Great Bigfoot video analysis on the Mission BF

originally posted by: Fromabove
Did anyone happen to notice that the toes tend to move as he walks. If they were fake feet I doubt they would do that. In the forward part of the steps the toes tend to go up slightly.

Not sure why floppy rubber feet wouldn't move?
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: FlySolo

Apologies for getting off topic op. It might be better if I make this post the last and leave this thread, create another when I get a chance.

Bigfoot in the US is simply a myth of modern pop culture, easily traceable to hoaxes in the 50's (the native stories claim is also dubious). Though it is possible that people see bigfoot, there is some interesting neuroscience and psychology involved. One study has found a link between things like subclinical levels of adhd, depression etc and this type of dissociation. So it could be possible for anyone to see bigfoot, aliens etc in the right conditions (it's likely everyone suffers from things like depression to some degree). A shame some then become obsessed with something that doesn't exist.

Though for the most part over active imaginations and large doses of bs account for it. Why this cultural myth is so popular in the US is a fascinating topic. When you look at the beliefs that already prevail, such as religion that is simply not seen anywhere else in the 1st world to that extent, credulity is already there and bigfoot could also be linked to the same societal dysfunction that religion seems to be, ie. a quasi religion, something that fills a similar role.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not even sure why anyone thinks the pg film is that good?

Now you're just being silly. It's fine to be a skeptic but let's call a spade a spade. The PG film is very good. When anyone just outright dismisses something based on their bias, that's when I know there is no room for an exchange of ideas and I question their ability to open enough to look at facts. There's only a very few in history that were able to turn science on its head going against the mainstream. It's only then the scientific community will claim it to be be self-evident. Until then, it is met with ridicule and violent opposition.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Now you're just being silly. It's fine to be a skeptic but let's call a spade a spade. The PG film is very good. When anyone just outright dismisses something based on their bias, that's when I know there is no room for an exchange of ideas and I question their ability to open enough to look at facts. There's only a very few in history that were able to turn science on its head going against the mainstream. It's only then the scientific community will claim it to be be self-evident. Until then, it is met with ridicule and violent opposition.

No, it looks good to you. To most people on earth (who don't believe in bigfoot), including scientists, it looks like a person in a costume.

You don't find it odd that every time bigoot evidence meets real science it turns out to be anything else but bigfoot?

The Sykes study asked for the best samples bigfootery could supply. Yet found man made fibres, horse, bear, opossum, racoon etc.....Why are people mistaking synthetic fibres, opossum and racoon for bigfoot (even from people who claim to have shot bigfoot!)? Surely there is large amounts of bs there, possibly genuine delusion? There is no bigfoot in the US (some of the Asian claims at least sound possible though).

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not off topic. You're right on topic actually because your post reminds me of nothing more than a sounding board for a typical skeptical diatribe I read at ATS. It's almost down right insulting actually to infer alien/ufo sightings and bigfoot can be contributed to psychological abnormalities. Basically, in layman's terms, they're nuts is what your saying.
Also, your Native history in regards to Gigantopithecus needs to be revamped considering their stories come long before 'pop culture'

Over active imaginations heh. I laugh. Clearly, you've been indoctrinated as a result of your academic studies and have buckled under the pressure of your peers. No fault of yours mind you. There is always that sacrifice of independent thinking when it comes to higher learning.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

That image is so degraded no wonder you posted it. Here go watch this if you can manage the movie commercials every minute.
Meldrum Gait Analysis

At least this is up to date and not posted to youtube for back pats.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not off topic. You're right on topic actually because your post reminds me of nothing more than a sounding board for a typical skeptical diatribe I read at ATS. It's almost down right insulting actually to infer alien/ufo sightings and bigfoot can be contributed to psychological abnormalities. Basically, in layman's terms, they're nuts is what your saying.

No, thats a complete straw man.

The study in question concludes that normal otherwise healthy people can experience these things, in the right conditions. It is a shame they then devote too much time to a myth, even breaking up with friends, family etc.

Though the "habituaters" who claim to play with bigfoot in their backyard would seem to be a different kettle of fish. Either large doses of bs there, or the possibility of genuine delusion. A lot of this subject reeks of people who never got over being scared of the dark, still looking for the "boogyman".

Also, your Native history in regards to Gigantopithecus needs to be revamped considering their stories come long before 'pop culture'

Oh ffs, you still clinging to that one? That Giganto wandered over to NA (leaving no trace), instead of becoming extinct and morphed into a hairy human/ b grade movie monster along the way? Yeah, right. A slightly better hypothesis than "the aliens dropped him off", I suppose.

Although it is one of the reasons that some of the Asian (claimed) sightings are plausible. A rich fossil record in the area, extant species from the Ramapithecus/ Shivapithecus lineage in the region, a known species of dwarfed human existing at least up until 16k yrs ago, a very old phenomena with descriptions that sound realistic and consistent...basically everything that bigfoot in NA doesn't have.

Over active imaginations heh. I laugh. Clearly, you've been indoctrinated as a result of your academic studies and have buckled under the pressure of your peers. No fault of yours mind you. There is always that sacrifice of independent thinking when it comes to higher learning.

The tone of your post doesn't imply laughter.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

That image is so degraded no wonder you posted it. Here go watch this if you can manage the movie commercials every minute.
Meldrum Gait Analysis

At least this is up to date and not posted to youtube for back pats.

If it's the link I am thinking of it doesn't work on my computer, otherwise I would have posted it. Is it the Stanford analysis that doesn't support Meldrum, or one of the many others? Meldrum's opinion is rather irrelevant and contrary to the evidence anyway. When you look at his footprint collection, skookum elk lay etc, you gotta wonder whether his optical system is not impaired.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Oh ffs, you still clinging to that one? That Giganto wandered over to NA (leaving no trace), instead of becoming extinct and morphed into a hairy human/ b grade movie monster along the way? Yeah, right. A slightly better hypothesis than "the aliens dropped him off", I suppose.

Let's cut to the chase. No amount anecdotal evidence from seemingly credible people is enough to help you in your decision process because the above quote is really the bottom line for you. Much like the anti-ufo crowd because interstellar travel is too far to traverse. It's a shame. You put too much trust into the "system" when you know as well as I that the "system" isn't interested in Bigfoot, UFOs or ghosts 'n goblins. Or perhaps it is? But not telling...

Either way, history shows that man will always obfuscate the truth but yet a smart person will fail to recognize that. How ironic. IF Giganto migrated here, there's no evidence because the scientific community condemns the research. That's the real bottom line, not yours.

The tone of your post doesn't imply laughter.

You're right. Scoff would have been a better word. And for an intelligent person as you appear to be, you posted a knee slap poorly degraded video from youtube as your evidence. I may not be an academic wonder but I am a pro at discovering those with ill intent.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you are so confident the patterson gimlin footage is fake, how do you explain the fact the character featured in the film has breasts and we weren't even able to discern that fact until modern technology advanced to the point where the footage was able to be enhanced enough that they became clearly visible?

Is it just that the perpetrators of the hoax had the foresight and the budget to include breasts in their monkey suit, the likes of which no other hollywood studio was capable of replicating at the time? Why didn't we see similar suits in planet of the apes? Surely if the hoaxers went so far as to include believable breasts with their bigfoot suit, they would have hoaxed the footage so that said breasts would have been readily apparent with the cameras they were shooting with? Surely they would have taken a closer shot or another take or two to get the full effect instead of such a feature not being revealed for another 40 years?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Let's cut to the chase. No amount anecdotal evidence from seemingly credible people is enough to help you in your decision process because the above quote is really the bottom line for you. Much like the anti-ufo crowd because interstellar travel is too far to traverse. It's a shame. You put too much trust into the "system" when you know as well as I that the "system" isn't interested in Bigfoot, UFOs or ghosts 'n goblins. Or perhaps it is? But not telling...

Some truth in that. Why should I be swayed by anecdotes that run counter to physical reality?

The "ufo, interstellar space" quips are veering to irrelevant strawmen. You don't know my thoughts on that. I don't find the "system/conspiracy" claims credible either, from speaking to qualified people who would like bigfoot to exist.

Either way, history shows that man will always obfuscate the truth but yet a smart person will fail to recognize that. How ironic. IF Giganto migrated here, there's no evidence because the scientific community condemns the research. That's the real bottom line, not yours.

Nonsense. People have been looking for fossils in NA for a very long time (in exactly the same type of places where Giganto was found). Yet amongst many great finds...nothing for bigfoot.

History also shows people will also believe in lots of things that aren't real.

You're right. Scoff would have been a better word. And for an intelligent person as you appear to be, you posted a knee slap poorly degraded video from youtube as your evidence. I may not be an academic wonder but I am a pro at discovering those with ill intent.

"Knee slap"? You realize that the PG film itself is a poorly degraded copy? There is no original (that anyone knows of) and no one really knows what generation existing copies are. Ill intent ? If only you knew why I had such an interest in the subject. Actually, finding some truth to why people see bigfoot is my real intent. It is a shame a different opinion on why that might be, gathers such animosity. It makes it look even more fanatical. So be it.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you are really interested in why people see a supposedly mythical creature, why not take an honest look at the history behind the myth? Sasquatch didn't just spring up with the patterson gimlin film. It has been reported amongst aboriginal cultures for hundreds of years. If you really are interested in why people are seeing something that in your estimation doesn't exist, what is your explanation for sightings of a creature that transcend cultural barriers and centuries of time? How is it that something populations native to North America witnessed could be subsequently witnessed by entirely different cultures hundreds of years later if the whole thing is based on some sort of cultural mythos?

How do you explain the fact perfectly rational and credible witnesses exist to the phenomenon that lend credence to the myths and legends that predate european settlers? Have people been mistaking bears for large primates for hundreds of years? Why would North American Natives with legends of Sasquatch which resided in the northern U.S and Canadian territories have such legends, when they would have never been exposed to anything resembling a monkey in the first place? Surely if they were all just bears, the indigenous peoples would have known the difference having never seen a monkey before?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you are so confident the patterson gimlin footage is fake, how do you explain the fact the character featured in the film has breasts and we weren't even able to discern that fact until modern technology advanced to the point where the footage was able to be enhanced enough that they became clearly visible?

The bigfoot pics that Patterson plagiarised for his book a year or so earlier, had breasts. His film (that he sold around 7 people a 50% share of lol) was largely an effort to promote this. It also covers the bare breast plate, he obviously didn't want it to look like a gorilla. So sure there was no claim of breasts?

PATTERSON - "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." Eureka Times-Standard - October 21, 1967

You do realize this was the man who told Patterson where to "find" bigfoot?

Is it just that the perpetrators of the hoax had the foresight and the budget to include breasts in their monkey suit, the likes of which no other hollywood studio was capable of replicating at the time?

A nonsense claim. Got anything to back that up with?

Why didn't we see similar suits in planet of the apes?

It was a genuine motion picture with different needs to a short, blurry ,shaky, distant bigfoot hoax.

Surely if the hoaxers went so far as to include believable breasts with their bigfoot suit, they would have hoaxed the footage so that said breasts would have been readily apparent with the cameras they were shooting with?

They might have thought it was. It isn't like today where we can replay it instantly.

Surely they would have taken a closer shot or another take or two to get the full effect instead of such a feature not being revealed for another 40 years?

Close ups are the last thing this film needs if your trying to palm it off as legitimate. We don't know how many takes there were, or if it was edited. We don't have an original.

Once again.

PATTERSON - "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." Eureka Times-Standard - October 21, 1967

Or this Nov. 1967 radio interview where Patterson discusses the breasts in detail and explains where the breasts were noticed by scientists.....
www.bigfootencounters.com...

Patterson - "yes, it seemed to be to me, more like a giant man except it had breasts. This is one thing that her characterisitics and anthroplogists and zoologists this evening brought this out...

Gimlin has stated both that he did and didn't notice breasts. Take your pick.

Certainly easy to claim these creatures as myths, the only real evidence are eyewitness testimony and/or grainy photographs and video. When a very good clear video comes around, like the UFO phenom, people immediately claim fake or cgi or some other deception.

Maybe, maybe not.

At least the clip highlighted by the OP ( and well done for bringing it to our attention), the gentleman tries to make a scientific assessment of what is photographed.
And the fact is, to my puny human body, If that person/creature is indeed stepping off a ledge into a waist high trench, he has some damn good balance and strength skills, because I cant do it, and I am an expert walker.
The "Normal" human movement would be to stop at the ledge and jump down on 2 feet, very rarely would someone step into a waist deep hole and not tilt forward or use the arms to balance. It is a very odd move indeed......well spotted by the the guy.

There also does seem to be another figure near a tree.

But Like others have said, has anyone gone down to the lake and had a good look around, video in hand, and checked out the topography, or look for footprints? or check out the white "thing" he reaches for?

I would have thought that would be the first thing to do.

To completely discount another human species, is probably premature.
As mentioned, what about the 15' tall Gigantothrepicus, the Orangatan, Zana the Almasty who was all hairy, couldnt talk, but did breed with humans, and whose son's skull was examined and found to have unusual pre modern human traits, and whose DNA was examined and found to have sub saharan African traits...from the middle of Russia !! Which BTW could mean anything.....could mean Homo Erectus from 500,000 years ago is the Almasty cousin.

Too many old cultures, with too many legends of big hairy man, on all continents.......So its not like this is a "Modern" man fake myth.

Curiouser and curiouser.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you are really interested in why people see a supposedly mythical creature, why not take an honest look at the history behind the myth? Sasquatch didn't just spring up with the patterson gimlin film. It has been reported amongst aboriginal cultures for hundreds of years.

Can you supply something from a genuine cultural anthroplogist pre 1950's that documents the belief in a genuine biological creature consistent with the PG/Meldrum bigfoot?

I don't know if there could be something in some remote forest(s) that could support Native American claims (it is a common indigenous theme around the world). It is this bigfoot in particular, the one that began with and relies on hoaxes, that apparently has breeding populations running the length and breadth of the US while leaving no trace. The one being "habituated" left right and centre, the one with glowing eyes. This is myth.

If you really are interested in why people are seeing something that in your estimation doesn't exist, what is your explanation for sightings of a creature that transcend cultural barriers and centuries of time? How is it that something populations native to North America witnessed could be subsequently witnessed by entirely different cultures hundreds of years later if the whole thing is based on some sort of cultural mythos?

I doubt the similarity you describe. It might require more "poetic licence" than you believe.

Have people been mistaking bears for large primates for hundreds of years? Why would North American Natives with legends of Sasquatch which resided in the northern U.S and Canadian territories have such legends, when they would have never been exposed to anything resembling a monkey in the first place? Surely if they were all just bears, the indigenous peoples would have known the difference having never seen a monkey before?

Are you aware of what the legends are (traditionally, not the latter day footer interpretations)?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The "ufo, interstellar space" quips are veering to irrelevant strawmen.

Sorry but you are incorrect. That was an analogy, not a straw man. It clearly demonstrates the same reason why Bigfoot can not be entertained by the mainstream. No evidence of vast distance traveled nor the possibility.

Moving forward...

Nonsense. People have been looking for fossils in NA for a very long time (in exactly the same type of places where Giganto was found).

Using this logic, it would 'appear' you believe we've found every species of life since the Cambrian period. I guess this is a straw man as well. So be it.

"Knee slap"? You realize that the PG film itself is a poorly degraded copy? There is no original (that anyone knows of) and no one really knows what generation existing copies are.

You realize that there have been digital enhancements, right?

Ill intent ? If only you knew why I had such an interest in the subject. Actually, finding some truth to why people see bigfoot is my real intent.

Yes, Ill intent. Your intent is to blanket those whom believe in such 'myths' as having mental conditions such as ADHD or as a result of pharmaceuticals. While it wasn't your primary reason with the consideration of other external factors, you said it. I get the gist. If you are genuine about finding the 'truth' as to why people see these mythological creatures, your question has been already answered. It's your choice to ignore that. This is where the animosity comes from.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Can you supply something from a genuine cultural anthroplogist pre 1950's that documents the belief in a genuine biological creature consistent with the PG/Meldrum bigfoot?

This is a straw man FYI. The first photograph of a print was in 1951. Prior to that, no anthropologists were in the field researching BF.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

here is a link www.isu.edu... skim over and go down to the pics....the patterson big foot pic at the end after looking at all the hollywood ones ( bigfoot harry and the hendersons, 2 from the 6 million dollar man , ewoks, wookie, the grinch etc)

notice either they have LONGER fur at the neck and waist (to cover where the costume comes togethor) or to cover the neck, or in the ewoks case they have an article of clothing that was specificially requested to cover the neck.

the patterson big foot, no clothing and the fur is the SAME length everywhere...IF it is fake, it is so much better than the best people in hollywood could make.....this person never comes forward??? they would have had a great carear in hollywood doing this kind of work.

a reply to: research100

I see what you mean. Remarkable that 20th century costume designers weren't able to figure out how to conceal the seams without shag, yet whomever did it in '67 had it nailed. Give that man an award.

a reply to: research100Thats what I meant with my comment.Hollywood could not make a costume like that in 67.So how is Patterson suppose to with little funds.