121 replies to this topic

[theSOURCE]

Logical Thought, on 26 June 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

So can someone tell me what prompts people to come to a website about unexplained mysteries when they don't seem to believe that there are any unexplained mysteries? I'm just curious.

It's because of the chicks, man. Bus loads of 'em!   

As to the OP, meh, does it really matter? People are going to believe what they want, and as long as it doesn't involve any weird cults, what's the harm? I used to debate my fingers off until I realized how pointless and futile my efforts were.

Now my motto is "Whatever."

Also, if you want a real mystery that's yet to be solved, try to find the exact number of licks it takes to reach the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop. Not even genuine scientific studies can agree on a precise number.

I'm serious.

[itsnotoutthere]

Logical Thought, on 26 June 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I have been coming to this site for years and there is only one real mystery that bothers me more than anything. Why do people who don't believe in the paranormal frequent paranormal websites? I'm not into sports, so you won't find me on sports websites arguing about various sports teams. I'm not religious, so you won't see me on religious websites. I don't believe or disbelieve in the fantastic stories I read on UM, i just try to keep an open mind and realize that no matter how smart I get, i will never know everything. So can someone tell me what prompts people to come to a website about unexplained mysteries when they don't seem to believe that there are any unexplained mysteries? I'm just curious.

Well, i think the answer to that is that this is an open forum for discussion & debate. How boring would it be if just the 'believers came on here, some guy would put his opinion followed by two pages of ..'gee you're right,' ...'i agree'....'yes that's what i think'......'correct' ....'my thoughts exactly'...etc etc etc. That's not a debating forum, besides people come on this forum to talk about real things as well.

[AzTide]

People still believe that Washington politicians can actually do a competent job after 150 of no proof of them being competent in any manner.. ZaraKitty made a great point about God.. And people always want to believe that there is a good side to everyone. Even when proof shows nothing but a psychopathic killer..

I think people look for something to latch onto and believe like Religion, God, Conspiracies, Humanity, etc.. Who says there isn't some shred of truth but there is a point at which the belief becomes laughable..

I personal believe in extraterrestrial life and visitors, 9/11 and Oklahoma City were inside jobs and that the large banks control the worlds governments.. There is what appears to be proof for both sides of all my beliefs.. But then at some point Common Sense and Rationalization needs to enter into every subject.

But as far as no proof what comes to mind instantly is what we've seen in how real proof of ancient Egyptian civilization are corrupted and falsified by the current leading experts to fit what they want you to believe.So what's not to say evidence hasn't been discovered and dismissed, hidden or destroyed of a Big Foot creature..

[AzTide]

theSOURCE, on 30 June 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

It's because of the chicks, man. Bus loads of 'em!   

As to the OP, meh, does it really matter? People are going to believe what they want, and as long as it doesn't involve any weird cults, what's the harm? I used to debate my fingers off until I realized how pointless and futile my efforts were.

Now my motto is "Whatever."

Also, if you want a real mystery that's yet to be solved, try to find the exact number of licks it takes to reach the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop. Not even genuine scientific studies can agree on a precise number.

I'm serious.

Actually threw allot of the discussions on this site it's encouraged me to research my own beliefs and changed my own opinion on allot of subjects. And I've been made aware of allot of things and theory's I never knew existed. I've been reading this site for 9 years now and never fail to learn something new..

Plus it's only unexplained to the closed minded people!!!

[keninsc]

scowl, on 29 June 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

On some show I saw researchers reenact the Patterson encounter using the same 16mm camera and lens in the same location. They framed the new footage exactly as the original had been shot. The most surprising thing is that the lens was much wider than they had thought, thus the Bigfoot had to be much closer to Patterson than it appears in the footage. They had to put the stunt-Bigfoot only twenty feet away from the camera for it to be framed correctly.

Bigfoot is one thing that will not be proved by video evidence. It's just too easy to fake.

Personally, I've pretty much tossed out the P/G film out as anything to consider any further. It's been looked over, examined, re-examined, digitized, re-digitized, measured, re-measured to the point that for every so called "expert" that claims it's real and offers up the reasons why, there is another "expert" that shows valid points on why it's a fake. The fact that after all this time no one else has managed to get any other footage of this quality to substantiate the footage.

On the other hand, having said that, no one actually looks at the rest of the film, yes there is more to the sighting on that film that for some reason never seems to get posted up and, at least in my opinion is more compelling in terms of adding credibility to the film than all the other stuff. If you Google it up you'll eventually find it and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Now to sound like I'm further contradicting myself, the P/G film was shot in October, 1967. At that same time, Hollywood was working on one of the biggest hit movies of that time, "Planet of the Apes". If you look at the make up used in that film and make a comparison to the P/G film then either the guys doing the "monkey suit" were light years ahead of the Hollywood Make up guys. Just a casual observation. I mean, seriously, it's been over forty years since the film was shot, hell even Greta Garbo got her picture taken from time to time and she was almost a bloody hermit. Know what I mean?

As it stands the P/G film is nothing more than a curiosity with some interesting possibilities, both for and against it being real. It's been over forty years since it was shot and distributed and in all that time no one else has gotten anything even remotely as good. And when you factor in the number of people who are looking actively for the critter, the availability of recording images via cell phone, cameras and such, then you have to wonder, WTF?

[scowl]

keninsc, on 02 July 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

Now to sound like I'm further contradicting myself, the P/G film was shot in October, 1967. At that same time, Hollywood was working on one of the biggest hit movies of that time, "Planet of the Apes". If you look at the make up used in that film and make a comparison to the P/G film then either the guys doing the "monkey suit" were light years ahead of the Hollywood Make up guys.

"Planet of the Apes" involved hundreds of close-ups of actors in ape suits under studio lights on 35mm stock. The Patterson film is a few seconds of a blurry, shaky, wide-angle shot of a man in an ape suit walking mostly with his back to the camera, shot on retail-grade 16mm stock. There is no way to make any real judgment on the quality of the suit he was wearing.

BTW, if you want to see a real good example of actors in ape suits shot for a feature film in late 1967, watch the beginning of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Tell me those actors didn't look like real primates. The costumes were brilliantly designed, even with a string attached to the actor's tongue to pull the lips back. They had to find actors thin enough so the costumes wouldn't look bulky (ever wonder why "Bigfoot" always looks so fat on film?). The suits in "Planet of the Apes' were mass-produced rubber/latex forms and were designed more for economy than realism. You weren't supposed to think they were real apes.

Edited by scowl, 02 July 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[keninsc]

scowl, on 02 July 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

"Planet of the Apes" involved hundreds of close-ups of actors in ape suits under studio lights on 35mm stock. The Patterson film is a few seconds of a blurry, shaky, wide-angle shot of a man in an ape suit walking mostly with his back to the camera, shot on retail-grade 16mm stock. There is no way to make any real judgment on the quality of the suit he was wearing.

BTW, if you want to see a real good example of actors in ape suits shot for a feature film in late 1967, watch the beginning of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Tell me those actors didn't look like real primates. The costumes were brilliantly designed, even with a string attached to the actor's tongue to pull the lips back. They had to find actors thin enough so the costumes wouldn't look bulky (ever wonder why "Bigfoot" always looks so fat on film?). The suits in "Planet of the Apes' were mass-produced rubber/latex forms and were designed more for economy than realism. You weren't supposed to think they were real apes.

Thanks for verifying what I said.

[scowl]

keninsc, on 02 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Thanks for verifying what I said.

No. You said:

Quote

If you look at the make up used in that film and make a comparison to the P/G film then either the guys doing the "monkey suit" were light years ahead of the Hollywood Make up guys.

That's incorrect. From what we can tell, it could have been nothing more than a guy in a conventional ape suit in the Patterson film. The film is simply too blurry to see what he was wearing. You can't make out any facial details -- it's just a light gray streak with only a suggestion of eyes and a nose.  He could have been wearing two rugs around his face.

Experts have claimed to see details like muscle masses but I think they're seeing things they want to see. It's very hard to make out any details.

[keninsc]

scowl, on 02 July 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

No. You said:



That's incorrect. From what we can tell, it could have been nothing more than a guy in a conventional ape suit in the Patterson film. The film is simply too blurry to see what he was wearing. You can't make out any facial details -- it's just a light gray streak with only a suggestion of eyes and a nose.  He could have been wearing two rugs around his face.

Experts have claimed to see details like muscle masses but I think they're seeing things they want to see. It's very hard to make out any details.

Thank you, I'm aware what I said. Taking a single sentence out of the context of the post changes it's intended message. Be a pal and go play this game with someone else and have a nice day.

[Sakari]

yet another bigfoot thread turns into a patterson film thread......

[keninsc]

Sakari, on 02 July 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

yet another bigfoot thread turns into a patterson film thread......

Yeah, that was me. Sorry, I knew better and went there anyway.

[scowl]

keninsc, on 02 July 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Thank you, I'm aware what I said.

But you are not aware of what I said.

Quote

Taking a single sentence out of the context of the post changes it's intended message.

In one sentence or three sentences, you clearly said you believed the Patterson hoax guys did a better job than the special effects experts hired for "Planet of the Apes". For some reason you thought I was agreeing with you. I was not.

[WoIverine]

ZaraKitty, on 25 June 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Probably the same amount of years it will take for people to realize there is no evidence for god.

I think bigfoot however, thanks to thermal imaging, satellites, and already existing miscellaneous tech would be much easier to prove, or disprove than God. Why we haven't done this already is beyond me.

[scowl]

Sakari, on 02 July 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

yet another bigfoot thread turns into a patterson film thread......

What do you mean "turns into"? You started this thread talking about the Patterson film in your very first post.

Sakari, on 25 June 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

1967.....


45 years now since the " Patterson " film came out.I consider this the " big one " that sparked most of the interest in " Bigfoot ".....

Of course people are going to refer to it in subsequent posts.

[keninsc]

See scowl? That's what happens when you focus on only one line of the post. The lead post was about Bigfoot and evidence of such, the first sentence was simply a timeline reference for clarity.

Meaning that in 1967, this hit the world in the face, but what have we seen since then? The P/G film sparked the world and especially the US in the search for Bigfoot. However, in that time nothing, nadda, zip, as far as real, hard, conclusive evidence. I got off track myself when I commented on the PGF and my own casual observations......I have apologized for having done that to Sakari.

Does it not strike you as odd in any way that almost forty-five years after the PGF came to the world stage that no one had seen another Bigfoot that they were able to film? And please, when I say "filmed" I mean with the clarity of the original PGF? Yes I know when you digitize it and blow it all the way up from a 16mm format to gargantuan proportions it gets grainy and grainy equals an opportunity for people to play around in the grainy and fill in the blanks. Seriously, this hasn't made you wonder than no other good films have been taken with all the foot prints, alleged sightings and supposed activity that gets reported? Hell, even those guys from "Finding Bigfoot" don't any good footage of one.......and you don't question the obvious hole in the evidence, now that time has allowed.......pretty much nothing to happen? Really? Hey, I'm just saying, look at what is not there after all this time. Key words in this case is "not there".