76 replies to this topic

[danbell06]

Night Walker, on 25 January 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

From the hoax perspective: Why would you create an impression that differs from the foot of the costume?

You wouldn't. But what could they have used on the feet to create the imprint they cast?

Providing it was a suit.

Edited by danbell06, 25 January 2013 - 01:57 AM.

[keninsc]

Night Walker, on 25 January 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

From the hoax perspective: Why would you create an impression that differs from the foot of the costume?

I get what you're saying, however consider that the feet most likely wouldn't have been thought of before the film was shot. We have the advantage of having read what others have written about it, thought about it, poured over it like water at a falls, digitized it, re-digitized it and looked at it with just about every new fangled software, imaging device that's come along since the film was first shown way back in '67.........when my old shriveled up butt was in the tenth grade.

We now know to look for obvious problems with prints, then too, why would they have made the Bigfoot a female......at least they gave it boobs, that says, "Female" to me, but I don't know what the anatomy of a Bigfoot is supposed to be, I didn't see any male member swinging in the breeze. Now, yeah we think about this stuff, if you will excuse the expression because we're standing on the shoulders of the one before us who figured this all out ahead of us.

I seriously doubt any hoaxer.....in 1967 would have thought too much about these things before all the scrutiny, if you get what I'm saying. Now is one thing but then? Then? Seriously?

I'm just saying.

[Night Walker]

danbell06, on 25 January 2013 - 01:57 AM, said:

You wouldn't. But what could they have used on the feet to create the imprint they cast?

Providing it was a suit.

Examine the timeline from when Bigfoot walked across Bluff Creek to when the tracks were cast and see if "red flags" jump out at you. Then tell me how YOU would/could do it...

keninsc, on 25 January 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

I get what you're saying, however consider that the feet most likely wouldn't have been thought of before the film was shot. We have the advantage of having read what others have written about it, thought about it, poured over it like water at a falls, digitized it, re-digitized it and looked at it with just about every new fangled software, imaging device that's come along since the film was first shown way back in '67.........when my old shriveled up butt was in the tenth grade.

We now know to look for obvious problems with prints, then too, why would they have made the Bigfoot a female......at least they gave it boobs, that says, "Female" to me, but I don't know what the anatomy of a Bigfoot is supposed to be, I didn't see any male member swinging in the breeze. Now, yeah we think about this stuff, if you will excuse the expression because we're standing on the shoulders of the one before us who figured this all out ahead of us.

I seriously doubt any hoaxer.....in 1967 would have thought too much about these things before all the scrutiny, if you get what I'm saying. Now is one thing but then? Then? Seriously?

I'm just saying.

Many hoaxes successfully dupe people because they simply cannot conceive of the duplicity involved. Consider Dr. Napier's comments on the (faked) "Cripplefoot" tracks just 2 years after Bluff Creek:

"It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so suble, so knowledgable - and so sick - who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it."

http://www.bigfooten...es/bossburg.htm

More on the "Cripplefoot" fiasco: http://home.yowieocalypse.com/amvpro/

Hoaxes and other llusions work because of how things seem. It is often difficult to conceive otherwise - that is part of the attraction...

Example: A line of large Bigfoot tracks were once found going up a steep hill in large, in-human strides with no signs of tampering around. Can you conceive how was it possible to fake those?

Edited by Night Walker, 25 January 2013 - 03:13 AM.

[QuiteContrary]

Because I can admit I just don't get all this PGF analysis, and haven't followed it, and don't understand all the tech stuff.

I have to say, I just don't see how this close-up perfect foot shot out was taken off the original footage we all watched for years.

But that adds nothing, coming from me.

[keninsc]

Quote

Example: A line of large Bigfoot tracks were once found going up a steep hill in large, in-human strides with no signs of tampering around. Can you conceive how was it possible to fake those?

Actually that one isn't hard to figure out at all. You put your fake feet on backward and then got from the top down using gravity to increase your strides. What will give it away will be any long landing marks from the top down, however most will miss those because everything else will appear to be correct.

[Night Walker]

keninsc, on 25 January 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

Actually that one isn't hard to figure out at all. You put your fake feet on backward and then got from the top down using gravity to increase your strides. What will give it away will be any long landing marks from the top down, however most will miss those because everything else will appear to be correct.

Nice. I have quoted that example before though so I was hoping that you wouldn't remember...

[keninsc]

If you say so, actually no one ever asked me that before and I haven't read it on here or anywhere else.

The VC used to put spare boot soles or sandal soles on backward to make it look like they were going in a different direction. A lot of guys got fooled but I learned quick to check which direction the stride originated from, you can do some funky thing to mess with people's heads but you can't fool everyone.

Kudos for having posted it up. Maybe sometime I'll check it out.

[Night Walker]

Memory is a fickle thing...

[Stardrive]

Night Walker, on 25 January 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

Nice. I have quoted that example before though so I was hoping that you wouldn't remember...

Maybe ken had the same thought on this as you did. Did coincidence ever cross your mind or did you just jump straight to the conclusion he got the idea from you because you posted it at one time? I'm just curious as to what your reasoning is here.

[keninsc]

I do have real tracking skills. they're pretty rusty now, but it's like riding a bicycle, you pick them right back up quickly.

I learned most of what I know in Nam from a guy in our unit who was a real Apache Indian. Honestly, this guy could track men over smooth rocks I think, tell you how many there were. how much they were carrying, how many were wounded. The guy was amazing and really quickly I learned to shut up and pay attention to what he had to say, because he was like most Indians, he didn't get into idle chit-chat, when he spoke he had something to say.

[Sakari]

I still want to know why in the P film, Bif has no butt crack......

[keninsc]

Well, she has a hairy old ass, could be there's a crack under there.

[Night Walker]

Stardrive, on 26 January 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Maybe ken had the same thought on this as you did. Did coincidence ever cross your mind or did you just jump straight to the conclusion he got the idea from you because you posted it at one time? I'm just curious as to what your reasoning is here.

No problem:-

How was I to know Ken has REAL tracking experience? Most people don't even when they say they do. I don't claim to be psychic, you know, so I went for the most obvious conclusion (for me).

Jumping to conclusions is what people routinely do even if the reasoning and/or conclusions turn out to be incorrect/false. Human perceptions, cognitions, memories, and emotional responses are fallible - far more so than most seem to be aware. Such human fallibility is central to the Bigfoot phenomenon even if experiencers/believers don't think it applies to them ("I KNOW what I saw!", etc).

I have not seen Bigfoot (although I have seen a "ghost") but I know that I am fallible just like everyone else as this example illustrates. That is my reasoning here...

Ken - mind if I pick your brains about some supposed Yowie tracks via PM?

[QuiteContrary]

Sakari, on 26 January 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

I still want to know why in the P film, Bif has no butt crack......

'Cause she wasn't a plumber, silly.
This was 1967. Trade unions were still strictly mens' clubs and all that...
She was barefoot and pregnant, probably out scavenging for food while her drunk husband was minding the still.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 26 January 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Sakari]

QuiteContrary, on 26 January 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

'Cause she wasn't a plumber, silly.
This was 1967. Trade unions were still strictly mens' clubs and all that...
She was barefoot and pregnant, probably out scavenging for food while her drunk husband was minding the still.

The good old days