Best Bigfoot pic since Patterson Film?

reply to post by CLPrime


This is very interesting to say the least. It is all about the (Patty and the gorilla elbows are almost on the center point) ELBOWS.

link bigfootevidence.blogspot.com...

sorce is "BIGFOOT EVIDENCE"

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.

Bigfoot believers say other sasquatchs will eat a dead sasquatch, destroying bones and all, as to not leave a trace. Not that I truly believe it, that's just what is reported. They are supposed to be truly solitary animals, thus the longetvity of the species down through the years. There are also reports of them having been shot and wounded but no trace is found after following the tracks of the wounded, supposedly they also have a bit of supernatural elements on their side.

ill start with an apology...i only got to page 6.
..have to ask has anyone pointed out you can see the eyes yet??
put the end of the snout at where the (supossed monkey)armpit is,its looking at the camera

Originally posted by predator0187
Here is the bear's head circled, in the bottom middle of the circle there is his nose.

Pred...

Hey pred maybe that's the head of the so called cub, or possible other bear, and the one with it's butt in the air is standing over it for some reason? So maybe it isn't a cub it's another adult bear that's lying and facing us?
I still don't know what to make of this though because if that is a bears leg it's pretty dam muscly and I don't know if bears have calve muscles or not, I'm not an expert
I don't know just a thought, I'm enjoying this thread

Looks more like a gorilla to me

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?

No, I am pretty sure that was something I heard on a program, but there are so many, I really don't remember which one it was. Or something on a website, but there are too many to locate it. 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. I don't think a polygraph anone is good evidence, no matter what the results.

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)

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 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...

Could still be the arch of the bears spine, with the tail being obscured (but the bear is in a very similar stance, digging in the ground so to speak).

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.

Yet in a previous post you stated quite emphatically that it couldn't be done...

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.

That would be an opinion of believers, but would not be a majority scientific opinion, to say the least. "Patty", from what little can be gleaned from such a poor quality film, is proportionally within the human range. The anomalies of sagital crest (male) and hairy humanlike breasts (female) etc. not withstanding. Again, "Patty" is a human, look through the relevant portion of video again, reread the link to the Primatologist. Look around the net for more objective appraisal, it can be hard to find but does exist.

Have you not wondered why science in general has little to no interest in it?

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.

Footprints are direct proof something impacted the ground. They are not proof of bigfoot. How did you rule out big fairies, aliens or pretty much anything else that people claim to encounter, yet have no known existence? Shrek? How were more mundane explanations discounted?

As to the claimed "dermal ridges"...so they have been created quite precisely in controlled experiment using similar soil and consistency, temperature etc...yet you are prepared to overlook this and find it more likely they are from a creature with no known existence..? This illustrates the problem of psuedo science accepted within bigfoot research.

I do know that when someone of the caliber of Jane Goodall states there are primates living in North America, I pay attention.

Have to call complete bs on that unless you provide a geniune source/link. This is very out of context.

I know she qualified it by saying she would "like them to be real" because she "has always been a romantic", while basically acknowledging that there is nothing apart from stories.....

Now, personally, I think this film is real.

That's fair enough and quite reasonable. No problem with that. I wonderwhy believers resort to psuedo science thinking it legitimises their belief. It doesn't.

Even if it isn't, that doesn't mean there isn't something there.

Agreed.

Though IMO, unlikely. If it is there, it is further unlikely to equal the myth.

Do you have an opinion on the reality (or not) of the creatures themselves?

I have seen the SE Asian variety in daylight at a reasonably close distance. Which is why I dislike the bs so much. It is a feild worthy of (honest) scientific study. Even if it can only be answered by the social sciences (I can't help feeling there is far more to this phenomena than we can understand at present), it is still fascinating.

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.

This is all fair enough. Though it is an opinion/belief. I only have a problem when bs and pseudo science is used to prop it up. It seems less than honest, sends proper research backwards and further obscures whatever truth might be there to find IMO.

Why can't a photo show conclusive evidence one way or the other? Why must every photo be so ambiguous?

The person that outlined what she/he thinks to be a bear and cub... that is quite a stretch to outline the "head". There is NOTHING there that resembles a head and the only reason you tried to convince others (and yourself) that it is a head (although there is NO evidence of such) is because you have already come to the conclusion that it is a bear with its head in the grass. But even if that is so (which I believe it is not), that would have to be the smallest bear head in history. In addition, there are no front legs where you outline them to be and if there are where you outline, that would be the closest distance between front and rear legs anyone has ever seen. Good luck with those odds.

You are stretching to say the least

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 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.

It's not just the motions. Those, someone could do.

Yet in a previous post you stated quite emphatically that it couldn't be done...

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.

Have to call complete bs on that unless you provide a geniune source/link. This is very out of context.

I know she qualified it by saying she would "like them to be real" because she "has always been a romantic", while basically acknowledging that there is nothing apart from stories.....

quotes from her comments

Yes, she altered her comment afterwards, but she 's a scientist. She wants proof, as do I. She does think they are very possible, though.

Do you have an opinion on the reality (or not) of the creatures themselves?

I have seen the SE Asian variety in daylight at a reasonably close distance. Which is why I dislike the bs so much. It is a feild worthy of (honest) scientific study. Even if it can only be answered by the social sciences (I can't help feeling there is far more to this phenomena than we can understand at present), it is still fascinating.

I only have a problem when bs and pseudo science is used to prop it up. It seems less than honest, sends proper research backwards and further obscures whatever truth might be there to find IMO.

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)

Yes..Agreed. Dont get me wrong but i call it like i see it and i saw it just like you visually explained it. If you look you can clearly see the snout on the ground.....look harder and you can see the two eyes just above. SOLVED!!

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.

For someone sure they weren't lying, it would seem one logical way of helping to change that. By doing all that you could to show you were honest, by being confident enough to do it. As Heironimus has done... instead of continually turning up at conferences for your adoring and completely unquestioning fans...

There is also the possibility that he won't do it for more obvious reasons, no getting away from that.

I agree that it is completely up to himself, yet it is worth pointing out that the only person who has been prepared to do all he can to show he is being honest (Heironimus) is considered a liar, by believers.

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.

No, you also stated that no human could duplicate the walk, which has been shown not to be true. As to the joint placement etc, this is why it's considered pseudo science. Because it is. Even Meldrum, an ardent believer, concedes in the video that a person in a costume cannot be ruled out. As do most Anthropologists who could be bothered with it.

I can see why the Anthropologist in the vid concluded it might be difficult to walk any other way in such a costume, seems common sense.

www.youtube.com...

I do know that when someone of the caliber of Jane Goodall states there are primates living in North America, I pay attention.

Quote - "Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist."

The following is the bit you seem to conveniently overlook.....

Quote - "Later in the same interview she states,"Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist,"and then,"maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

So you take from this that she has knowledge that bigfoot is real? That this is somehow scientific validation? Quite amazing. Can you point me to the scientific studies she has conducted for bigfoot?

Not only is this claim out of context, it is what would be called "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority), a logical fallacy.

I can be romantic too, I would like bigfoot to exist, yet that doesn't mean that they do. If we are to engade in fallacies.....

I would like to ask her if Leprechauns were real. Being a romantic, I wonder if she might like them to be real also? After all, her work with Chimps must also surely make her an expert on Leprechauns to the same extent she is with bigfoot (both being primates 'n all). The genuine evidence for Leprechauns is basically the same (there is none). Surely we can bypass science itself and rely on whether someone is romantic and wants something to be real, as definitive.

Perhaps fairies are real also? They are obviously primates, although Sir Aurthur Conin Doyle is not a primate expert and hence not a fairy expert, he was responsible for Sherlock Holmes and he certainly seemed to believe. They also have better photographic evidence which has been around longer than the pg film and not truly been debunked. Some very prominent people held the Cottlingly fairies to be genuine. So fairies must also be real?

If we are going to accept quote mining and logical fallacies, how about we try this.....When someone of the calibre of Bob Gimlin states that Roger Patterson could have hoaxed "Patty", I pay attention.....(yes, he has stated this, see link next post). Guess that settles it then.

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?

To claim "Pacific Northwest" is cherry picking and dishonest research, it also overlooks the fact that nothing has truly been found there either. The "secretive creature hidden in the wilderness" angle also overlooks the fact that many sightings occur near populated areas, crossing roads etc. One woman claims she knows them well, they come to her house to borrow garlic (speak English, apparently ).

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.

Hunting has always been a popular US pastime. If it moves in the US, it has been shot. In a country so well explored and hunted, nothing of bigfoot in the last 400 years, despite being widely seen right across the country...Contrast this to the Gorilla, which was known to exist when natives gave a skull to missionaries. Then people simply went out, shot them and brought back specimens. The mountain Gorilla was found by accident, specimens were shot and brought back. This in the largely uncharted wilds of equatorial Africa in mid 1800's (early 1900's for mountain Gorillas). Yet in heavily populated and explored modern day US.....

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...

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.

For someone sure they weren't lying, it would seem one logical way of helping to change that. By doing all that you could to show you were honest, by being confident enough to do it. As Heironimus has done... instead of continually turning up at conferences for your adoring and completely unquestioning fans...

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?

Quote - "Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist."

The following is the bit you seem to conveniently overlook.....

Quote - "Later in the same interview she states,"Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist,"and then,"maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

So you take from this that she has knowledge that bigfoot is real? That this is somehow scientific validation? Quite amazing. Can you point me to the scientific studies she has conducted for bigfoot?

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.

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.

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? As for physical proof, that's another issue. I would be the first to admit that there are aspects of this phenomenon that seem to suggest something as paranormal as physical.

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.

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.

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?

Rather amusing for someone who's claims would need an awful lot of work to go from rumour and folkore, to even begin rising to a level that could be considered psuedo science, to hide behind such a thing. Bigfoot research is basically folklore and mythology, at it's best is psuedo science (apart from a very small amount offered by people like Meldrum). I agree there is no scientific way to tell if someone is lying and I actually like Gimlin.

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.

No, you posted the link after making very exaggerated and out of context claims. There could be unknown primates in the US, the same as there could be fairies and leprechauns. There is, however, no genuine evidence to suggest that any of these things are true.

Basing claims such as yours on the romantic wish of a nice woman that bigfoot be real, is bordering on dishonesty.

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.

What genuine method would you use to do this? How did you become the arbiter of truth? If you simply discount what seems unlikely or lacks anything resembling verification, that would also eliminate the entirety of bigfoot sightings anywhere on the US.

Fossils? We have plenty of large fossils found, very tall "humanoid" things, that some call giants.

Do we really? I don't suppose you could throw in some genuine sources for these claims?

Plus, most paleontologists are not looking for such fossils.

Please learn how fields such palaeontology work. What they actually do.

The stories of sightings go back before Europeans settled here. Were they all hoaxes?

I don't know. Whatever they were, it appears they are unlikely to involve a genuinely real, physical bigfoot.

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.

Then I must call bulls--t to such grandiose claims.

This is not a "little thing". If true, it would be immense. You either can provide genuine sources or you cannot. If you cannot, please be honest about it.