Bigfoot/Sasquatch Fact or Fiction?

reply to post by DZAG Wright


My Response to you!

about the Black Cat's you see! here in North America and the UK!!!

Cat People trailer


Wolfen (Listen Close to the Native American Iron Workers The Legend of my Heritage ) 1:00 Mark




about Big Foot Legends All Over The Continent Called America before the White Man Came
So many Yet not much of a View of Them as they are Masters of Stealth

Big Foot in NY with Links of Big Foot Sightings
www.angelfire.com...

reply to post by Wolfenz



This is for you Slayer!!! I found it exactly what i was talking about !

MonsterQuest-Bigfoot in New York pt.1 of 5 Click you tube link for the rest ..

reply to post by SLAYER69


Discounting the Patterson film, even though the arms look too long to me, to simply be a man in a suit.
And Breasts wouldn't be easy to simulate/create or necessary if the planned film was to be shot with the creature running away.

I feel that there are way too many eye witness accounts of encounters with the Bigfoot to simply be a myth or fairytale.

Also, the White Man has only been on this continent a fraction of the time in which the Native Americans have.
The Lewis and Clark expedition began in May of 1804, barely 200 years ago.

Of course there were accounts European explorers such as the Norsemen even before Christopher Columbus and the Spaniards but the Native Americans knew this land as well as all of it's inhabitants. And were historically used as guides by the Europeans.

Sasquatch isn't a REAL Native American word/term BTW.

It was made up by a Canadian Journalist, J. W. Burns, in the 1920's a mix of various local Canadian Native words for the Bigfoot such as Sokqueatl, Soss-qtal and Sasqueac.

Which leads into my next point in that practically EVERY Tribe of Native Americans From Canada down to the Pacific Northwest down to the Seminoles in Florida has a word for Bigfoot, just as it has for all of the other creatures whom inhabit the forests of America.

I having Choctaw Indian heritage have been reading up on the Native Americans specifically the Choctaw Indian's take on Bigfoot. The Choctaw originally inhabited the Southern states of what is today is Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama before being forced to Indian Territory or today as known as Oklahoma which is where my descendants originate from.

And essentially the Native Americans all say the same thing. That you can essentially smell when Bigfoot is near. .A skunk like odor but even more putrid. And that the Bigfoot has psychic powers that ordinary man does not possess allowing them to disappear into the forest if necessary.

There are many sightings of the Hairy Creature in eastern Oklahoma even today.

I would like to believe in bigfoot.

The questions that bug me are tracking, bedding, eating, and what they do with their dead.
Sure people find a couple tracks but never follow them? This to me sounds hoaxy, if I found the track of a lifetime I would follow that track....
Even if they hunt during the night or day, they still have to sleep, so where are the 1000 lb animal beds, elk leave beds, bear have dens, we all know they are there because anyone that hunts them uses them as a way to track.
What are they eating, if they are meat eaters, then they will follow natural migrations of all other animals, during the winter they go to lower altitudes to find green foliage. All animals do this but bear because they hibernate. So if they hibernate then they would be cave dwellers, and would fight with bear for territory, more bear and bigfoot deaths so more bones to find in caves. If they are plant eaters then they would migrate to green land in the winter just like everything else.....
Last what do they do with the dead, if they bury them, then we would find a 8 foot grave by now in the middle of the woods since other animals smell it and dig it back up, if they eat them then we would find bones, if they are animals and leave them then we would find something....
When I go hunting, I find tracks of every animal at watering holes and game trails, why is bigfoot different?
If we really need to find a bigfoot to prove it then to identify its habits are the most important and then someone willing to find one.

reply to post by Kratos40


Actually, Photoshop is an integral part of professional video post production and has been for a long time. It is most definitely not just for still imagery.

Be that as it may, though, I think what Seeker PI was getting at was to use it or a similar program to enhance that bit of the footage to see what might be seen. Not that there would be much, sad to say, video being video... i.e. way crappier than one might think. Still, worth it to have a peek, IMO.

I really like that vid... now must check for this 'face!'

The Patterson footage in my opinion is very real. There has been talk about the length of the forearms, the white on the sole of the feet, the boobs, the butt and the way the creature turns its head to look at the camera. What I have noticed is the way the creature walks. Not the arm movement but the way the legs and ankles turn and pivot with each step. Duplicating this movement with arms, hands and legs swinging in unison and taking into account the length of the strides this creature took would be no easy task. It would require a person to be over 7 feet tall and have a walking stride of 4 1/2 feet. Also look at the right thigh of the creature as it is walking, the movement of the thigh mussel, as it protrudes to the top of the skin. If this was faked then it was for sure decades ahead of its time, and with no help of computer CGI. If Patterson faked this encounter to become famous, or this was a costume ordered and then spruced up a bit he surly lost millions of dollars in the film industry and made him self look like a fool.

reply to post by PixelDuster


Exactly Pixel.

I think there may be another smaller figure behind the large rocks on the shore during the 00:39 sequence.
Without frame analysis and enlargement its impossible to tell.

I've looked at it with friends and for the most part agree that something peeks over the rock as the boat approaches, and that the large figure then moves down a slope towards that spot.

I will be the first to say that our brains demand to make sense of shapes we see, and sometimes this can lead to incorrect conclusions, but we thought........Mother and young.

reply to post by Seeker PI


Thanks, Seeker.

Indeed there is much to be said for the brain wanting to, no, needing to - make sense of shapes.

Unfortunately in imaging, especially video, that's pretty much all we get... so... let the interpretations begin! Ha!

I messed with a frame grabbed off full screen YouTube just now to see what I could bring out. This is mostly Adobe Camera Raw, by the way, which works along with Photoshop. Basically just adjusting white balance, color temperature, tint and a couple other factors. No sharpening, as that just Fs things up bigtime.

Here's a tight crop of it, after the mom is fully standing. There is indeed something behind those rocks.



In this mode, the blobsquatch factor is pretty intense, but her arm can be delineated at least.

It works much, much better as video. It would be great to see the footage right off the camera of course... as it doesn't get much worse than YouTube. Even then I wouldn't get my hopes up, video cameras just don't work that way, even broadcast cameras as this guy would've had that are well above $12,000 (sans lens!)... even a Red. We must work with what we got, as they say.

Peace.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
On the Patterson film i am torn. The simple fact that the participants called it a hoax is too hard to overcome. But when you stabilize the footage, details emerge that make it look like there is no way it is a fake.

The big, fat, budonkadonk butt....that would be hard to emulate. The hind quarters seem to work perfectly well, nothing like someone wearing a suit.

The boobs. I never noticed them before. And they bounce and swing. Why include that detail?

And the simple fact that the biology looks right regarding the head/neck, the forearms, and the shoulders.

If that is a man, he is exceptionally large and well built. Moreso than even Arnold Schwarzenegger was, and he was considered freakish at this time.

If it weren't for the admission of fakery, i would have no doubt it was real.

There was never any admission of fakery....

The only person that ever came forward and claimed that it was a fake, was a third party not verified by either of the other two who claimed he was in on it and wore the suit....

The two who filmed it and originally claimed to the siting always claimed it was genuine...

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

There was never any admission of fakery....

The only person that ever came forward and claimed that it was a fake, was a third party not verified by either of the other two who claimed he was in on it and wore the suit....

The two who filmed it and originally claimed to the siting always claimed it was genuine...

Jaden

Correct!

Those who claimed such are pretty low in my opinion, seeking their 15 minutes at other's expense... repugnant.

Peace.

I've heard a lot of bigfoot stories while living in Washington and now Oregon but I've never seen any signs. I've seen poop from bear, cougar, deer, elk, yote, human, etc. but never once have I seen anything that I couldn't identify. The same goes for tracks. I've always figured if something that big existed, it would leave behind big signs. I won't completely leave out the possibility because there are hundreds of thousands of acres of unexplored terrain up here.

For those of you who like a little horror with the big foot legend I recommend watching the 2006 movie titled Abominable. It was on the SiFi channel today.

www.imdb.com...

Don't forget to watch the trailer on that site.

It's all fiction. But no. You guys have to "investigate it". Sitting home and using google. *loud sigh*

reply to post by Coeus


Like I wrote in the Original Posting.
Some simply deny it without offering any other source or contribute anything other than saying it's fake

SIGH....

reply to post by Coeus


*louder sigh*

So you discount every single sighting. Every single story. Now, admittedly not every story can be true...or we'd have no problem finding Sasquatch...we'd be trippin' over him every time we go to the woods.

My own sighting for example... I've no doubts as to what I saw. I've thought long and hard about what else it could have been

Bear. Deer (strangely shaped one...). Some dude out to freak the hell out of yours truly... Or? Bigfoot. My thoughts take me inescapably to the only answer that seems to fit best. Sasquatch.

Not just what I saw, but what I felt, and it's effect on me emotionally, perhaps even spiritually (though that's a bit more tenuous).

I've been around bears, black mostly, but once a polar bear. Cautious, yes. Even a little apprehensive. Deer? Seen literally thousands of them. Mountain Lions? Seen them. Got followed by one, though I didn't know it at the time. ...and a multitude of other creatures of the wild, small to large...

Not one of them had the effect Sasquatch had. ...and to this day, I don't know why.

Disregard if you will. But I, and others who've had the encounter will beg to differ.

Mysterious? Yes. Myth? Not so much.

I have a theory based on several years of observing these beings & so called "Bigfoot researchers".

The researchers I have known, (and the public in general), start out with a preconceived set of "facts" about Bigfoot. They either compare them to animals or humans and expect them to live and act as such. The fact is, that they neither behave like, nor live like animals or like humans.

When a witness reports something that they have seen, and it doesn't coincide with the "known facts", invariably the information is discounted & the witness is discredited & ignored in the future. I once told a researcher something that he couldn't accept, & he told me that most long term witnesses eventually get a little "strange", & start reporting things that "we know are impossible". I told him that just because it was impossible for humans & animals, didn't mean it was impossible for Bigfoot.

They have proven to me time after time that they are capable of reading our minds. They communicate with each other telepathically & they can control birds & animals with their minds. They have psychic powers that most of us humans can only dream of having.

From my observations, I think they are inter dimensional beings. If they are, that could explain where all the dead bodies go. It could also explain why they don't require huge amounts of food, & how they can disappear seemingly at the blink of an eye.

I rarely speak of my observations any more because of the ridicule that it always initiates. If it causes trouble in this thread I ask that the OP please have it removed.

reply to post by nh_ee


Thanks for that info nh_ee.

I’m glad you posted the real native American names for big foot.

I Googled the name Sokqueatl and I was shocked to see Google’s top suggestion link was the definition of the word Squeal.

Definition of Squeal -
“to make a shrill cry or noise.”

www.google.com...

After hearing the recorded sounds of these beasts I think this definition of Squeal is dead on.

How did the English word for Squeal come about? Is it derived from a native American word?

Google knows what you are looking for before you do.

Also, there’s that “ATL” sound again.

I know that bigfoot is real, I have had bigfoot experiences in two states and I have seen fresh tracks, only minutes old, myself, along with a half dozen other witnesses. Deep in the wilderness of the tahoe area I have seen scats that were not from any large animal that is known to live in the area. There is a small town, near where I live that has had a bigfoot tradition since long before it became fashionable, before the patterson film, with white people reporting seeing BF since the forties.
When I was younger I used to find tufts of coarse reddish brown hair caught in the manzanita and at times would have rocks and pine cones thrown at me while waiting in the dark beside a near a "game trail" while deer hunting.
Another interesting note is that if you look at the BFRO's list of sightings in fresno county all but 3 of them are
within a 10-15 mile radius of where i saw my foot prints.


The local native americans have many tales of BF, including mayak datat and yayaliMyak Datat, the hairy man.
And the ywelin man eating giant
Man eating giant

One nativa american legend ive read says yayali used to live in the high the the mountains above present day towns of ahwahnee/nipawahnasee, an area that has a remote canyon called devils gulch.
The interesting thing is that many of the native american names for BF mean, forest devil, cannibal devil and so on.

My father had a old central cal history (published in the '20's) book from his college days that had a story of a hairy wild man that was captured in the tulare county mountains(now the sequoia/Kings canyon national parks area).

One we might be able prove the existance of BF before the inevitably become extinct

list of native american bigfoot names
Big foot names

reply to post by PixelDuster


Greatly appreciate the effort Pixel, one can but try.
Your right it works better as vid
Thanks.

Pi.