Bigfoot’! Cliff Barackman and James “Bobo” Faey will be on hand to sign autographs, take pictures and discuss all things sasquatch. The Barlow Tavern will have Bigfoot themed drink and food specials on hand and Lady She Buckaroo will be spinning hits on the turntables. There may even be a special guest or two! This is a great opportunity for fans of the show or Bigfoot to meet with the cast in an intimate, informal setting.

100% of the money raised through the cover charge will be donated to the Animal Shelter Alliance of 

Portland. The Animal Shelter Alliance of Portland provides low cost spay and neutering services to 

Portland residents, promotes animal welfare, responsible pet ownership and reduces the amount of 

abandoned or unwanted cats and dogs.

This event is sponsored by generous contributions from the Barlow Tavern, Batch 206 Distillery, Olympia Beer and Drink Think. 

www.batch206.com

www.olympiabigfoot.com

www.facebook.com/drinkthinkpdx

www.missinglinktoys.com

Space is limited and the event is anticipated to sell out. Tickets MAY NOT be purchased in advance. 

Guests will be admitted on a first come, first served basis and it is strongly recommended that guests 

arrive early. Ticket sales and doors open at 6:30pm. There is no early admittance. This event is not affiliated with Animal Planet, Discovery Networks or any of their subsidiaries.

For event inquiries and vendor information, contact Molly Wolfe at mollyawolfepdx@gmail.com or 

206.850.5309

Abominable Science! A Skeptical and Slightly Sympathic Approach to Cryptzoology

Abominible Science is being described as skeptical and empathetic towards cryptozoology

“Scientists are not inherently negative sourpusses who want to rain on everyone else’s parade.” --  Donald R. Prothero; Co-author of Abominable Science

The book is self-described by the publishers as:

Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero have written an entertaining, educational, and definitive text on cryptids, presenting the arguments both for and against their existence and systematically challenging the pseudoscience that perpetuates their myths. After examining the nature of science and pseudoscience and their relation to cryptozoology, Loxton and Prothero take on Bigfoot; the Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, and its cross-cultural incarnations; the Loch Ness monster and its highly publicized sightings; the evolution of the Great Sea Serpent; and Mokele Mbembe, or the Congo dinosaur. They conclude with an analysis of the psychology behind the persistent belief in paranormal phenomena, identifying the major players in cryptozoology, discussing the character of its subculture, and considering the challenge it poses to clear and critical thinking in our increasingly complex world.

You can read an excerpt from a LosAngeles Magazine review below:

Both researchers approach the book from a skeptic’s point of view but they’re not quick to dismiss claims that these creatures could exist. Both have been hooked on the topic since childhood and as Prothero writes, “Scientists are not inherently negative sourpusses who want to rain on everyone else’s parade.” Though the book sometimes gets bogged down in details, the authors retain a childlike enthusiasm toward the topic. Here are the origin stories for three of the legendary beasts in the book:

Bigfoot: Most people imagine an ape-like creature that stands on two legs, but the original story of Bigfoot describes the creature quite differently. The first “sightings” of Bigfoot in North America occurred in the 1920s. A man named John W. Burns gathered reports from people of their encounters with a creature called Sasquatch, described as hairy giants who looked like giant Native Americans. They had clothes, fire, and weapons and lived in villages. And their hair? According to the stories it was not all over their bodies but worn very long.

The Yetti: Also referred to as the Abominable Snowman, the creature got its name from a team of explorers scouting a route for an attempt to climb Mount Everest in 1921. The team saw tracks that looked like a human foot. Though Lieutenant Colonel Charles Howard-Bury, the leader of the expedition, surmised that the footprints were caused by a large grey wolf, his Sherpa guides said that it was the tracks of a wild man whose kind were found in remote mountains. The first recorded sighting of a beast that fit the description of a Yetti happened more than 180 years ago when Brian Hodgson, an English explorer living in Nepal named, wrote that his shooters were alarmed by a wild man. However in the paper, which was published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, he also wrote that he doubted their accuracy.

SRC: LAMag.com

While we haven't read it, you can bet the Skeptics like it. Some Amazon.com reviewers felt, "The authors treat figures in the field of cryptozoology with perhaps more empathy and respect than they deserve, and there is generally a studied avoidance of the (understandable) temptation to intellectually skewer some of these folks."

Really? The authors were too soft on Cryptozoologist? Bill Munns left a review on Amazon.com. We were able to confirm it is, indeed, Bill Munns, the creature FX expert and author of the Munns Report chronicling his extensive research of the Patterson/Gimlin film. In his review he felt there was a clear bias and, "[Daniel Loxton] humiliates the scientific process and journalistic professionalism alike."

Read a portion of his review below:

This book entitled "Abominable Science" achieves a level of scientific and journalistic hypocrisy that warrants the publisher recalling the book. The reason is that one of the co-authors, Daniel Loxton, has written a fairly substantial portion of this book practicing the very "abominable science" the book proportedly sets out to expose. In other words, he has demonstrated a journalistic or scientific hypocrisy that is either grossly negligent, grossly incompetent, or so blatantly biased that he humiliates the scientific process and journalistic professionalism alike.

In Chapter One, Co-Author Donald Prothero describes very admirably and meticulously what is good science and what is not. Sadly, in Chapter Two, Co-Author Loxton proceeds to evaluate the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin "Bigfoot" film from page 44-50 and Mr. Loxton does nearly everything that his co-author has just explained to us that we cannot rely upon. Co-Author Loxton is discussing a topic in which there is a wealth of fine empirical data and a equally voluminous heap of poor anecdotal evidence and the author totally dismisses the fine empirical data with absolutely no justifiable explanation, and wallows in the poor anecdotal evidence instead as if it were splendidly scientific. The author also looks to material nine or more years outdated, and demonstrates virtually no awareness of new research, data, developments, or shifts of the landscape of the controversy more recently than 9 years ago, when there has been tremendous new material and analysis work worthy of his evaluation. This is intolerable and unconscionable in a work proportedly to be educating the public about good science.

While my criticism focuses on Mr. Loxton's segment of the book focused on the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film, we must wonder if that travesty of hypocritical fodder is an isolated moment of scientific dementia or is it the tip of a much larger iceberg of unscientific and heavily biased writing throughout his half of the book's authorship. When a write "cooks" a story with disregard for facts and academic responsibility or journalistic fairness and accuracy, that incident generally casts a profound suspicion over the entire body of the writer's work. Thus, while I focus this concern on one section, the concern may put a serious cloud over the book in general.

Read Bill Munns full review