It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bigfoot proven to be human?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:39 PM
the bigfoot community has there fur in a knot today about claims that the famous patterson footage actually shows a human. not a man in a suit or a lost primate but a human. m.k davis who recently stabalized the footage and has continued research on the film says he has proof of his claims.

personally i don't see it, but i'd love to hear the explanation.

be good.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by tasteslikethunder]

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:41 PM
I always thought it was people stalking Robin Williams in those videos. Turns out I might be right afterall.

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:22 PM
Is this a bid for some coin? Smells that way.

The funny thing is I don't think this is anything new. I thought Bigfoot was always an upright hominid of some type and not really just some big ape.

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (known as the great apes).

So all they seem to be saying is that it is exactly what some people have thought all along. They seem to imply by stating it is a human and saying "No, it’s a human being of some sort. A very large human at that. It could be one of the oldest races in existence. Clues are in the movie - where we think it came from - and when and how they got here." that they know more details.

I think the idea was always there that bigfoot might be able to use tools, have some social and communication structure, and more and it sounds like they are hinting they know this stuff...but I doubt it.

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:28 PM

Not a man in a suit, but a human in the wild.

When I say living in the wild, I do not mean feral, but "out of contact". I know from the film that it is human, and that it manipulates its environment and has a culture of some sort. It is not normal in size, however. It is much larger than the average human. I will explain in due time. M.K.

I guess he is saying its an interdimensional man.

Edit: deleted orginal post and added content.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by etshrtslr]

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:33 PM
If this creature is a wild man, which is a name given to it by some natives not surprisingly, then he doesn't appear to be native to this world. I mean the evidence of such a creature in our history is not there is it? We are not talking about primal man here but an entirely different kind of creature I'd say.

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by etshrtslr
I guess he is saying its an interdimensional man.

I don't think so. Just a separate branch of humans that evolved and still exist, similar to neanderthal man and we have never had significant contact with it.

That's my take anyway.

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:27 PM
I've read reports studying the anatomy of that bigfoot footage, and many have said it is a female, rather than male, due to the breasts. After zooming in on the footage and seeing it for myself, it does look like the bigfoot has breasts. Another thing pointed out in the articles was that the arms were too long to be proportional to that of a human. If it was indeed a human, it would have to have a deformed skeletal structure, as well as hypertrichosis.

Given these factors, I'd say it would be very unlikely it was a human, unless it was born from a family with the dominant genes containing the hypertrichosis abnormality, as well as the enlarged skeletal frame.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:27 AM
I agree with Messiah. I watched a program about the Patterson footage which was based on the claim that this guy was in the suit.

Eventually, some photographer/scientist dude transferred the footage to digital media, cleaned it up and zoomed.
On the zooms you could clearly see muscle movement, blinking, lips and indeed you could see breasts (ahem) swinging.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:28 AM
There is absolutly anyone can make a claim like this without a specimen to study.M.K Davis is simply trying to drum up publicity for this"documentary".These are just the type of claims that give the field of cryptozoology a bad name.The facts are that we as reaearchers don't have any evidence that bigfoot is anything other than an animal.No evidence of tool use,social structure or language.But the fact remains that until a body is brought in none of these claims can be verified.These kind of claims just muddy up the waters in a field that is questionable at best.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:11 AM
IMO the guy is blowing smoke. His "proof" will be just another theory with a lot of fancy footwork.

I agree with others that he's just looking to pump up profits.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:45 PM
There have been hair and stool samples found which are claimed to be from the bigfoot species. To my recollection, all the samples tested matched no known animal on record.


posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:09 AM
It's just what I always thought was the truth all along, that bigfoot is a species branch of Hominidae or homosapian. I don't see why this should spark any news or controversy until good evidence is found of their actual existence we are all just blowing in the wind.

We can wonder about what they are exactly when irrefutable evidence is taken of their existence. Until then............

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 04:45 AM
With all the night vision and thermal imaging equipment, surely this whole subject can be quickly proven one way or the other with a few months night time field work.

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 06:47 AM
Sadly, all over the world, the areas where creatures such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are spotted in take up many hundreds if not thousands of square miles. There are survivalists dedicated to finding Bigfoot, so they spend most of their time camped out doors. Many people in Loch Ness have taken up residency by the lake to be the ones who capture it on video, where some have lived there for most of their lives never to see a thing. If ever the proverbial "needle in a haystack" comment would be needed, this would be it.

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 04:22 AM
there may be proof that the paterson footage is faked (i say this cos the guys that filmed it admitted it was a fake) but that dosent mean bigfoot isnt real, i believe it and always will until there is absolute proof that bigfoot dose not exist.

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 12:17 PM
Oh man. spookymulder, just do a wee bit more research on that "fact".. you will find that the "death bed" confession is one of the most annoying myths about all this. and frankly it's things like this that keep that thorn stuck firmly in the side.

homework for today.


new topics

top topics


log in