Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Experts use AI and Computer vision to determine if the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film is real


jethrofloyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Resume said:

Again, this does nothing to explain where footie hid during the exploitation of Northern (or Southern) California.

If it exists then it wouldn't need to try too hard to hide the area has little human population.  There are many more sighting north of that in WA.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

But you can't prove that it's just something you believe due to lack of evidence.  Good for you.

Yes, I do not believe in footie due to lack of good evidence while others believe in footie despite bad evidence.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Resume said:

I go with him because it eliminates an extraneous player in on the hoax. 

Im mixed, i just dont think it was a p morris suit unless patterson tweaked it a lot, that doesnt mean patterson didnt call morris for costume tips,

BH thought it was a hide and was smelly if so then who knows what,  BH said it had shoulder pads, a helmet, etc, no living ape or monkey has a crackless diaper butt, suits do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If it exists then it wouldn't need to try too hard to hide the area has little human population.  There are many more sighting north of that in WA.

Footie is alleged to be continentally distributed, in habitats that have been exploited and exhausted of their resources, yet no footie found during that exploitation.  And if you think Northern California hasn't been environmentally exploited, you are mistaken.  Sure, footie-foo-foo could hide there, but not indefinitely.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If they exist then they avoid humans unlike bears who are attracted to human areas for scavenging.  though I already suggest that.

Yes, they avoid humans so successfully, they evade all detection. The king of hide and seek; no footie harvested by hunters, no roadkill footies, leaving no trace of any biological material . . .  no bones, no fossils.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Resume said:

Footie is alleged to be continentally distributed, in habitats that have been exploited and exhausted of their resources, yet no footie found during that exploitation.  And if you think Northern California hasn't been environmentally exploited, you are mistaken.  Sure, footie-foo-foo could hide there, but not indefinitely.

There are of course the supernatural interpretations as to what it is too.  My favorite is an old native legend from the area where the film was made.  In that one Sasquatch appears when there is something wrong in nature or also sometimes when there is something wrong with the nature of the person that sighted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Resume said:

Yes, they avoid humans so successfully, they evade all detection. The king of hide and seek; no footie harvested by hunters, by accident, leaving no trace of any biological material, no bones, no fossils.

If they exist they do not evade all detection though, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

There are of course the supernatural interpretations as to what it is too.  My favorite is an old native legend from the area where the film was made.  In that one Sasquatch appears when there is something wrong in nature or also sometimes when there is something wrong with the nature of the person that sighted it.

I'm unconvinced that Native American/First Nations people are describing the bigfoot of modern myth.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If they exist they do not evade all detection though, do they?

Any detection that would confirm their existence, certainly, otherwise we'd be having an entirely different discussion.

 

ETA: As I like to say, bigfoot is all story, no monkey.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

But you can't prove that it's just something you believe due to lack of evidence.  Good for you.

There are no fossils, no scat, no fur, no DNA, no eDNA, no bodies, no bones, no teeth, nothing. How can a real animal that has a breeding population exist without any trace?

Another area is Pennsylvania. Deer were hunted to extinction and not a single bigfoot was shot. There are plenty of sightings in the state.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If they exist then they avoid humans unlike bears who are attracted to human areas for scavenging.  though I already suggest that.

People have seen and properly recorded mountain lions, fisher cats, and wolverines. Are they attracted to humans to scavenge or do they avoid humans?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Resume said:

I'm unconvinced that Native American/First Nations people are describing the bigfoot of modern myth.

Well you are mistaken in that case.  A (now deceased) colleague of mine did a lot of business with tribal entities.  He was so close to them that tribal elders came to his funeral to sing and drum over his casket.  It was he that told me about that story about big foot and more.  He helped insure Yurok tribal businesses and gave me a lot of information of what they told him on the subject during casual conversations.  He was interested in the subject because he thought he saw it once at night driving up to meet with the tribal council around 2015 and said he was told that many tribal members see of or have interaction with it even now but do not report it as a rule because they don't want more people to come to the area to find it and possibly kill it and say whites already bother it too much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There are no fossils, no scat, no fur, no DNA, no eDNA, no bodies, no bones, no teeth, nothing. How can a real animal that has a breeding population exist without any trace?

Another area is Pennsylvania. Deer were hunted to extinction and not a single bigfoot was shot. There are plenty of sightings in the state.

 

And on and on and on.  Whole states like Michigan and Wisconsin clearcut, yet no footie harvested.  90% of old growth forest gone, yet we're to believe that footie tiptoed around the loggers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Well you are mistaken in that case.  A (now deceased) colleague of mine did a lot of business with tribal entities.  He was so close to them that tribal elders came to his funeral to sing and drum over his casket.  It was he that told me about that story about big foot and more.  He helped insure Yurok tribal businesses and gave me a lot of information of what they told him on the subject during casual conversations.  He was interested in the subject because he thought he saw it once at night driving up to meet with the tribal council around 2015 and said he was told that many tribal members see of or have interaction with it even now but do not report it as a rule because they don't want more people to come to the area to find it and possibly kill it and say whites already bother it too much.  

Please provide a citation.  Not from Kathy Strain, please.  I'd require a description of a tribal myth that definitively describes a Patty-like creature before the popular modern myth.

And that still wouldn't mean anything beyond a mythical creature like Aniwye, the Ojibweyan giant skunk, my personal fave mythological creature.

Edited by Resume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There are no fossils, no scat, no fur, no DNA, no eDNA, no bodies, no bones, no teeth, nothing. How can a real animal that has a breeding population exist without any trace?

Another area is Pennsylvania. Deer were hunted to extinction and not a single bigfoot was shot. There are plenty of sightings in the state.

 

There allegedly are all of those things except fossils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's suppose that BF is great at playing hide and seek and unlike manages not to get hit by cars.

Why are there no BF carcasses discovered in forest fire areas?

Why are there no BF carcasses discovered in flash flood zones?

Why are there no BF carcasses discovered in avalanche zones?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Resume said:

I'm unconvinced that Native American/First Nations people are describing the bigfoot of modern myth.

Piney has explaned that many times you are very correct.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

People have seen and properly recorded mountain lions, fisher cats, and wolverines. Are they attracted to humans to scavenge or do they avoid humans?

I'm not trying to convince you.  It's like ghosts I think, there is no reason to believe in it if you haven't experienced it for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Piney has explaned that many times you are very correct.

Piney is from a tribe 3,000 miles from there.  Is any native an expert on the beliefs of every tribe in your opinion Florida man? We already had this conversation and Piney agreed with me.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

There allegedly are all of those things except fossils.

Not true. There is no scat, no fur, no DNA, no eDNA, no bodies, no bones, no teeth. There is nothing.

The BF in the freezer was a hoax. The DNA was an opossum.  The eDNA done by Meldrum is mysteriously quiet. The fur was bear. There are no bones or teeth.

There might be stories but they seem to be without merit each and every one.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

There allegedly are all of those things except fossils.

Please provide a citation for this.  Anecdotes won't cut it.  You do realize that an actual footie bone, or foot, or tooth would be groundbreaking?  As far as footie DNA, that was claimed by one interlocutor here without a whiff of confirmation.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Resume said:

Please provide a citation.

for what?  You need to read more carefully.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

for what?

Your claim that footie bones etc. have been discovered.

Edited by Resume
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I'm not trying to convince you.  It's like ghosts I think, there is no reason to believe in it if you haven't experienced it for yourself.

And experience it doesn't mean much. People see someone and suddenly they think BF.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

for what?  You need to read more carefully.

Do you think using the term allegedly relieves you of all responsibilty to demonstrate that assertion.  Stories of footie bones, etc. are just that.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.