Fake or Not : Documentary Discovering Bigfoot

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: dreamingawake

...wilderness experts, PhDs, and other world-renowned experts and researchers of the Bigfoot enigma.

Yeah, that’s inevitable really...
Especially when you consider the fact that most of the “experts” in the Bigfoot field are never an expert in any other scientific school of thought.

Conflict of interest, perhaps?

Exactly . Just a play on words .

All it takes is a simple search to see this is not the case.
Dr. Melba Ketchum
Dr. Grover Krantz
Dr. Jane Goodall
Dr. John Bindernagel
Dr. Esteban Sarmiento
Dr. LeRoy Fish
etc...

That being said, the two Sasquatches he "caught" on film don't appear to be moving lifelike at all. The one at the end of the documentary, seems like a person in a fantastic mask. If that last one is real, it is fantastic.

I don't think Todd Standing is a people person and comes across as someone who sees bigfoot in everything and every sound. He comes across as annoying...but it might be his enthusiasm and his ponytail.

originally posted by: erikthegreen
I believe it is Standing's sister or wife that has some experience doing professional makeup and they had a pretty large production company...he is a known hoaxer...

Most individuals coming out with their own documentary is a known hoaxer...

Meldrum is cool but gets sucked into a lot of projects because he has some credibility...sometimes he needs to learn to say no but there are some top rate scam artists that operate that know how to milk the cash cow that is bigfoot...

PGF film is real and ATS is a terrible resource for bigfoot information...

Most of anything that makes it big in the news or gets on tv is by known hoaxers.

There are little gems of evidence and research sprinkled in with all the hoaxes if you take the time to look with an open mind.

For example: Bone stacking and teeth impressions in the Washington forest...
Link

Did anyone else even bother to read this!!

Read the intro then skip to the conclusions as it is a lengthy document. The findings are on page 79, but in part say:-

"The consolidation of both the Taphonomic and Neoichnology data clearly record a
baseline profile of a currently unclassified contemporary “Hominin” predator taxa resident to the
Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem. " then read on from there...

originally posted by: heffo7

originally posted by: erikthegreen
I believe it is Standing's sister or wife that has some experience doing professional makeup and they had a pretty large production company...he is a known hoaxer...

Most individuals coming out with their own documentary is a known hoaxer...

Meldrum is cool but gets sucked into a lot of projects because he has some credibility...sometimes he needs to learn to say no but there are some top rate scam artists that operate that know how to milk the cash cow that is bigfoot...

PGF film is real and ATS is a terrible resource for bigfoot information...

Most of anything that makes it big in the news or gets on tv is by known hoaxers.

There are little gems of evidence and research sprinkled in with all the hoaxes if you take the time to look with an open mind.

For example: Bone stacking and teeth impressions in the Washington forest...
Link

Did anyone else even bother to read this!!

Read the intro then skip to the conclusions as it is a lengthy document. The findings are on page 79, but in part say:-

"The consolidation of both the Taphonomic and Neoichnology data clearly record a
baseline profile of a currently unclassified contemporary “Hominin” predator taxa resident to the
Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem. " then read on from there...

I just did... thanks for reposting it!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

You are leaving out those who are the alternate to mistaken. The leg pullers.

But (as with UFOs) unidentified does not equate with unidentifiable. Human perception is fluid and not all that reliable.

The irony is whenever someone recollects an event and recounts it many people immediately go to this argument. Why is it always assumed human perception is "not all that reliable". Yet they don't stop to realize 99.99% of the decisions they themselves make on a daily basis are 100% based on their perception of whatever it is they are deciding upon. This is contradictory. 99.99% of the time we are more than happy to rely upon our own abilities of perception and discernment but immediately discount someone the moment they recollect an event?

I agree with you there are certainly people out there with questionable recollection abilities. However, I once knew a man who could gaze at a mountain side for a brief second and could recount with absurd detail every single aspect of importance of that entire mountain side. It was Rain Man type memory. This man was a forward observer for a very specific reason.