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/Sasquatch Fact or Fiction?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Thirty-one years examining, investigating, and sifting through information I've made my decision.

"Bigfoot" is a hoax.

Well I hope some day [Preferably soon] You'll be proven wrong.

I am rarely if ever proven wrong.

And I'm always willing to admit I was wrong.

However, I doubt I will be in this instance, and if I am I'll be the first to admit it.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

It would, but i was directing it at the Monks low maintenence doo's!. Just a bit of humour Slayer.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

'meh... I didn't disclose anything... the story is over 20 years old, now...

Neither my dad, nor my grandfather (who was with him) will say anything more other than what they saw in the snow and what they "felt" (i.e. the hairs on their necks) beyond that, they both say it's anyone's guess what went up the mountain...

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Bigfoot is real I saw one close up. However there has not been footage of one yet.
I talked in length with a researcher about my sighting. I refused to give an exact description due to the many very desperate hoaxers out there. When I see footage of a real one, I will contact him.

The Patterson film is a man in suit.
I will say this, in the stabilized footage the buttock never moves.

This is the best comparison I have seen yet.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:02 PM
I was asked to share a U2U I just sent. Here is the relevant bit:

[...] People have no clue how vast some of our wilderness areas are... and -no one- goes there. There are areas in Oregon and Washington where planes go down and are never found, it's just too vast.

So sure, from what I've learned in all these years... they're out there man. And it's gonna be real hard to get sufficient proof. [...]


posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:09 PM
Nice thread Slayer

I love this stuff! I've always wanted to believe I would pour through videos and just eat this mystery up. My biggest problem with the the whole big foot story is why? Why can we find bones from lets say,Australopithecus,Gigantopithecus and such that are millions of years old,but fail to find remains of an animal that supposedly lives today?
Another is that people profit from the stories like Patterson himself.Who was a Hollywood film maker and if anyone could have pulled the video off-it would be him.The man(Bob Heironimus)who allegedly wore the costume and played the role of Bigfoot in the film has made a full confession. The husband and wife team who made and sold the Bigfoot costume that Patterson used to fake his movie have also confessed, and several other important eyewitnesses have come forth with corroborating evidence. In a book, The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story -Prometheus Books, 2004.
The book is a good read in it Heiroimus claims that the Bigfoot costume was made of synthetic fur and bits of leather from a horse's hide. Patterson had added -breasts- to the chest of the Bigfoot creature. Heironimus also remembers that it contained football shoulder pads inside it to -bulk it up-and that the head piece was, in fact, a dressed-up football helmet that had a mask attached to the front of it with two slits to look through.
I could go on and on but just look around there is plenty of information and witnesses out there that prove in my- op- that the Patterson video is a hoax.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by LadySkadi

All it takes is one personal experience to change the mind of the most ardent skeptic...

Now that's the whole entire unvarnished fact of that matter!


I've seen several arguments (not here specifically, but around, doing research on the matter) saying that this phenomena is of recent provenance - that, if these things were real, there would be a history of sightings going back beyond the 40's or 50's. The simple fact is, there ARE several accounts, going back almost to the beginning of white settlement in America. Many of them may not be recognized as such.

I'm not talking about Indian legends, like the Algonquian Missisengw (Guardian of the Forest), I'm talking about reports from pioneers and explorers. I'll give one example, and I'm willing to bet no one has ever heard of it, simply because of the circumstances.

In 1774, Lord Dunmore's War on what was then the western frontier of America was on. It culminated in the Battle of Point Pleasant on 10 October 1774. The white militiamen who would do battle with the Indian coalition in that fight began gathering at fort Union, in what is now West Virginia in the late spring of 1774. When all had gathered in, they began the march to the Ohio river via the Greenbrier and Great Kanawha rivers, under command of Col. William Fleming. Along the way, the were under observation by Indian scouts, and consequently had to send out their own scouts and flankers to secure the line of march through this wilderness area.

Col. Fleming kept a journal of the march, and in one entry records that the scouts had come back in, and reported finding the tracks of an "Indian" out there, having a phenomenally large foot. It was so phenomenal and unheard of, in fact, that Col. Fleming made an entry in to his journal recording the actual measurement of the print - 14 inches long. Now, for this information to get back to Fleming, the scouts would have had to have been so impressed with the strangeness of it to actually measure it. These men were backwoodsmen - men familiar with tracking, hunting, and Indian fighting, who would have been pretty familiar with standard tracks, and hard-bitten enough to have been singularly unimpressed with merely finding an Indian track, especially considering that they were expecting to find just those.

I believe that was probably a report of a bigfoot track, but filtered through the conventional knowledge and expectations of the times, to be reported as an "Indian" footprint. I've never seen it reported anywhere in the "bigfoot literature", probably because of the provenance of it, and the fact that it was reported as "Indian". No one thought twice about it who read the report. I ran across it myself while reading Fleming's journal of the expedition in an old book called "The Documentary History of Dunmore's War", and as far as I know, this is the first time it's ever been linked as a possibility in print.

Yeah, there's "things" in them woods. Just what those "things" are may, however, be open to interpretation.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:28 PM
Some things to remember:

- this video is old. Modern technology may be able to make a good suit. Could they have done it in the 60's?

- the is shiny. not like you would see in a reddish rug, or a typical gorilla suit. It has a shine like the oils on real fur. like my little Sasha (my black weenie dog). It is shiny and reflective.

- the "admission" posted by morris is too self serving. I don't see there being shoulder pads, unless it is a lineman wearing punters pads from the 30's (leather). No way it was shoulder pads like you see in football. i might buy it being the old leather hockey pads. but the head is not a helmet.

- the muscles ripple. Just like if i walk, my legs make a large flex. The video shows this massive flexing of a powerful muscle. if it were a costume, could you see muscle ripple underneath it?

I have an uncle that claims to have run into a bigfoot twice. He seemed serious. He was elk hunting in colorado both times. said the scream it let out curdles his blood to this day.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You know I came to the very same conclusion after reading it myself.
It seemed very self serving

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I haven't read all of the material,as always,
a great thread!
I watched a documentary about Bigfoot on
Monster Quest,it was pretty good.I believe
the creature exists and it is just a matter of
time before there is real proof.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:51 PM
Despite the Patterson film as one of the most popular pieces of evidence, I must stay in the pro-Bigfoot camp. Nature continues to give us a neener
A large ape is possible in many areas of the US. Too much land no one has probably walked in in years. My pop is a hunter and through him I've communicated w/ a few hunters from across the US. Men who are hard core into humping through the woods and alot of them have run across some strange critters out in the back country USA. And for the most part folks who need to be aware of the surroundings. They know the ecology pretty good by experience and they get that whammy sighting or find prints in the middle of nowhere? A dangerous job for guys in suits
Most folks don't find out they got animal predators till a pet goes missing. Animals are more adaptable then we give credit for. The alleged Bigfoot is a unknown as to intelligence. The lack of physical remains is problem, since some natural processes make it unlikely to just "stumble" upon them. But I fall back on the intelligence angle of it. What if they are smart enough to dispose of their dead? Maybe cannibalism? A compelling mystery!

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I didn't read anything about a foul odor
being associated with the creature.That
show I watched said something about
a skunk-like odor.One scene showed the
remains of a skunk and it's scent glands
were torn from it's body.
It was speculated that the bigfoot uses the
gland secretions as a cover-up of it's own
body odor,like camouflage.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by mamabeth

I cannot even imagine how foul something must smell to use skunk stank as a perfume. I think I actually heard this theory too, and didn't really understand it. Interesting nonetheless.

I saw a number of people say that no remains have been found. It seems very possible that if these bigfoot are indeed running around they could have developed some sort of burial ritual. (Hangedman beat me to it)

edit on 1-10-2010 by abrowning because: derp

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 10:16 PM
The thing I forgot to discuss is the color of the feet in the Patterson film. Could it be mud or some other debris? The ground has a greyish tinge no? Area near a stream bed? Wet feet.

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:30 PM

Originally posted by abrowning

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by SLAYER69
People have been reporting sightings for years now you look at those stories and you wonder about it.To just reject the existence of bigfoot is narrow minded at best.

I have to say I agree with you mike dangerously.

To reject the idea of the existence of "Bigfoot" without investigating is narrow-minded.

But what if every turn of the page, every rock turned over, every picture all you find is a hoax?

I know how a man walks.

The gait of a man verses a monkey or ape is different and the alleged "Bigfoot" has the gait of a man.

To be fair, bigfoot is always described as more man like than ape like and as we have never really observed one who is to say what the actual gait is like. I do tend to agree that in the Patterson film my immediate reaction is always 'that's a dude in a monkey costume'.

Of course.

I've seen people trying to describe the gait of "Bigfoot" saying things several ways.

Usually, they were talking out a rather nonsensical non-anthropological explanation.

You can watch the video and see the human components that show a direct link to this being a hoax.

Unfortunately, there are some extremely unscrupulous individuals, within the conspiracy theory community.

Just as there are within Government.

And they will both do things to gain attention as well as avoid it.

As per my original post I see this as well as the other anomalies as nothing but orchestrated.

Exploitation of taboos, "creatures", and spooky elements of society is nothing new.

edit on 10/1/10 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth To The Post.

posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

Wow thanks for posing that reply.

posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 12:37 AM
I have seen them in the Kaibab National Forest in the Fall. They start migrating around this time. I think they are pretty much doomed to extinction.
The guy I saw was around 9 feet tall, sloping head, and just ran away on an incline that would have taking me half a day to climb.
This particular groups enjoys throwing pebbles at your tent and will do wood knocking and banging rock against rock.
Just ignore them. Even though your adrenaline is pumping. Just do NOT shoot them. Let them be and just do your camping.

Forgot to mention that they do throw broken logs at vehicles at Knoll Lake.

edit on 2-10-2010 by Kratos40 because: to add the last observation that happened at Knoll Lake, AZ.

posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Very well put together S&F.

At this point I really have no idea what to think about some of the myths out there, including Bigfoot. I think there is some credence behind some of the myths out there, and there is certainly an explanation for all of them - whether it be some sort of folk lore passed down from generations as some story someone made up for attention or entertainment, or because the story(ies) are true,

There is so much we don't know about our own planet that I wouldn't be surprised if there are animals we have yet to discover living underground in some of those crystal caves that have yet to be fully discovered or tunneling system that stretch for many miles (not to mention the ones yet to be discovered).

More than likely there are species on this planet that have never been seen before that would baffle the mind; many different animals species (mostly aquatic however) are discovered each year, but that doesn't mean there aren't mammals we haven't found yet.

I think one day we'll know, but who knows when that will be?

posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 01:41 AM
Monkey suit? No. And not a Gorilla either.

Great big huge ape suit would be more like it. A suit that shows muscles moving under the skin. A suit that shows the freely moving heavy breasts probably of a lactating female. A suit that somehow allows arm and leg proportions to be wrong for a human but correct for an ape. A suit that does a neat job of making invisible the human cranium with it's prominent forehead and replaces it with the sloping front of an ape's head. A suit that clearly indicates the bony ridge in the cranium to which large muscles attach. Just like an ape. A suit that somehow rotates the hips while walking just like a real ape's hips articulate. A suit that requires the wearer to rotate his head to left or right while holding it in the same attitude with respect to the rest of the body as an ape?

OK. Have fun with your project. But know that a whole lot of well qualified, real professionals, real doctors of science, not fake ones, including the very professional anatomy experts at Disney Studios say that the film it is probably real.

Finally when the creature first stands up from behind a rock the horses get scared to death and rear dismounting the riders. Horses are to be trusted with their instincts with other animals. These two horses met something with which they had no previous experience thus their reactions. No, a human in a suit would not have made them do that. It's called horse sense.

There have been several instances where someone saw one while hunting but did not shoot because of doubts over exactly what it was. Good to be cautious because what if this particular one really was a guy in a suit? But someday one will become road kill by a motorhome or truck or one will get shot. It will happen. When it does there will still be those who deny, as you say, what is right before their eyes.

I encountered a road kill black bear in northern California last month while driving on eye 5 north of Mt. Shasta. If a bear can end up this was so can a biggefoote.


edit on 2-10-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2010 by trailertrash because: I didn't like it the first time.

edit on 2-10-2010 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 01:57 AM
I like your thread op, but I notice you didn't include anything about the Berry/Morehead recordings. There were some rather fascinating (supposed) bigfoot recordings made back in the 70s I believe in which these creatures are being communicated with and heard using language. These audio recordings have been analyzed and studied by various experts including the FBI and military cryptolinguists, one of whom being R. Scott Nelson. It was determined that it isn't possible to have "faked" the original tapes, and that the creatures in the recording were certainly not human, but more interestingly, that they were using complex language, including pieces of english. So as far as solid evidence in concerned, this is it right here. Audio recordings that could not have been faked of non-human creatures using language with a greater vocal range than humans are capable of. There have also been cases where hair and blood samples have been tested that don't match any documented living thing.
We do have evidence of Bigfoot. I'm convinced these creatures exist and the day it is publicly confirmed I'll be a very excited individual.

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in