Bigfoot/Sasquatch Fact or Fiction?

page: 4
141
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

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.


You know I noticed that when I made the animation then later I found that video that refers to it.


If it is a female that would explain the {B} Butt.




posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 


I did a search for Berry/Morehead audio to embed in the thread

But came up empty handed



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by abrowning
I actually really like this thread though I am not much of a believer in bigfoot.

One question I have for you regarding bigfoots um foot. Where are the toes? I can get past the light color, in fact I think you could also argue that the camera is possibly making it look much lighter than it really is, but I would expect to see toes.



That's a fair question it could possibly be anything really. The image is blown up and is a grainy black and white. Due to loss of definition it the toes could be lost. In the second video I believe it went into more details about the toes.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Here are some: audio pieces
And here is an hour-long youtube video of Scott Nelson discussing these recordings (very interesting): youtube



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 



Thanks

I'll embed it below.


Scott Nelson, former Navy Cryptolinguist gives a presentation at the Honobia Bigfoot Conference 2009 over his work with the Sierra Sounds.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I am positively convinced that it exists. Years ago, there was a documentary about a group who ran into a bigfoot with their car, and it contained a lot of very interesting information on their contact with the beast. I am guessing that this documentary has been covered up and the family are too scared to come forward again, as there has been no more bigfoot-related news around the family and the documentary. And I know the family is real because I saw a multipart documentary about the family and the father in the family became a serial killer, travelling across the U.S. before he was killed in Miami.

I'm with you all the way. More study needs to be done. Great job bringing coherent, rational views to this ongoing conundrum.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by cuthbert
 



That would be great if you could find a you-tube video or a link of the incident.



edit on 2-10-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Firstly, I'd like to commend you on a well presented thread. I'm quite skeptical about the existence of bigfoot but I am willing to entertain the possibility that such a creature could exist in small numbers in our vast wilderness. I just haven't seen enough evidence yet. So my skepticism would subside if presented with something tangible.
The Patterson footage is interesting for the very reasons you've mentioned in your OP. However, I have a couple of questions -

1. What's that dark line that runs down the middle of it's back to it's buttocks? This is obvious in the still you posted in the OP. I think this might actually be a seam where the zipper is situated on the monkey suit.

2. Watching the footage I can't help but notice how deliberate the walk is. This makes me think it's been staged. The walk looks too measured to me.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Beast Of Gevaudan
 


That was a great way to describe the problem I have with the walk, too measured. For a creature that's never seen, it seems odd how nonchalant bigfoot/guy in costume seems.

I'll watch that second video again Slayer, and it does make sense that the toes could be missed or washed out.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
You know what they say, never say never. But I doubt it, Slay. Seriously. As I read somewhere the other day, wouldn't a skeleton at least have turned up somewhere by now?

Wouldn't they be at least dumpster-diving, or applying for food stamps?


I have always wondered about the skeletons/carcasses/bodies, etc, myself. With that being said, could someone who is more knowledgeable than I, tell me how often one stumbles upon a dead bear or some other large creature just chilling? And who knows, maybe their kind, if they exist, does something with their deceased, like bury the body. Who knows.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by cuthbert
I am positively convinced that it exists. Years ago, there was a documentary about a group who ran into a bigfoot with their car, and it contained a lot of very interesting information on their contact with the beast. I am guessing that this documentary has been covered up and the family are too scared to come forward again, as there has been no more bigfoot-related news around the family and the documentary. And I know the family is real because I saw a multipart documentary about the family and the father in the family became a serial killer, travelling across the U.S. before he was killed in Miami.

I'm with you all the way. More study needs to be done. Great job bringing coherent, rational views to this ongoing conundrum.


Wow! They ran into a Bigfoot with their car? Was there any evidence besides a dent or other said damage? They actually made "contact" with the Bigfoot?? Was any hair or blood left behind? That would be fascinating to read up on, for sure!



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I live NE of Granite Falls in Washington State, long time locals in this area speak very matter-of fact of bigfoot, as if everyone knows bigfoot is out here, some of the old homestead families have diaries, drawings and paintings of bigfoot from long ago making reference to small bigfoot and different colored, red, brown, black and white bigfoot.

Some of the stories include bigfoot helping free livestock that became tangled in fences or mired in mud.

Here is a link to some bigfoot reports from my area www.bfro.net...



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Seems deepred beat me to the BFRO site. Bigfoot Field Research Organization

Great thread, SLAYER69.
Just an FYI, my experience from 2005 is saved on this website here.
It will explain my exact experience with a 'bigfoot' or what ever you want to call it.
I had a 'class b' experience, vocals, no sightings...
Believe me, I was scared beyond my mind.
When it took place, my dads dog was with me.
His dog is fearless. He's a little jack russel terrier and never backs down, even to a pit bull.
Regardless, he was scared so bad after the vocalization we heard, poor little guy was shaking uncontrollably.
To me it's just something that no one will ever understand until they experience it themselves.
To all doubters, or non-believers, you just need to have an experience like mine.
Then you might be more open minded.
I've been around the woods 25+ years and heard every Eastern North American animal known to man.
What I heard, was no coyote, wolf, mountain lion or bear.
It was a massive animal. And it was warning me away.

Anyways.
DO I think there is a 'Bigfoot'? Maybe.
Do I think there is a Gigantopithecus? Definitely.
The only reason we don't find the bones is just like why I can never find good deer antler sheds.

Animals know where to get calcium.
Either that or they are smart enough to bury their dead?
I don't know.

But, I don't think every creature was killed off in the last big Ice Age. I believe Gigantopithecus was a survivor. Just like the alligator, several species of fish and turtles that have been around for millenia, so have these creatures.

On a side note...there's too much trickery and tom-foolery to believe anything I see on TV.
Videos, pictures, sound clips, etc. It's too easy to manipulate these types of media.
Even in the 1960's. People, even the gov't, had the capability to edit then.
So I don't trust them. (the media)

I only believe in what I experience for myself. It's easier that way.
But after my experience, I've opened up alot more.




edit on 2-10-2010 by havok because: I had to spell Gigantopithecus right.




posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





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.


I have listen to the legends when i was young In The Mohawk territory Mostly in Akwasasne of Giants (like Bigfoot) The Little People ( like Europe's, Pixies , Gnomes , Brownie's ELVES etc. ) Limmikin (Werewolf, Lycans, Loup-Garou) and the Most Known is ! the Lake Champlain Monster similar to Scotland's Nessie

Interesting about Lord Dunmores War though. maybe it was a giant ? Hominid ?

True No claims of Skeletal remains of any Big foot but there's Remains of HOMINIDS as what they are

well we just recently discovered a LIttle People nick named the Hobbit

Hominid Fossil's Found The List Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...

Talk about Mighty Joe Young
Meganthropus
en.wikipedia.org...

Gigantopithecus
en.wikipedia.org...

Is the Big Foot Species a Hybrid of a one of the 2 above! and a Early Man type or Neanderthal ? or
some more human like Hominid ?

Mahou.wordpress.com
Artistic inpressions of Gigantopithecus
mahou.wordpress.com...
a link to view


Gigantic Apes Coexisted with Early Humans, Study Finds
By Bjorn Carey, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 November 2005 01:34 pm ET
www.livescience.com...

S8int.com
There Were Giants in Those Days
www.s8int.com...

www.uiowa.edu...

well let look at Lloyd Pye's THEORY of Human Origins Again
Human Origins : Intervention Theory by Lloyd Pye 1/8


Lloyd Pye - Everything you Know is Wrong
Full Version

Google Video Link



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I think Bigfoot is could be hippie's growing weed in the forests. Unshaven matted hair they look kind of similar.

No I don’t think Bigfoot exists. I think all the images ever captured of Bigfoot are a hoax, same with the loch Ness Monster.


edit on 2/10/10 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by abrowning
 
I'm a believer there's way too many sightings all over the country ,and for all of them to be miss identified is just ludicrous.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


If you objectively study the facts, instead of having knee-jerk reactions, then the conclusion is clear: they exist. Without an exception every person I have EVER met that says "no" turns out to know very little. The most they generally know is a vague recollection of the Patterson film. They certainly do not know of the latest (2009) studies of the film using modern tools, the latest in biomechanics, the experts in special effects and costumes, etc. Their conclusions are clear: it's real. They don't know anything of the 20 years of work by Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who almost single-handedly has taken this topic from the fringe to close to have mainstream acceptibility by at least those scientists on the edge. His expertise in gait, foot prints (impressions, weight transfer, dermal ridges, biomechanics, etc. show clearly" they exist. None of the nay sayers I know are even aware that Jane Godall, perhaps the most widely known and respection primatologist, says in all probability: they exist. Journals of explorers from the 17 hundreds mention sightings by respected explorers, discuss the local Indian knowledge of them that shows: they exist. Indian artifacts, especially the coastal and inland tribes of the Pacific Northeast depicts them and all the other other animals they depict are very real and are critical to their culture (eagle, salmon, bear, orca). Those Indian populations did not expend time carving fantasy; they exist. The naysays know very little of the eyewitness accounts not just of average people, but lifelong hunters and woodsmen, by sheriffs and rangers, by pilots and soldiers, even by naturalists and state biologists: they exist. Those who don't believe are not aware of the new studies and statistics on population frequency, type of locations spotted and other data crunching that shows statistically: they are real. They don't know about the hair samples with DNA of an unknown primate, the nests, the phenomenon of buried (upside down) trees in Alaska. And they sure can't offer the slightest credible rebuttal to why hundreds and hundreds of foot prints that are anatomically impossible to create except by high technology (due to dermal ridges, bone placement, weight transfer, etc.) are found in the most remote of places, as is some super human spoofers are putting footprints in the path of back country hikers around the world (a concept much more unbelieveable than an unknown primate). Those naysayers always revert to the tired, "where's a body?" argument, yet are not aware the bodies of dead bears dying natural deaths, among other mammals, are almost never found in the wild but bears exist in huge populations.

Yes, they exist very clearly are most who believe accept the likelihood that australopithicus did not die out after all, but moved to very remote areas in small populations. Just like it is now commonly accepted than neaderthal man existed side by side with homo sapiens (a concept considered scientific heresy just a few years ago). These are real animals, not goofy magic shape-shifters or other way out fantasies.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Not in the least to minimize the OP. Just my thoughts on the matter.
I've never been inclined towards curiosity towards this beast. (I prefer ghosts and aliens, lol).

So what if there is a bigfoot? It's likely an overgrown/mutated beast that is not in any way human, except it walks upright, and has similar facial characteristics like some primates.

What would we do with it if we captured one? Put it in a lab for study, and then later into a zoo? Try to breed them in captivity, like the Chinese do the giant Pandas? And we do this, just to satisfy our curiosity? Would there be another purpose? Do you expect to find it has some significant meaning? It somehow knows the answers to the questions?

Bears, wolves, primates, are all intelligent creatures, and there is no reason to believe a "bigfoot", would be any more intelligent than those creatures. It's certainly not as intelligent as humankind, or it would be looking to improve it's circumstances, ie learn to build a fire in winter. There is no evidence of that, is there?

Hunters will tell you that deer can sometimes sense to know to flee when they see a gun. They have seen them enough to know to fear them.

If Bigfoot flees from humans, it is actually much more likely that he does from fear, rather than a constructed and intelligently engineered strategy to conceal his existence. It would be instinctive to flee from the unknown. Particularly if the creature is a passive vegetarian. Might we assume he is a passive vegetarian due to the fact that he doesn't appear to aggressively seek out humans as a food source?

Humanity experiences all manner of mutations. The pituitary can malfunction producing excessive growth hormone, creating human "giants". Why should this not happen in the animal kingdom?



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
great thread,


I wonder why humans are so infatuated with mutant species? Or even species that are in extremely low numbers ( say 4 left in the whole world). Heck they might not even be mutated.

So what bigfoot is a primate could be an existing species or could just be some mutant. I dont understand why people flip over him.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I've never thought the patterson film was fake.. for the simple reason that if it was, they would have surely made the suit male..

the effort it took to make the ape in the film female with swinging boobs .. its just not logical

more logical that its a true female animal


look close, those are indeed swinging boobs, would have been x-rated for the time it was filmed





top topics
 
141
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join