Bigfoot' filmed by boaters in remote area of Ontario, Canada

[Resume]

24 minutes ago, Guyver said:

They would bother with it if they wished to make a truly convincing hoax…..unless it’s just too difficult to fake realistic looking tracks, I suppose….I wouldn’t know since I’m not a hoaxer.

This hoax seems to be convincing enough for a couple posters in this thread.

And as for making realistic prints, this has also been accomplished, much to the chagrin of a number of "experts."

 

ETA: I suppose a person could try one of these.

https://www.amazon.com/Forum-Novelties-Jumbo-Bare-Feet/dp/B00BFIMR02/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=bigfoot+feet&qid=1670457402&sr=8-4

Edited December 8, 2022 by Resume

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Resume said:

This hoax seems to be convincing enough for a couple posters in this thread.

And as for making realistic prints, this has also been accomplished, much to the chagrin of a number of "experts."

 

ETA: I suppose a person could try one of these.

https://www.amazon.com/Forum-Novelties-Jumbo-Bare-Feet/dp/B00BFIMR02/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=bigfoot+feet&qid=1670457402&sr=8-4

The late Grover krantz who wrote books about bigfoot prints as a self appointed expert was an anthropologist who was fooled countless times by his students who would present him with faked tracks and he would go into why the track could only be that of Bigfoot.

He also fell for the ivan marx hoax cripple foot cast.

The big issue with prints is we never have a foot that made them, deers, bears, wolves etc we can match foot to track not bigfoot.

[Guyver]

4 hours ago, Resume said:

How did he determine that?

A review of that (snicker) scholarly tome.

https://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/bigfootreview.pdf

Apparently I can’t copy and paste from the article, so….I’ll just free-form it.  In the article that you linked it stated that the “fake” sasquatch hairs that contained artificial fibers, could be the result of environmental contamination and that they have turned up elsewhere and been reported.  For interested readers, the “personal” side of Paul Freeman was not discussed in the skeptically-biased linked article under discussion, but it was handled rather nicely (IMO) by a show on television called “The Proof is Out There.”  They have a seemingly unbiased review of this and other sasquatch phenomena that any interested reader who has cable can look up and see if interested.  Regarding the Freeman Footage, they interviewed the man’s son, who is a grown man now, and he gives a very interesting background to this story that should be considered.  There were footprints associated with that video, and other prints he found while working in the wilderness.  The footage itself was analyzed by Medrum’s people, and Dr. Sarmiento said that the footage was convincing but didn’t provide enough detail to make a firm conclusion.  That does not prove that the footage is fake or that it was a hoax.

[Resume]

14 minutes ago, the13bats said:

The late Grover krantz who wrote books about bigfoot prints as a self appointed expert was an anthropologist who was fooled countless times by his students who would present him with faked tracks and he would go into why the track could only be that of Bigfoot.

He also fell for the ivan marx hoax cripple foot cast.

The big issue with prints is we never have a foot that made them, deers, bears, wolves etc we can match foot to track not bigfoot.

Didn't Merldumb fall for hoaxed prints as well?

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, Resume said:

This hoax seems to be convincing enough for a couple posters in this thread.

And as for making realistic prints, this has also been accomplished, much to the chagrin of a number of "experts."

 

ETA: I suppose a person could try one of these.

https://www.amazon.com/Forum-Novelties-Jumbo-Bare-Feet/dp/B00BFIMR02/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=bigfoot+feet&qid=1670457402&sr=8-4

Yes, they could.  Now that this thing is such a world wide phenomenon, you could those, and probably a pretty good fake suit right now…..if you’re willing to spend enough money on it.  But things like this were not available in 1967, so anyway…..whatever.

[Resume]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Apparently I can’t copy and paste from the article, so….I’ll just free-form it.  In the article that you linked it stated that the “fake” sasquatch hairs that contained artificial fibers, could be the result of environmental contamination and that they have turned up elsewhere and been reported.  For interested readers, the “personal” side of Paul Freeman was not discussed in the skeptically-biased l fact-based inked article under discussion, but it was handled rather nicely (IMO) by a show on television called “The Proof is Out There.”  They have a seemingly unbiased review of this and other sasquatch phenomena that any interested reader who has cable can look up and see if interested.  Regarding the Freeman Footage, they interviewed the man’s son, who is a grown man now, and he gives a very interesting background to this story that should be considered.  There were footprints associated with that video, and other prints he found while working in the wilderness.  The footage itself was analyzed by Medrum’s people, and Dr. Sarmiento said that the footage was convincing but didn’t provide enough detail to make a firm conclusion.  That does not prove that the footage is fake or that it was a hoax.

I fixed your error.  You might want to read the link again, this time with an open-mind and maybe some intellectual curiosity and integrity.  Also too, you seem to be easily swayed by teevee shows, and finally, there is a reason that Meldrum published that swill in a book rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

Just now, Guyver said:

 But things like this were not available in 1967, so anyway…..whatever.

Says who?

[Guyver]

Just now, Resume said:

I fixed your error.  

You don’t think that article is skeptically biased? The title of it is, “The Nonsense and Non-Science of Sasquatch.”

For you to not even see the inherent bias in that title indicates that you are so completely biased yourself, you don’t even know it when you see it.  Don’t get upset if I don’t converse with you much, we gone round on this before.

[Guyver]

4 minutes ago, Resume said:

Says who?

Says me that’s who.  

[Resume]

27 minutes ago, Guyver said:

You don’t think that article is skeptically biased? The title of it is, “The Nonsense and Non-Science of Sasquatch.”

For you to not even see the inherent bias in that title indicates that you are so completely biased yourself, you don’t even know it when you see it.  Don’t get upset if I don’t converse with you much, we gone round on this before.

Biased in what way? That it critically examines the nonsense of bigfootery? It's a critical book review examining the claims in a book about a fringe subject; have you ever read the New York Times Book Review?  It, like this review, is not a soft-ball tossing exercise, it's a critical examination. I understand that you consume highly-biased pablum designed to gull credules, and rarely, if ever, do you honestly examine the mounds and mounds of fact-based criticisms of your footie enthusiasm.  You do understand that bigfoot belief is a fringe belief, right?  You do understand that the subject is not dividing the scientific community (except perhaps for one certain ISU professor) because it isn't taken seriously . . .  because there is no objective confirming evidence for it.   As far as getting upset if you don't converse with me, I wouldn't worry about it.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

13 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Says me that’s who.  

Yes, many bigfoot enthusiasts are quite flush with unevidenced assertions.  They are what fools them, so why not repeat them rather than examine them.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Resume
clarity

[the13bats]

36 minutes ago, Resume said:

Didn't Merldumb fall for hoaxed prints as well?

Yes, many times over including the john green scam that lasted for decades.

[Resume]

Just now, the13bats said:

Yes, many times over including the john green scam that lasted for decades.

Yeah, he's an expert all right.  I think he still peddles plaster casts of (snicker) Cripplefoot at footie conventions.

[the13bats]

53 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yes, they could.  Now that this thing is such a world wide phenomenon, you could those, and probably a pretty good fake suit right now…..if you’re willing to spend enough money on it.  But things like this were not available in 1967, so anyway…..whatever.

Spoken from complete and total ignorance go look at 2001 space odyssey moonwatchers and feel rather humiliated about your blundering statement above.

Edited December 8, 2022 by the13bats
typos

[Guyver]

19 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Spoken from complete and total ignorance go look at 2001 space odyssey moonwatchers and feel rather humiliated about your blundering statement above.

Do you know the budget on that Hollywood Blockbuster jokester laughing man?!

[Guyver]

Environmental contamination for idiots.  People who leave sleeping bags behind in the woods after camping.  They take forever to decompose, blow around for however long, decay, get spread around, and leave synthetic fibers behind.

[Guyver]

So do tents BTW.  You know how many amateurs leave their tents behind?

[Guyver]

I practice “no trace left behind” wilderness tactics.  FWIW.

[the13bats]

3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Do you know the budget on that Hollywood Blockbuster jokester laughing man?!

Is that a move the goalposts lame rebuttal? You said a suit like in the pgf hoax couldnt be made then and it sure could be in fact of course the 2001 suits are better as patterson had a smaller budget.

You failed epic your ignorace and fragile ego wont allow you to admit it.

[Guyver]

Aside from footprints and tent marks, and other things that come naturally.

[the13bats]

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Environmental contamination for idiots.  People who leave sleeping bags behind in the woods after camping.  They take forever to decompose, blow around for however long, decay, get spread around, and leave synthetic fibers behind.

Not poking are you drunk posting again?

[Guyver]

Just now, the13bats said:

Is that a move the goalposts lame rebuttal? You said a suit like in the pgf hoax couldnt be made then and it sure could be in fact of course the 2001 suits are better as patterson had a smaller budget.

You failed epic your ignorace and fragile ego wont allow you to admit it.

Don’t try to sound intelligent please.  It doesn’t suit you.

[the13bats]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So do tents BTW.  You know how many amateurs leave their tents behind?

Ive never seen any as tents arent cheap and if a camper did leave one a homeless person would grab it.

Can you post a pic of a tent or sleeping bag youve seen left behind.

[the13bats]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Don’t try to sound intelligent please.  It doesn’t suit you.

Aw you are posting drunk again,  ill ignore you now.

[Resume]

7 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Is that a move the goalposts lame rebuttal? You said a suit like in the pgf hoax couldnt be made then and it sure could be in fact of course the 2001 suits are better as patterson had a smaller budget.

You failed epic your ignorace and fragile ego wont allow you to admit it.

Three Stooges shorts had realistic gorilla suits and they were shot in the 1930s and 40s for crissake.  I hate this gaslighting about monkey suits.