Sasquatch – Researchers conclusions – Taking theory one step further!

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Well, it would be like trying to chase down a sniper with lifetime training in the field with a natural guilley suit. Hearing a large snap and finding a tree freshly broken off 5-8 feet is kind of intimidating eh? I would never ever try to chase a bigfoot armed with an axe. I would rather chase it in my undies so I don`t threaten it and piss it off

reply to post by br0ker


We were using it to dig. Didn't plan on chasing a bear, but that's what we did. He still says it was a really smart bear when he tells the story.

Let`s bring all of you in on some of the newer research being done on one of the many many audio recordings of Sasquatch out there.

In the following link you will hear Scott Nelson and Ron Morehead Interviewed.

Scott Nelson is:

Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications.

He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri.

He is came over these Sasquatch conversations by accident and was immediately intrigued.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


I cant understand that way of thinking, if that was my costume from my shop, id be telling everyone from the begining to promote the shop..come look at my awesome costumes.

its not promoting the shop if they dont know where to get it.

The Patterson film appears to be well and truly debunked here:

youtu.be...

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by intrptr

 

That was debunked a while ago. It was nothing more than a short movie of a guy in a costume.

In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax privately in the 1980s but first admitted it publicly on August 16, 2002, on Charlotte, North Carolina, radio station WBT-AM. Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: giving away a performer's secrets, he said, would be widely regarded as disreputable.

source

Sorry - but that's pure baloney. Here's the actual truth about Morris's non-involvement in the PG film:

"Yet in Greg Long's book, a 2004 release, World's Greatest Hoaxes is discussed in brief but somehow Jerry Romney, the so called man-in-the-fur-suit is never mentioned once. Instead, the new and improved man-in-the-fur-suit is introduced: Bob Heironimus from Yakima, Washington takes his place with not so much as an explanation as to what the heck happened to Romney. So if Mr. Long and Robert Kiviat want to really enlighten their audiences via television and book their working title may be Secrets Revealed: How We Substituted Romney For Heironimus And Duped The American Public!

And just quite recently I have learned, Kal K. Korff went on record with this: "Up at a remote location called Cow Camp [Washington state], away from the prying eyes of Bigfoot enthusiasts, we successfully recreated the famous Patterson-Gilm hoax film." Yet Korff's opinion was not echoed by National Geographic's Noel Dockstader, who was also present, noted the suit used in the recreation, provided by Philip Morris from Morris Costumes was in no way similar to what was depicted in the P-G film. Go figure."

www.bigfootencounters.com...

Originally posted by OzTiger
The Patterson film appears to be well and truly debunked here:

youtu.be...

Hmmm...there are so many obvious factual errors in that video, it's unreal.

Changing a lens turns a creature from 3 feet tall to 7 feet tall according to the graphic.

Sasquatch has been reported and even carved into totem poles by native americans many hundreds of years before the first whaite men even set foot on the continent. Oops.

The Star Trek costume looks nothing like the PG film - not even remotely.

Lie detectors are notoriously prone to error. Period.

The Loch Ness creature was not invented by a couple and a reporter in the 1930's at all - there are reports dating back to medieval times on record.

The same kind of thing can be said about the authors claims about UFOs.

And so on.

Sloppy and mis-informed journalism is all this video gives us...

reply to post by jimbo999


I can agree with some of your points regarding the video but this sighting of a so called Bigfoot is beyond belief in my book. Some people may believe otherwise in that it is authentic but, like the Himalayan Yeti and the Australian Yowie, my opinion is that they belong in the same drawer as Alice and her fellow characters in Wonderland.
I will be the first to swallow a huge slice of humble pie if ever one of these is either captured or it'skeletal remains found.
Have a nice day my friend.

reply to post by OzTiger


This thread is not an attempt to prove or disprove the Patterson film. That discussion will never end. That is only one film, and I dare to say that not many of the people giving reports and making statements that they encountered a Sasquatch has seen that clip.

reply to post by br0ker


Yes, we have the same situation here in Oz where people continue to report the Yowie and The Tasmanian Tiger (extinct since 1936) as recently as this year. The trouble with these sightings is that IF they were real then there would have to be quite a few of them to keep on breeding and not just ONE! Like the Yeti and Bigfoot they are reported in wilderness areas where humans rarely set foot but would have to have some sort of food source.
In recent years there have been many reported sightings of Panthers in Victoria which are reported to be the descendants of a pair that were let loose by American Soldiers just after WW2. (Hotly denied by the USA Military).

reply to post by OzTiger


I fail to see the problem of 30 000 written reports / statements. Also, for every 1 report being investigated it brings up 5 new reports by people living in the vicinity.

Would you as a person be able to see a clear difference between a bear, a deer and a a 8 foot bipedal leaving you area / crossing the road / sneaking around your house / approaching you etc.?
Or do you just believe that other people in general are less intelligent than you?


-----
Count how many times we throw this ball among us! 1 -1 -1-1 - 1 -1- 1 - 1 (a gorilla walks through the room) I -1 -1 - 1-1 -1-1 . Did you notice anything out of the obvious? Yes. It was hard counting how many times you actually passed the ball.

No, the ball wasn`t passed 15 times.

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Well.. first look into pink bat theory.

If you still disagree then maybe you just haven`t done any research on Sasquatch? If you have and still don`t see it then I stand by my words.

Edit:
To answer the rest of you`re questions. This thread is not to prove to anyone that Sasquatch exist. Do your own research, the thorough and you will come to a good conclusion. I / We have already concluded by the research that they exist. The meaning of this thread is to analyze all the data and come to some conclusions of how they act, think and how our common future using the forests will be.

With enough people running around soundblasting and hunting to prove their existence we WILL come to an endpoint where either: Their respect for us might change into hostility, or an endpoint where we actually recognize their existence and set down laws not to chase/hunt/harass or otherwise disturb them. Making them by law something like the bear is today.

edit on 28-10-2011 by br0ker because: adittional answer

Okay...So only those researchers who believe that Sasquatch exists are allowed to post...I get it...I can appreciate you coming to a personal conclusion of the reality of their existence; however, any additional laws you propose to be enacted would need a lot more than personal belief to come to fruition...at least I would hope...

Bigfoot never gets old…NEVER. Concerning the Paterson footage, I believe this might be relevant.

Grover Krantz
Anthropologist Grover Krantz offered an in-depth examination of the Patterson film.[35] He concluded that the film depicts a genuine unknown creature. Primarily, Krantz' argument is based on a detailed analysis of the figure's stride, center of gravity, and biomechanics.
Krantz argues that the creature's leg and foot motions are quite different from a human's and could not have been duplicated by a person wearing a gorilla suit.
Krantz pointed out the tremendous width of the creature's shoulders, which (after deducting 1" for hair) he estimated at 28.2 inches, or 35.1% of its full standing height of 78", or a higher percentage of its 72" "walking height," which was a bit stooped, crouched, and sunk into the sand.[36] The creature's shoulders are almost 50% wider than the human mean. (For comparison, André the Giant had a typical human ratio of 24%. Wide-shouldered Bob Heironimus (see below) has 27.4%. Only very rarely do humans have a shoulder breadth of 30%.) Krantz argued that a suited person could not mimic this breadth and still have the naturalistic hand and arm motions present on the film.
Krantz wrote, "the knee is regularly bent more than 90°, while the human leg bends less than 70°." No human has yet replicated this level lower leg lift while maintaining the smoothness, posture, and stride length (41") of the creature.
Krantz and others have noted natural-looking musculature visible as the creature moved, arguing this would be highly difficult or impossible to fake. Hunter and Dahinden also note that "the bottom of the figure's head seems to become part of the heavy back and shoulder muscles... [and] the muscles of the buttocks were distinct"[37]
Krantz also interviewed Patterson extensively and, as noted below, thought Patterson lacked the technical skill and knowledge needed to create such a realistic-looking costume.

Krantz reports that in 1969 John Green (who at one point owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film) interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who, after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film."[38] Krantz argues that if Disney personnel were unable to duplicate the film, there is little likelihood that Patterson could have done so.
More recently, Krantz showed the film to Gordon Valient, a researcher for Nike shoes, who he says "made some rather useful observations about some rather unhuman movements he could see.



Also I read that if it was a costume that every single hair on the body would have had to been individually placed down and glued or sown on. If this was a costume then it was created by a MASTER. If this was created by Patterson and his partner then they should not only go down as the best hoaxers of all time but wasted Millions of dollars in the film industry. For my money its REAL!

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

.
Okay...So only those researchers who believe that Sasquatch exists are allowed to post...I get it...I can appreciate you coming to a personal conclusion of the reality of their existence; however, any additional laws you propose to be enacted would need a lot more than personal belief to come to fruition...at least I would hope...

What would you contribute to a thread about Sasquatch behavior and psychology if you don`t believe in them?
Your only contribution so far is saying that you`re offended by the first few lines.

I am so tired of people not reading the entire OP.

Another fact is that once people feel that something offends them they immediately react without thinking about the entire picture. Some people just love to argue and this consumes a lot of unnecessary time. My ex was a drama queen and you my friend remind me of her. Set aside you`re feelings and we may have an intellectual conversation.

I repeat, this thread is not about determining their existence. But about discussing my OP - how likely it`s correct or wrong. As well as how other ATSers think of their psychology and behavior.

reply to post by br0ker


I did not state one way or another whether I believe Sasquatch exists...I can only state, "I do not know," as there has been no conclusive evidence presented in the affirmative...As to your post about behavior and psychology, again, the thing I find inconsistent would be 1) If they (Sasquatch) venerate and endow Homo Sapiens with "magical," powers, then at what point did this dynamic shift occur? After all, the Native Americans venerated and endowed Sasquatch with, "magical powers." Did they not see the totems plastered with their images? 2) Most all other encounters (as described in historical records) indicate encounters with outside, technologically, advanced civilizations, result in some sort of open display of veneration and homage paid to the visitors, including trade and offerings...there is none of this present in your postulate...

Finally, while I understand your frustration, I do not appreciate comparisons to your ex (an ad hominem). I simply asked, in my original post, if there were more evidence than has already been presented, on which to draw a conclusion...

Thank you.

Originally posted by OzTiger
reply to post by jimbo999

 

I can agree with some of your points regarding the video but this sighting of a so called Bigfoot is beyond belief in my book. Some people may believe otherwise in that it is authentic but, like the Himalayan Yeti and the Australian Yowie, my opinion is that they belong in the same drawer as Alice and her fellow characters in Wonderland.
I will be the first to swallow a huge slice of humble pie if ever one of these is either captured or it'skeletal remains found.
Have a nice day my friend.

Fair enough. But if we're going to de-bunk things, I think we can at least stick to the known facts and avoid the type of character assassination that this video tried to pull on Patterson. Let's have some facts please. Patterson was 'heavily in debt to his racked up credit card' the video purports - let's see the statements. He was wanted for 'Grand Larceny" due to his camera rental being over-due - surely there must be a police report somewhere. etc, etc. It's very easy to defame people without a shred of evidence. Too easy really...

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Well.. first look into pink bat theory.

If you still disagree then maybe you just haven`t done any research on Sasquatch? If you have and still don`t see it then I stand by my words.

Edit:
To answer the rest of you`re questions. This thread is not to prove to anyone that Sasquatch exist. Do your own research, the thorough and you will come to a good conclusion. I / We have already concluded by the research that they exist. The meaning of this thread is to analyze all the data and come to some conclusions of how they act, think and how our common future using the forests will be.

With enough people running around soundblasting and hunting to prove their existence we WILL come to an endpoint where either: Their respect for us might change into hostility, or an endpoint where we actually recognize their existence and set down laws not to chase/hunt/harass or otherwise disturb them. Making them by law something like the bear is today.

edit on 28-10-2011 by br0ker because: adittional answer

Okay...So only those researchers who believe that Sasquatch exists are allowed to post...I get it...I can appreciate you coming to a personal conclusion of the reality of their existence; however, any additional laws you propose to be enacted would need a lot more than personal belief to come to fruition...at least I would hope...

Why would someone research Sasquatch if they believed they DIDN'T exist? It makes absolutely no sense at all. I know nothing of the Australian Yowie, and little about The Yeti either - but if you lived on the edge of the vast wilderness that is The Pacific Northwest as I do, you wouldn't be so eager to be cynical I would think. There are thousands of square miles of heavily forested, mountainous wilderness right outside my backdoor here, and plenty of recent reports of sightings - along with a local indigenous Sasquatch tradition that probably goes back several thousand years too. For me, the odds of Sasquatch NOT being a living, breathing, large, bipedal hominid is, quite frankly, highly UNlikely.

Originally posted by br0ker
Let`s bring all of you in on some of the newer research being done on one of the many many audio recordings of Sasquatch out there.

In the following link you will hear Scott Nelson and Ron Morehead Interviewed.

Scott Nelson is:

Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications.

He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri.

He is came over these Sasquatch conversations by accident and was immediately intrigued.

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: Embedding youtube video

THAT my friend deserves a thread of it's own! Anyone participating on this thread that skipped over this post... go back and listen.

That the mtDNA findings proved they were half-human and half-something unknown. Wow!

That is was proven that they have language and their own grammar AND that they spoke in frequencies that were outside those able to be detected by humans and could not have been reproduced by a human. Wow again!

Also not to be dismissed regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film, as well as Dr Grover Krantz, Dr Jeff Meldrum proved that the dimensions of the body shown could not have been a human in a suit... conveniently overlooked by those that choose to ignore science. Search my threads and you will see where I posted the information regarding his findings in full.

Originally posted by br0ker
reply to post by OzTiger

 

I fail to see the problem of 30 000 written reports / statements. Also, for every 1 report being investigated it brings up 5 new reports by people living in the vicinity.

Would you as a person be able to see a clear difference between a bear, a deer and a a 8 foot bipedal leaving you area / crossing the road / sneaking around your house / approaching you etc.?
Or do you just believe that other people in general are less intelligent than you?

-----
Count how many times we throw this ball among us! 1 -1 -1-1 - 1 -1- 1 - 1 (a gorilla walks through the room) I -1 -1 - 1-1 -1-1 . Did you notice anything out of the obvious? Yes. It was hard counting how many times you actually passed the ball.

No, the ball wasn`t passed 15 times.

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: needed a smileyface

edit on 29-10-2011 by br0ker because: another smiley

There would be far more people more intelligent than me rather than less intelligent my friend but if an 8 foot tall Gorilla, bouncing a ball, walked through my lounge room whilst I was watching TV then believe me I would notice it just prior to throwing myself out of the window clad in my brown stained trousers!
The Patterson film has created much discussion with conflicting opinions. I remain sceptical because since the sighting there has been many expeditions in that area (and others) which have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The audio tape is also open to different interpretations - a hidden CAMERA would have been conclusive! Here in Oz there have been camera's set up over many years in an effort to catch the elusive 'Tiger' but to no avail.
I am sure we will have many more discussions on this subject as there are sure to be many more 'sightings' in the future.
Have a nice day my friend.

reply to post by jimbo999


Leave the tape be. It has no matter in this thread. The sasquatch is concludent as fact, there is no further need of discussing if "bigfoot" is real...

Please discuss the topic/OP at hand.