MN Photography wrote:
If I was planning to be an attorney, I wouldn't waste time watching one of the hundreds of Youtube videos with people giving their complex and inaccurate explanations of the various legal myths that circulate. 

I do watch them for entertainment sometimes.  Which is all the bigfoot theories are good for.

I'm not sure that's a very good analogy, but you're entitled to your beliefs of course.  I believe there is probably a large, unrecognized bipedal primate, possibly a hominid, native to North American, that remains undiscovered and is very adept at hiding from people.

Among Bigfoot/Sasquatch proponents (I prefer this term to "believer") there is the "Giganto Theory", which states that it may be a descendant of Gigantopithecus, the huge ape that went extinct about 100,000 years ago.  I don't favor this view as I think the behavior (from alleged sightings) is more line with some kind of primitive hominid.  Also, I don't know if anyone knows if Gigantopithecus was bipedal or not.

highStrangeness wrote:

Wouldn't explain the unknown recordings made in the Sierras and elsewhere, of bizarre screams and calls that can't be matched to any known animal.  You're reaching again, hallucinations aren't likely to be a major factor in Bigfoot sightings.  Something else is going on.

This is what I enjoy about conspiracy theorists.  You are the one with the thoroughly debunked theory, but someone skeptical is "reaching". 

There have been so many hoaxes.  Never mind, how about a link to some research on the subject at a legitimate university or something similar instead of some anonymous old man on Youtube?

MN Photography wrote:
This is what I enjoy about conspiracy theorists.  You are the one with the thoroughly debunked theory, but someone skeptical is "reaching". 

There have been so many hoaxes.  Never mind, how about a link to some research on the subject at a legitimate university or something similar instead of some anonymous old man on Youtube?

What theory is thoroughly debunked? The Patterson Gilmin film theory?

You know as well as I do that there's very little to no actual studies done at legitimate universities, which is why it's left to private individuals and organizations like the BFRO and the NAWAC.  Even Jeff Meldrum has had problems with critics.  Going outside the mainstream and investigating mysteries or anomalies like this can be very bad for one's career, and that's why mainstream scientists don't touch it.  Really, modern science can be very hegemonic at times.

It's not because it's not worth studying.

highStrangeness wrote:

What theory is thoroughly debunked? The Patterson Gilmin film theory?

You know as well as I do that there's very little to no actual studies done at legitimate universities, which is why it's left to private individuals.  Even Jeff Meldrum has had problems with critics.  Going outside the mainstream and investigating mysteries or anomalies like this can be very bad for one's career, and that's why mainstream scientists don't touch it.

It's not because it's not worth studying.

You've just answered your own question.  If there was anything to this, legitimate scientists would be all over it.  It's what they do.  It's the best possible proof that there is nothing to it.

Bigfoot "research" is in the hands of the kind of people who claim that it's possible to run cars on water, cure cancer with almond oil and drive their cars legally without a driver's license because these people are unqualified dreamers who are also naive.  And I suppose no one and no amount of reasoning is going to stop them.

MN Photography wrote:
You've just answered your own question.  If there was anything to this, legitimate scientists would be all over it.  It's what they do.  It's the best possible proof that there is nothing to it.

Bigfoot "research" is in the hands of the kind of people who claim that it's possible to run cars on water, cure cancer with almond oil and drive their cars legally without a driver's license because these people are unqualified dreamers who are also naive.  And I suppose no one and no amount of reasoning is going to stop them.

this!!!!

some people want to believe in something so bad that they deny themselves the truth and look away from the obvious. these sort of idiots are the same kind that fall for scams. usually blinded by their own greed for fame or money.
they want something so bad they ignore the warning signs that something is fake.

Here in cold hard reality I'm always skeptical of people's motives.
If theres no real evidence that something is true, but a bunch of signs pointing to it not being real;
I take it for what it is.

MN Photography wrote:

You've just answered your own question.  If there was anything to this, legitimate scientists would be all over it.  It's what they do.  It's the best possible proof that there is nothing to it.

Bigfoot "research" is in the hands of the kind of people who claim that it's possible to run cars on water, cure cancer with almond oil and drive their cars legally without a driver's license because these people are unqualified dreamers who are also naive.  And I suppose no one and no amount of reasoning is going to stop them.

I've heard the claim that there's nothing to it, that there's nothing to study.  False.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
this!!!!
some people want to believe in something so bad that they deny themselves the truth and look away from the obvious. of course these sort of idiots are the same kind that fall for scams. usually blinded by their own greed for fame or money.

Here in cold hard reality I'm always skeptical of people motives.

Nope, sorry, there's more to the story than that.  There would be more interest if science weren't so rigid these days.  Scientists may well be interested in UFOs or Bigfoot, but most won't risk their paychecks and careers over it.  It definitely doesn't mean there's nothing there to study.  And most Bigfoot researchers aren't conspiracy theorists or whackjobs, that's just another baseless assertion.  It's always the same, if you don't like the subject, attack the people's reputation.

I'm really familiar with the bullshit logical trickery of so called skeptics, and you two aren't skeptics at all.  You're what Marcello Truzzi, one of the co-founders of the former CSICOP (now CSI) would call "pseudoskeptics".  Denialists, or scoffers would be another term, especially for you, Paolo.


On Pseudo-Skepticism, by Marcello Truzzi

Guess what, making a negative claim (such as calling Bigfoot researchers cranks) is not skepticism.

highStrangeness wrote:
Nope, sorry, there's more to the story than that.  There would be more interest if science weren't so rigid these days.  Scientists may well be interested in UFOs or Bigfoot, but most won't risk their paychecks and careers over it.  It definitely doesn't mean there's nothing there to study.  And most Bigfoot researchers aren't conspiracy theorists or whackjobs, that's just another baseless assertion.  It's always the same, if you don't like the subject, attack the people's reputation.

I'm really familiar with the bullshit logical trickery of so called skeptics, and you two aren't skeptics at all.  You're what Marcello Truzzi, one of the co-founders of the former CSICOP (now CSI) would call "pseudoskeptics".


On Pseudo-Skepticism, by Marcello Truzzi

Guess what, making a negative claim (such as calling Bigfoot researchers cranks) is not skepticism.

Ha, this is exactly the same kind of stuff that you see from the water burning cars and quack cancer cure people - there is a big, scary entity out there stopping the research.  Oil companies putting the squash on water propelled cars, drug companies getting rich from expensive chemotherapy meds stopping the simple botanical cures and now big science is crushing bigfoot research.  I can see the other two, but why does science want to stop bigfoot research?  Wait, never mind, I should know better than to ask a conspiracy theorist about the conspiracy.  It an abyss.

MN Photography wrote:
Ha, this is exactly the same kind of stuff that you see from the water burning cars and quack cancer cure people - there is a big, scary entity out there stopping the research.  Oil companies putting the squash on water propelled cars, drug companies getting rich from expensive chemotherapy meds stopping the simple botanical cures and now big science is crushing bigfoot research.  I can see the other two, but why does science want to stop bigfoot research?  Wait, never mind, I should know better than to ask a conspiracy theorist about the conspiracy.  It an abyss.

It's not some so-called big scary entity stopping research, it's the possible ridicule and loss of tenure that goes along with researching anything unusual that keeps scientists away from anomalous phenomena. This is fairly well understood, and it's not a conspiracy to say this, and it doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist, either.  As I said even Jeff Meldrum has had trouble.  Not everyone at Idaho State University is happy about Meldrum's interest in Bigfoot, but the dean likes his work, so he keeps his tenure.

My point was legitimate, but I expected this sort of juvenile response.

highStrangeness wrote:
Scientists may well be interested in UFOs or Bigfoot, but most won't risk their paychecks and careers over it.
It definitely doesn't mean there's nothing there to study.

Actually it does mean theres nothing there to study.
There can't be anything to study if nothing exists.
Its mythological creature.

I'm sure theres scientists who are in love with the folklore too, and enjoy imagining all the ways a creature like that could be.
However at the end of the day they know what is real and what is make believe even if you don't

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
Actually it does mean theres nothing there to study.
There can't be anything to study if nothing exists.
Its mythological creature.

I'm sure theres scientists who are in love with the folklore too, and enjoy imagining all the ways a creature like that could be.
However at the end of the day they know what is real and what is make believe even if you don't

Circular logic...

You don't know it doesn't exist, and no one does, because that's a negative claim, which are impossible to prove.  The idea that Bigfoot is just purely mythological doesn't really add up if you look at what's there.  There's not much hard evidence, yes, but there's enough to suggest that something real is going on.  You're just ignorant of the topic in general, as you so well demonstrated by claiming that Bigfoot reports date to 1958.

And besides, if no one looks for evidence, then there won't be any... you can't know if something does or doesn't exist if you don't look for evidence.

highStrangeness wrote:

It's not some so-called big scary entity stopping research, it's the possible ridicule and loss of tenure that goes along with researching anything unusual that keeps scientists away from anomalous phenomena.

Now there is some circular logic on display.  You keep repeating it - the research on bigfoot cannot be done because the scientists are fearful of repercussions.  It's classic conspiracy theory stuff.

MN Photography wrote:
Now there is some circular logic on display.  You keep repeating it - the research on bigfoot cannot be done because the scientists are fearful of repercussions.  It's classic conspiracy theory stuff.

LOL

It's not necessarily a conspiracy, especially if it's true.  From what I've read, it really is a serious concern.  If I recall right, I read a report about a survey in the 1970s, about UFOs with regards to astronomer's interest in them -- as to whether the subject is worthy of scientific study.  About half agreed it was, to varying degrees.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm

But I wonder how many would publicly admit an interest in UFOs?

highStrangeness wrote:

LOL

It's not a conspiracy if it's true...

Sure, every conspiracy theorist will say that.  What's the point otherwise. 

Maybe tomorrow, MM's premier conspiracy theorist will show up to back you up.  After that, you can discuss the perpetual motion machines that are being suppressed by "the powers".

MN Photography wrote:

Sure, every conspiracy theorist will say that.  What's the point otherwise. 

Maybe tomorrow, MM's premier conspiracy theorist will show up to back you up.  After that, you can discuss the perpetual motion machines that are being suppressed by "the powers".

Do the research yourself, I don't have to educate you on this.  If you want to throw out stupid comments about perpetual motion machines and "the powers", that's on you.  I was serious.

MN Photography wrote:
...but why does science want to stop bigfoot research?  Wait, never mind, I should know better than to ask a conspiracy theorist about the conspiracy.  It an abyss.

What I am about to tell you will probably get me killed but here goes....

Here in Northern California, there are a lot of people growing Marijuana in remote areas.
This is the same region that Bigfoot is known to inhabit.

Everyone knows Bigfoot likes his privacy.
For many years now in exchange for help from Bigfoot working on their illegal weed farms, growers have been paying scientists to look the other way when it comes to researching Bigfoot.

The Scientists pocket a little extra cash from the Growers.
The Growers get good strong workers that scare off anyone who comes to close to their farms, and Bigfoot gets to retain his privacy and smoke a little weed and just chill in the woods.

Its a good trade.
Everyone wins!

Paolo Diavolo wrote:

What I am about to tell you will probably get me killed but here goes....

Here in Northern California, there are a lot of people growing Marijuana in remote areas.
This is the same region that Bigfoot is known to inhabit.

Everyone knows Bigfoot likes his privacy.
For many years now in exchange for help from Bigfoot working on their illegal weed farms, growers have been paying scientists to look the other way when it comes to researching Bigfoot.

The Scientists pocket a little extra cash,
The Growers get good strong workers that scare off anyone who comes to close to their farms, and Bigfoot gets to retain his privacy and smoke a little weed and just chill in the woods.

Its a good trade.
Everyone wins!

really, I think Bigfoot could find easy employment in our society if he were to come down out of the forests, and join the workforce.  Think of what they could do... construction, heavy lifting jobs... annnnd!

A Sasquatch Bouncer! No one would fuck with a 9' tall 700lb bouncer!

Michael Bots wrote:
History might be more like Lord of the Rings with multiple species


mysterious hominid

Pacific islanders may carry the DNA of an unknown human species
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … minid.html

"But there is genetic evidence of a third unknown group of human species"

When I lived among the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea for seven years, I asked if they had any legends of giants and they said no.  So they have no equivalent of Bigfoot.  But I also asked them if they had any legends of people who are like people, but not really people, who are smaller than they are.  They said yes, and described the Moroedl as being about three and a half feet tall and looking just like humans except that they didn't have foreheads like we do- hair grew from their foreheads just like from the rest of the top of their heads.  The height of these legendary small people turned out to be, perhaps coincidentally, the same as that of the "hobbits" who lived thousands of years ago on the island of Flores in Indonesia, just west of Papua New Guinea.  Anthropologists have discovered that the "hobbits" of Flores coexisted on that island with modern humans for tens of thousands of years so it wouldn't shock me if they had intermarried at some point and perhaps a dim memory of them may have lived on as that legend.  It's a much more remote possibility that there are any of that other species of humans living in some remote mountain jungle or swamp tot his day.

Springfield Fotografiya wrote:

When I lived among the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea for seven years, I asked if they had any legends of giants and they said no.  So they have no equivalent of Bigfoot.  But I also asked them if they had any legends of people who are like people, but not really people, who are smaller than they are.  They said yes, and described the Moroedl as being about three and a half feet tall and looking just like humans except that they didn't have foreheads like we do- hair grew from their foreheads just like from the rest of the top of their heads.  The height of these legendary small people turned out to be, perhaps coincidentally, the same as that of the "hobbits" who lived thousands of years ago on the island of Flores in Indonesia, just west of Papua New Guinea.  Anthropologists have discovered that the "hobbits" of Flores coexisted on that island with modern humans for tens of thousands of years so it wouldn't shock me if they had intermarried at some point and perhaps a dim memory of them may have lived on as that legend.  It's a much more remote possibility that there are any of that other species of humans living in some remote mountain jungle or swamp tot his day.

Are you talking about what's called Orang Pendek?

highStrangeness wrote:
Are you talking about what's called Orang Pendek?

I don't know if the Orang Pendek of Sumatra and the Moroedl of New Guinea are the same crypto-hominid or not.  I don't know if either or both of them may be derived from, or related in whole or in part to the Homo floresiensis prehistoric hominid that has been discovered and studied by anthropologists.  I also don't know if the legends refer to hominids who existed a long time ago and are dimly remembered in folklore, if they are more mythological or symbolic in nature, or if they may still be alive today in remote areas.  But I've always been interested in anthropology and I found the article that was linked to earlier fascinating as well as Scientific American's Special Collector's Edition for Autumn 2016: "The Story of Us: It's Stranger than Anyone Thought" magazine detailing the current state of research about human origins and the various species and subspecies that are ancestral to various groups of modern humans to different degrees.

MN Photography wrote:

This is what I enjoy about conspiracy theorists.  You are the one with the thoroughly debunked theory, but someone skeptical is "reaching". 

There have been so many hoaxes.  Never mind, how about a link to some research on the subject at a legitimate university or something similar instead of some anonymous old man on Youtube?

How exactly was this thoroughly debunked? You choose to believe the people who say the video is a man in a suit. Other choose to believe that the side by side video comparison to one of the several men who claimed to be in a the suit does not come close to matching.  As for the hoaxes, I have yet to see one where is wasn't obvious a fake ( with the exception of the police dash cam that filmed something run across the road in like 3-4 strides.)   I even call bull on this Michigan eagle cam video. To me, and seeing these videos that compare it to man makes me believe there is a strong chance that such a thing is out there. I don't see how thats a man in a suit. The mechanics of the walk is nowhere close to a man. The claim of the guy who passed the lie detector? Oh thats never been done in history has it?  HIs body mechanics do not match. Thats a fact that he left proof of mimicking the Patterson video creature.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
What I am about to tell you will probably get me killed but here goes....

Here in Northern California, there are a lot of people growing Marijuana in remote areas.
This is the same region that Bigfoot is known to inhabit.

Everyone knows Bigfoot likes his privacy.
For many years now in exchange for help from Bigfoot working on their illegal weed farms, growers have been paying scientists to look the other way when it comes to researching Bigfoot.

The Scientists pocket a little extra cash from the Growers.
The Growers get good strong workers that scare off anyone who comes to close to their farms, and Bigfoot gets to retain his privacy and smoke a little weed and just chill in the woods.

Its a good trade.
Everyone wins!

this is good.

As the growing Seasons change the Bigfoot clan migrate around the Country in search of work and good weed, hence all the various sightings.

John Jebbia  wrote:
How come with all of the high quality cameras everyone's carrying around, no one can ever get a crystal clear image of Big Foot? It's like the guy only poses for GWC's..

If We really wanted to find Bigfoot We would have done so already..

John Jebbia  wrote:
How come with all of the high quality cameras everyone's carrying around, no one can ever get a crystal clear image of Big Foot? It's like the guy only poses for GWC's..

I usually have 2 cameras with me when I am on my property in the forest.
I have missed shots because things sometimes happen fast and I don't have a camera in my hands.
Usually bigfoot shots are taken when it unexpectedly appears.

highStrangeness wrote:
The notion that the Patterson Gimlin film, at least, is "thoroughly debunked", can't be true.  If half of the experts who looked at it believe it's a real creature, while the other half believe it's a man in a suit, then logically, it's not "thoroughly" debunked.  You'd have to say a majority of the scientists who've actually spent time analyzing it have thought it's fake, in order to say it's thoroughly debunked, I think.

Patterson took out a loan and rented a camera to go film a movie about bigfoot after he consulted with a known bigfoot hoaxer.

He then came back with a short clip of a "bigfoot". His motives for the film were to get funding for an expedition from a wealthy man who lived nearby.

I speculate he probably planned to take the money and run. From what i read most people considered Patterson a liar and a con. which sounds accurate considering it's a known fact he never paid back the loan he took to make the film.

I know it's hard to let go of something you want to be real and grew up believing to be true. There's just too much crap associated with that film for it to be taken seriously.

It's known as a hoax.
We know who made the bigfoot costume, and seen him holding it without someone in it.
We know who was wearing it in the film and that guy passed a lie detector test admitting to being in the costume.
We know prior to the filming that the camera was rented with the intention of filming a "bigfoot".

What more proof could you want?

There's nothing special about the way the "bigfoot" walks or moves or anything else shown in that film that couldn't be accomplished in 1967.

It's time to let it go.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:

Patterson took out a loan and rented a camera to go film a movie about bigfoot after he consulted with a known bigfoot hoaxer.

He then came back with a short clip of a "bigfoot". His motives for the film were to get funding for an expedition from a wealthy man who lived nearby.

I speculate he probably planned to take the money and run. From what i read most people considered Patterson a liar and a con. which sounds accurate considering it's a known fact he never paid back the loan he took to make the film.

I know it's hard to let go of something you want to be real and grew up believing to be true. There's just too much crap associated with that film for it to be taken seriously.

It's known as a hoax.


We know who made the bigfoot costume, and seen him holding it without someone in it.
We know who was wearing it in the film and that guy passed a lie detector test admitting to being in the costume.
We know prior to the filming that the camera was rented with the intention of filming a "bigfoot".

What more proof could you want?

There's nothing special about the way the "bigfoot" walks or moves or anything else shown in that film that couldn't be accomplished in 1967.

It's time to let it go.

How about proof that backs up your words? Nothing i have found says Patterson was a liar. All i have found is he was an honest stand up man. Didnt pay back a loan? Know nothing about that other than he died a few years after shooting the film. So maybe all was forgiven.  I could claim i made the suit and hold it up with nobody in it and take a picture. Does that make it a fact? Only in your eyes.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
How about proof that backs up your words? Nothing i have found says Patterson was a liar. All i have found is he was an honest stand up man. Didnt pay back a loan? Know nothing about that other than he died a few years after shooting the film. So maybe all was forgiven.  I could claim i made the suit and hold it up with nobody in it and take a picture. Does that make it a fact? Only in your eyes.

More than one person has claimed to be the elusive man-in-the-suit, which hasn't really been dealt with here, yet.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a careful, measured argument against the biomechanics findings of ThinkThunker and Bill Munns', regarding the movement and body proportions of the creature in the film.

Dismissal of the argument as coming from a crackpot is not an argument, and basically amounts to an inverse argument from authority.  I'm aware of such fallacies, and attacking the credibility of Munns and TT is just a way to neatly sidestep dealing with the argument.  I don't think either of them can refute the findings they made, so they go and either attack their credibility or dismiss it outright.

It's a cop out.

Let's address ThinkerThunker's video:  Is the argument sound or not?

highStrangeness wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to make a careful, measured argument against the biomechanics findings of ThinkThunker and Bill Munns', regarding the movement and body proportions of the creature in the film.

...

Let's address ThinkerThunker's video:  Is the argument sound or not?

This addresses the issue of the tracks in the Patterson film.  With these accounted for, the controversy over biomechanics is moot.

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/

Springfield Fotografiya wrote:
This addresses the issue of the tracks in the Patterson film.  With these accounted for, the controversy over biomechanics is moot.

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/

What?

That makes no sense, if the biomechanics don't jive, then it calls into question the legitimacy of the debunking effort.  If the proportions, mechanics, and stride aren't human, it makes all other arguments against it either questionable at best, or entirely invalid at worst.

Which raises weird possibilities, like if the debunking effort above is correct, and so is the biomechanics argument...

And, also, I can find sites that contradict the one you posted, so it's not necessarily helpful -- it doesn't resolve the matter when there's conflicting opinions scattered about the web.  I also checked the comments section on that page.  He gets a lot of flak for the argument, since it seems to have holes in it, according to some.  Regardless, I really doubt it's a flawless argument.

This one is interesting.

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2014/09/26/p … n-frame-61



Honestly, given the split between proponents of the film and those who think it's a hoax, it doesn't seem like there is any real resolution in sight, unless some critical discovery about the film is made.  The same goes for the very subject itself.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
I'll settle this once and for all. Start a gofundme page and raise enough money that I can spend an entire year looking daily with some top notch gear and if it's out there I'll shoot clear footage of it.   I'll hike into the deepest parts of the U.S where very few dare to travel.   But here is the catch. If and when I get the footage, I will not have to reveal the location. If they are real the last thing I want is a bunch of scientists looking to kill it and cut it apart.   

I remember seeing on some video, I think...someone suggesting that we need to try horseback expeditions, rather than on go in on foot.  The reasoning being that it would apparently mask our presence to them.  Basically, they would hear horses (a quadruped) coming and not associate it with us, and the horse's scent would mask our scent, too.

I'm not sure if it would work or not, but it is an interesting suggestion.

And you're right, if they really do exist, and someone shot and killed one for the sake of science, it could easily be murder or manslaughter at least, if they turned out to be hominids of some kind, which seems pretty likely.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
I'll settle this once and for all. Start a gofundme page and raise enough money that I can spend an entire year looking daily with some top notch gear and if it's out there I'll shoot clear footage of it.   I'll hike into the deepest parts of the U.S where very few dare to travel.   But here is the catch. If and when I get the footage, I will not have to reveal the location. If they are real the last thing I want is a bunch of scientists looking to kill it and cut it apart.   

If I took a photo of one I would not reveal the location either.

highStrangeness wrote:
What?

That makes no sense, if the biomechanics don't jive, then it calls into question the legitimacy of the debunking effort.  If the proportions, mechanics, and stride aren't human, it makes all other arguments against it either questionable at best, or entirely invalid at worst.

I looked up the ThinkerThunker "biomechanics evidence" and it's absolutely meaningless.  He draws comparisons between different images to compare biomechanics, but ignores the fact that they are shoots of different postures from different angles.  Of course the measurements aren't going to line up!  I could do the same sort of "analysis" to prove that I'm not the same person I was yesterday, by comparing totally different images of me and seeing that none of the measurements line up.

highStrangeness wrote:
Which raises weird possibilities, like if the debunking effort above is correct, and so is the biomechanics argument...

It is a fun mental puzzle.  If, for the sake of the discussion, we accepted both claims as unquestioned basic premises, the best solution I can come up with is that Bigfoot is real, but deliberately faked his footprints in order to cast doubt on his existence and retain his "International Man of Mystery" status that makes him as popular with the ladies as Austin Powers.

highStrangeness wrote:
And, also, I can find sites that contradict the one you posted, so it's not necessarily helpful -- it doesn't resolve the matter when there's conflicting opinions scattered about the web.  I also checked the comments section on that page.  He gets a lot of flak for the argument, since it seems to have holes in it, according to some.  Regardless, I really doubt it's a flawless argument.

What holes are in the argument that the Patterson film is itself evidence against its own validity?  He shows this by indicating where, and when, in the video a "footprint" was added after the "Bigfoot" had already passed by and casts were being made of the "footprints."

highStrangeness wrote:
This one is interesting.

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2014/09/26/p … n-frame-61

I bet I could find 50 Russian retouchers on this site who could "stabilize and enhance" the image of Bigfoot's foot to show that he had ten toes on each foot.

highStrangeness wrote:
Honestly, given the split between proponents of the film and those who think it's a hoax, it doesn't seem like there is any real resolution in sight, unless some critical discovery about the film is made.  The same goes for the very subject itself.

Interestingly, there are many who believe that Bigfoot does, or did, exist who doubt that the Patterson film is anything but a hoax.  I can respect someone who believes that he is on the right track and continues to search for scientific evidence to confirm what he is searching for, but wonder about the motives of someone whose standard for evidence is so low that they ignore basic facts like the way the biomechanics of whoever or whatever is walking in the film don't line up with the "tracks" cast from that alleged walk.  (For example, the step length is different between the "tracks" and the stride of whoever or whatever is on the film.)

John Jebbia  wrote:
How come with all of the high quality cameras everyone's carrying around, no one can ever get a crystal clear image of Big Foot? It's like the guy only poses for GWC's..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs

SAND DIAL wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs

This video is good.  Thanks!

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

These people have never been in the woods. They don't have a clue!  I haven't come across dead animals myself.

This just in...

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ … e=588B706B



Two bull moose with locked antlers frozen to death. 

Yes, animals die in the woods and leave behind carcasses and/or bones.  Hell, we can find dinosaur bones from millions of years ago, but you think we can find the skeletons of modern animals out there??