Bigfoot Best Evidence

[ChrLzs]

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people posting on a site called “Unexplained Mysteries” have no room in their worldview for the existence of an actual unexplained mystery. They come to mock and scoff, will tell you that X topic is bunk and anyone looking any further is an imbecile... but yet here they are, answering your “meaningless” posts. If you ask them why, they’ll tell you something about how it’s their sacred duty to police the internets and prevent people from spreading nonsense. If you’ve read one of their posts, you’ve read them all.

Yes, there does seem to be those with an attitude, doesn't there................  Checked mirror lately?

And under no circumstances should claims be examined / answered / disputed....?  If that's really what you think, I suggest you don't read on..

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

One of the things I’ve always found interesting about the Patterson Gimlin film is the how the hair of the subject varies in length

You measured the length/s, amongst all that jpeg blocking/compression artifacts?  That's most impressive - please elaborate and show your figures/error ranges.

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

color

Color is also dependent, obviously, on the angle that the hair/fur shows to the light.  This effect is particularly noticable on fake furs, and by patching the fur in a costume... well, you work it out..  Next time you visit a costume shop, you can verify this.

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

density (follicles per square inch)

As above, I'm very impressed - again, I'd love to see your numbers, or if not, some examples showing how this comparison was made.

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

and flows in very natural directions (goes one direction on one part of the body and then changes direction on another)...

.. which, as described above, will happen on any long fur material.  This is all sounding mighty subjective, and that's not a good thing.

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

... something the various attempts at recreation were unsuccessful at replicating.

OK, let's accept that you think those images show 'replication' there.  I don't.  So can you point out to me the actual parts that show the replication, but alongside that, show those that *don't*, so we can remove the subjective nature of your claim?  Thanks. 

34 minutes ago, Alaric said:

Those versions looked obviously like a rug. Hair all same shade of color, same length, same density, no flow

Were they trying to replicate that aspect?  And given the immense variations in the nature of the hair/fur on say, the Gorilla/baboon/orangutan/chimpanzee/gibbon populations, who is to say that  BF might have a more uniform fur like a chimp, rather than that example you gave...?  Again, please elaborate.

 

Frankly, I think you need to check the many sites which talk about logical fallacies... but I'll happily revise that if you answer the questions above.

 

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Alaric said:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people posting on a site called “Unexplained Mysteries” have no room in their worldview for the existence of an actual unexplained mystery. They come to mock and scoff, will tell you that X topic is bunk and anyone looking any further is an imbecile... but yet here they are, answering your “meaningless” posts. If you ask them why, they’ll tell you something about how it’s their sacred duty to police the internets and prevent people from spreading nonsense. If you’ve read one of their posts, you’ve read them all. Once you identify them, it’s best to just ignore if you want to have any sort of constructive discussion because they never add anything useful. Gotta wonder why they’re even here? Perhaps it makes them feel better about themselves.

One of the things I’ve always found interesting about the Patterson Gimlin film is the how the hair of the subject varies in length, color, density (follicles per square inch) and flows in very natural directions (goes one direction on one part of the body and then changes direction on another)...

... something the various attempts at recreation were unsuccessful at replicating. Those versions looked obviously like a rug. Hair all same shade of color, same length, same density, no flow:

The PG does  not show differences in length, color, density. Where do you get that idea?

 

[Agishe]

On 14.10.2017 at 5:41 AM, Guyver said:

Here's the thing, if it's fake, then why hasn't anyone ever been able to duplicate it - or improve upon it since so many years have gone by and so much new technology is available?

Despite two big mistakes they did it:

Best Evidence: Bigfoot (2007)

And guy with a PhD in primate anthropology was convinced 

[stereologist]

I love the side by side with the gorialls and you see the bottom of the feet.

1. gorillas have toes - BF does not

2. gorillas have features on the soles of the feet like a heel - BF has a tennis shoe like tread

Weird, right?

[Myles]

17 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

That's because it isn't valid. A small gibbon discovered in the tropical rainforests of Myanmar is not accurately comparable to a 7-foot tall hominid in northern California.

I've always been stuck on the location.   Do we only believe the PNW sightings or are we to believe the sightings from every state and every country?  

[stereologist]

Just now, Myles said:

I've always been stuck on the location.   Do we only believe the PNW sightings or are we to believe the sightings from every state and every country?  

At a minimum we should drop the sighting in Central park.

[Carnoferox]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I've always been stuck on the location.   Do we only believe the PNW sightings or are we to believe the sightings from every state and every country?  

All are equally improbable, so I guess it really doesn't matter either way.

[Guyver]

14 hours ago, Alaric said:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people posting on a site called “Unexplained Mysteries” have no room in their worldview for the existence of an actual unexplained mystery. They come to mock and scoff, will tell you that X topic is bunk and anyone looking any further is an imbecile... but yet here they are, answering your “meaningless” posts. If you ask them why, they’ll tell you something about how it’s their sacred duty to police the internets and prevent people from spreading nonsense. If you’ve read one of their posts, you’ve read them all. Once you identify them, it’s best to just ignore if you want to have any sort of constructive discussion because they never add anything useful. Gotta wonder why they’re even here? Perhaps it makes them feel better about themselves.

One of the things I’ve always found interesting about the Patterson Gimlin film is the how the hair of the subject varies in length, color, density (follicles per square inch) and flows in very natural directions (goes one direction on one part of the body and then changes direction on another)...

... something the various attempts at recreation were unsuccessful at replicating. Those versions looked obviously like a rug. Hair all same shade of color, same length, same density, no flow:

 

Excellent post.  I agree extreme skeptical cynicism is the group norm on this section of the forum.  Anyway, what I like about your post is that you've included photos of the patterson subject and the BBC recreation in the same post.  The latter was done by paid professionals in 1998.  The former was done by a dead broke amateur/retired cowboy in 1967.  The modern suit fails to be convincing in the least, inspiteof the fact that they intentionally included musculature in the outfit.  

One member here commented that the PG film looks like a man wearing an ill fitting suit.  It's anything but that.  In the PG film, muscles can not only be seen, in contrast to hoaxes, but they can be observed doing what muscles are meant to do.  The same goes for the hands, fingers, breasts, and other body parts.  This is the part that has convinced many experts, and its also pretty telling IMO.

Lastly, the other defining feature between the PG subject and the hoaxes or recreations, is the length of subjects' arms.  The photos you've provided show a clear difference in the length of arm in proportion to the body.....the shorter arms of the recreation not matching the original film.  

[stereologist]

37 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Excellent post.  I agree extreme skeptical cynicism is the group norm on this section of the forum.  Anyway, what I like about your post is that you've included photos of the patterson subject and the BBC recreation in the same post.  The latter was done by paid professionals in 1998.  The former was done by a dead broke amateur/retired cowboy in 1967.  The modern suit fails to be convincing in the least, inspiteof the fact that they intentionally included musculature in the outfit.  

One member here commented that the PG film looks like a man wearing an ill fitting suit.  It's anything but that.  In the PG film, muscles can not only be seen, in contrast to hoaxes, but they can be observed doing what muscles are meant to do.  The same goes for the hands, fingers, breasts, and other body parts.  This is the part that has convinced many experts, and its also pretty telling IMO.

Lastly, the other defining feature between the PG subject and the hoaxes or recreations, is the length of subjects' arms.  The photos you've provided show a clear difference in the length of arm in proportion to the body.....the shorter arms of the recreation not matching the original film.  

It looks like a man in an ill fitting suit. The muscle claims are bad. The suit comes with no toes and the sort of sole we'd expect to see in pajamas for children. The stride length in the film does not match the footprints that were cast.

The PG film was made by a con artist who said he'd go out and film a BF and sure enough he came back with his hoax film shortly after that.

As we notice "the length of subjects' arms" show what an ill fitting suit PG shows.

As PT Barnum is purported to have stated "There's a sucker born every minute."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

[Myles]

41 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Excellent post.  I agree extreme skeptical cynicism is the group norm on this section of the forum.  Anyway, what I like about your post is that you've included photos of the patterson subject and the BBC recreation in the same post.  The latter was done by paid professionals in 1998.  The former was done by a dead broke amateur/retired cowboy in 1967.  The modern suit fails to be convincing in the least, inspiteof the fact that they intentionally included musculature in the outfit.  

One member here commented that the PG film looks like a man wearing an ill fitting suit.  It's anything but that.  In the PG film, muscles can not only be seen, in contrast to hoaxes, but they can be observed doing what muscles are meant to do.  The same goes for the hands, fingers, breasts, and other body parts.  This is the part that has convinced many experts, and its also pretty telling IMO.

Lastly, the other defining feature between the PG subject and the hoaxes or recreations, is the length of subjects' arms.  The photos you've provided show a clear difference in the length of arm in proportion to the body.....the shorter arms of the recreation not matching the original film.  

Now there it is.   Throughout this thread you have been claiming that you are not a believer.   Only that you are open to the idea that it could exist.  

Sure looks like you are quite certain the PG film is of a real creature.

 

I am quite certain that it is a hoax.   Too many coincidences.    I also don't think it looks real. 

[jmccr8]

To hell with Bigfoot, bignose just walked into Tim Horton's in broad daylight.

jmccr8

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

Now there it is.   Throughout this thread you have been claiming that you are not a believer.   Only that you are open to the idea that it could exist.  

Sure looks like you are quite certain the PG film is of a real creature.

I am quite certain that it is a hoax.   Too many coincidences.    I also don't think it looks real. 

I'm not a bigfoot believer, and frankly, at this point in my life I could give a rip less about it.  Sure, in my younger years I did find the subject extremely fascinating and worthy of research....as I do with many topics.  But I do value and believe in the ability to consider things logically, rationally, with an open mind, and willingness to consider all the evidence....not just evidence that suits my preconceived notions.  

Confirmation bias is exemplified in statements like, "I'm quite certain it's a hoax."  If it's a hoax, it's one of the most remarkable hoaxes ever pulled due to the level of detail accomplished on so low a budget.  Additionally, saying that you're quite certain it's a hoax means that you were involved in it.  If you were not involved in the actual hoax itself, then you're actually not certain at all. You're making a false statement by presenting your opinion as fact.  You think it's a hoax but you don't know that for sure and certainly can't prove it.  

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

It looks like a man in an ill fitting suit. The muscle claims are bad.

Again, those are opinions and many people disagree with your opinions, including experts in the relevant fields of science.  It is fine that you have your opinions, and that you disagree with experts....that is your right.  

But to say that the muscle claims are bad is kindof a fail IMO because evidence to the contrary is looking you right in the face in post #258.  There is little to no observable musculature in the BBC recreation, and there is in the original.  The BBC version shows a man in a suit, though it can't be ill-fitting since it was literally tailored to the subject.  This is as plain as day to me.....but I guess you just don't see it.  Which is fine.  People disagree.  nothing new here.  

[Guyver]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

I love the side by side with the gorialls and you see the bottom of the feet.

1. gorillas have toes - BF does not

2. gorillas have features on the soles of the feet like a heel - BF has a tennis shoe like tread

Weird, right?

No.  It's called insufficient detail to due technical limitations.  The gorilla's are filmed with modern cameras which have millions of megapixels of data.  

[ChrLzs]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I'm not a bigfoot believer

No, no, of course you aren't....

 

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

and frankly, at this point in my life I could give a rip less about it.

Oh, that's patently obvious.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Sure, in my younger years I did find the subject extremely fascinating and worthy of research....as I do with many topics.  But I do value and believe in the ability to consider things logically, rationally, with an open mind, and willingness to consider all the evidence....not just evidence that suits my preconceived notions.  

Confirmation bias is exemplified in statements like, "I'm quite certain it's a hoax."  If it's a hoax, it's one of the most remarkable hoaxes ever pulled due to the level of detail accomplished on so low a budget.

How ironic that you accuse others of 'confirmation bias' (it isn't), and then handwave about it being the 'most remarkable' hoax, basing that on a very subjectively assessed "level of detail", sorta forgetting that the budget was bolstered by appearance money, book sales and other fund raising.

Also, some of us don't think this is all a hoax, as much as simple cases of mistaken identification, along with a cultural phenomenom.  I can see why you would misrepresent the debate like that, though - it's always cooler to make us skeptics seem nastier, by claiming that we say every sighting is from a hoaxer.  Sounds much more personal....

 

Me, I think it's really simple.  Just like aliens visiting earth, compelling evidence for bigfoot just doesn't exist.  I dismiss both of them, happily awaiting evidence.  I don't think there's much risk in me getting embarrassed and admitting I was wrong.. but I'll be delighted to do so.

So, wake me up when the status quo changes....

 

[Dejarma]

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I'm not a bigfoot believer, and frankly, at this point in my life I could give a rip less about it.

So going by the evidence put forward so far you believe bigfoot is real IMO.

Do yourself & this discussion a favour & at least admit it.. It would help.

To me you are a perfect example of an intelligent person who's fighting the highly frustrating 'logic & fantasy battle' within yourself:

your logic screams the bleeding obvious but the fantasy of it all just will not have it.

Unless you take the fantasy glasses off you'll be boiling in your own fantasy juice for the rest of your life. I took them off years ago & feel much better for it...

Not having a go, just saying it as I see it- all due respect
 

[Guyver]

45 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

How ironic that you accuse others of 'confirmation bias' (it isn't), and then handwave about it being the 'most remarkable' hoax, basing that on a very subjectively assessed "level of detail", sorta forgetting that the budget was bolstered by appearance money, book sales and other fund raising.

 

it takes money to make money ChrLZs, and from my research, Patterson not only didn't have any....he didn't get much out of his efforts.  

[Guyver]

46 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Me, I think it's really simple.  Just like aliens visiting earth, compelling evidence for bigfoot just doesn't exist.  I dismiss both of them, happily awaiting evidence.  I don't think there's much risk in me getting embarrassed and admitting I was wrong.. but I'll be delighted to do so.

So, wake me up when the status quo changes....

 

That's fine.  I have no problem with that perspective, and pretty much agree with it at this point.  

[Guyver]

42 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

So going by the evidence put forward so far you believe bigfoot is real IMO.

Do yourself & this discussion a favour & at least admit it.. It would help.

To me you are a perfect example of an intelligent person who's fighting the highly frustrating 'logic & fantasy battle' within yourself:

your logic screams the bleeding obvious but the fantasy of it all just will not have it.

Unless you take the fantasy glasses off you'll be boiling in your own fantasy juice for the rest of your life. I took them off years ago & feel much better for it...

Not having a go, just saying it as I see it- all due respect
 

As I have repeatedly stated Dejarma; I believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the creature may exist.  That doesn't make me a believer, it makes me an open minded skeptic.  If there is any fantasy to my opinions as I see it.....it's that I don't believe every reported sighting is BS.  I believe credible people have reported what they have seen.  At the same time, I do recognize that much of this topic is complete BS.  

Additionally, I also believe that I've grown enough intellectually to be able to separate my beliefs from facts.  I know for a fact that not everything I believe is true, I've already proven this to myself.  I just wonder if other people around here have had the same experience.  

Anyway, that's probably all I have to say about this topic.  Regards to all readers.  

[Merc14]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

Excellent post.  I agree extreme skeptical cynicism is the group norm on this section of the forum.  Anyway, what I like about your post is that you've included photos of the patterson subject and the BBC recreation in the same post.  The latter was done by paid professionals in 1998.  The former was done by a dead broke amateur/retired cowboy in 1967.  The modern suit fails to be convincing in the least, inspiteof the fact that they intentionally included musculature in the outfit.  

One member here commented that the PG film looks like a man wearing an ill fitting suit.  It's anything but that.  In the PG film, muscles can not only be seen, in contrast to hoaxes, but they can be observed doing what muscles are meant to do.  The same goes for the hands, fingers, breasts, and other body parts.  This is the part that has convinced many experts, and its also pretty telling IMO.

Lastly, the other defining feature between the PG subject and the hoaxes or recreations, is the length of subjects' arms.  The photos you've provided show a clear difference in the length of arm in proportion to the body.....the shorter arms of the recreation not matching the original film.  

Patterson had received funding for the film from American National Enterprises so pleases top saying he was dead broke.

[Piney]

None of the critters in any of the videos move like anything would move through the bush that lived there. I've watched every bigfoot video that ever came out and they all move like a suburban redneck hunter. Clumsy. 

[Agishe]

10 hours ago, Guyver said:

Lastly, the other defining feature between the PG subject and the hoaxes or recreations, is the length of subjects' arms.  The photos you've provided show a clear difference in the length of arm in proportion to the body.....the shorter arms of the recreation not matching the original film.

This is an error №1 of recreations: wrong casting

 

[oldrover]

10 hours ago, Guyver said:

it takes money to make money ChrLZs, and from my research, Patterson not only didn't have any....he didn't get much out of his efforts.  

I'd suggest you look again, Patterson was bankrolled by his brother in law/business partner Al DeAtley, a building contractor in Yakima, and he did have money. And they did make money from the film. 

It's only DeAtley's money and claimed connections with an air freight courier that saves the film from being completely debunked. 

[Myles]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

I'm not a bigfoot believer, and frankly, at this point in my life I could give a rip less about it.  Sure, in my younger years I did find the subject extremely fascinating and worthy of research....as I do with many topics.  But I do value and believe in the ability to consider things logically, rationally, with an open mind, and willingness to consider all the evidence....not just evidence that suits my preconceived notions.  

Confirmation bias is exemplified in statements like, "I'm quite certain it's a hoax."  If it's a hoax, it's one of the most remarkable hoaxes ever pulled due to the level of detail accomplished on so low a budget.  Additionally, saying that you're quite certain it's a hoax means that you were involved in it.  If you were not involved in the actual hoax itself, then you're actually not certain at all. You're making a false statement by presenting your opinion as fact.  You think it's a hoax but you don't know that for sure and certainly can't prove it.  

I don't think that is true at all.   I said "I'm quite certain it is a hoax".   That is my opinion.   After combing through all available information, I came to the conclusion that this is a hoax.   Setting out to film this creature and finding it the first day.   Having it just mosey about allowing itself to be filmed.  It being a female just like the drawing in Pattersons book released a year earlier.   Patterson having a financial interest in this.   Several people came forward to claim to be involved in the hoax.  The anatomy doesn't match up.   

You keep saying experts think it is real.   You should be aware that even more experts believe it is NOT real.  

[Guyver]

Does anyone have information about this photo?  What's the story and what's your opinion of it?