Great Bigfoot video analysis on the Mission BF

a reply to: FlySolo

Looks like to me that Big Foot lost his shoe or fake foot when he stepped down the hole. Kind of when you wear shoes to big and your foot slides out.

That makes more sense to me than having an animal or any anything with that type of motion.

a reply to: interupt42

Since when do people's shoes fall off when stepping down from something? When was the last time that happened to you. Flip flops don't count.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: interupt42

Since when do people's shoes fall off when stepping down from something? When was the last time that happened to you. Flip flops don't count.

You have kids? My young son likes to put on my shoes which are way to big for him when he steps down with them his heel slips from the back and the shoes stays behind.

No flip flops required.

a reply to: interupt42

Not trying to sound defensive but...are you saying that's a young kid with his shoes falling off? Oy vey.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: interupt42

Not trying to sound defensive but...are you saying that's a young kid with his shoes falling off? Oy vey.

Not at all no kids involved, that was just an example of how shoes slip off when they are to big.

All I'm saying is that looking at the video it appears to me that the motion and piece of debris left behind looks similar when someone wears a pair of shoes to big for them and it falls off their feet instead of what the film tries to suggest as being a foot left behind on top of large drop as big foot steps down.

It could possibly be a human in a costume and the shoe part of the costume falls off as he steps down the drop.

a reply to: interupt42

I'm not sure how to respond. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, I really don't know what to say to that. I suppose it could be Ronald Mcdonald up there in 30+ weather going for a stroll after climbing a few hundred feet. Clowns have big shoes too so maybe it's a clown.

You got me bud.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you are so confident the patterson gimlin footage is fake, how do you explain the fact the character featured in the film has breasts and we weren't even able to discern that fact until modern technology advanced to the point where the footage was able to be enhanced enough that they became clearly visible?

Is it just that the perpetrators of the hoax had the foresight and the budget to include breasts in their monkey suit, the likes of which no other hollywood studio was capable of replicating at the time? Why didn't we see similar suits in planet of the apes? Surely if the hoaxers went so far as to include believable breasts with their bigfoot suit, they would have hoaxed the footage so that said breasts would have been readily apparent with the cameras they were shooting with? Surely they would have taken a closer shot or another take or two to get the full effect instead of such a feature not being revealed for another 40 years?

This is one of the main things that convinced me that the Patterson-Gimlin film is authentic. I've seen the stabilized version where you can clearly see bouncing bigfoot breasts! And the muscles and tendons that can be seen flexing underneath the fur - you can see the calf muscle and the tendons above it in the clip you posted. This would have to be a costume that was more realistic than all of Hollywood's best costume designers of the time. To arrogantly dismiss it because it doesn't fit into your religious views of what science "knows" is just ridiculous.

There are still airplanes missing in the various forestlands of America. Big, shiny, stationary airplanes that can't be found. Sometimes we accidentally stumble across airplane wreckage that has been missing for decades:

www.oregonlive.com...

From the link: " I am unaware of one crashing there but there are probably 30 military aircraft not accounted for in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana from the mid 1930s through mid 1940s."

Big shiny stationary airplanes that are known to have crashed, but still to this day can't be found!
But since we can't capture a dark haired, ambulatory North American ape-like creature who does not want to be found - then the debate is over.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: interupt42

I'm not sure how to respond. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, I really don't know what to say to that. I suppose it could be Ronald Mcdonald up there in 30+ weather going for a stroll after climbing a few hundred feet. Clowns have big shoes too so maybe it's a clown.

You got me bud.

You are right, the most logical conclusion is a mythical creature that is able to extend his foot back from a steep drop to the top of the hill or Ronald McDonald.

Case closed.

a reply to: interupt42

These topics just go round and round and round. Here's an idea. Why not raise your eyebrow and consider that maybe...just maybe, there's something to this instead of inserting any ole' answer to fill in the blank? There's really only a few things in this world that cause so much controversy. 1. Ufo's/Aliens 2. Bigoot 3. Ghosts/after life. Not much else. We don't hear about unicorns, elves (except in UK and Greenland) or flying spaghetti monsters. There aren't many anecdotes of time travel, space travel, fountain of youth or fairy god mothers. Just BF, ufos and ghosts. That's it really. It's not much of a stretch to consider those three even if you don't believe it.

a reply to: FlySolo

Here's an idea. Why not raise your eyebrow and consider that maybe...just maybe, there's something to this instead of inserting any ole' answer to fill in the blank?

I just don't see it from that video . I'm not saying that BF doesn't exist but from that video it appears to me there is a more reasonable but less sexy explanation. I don't see why that couldn't be a piece of someones gear coming off or debris, then the piece slipping down the hill,. Perhaps, simply a shoe or foot wear whether gear or fake ( BF costume shoe) I don't now, but from the video there is nothing I see that says BF is the only answer.

In addition, assuming that was BF and he was extremely flexible , what would be the advantage or point of keeping your leg bent back at such an angle to simply keep your foot a top of the hill while you step to the bottom? It just doesn't make sense either way.

There's really only a few things in this world that cause so much controversy. 1. Ufo's/Aliens 2. Bigoot 3. Ghosts/after life.

That is because there is no definitive proof of either one of those existing and we as humans prefer the easy sexy explanations rather than the tedious scientific approach to understanding things.

Note: I think its mathematically unlikely for humans to be the only life form to evolve to our level of existence in the universe and nor do I think for a moment that we know all the living species in this planet . With that said I keep an eye open but I don't accept that grainy footage as evidence.

originally posted by: tallcool1

But since we can't capture a dark haired, ambulatory North American ape-like creature who does not want to be found - then the debate is over.

It would be more accurate to say that we have never captured, in the 400 years or so of settlement, any genuine sign of the existence of breeding populations of massive apes that now exist in every state of mainland US, making them one of the most widespread large mammals in NA, including semi urban and rural areas where they are (ahem) being "habituated". It would be further accurate to say that every time a sample that is believed to be from bigfoot, it turns out to be anything else but a bigfoot, therefore best evidentiary research indicates people are misinterpreting opossum and racoon...for bigfoot.

Good luck with patty's rippling muscles, but it appears whatever is behind this phenomena, is unlikely to ever be arrived at by the research/believer community.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Sorry but you are incorrect. That was an analogy, not a straw man. It clearly demonstrates the same reason why Bigfoot can not be entertained by the mainstream. No evidence of vast distance traveled nor the possibility.

Moving forward...

No need to feel sorry, you are forgiven, just pay attention to the underlined part in bold.

"The "ufo, interstellar space" quips are veering to irrelevant strawmen."

Letting you know that it is largely irrelevant to the topic and any parallels drawn between this and bigfoot where I am concerned (which would rely on complete assumption on your part), will most definitely be a strawman.

Using this logic, it would 'appear' you believe we've found every species of life since the Cambrian period. I guess this is a straw man as well. So be it.

No, it would not appear that I believe we have found every species of life since the Cambrian period. It would appear that I beleive we have found nothing to indicate a bigfoot does, or ever has, lived in NA.

Yes, you guessed right regarding your logical fallacy.

You realize that there have been digital enhancements, right?

Old saying....."you can't make a silk purse, out of a pigs ear".

Yes, Ill intent. Your intent is to blanket those whom believe in such 'myths' as having mental conditions such as ADHD or as a result of pharmaceuticals. While it wasn't your primary reason with the consideration of other external factors, you said it. I get the gist. If you are genuine about finding the 'truth' as to why people see these mythological creatures, your question has been already answered. It's your choice to ignore that. This is where the animosity comes from.

Pharmaceuticals...wtf?

Firstly, in the interests of intellectual honesty could you either point out where I mention this, or post a retraction (I won't hold my breath).

Secondly, I didn't even give a link to the study (by a professor of psychology) that you seem to assume such knowledge of.

Thirdly, it claims no such thing as mental illness, quite the opposite. Do you understand what the concept of "sub clinical" levels of stress, depression, adhd etc? These are a normal part of the human condition, it's likely everyone suffers such things to more or less extent, for varying reasons, throughout their lives.

It goes to great lengths to point out that such things as bigfoot can be experienced by normal, sane, healthy people.

Whether you like it or not, it is relevant. As is the mountain of science that underlies and supports it (cognitive science) and the neuroscience involved in things like human perception.


ps. The study in question is in no way, nor was it ever claimed to be, definitive. It is very limited in scope and only suggests a further direction of study. Fascinating though it is, hardly anything to get all worked up over. Would you like a link, to read it?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

This is a straw man FYI. The first photograph of a print was in 1951. Prior to that, no anthropologists were in the field researching BF.

So, asking for a genuine academic source amounts to your version of a strawman fallacy..... Good god almighty.....

A cultural anthropologist would be best, but any academic source would be good. There are (pre bigfoot) academic records of many cultural beliefs throughout the world, including beliefs in such things as "forest men". I was merely asking for a source that could indicate native American beliefs that would genuinely be consistent with the modern pop cultural notion of bigfoot (ie. the PG/ Meldrum fantasy).

From what I can see, they can require an amount of reinterpretation at best and in no way are they regionally consistent anyway. It wasn't a trick question, if you could provide something it could be interesting to consider it.

It can also be very difficult for a modern researcher (not only in NA), with a pov based on a general grounding of science (biology, evolution etc) to really understand the myths of stone age people, to begin with. The distinction between a "biologically real" creature and one that is something else entirely is often not there. They are just "real", though perhaps not in the way we might think of "real". At any rate, unlike the gorilla's of Africa, none of them have provided skulls of bigfoot...or anything else.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

No need to feel sorry, you are forgiven, just pay attention to the underlined part in bold.

"The "ufo, interstellar space" quips are veering to irrelevant strawmen."

Letting you know that it is largely irrelevant to the topic and any parallels drawn between this and bigfoot where I am concerned (which would rely on complete assumption on your part), will most definitely be a strawman.

*yawn.

No, it would not appear that I believe we have found every species of life since the Cambrian period. It would appear that I beleive we have found nothing to indicate a bigfoot does, or ever has, lived in NA.

Yawn again. Same 'ole mantra. Not my problem you've got your fingers in your ears. Myopia is a bitch.
"Professor of psychology" in your well guarded study doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you don't even release the name of the professor. I take back my assumptions you have higher learning. Your what I would call a pseudo intellectual. No disrespect but that's just crap. Name dropping without actually name dropping is pointless.

As for sub clinical depression or what have you...didn't we already talk about this? It can't be contributed to every sighting and it's just an easy way to blow it off as nothing more than stress. Give me a break. That theory can only work if only one person witnessed a BF. Alone. Two or more and that "study" goes right into the toilet.

As for your precious "skyler" study. Laughable at best. 30 samples tested only. That's a three with 0 which pretty much sums up your points.

Excuse my cheekyness. My apologies

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

So, asking for a genuine academic source amounts to your version of a strawman fallacy..... Good god almighty.....

What it was, was a loaded question to set up for failure. Of course no one studied BF prior to the 50's because no one was interested until that picture came out. It doesn't really prove anything. That's all I can argue about that. The rest of your post was reasonable.

a reply to: research100

Thanks for the link research100. Though I see this as more "opinion" and there are also plenty of relevant people who see it as a hoax. The Daegling/Schmitt analysis/conclusions still hold IMO.

The quality is simply not good enough to make a determination on the film alone and in any genuine scientific sense, will only amount to another claim (ie. a claim that it was a real bigfoot). The only thing likely to give it validity will be the genuine scientific discovery of bigfoot. Even that won't automatically vindicate thefilm itself. It could do exactly the opposite.

The publication started by Meldrum is a good idea, though I am getting the impression that it might simply become a bigfoot propoganda publication with him at the helm. It might seem more legit if he were to actively seek (to begin with, at least) submissions by those who offer a different appraisal (there are such works by people every bit as credentialed as Meldrum). Though, as they cast much doubt on Meldrums claims specifically, it doesn't look likely.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


What it was, was a loaded question to set up for failure. Of course no one studied BF prior to the 50's because no one was interested until that picture came out. It doesn't really prove anything. That's all I can argue about that. The rest of your post was reasonable.

Only to you, because it would require something you probably don't have, or don't find worthwhile. Others might very well be able to provide something. It's ok to sell yourself short, but this entire field might of research might not have the same limitations.

If there are no myths consistent with the modern idea of bigfoot, why? Do you really believe the generic term "bigfoot" is all that was being asked for? Are you being honest here?

originally posted by: FlySolo


Yawn again. Same 'ole mantra. Not my problem you've got your fingers in your ears. Myopia is a bitch.
"Professor of psychology" in your well guarded study doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you don't even release the name of the professor. I take back my assumptions you have higher learning. Your what I would call a pseudo intellectual. No disrespect but that's just crap. Name dropping without actually name dropping is pointless.

You only had to ask. You gave the impression during your somewhat emotional rebuttal that you were already well aware of it. But seeing as you have now asked so nicely.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As for sub clinical depression or what have you...didn't we already talk about this? It can't be contributed to every sighting and it's just an easy way to blow it off as nothing more than stress. Give me a break. That theory can only work if only one person witnessed a BF. Alone. Two or more and that "study" goes right into the toilet.

At least read the study. Google it and you will find a free pdf version.

It never claimed to be definitive. It was a small sample size and there are a mountain of other factors not considered, largely due to this. It is indicative of an area worthy of future study.

In no way does a group sighting rule out seeing/interpreting something that was not really there. Otherwise we would be sure that the sun did a little dance in the sky for the people at Fatima.

I can think of at least one recorded close range sighting where 2 people saw such a creature beside a tree, while the third person saw nothing and in fact went to the very spot by this tree, where bigfoot was claimed to be (by the people eventually running off in fear). Only to find all the while...nothing. This is in a book by a psychologist trying to understand the paranormal. If you ask nicely again, the link could be given.

There are reported instances of such creatures "vanishing into thin air" or "emitting light" from their eyes etc. (sometimes even changing colour!). There are accounts of bigfoot praying to jesus. I have talked to one head of a research group who feels bigfoot has glowing eyes and leaves stick "crosses" as his way to acknowledge his personal religion (while I don't believe it, I don't doubt his honesty and am sure he has such experience). There is much about bigfoot (apart from a lack of anything indicating it physically exists) that is inconsistent with "real biological creature".

As for your precious "skyler" study. Laughable at best. 30 samples tested only. That's a three with 0 which pretty much sums up your points.

Excuse my cheekyness. My apologies

It's a shame you feel that way about the "Skylar"(sic) study. At the very least it indicates that genuine well regarded mainstream scientist are prepared to look into the subject. It also indicates something very amiss with amateur research methods.

What it gives no indication of, is bigfoot. Which is probably why you don't like it.

I don't mind the "cheekiness", within reason. The "anti science" pov is more difficult to understand though.

a reply to: FlySolo

And if it's not his foot left behind but a small out of focus dog that then hops down after him (him being a hiker with a small dog)?

Bigfoot truth #45

Every time there is a sighting by a none hunter who manages to capture it on film rather than shoot it dead- Bigfoot looses 1 reality credibility point...so far he's on -2000

ThinkerThunker - Every video captures something a normal human couldn't do...he's like the people who insist shapeshifting is nothing to do with the medium (video artefacts).

Just once I'd like to hear him say that it looks like a guy in a suit or at least talk about the likelihood of not being shot in North Amercia when it would make the shooter a millionaire.