67 replies to this topic

[Night Walker]

Sundew, on 24 November 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

It seems like a lot of trouble to make a costume of that quality, especially for that time period, and to make it female as well. That is a lot of expense just to pull of a hoax

For realism in a Bigfoot costume, it is easier to attach a couple of breasts than to simulate the male tacklebox and some sort of muscle definition in the chest. Patterson, to his credit, did a good job but the breasts are uniformly hairy (ie hairy all over even underneath) which does not appear to occur in nature.

And you'd be surprised at the lengths some people go in order to have some fun at the expense of others. People like Wallace and Patterson redfined a genre of folk-entertainment that is still going strong today. Their names live on after their deaths and will do so for a long time to come. The real prize of Bigfootery is to weave one's name into the tapestry of a legend thereby becoming legendary in one's own right.

[psyche101]

Sundew, on 24 November 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

The most interesting "evidence" of Bigfoot for me it the Patterson film. It seems like a lot of trouble to make a costume of that quality, especially for that time period, and to make it female as well. That is a lot of expense just to pull of a hoax, and recreations of the event by costumed humans don't have the same look or feel.

Not really, costumes of higher calibre had been used in film for decades before. Charles Gemora is a good example. Also, Patterson was quite enthused with the success Krantz had with his article, so it likely seemed a good investment. The wonder had been established by Krantz, Patterson just marketed that interest. I do not think he was much of a WIldlife crusader, simply a clever opportunistic man.

Sundew, on 24 November 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

But having said that it would seem that after many decades of searches, after virtually every other species North American animal having been found dead on our highways, with growing human population and with legions of amateur naturalists, hunters and filmmakers armed with ever increasing better technology, something would have turned up by now.

Indeed. Biffs lack of presence surely must some day be considered and not wondered. It is evidence, not mystery.

Sundew, on 24 November 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

Still the Giant Panda was thought to be myth by westerners and so have other beasts, so there is a slight possibility that this animal may yet show up and surprise everyone.

I guess that would have much to do with Westerners not living in Asia? It is like asking why Kangaroos were not in 15th century english encyclopedias. Historical record shows that the Panda has a long history with people, even medicinal, although rare, the few known uses include the Sichuan tribal peoples' use of panda urine to melt accidentally swallowed needles, and the use of panda pelts to control menses as described in the Qin Dynasty (221 to 207 BC. ) encyclopedia Erya. The West first learned of the giant panda in 1869 because the French missionary Armand David received a skin from a hunter on 11 March 1869. With Biff, Americans are the locals, so here the comparison ceases to exist at all. There are no pelts, no bones, nothing. Just anecdotes. That is all we have seen ever. Surely this important fact will eventually be recognised.

Edited by psyche101, 24 November 2011 - 11:43 PM.

[tantalusw]

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

[Gaden]

tantalusw, on 25 November 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

You wouldn't want that guy in the suit to get bitten, would you?

[Myles]

tantalusw, on 25 November 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

I agree with you, but some people have good excuses for this.

[tantalusw]

he would to 10-20 good hounds could run down about anything or aleast hold it till you got there with the gun.

[tantalusw]

sorry didnt see how you could cancel a second copy of the post

Edited by tantalusw, 26 November 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[psyche101]

tantalusw, on 25 November 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

Actually, I remember Diechecker posting a link some time back that lead to a group pf people training a Beagle to specifically locate Bigfoot.

That seems to have gone rather quiet. Do you by any chance still have the link Diechecker? I wonder how that project is coming along.

Edited by psyche101, 29 November 2011 - 02:08 AM.

[DieChecker]

Nope. I tried keeping links for a while and then when it got over a hundred, my organizational skills began to crumble and I ditched the lot of 'em.

From what I remember these people collected hair and scat they found in the woods that they thought was from a BF and then trained the dogs off it. Clearly what they were using could have been from a selection of animals.

I remember reading about some people who found footprints and then set their scent hound off after the trail. The dog ran off and eventually entered a large thicket some distance ahead of the trackers/bigfoot hunters. The dog supposedly came running back out yelping and scared and refused to again go after the scent trail. Supposedly these were honest people, but you never do know. I've seen about a half dozen stories/reports where dogs were involved and I think in all of them the dog ran away, some immediately, some after attacking the BF.

I even read a report of a BF that had a pack of dogs traveling with it.

I'd go back and google check through all those old UM bigfoot posts, but my workday is almost over (7 to 7) and so I have to go now. A good search might find those links.

Edited by DieChecker, 29 November 2011 - 03:05 AM.

[Vance665]

DieChecker, on 29 November 2011 - 03:04 AM, said:

I even read a report of a BF that had a pack of dogs traveling with it.

Just thinking about this is awesome beyond words. No wonder no one can catch bigfoot, if they get close bigfoot sicks his dogs on them. We don't find bigfoot remains in the woods because his dogs eat the dead body, you know how dogs love to eat bones.

[tantalusw]

I understand the whole scent thing but dogs have been used in search lines for along time and they dont start with a scent. If you got a group of hunters together with a group of dogs and just marched them through the woods you would chase out every mammal in the place. I'm sorry but if you were serious about finding him set up a dog hunt with a good prize and you'd have more hunters there then you could handle.

[Stardrive]

In Saltville Va. the hunters there say there's a bear in the surrounding mountains they nicknamed ole cobblefoot. They never could bag it because it always outran thier dogs.

[tantalusw]

wow to out run a hound is a hell of a feet

[Myles]

tantalusw, on 30 November 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

wow to out run a hound is a hell of a feet

Heck of a big-feet.

[Conspiracy Cat]

You could have all the people and dogs you want!Bigfoot is way too smart to even be in the vicinity.He probably has a good sense of smell and hearing and can detect a presence from miles away so why bother looking for him when he knows there are people running around in the forest...dogs or no dogs!