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 -

Scientist proposes conventional explanation for sightings of Bigfoot


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

On 2/5/2023 at 4:56 PM, OverSword said:

Yes there are all kinds of explanations. To say all of them have been explained is a very arrogant thing to say. You and anyone may have your own explanation that satisfies you, ranging from a hoax, a bear, a lie, an actual cryptid , or whatever. That is not proof. Reliable people that have experience in nature like a cop, a forest ranger, etc. seeing what they believes is a Sasquatch and not a bear or a shadow or what have you, can’t be said to be explained by other or real and mundane items, that is simply what you, who was not there, care to accept or believe. The truth is you have as much proof as they do combined with your preconceived bias.

The fact of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not, is that we're in the year 2023, and the best evidence for Bigfoot that still gets paraded out like a prize turkey is the Patterson footage, which was obviously a hoax, seeing as how it was intended for the movie he was undoubtedly making. 

There's been no shortage of money spent, expeditions undertaken, and time wasted on searching for what is supposedly a gigantic humanoid ape living in and around the most traversed places on the planet. What's it all amounted to? Absolutely b*****-all. 

We can talk about ignorance and bias until the cows come home, but those cows will indeed come home, but the Sasquatch won't. 

People around the world claim to see everything from vampires to werewolves to ghosts to dinosaurs to aliens and everything you can possibly think of, and their professions don't really matter one iota. They're all human.

Humans make things up, there's a bunch of people making stuff up on this very forum, they're either bored, needy or "special," take your pick. Humans are also incredibly shoddy witnesses, and often get stuff completely wrong.m, whether they're policemen (hardly all beacons of credibility, anyway) priests (they literally believe in ghosts), butchers, bakers or candlestick makers. 

we're getting a bit long in the tooth on this earth to still be giving Bigfoot believers the benefit of the doubt. If there's something credible to show, let's have at it, otherwise, that ignorance and bias is well earned. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

The fact of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not, is that we're in the year 2023, and the best evidence for Bigfoot that still gets paraded out like a prize turkey is the Patterson footage, which was obviously a hoax, seeing as how it was intended for the movie he was undoubtedly making. 

There's been no shortage of money spent, expeditions undertaken, and time wasted on searching for what is supposedly a gigantic humanoid ape living in and around the most traversed places on the planet. What's it all amounted to? Absolutely b*****-all. 

We can talk about ignorance and bias until the cows come home, but those cows will indeed come home, but the Sasquatch won't. 

People around the world claim to see everything from vampires to werewolves to ghosts to dinosaurs to aliens and everything you can possibly think of, and their professions don't really matter one iota. They're all human.

Humans make things up, there's a bunch of people making stuff up on this very forum, they're either bored, needy or "special," take your pick. Humans are also incredibly shoddy witnesses, and often get stuff completely wrong.m, whether they're policemen (hardly all beacons of credibility, anyway) priests (they literally believe in ghosts), butchers, bakers or candlestick makers. 

we're getting a bit long in the tooth on this earth to still be giving Bigfoot believers the benefit of the doubt. If there's something credible to show, let's have at it, otherwise, that ignorance and bias is well earned. 

The fact of the matter is what I said.  It's ridiculous to say they are all bears which was basically what the person said that I was responding to.  Keep up.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I surmise that the 'bear explanation' (nothing new) might account for a small percentage of claims. Patterson film was no bear.

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

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

The fact of the matter is what I said.  It's ridiculous to say they are all bears which was basically what the person said that I was responding to.  Keep up.

I know exactly what you typed, mate, do you? Have another browse over it and tell me what's wrong with what I replied with. 

Better yet, have a go at explaining why anything I typed can be considered incorrect. 

You're saying that misidentification of bears isn't the only explanation, which is fair. You're also oddly trying to make out that random stories told by hunters and policemen are somehow relevant, and that sightings in countries without bears must surely mean something. 

My reply pretty much covers all of the bases you touched upon, as well as downplaying the entire Bigfoot debate in general, if you can honestly call it a debate anymore. 

If you're keeping up, my post is very much coherent and on topic, whether you want to address any of it or not is up to you, I don't particularly care. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

I know exactly what you typed, mate, do you? Have another browse over it and tell me what's wrong with what I replied with. 

Better yet, have a go at explaining why anything I typed can be considered incorrect. 

You're saying that misidentification of bears isn't the only explanation, which is fair. You're also oddly trying to make out that random stories told by hunters and policemen are somehow relevant, and that sightings in countries without bears must surely mean something. 

My reply pretty much covers all of the bases you touched upon, as well as downplaying the entire Bigfoot debate in general, if you can honestly call it a debate anymore. 

If you're keeping up, my post is very much coherent and on topic, whether you want to address any of it or not is up to you, I don't particularly care. 

Nothing wrong with what you typed.  Doesn't change that not every sighting has been explained, which is what I said in response to someone else post months ago.  I suppose you believe you can explain every sighting or piece of evidence by reasoning your way through what you know/believe to be reality. 

Here's a real world example, years ago three people saw several tracks miles from the nearest human or town off in the woods adjacent to a remote trail accessible only on foot or horseback (no motorcycles allowed here)  One of the witnesses is an avid outdoorsman, a hunter of deer, elk, bear and cougar, and veteran police detective trained to analyze and record crime scenes.  The clearest of the tracks is a classic big foot print in mud and the rest of the tracks are on hard clay and gouges in a steep moss covered slope.  The man mentioned above was of the opinion that the print we could see could not be attributed to anything but the mythological big foot and it was way to big to be human even if Andre the Giant were wandering around the forest. 

This was all related in more detail on a thread here and some people decided without any first hand experience that what was seen was a bear track.  there was just no two ways about it.  Regardless of a first hand account and a police detective/avid hunters opinion some guy on the other side of the continent or the world is going to decide what was actually witnessed. alrighty then.

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

So many items to unpack with how misguided BF believers are. I just ask the same questions and they all disappear back into the UFO threads. The creature, as described, does not and has never existed. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I surmise that the 'bear explanation' (nothing new) might account for a small percentage of claims. Patterson film was no bear.

You are correct.   It was obviously a man in a suit.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

The fact of the matter, whether you choose to accept it or not, is that we're in the year 2023,

That is what ended my hope of believing.  Around 1990ish I told myself that with so many people with camera's on them, in 10 years or so we should have good evidence.  That was when digital cameras were getting popular, not phone cameras.  Now I am truly convinced that it does not exist.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Myles said:

You are correct.   It was obviously a man in a suit.  

Obviously? With all those experts that have weighed in? Saying 'obviously' shows an irrational resistance. Can't beat that with argumentation.

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

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

That is what ended my hope of believing.  Around 1990ish I told myself that with so many people with camera's on them, in 10 years or so we should have good evidence.  That was when digital cameras were getting popular, not phone cameras.  Now I am truly convinced that it does not exist.

I have seen multiple photos and videos highly suggestive of a Bigfoot but one can always call every one fake or a bear.

Secondly, I believe it is in their nature (including with what we call paranormal abilities) to avoid human detection.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

Patterson footage, which was obviously a hoax

Despite all my paranormal experiences I've always believed BF was BS, particularly the Patterson footage but when you see the enhanced version with the muscle and foot placement I have changed my thoughts. It does look like a suit in a way but what does a BF look like in the flesh? I think it's genuine despite all my reservations. I did see a glimpse through young pine trees while pig hunting of a big red/brown shaggy animal that my three pit/mastiff pig dogs were afraid of and came back to heel. I originally thought it was a feral red stag here in Oz but my dogs weren't scared of deer and never scared of any animal or human that lived, they were very fearless hunting dogs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also had the thought it could be an escaped male lion with a mane but this thing was too tall. I didn't get a good view of the animal and with the dogs frightened and me with only a sticking knife I decided to back track out of the pine forest. I can't say for sure this was a BF, Yowie but I've run out of ideas as to what it was.

Edited by openozy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, OverSword said:

Nothing wrong with what you typed.  Doesn't change that not every sighting has been explained, which is what I said in response to someone else post months ago.  I suppose you believe you can explain every sighting or piece of evidence by reasoning your way through what you know/believe to be reality. 

Here's a real world example, years ago three people saw several tracks miles from the nearest human or town off in the woods adjacent to a remote trail accessible only on foot or horseback (no motorcycles allowed here)  One of the witnesses is an avid outdoorsman, a hunter of deer, elk, bear and cougar, and veteran police detective trained to analyze and record crime scenes.  The clearest of the tracks is a classic big foot print in mud and the rest of the tracks are on hard clay and gouges in a steep moss covered slope.  The man mentioned above was of the opinion that the print we could see could not be attributed to anything but the mythological big foot and it was way to big to be human even if Andre the Giant were wandering around the forest. 

This was all related in more detail on a thread here and some people decided without any first hand experience that what was seen was a bear track.  there was just no two ways about it.  Regardless of a first hand account and a police detective/avid hunters opinion some guy on the other side of the continent or the world is going to decide what was actually witnessed. alrighty then.

 
For what it's worth, I think a lot of Bigfoot sightings are probably down to bears, but not all of them, and they don't really need to be. 
 
Some people shoot other people when they're out hunting turkeys, so that will give you some idea of how accurate we are, even hunters, when it comes to what we think we see. You can Google information on hunting accidents that paint both a funny and worrying picture about the accuracy of hunters' ability to see more than the common man. 
 
As for stories, while they're usually entertaining, there's nothing we can do with them. They're usually second or third hand accounts, sometimes they're not even that. The real problem is that we've got footage of absolutely everything that we used to only hear or read about. People are filming all manner of things that we have almost instant access to. Still, we've got nothing on a Bigfoot that we couldn't reasonably debunk relatively easily. 
 
Bigfoot footage hasn't gotten any better, and it's certainly not down to our means of capturing such footage getting any worse, not to mention the fact that practically everyone owns a phone that's capable of taking photos and shooting footage. 
 
2023 and no bones, no scat, DNA has been tested and proven to be everything other than Bigfoot. So we're left with two possibilities, three or four if we're being generous:
 
Bigfoot is all myth, legend, hoax and mistake. 
 
Bigfoot is supernatural.
 
Bigfoot is extraterrestrial.
 
Bigfoot is from another dimension. 
 
I know which one I'm going with. 
 
 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Obviously? With all those experts that have weighed in? Saying 'obviously' shows an irrational resistance. Can't beat that with argumentation.

No real experts have given much of any opinion that would raise the credibility of the PGF. The so-called experts who are in favour of it being a real life Sasquatch generally all have some dealings with the Bigfoot belief and general nonsense that they tend to save for believers, rather than their scientific peers, whom they tend to keep relatively quiet around, and it's not for fear of ridiculue, but fear of rebuttal. 

When it comes to what is undoubtedly creature suits, I'd put my money on those better qualified to judge those things, the likes of Stan Winston, Rick Baker etc, who have viewed the PGF and reasonably concluded that what we're seeing is a costume. The total lack of any real Bigfoot since has sort of helped cement that opinion. 

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

3 hours ago, openozy said:

Despite all my paranormal experiences I've always believed BF was BS, particularly the Patterson footage but when you see the enhanced version with the muscle and foot placement I have changed my thoughts. It does look like a suit in a way but what does a BF look like in the flesh? I think it's genuine despite all my reservations. I did see a glimpse through young pine trees while pig hunting of a big red/brown shaggy animal that my three pit/mastiff pig dogs were afraid of and came back to heel. I originally thought it was a feral red stag here in Oz but my dogs weren't scared of deer and never scared of any animal or human that lived, they were very fearless hunting dogs.

What we're seeing on the footage of the PGF is a blown up copy of a copy of a copy... Etc. I honestly don't see anything that cannot and has not been explained away. 

While some people see muscles, I see a set of buttocks that resemble a huge diaper that doesn't move or jiggle or remotely move fluidly with the glutes like you'd expect from any bipedal creature. What I see is more indicative of a suit. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I have seen multiple photos and videos highly suggestive of a Bigfoot but one can always call every one fake or a bear.

Secondly, I believe it is in their nature (including with what we call paranormal abilities) to avoid human detection.

There's avoiding human detection, and then there's living among humans in populated areas enough to be supposedly witnessed almost weekly and yet never being captured, confirmed or detected. 

If we're getting into the realms of the supernatural then we might as well just claim that every single story we've ever heard about basically any myth might be possibly true, which would be an odd way of going about things. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

What we're seeing on the footage of the PGF is a blown up copy of a copy of a copy... Etc. I honestly don't see anything that cannot and has not been explained away. 

I don’t know if that footage is real or not but what I do notice about it is every attempt to duplicate it is an utter failure, much like Hollywoods failure to duplicate people walking on the moon, something else that half the planet believes is a hoax. Hard to believe that nobody has recreated a suit some nobody made in 1968(?) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don’t know if that footage is real or not but what I do notice about it is every attempt to duplicate it is an utter failure, much like Hollywoods failure to duplicate people walking on the moon, something else that half the planet believes is a hoax. Hard to believe that nobody has recreated a suit some nobody made in 1968(?) 

How many true attempts have there been? 

Contrary to opinion, the BBC didn't attempt any recreation for their X Creatures program. They pulled a suit off the shelf in order to show how such a costume shot from a distance on a shaky low quality piece of film can look deceptive. 

The only true attempt that I know of was undertaken by complete amateur Leroy Blevins, who made a commendable attempt by hand on a meager budget with no prior experience or skills in creature suit making. 

Jeff Pruitt, among others, spent a good bit of time painstakingly putting examples together of creature suits and monster effects that mirror a lot of what is seen and what people like Bill Munns claimed either wasn't in use or couldn't have been used. Jeff also brought to light many masks and suits that look strikingly similar to "Patty" from the mid 1960s, from such notable TV shows as Star Trek. 

My thing is, I've never understood why anyone would need to recreate exactly what is seen for it to be deemed a hoax. That's totally backwards thinking, IMO. What is seen is seen for 30 seconds or less, from a great distance, on a shaky piece of Kodachrome that subsequently went "missing" and was thus blown up from a second or third generation copy. The lens on the camera wasn't even verified making attempts at size estimations null and void. Put Chewbacca on a piece of 1967 Kodachrome from a shaky distance and I bet many would be fooled. 

So are you really curious as to why an exact replica of the PGF costume doesn't exist while being blasé over the fact that literally no Bigfoot has ever been found?

To my mind, nobody has ever been able to accurately recreate or better the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I know that Tobe Hooper did it in 1974. 

 

 

Edited by Gilbert Syndrome
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something funny I'll add is that a poster, either on the JREF or the Bigfoot Forums, once photoshopped the Patterson Bigfoot onto a different, more modern background and, almost rather predictably, there were PGF advocates saying that the suit was inferior to Patty. 

Seriously, though. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though off topic, one thing I'll say about the moon landing is that the landing sights are supposedly viewable by telescope, though I've never checked. I'm not sure what the fuss over the moon landing really is or why people discount the evidence for it having legitimately happened. 

What I do know is this: half the world, if not more, is soft as ****. 

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

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

@Gilbert Syndrome What costume maker made the Patterson suit? 

Leroy Blevins Snr made one, but he wasn't a costume maker, and he's since passed away. 

Nobody in FX has bothered to make one, although I think Jeff Pruitt started a project off at one point. 

The fact that believers discounted a photoshopped version of Patty kind of shows you how pointless an endeavour recreating that would be. Either way, Rick Baker has made far superior suits to Patty, but they weren't afforded the fleeting from-a-distance shake-o-rama shot that Patty was borne of, but under the same set of circumstances, Rick's suits would be truly believed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

Leroy Blevins Snr made one, but he wasn't a costume maker, and he's since passed away. 

Nobody in FX has bothered to make one, although I think Jeff Pruitt started a project off at one point. 

The fact that believers discounted a photoshopped version of Patty kind of shows you how pointless an endeavour recreating that would be. Either way, Rick Baker has made far superior suits to Patty, but they weren't afforded the fleeting from-a-distance shake-o-rama shot that Patty was borne of, but under the same set of circumstances, Rick's suits would be truly believed. 

Looked up Rick Baker bigfoot suit and saw this interesting picture with the caption:

Quote

This argument is key to Bill Munns’s contention – made in his 2014 book When Roger Met Patty (yup, real title) – that Patty is just too sophisticated to be a suit, especially one made with the materials and tech available in 1967. Munns shows in his book how issues common to ape suits (like mobility at limb joints and across the thighs, butt and hips, and the form of the neck and back of the head) were seemingly solved, to brilliant effect, by the maker of the PGF ‘suit’, in which case....... it simply can’t be a suit at all and must be a real animal. It’s a really interesting argument.

EdEbRLXWoAIsT50?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

I don't know how accurate that statement is about materials and construction being too sophisticated for the era or not but if that is anywhere near accurate I doubt some rancher from Eastern Washington had the means to afford it for a hoax.  I have always had doubts about the film because of the diaper-like area at the top of the thigh but this picture of a nude human above has the same position, carriage and wrinkles/folds of the PG footage.  The swaying breast's in the PG film also seem like a detail that is ahead of it's time as far as costumes go and something not likely to occur to some country boy. 

I'm 100% certain that you will say I'm wrong about that and that the diaper affect and swaying breasts are proof it's a suit.  I say look at the picture above and the picture of the guy in the suit below.  That top picture is no suit as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Looked up Rick Baker bigfoot suit and saw this interesting picture with the caption:

EdEbRLXWoAIsT50?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

I don't know how accurate that statement is about materials and construction being too sophisticated for the era or not but if that is anywhere near accurate I doubt some rancher from Eastern Washington had the means to afford it for a hoax.  I have always had doubts about the film because of the diaper-like area at the top of the thigh but this picture of a nude human above has the same position, carriage and wrinkles/folds of the PG footage.  The swaying breast's in the PG film also seem like a detail that is ahead of it's time as far as costumes go and something not likely to occur to some country boy. 

I'm 100% certain that you will say I'm wrong about that and that the diaper affect and swaying breasts are proof it's a suit.  I say look at the picture above and the picture of the guy in the suit below.  That top picture is no suit as far as I'm concerned.

That picture and the suit have nothing to do with Rick Baker, they were provided by Bill Munns, a guy who was getting fired from FX jobs for not being good enough while Baker was winning awards. 

The breasts don't swing, though, that's something that has always been pointed out as a flaw. The breasts are very much (oddly) stationary, which goes against nature. Speaking of the breasts, they'd be a pretty convincing and strange feature to have, if Patterson hadn't drawn (robbed) a picture of a female Bigfoot as depicted in the William Roe encounter, that Roger had included in his book about Bigfoot a few years before. That's exactly what the PGF is, it's a scene from his movie inspired by the William Roe encounter with a female Bigfoot. 

But the breasts aren't the only unnatural feature, along with the diaper butt, just take a look at those feet. They're basically blocks. Toes all squished together on one foot (missing on another) on a creature that supposedly lives barefoot in the wild on rough terrain. The bottom of the feet are totally white and the toes aren't splayed like they would be on a biped living shoeless in the woods. 

I feel like we're going over old ground, no pun intended. But if you want to believe that Roger just happened to film a live female Bigfoot resembling the one he drew only a year or so before, while in the process of making a Bigfoot movie, then that's up to you. 

As for Roger being a lowly cowboy from Washington, have you seen his handy work? He was an artist, he drew, sculpted, was known to be good with leatherwork, he wrote a book and created a Bigfoot trap that he proudly displayed. Roger was a carney. 

Take a good look at Robert Gimlin sitting on his horse dressed as an injun, and ask yourself, was Roger Patterson the luckiest cowboy on planet earth? Or was he taking the rubes for a ride on his Bigfoot carnival?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

No real experts have given much of any opinion that would raise the credibility of the PGF. The so-called experts who are in favour of it being a real life Sasquatch generally all have some dealings with the Bigfoot belief and general nonsense that they tend to save for believers, rather than their scientific peers, whom they tend to keep relatively quiet around, and it's not for fear of ridiculue, but fear of rebuttal. 

When it comes to what is undoubtedly creature suits, I'd put my money on those better qualified to judge those things, the likes of Stan Winston, Rick Baker etc, who have viewed the PGF and reasonably concluded that what we're seeing is a costume. The total lack of any real Bigfoot since has sort of helped cement that opinion. 

I've heard enough over the years to conclude the majority scientific opinion is that the film holds up very well. But you will only give credit to what you want to hear.

As for me, if the majority of expert opinions was 'suit' I'd believe 'suit' is most likely.

  • Haha 2
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.