143 replies to this topic

[Jaguiar]

hucksterfoot, on 05 March 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Fasano's blinking eye bigfoot

The video on facebook (http://www.facebook....152135304827281) is better because you can see how big they say it is and man if that thing is real it really is BIG!!!

Edited by Jaguiar, 06 March 2012 - 02:36 AM.

[hucksterfoot]

I like mine better, It shows that it isn't a bigfoot. That blinking eye isn't an eye, it's part of a branch.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

both sides have valid arguments as to the existence of the alleged BF.

we know that a majority of American Indian tribes in the US, Canada/Alaska have oral
traditions concerning BF. We also know that early European settlers coming to America
and who had no advance knowledge of this alleged "big hairy man" also had BF sightings.

"One of the oldest sightings of Bigfoot is the one reported by Reverend Elkanah Walker, a protestant missionary, in the late Nineteenth century. He had reported of the existence of hairy giants in Washington. The Indians said that these giants had a strong smell and wandered in search of salmon. Indians have reported to have known of Bigfoots stealing salmon."

Also,there are sightings of such a creature all over the world.
Bigfoot is called Yeti in Nepal, Yowie in Australia and Yeren in China.
Could all othese cultures have all these jokesters that worked off the same theme
for hundreds and thousands (in some cases) of years???  doubt it. and all it takes is one
to be telling the truth and BF exists.

some ppl think because it has eluded capture this long that it cannot exist.
but they say this judging that BF must fit some known "blueprint" and therefor
should be like other animals who can be captured.

but we cannot make that judgement until one really is captured. it may exist and have special abilities.

[Matt121]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 06 March 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

both sides have valid arguments as to the existence of the alleged BF.

we know that a majority of American Indian tribes in the US, Canada/Alaska have oral
traditions concerning BF. We also know that early European settlers coming to America
and who had no advance knowledge of this alleged "big hairy man" also had BF sightings.

"One of the oldest sightings of Bigfoot is the one reported by Reverend Elkanah Walker, a protestant missionary, in the late Nineteenth century. He had reported of the existence of hairy giants in Washington. The Indians said that these giants had a strong smell and wandered in search of salmon. Indians have reported to have known of Bigfoots stealing salmon."

Also,there are sightings of such a creature all over the world.
Bigfoot is called Yeti in Nepal, Yowie in Australia and Yeren in China.
Could all othese cultures have all these jokesters that worked off the same theme
for hundreds and thousands (in some cases) of years???  doubt it. and all it takes is one
to be telling the truth and BF exists.

some ppl think because it has eluded capture this long that it cannot exist.
but they say this judging that BF must fit some known "blueprint" and therefor
should be like other animals who can be captured.

but we cannot make that judgement until one really is captured. it may exist and have special abilities.

One of the problems with oral history concerning Indians and bigfoot is every culture has lore about monsters and demons and dragons and gods, doesn't mean they exist they are just that stories and it's logical that these stories the indians told got passed around to the people that started coming here and all the stories just got mixed together into what we is modern day big foot sightings.

[Sakari]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 06 March 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

we know that a majority of American Indian tribes in the US, Canada/Alaska have oral
traditions concerning BF.

How do you know this ( can not say " we " because I do not know this ).......

Can you share where it is well known?.......Or is this just a white man's story......." gossip ' to try to make the bif more believable.

As far as I know, the use of " it is well known Indians new and know of Bigfoot " is made up, and not validated at all.

[QuiteContrary]

I used to have hope, thought it would be an awesome discovery.

However, I watch Finding Bigfoot lol. I have a sick obsession with the topic, I'm pretty sure my friends are planning an intervention. Anyway, the "team" has so far been oustandingly successful at proving the "evidence" of Bigfoot is no evidence at all.

They clinch it every Sunday. "This is all we got. This is what we have as proof of this creature." Sad, very very sad.

I actually gave up hope years ago, but it would still be cool.

IMO, as far as sightings being a part of folklore or historical records; we have thousands of sightings on today's databases but no physical evidence, and without it you can't scientifically prove a thing by just "eye-witnesses".

Oh, and "Hello" to everyone.

[Neognosis]

Quote

both sides have valid arguments as to the existence of the alleged BF.

Only one side does.

The other has nothing.

I fear for the future of a society populated with people who don't know which side is which.

[hucksterfoot]

Jaguiar, on 06 March 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

The video on facebook (http://www.facebook....152135304827281) is better because you can see how big they say it is and man if that thing is real it really is BIG!!!

Ya, I can see right through it ... a transparent skunk ape.

[ninjacat]

I think bigfoots are extremely easy to hoax. The evedence for them is also very poor. As cool as I think it would be to see a bigfoot I lean mostly towards them being not real. But if they truly are I think maybe they must be smarter than we are use to seeing in any other animal since they can avoid humans so well.

[keninsc]

Hi guys, I'm new here and I have to tell you that it's refreshing to see a sight where being skeptical isn't ground for getting you bashed. I just left another sight.....rather famous sight and if you aren't a card carrying "believer" in Bigfoot then you're simply not welcomed. Even worse the admins tell you that you're talking down to people and acting like you know it all.

I'm very skeptical however I am open to the possibility that a Bigfoot-like creature might possibly exist, not because I've seen one, I have not, but I have two friends that I know who have. I'll talk more later on that, but for now it's just good to see some people who do have open minds but they aren't so open their brains fall out on the floor.

[QuiteContrary]

keninsc, on 08 March 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Hi guys, I'm new here and I have to tell you that it's refreshing to see a sight where being skeptical isn't ground for getting you bashed. I just left another sight.....rather famous sight and if you aren't a card carrying "believer" in Bigfoot then you're simply not welcomed. Even worse the admins tell you that you're talking down to people and acting like you know it all.

I'm very skeptical however I am open to the possibility that a Bigfoot-like creature might possibly exist, not because I've seen one, I have not, but I have two friends that I know who have. I'll talk more later on that, but for now it's just good to see some people who do have open minds but they aren't so open their brains fall out on the floor.

BTDT too. Probably the same site.   Anyway, Welcome!
QC

[psyche101]

skookum, on 01 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Just when I was going to throw the towel in on the Bigfoot theories I watched a episode of Monster Quest (I know it is hated on here) called critical evidence.

Uh huh.

skookum, on 01 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

They re-examined the Patterson footage and some interesting things came up.  The first was they determined via a photographic expert the film was 25mm wide screen and not 35mm as previously believed.  The expert was able to determine the height of the creature or as most people believe on here a person in a costume.  It came out between 7.4 feet to 7.6 feet.

Are you positive about that? I think you might be talking about the filming speed, which has been in question for some time. The film was shot on a  Cine-Kodak K-100 which only comes in 16mm. It has a speed dial to vary the frame rate, the options of  16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second are available. The frame rate is important because John Napier concluded that if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait. Patterson originally estimated the purported creature to be six and one-half to seven feet, which he later changed to seven and one half feet. No doubt the show is attempting to validate the later claim.

skookum, on 01 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

The second was a special effects expert who believe the suite would have been very difficult to manufacture around that time as stretchable materials that could hold the hair were not available then.  If it was a suite he could determine how it would have been made with the materials around then.  Also the shape of the head would have made it difficult to impossible for a human to wear.  It would have also cost mega money to have made something that good.

Let me guess - Bill Munns? He says stuff like this a lot. I like Bill Munns, he puts out some good reading, but I think it is quite obvious that he is a very biased "footer"

Dynel is the material the suit was made of, which was also commonly used to fabricate wigs. It sure had the properties required to make the suit.

Can you offer why the headpiece was spectacular? Unfortunately the picture Sakari put up I cannot see, so I will offer you this example of the late great Charles Gemora, from a film he made in 1932.



As you can see, almost 40 years earlier, comparable costumes were in film. The suits were commonly bought by studios, circuses and in particular, a side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla. Production was high, when production is high, prices drop, if memory serves, I am pretty sure that Morris claims he sold the suit to Patterson for $450.00.

skookum, on 01 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

It was very interesting indeed.  One thing I can't get my head round is if it was a hoax why did they go to such lengths in detail when they only used a low quality camera.  It is almost like they knew that in 30 years time we would have sophisticated computers to examine it in great detail.

Adding to the suit for authenticity might have been as much an exercise for Roger Patterson as a hobby. Did the show mention that Roger Patterson was an experienced hobbyist leatherworker, and had a full compliment of leather-working tools in his shed at the time? He borrowed the camera, and indeed an arrest warrant was issued for no returning it, which he did at the last second, and the charges were dropped. For the purposes, it seems to me to have been the perfect tool.

Edited by psyche101, 08 March 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[psyche101]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 06 March 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

both sides have valid arguments as to the existence of the alleged BF.

we know that a majority of American Indian tribes in the US, Canada/Alaska have oral
traditions concerning BF. We also know that early European settlers coming to America
and who had no advance knowledge of this alleged "big hairy man" also had BF sightings.

"One of the oldest sightings of Bigfoot is the one reported by Reverend Elkanah Walker, a protestant missionary, in the late Nineteenth century. He had reported of the existence of hairy giants in Washington. The Indians said that these giants had a strong smell and wandered in search of salmon. Indians have reported to have known of Bigfoots stealing salmon."

Also,there are sightings of such a creature all over the world.
Bigfoot is called Yeti in Nepal, Yowie in Australia and Yeren in China.
Could all othese cultures have all these jokesters that worked off the same theme
for hundreds and thousands (in some cases) of years???  doubt it. and all it takes is one
to be telling the truth and BF exists.

some ppl think because it has eluded capture this long that it cannot exist.
but they say this judging that BF must fit some known "blueprint" and therefor
should be like other animals who can be captured.

but we cannot make that judgement until one really is captured. it may exist and have special abilities.

Because they are all over the world they must be real huh?

How much do you understand about the Wallace Line?

And I would have a closer look at the American Native Mythology if I were you, Evan has gone into depth on some of it, and it does not marry up to well.

Actually, all cultures could have worked of the same theme, the "Scary Spectre" type is common to pretty much every culture. This could well be just an extension of the fear.

I do not think there is a Yeti, pretty much anyone who is anyone that has reported such, has also recanted. Even Hillary's Sherpa Tenzing Norgay.

What valid argument exists to provide proof?

[psyche101]

keninsc, on 08 March 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Hi guys, I'm new here and I have to tell you that it's refreshing to see a sight where being skeptical isn't ground for getting you bashed. I just left another sight.....rather famous sight and if you aren't a card carrying "believer" in Bigfoot then you're simply not welcomed. Even worse the admins tell you that you're talking down to people and acting like you know it all.

I'm very skeptical however I am open to the possibility that a Bigfoot-like creature might possibly exist, not because I've seen one, I have not, but I have two friends that I know who have. I'll talk more later on that, but for now it's just good to see some people who do have open minds but they aren't so open their brains fall out on the floor.

Hi Ken

A hearty welcome to UM, well said, I agree, keeping an open mind here is very important. People are indeed seeing something, but what? I do not think it is an unknown Ape, but that's leaving things a bit open. Many people have many different reasons for the beliefs they hold. Sorting the wheat from the chaff may eventually result in some answer. Be that Hobos' or something spectacular, it is worth looking at. I think we need to quell the more ridiculous tales, and try to concentrate on repeated sightings areas, so other can see what some claim to see, and finally clarify this enigma. With all the mess out there though, that is quite a feat.

Edited by psyche101, 08 March 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[psyche101]

ninjacat, on 07 March 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

I think bigfoots are extremely easy to hoax. The evedence for them is also very poor. As cool as I think it would be to see a bigfoot I lean mostly towards them being not real. But if they truly are I think maybe they must be smarter than we are use to seeing in any other animal since they can avoid humans so well.

Yeah they are easy to hoax, all sorts of "experts" were scratching their heads over the Georgia hoax.