This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
Bigfoot
35,234 Views |
186 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Badace52
My narrative? Ad hominems?Bobcat06 said:No, it's not a serious question. It's a rhetorical question.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:How much fossil evidence existed to support the existence of gorillas prior to their verification?ttha_aggie_09 said:
In this day and age with game cameras everywhere and night vision scopes and thermal technology, if squatch were out there in TX, LA or FL, he would have been seen already.
If you start talking about massive wilderness areas in places like BC, it's a possibility but still almost zero evidence to support it and I personally believe it's a hoax.
I love watching those shows and the interviews with the cryptozoologists... it just blows my mind that you're alledging that there is a breeding population of some sort of giant ape out there with almost zero fossil evidence to support it.
Is this a serious question? Wow.
The entirety of gorilla fossil record ever excavated consists of nine teeth. They were found in 2007; 160 years after the existence of gorilla was verified. Prior to verification of gorilla's existence, there was no fossil record supporting their existence.
Fossilization is a chemical process requiring the subject to be buried in sediment then immersed in water as minerals crystallize forming a rock impression of the subject's bone or tissue. Some ecosystems, like mesopelagic aquatic zones, are very conducive to fossilization and produced tons of fossils. Other ecosystems, like the highland cloud forests found in the Congo and Pacific Northwest, are not conducive to fossilization and produce very few fossils.
But when the facts don't support your narrative, feel free to deflect or resort to ad hominems.
Good lord, where to begin?
A) You're arguing for the existence of bigfoot by comparing it to the "verification" of the existence of gorillas. The scientific classification of the genus was merely a formality....Humans have been aware of the existence of gorillas for a couple million years. There's wasn't some "need" to verify their existence by various methods because we already had the most bulletproof evidence possible. And that's precisely the point.
B) Furthermore, your assertion that there are only nine teeth in the entire fossil record for gorillas is absurd. Those teeth were from a long extinct ape called Chororapithecus abyssinicus (thanks Google).
We don't exist. Take my word for it. Never existed. If we did, we would be big, beautiful, and strong creatures who make love to your women when you aren't around.
Nope. Patterson died some years ago, but always maintained that it was real. Gimlin is still alive, and he still claims that what he saw was real. There was a guy name Bob Heironimus that came forward and said he was indeed the man in the suit, and even produced the suit. There are videos of him in that suit attempting to replicate the walk on youtube. Give them a watch and see if they look remotely similar. They do not. Not even close. As for what you see above in the gif? Well, there are many experts in multiple fields of science that still to this day are not convinced that it is a hoax.oldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
Incorrect.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:No, it's not a serious question. It's a rhetorical question.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:How much fossil evidence existed to support the existence of gorillas prior to their verification?ttha_aggie_09 said:
In this day and age with game cameras everywhere and night vision scopes and thermal technology, if squatch were out there in TX, LA or FL, he would have been seen already.
If you start talking about massive wilderness areas in places like BC, it's a possibility but still almost zero evidence to support it and I personally believe it's a hoax.
I love watching those shows and the interviews with the cryptozoologists... it just blows my mind that you're alledging that there is a breeding population of some sort of giant ape out there with almost zero fossil evidence to support it.
Is this a serious question? Wow.
The entirety of gorilla fossil record ever excavated consists of nine teeth. They were found in 2007; 160 years after the existence of gorilla was verified. Prior to verification of gorilla's existence, there was no fossil record supporting their existence.
Fossilization is a chemical process requiring the subject to be buried in sediment then immersed in water as minerals crystallize forming a rock impression of the subject's bone or tissue. Some ecosystems, like mesopelagic aquatic zones, are very conducive to fossilization and produced tons of fossils. Other ecosystems, like the highland cloud forests found in the Congo and Pacific Northwest, are not conducive to fossilization and produce very few fossils.
But when the facts don't support your narrative, feel free to deflect or resort to ad hominems.
A) You're arguing for the existence of bigfoot by comparing it to the "verification" of the existence of gorillas. The scientific classification of the genus was merely a formality....Humans have been aware of the existence of gorillas for a couple million years. There's wasn't some "need" to verify their existence by various methods because we already had the most bulletproof evidence possible. And that's precisely the point.
When Andrew Battel returned to England in the 1600s with tales human like monsters raiding his camp, his fellow westerners dismissed it and claimed it must have been the local tribes who raided his camp.
The first report of a gorilla occurred by Hanno of Carthage around 500 BC. Two thousand years later, westerners still doubted it's existence.
Western science considered the gorilla was a mystical "cryptid" until a body was recovered in 1847. Then the gorilla was suddenly no longer a cryptid.
This is Philip Morris with the Bigfoot costume he claims was used in the Patterson Gimlin footageoldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
This is BBC's attempt to recreate the Patterson Gimlin footage using Morris's costume
This is the Patterson Gimlin footage
Because the alluvial soil strata of the Texas gulf coast doesn't promote fossil forming formations. From the coast to about 100 miles +/- inland the soil substructure is primarily the Beaumont formation, which is mud, and sand strata that was created by millions of years of river delta. We simply don't have fossils to any appreciable degree, and the ones that are found are found extremely deep and only after a somewhat rare and specific set of preservation circumstances happens. The mammoth at Mammoth Lake in Clute/LJ was about 100 feet deep - far deeper than any normal construction or excavation activity in this neck of the woods because of the lack of foundational bedrock and high water tables.ttha_aggie_09 said:
Do you know how many hunters, loggers and freeloaders frequently cover those areas?
Furthermore, the remaining acreage, while substantial, is only a fraction of what it used to be.... parts of Houston (East) and all along 45 North to Huntsville would have been part of a massive forest where such an animal would have roamed. Why hasn't any fossil evidence shown up with all of the construction in those areas?
The only evidence out there are eye witness encounters with people that believe in Black Panthers, possibly history of alcohol or drug use/addiction, and/or have a tall, narrow family tree.
Does a bigfoot really exist? Hard to say. I think AC summed it up well though. And take into account that bigfoot like creatures (Sasquatch, yeti, menk, almas, yeren, etc.) have been rumored to exist for thousands of years. They aren't a new fabrication of the human mind or wishful thinking.
I just watched one of those specials about a Russian bigfoot/menk the other day - 7 or 8 kids were murdered in a pretty remote part of the Ural mountains area in Russia back in 1958 or 1959. Bizzare stuff the way their bodies were found and the wounds incurred, and there were some strange last pictures taken by one of the kids - one of which shows a bigfoot like creature that the team doing the show believed may have been stalking them.
One of the last pictures taken by the russian kids - 1950's technology camera, taken in a hurry so somewhat out of focus. The local indigenous tribe there has stories going back generations of the same type of creature, and there is some video that is rumored to be from that area that shows weird creatures too. Fabricated or legend? Quite possible, but just as possible it is something different too.
Does that mean it exists? Nope, but when skulls are crushed, ribcages are crushed and the way the bodies were scattered, it does make you scratch your head and think that either something incredibly strong did this, or the russian military had some black ops project where they were making Ironman or something (and knowing the commies at that time frame - that's entirely plausible too).
I know we like to think that the world is completely inhabited now, but there are still massive areas that don't get much, if any, human interaction. And even if the occasional hiker comes through the area, that's not the same as a suburb popping up and constant 24/7 human occupation. I got on google earth and picked a square around the Ural mountans in the general vicinity that show I watched was talking about - just a random square I picked had 13 million acres of completely desolate and uninhabited land that was mountainous, heavily forested and I doubt more than a thousand people have stepped foot on in the last 500 years. Another one of similar size in the Canadian rockies in the PNW. Hell, most of British Columbia is devoid of humans - and that is an insanely large area. There are still huge areas of this planet that are as remote as you can get, and still a lot about this world we don't know much about.
And a lot of people making stuff up too.
I recommend Bob Gymlan's videoschmellba99 said:
I just watched one of those specials about a Russian bigfoot/menk the other day - 7 or 8 kids were murdered in a pretty remote part of the Ural mountains area in Russia back in 1958 or 1959. Bizzare stuff the way their bodies were found and the wounds incurred, and there were some strange last pictures taken by one of the kids - one of which shows a bigfoot like creature that the team doing the show believed may have been stalking them.
One of the last pictures taken by the russian kids - 1950's technology camera, taken in a hurry so somewhat out of focus. The local indigenous tribe there has stories going back generations of the same type of creature, and there is some video that is rumored to be from that area that shows weird creatures too. Fabricated or legend? Quite possible, but just as possible it is something different too.
I love this topic because every time it comes up we get very different viewpoints on this board.
BurrOak said:Nope. Patterson died some years ago, but always maintained that it was real. Gimlin is still alive, and he still claims that what he saw was real. There was a guy name Bob Heironimus that came forward and said he was indeed the man in the suit, and even produced the suit. There are videos of him in that suit attempting to replicate the walk on youtube. Give them a watch and see if they look remotely similar. They do not. Not even close. As for what you see above in the gif? Well, there are many experts in multiple fields of science that still to this day are not convinced that it is a hoax.oldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
I'll reiterate what BurrOak said. Bigfoot believer or not, more people have profited (or tried to) off the P-G film than P-G themselves.
I'll just point you to the original Planet of the Apes movies, which were the height of special effects technology of the era, and came out around the same time as the P-G film was filmed. Compared to what we have today in special effects, they were extremely primitive and almost laughable. And the amount of detail apparent in the P-G film is extremely obvious compared to the POA movies, which were, again, the height of special effects at the time. Muscle structure is one extremely obvious detail of the P-G film; you can clearly see longissimus, latissimus, and gluteus muscle structure and ripple in the film (not to mention a boob, which basically weren't allowed on film in those days).
I'm not saying I know what P-G caught. I'm just saying there is a level of detail there that, once you start looking at it closer, and digging into what technology was available at the time, it opens a huge can of worms.
Bobcat06 said:Incorrect.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:No, it's not a serious question. It's a rhetorical question.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:How much fossil evidence existed to support the existence of gorillas prior to their verification?ttha_aggie_09 said:
In this day and age with game cameras everywhere and night vision scopes and thermal technology, if squatch were out there in TX, LA or FL, he would have been seen already.
If you start talking about massive wilderness areas in places like BC, it's a possibility but still almost zero evidence to support it and I personally believe it's a hoax.
I love watching those shows and the interviews with the cryptozoologists... it just blows my mind that you're alledging that there is a breeding population of some sort of giant ape out there with almost zero fossil evidence to support it.
Is this a serious question? Wow.
The entirety of gorilla fossil record ever excavated consists of nine teeth. They were found in 2007; 160 years after the existence of gorilla was verified. Prior to verification of gorilla's existence, there was no fossil record supporting their existence.
Fossilization is a chemical process requiring the subject to be buried in sediment then immersed in water as minerals crystallize forming a rock impression of the subject's bone or tissue. Some ecosystems, like mesopelagic aquatic zones, are very conducive to fossilization and produced tons of fossils. Other ecosystems, like the highland cloud forests found in the Congo and Pacific Northwest, are not conducive to fossilization and produce very few fossils.
But when the facts don't support your narrative, feel free to deflect or resort to ad hominems.
A) You're arguing for the existence of bigfoot by comparing it to the "verification" of the existence of gorillas. The scientific classification of the genus was merely a formality....Humans have been aware of the existence of gorillas for a couple million years. There's wasn't some "need" to verify their existence by various methods because we already had the most bulletproof evidence possible. And that's precisely the point.
When Andrew Battel returned to England in the 1600s with tales human like monsters raiding his camp, his fellow westerners dismissed it and claimed it must have been the local tribes who raided his camp.
The first report of a gorilla occurred by Hanno of Carthage around 500 BC. Two thousand years later, westerners still doubted it's existence.
Western science considered the gorilla was a mystical "cryptid" until a body was recovered in 1847. Then the gorilla was suddenly no longer a cryptid.
So Westerners are the only ones that count, huh? There's a pretty good chance both the Roman's and the Carthiaginians knew they existed. Like I said, the classification was a mere formality. Africans have known it's existed for millions of years.
Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:Incorrect.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:No, it's not a serious question. It's a rhetorical question.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:How much fossil evidence existed to support the existence of gorillas prior to their verification?ttha_aggie_09 said:
In this day and age with game cameras everywhere and night vision scopes and thermal technology, if squatch were out there in TX, LA or FL, he would have been seen already.
If you start talking about massive wilderness areas in places like BC, it's a possibility but still almost zero evidence to support it and I personally believe it's a hoax.
I love watching those shows and the interviews with the cryptozoologists... it just blows my mind that you're alledging that there is a breeding population of some sort of giant ape out there with almost zero fossil evidence to support it.
Is this a serious question? Wow.
The entirety of gorilla fossil record ever excavated consists of nine teeth. They were found in 2007; 160 years after the existence of gorilla was verified. Prior to verification of gorilla's existence, there was no fossil record supporting their existence.
Fossilization is a chemical process requiring the subject to be buried in sediment then immersed in water as minerals crystallize forming a rock impression of the subject's bone or tissue. Some ecosystems, like mesopelagic aquatic zones, are very conducive to fossilization and produced tons of fossils. Other ecosystems, like the highland cloud forests found in the Congo and Pacific Northwest, are not conducive to fossilization and produce very few fossils.
But when the facts don't support your narrative, feel free to deflect or resort to ad hominems.
A) You're arguing for the existence of bigfoot by comparing it to the "verification" of the existence of gorillas. The scientific classification of the genus was merely a formality....Humans have been aware of the existence of gorillas for a couple million years. There's wasn't some "need" to verify their existence by various methods because we already had the most bulletproof evidence possible. And that's precisely the point.
When Andrew Battel returned to England in the 1600s with tales human like monsters raiding his camp, his fellow westerners dismissed it and claimed it must have been the local tribes who raided his camp.
The first report of a gorilla occurred by Hanno of Carthage around 500 BC. Two thousand years later, westerners still doubted it's existence.
Western science considered the gorilla was a mystical "cryptid" until a body was recovered in 1847. Then the gorilla was suddenly no longer a cryptid.
So Westerners are the only ones that count, huh? There's a pretty good chance both the Roman's and the Carthiaginians knew they existed. Like I said, the classification was a mere formality. Africans have known it's existed for millions of years.
And, like with the native tribes across the world that have legends or claims of a bigfoot like creature, the African tribes were dismissed by the western world until an actual gorilla proved them right.
And, until one was found, they were absolutely dismissed as legend or superstition. Giant squid were the same until not all that long ago too - dismissed as mythological creatures created in the minds of drunk or delusional sailors. They arent the only creature like that either.
Still doesnt mean bigfoot is real, but you arent making a case here with your argument.
Bigfoot Wallace is real & has a town south of Devine named after him.
schmellba99 said:Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:Incorrect.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:No, it's not a serious question. It's a rhetorical question.Yelnick McWawa said:Bobcat06 said:How much fossil evidence existed to support the existence of gorillas prior to their verification?ttha_aggie_09 said:
In this day and age with game cameras everywhere and night vision scopes and thermal technology, if squatch were out there in TX, LA or FL, he would have been seen already.
If you start talking about massive wilderness areas in places like BC, it's a possibility but still almost zero evidence to support it and I personally believe it's a hoax.
I love watching those shows and the interviews with the cryptozoologists... it just blows my mind that you're alledging that there is a breeding population of some sort of giant ape out there with almost zero fossil evidence to support it.
Is this a serious question? Wow.
The entirety of gorilla fossil record ever excavated consists of nine teeth. They were found in 2007; 160 years after the existence of gorilla was verified. Prior to verification of gorilla's existence, there was no fossil record supporting their existence.
Fossilization is a chemical process requiring the subject to be buried in sediment then immersed in water as minerals crystallize forming a rock impression of the subject's bone or tissue. Some ecosystems, like mesopelagic aquatic zones, are very conducive to fossilization and produced tons of fossils. Other ecosystems, like the highland cloud forests found in the Congo and Pacific Northwest, are not conducive to fossilization and produce very few fossils.
But when the facts don't support your narrative, feel free to deflect or resort to ad hominems.
A) You're arguing for the existence of bigfoot by comparing it to the "verification" of the existence of gorillas. The scientific classification of the genus was merely a formality....Humans have been aware of the existence of gorillas for a couple million years. There's wasn't some "need" to verify their existence by various methods because we already had the most bulletproof evidence possible. And that's precisely the point.
When Andrew Battel returned to England in the 1600s with tales human like monsters raiding his camp, his fellow westerners dismissed it and claimed it must have been the local tribes who raided his camp.
The first report of a gorilla occurred by Hanno of Carthage around 500 BC. Two thousand years later, westerners still doubted it's existence.
Western science considered the gorilla was a mystical "cryptid" until a body was recovered in 1847. Then the gorilla was suddenly no longer a cryptid.
So Westerners are the only ones that count, huh? There's a pretty good chance both the Roman's and the Carthiaginians knew they existed. Like I said, the classification was a mere formality. Africans have known it's existed for millions of years.
And, like with the native tribes across the world that have legends or claims of a bigfoot like creature, the African tribes were dismissed by the western world until an actual gorilla proved them right.
And, until one was found, they were absolutely dismissed as legend or superstition. Giant squid were the same until not all that long ago too - dismissed as mythological creatures created in the minds of drunk or delusional sailors. They arent the only creature like that either.
Still doesnt mean bigfoot is real, but you arent making a case here with your argument.
Was waiting for this. I'm well aware of all the native legends, etc. I've stated more than once on this board that I'm a bigfoot fan. Have posted nearly exactly what AC did earlier in previous threads. I really, really want to believe it exists. The reality of the situation is that it's simply not feasible for many reasons.
Anyhow, you're comparing the "discovery" of the giant squid in the vast oceans and the gorilla in 1840's Africa to debating about the existence of Bigfoot in 2019 North America? Really?
A much better example on your part would have been the Saola in Vietnam. The montagnards had spoken about it for as long as anyone could remember but it wasn't until a skeleton (ahem) was recovered in 1992 that it's existence was proven. But again, comparing the remote mountains of Vietnam to the Pacific Northwest of the US is just utterly silly.
Bigfoot is a legend. Sorry.
BurrOak said:Nope. Patterson died some years ago, but always maintained that it was real. Gimlin is still alive, and he still claims that what he saw was real. There was a guy name Bob Heironimus that came forward and said he was indeed the man in the suit, and even produced the suit. There are videos of him in that suit attempting to replicate the walk on youtube. Give them a watch and see if they look remotely similar. They do not. Not even close. As for what you see above in the gif? Well, there are many experts in multiple fields of science that still to this day are not convinced that it is a hoax.oldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
The film I've seen of Heironimous walking looks EXACTLY like Patty. Furthermore, Patterson was a known con man who spoke openly in the weeks leading up to the "sighting" that he was going to stage a sighting, film it, and profit.
schmellba99 said:Because the alluvial soil strata of the Texas gulf coast doesn't promote fossil forming formations. From the coast to about 100 miles +/- inland the soil substructure is primarily the Beaumont formation, which is mud, and sand strata that was created by millions of years of river delta. We simply don't have fossils to any appreciable degree, and the ones that are found are found extremely deep and only after a somewhat rare and specific set of preservation circumstances happens. The mammoth at Mammoth Lake in Clute/LJ was about 100 feet deep - far deeper than any normal construction or excavation activity in this neck of the woods because of the lack of foundational bedrock and high water tables.ttha_aggie_09 said:
Do you know how many hunters, loggers and freeloaders frequently cover those areas?
Furthermore, the remaining acreage, while substantial, is only a fraction of what it used to be.... parts of Houston (East) and all along 45 North to Huntsville would have been part of a massive forest where such an animal would have roamed. Why hasn't any fossil evidence shown up with all of the construction in those areas?
The only evidence out there are eye witness encounters with people that believe in Black Panthers, possibly history of alcohol or drug use/addiction, and/or have a tall, narrow family tree.
Does a bigfoot really exist? Hard to say. I think AC summed it up well though. And take into account that bigfoot like creatures (Sasquatch, yeti, menk, almas, yeren, etc.) have been rumored to exist for thousands of years. They aren't a new fabrication of the human mind or wishful thinking.
I just watched one of those specials about a Russian bigfoot/menk the other day - 7 or 8 kids were murdered in a pretty remote part of the Ural mountains area in Russia back in 1958 or 1959. Bizzare stuff the way their bodies were found and the wounds incurred, and there were some strange last pictures taken by one of the kids - one of which shows a bigfoot like creature that the team doing the show believed may have been stalking them.
One of the last pictures taken by the russian kids - 1950's technology camera, taken in a hurry so somewhat out of focus. The local indigenous tribe there has stories going back generations of the same type of creature, and there is some video that is rumored to be from that area that shows weird creatures too. Fabricated or legend? Quite possible, but just as possible it is something different too.
Does that mean it exists? Nope, but when skulls are crushed, ribcages are crushed and the way the bodies were scattered, it does make you scratch your head and think that either something incredibly strong did this, or the russian military had some black ops project where they were making Ironman or something (and knowing the commies at that time frame - that's entirely plausible too).
I know we like to think that the world is completely inhabited now, but there are still massive areas that don't get much, if any, human interaction. And even if the occasional hiker comes through the area, that's not the same as a suburb popping up and constant 24/7 human occupation. I got on google earth and picked a square around the Ural mountans in the general vicinity that show I watched was talking about - just a random square I picked had 13 million acres of completely desolate and uninhabited land that was mountainous, heavily forested and I doubt more than a thousand people have stepped foot on in the last 500 years. Another one of similar size in the Canadian rockies in the PNW. Hell, most of British Columbia is devoid of humans - and that is an insanely large area. There are still huge areas of this planet that are as remote as you can get, and still a lot about this world we don't know much about.
And a lot of people making stuff up too.
That's the Dylatov Pass incident. It's a very famous (infamous) case. Most likely an avalanche or small yield nuke (based on the high levels of radiation). Regardless, that's a person in that pic. You can see the pants tucked into a legging or boot. They kept a diary of their journey, safe to assume that if they saw and snapped a pic of a yeti, they would have written about it.
Yelnick McWawa said:BurrOak said:Nope. Patterson died some years ago, but always maintained that it was real. Gimlin is still alive, and he still claims that what he saw was real. There was a guy name Bob Heironimus that came forward and said he was indeed the man in the suit, and even produced the suit. There are videos of him in that suit attempting to replicate the walk on youtube. Give them a watch and see if they look remotely similar. They do not. Not even close. As for what you see above in the gif? Well, there are many experts in multiple fields of science that still to this day are not convinced that it is a hoax.oldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
The film I've seen of Heironimous walking looks EXACTLY like Patty. Furthermore, Patterson was a known con man who spoke openly in the weeks leading up to the "sighting" that he was going to stage a sighting, film it, and profit.
On the flip side, H had plenty of opportunity to study the film and perfect his walking style.
And I'd like to see verifiable reference to the assertion about Patterson. Sure, he was most often a down on his luck cowboy, but he'd been up in the woods a number of times and had been searching for/patterning the thing for some time, based on others sightings and his own findings. Could he have attempted a staged episode? Sure. Could he have also stumbled across the thing he least expected to find with his unwitting buddy, which is why Gimlin is so adamant to this day? Also possible.
The best part is that it's a mystery that keeps us talking.
I saw a poster for this yesterday, and figured it was why the thread got bumped.
http://southeasttexasbigfoot.com
Who is going?
http://southeasttexasbigfoot.com
Who is going?
No offense, but you can't see sht for detail in that picture.
And there was no evidence of an avalanche in the area, much less one that would place the bodies in the positions they were in nor damage the bodies in the manner they were damaged (eyes ripped out, tongues ripped out, skulls crushed in a uniform manner from body to body, etc.).
The Russian military did admit that they were testing some missiles in the general vicinity, but that's as close to anything as has ever been discovered.
And there was no evidence of an avalanche in the area, much less one that would place the bodies in the positions they were in nor damage the bodies in the manner they were damaged (eyes ripped out, tongues ripped out, skulls crushed in a uniform manner from body to body, etc.).
The Russian military did admit that they were testing some missiles in the general vicinity, but that's as close to anything as has ever been discovered.
I don't want to start a new thread so I will post this here.
If you are willing, post what you believe about Bigfoot.
Like- True Believer (You seen 'em)
or Zero (All are total hoaxes or misidentification.
I would classify myself as an open minded skeptic:
I have seen several new speices found in my lifetime, including large mammals that eluded science till the late 1900's
However, to become a true believer I want to see a scientifically verified corpse or live specimen
I do think 95% of the images we see are either hoaxes or misidentification.
But there is that 5 percent that are very compelling.
If you are willing, post what you believe about Bigfoot.
Like- True Believer (You seen 'em)
or Zero (All are total hoaxes or misidentification.
I would classify myself as an open minded skeptic:
I have seen several new speices found in my lifetime, including large mammals that eluded science till the late 1900's
However, to become a true believer I want to see a scientifically verified corpse or live specimen
I do think 95% of the images we see are either hoaxes or misidentification.
But there is that 5 percent that are very compelling.
Aggie Class of '97 and '16, Proud father of Aggie classes of '25 and '29
Clearly it's not a detailed photo but there's enough there to draw a few conclusions. I blew up the leg that pretty clearly shows what I've asserted.You can tell pretty clearly that the dark pant gathers into a lighter covering of some sort.schmellba99 said:
No offense, but you can't see sht for detail in that picture.
And there was no evidence of an avalanche in the area, much less one that would place the bodies in the positions they were in nor damage the bodies in the manner they were damaged (eyes ripped out, tongues ripped out, skulls crushed in a uniform manner from body to body, etc.).
The Russian military did admit that they were testing some missiles in the general vicinity, but that's as close to anything as has ever been discovered.
If you're still not convinced, one need only look at some of the other photos found on the camera. Here's just one:
I think that pretty much settles that.
Furthermore, the idea that any logical person would jump to "photo of bigfoot" over "photo of another person on the trip" is just silly. Which leads me to my next point regarding the incident.....
The injuries are definitely consistent with those caused by an avalanche and the subsequent feeding on the corpses by birds or other wildlfe. Even so, let's go with the argument that there was no evidence of an avalanche (that's not true by the way, it's definitely a debatable theory), the idea that a bigfoot attack is more likely than an avalanche is, again, just silly.
Yelnick McWawa said:BurrOak said:Nope. Patterson died some years ago, but always maintained that it was real. Gimlin is still alive, and he still claims that what he saw was real. There was a guy name Bob Heironimus that came forward and said he was indeed the man in the suit, and even produced the suit. There are videos of him in that suit attempting to replicate the walk on youtube. Give them a watch and see if they look remotely similar. They do not. Not even close. As for what you see above in the gif? Well, there are many experts in multiple fields of science that still to this day are not convinced that it is a hoax.oldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
The film I've seen of Heironimous walking looks EXACTLY like Patty. Furthermore, Patterson was a known con man who spoke openly in the weeks leading up to the "sighting" that he was going to stage a sighting, film it, and profit.
That last one is the one I saw years ago on a TV show. After years of watching the Patty tape, my dander got up a bit the instant I saw it. Seemed pretty clear he had the walk and turn down pat. It was pretty convincing to me anyway.BurrOak said:Yelnick McWawa said:BurrOak said:Nope. Patterson died some years ago, but always maintained that it was real. Gimlin is still alive, and he still claims that what he saw was real. There was a guy name Bob Heironimus that came forward and said he was indeed the man in the suit, and even produced the suit. There are videos of him in that suit attempting to replicate the walk on youtube. Give them a watch and see if they look remotely similar. They do not. Not even close. As for what you see above in the gif? Well, there are many experts in multiple fields of science that still to this day are not convinced that it is a hoax.oldschool87 said:This was proven and the guy who did it admitted before he died it was a suit...BurrOak said:
The film I've seen of Heironimous walking looks EXACTLY like Patty. Furthermore, Patterson was a known con man who spoke openly in the weeks leading up to the "sighting" that he was going to stage a sighting, film it, and profit.
I'll watch the others you've posted and follow up.
**EDIT** Okay watched the first two. Frankly, they're worthless for the purpose of comparison. Not sure why they're presented in that glitchy, stop motion manner rather than just straight forward video. They definitely don't prove or disprove anything. Again, the last one is the only one that I think offers some legit comparison and to me his walk is Patty's walk.
I feel that if those were shown as actual video, it would be even more blatantly obvious that Bob H is not Patty. Even looking at the bottom comparison video, it's obvious that the difference in arm length is substantial. Patty's arms go all the way to her knees. The legs are another difference, but Patty's aren't shown. This has been analyzed very thoroughly, Bob's dimensions and ratios (arm length to leg length, etc) perfectly match what is typical for humans. Patty's however, do not.
The elbows don't match either.
Aggie Class of '97 and '16, Proud father of Aggie classes of '25 and '29
BurrOak said:
I feel that if those were shown as actual video, it would be even more blatantly obvious that Bob H is not Patty. Even looking at the bottom comparison video, it's obvious that the difference in arm length is substantial. Patty's arms go all the way to her knees. The legs are another difference, but Patty's aren't shown. This has been analyzed very thoroughly, Bob's dimensions and ratios (arm length to leg length, etc) perfectly match what is typical for humans. Patty's however, do not.
Well that's because it's a costume. You have no idea where his arms come to inside of that (alleged) costume, how padded the shoulders were, etc
Costumes can't move elbows or knees
Has anyone explained the obvious mammary glands on the P-G film's creature? I would also be curious if anyone has examined the hand movement in that film, i.e. do the fingers curl, form into a fist or otherwise move in a way that would be difficult to replicate in a costume.
Quote:
The funny thing is you can't actually prove any of what I've said is not true,
How do you define "prove?"
carl spacklers hat said:
Has anyone explained the obvious mammary glands on the P-G film's creature? I would also be curious if anyone has examined the hand movement in that film, i.e. do the fingers curl, form into a fist or otherwise move in a way that would be difficult to replicate in a costume.
Hello, read above.
I read above, see where you mentioned it, but I'm asking if there is an explanation for it. The alleged costume certainly doesn't have breasts. My question could have been more specific, namely, has anyone provided an explanation for that creature's mammary glands? Looking for more than a chat room mention of it. Of all the reviews of the film, has anyone provided a solid explanation or hypothesis for that evidence? It seems most people assume a male gender but the film clearly captured something female.
That's one of the things that opens up the can of worms. Why would someone sticks tits on an ape costume for a hoax film in that era? Plus the way they move is fairly natural, and not just like they were a set of bolt-ons to give it some curves. It's the head scratcher, along with muscular structure that is extremely obvious.
There's video of the guy that made the costume and the breast thing is specifically discussed.Log said:
That's one of the things that opens up the can of worms. Why would someone sticks tits on an ape costume for a hoax film in that era? Plus the way they move is fairly natural, and not just like they were a set of bolt-ons to give it some curves. It's the head scratcher, along with muscular structure that is extremely obvious.
I'll see if I can find it.
**EDIT** FOUND IT. Go to about 4:45 in this video for the breast related stuff. Anyone really interested in this stuff should watch all of part 1 and 2 of this video.
- The Morris Ape suit was a fraud in itself to promote his business, check out the photo analysis done by M.K. Davis on stills off the original film .The stills show something that is not a man in a costume.
Featured Stories
See All
75:27
2h ago
2.8k
No. 13 A&M a 'go-for-launch' as 2024-25 opens on the road in Orlando
by Luke Evangelist
Scouting Report: Texas A&M at Central Florida
by Tom Schuberth