reply to post by AnteBellum
Studied this vid some time back, via making countless stills, trying to bring out detail, video enhancing software, enlargement etc. though didn't
keep the info. No doubt people can be open to, or believe whatever they like, though would be interested to see if anyone else reaches similar
conclusions after a thorough study this way (obvious hoax), or if different, why.
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
I know these animals exist with 100% certainty, because I've seen one. Because of this fact I am more focused on how they exist and remain undetected,
as well as how they survive in their environments.
Have you ever given any time to researching the neuroscience behind such an occurrence? I find it baffling that, in general, believers (and many
skeptics) disregard this aspect on assumptions that aren't even close to how perception really operates.
If you also take into account subjects like sociology it becomes far more understandable why people see such things. It also explains the complete
pseudo science around this subject, by believers.
Though such things have been experienced all around the world for centuries, belief in such numbers as the US would generally be associated with less
developed parts of the world. In many ways it parallels belief in that other favourite superhero in the US ie. God (that also seems out of proportion
to other modern, educated 1st world populations).
It has been found that societal dysfunction in the US is also at levels normally associated with less developed populations and directly correlates to
acceptance of paranormal belief and explanations. Bigfoot fits nicely into the paranormal basket by virtue of the special pleading required to
entertain it as a real creature.
There are few better examples of modern mythology in action than the genesis and evolution of the modern pop cultural phenomenon known as "bigfoot" in
the US. While there are some similarities with the "hairy man" phenomena elsewhere and there may even have been the seed of this already occurring in
the US, the modern version of bigfoot began with hoaxes in the 50's on the back of the Yeti. References to native folklore can also require some
largesse to associate with modern bigfoot and largely seem to amount to believers interpreting such things any way they like. From an almost unheard
of phenomena, it has now grown to include sightings and even claimed "habituation" situations across the entire continental USA.
It might be more relevant to ask "why" bigfoot is seen/experienced and try to understand the accompanying cult like phenomena, more so than "what"
sort of creature bigfoot might be.
They migrated to Australia at or around the same time they migrated to North America, which was the last glacial maximum, anywhere from
12-18,000 years ago, as Australia was at that time connected to mainland Asia.
Australia wasn't connected to Asia in the last glacial maximum. The Australian mainland, Tasmania and New Guinea were joined, but separated from south
east Asia by the "Wallace Line" (Wallacea). Whatever made it across would have had to cross 60-100 miles of open waters. Though according to
aboriginal mythology/legends the hairy man was the original inhabitant ie.already there when they arrived (40-60k years ago).
I personally feel that sasquatch are present in vast numbers in Asia, and there are plenty of sightings of them, from the local population, as
well as many sightings of "rock apes" by US soldiers during the Vietnam war.
Agree these cryptids are far more plausible, particularly Orang pendek. The area has a rich and possibly relevant fossil record, even with extant Ape
species in the region and descriptions seem realistic/don't equate to a b grade movie prop like “Patty”, but based on evidence is still very
I hate when people say that this or that piece of evidence has been proven to be false, because usually it is an error. Take the
Patterson-Gimlin footage from decades ago. There is still absolutely no consistent evidence that even suggests it is fake.
That's a very biased view. The overwhelming opinion of science seems obvious enough. There is nothing obvious about "Patty's" size, proportions, or
locomotion that rules out modern human in a costume. Even Meldrum agrees on this when confronted with other scientists (his own experiments put paid
to his "compliant gait" ideas). Patty is a "human". Whether you choose to believe the only film of a species of hairy human with
morphological/physical incongruities (such as having both male and female characteristics, sagital crest without accompanying abdomen as pointed out
by Napier etc), that has eluded genuine scientific detection (now seen in every mainland US state) for 400 years... who just happened to be filmed
next to a logging road on the strength of reports from a known hoaxer... by a man not known for honest dealings who then miraculously had the most
elusive (possibly “illusive”) creature in history saunter in front of him in the open, sashaying across a sandbar complete with catwalk model
“get back stare” lol...........or a garden variety human in a modified costume, is up to you.
It's almost certain Heironomous wore a modified suit for Patterson (his story is corroborated). Whether in this footage or not is a different
question. We know the the story of the claimants is a bit off also, ie. the film couldn't have been developed the way claimed. There is no original to
even verify when it was made.
Not to mention the fact that experts have placed the height of the animal at the very limit for human height,
Got a link to these "experts". I doubt those outside of bigfoot believers accept this. Would be fascinating to see what method they used to accurately
measure the height (particularly as there is not enough information to do this)....The only "expert" I have seen bandied around is not so much expert
in optics or photogrammetry, but in "make up" (who has retracted his original height estimations?) and who published in some bigfoot believer
publication rather than a genuine scientific one...for very obvious reasons.
It has been determined, mathematically I might add, that the odds are much greater that sasquatch exist than all of the witnesses are hoaxing
or have misidentified known animals. There are so many witnesses with impeccable credentials, and many who are trained observers, some with animals
themselves, who have had sightings and filed reports.
That's bunk. I'll post a more scientific view of this, from bigfoot champion Krantz himself, below this post. The more widespread and longer the
sightings continue without (genuine) verification, actually decreases the probability and makes it more unlikely to be a real creature.
And when all of the footprint sizes are plotted, we get a bell curve, indicative of a real animal population.
More than one, I would say. Just none of them are Bigfoot. Homo Sapiens (both their own footprints and intentional hoaxes as well as
misinterpretations), Ursidea and possibly many others.
Can someone explain to me how skeptics claim there is no evidence, yet when they are presented with evidence, they dismiss it, and still claim
there is no evidence?
Because it is so extremely poor if the claim is for Bigfoot. It is usually better evidence of hoaxing or wishful thinking.
Why is it that everything that gets genuine scientific scrutiny, from people who are certain they have bigfoot evidence (even from those who claim to
have shot a bigfoot) turns out to be bogus? Why didn't Sykes find an unknown species in North America?
Not to mention I find it hard to take someone seriously when they actually believe that they know so much that they can claim something doesn't
exist. That is either arrogance or stupidity imho
Nessie, ghosts, reptilian aliens, leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, dragons............It's simply unreasonable to expect belief from others without
providing anything to verify the claims. The best they could do is agree that people honestly encounter something for which there is no physical
explanation...and wonder why.
considering that history is full of high-profile examples of the status quo being overturned when it comes to belief of certain things. Science
especially is full of such examples.
Those examples don't include bigfoot at this stage.
There are many other important arguments for the existence of sasquatch, lack of a body, etc. Few realize that there are no professional
scientific organizations out there looking for sasquatch.
So, unless someone is looking for bigfoot, they won't see him? He'll just pass right by any scientist who is studying anything else in bigfoot
habitat, because he isn't looking for bigfoot? Is that why he also leaves no trace that isn't hoaxed or wishful thinking? Trail cams?
What of the people looking for fossils (for over a century in some states) in just the type of areas Gigantopithecus fossils have been found
elsewhere...yet have found nothing?
edit on 6-4-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it