It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DariusHames
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 predator0187
Here is the bear's head circled, in the bottom middle of the circle there is his nose.
Pred...
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
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?
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
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...
It's not just the motions. Those, someone could do. The length of the limbs, though, which you can see from knee joint and hip joint placement, doesn't match a guy in a suit. I did see video where they showed that, sometime in the past few years.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesHere 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...
If you want to toss out any evidence, then why read about the topic at all? They do have ridges, and it can't be shown that they were faked. Can't be shown they weren't, but if neither can be proven, you have to consider them as part of the whole.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyesAs 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".
Never thought this was some prehistoric ape, or "missing link". Something undiscovered, if there. I do know that when someone of the caliber of Jane Goodall states there are primates living in North America, I pay attention. Now, personally, I think this film is real. Even if it isn't, that doesn't mean there isn't something there. Do you have an opinion on the reality (or not) of the creatures themselves?
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
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.
No, I simply know what could be done back then. There are plenty of lower quality films of people in ape suits, too, and none look like what we see in this film. From what I understand, these men didn't have a lot of funds, so making a custom suit seems unlikely, Such things are not cheap. That's one of the biggest reasons I doubt the hoax claims. Now, of someone could produce the blasted suit, I might believe them. So far, no one has, and no one claiming they made it (more than one person) can say where it might have gone. I am perfectly willing to accept that anything could be hoaxed, but there needs to be good reason to think so. I have not, for the record, ever seen or heard anything that I would think was a Bigfoot. Beyond a creepy sensation of being watched by something not human, some time back in Ohio, in an area one was said to have been seen, no personal experience there at all. For me, Bigfoot is one of many mysteries I would like to see solved. Always good discussing the points, though. Links appreciated.
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
At first it's a "wtf!?" picture, but upon closer examination, it does in fact appear to be a bear and a cub.
Edit:
Here's how I saw it:
edit on 6-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jessasaurusreeex
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
At first it's a "wtf!?" picture, but upon closer examination, it does in fact appear to be a bear and a cub.
Edit:
Here's how I saw it:
edit on 6-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)
The only argument I have against this is the fact that bears don't really have tails that stick out like that.
see here : pcdn.500px.net...
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If he never took one, then they were misleading people. Still, the tests are not infallible, which is why they aren't permitted to be used as evidence in court. That alone should tell you something.
It's not just the motions. Those, someone could do.
The length of the limbs, though, which you can see from knee joint and hip joint placement, doesn't match a guy in a suit. I did see video where they showed that, sometime in the past few years.
If you want to toss out any evidence, then why read about the topic at all? They do have ridges, and it can't be shown that they were faked. Can't be shown they weren't, but if neither can be proven, you have to consider them as part of the whole.
I do know that when someone of the caliber of Jane Goodall states there are primates living in North America, I pay attention.
Now, personally, I think this film is real.
Even if it isn't, that doesn't mean there isn't something there.
Do you have an opinion on the reality (or not) of the creatures themselves?
No, I simply know what could be done back then. There are plenty of lower quality films of people in ape suits, too, and none look like what we see in this film. From what I understand, these men didn't have a lot of funds, so making a custom suit seems unlikely, Such things are not cheap. That's one of the biggest reasons I doubt the hoax claims. Now, of someone could produce the blasted suit, I might believe them. So far, no one has, and no one claiming they made it (more than one person) can say where it might have gone. I am perfectly willing to accept that anything could be hoaxed, but there needs to be good reason to think so. I have not, for the record, ever seen or heard anything that I would think was a Bigfoot. Beyond a creepy sensation of being watched by something not human, some time back in Ohio, in an area one was said to have been seen, no personal experience there at all. For me, Bigfoot is one of many mysteries I would like to see solved. Always good discussing the points, though. Links appreciated.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If he never took one, then they were misleading people. Still, the tests are not infallible, which is why they aren't permitted to be used as evidence in court. That alone should tell you something.
No doubt if he did take one and pass, believers would be claiming it as infallible proof. That he won't take one and also seems to shy away from genuine critical scrutiny, should tell you something.
It's not just the motions. Those, someone could do.
I do know that when someone of the caliber of Jane Goodall states there are primates living in North America, I pay attention.
Do you have an opinion on the reality (or not) of the creatures themselves?
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
At first it's a "wtf!?" picture, but upon closer examination, it does in fact appear to be a bear and a cub.
Edit:
Here's how I saw it:
edit on 6-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
It's possible, sure, that he's lying. It's also possible that he's tired of being called a liar, and doesn't feel a need to take a test. In any case, such tests really don't mean much to me.
No, I stated that the movement didn't fit human proportions. I have seen videos, where measurements were compared with computer programs, and they didn't fit. Now, I have heard some claim you cannot measure accurately, but that isn't evidence. It's opinion.
I do know that when someone of the caliber of Jane Goodall states there are primates living in North America, I pay attention.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
It's possible, sure, that he's lying. It's also possible that he's tired of being called a liar, and doesn't feel a need to take a test. In any case, such tests really don't mean much to me.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Does it not strike you as odd that bigfoot has been seen in every US state, yet over the centuries nothing has been found to genuinely indicate a physical cause? The only thing that has been proven are hoaxes. It would require quite a few breeding populations of at least 2 species (probably more), yet nothing so far (in any scientifically verifiable sense). How did bigfoot get to Hawaii?
*snip*
Palaeontologists have been looking for fossils in every state, some for over a century. Among the fascinating finds, nothing so far to even hint at a bigfoot type creature.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
In one of your posts on the page linked below, you claimed there were a lot of "samples", inferring they were accepted scientifically as genuinely indicating bigfoot's existence. I doubt the veracity of this. It would be quite a discovery and I wonder why science is not looking for bigfoot, perhaps there is a reason for this..... Could you post the genuine scientific sources for these findings please? I would be fascinated to read the resulting peer review. Thanks.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Excerpt from the link below... en.wikipedia.org...
"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now...and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]".
Some more research on the claimed footprints.
orgoneresearch.com...
orgoneresearch.com...
edit on 5-12-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
So-called lie detector tests are pseudo science themselves. Rather amusing to have people insist that someone take one, to prove that their "pseudo science" claims are accurate, don't you think?
No, I posted a link to the entire conversation, including that part. The point is, a primate expert states that there could be unknown primates in this country.
First off, we have to look at credible sightings, not all reported sightings. Many are totally ridiculous, or known hoaxes. Some are so vague, people could have seen anything. Plus, with any such phenomenon, there will be people that convince themselves they saw something, and really didn't. Some witnesses are not credible. Eliminate all of those, and what are we left with?
The only state I would question would be Hawaii. There, I would guess that anything reported was a hoax.
Fossils? We have plenty of large fossils found, very tall "humanoid" things, that some call giants.
Plus, most paleontologists are not looking for such fossils.
The stories of sightings go back before Europeans settled here. Were they all hoaxes?
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, I am not spending my time posting every little thing. I stated that samples have been found. They have. Scat, hair, tracks, blood. I have also stated, many times, that there isn't conclusive agreement on any of these. Some DNA testing has shown DNA they can't ID, that seems almost human, but not quite. Just because the evidence isn't conclusive, doesn't mean there isn't any. it means the case is still open.