Enjoy


I tell ya everytime i see this i just think "i dunoooooo" There's something about it that makes me think it just could be real. I mean that coat looks so natural in the way it moves and stuff. I just cant see how a costume can be made so perfectly except by movie companies who've got hundreds of thousands to spend on them.....nevertheless this is not my strong topic so i'll hand it over to those more knowledgable than me....

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

Its just a hairy Irishman.

Looks more like my friends mom

On his way to work Monday Morning

You're fooling yourself. It's still too blurry to make the judgements of authenticity that bigfoot afficionados like to make. The truth is, with film, no matter how you stabilize it, you will never be able to make a conclusive analysis.

Therein lies the rub.

It's real! I can see the dermal ridges on its feet!

More seriously, as I was growing up, I thought this was probably the best evidence for Bigfoot. That in and of itself doesn't mean much, because there's not much else really.

But one thing always struck me as strange: you know how in movies, a character will walk past the camera, so initially all you see is his back, then he stops and looks over his shoulder so you see his face clearly? Usually at that point (if it's a trailer), they'll have the actor's name, then the actor turns back around and walks on away from the camera.

In the PG film, BF does nearly the same thing. He/She/It is walking along, so you can't clearly see its face (as clearly as anything else in that particular piece of film), then it turns toward the camera so you have no doubt what you're supposed to be seeing, and finally it goes on its way. Almost as if it were deliberately teasing you, just like an actor in a movie.

Also, the horses P&G rode were supposed to be spooked, right? BF takes it in stride, literally. I wouldn't necessarily expect an 8 foot tall, 500 pound creature to be scared of a horse, even though horses can weigh twice as much, but BF looks like its attention was turned to a plastic bag blowing in the wind, and not spooked horses, which can be quite dangerous. I would expect an animal seeing spooked horses to be at least on its guard, and not look as though it's crossing a street nonchalantly.

Given all that, I smell manipulation on the part of the filmmakers.

Oh, and here's a pre-emptive call out to the inevitable "Patterson confessed on his death-bed it was a hoax." Ain't true, never has been true, and please don't bring up the old canard.

patty is a mammoth animal. its huge. it was said that when pattersons camera was making a clacking noise, patty turned around to see who was doing that. consistent with most reports of walking away from people, and making eye contact with them

Patterson didn't confess it to be a hoax on his death bed? Then why did the media report he did? I remember
that was a huge story when it happened and this is the first I've heard it wasn't true (about the confession).

Please, do some research. The media didn't report he did. Your memory is faulty. Sorry to inform you of this.

So the horses weren't spooked? I'd always heard they were, hence the jumpiness of the film. I doubt the whirring and clacking of a camera could be louder than horses whinnying and stomping around.

The way it walks is as if its a human. It doesn't walk like it belongs in the wilderness but rather like it belongs on a sidewalk where it would be used to no interferences. If it lived in the forest it wouldn't walk that casual way. I think its an old Chebacca outfit or gorilla outfit and that the distance makes it look like it fits well. He looks like he's walking to the bathroom in a restaurant. Not like a creature of the wild.

the animal was startled. by reports, it is more shy than aggressive. why dont they just leave it alone.

btw i dont buy any scientific expeditions looking for biff.

it walks with bent knees and the back is at an inhuman angle. it turns it whole body to look at patterson like apes do

Eh, I've always wanted this particular piece of footage to be real, but I dunno. It looks too much like a suit to me and the video is too grainy to be conclusive.

Just my opinion, but judging by its behavior in the PG film, it was neither shy nor agressive. And not at all curious. It seemed indifferent, in fact. Didn't P&G carry guns? Perhaps they didn't, I've forgotten, but can someone please clarify for me?

I believe it's easy to leave it alone, since I don't think it exists in the first place.

He didn't say it was fake and if i call it was his son who said that, But many people have tried to prove it fake and so far they can't in fact most of the expert's that have viewed the film say it's hard to tell cause of the gate the creature hand when it walked does look like something other then a man...I guess untill a bigfoot is found no one well really know for sure....

ffound and put in a circus where he belongs!!

if i was an animal, i would do everything in my will to hide from people. its a shame that these animals spend their lives avoiding people. no wonder y most sightings occur in remtoe, uninhabited areas

How is the back at an inhuman angle? And if the body is in a costume then of course its going to have to turn the whole body to look back. I'm not suggesting that its a hairy human. I'm suggesting that its a human in a costume.

Ok,what i don't get with people who say "his back is bent at a weird angle,his knees bend inward,he has an in-human gait",is why couldn't patterson have just walked like an ape?I'm not saying that all these claims are true(i don't see anything in the video to suggest them),but assuming they are true it wouldn't be that hard to just walk weird so that people wouldn't put 2 and 2 together and figure out he's a human.Plus,if he's in a suit he's gonna walk weird anyway.Have you ever seen those people at theme parks with the mickey mouse suits and crap?They have to shuffle their feet to walk.Imagine what it would look like if they were picking their feet up every time they took a step,and you get an exaggerated version of patties walk.They also have to turn their entire body around to look at someone.
And his behavior isn't natural.A wild animal would at least me nervous,or apprehensive of the big loud horses and the weird humans with thunder sticks and clacky metal boxes.But patty just nonchalantly saunters on past,turning to look at a cool-looking stump.

Ok my rants over.

That's what seems odd about his gait to me. And good examples with the Disney Characters I was trying to think of one. But the animal walks like he's walking up a street. Not like he lives in a forest.

an animal of that height and weight would be forced to walk with a hunch back. just because it walks away instead of "attacking", doesnt mean its fake.
some animals maintain their cool with people by walking away.

He's casually strolling though. He's not hunched and he's not animalistic.

no shes not. she is walking as fast as she can. it minds its own business. the thing is over 7 ft 600 pounds.

One of the most publicized sites in the world. Sightings there to this day. Not one person can follow that famous trail in 40 years?


Come one now............

And......

Considering rock throwing and vocalizations are considered evidence of this creatures existence, other great Apes that do display such behaviors tend to "rush" intruders and do not exhibit the incredible shy traits this creature is supposed to have. Territorial traits for an animals that quickly relinquishes it's territory?

gorillas and chimps do lob stuff at people to warn them and make them leave their territory. its amazing these things share many known behaviors with great apes

That's the thing - they don't.............

The similarities are constructs to prop up the eyewitness testimonies.

All known Ape behavior says we would have crossed paths by now.

It’s not a shame because they don’t exist.


No it’s not, when one considers that apes are real but bigfoot is made up.





ah the usual nonsense. When there is no evidence for something, just make something up...like it's some sort of magic hybrid that defies all conventional behavior of actual real animals...




There is no poaching threat to BF, because he isn't real.

suppose biff is omnivore, like bears, it would share the same diet as bears, and would blend in with them in terms of observable enviornment

I don't have anything against hair morphology. Hair morphology has proven "bigfoot" hairs to be other things all the time. You believe that we find a HAIR from this make believe animal, but no bones or body? RIDICULOUS.



No they didn't. They all live within a set of biological imperatives. Except bigfoot, who breaks most of them. Because he isn't real.



There are not 70 WWII planes missing in the PNW. Provide a source for that rubbish, please.



Ok, even though you are likely exaggerating or making things up, I'll indulge you by pointing out that 70 WWII plane crashes do not need to eat, do not reproduce, do not move around like living things do.





I don't think you understand. Whe KNOW what bears eat and we see their impact on the ecosystem. when bear populations rise by 10%, we see a corresponding increase in their effect on the ecosystem. When the bear population drops by 10%, we see not only a reason, but a corresponding impact on the ecosystem. We know BF does not exist because he makes NO impact on the ecosystem. Because he is not real. All living things make an impact on the ecosystem. We SEE and can measure that impact. When the slug population drops, biologists can see evidence of that. When the bee population drops, biologists can see that ripple in the ecosystem. When the raccoon population explodes, biologists can see that in the ecosystem.

Bigfoot does not exist because, among all the other reasons, he makes no impact on the ecosystem.




I'm so lazy because I study things and take the time to comprehend things rather than live in a fantasy world? Maybe you're just ignorant.



How about you present a body, and then you can say that BF exists. Until then, nope. (I'm also relativley sure bigfoot is not tiny enough to hide under a leaf. Unless he has the power to shrink down to bug size? Why not? He already defies most biological convention....)

This is turning in to one of those yes-it-is-no-it-isn't! arguments between makaya and Neognosis, isn't it?

Well, anyhow, thank you for the link. It is so much easier to observe than the original film. Anyone ever notice how, when he picks up his feet, on the underside it is perfectly smooth and a completely solid color? They look a bit unnatural, to me.

Another argument people keep bringing up, is the fact that Bigfoot looked so calm and peaceful. I will tell you a little story:

One fourth of July, my cousins, my brother, and I were hanging out in the woods in back of my house. We had reached a tiny clearing on the edge of a slope, with a giant rock edged in to the hill. After a while we began to exert all of our pented up energy on the hill. Soon we were trailing sparklers through the air, leaping off the rock, sliding on our bellies down the hill, throwing sticks in to the air, hollering and screaming while racing around the clearing, chucking rocks off each other, and generally being stupid.

Suddenly, my cousin turned towards me with his mouth wide open. "What? WHAT?!" I wondered, feeling giddy. He pointed, and only a few feet in to the undergrowth, stood a fully grown moose. We all stayed perfectly quiet as it turned to us, dopey-eyed with grass hanging out of its mouth, before calmly turning away and retreating in to the woods.

Now moose - if I'm not mistaken - exist, correct? And they are wild animals, right?

yes they are wild animals. wild doesnt always mean agressive. reports of sasquatch retreating from people after making eye contact makes me wonder, if u were to do a hoax, u would want to run after them and scare them. its the opposite for biff

But that would be if you were contributing all Bigfoot sightings to people in costumes.

any animal that doesnt know whats goin on will look at you for several seconds, and walk back to its home minding its own business

I was doing a search on BF behavior and I came across this sight that has a fairly long list of reported behaviors from sightings, with links to the actual reports. I didn't have time to read much of it, but there are a WIDE variety of behaviors attributed to BF, more so than it seems an average animal.

Here is the link....enjoy.

http://lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootbehavior.aspx

I am sitting on the fence on Patterson's film. Dr. Meldrum has made some rather good points in favor of the film by analizing the gate of the walk, the muscle movement in the leg as viewed by him and other experts but here is what bothers me.

Dr. Meldrum and other primate specialist have noted a great ape cannot turn it's head like a human, they must turn their whole upper toro to look in a sideways direction. But have you ever tried turning your head to look wearing something over your head? Especially a mask that covers your whole head. You have to turn your whole upper toro to do that...meaning that is exactly what someone would have to do faking the creature.

Like I say, I would love to prove the creature real...but a photo or video these days are hard evidence to accept. Has anyone else considered the problem with the head movement before as I have?

seax

hey seax

I agree that the movement found in the Patterson film could be mimicked by a man in a suit. Another thing about the gait, I would imagine that the path that the BF took in the film wasn't like walking on a sidewalk or something. It was probably uneven, maybe even rocky which could account for the strange gait.

This is exactly my point. Even the Chimp "went for" your mate. Displays of agressive tendancies are common amongst all hominids.
You do not throw rocks and hide, you throw rocks to keep the predator a safe distance, if confident of overpowering a typical response ois to charge.

No throw then run and hide. No creature does that.



Nothing says it exists. Proof is awful slim pickings, and even the best proof has to be elaborated on to make it at all viable.
An eyewitness being taken at face value is elaborating on a description as all evidence, apart from sightings points to the creature not existing. That is why after the many supposed hair and scat samples submitted there is still no common strain. It there was, half the mystery would already be sloved.
The hair morphology exams prove nothing other than the published result - inconclusive. Fahrenbach is clutching at straws trying to prove it's existance wit non-matching inconclusive strains of hair of something.

No creature has defied nature. The cryptid creatures you often mention are shrouded in quite some smoke and mirrors. Your statement would be more accurate had it read

all animals before they were discovered defined nature bc they werent found by Western Science

Lets look at the humble Okapi for and example.

Common misconception:-
Some people saw some stripped horse like jungle animals and sent back reports
The naitives confirmed the reports
Science held back discovery until some interepid common man uncovered the mystery to the world.

Not at all. Although crypto proponents tend to put versions of this story across for anything, usually replacing Okapi with Ceolacanth. This type of thinking is getting the crypto field as much credibility as the UFO field for the same reasons. Every man and his dog has "the answer". The answer never seems to involve science, crtitical thinking or so much as viable options. But things Science missed, and which often dont seem to exist......

What really Happened.

19th century explorers caught glimpses of the Okapi through the brush. In 1889, Henry Stanley quizzed the Wambutti pygmies on the creature. Naitives confirmed that such an animal was indeed caught occassionally in their traps. Then the scientific community was to get their turn, through the British explorer and author Sir Harry Johnston when he set out on expedition at the turn of the century. He managed to get quite some more information as he had befriended them (a German sideshow manager was stealing the pygmies, and Johnston promised to return them) so they showed hi some tracks.

Which really got him wondering as the stripes had him thinking Zebra - some sort of horse, these tracks did not fit the bill.

Sir Harry later recieved from an aqauintance a complete skin and two skulls. The skulls proved that the okapi was not a new species of horse but instead a kind of forest giraffe. Although Sir Harry never saw an okapi himself, the okapi was given the scientific name Okapia johnstoni (Johnston's horse) in his honour. It was only later, when a complete skin and some bones were examined, that it was found that the okapi was not, in fact, related to the horse.

So we knew quite a bit about this "elusive creature" before we ever saw one, and had solid proof of it's existance. We had hide and skulls before we had a body. From the deep dark and dangerous Congo even. The PNW is a walk in the park by comparison.

The Giant Panda was treasued for it's fur for hundreds of years before Westerners "discovered" the creature in 1869 when a French missionary naturalist Pere Jean Pierre Armand David amazed his collegues by sending back to Paris a description, pelt and skeleton of new species he namen Ursus melanoleucus or "black white bear".

There is always proof. It just does not exist in Biffs case. That is somewhat impossible for an extant 800 pound 8 foot hominid living in the thousands in one of the most developed countries in the world. And that's taking the global element out of it to save some confusion. Put that back in and the odds go more impossible again.

Just ain't gonna happen I am afraid. No Biff is going to come forward.

It is still interesting to consider. There is certainly something there. This is not a computer generated hoax. This is taken from real footage filmed by people who to their dying day said it was real.


I agree with Otterclaw, just about any animal will look over at a noise and if not threatened go about it's buisiness.


I agree she should have taken off running. That is a definate con to this film.

Also, I've seen the documentaries where "experts" say that no human could walk like that for that amount of time. Well, I have to say that is rubbish too. Humans can walk in a great variety of postures and Patty does not exceed what is possible for a guy in a suit.


Maybe it is a learned behavior. Animals that are always hunted or killed for being aggressive will tend to breed and learn towards a more docile form. It is done intentionally by domestication and possibly in the wild by killing all the most aggressive members of a population.




I'm pretty sure I've seen gorillas toss branches in threat displays. Or, at least thrash the branches around and then smack them away.


It also has shown some to be ape or human, but inconclusive. Which to me seems strange that it would be inconclusive. They can identify people's ethic background from the DNA in their hair.
Determine ethnicity genetically?


BF only breaks the biological rules of Neognosis. The arguements of it being too cold and that bipedalism is bad for woodlands are just that, arguements.


I'd argue that if there are only a couple hundred BFs, then that number would be well within the margin of error for bear populations in North America. There are well over 600,000 bears in the US. To get to the point where a thousand BFs would be noticed would require a margin of error of (1000/600000) or 0.17%. Yes less then a quarter of one percent. That is a tight percentage to be right to.
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habi.../black_bear.php

Bee and raccoons? They can be assumed to live in niche environments, where there is little compitision. If BF shares a niche with something else like a bear, it would not be noticed. Swallowed by the margin of error.


That is really what it comes down to.


Most of the stories I've read about have the human running and hiding when something is throwing rocks at them. Then they go back latter. Do you know a story where the person charges the rock throwers and confronts the BF?


But, doesn't the result of inconclusive mean something in itself? In science it is necessary to analyse the fails as well as the successes. Given today's technology, where twenty and thirty year old crimes are being solved by DNA analysis of hair or blood or skin samples, doesn't an inconclusive on a non-degraded, non-contaminated sample mean something? If a BF was real it would give just that on a DNA test, inconclusive. Given, there is no way to know that past analysis was done with non-degraded, non-contaminated samples. But what of new samples that are still inconclusive? Those are very interesting.

DNA use for Cold Case files

http://www.igcp.org/pdf/Gorillaprofileupdated.pdf

Gorillas throwing of stuff.

Dr. Meldrum often shows he is somewhat biased. To be fair, one can only admire his dedication and putting his entire career on the line for what he believes in, and he does get out on site and actively chases reports down to investigate. Fahrenbach just tells his group "don't believe the blaspheemers' we know the real truth" meh, bit see through that. Without doubt he seems to be one of the more qualified people chasing down Biff from a scientific angle at least.

I tried to walk in a pair of flippers with a full face bike helmet on. Near went a over t, but caught my footing. Second time was far easier. Love to know what the neighbours thought.
I asked a few people I know who do mimes at Theme parks, hey say they need a handler for such a move, but they also said thier costume heads are not at all close fitting, and the feet are somewhat bigger then bigfoots! The guys in suits like Batman reckon turning in a thigh fitting headpiece is no prob, but to be fair, theme suits seem to be one or the other - tight fit, not ridiculously overkill. No "in between" football helemet style uniforms.

Hey Psyche101,

Hope you are well.

A good observation about the gait psyche101...I didn't catch it but I realize that if you are walking through rough terrain, rocks, briars, small bushes and limbs ect. you walk more with a bended knee, because you don't have the space to stretch your legs to a "casual" walk.. Good call.

And the head movement..like I said I feel is consistant with someone wearing a large mask that covers your head.

One other thing that kinda bothers me...not really a scientific method of thought but..imagine an outdoorsman, a hunter someone raised in the Northwestern part of the US in the 60's that had firearms. Don't you think they would have shot the creature to get a lot bucks? Providing they could..but no one ever mentioned that that I have heard from Patterson or his companion. Just a thought. I would think the money would mean more to Patterson than killing an animal that is rare of on the virge of extinction.

What say you?

best regards,
seax

The 2005 discovery in PNG suppots this. When scientists discovered (and re-discovered) new species in the Foja Mountains of PNG, many specimens who had never seen man approached members of the party, even though substantially larger and possibly a threat.



More so considering the film maker.



But at the offending party - not from behind a tree or hidden from full.



But well supported using Meganthropus and Neanderthal man as a precedent. Considering convergeant evolution, one would have to apply basic hominid structure principals?



But all proponents correctly applpying accepted scientific principals to the legend (like Meldrum and Farhenbach)agree several thousand members is a minum? One thing Meldrum and Farhenbach agree on wholeheartedly?
Can the rest of their study be taken into account if they must be wrong on this point? Where does that leave the current evidence without their validation?



If Biff was to share all traits of the Bear - including hibernation. That is quite a few months of no Bear activity for Bear food to be eaten. I propose the effect would still be felt by teams studying the creature's dietary items.



But no reports have creatures throwing projectiles whilst completey hidden.
Shouldn't a return to these sites offer a clear trail to the base camp? Throwing rocks is a terratorial trait so the family should not be too far off? I do not know of creatures that agressively attack or display for no reason. Throwing rocks and dissapearing seems to invalidate the reason for throwing the rocks in the first place? What would be the point of rock throwing and drumming noises if one intends to retreat quickly and quietly?
To be honest, I think if someone threw a rock at my wife's teenage sons, they might hide behind a tree to avoid the projectile, but then would take off after it. Pretty rugged kids, they only went roo hunting with knives as young men, never took a rifle as they liked to "keep the odds even". Amazing they were never seriously injured to be quite honest.




I find them unconvincing. Biff is surmised to be some type of primate, as no other explaination fits the fossil record regardless of what has been found and what will be found. We have a lineage with no room for divergeance to a completely convergeant species living alongside verified specimens. Considering that, Biff would then have to be part of the Hominid tree, and that gives us a record to work with. He should be in the vicinity of 97% similar to human DNA at least? Many samples of scat and hair have been submitted, yet still no commonality amongst them other than "inconclusive"? Scat frm the Bili Ape tells us it is a fifth sub-species of chimp. How can all the Biff samples still be inconclusive?
Something should be showing a commonality by now, yet all samples seem to be pretty much unrelated other than the inconclusive label. Fahrenbachs lacking medulla claim is just plain silly.