It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Proof of Bigfoot, and why it's real.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
that sounds scary... can you get some of the audio up on the set somehow?

also, since i'm guessing you know a lot on the topic... are there any in michigan?


Maybe in the Upper Peninsula, but I have been stalked by bears there and they would pose a greater threat.




posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Well dead giant squid have washed up on shore...Bigfoot hasn't washed up on the shores of the Columbia river.

I think some people forget that Bigfoot, from most reports, is nocturnal. How many people do you know would even dare to run around a dark thick forest without a light? Bigfoot is also reported to be very very muscular, so why wouldn't it be possible for him to hang out in those moss covered trees like other primates. They also have to be eating some kind of high protein diet to keep those muscles...elk? salmon? I'd like to put a replica bigfoot out by a herd of elk and see how they react!

The reports of Bigfoot by the road I tend to doubt because most hoaxers do this with a modified ape/shaggy suit and stumble across the road into a well concealed hiding spot. I think there are fewer bigfoot's out there than thought because of the amount of hoaxes, but with the proof of the Gigantopithecus there is always hope that something exists.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I think some people forget that Bigfoot, from most reports, is nocturnal.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I saw a television special on bigfoot and a guy claimed he was hiking in the woods with his family when he was chased by bigfoot. He said he was out during the daytime.

He also said that Bigfoot has a strong smell. Does anyone know anything about this?



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Gigantopithecus blacki
Homo gigantus

i was surprised to see how many sightings have been reported in my area. he's out there!



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   


Here's proof...the guy ADMITTED it was a hoax.


This may have been responded to already, but I just skipped the rest of the posts to reply to this.

"the guy" who admitted it was a hoax, had absolutely nothing to do with the patterson-gimlin footage.

The one who admitted it was a hoax, said that some famous holywood makeup artist(the one responsible for Planet of the Apes) created the costume for bigfoot, and that he had some wooden footprints to make the tracks. There are two problems with this.

1) The make up artist admitted that he was probably the best in the business at that time; but also admitted he was not skilled enough to create anything like what would be needed for the Patterson-Gimlin film.

2) The wooden feet he produced to prove that he hoaxed the whole encounter, when compared to the plasters casts of the bigfoot footprints taken at the time of the film did not even come close to matching up.

So, that being said. I admit it, I am God. I have a buttcrack, and there are tree's outside. That's all the proof I need.

My argument holds about as much water as the guys who admitted he hoaxed bigfoot. Therefore you must send me half of your paycheck through paypal for the rest of your life, or prepare for a plague of locusts. After all there is no reason to not believe me!



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
There were grandsons or sons who came out and said their father or grandfather made up the bifoot hoax with wooden planks for the feet. Interesting stuff.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   


That does not explain much. The links just seem to phoney for me to actually believe that ther eis a Bigfoot. Seriouslly. It just sounds so fake. Si many hoaxes reported. It's simply a BIG JOKE.




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well, I would like to say a few things. I posted a thread called Why I don't believe Bigfoot is real or something close to that, maybe over a year ago now (I forgot the account and it looks like this site has gone over a major overhaul since then).

Anyway, maybe some of you remember it and maybe you don't, but just to refresh, some of my key reasons were:

A) Noone has ever successfully found a body, either by accident or by hunting it. It is protected, but even still, how would anyone prove you didn't shoot one by accident? I would think the person who did do it, would either be cleared based on such a large discovery, or at the very least, his earnings from book and tv deals would be more than enough compensation for any fines.

The point is, with all of the rednecks that hunt, you have to figure that sooner or later, someone would have hit the jackpot at least once in all of these years. And you are talking about (based on eyewitness reports) a creature that is supposedly anywhere from 6' 5 to over 7' tall, clunking around the woods.


B) The Patterson video, which seems to be the holy grail for believers, just doesn't add up. The guy was a schemer, he went looking for the creature after a supposed sighting and then decides to burn up most of his film on trees and rocks. Just enough so that he could only take a short clip of this thing walking casually passed them an (in his words, disappearing into the woods).

Several things don't add up in this video, I don't care how good it looks. I think they said they had to stop and take the camera off the saddle and one of their horses bucked at the sight of the creature. Yet, the video starts just as the thing stands up from the river and then it just casually walks by like it's not scared of them. So, I guess it just waited for them to load the camera? Come on. This is the thing that has eluded so many people?

Either way, I think it's either going to attack or run. But, I refuse to believe it is going to just casually walk by on that. Plus, because of Patterson convieniently using up most of his film, we don't get to see the creature climbing over anything or navigating through the woods. This I think is because the person in that suit couldn't do any of those things, due to the limitations of the costume.







Now,

I see that you have chosen that video where those people supposedly were trying to reenact the Patterson footage as one of your reasons as to why Bigfoot IS real...

Well, Right off the bat, they used a different kind of hair, it was longer than the one in the Patterson footage. It was also a completely different color. Lighter fur is going to cause all kinds of differences when shadows hit it as apposed to dark fur as in the Patterson footage. They didn't at all look like they were trying very hard to replicate the actual costume. They didn't have anything extending the arms. I mean, a 12 year old could look at the two costumes and point out the obvious differences.

I would like to see the guys who worked on the recent Planet of The Apes movie, build a suit that matches the Patterson footage and then shoot it with a similar camera. I bet they could come close to the same footage.

My guess is, that the reason noone has really tried to put the money together to shoot a video like that, with some really high quality, movie quality costumes, is because they are afraid of the obvious:

That the Patterson video was a fake. And once you take that video out of the equation, you really have nothing. I mean, really, nothing but eyewitness sightings, stories, and a few blurry images or video, that could be many different things.

This is why you probably won't see the discovery channel or FOX, or whoever, making a video like that, because they still want to leave it at 50/50, to cater to both sides, so they can continue to milk the whole thing for as long as possible.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Have you thought of well...killing it? Its dead body will be much more useful than video or photography, that way skeptical scientists cant discard it as a man in an ape costume.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomanianDacianHun
Have you thought of well...killing it? Its dead body will be much more useful than video or photography, that way skeptical scientists cant discard it as a man in an ape costume.


but what if the species is sentient?
it'd be like killing a human to prove their existence, which just seems wrong

this could actually be a bit of a moral issue



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfootisfake


A) Noone has ever successfully found a body, either by accident or by hunting it. It is protected, but even still, how would anyone prove you didn't shoot one by accident? I would think the person who did do it, would either be cleared based on such a large discovery, or at the very least, his earnings from book and tv deals would be more than enough compensation for any fines.

The point is, with all of the rednecks that hunt, you have to figure that sooner or later, someone would have hit the jackpot at least once in all of these years. And you are talking about (based on eyewitness reports) a creature that is supposedly anywhere from 6' 5 to over 7' tall, clunking around the woods.


Why do people keep asking that same question? Oh well once more into the breech, or however that saying goes.

The regions of the North American continent where the vast majority of Sasquatch sightings take place are amongst the most unsettled and rugged regions around. Even in the "settled" areas, there are large unsettled regions where a large unknown anthropoid could live quite undistrubed by man. Most hunters stay fairly close to home so as to have access to storage for whatever game they collect before it spoils, makes sense no? Many of the witnesses who've had bigfoot "under the gun" have said that the reason they didn't shoot was because it was so human like in its eyes.

Given the vast tracts of land we're discussing here, Sasquatch could be 80' tall and still be impossible to find. When you are living in a land that boast Douglas fir and Ponderosa Pines that soar to will over a hundred feet in height, it's not hard to see why a critter of a mere 7' to 8' in height might just be a tad hard to find. Given his evident intelligence, that would just add to the difficulty by several orders of magnitude.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
The regions of the North American continent where the vast majority of Sasquatch sightings take place are amongst the most unsettled and rugged regions around. Even in the "settled" areas, there are large unsettled regions where a large unknown anthropoid could live quite undistrubed by man. Most hunters stay fairly close to home so as to have access to storage for whatever game they collect before it spoils, makes sense no?


Absolutely true. Manning Par British Columbia is the highest sighting location in the world. I've been there.

To quote myself regarding British Columbia.

Well, lets just take British Columbia is 364,764 sq. miles in size. California is 163,707 square miles, Oregon is 98,386 square miles, and then add a Wyoming 97,818 square miles and you still have room. Texas is 268,601 square miles leaving room for Michigan (96,810 square miles) or just about any other state to fit.

For you non-Americans, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is 94,525 sq miles which means that ONE province is more than three times the size.

Population is 3,907,738 for British Columbia (2001). Los Angeles is close to 10 million. London is just over 7 million.


It's immense.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
The "discovery" of the "Bili Ape" makes the case for even more large previously unidentified great apes. The Bili may be just a friggin huge chimpanzee but it clearly is distinguishable from "regular" chimps. I am sure more study will pinpoint the distinctions. The point is that until "scientific" discovery it was just a local legend.

This is wild country around here, the kind you really can't understand just from reading about it or looking at pictures. Walk in one of the old growth forests with visibility limited to the third tree in front of you and you can understand how just about anything could be hiding in there.

I vote he's out there, and obviously not even trying that hard to hide if you judge from the number of sightings yearly. (Those are only the ones people post on the net. I bet lots of people don't say anything at all to anyone.)

And as for DNA proof, apparently the jury is still out:

"url"http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair_analysis.htm"/url"



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by porschedrifter
its harder than it sounds. They are incredibly stealthy, and you dont know they are there most of the time...


For an 8 foot tall hairy beast it moves like a ninja! and its stealth is very very good to keep out of the eye of man for so long.
I normally dont make puns here, but the title said you had proof.. And All I got was a laugh..



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
here's the video www.metacafe.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
there is no bigfoot---how can there be so many years of stories and not one shred of proof.....come on if there was one--hed be dead lying on the side of a road somewhere and someone wouldve shot one by now----but its a really good story to scare campers with!!!!!oh and by the way-there isnt any loch ness either--just the floaties in my pool...



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
BIGFOOT IS REAL AND I KNOW IT FOR SURE!....DUH!



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Bigfoot seems so phony its not even funny. that guy was so in a costum. it wasnt really big foot..



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Until a body is produced, or at the very minimum, a sample of DNA, the existence of BF cannot be substatiated. Let me add that claims from shows such as MonsterQuest, Destination Truth and others do not count.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join