76 replies to this topic

[Insanity]

keninsc, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

Actually, I've sort of wondered about hair wear patterns myself over the years. You see a picture of a Biggy and vary often it's got relatively short hair, however a lot of descriptions talk about them having very long hair.....are there short and long haired Biggies? Maybe their hair wears down? Maybe they shed, much like cats and dogs? The PG film shows no real wear, the "coat" is pretty uniform. Which adds some credibility of it being a costume and not a real Bigfoot.

What does a coat that has been worn look like in comparison to a coat that is uniform?

[keninsc]

Aw hell QC, we're all somewhat "challenging". Welcome to the club.

There's another thread where the discussion is on the need for some to believe when there isn't any real evidence that something like a Bigfoot exists. I get where NW is coming from and I also get what Stardrive is saying, sort of different sides of the same coin really. And it really all comes down to perspective, or how we rationalize what we believe of don't believe.

I sort of liken it to sexual orientation, very few people are totally gay, very few people are totally straight, the vast majority of us fall out in the middle being a little more one way or the other. I know lesbians who do have sex with the occasional guy, but they still consider themselves to be lesbian. Same thing with gay men, on occasion they hook up with women. Then there's everything in between. Believers are sort of the same way, they may believe, heart and soul Bigfoot is real, but understand that there is no proof, so anything is proof to them. Some don't believe but want it to be true, so they embrace believers but remain skeptical.

Human beliefs.....as with orientation.....is as complex and varied as there are fish in the sea. Myself, well I consider myself to be open on the subject, I've never seen a Bigfoot, found prints, or any thing. I did many years ago encounter a foul, nasty, odor while deer hunting. Never saw anything, didn't find any evidence but I never will forget that stink. Then after that I had two friends, men I know and knew very well tell me of their encounters where they actually saw a Bigfoot. Now I knew these guys and I could tell they were not clowning around. So my openness is based on what they told me. And I know when I tell it is serves as only an anecdotal story to anyone else and is proof of nothing to anyone else, but to me..........it makes me wonder and keep an open mind.

[QuiteContrary]

I can't answer for keninsc, but since this creature is often described as so human-like more than "ape" like, I wondered about  areas of thinning hair/uneven hair growth on the body possibly due to wear or just the hair growth pattern of bf. As opposed to the even carpet-like fur of say a gorilla and apparently "Patty".

Edited by QuiteContrary, 30 January 2013 - 11:37 PM.

[keninsc]

Insanity, on 30 January 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

What does a coat that has been worn look like in comparison to a coat that is uniform?

Ever noticed that creatures that are bipedal tend to sit on their butt and the backs of their legs? Monkeys, gorillas and humans all do it and they show a wear pattern..............that action tends to grind and break off the hair covering those body parts. If you look at the PGF and watch Bigfoot walk away......he/she has a hairy old a$$, however the hair is pretty uniform showing no signs of wear from sitting, almost looks like it's been brushed. You have to look with your eyes and interpret for yourself.

[Stardrive]

QuiteContrary, on 27 January 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

Bolding and underscoring are mine

I have trouble with saying this. Imo, I honestly don't think I should have to say "Okay, I guess you could have seen an 8 foot 600 lb animal unknown to science while camping in Ohio at Salt Fork State Park."
It is just too big a leap of logic and science to make any sense to me to admit you could be right. As if I have no other alternative...

Don't know if I'm explaining it well enough. Or maybe I read your post wrong, jumped to conclusions.

*P.S. You know I am a skeptic, Stardrive, and I am not trying to be demeaning here. We've talked before. I am just offering how I look at it differently.

I understand what your saying. One could always just say to ones  self "maybe the circus is in town", "sounds like a person with a genetic defect",  "it's a hobosapien" or my fav, "it's bobo the walking bear again" and be done with it.

I'm waiting for the Sykes study to be completed and published before I commit one way or the other. But if you want to commit now, that's cool and is a personal choice I respect in spite of any "feelings" I may have on the subject.

Yes I know your position and I completely respect it. That's why I came to you for advice.

[Stardrive]

Night Walker, on 28 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

The "need to believe" thing is not about the non-shortage of non-believers but about the relative exclusivity of true-believers and/or make-believers who claim multiple sightings/experiences - it's a sub-cultural status thing.

My mistake again, I read and responded to your post in haste.   @me. On the other side of the coin, it could also just be the person who had the sighting got a very good look at it leaving only marginal room for error in thier visual perception. Of course, as a field investigator, you would have to take into account a persons integrity and reliability.

I would however avoid using the term "believer" if at all possible because that makes everyone a "believer" in some capacity. Example, QC and Sakari are believers. How so you may ask? Because they "believe" there's not a snowmans chance in hades they exist. So I can even say they are true believers and not be off the mark. Plus using the word believer makes it sound like a religion. QC and Sakari, I did not mean any disrespect toward either of you in any way. You guys (and gals) have high ground, I do not, and I understand that.

Quote

There is good reason that even compelling evidence is inconclusive at best and it has nothing to do with a creature as yet uncategorised by science

And the good reason is??

Quote

- I don't mind declaring that Yowie/Bigfoot simply does not objectively exist (subjective existence is another story).

Which would make you a true believer. You truely believe they don't exist in a physical form. I know the term is used for simplicities sake, but we may want to consider another term that is more accurate.

Quote

But if the Yowie/Bigfoot doesn't exist then what is it? Or, more accurately, what is going on? The answer has always been right in front of us but it is not as sexy as the mystery/fantasy of what could be out there. Enchantment is important. Believers and skeptics are simply partaking in the same merry dance that has been going on for at least the last few hundred years and in various guises. Why should the Yowie/Bigfoot phenomenon be any different?

I will agree the psychological aspect is worthy of being investigated. And from what I can tell, that is the path you have chosen. I'm of the opinion that proponents and skeptics are drawn to the this subject because it's a great exercise in critical thinking and there are things all parties can learn from the discussions involked. That's my take on it.

[Insanity]

keninsc, on 30 January 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

Ever noticed that creatures that are bipedal tend to sit on their butt and the backs of their legs? Monkeys, gorillas and humans all do it and they show a wear pattern..............that action tends to grind and break off the hair covering those body parts. If you look at the PGF and watch Bigfoot walk away......he/she has a hairy old a$$, however the hair is pretty uniform showing no signs of wear from sitting, almost looks like it's been brushed. You have to look with your eyes and interpret for yourself.

Whether or not any wear could be seen would have to do with the contrast of the hair to the skin, in my thoughts.  Gorillas often have black, sometimes gray skin, and a coat of hair of a dark color.  It is possible from a distance, the contrast between a patch in the fur and the skin beneath may not be enough to see a difference.

There are a few frames in the PG Film where a difference in color can been seen on the subject's rear.  Whether that is due to a wear of the fur, or a change in the light and sheen of the fur, I do not know.  In fact, the coloring of the fur does vary over different parts of the body, and some may be due to lightning, some may be due to wear.

Edited by Insanity, 31 January 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[QuiteContrary]

Stardrive, on 31 January 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

You guys (and gals) have high ground, I do not, and I understand that.

I'm not sure what you mean and i'm not looking for an explanation. I am in no shortage of attitude, and i apologize for that.
But I want you to know, in no way do I look down on anyone doing research into a sincere belief in bigfoot.
Hoaxers, fame-seekers, scammers, and those who beg for ridicule (imo, obviously) I offer no mercy, true.
But I would never think myself above you in any way for the belief you hold or the searching you do. No matter how I come across.
Heck, I'd go out looking with any sincere searcher, and enjoy myself tremendously without ever feeling the slightest bit of superiority.
In fact, I love to learn anything... anywhere. And I take every opportunity to learn something, and don't doubt I would learn from you as you had things to show me.
Now, I may not see bigfoot evidence, Stardrive, but I'd learn about your stomping ground and your areas of knowledge and interests.
And why you believe what you believe. And I know I'd be impressed!

Edited by QuiteContrary, 31 January 2013 - 07:32 PM.

[keninsc]

Insanity, on 31 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Whether or not any wear could be seen would have to do with the contrast of the hair to the skin, in my thoughts.  Gorillas often have black, sometimes gray skin, and a coat of hair of a dark color.  It is possible from a distance, the contrast between a patch in the fur and the skin beneath may not be enough to see a difference.

There are a few frames in the PG Film where a difference in color can been seen on the subject's rear.  Whether that is due to a wear of the fur, or a change in the light and sheen of the fur, I do not know.  In fact, the coloring of the fur does vary over different parts of the body, and some may be due to lightning, some may be due to wear.

Ok, never mind.....

[Night Walker]

Stardrive, on 31 January 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

And the good reason is??

It doesn't exist.

Stardrive, on 31 January 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Which would make you a true believer. You truely believe they don't exist in a physical form. I know the term is used for simplicities sake, but we may want to consider another term that is more accurate.

I don't know. For me it is not about belief but about evidence. I don't have to believe that there is no evidence otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this on a mystery forum. I would change my position should actual evidence arise whereas "believers" are under no obligation because they "know the truth" despite the evidence. Perhaps "make-believers" is a more appropriate term considering the amount of fakery and fantasy that is evident within the phenomenon. "Experiencers" is ok but there is often no distinction between fantasy and reality which brings us back to "make-belief"...

Edited by Night Walker, 31 January 2013 - 10:07 PM.

[QuiteContrary]

Insanity, on 31 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Whether or not any wear could be seen would have to do with the contrast of the hair to the skin, in my thoughts.  Gorillas often have black, sometimes gray skin, and a coat of hair of a dark color.  It is possible from a distance, the contrast between a patch in the fur and the skin beneath may not be enough to see a difference.

There are a few frames in the PG Film where a difference in color can been seen on the subject's rear.  Whether that is due to a wear of the fur, or a change in the light and sheen of the fur, I do not know.  In fact, the coloring of the fur does vary over different parts of the body, and some may be due to lightning, some may be due to wear.

That is very true, certain areas do appear lighter, a number of areas all over her body. In fact, so much so she looks like she has mange if all were to be bare patches.
But then in some other shots I still "think I see" fur on a lot of those patches, so that it may be just be sunlight. But honestly, it's difficult for me to be convinced either way and it's probably a combination of both wear and sunlight.

Would "fur" on such a costume wear so badly? If so, at what point do you stop using the costume and put it away or throw it out? If you use it until it is threadbare, why and for what use?  If the light areas are all wear, it would make for a lousy costume to use, imo. But maybe cheaper in cost?

I guess it could be made that way from the start, but copying say the gorilla, their fur is just so thick all over, it appears after searching gorilla images..

Oh...wait a minute... Patty is speaking to me from the dead.. she says...she says... "Shut up already!"... It was just a bad fur day, that's all.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 31 January 2013 - 11:53 PM.

[keninsc]

Personally, I have no idea what the actual color of the skin of a Bigfoot is, oddly a Polar bear supposedly has black skin under all that white fir.......however, I've never shaved a Polar bear so I can't say.

And while I'm no expert on Bigfoot physiology, I can say that I have watched videos and documentaries of apes and I have noticed they have wear areas on their knees, buttocks and outer thighs. This varies greatly from ape to ape, but it is there. So I think it a reasonable assumption that a Bigfoot, which is also supposed to be a bipedal fur covered creature, would have the same sort of wear patterns. Of course this is a speculative leap on my part and hell, I could be wrong.

But I can say that I wear out the seat of my pants, the knees and the outer thighs. And I have to include myself in the group of bipedal creatures.

[Night Walker]

What of Patty's uniformly hairy breasts? Only possible via fabrication?

[keninsc]

You have to ask one of the other guys who's a breast man, I'm a leg and butt guy myself.

[setsuna2275]

Strange... Bigfoot Walked on The side of the road see the footprints... Bigfoot never walked on the center... Oh well Maybe Bigfoot is hitching for a ride!!!