Best Bigfoot pic since Patterson Film?

reply to post by Human_Alien


Classic Mitch Hedberg.

reply to post by CLPrime


Best part of this thread so far! One of my favorite jokes ever.

Originally posted by MmmPie
reply to post by CLPrime

 

Best part of this thread so far! One of my favorite jokes ever.

Hey now. CLPrime only inserted the piece. I'm the one who mentioned it (just kiddin')

But thanks CLPrime it was a lot more effective listening/seeing than reading/imagining

reply to post by Human_Alien


Another unfortunate casualty of pagination. I hate when that happens.

And I must say...we lost a great comedic talent when Mitch died. His style was unparalleled. At least he has been virogenically preserved on YouTube.

Looks like a primate... but it could be a bear here are the chances of it being Sasquatch. 42.1% of being a squatch here are the bear chances.58.9%

reply to post by thecryptozoologist


Actually, the chances are more like:

Bear - 78.7%
Hoax - 9.0%
Gorilla - 3.4%
Sasquatch - 0.8%

The remaining 8.1% is spread out evenly over things like rogue wildmen, some Italian dude, random animal hides falling from the sky, and a gathering of the Church of the Ewokites.

reply to post by thecryptozoologist


I like your stats

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That man lied.

That would be your personal opinion only. Though it proves nothing, he was confident enough to take...and pass, a lie detector test.

I have read that Bob Gimlin did as well. That said, it is possible to fool those tests. The word of one against another, in the end. Not enough to decide either way. And, yes, my opinion, and that of many others.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesthe best possible modern attempts to duplicate the walk, the limb movements, everything, all fail. Computer analysis even shows that it is not possible for any normal human to duplicate the walk, because of differences in joint placement, limb length, etc.

Even Meldrum discounted the "compliant gait" idea. It's nonsense, get up out of your chair and give it a go. One of the very reasons science dismisses it, is that there is nothing about it's walk or proportions which rules out a human in a fur suit.

They used a computer to determine the length of limbs, joint placement, etc. These characteristics are why the walk isn't possible to duplicate. I have looked at every such attempt I can find, and none match the original. I have, in fact, tried it. Can't do it, nor can anyone I know. Besides, even discounting the study, no one has made a replica anything like as convincing as the original.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesI also know what the BEST Hollywood could do at the time was, because we saw that in the Planet of the Apes. WAY inferior to the Patterson/Gimlin film. The movie people didn't even use whole costumes, because anything like that back them was very obvious.

The Hollywood movie people also shoot in high quality film, with close ups. Not shaky, blurry, grainy footage that no detail at all can be drawn from. Apart from the obvious biological contradictions ie. modern western human face with sagital crest, male sagital crest/ female breasts, breasts covered in thick hair/fur...Did you know Patterson wrote a book a couple of years earlier in wich bigfoot was portrayed as having...breasts.

It seems Gimlin appears honest IMO, yet that doesn't mean it was a real bigfoot. It is too inconclusive, can only be opinion either way.

The film has been stabilized, though, and what we see there, grainy or not, beats the Hollywood stuff hands down. You can see muscle movement. If this is an unknown/unclassified primate, we cannot make assumptions about specific traits. So Patterson wrote a book? That doesn't mean this was faked.

Yes, inconclusive, one way or another, but I do believe that was a real creature, not someone in a costume.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by thecryptozoologist

 

Actually, the chances are more like:

Bear - 78.7%
Hoax - 9.0%
Gorilla - 3.4%
Sasquatch - 0.8%

The remaining 8.1% is spread out evenly over things like rogue wildmen, some Italian dude, random animal hides falling from the sky, and a gathering of the Church of the Ewokites.

Those are arbitrary numbers.

Indeed, they are.


And I believe "bear" to be way too low

Good quality picture yes, but yet again, no clear full frontal image, I understand the bear thing but, tbh I think unless there is clear evidence found, no matter what picture or video surfaces, however the quality, people will always scream fake.

reply to post by aquiel


Nobody is screaming fake, we are screaming "You can't really tell what it is from this photo!"

Looks like a Bear cub with it's head to the ground and it's butt in the air.

Maybe a 1-3 year old just after winter when it's used up it's fat reserves and is skinny again.

The young of things alwayse look a little different.

It's clearly a bear with it's butt in the air, rubbing it's neck on the ground. Would a Sasquatch have a tail?

How do the bigfoot believers explain the fact that no living or dead creature (bigfoot) has been captured yet?

Someone would have captured it by now if there was something in those woods.

Originally posted by DariusHames
How do the bigfoot believers explain the fact that no living or dead creature (bigfoot) has been captured yet?

How often do you think you would find the skeleton of a bear if you spent a day or two walking about in the forest?

Originally posted by DariusHames
Someone would have captured it by now if there was something in those woods.

And how do you think you would "capture" a 10 foot Bigfoot?
Wait a thousand years until one walked past a mantrap you had set?
Go wondering in the forest for days with a net to throw over one if it allows you near it?
Bigfoots don't linger in one place. They are constantly on the move. You have as much chance of seeing one as spotting a UFO for the same reason: they don't stay in one place.

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by DariusHames
How do the bigfoot believers explain the fact that no living or dead creature (bigfoot) has been captured yet?

How often do you think you would find the skeleton of a bear if you spent a day or two walking about in the forest?

Originally posted by DariusHames
Someone would have captured it by now if there was something in those woods.

And how do you think you would "capture" a 10 foot Bigfoot?
Wait a thousand years until one walked past a mantrap you had set?

Go wondering in the forest for days with a net to throw over one if it allows you near it?

Bigfoots don't linger in one place. They are constantly on the move. You have as much chance of seeing one as spotting a UFO for the same reason: they don't stay in one place.

Well, if you still check this thread, you seem to be laughing at nothing. People DO find bear skeletons and skulls in the forests plenty, bones just don't disappear. Granted, I'll give you finding a complete skeleton is pretty much near impossible but nothing out there cares for the bones of animals really. Actually, they find pretty clean skulls from all the flesh eating bugs. For example, this is a black bear skull found by someone exploring the forest:


Source of pic

Unlike bigfoot actually skeletons of real animals are out there. Also, the use of the word capture might have been a little erroneous but killing one is not. There are way too many hunters out there in the woods for one not to have come across one if they existed. There are well over 20 million registered hunters in America, and that is a conservative estimate NOT including unregistered hunters which there are plenty of those too. Also, lets not forget in country areas with forests you also get moonshiners out there, who are deep in the woods right with the wildlife. If you seriously believe one of those millions upon millions of people each year would have to "Wait a thousand years" to come across one you really need to learn about probabilities haha. Also, the hunters don't stay in one place either haha. You must be one huge bigfoot believer, because your arguments are terrible, honestly I've heard people with mental disabilities make better arguments haha.

wasnt Patterson Gimlin film proved to be a hoax?

Originally posted by Picollo30
wasnt Patterson Gimlin film proved to be a hoax?

It's been said that John Chambers made the suit. But Phillip Morris says he made the suit. And everyone agrees that Bob Heironimus was the one who wore it. Either way it was a hoax.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


I have read that Bob Gimlin did as well. That said, it is possible to fool those tests. The word of one against another, in the end. Not enough to decide either way. And, yes, my opinion, and that of many others.

Sounds like the sort of bulls--t bigfootery is founded on. Got a (genuine) documented source for that one?

Gimlin is well known for refusing to take a polygraph and also refusing any critical scrutiny of his story...Unlike Heironimus who has taken polygraphs on two separate occasions and passed both times.

Before you come out with the "they are not infallible", I agree in some instances. It is Gimlin you need to convince, he obviously seems far less certain...

It isn't just the word of one against the other, as if they are equal. It is the word of someone confident enough to substantiate his story with polygraphs and whose general story of a hoax has been corroborated in different ways, against the word of someone who refuses such tests and whose story/film is very “iffy” both in what it portrays and the circumstances it was filmed.

www.youtube.com...

They used a computer to determine the length of limbs, joint placement, etc. These characteristics are why the walk isn't possible to duplicate. I have looked at every such attempt I can find, and none match the original. I have, in fact, tried it. Can't do it, nor can anyone I know. Besides, even discounting the study, no one has made a replica anything like as convincing as the original.

Not this old canard again.

Here is one experiment by experts in human locomotion. There are others. Even Meldrum not only agrees that a human can replicate the walk, but is surprised how easily it can be done. As he puts it, it “doesn't rule out a man in a costume”, he just “believes it isn't”. Though he also seems to believe in Joseph Smith and the gold plates, so much for belief. I like the comment of one anthropologist who feels that simply trying to walk in such a suit would be enough on its own to cause this gait. Another anthropologist remarks that the proportions of Patty are “obviously quite human”.....

www.youtube.com...

Ever tried to walk in big floppy rubber feet? Anyway, Heironimus matches the walk easily and very accurately.

Here is a sceptical appraisal of the “dermal ridges” on footprints that don't match any known creature. This is because they are not from any known creature, they are casting artifacts. They have been recreated experimentally.

www.csicop.org...

As to the Gigantopithecus nonsense claimed by 'footers, you might enjoy these links. To quote from the relevant primatologist...”If it's real, this animal is exceedingly human like”..........."Apes can walk on two legs, but not with the the gait and stride of the Patterson bigfoot. That's a human trait".

retrieverman.net...

www.bigfootencounters.com...

I also know what the BEST Hollywood could do at the time was, because we saw that in the Planet of the Apes. WAY inferior to the Patterson/Gimlin film. The movie people didn't even use whole costumes, because anything like that back them was very obvious.

So a film shot in high definition movie quality for the big screen (about 70 x 30 feet) with crisp clear close ups where actors have to be able to talk etc with prosthetics, where even the slightest blemish would show.....you are seriously comparing the two? You have got it bad.

The film has been stabilized, though, and what we see there, grainy or not, beats the Hollywood stuff hands down. You can see muscle movement. If this is an unknown/unclassified primate, we cannot make assumptions about specific traits. So Patterson wrote a book? That doesn't mean this was faked.

Wow, it's been stabilized... Yet even after such enhancements, it is worthless. For everyone who sees a real creature, another sees fake rubber feet, zippers and joins ( and the strangest looking non descript lump/backside of all time- minus a crack :lol

You see muscle movement. I see the bulge where Hieronimus forgot to take his wallet out of his trousers. It is called pareidolia.

That Patterson wrote a book in which his bigfoot sketch had breasts doesn't prove on it's own that the film is a fake. What it does is pre empt the usual bigfoot religious fundamentalists from the "who would fake a bigfoot with breasts" pitch. Obviously, Patterson would have.


There is nothing about the film which rules out “human”, unless we resort to pure pseudo science based on wishful thinking. Which is usually what believers offer. “Patty” is a human, either the only hairy hermaphrodite (with bizarre enough physical anomalies to make it look like a b grade movie prop) ever filmed, or one of the six billion or so garden variety ones that are known to exist, in a costume. Those are not good odds.

Bigfootery on the whole is a cultural phenomenon. It is make believe for adults. Very similar to a religious belief, where all objectivity is removed and confirmation bias becomes an accepted way of life.

Quite a shame for the few genuine researchers who are looking for the truth and get tarred with the same brush. Also for those who think they have seen one and would like an explanation. Bigfootery will offer them nothing but mythology.

Even in a branch of pseudo science (crypto-zoology) that isn't known for it's objectivity, bigfoot culture sets the bar extremely low. Not to mention it would be by far the least likely of the “hairy men” to even exist. Some of the others sound at least plausible, have a rich fossil record, extant relatives of Sivapithicus (therefore Gigantopithicus) living in the region and descriptions of something that could conceivably be real. Unlike the sensationalised Hollwood version (bigfoot).