11 replies to this topic

[Saru]

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science

Click here to watch video - 09:15s

A segment from a documentary investigating footprints allegedly left by the legendary Bigfoot.

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

I've watched this documentary before. This part seems to be the most plausible evidence of a Bigfoot with dermal ridges clearly visible on some of the casts.

[Particle Noun]

Yeah, how do you counter this?  I think this is one of the hardest elements of the evidence to discount.  I don't think you can easily fake prints with such detail, and especially not prints from different parts of the country.  Any sceptic responses to this video?

[Murrangurk]

Wait a minute - someone clarify for me - wasn't the Patterson footage confirmed fake?

[OverSword]

Yeah, cmon neognosis.  Tear this apart since you always know more than people who are experts in thier field.  You have one unprovable argument that you always use while these people who have decades of experience and education seem to be of the opnion that sasquatch is real.  I think the last time I brought up Dr. Meldrums points your response was "yeah right have you ever heard the nonsense that come out of his mouth.

Murrangurk, on 04 March 2011 - 10:40 PM, said:

Wait a minute - someone clarify for me - wasn't the Patterson footage confirmed fake?

LOL!  Nope.

[Particle Noun]

I mean there really is no response *I can think of* to this other than really high level coordinated hoaxing.  Which is extremely unprobable to me, more so than an existing creature.

But, I'm open to hearing counter arguments!

[BDH25]

No the Patterson film has not been confirmed fake, it actually has more evidence to support that it is authentic than to prove it's not. To me it is not hard to believe a guy set out to film a Sasquatch and succeeded. I personally don't think that the film is a fake, but if it is, it doesnt prove that bigfoot is a myth. Don't forget that Native Americans talk of Bigfoot and have done so for hundreds of years. They know he's real, and anyone who does a little open minded research will see that also.

[S.C.I.-P.R.O.]

One of the most interesting things commented on the patterson film that I can think of is that it was a the creature was a female.Someone would have to put alot of thought into staging this,but also to make a creature out to be a female is far too much of imagination to fake.I think the patterson film is one of the few that is believable.

[StarChild 83]

But the Pattersons themselves came out and said it was a fake. didn't they? I'm pretty sure i remember seeing that on TV.

[OverSword]

StarChild 83, on 06 March 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

But the Pattersons themselves came out and said it was a fake. didn't they? I'm pretty sure i remember seeing that on TV.

Nope, that was debunked instantly.

[S.C.I.-P.R.O.]

   As to date,the patterson film has never been de-bunked. It's been said that Roger Patterson on his death bed claimed the story to be true. Another reason that I think it to be true,is that no one had the technology to produce something that real at the time. Today with the skills of make,photography enhancement,and computers...yes,they are alot of fakes out there,but with that type of technology,people have been able to enhance that film and see that the creature is too real to be fake. Research a little and you'll see some of the hard evidence such as how the creature moved,the breast that it had,the muscle movement along with a bulge that shows in it's leg that the pro. researchers believe to be a possiable injury.This one film has too much hard evidence that's been dicovered now in this time,that convinces me to be one of the few real deals.......

[vitruvian12]

S.C.I.-P.R.O., on 08 May 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

   As to date,the patterson film has never been de-bunked. It's been said that Roger Patterson on his death bed claimed the story to be true. Another reason that I think it to be true,is that no one had the technology to produce something that real at the time. Today with the skills of make,photography enhancement,and computers...yes,they are alot of fakes out there,but with that type of technology,people have been able to enhance that film and see that the creature is too real to be fake. Research a little and you'll see some of the hard evidence such as how the creature moved,the breast that it had,the muscle movement along with a bulge that shows in it's leg that the pro. researchers believe to be a possiable injury.This one film has too much hard evidence that's been dicovered now in this time,that convinces me to be one of the few real deals.......

I find it convenient that only those who believe the film is real can see the alleged muscle movement. Ive read that it couldnt have been faked but Ive also read that it could have easily been done back then. How to you account for the time discrepency as far as the film developing? Apparently the film was sent out and received bck quicker than was possible for the developing process.