Bigfoot- video & audio doc compilation

[Commander CMG]

Interesting compilation, I haven't seen most of these before...

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Uncle Yammy

[ChrLzs]

Forgive me if I do not partake, but I would observe that a compilation of video evidence that, for its title page, uses two created (some might say 'faked') images ....?

Well, I guess at least that it's in keeping with the standard level of credibility on this topic..   

[Guyver]

Interesting video.  Some of the material is known to be faked, so you might expect the skeptics who actually bother to watch it to criticize it for that reason, but as you can see, some won’t even bother to watch the video, and will still manage to offer skeptical commentary. Thanks for posting the video.

[Dejarma]

20 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Forgive me if I do not partake, but I would observe that a compilation of video evidence that, for its title page, uses two created (some might say 'faked') images ....?

Well, I guess at least that it's in keeping with the standard level of credibility on this topic..   

hey Charles, forget all the bleeding obvious rational arguments against the existence of bigfoot:

just sit back & enjoy the fantasy- have an open mind, chill out.. That's what believers do

edit to add:

ooops sorry, forgot to add the smiley== 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Dejarma

[+and-then]

Just as with Nessie, I can't understand how an animal so sought after could remain hidden for so long.  Not even skeletal evidence has been verified.  Still... I'm willing to look at any evidence.  

BTW - that audio sounds a lot like my brother-in-law on the toilet the morning after "Taco Night"  

[onlookerofmayhem]

Photoshopped pictures? Drawings? Animation?

This is terrible.

 

[Dejarma]

19 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

This is terrible.

it looks good to me- or do you mean it's terrible a bigfoot has been killed?

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, Uncle Yammy said:

Interesting compilation, I haven't seen most of these before...

 

Hey my friend I am going to watch the video later today, that for sharing it seems like you have rough crowd here today!!

Peace my freind!!

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Interesting video.  Some of the material is known to be faked, so you might expect the skeptics who actually bother to watch it to criticize it for that reason, but as you can see, some won’t even bother to watch the video, and will still manage to offer skeptical commentary. Thanks for posting the video.

Of course skeptics will point out that when a click bait video uses known fake pictures to try to prove something is real why would any rational thinking person give them any credibility or integrity.

Im still waiting for you to stop making excuses and tossing insults and post your best video and pics of foofoo footie you claim to have seen.

 

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Photoshopped pictures? Drawings? Animation?

This is terrible.

 

Sure that is photo shop the orginal is a deer i wont post due ro forum rules about such pix but google is just heaping full of dead bigfoot pictures....all of which are fake.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

well, that's a half hour I'll never get back.

Here are two things I look for: 1) look for the genitalia. fakers often forget that detail. 2) If the creature does not make a move that a human cannot do, ignore it

[ChrLzs]

21 hours ago, Guyver said:

Interesting video.  Some of the material is known to be faked, so you might expect the skeptics who actually bother to watch it to criticize it for that reason

Yes, indeed you might. I gave my reasons, and from what I see of the discussion, it appears my decision may have been correct.

But....

21 hours ago, Guyver said:

... as you can see, some won’t even bother to watch the video, and will still manage to offer skeptical commentary.

While I didn't watch the video, I gave skeptical commentary on what the video's author thought was the best way to present their video...

However, I'll accept your point, so let's move on and make this useful....

Guyver, specifically, what part of the video was most convincing for you? - pick out the very best bit of evidence and tell me what the timing is on the video.  And let's have a debate on just how 'good' that evidence is, and whether it would warrant over a half hour of my time. 

I have a life and prefer dealing with ... reality.  And I like to help others not waste their time either.

[Resume]

9 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Guyver, specifically, what part of the video was most convincing for you? - pick out the very best bit of evidence and tell me what the timing is on the video.  And let's have a debate on just how 'good' that evidence is, and whether it would warrant over a half hour of my time. 

I have a life and prefer dealing with ... reality.  And I like to help others not waste their time either.

Yep, absolutely.

[Guyver]

45 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, indeed you might. I gave my reasons, and from what I see of the discussion, it appears my decision may have been correct.

But....

While I didn't watch the video, I gave skeptical commentary on what the video's author thought was the best way to present their video...

However, I'll accept your point, so let's move on and make this useful....

Guyver, specifically, what part of the video was most convincing for you? - pick out the very best bit of evidence and tell me what the timing is on the video.  And let's have a debate on just how 'good' that evidence is, and whether it would warrant over a half hour of my time. 

I have a life and prefer dealing with ... reality.  And I like to help others not waste their time either.

I have a life also, and like you I am busy.  I actually have more things to get done than I have time and motivation for today.  And like you, I prefer dealing with reality, which is why I don’t believe in anything.  However, as a person with an inclination toward the sciences, and especially mathematics, I understand probabilities, so unlike you, I don’t view the world in absolutes.

However, how about I do one better than you suggest?  How about if I sum up the topic of this thread, and every other sasquatch type thread with a single statement that will free you and every other hard-core skeptic on this forum, from having to spend another moment of your precious time viewing this thread or any thread like it?

Until the body or bones of a sasquatch are discovered, confirmed by science, and published in a journal, no other facts or evidence will convince you that the phenomenon is or could be real.  Therefore, we don’t really have anything productive to discuss.

Now, if there are some skeptics on this forum who have a bit more time, and they would like to flex their skeptical brain muscles and make themselves look really good by skilled practice, just prove that the Patterson Gimlin film is fake.  There you have it.  A great challenge for skeptics.  All you have to do is prove the Patterson Gimlin film is fake, rather than offering a biased opinion that it is fake, and you win.

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Now, if there are some skeptics on this forum who have a bit more time, and they would like to flex their skeptical brain muscles and make themselves look really good by skilled practice, just prove that the Patterson Gimlin film is fake.  There you have it.  A great challenge for skeptics.  All you have to do is prove the Patterson Gimlin film is fake, rather than offering a biased opinion that it is fake, and you win.

That's what is called shifting the burden of proof. Proponents often cite it as the best piece of evidence for bigfoot.

How would you propose one goes about proving the PGF to be fraudulent?

It's a real piece of film.

It was filmed in a real location.

There's no CGI involved in the original. The "enhanced" versions possibly add things in the sense that data simply wasn't available from the original. 

So we're left with both sides not really having anyway to make a definitive conclusion either way.

Could it be a someone in a bigfoot costume? Sure.

Could it be an "actual bigfoot"? Maybe, but given all the information we have it's highly unlikely. 

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

However, as a person with an inclination toward the sciences, and especially mathematics, I understand probabilities, so unlike you, I don’t view the world in absolutes.

So what are the probabilities as to if the PGF is more likely to be an actual bigfoot as opposed to a costume? And what variables are you using for the calculations?

[Resume]

27 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 A great challenge for skeptics.  All you have to do is prove the Patterson Gimlin film is fake, rather than offering a biased opinion that it is fake, and you win.

Still doesn't understand the burden of proof.

Where's the monkey?

[ChrLzs]

26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

as a person with an inclination toward the sciences, and especially mathematics, I understand probabilities

I'm impressed.  Which research centre have you managed?  Mine was just a Marine Sciences centre, so you're right, I'm prolly not in your league.  But do show the mathematics and probability involved here - I'm genuinely interested.

 

17 minutes ago, Guyver said:

just prove that the Patterson Gimlin film is fake.

Do you *think* before posting?  That really is a ludicrous request - no-one here suggests the film is 'fake' in the sense that it is altered footage (although others have altered it since).  The original looks exactly like 'real' footage .. of a person in a costume.

And of course as OOM correctly points out, you have used the old "prove it isn't" bull****.  For all we know that person could change their name by deed poll and then it would truly be Bigfoot Evidence.

So .. does that mean you picked the PG footage as your 'best evidence'?    If so, then you are so out of your depth it ain't funny.

[Resume]

20 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

So what are the probabilities as to if the PGF is more likely to be an actual bigfoot as opposed to a costume? And what variables are you using for the calculations?

I too would like to see the metrics for such a . . .  hypothesis.

[Carnoferox]

It will probably be impossible to disprove the Patterson-Gimlin film using the film itself, as evidenced by 55 years worth of differing interpretations. Circumstantial evidence does point toward it being a hoax though. The film is remarkably similar to William Roe's 1955 sighting, down to the gait and breasts of the bigfoot. Patterson was certainly aware of this encounter beforehand, as he illustrated it in his 1966 book. The fact that Patterson was shooting a bigfoot documentary at the same time is also highly suspect. Then there are the weird details about the developing and selling of the film, as well as the loss of the original reel.

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, Resume said:

Still doesn't understand the burden of proof.

Where's the monkey?

Interesting that you quoted me, but were actually talking about me Resume.  I’d like to return to that point because it confirms a biased mindset that I have accused you, and other “skeptics clique” types of, here on this forum.  It’s a cognitive bias, but yes, confirmation bias is a part of it.

I don’t understand how you can accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when I have made no claims.  Would you mind explaining that to me?  How is it, that the burden of proof rests upon me?

[Guyver]

Now, regarding that bias I was discussing.  For some reason, or rather for a reason influenced by cognitive bias, these skeptical types that run in click, you know what I’m talking about.  They have demonstrated personal and group bias against not only the topic, but me as a poster.

Aside from stating facts, I have made no claims.  I never said i believed in bigfoot, but on numerous occasions, I have stated the opposite.  Yet, skeptics here call me a believer.  I have stated time and time again that I require the same level of science a skeptic does to confirm a new species.

What I did do, and will continue to do, is offer my personal position and opinion on the matter.  I said, and I’m going to make this all in bold, in hopes that skeptics will finally read it…..I ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY of the phenomenon being real, and the creature being an unknown species of primate or proto-human.  THATs IT.  The possibility of it, not a belief in it, not a claim I know it’s true…..nothing of the sort.

The bias is demonstrated by the fact that these skeptics lump me in with bigfoot believers as if I wear a wife-beater, drink coors, and live in a trailor park.  I reject such off-based characterizations - since they don’t apply, but that’s also insulting to ******* types.  So, maybe the forum skeptic around here is really more of just an ego pimp, you know the type?  They think they look good if they make someone else look bad.  And I do get it.  There are some ridiculous ******* type dudes who’ve made themselves on tv with their act, and yes….they should be mocked.  
 

But, just as there exist people like that who are interested in this phenomenon, and you, there are also other people who are educated, accept science, and are doing their best to find out if there is truth to the phenomenon.  I don’t see why that should be mocked by you people.

[Resume]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Interesting that you quoted me, but were actually talking about me Resume.  I’d like to return to that point because it confirms a biased mindset that I have accused you, and other “skeptics clique” types of, here on this forum.  It’s a cognitive bias, but yes, confirmation bias is a part of it.

I don’t understand how you can accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when I have made no claims.  Would you mind explaining that to me?  How is it, that the burden of proof rests upon me?

Yes, you displayed confirmation bias in your campfire story about an unseen vocalization being either a bear or a bigfoot.  It's not just confirmation bias, it's also an argument from incredulity, and a false dichotomy.

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

As for not making claims, your campfire story is a truth claim: unseen vocalization could only have been a bear or a bigfoot.  Your words, your claim.

Quote

 In my case I experienced something and there’s only two possibilities that could explain it, and that would be grizzly bear or sasquatch.

The unseen vocalization might have been made by a creature you don't believe in?

Also, if you don't believe in footie, how do you make a claim like this?

 

Quote

We waited until the next morning and we looked for tracks.  That’s when we found sasquatch tracks out in the middle of nowhere. 

You found  tracks and identified them as made a by a creature you don't believe in?

What is this poppycock?

Quote

Aside from stating facts, I have made no claims.  I never said i believed in bigfoot, but on numerous occasions, I have stated the opposite.  Yet, skeptics here call me a believer.  I have stated time and time again that I require the same level of science a skeptic does to confirm a new species.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Resume

[Guyver]

I consider this topic akin to the UFO phenomenon in many ways.  I had strong opinions about UFO’ for a long time, and now it turns out my suspicions were correct.  The vast majority of people now accept that UFO’s are real based upon the facts and recent developments.  That doesn’t mean people believe in aliens, I don’t.  But I do believe that UFO’s are real as most people do.  I accept it as an unknown phenomenon.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and everything right with that from the standpoint of logic and reason, IMO.

Having said all that, the UFO phenomenon, though widely accepted as factual, is not “proven by science.” Just saying.

[Timothy]

I listened to the first three minutes and it is beyond me why anyone would assume normal sounds which known animals make are to be that of a ‘Bigfoot’.

Especially humerous is that there is music played over the sounds.

[Resume]

48 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Now, regarding that bias I was discussing.

 

You may be discussing it, but you sure don't understand it.

 

Quote

The bias is demonstrated by the fact that these skeptics lump me in with bigfoot believers as if I wear a wife-beater, drink coors, and live in a trailor park.  I reject such off-based characterizations - since they don’t apply, but that’s also insulting to ******* types.  So, maybe the forum skeptic around here is really more of just an ego pimp, you know the type?  They think they look good if they make someone else look bad.  And I do get it.  There are some ridiculous ******* type dudes who’ve made themselves on tv with their act, and yes….they should be mocked.  

This isn't an example of bias, it's something of your own invention, a strawman skeptical position in your head.

Quote

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Cognitive Biases.

https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763

Edited January 25, 2022 by Resume

[Timothy]

@Guyver How laughable the ‘evidence’ is, is the main point of contention here.

And that goes for most of the UFO/UAP stuff too.