Bigfoot Walks Again, Part 2 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » General Discussion » Other » Bigfoot Walks Again, Part 2 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 1:07 pm:   

Continued from here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 3:35 pm:   

If you're actually of the belief the scene was scrutinized exclusively by "bigfoot hunters," I'm not motivated to even continue with this.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seagull
Username: Seagull

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 4:25 pm:   

I found a picture of a Yeti footprint. It was taken in 1951 on another continient. Seems they're everywhere.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com

Click on odd pics 2 and scroll to First Yeti Footprint
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John_prisk
Username: John_prisk

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 4:37 pm:   

"bigfoot" prints have been scrutinized by primatologists (or whatever the ape experts are called). some that are believed to be the genuine article have shown dermal ridges - and not the kind that appear on a human foot (as on human feet they run one direction - on primates they run perpindicular to the direction they run on a human foot).
I have no idea if this was the case in the patterson sighting, but they have been identified by experts in the animal field in other cases.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 5:50 pm:   

Tom----"Bigfoot Hunters". That is so funny!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_ben
Username: Scott_ben

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 6:14 pm:   

Tom- you wrote "I hope this tread doesn't die" .
I was trying to stimulate conversation. Yet your not motivated to continue the coversation. My point with "bigfoot hunters" was that can you say with complete certainey that the people who "verified" the patterson site were legitimate. I can't see how that is possible?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 10:17 am:   

There are reports of a "Wild Man" or Bigfoot like being in Viet Nam:

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wildman.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vallejo_dave
Username: Vallejo_dave

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 24, 2006 - 10:37 am:   

Bigfoot is alive, living near Grant's Pass, and posting here--and on myspace, lol.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   

I'm skeptical of bigfoot. I just think as an animal - bigfoots would seek out human garbage for easy food and probably be seen more often. Most smart mammals do. I also think a lot of the evidence is shady, and the presumption of evidence has not met the criteria necessary to demoonstrate that a creature of that size exists.

With that said - the Patterson film, if a hoax, is indeed a very good one. I'm not going to say it's real because I think a well-done hoax is still a hoax, but I can't deny this evidence is compelling:

The North American Science Institute was founded in Hood River, Oregon in the late 1990s to study the Sasquatch phenomenon. As of 2006 the group is apparently defunct, but in 1998 the organization undertook a $75,000 study, employing computer analysis, of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Here are some of the authenticating details it noted:

Arm length (measured to the fingertips) as a percent of height: The percent for the human mean is 44%; the creature's percent is 49%, which is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean and is present in only .00019% of humans. Finger and hand flexion is observed in the film, which implies that [any arm-extending] prosthesis must support flexion.
Leg length (measured to the sole) as a percent of height: The percent for the human mean is 53%; the creature's percent is 46%, which is present in only .1% of humans.
Foot morphology: Figure 13 shows the foot undergoing flexion, which demonstrates that the foot is not a solid, inflexible prosthesis. Separate toes are visible. "Key features of the foot ... resemble the plaster cast taken by Titmus."
Face morphology: The jaw of the subject is below the shoulder line, as in a gorilla.
Body morphology: Unlike inexpensive costumes, the subject has non-uniform hair texture, non-uniform coloration and non-uniform hair length.
Kinematics: "The knee theta of the film subject shows a more gradual transfer of weight rather than a [human-type] separate phase" combined with the absence of the bobbing head typical of human locomotion.
Moving muscle groups: Groups of muscle in motion can be seen, in the arms, back and legs. "Also seen is a structure similar to a knee cap, the shape of which changes like a human knee."
It concluded, "If only a single dimension of similarity was shown in the P-G film it could be easily dismissed as a forgery [but it] is remarkable in the simultaneous presence of all of the dimensions listed above."

The fact is that the people claiming bigfoot is real have the responsiblity to present evidence that is varifiable by science. Until then, I'm skeptical....but the film is fascinating
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nachtsider
Username: Nachtsider

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 9:08 pm:   

While I do not rule out the possibility that Bigfeet exist, I believe that only the discovery of a Bigfoot carcass would dispel all the doubt that clouds the issue. That being said, those out hunting in or around Bigfoot country should not hesistate to use deadly force in the event that they encounter one of the creatures. Intrepid individuals contemplating such an enterprise might want to consider packing examples of this weapon, but should also bear in mind that I accept no responsibility for any liability, injuries or damages arising out of attempts to act on my suggestions. Act at your own risk.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 9:53 pm:   

Nachtsrider: there are some counties in Washington and/or Oregon where it is actually against the law to kill a Bigfoot, believe it or not. I find it odd that such a law can even be passed, considering science does not recognize its existence...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 10:03 pm:   

I used to run a website about this kind of stuff. You don't need big weapons for Bigfoot, just a can or two of Copenhagen. Supposedly, they love the stuff. They also find the term "skunk ape" to be rather offensive, at least that's what I've heard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nachtsider
Username: Nachtsider

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 4:50 am:   

Dang. You people in the United States certainly have strange laws, Ed.

Yarbchris, I base my 'heavy-arty' proposal on the fact that occurences abound where people have been seriously mauled in encounters with Bigfoot-type creatures - one should take no chances when dealing with dangerous animals. I know that the articles referring to these incidents are somewhere in the books and papers that surround me in teetering mounds, but their whereabouts currently remain elusive - please bear with me while I search for them, after which I shall post the data here for all to read and evaluate.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 5:12 am:   

Nachtsider,

I find it odd you consider Bigfoot a dangerous animal. Haven't you seen "Harry and the Hendersons?"?

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ratman
Username: Ratman

Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 9:31 am:   

Ed,
I believe Bigfoot is on the endangered species list and that's why it's illegal to kill one. But again science won't "officially" recognize it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 10:33 am:   

How could it be on the Endangered Species list when no one has any idea how many there are? Those laws were passed because IF (and its a big if) Bigfoot does exist it won't be hunted for the sole purpose of profiteering off of its death and capture.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 1:16 pm:   

Skamania County in southern Washington is the only place I'm aware of that had a law against killing a Sasquatch. However, that was passed in the late 1960s/early 1970s and I don't know if it's still on the books.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 2:00 pm:   

Cavemen were recently discovered to still exist and can now be seen doing Geico commercials.
They are very sensitive emotionaly and kind of stupid.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 3:42 pm:   

The cavemen that have been discovered use cell phones, dress in tennis clothes and eat at fancy resturants. Sometime I'm sure a bigfoot doesn't do.

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 4:59 pm:   

Bigfoot are computer savy though and are attracted to human white chicks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjULpc8DsN4
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim_t
Username: Jim_t

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 5:41 pm:   

World Weekly News the supermarkert tabloid had a front page Bigfoot Chriistmas story about Sasquatchs Xmas. Did anyone read it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Johno
Username: Johno

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 6:04 pm:   

According to Weekly World News, Primatologist Kenneth Irvine has studied recently discovered bigfoot tracks and has come to the conclusion upon his study of the tracks that this particular bigfoot has been taking salsa dance lessons. This theory seems to be corroborated by Erueka, California dance instructor Sarah Bowen.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/videos/8
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 6:23 pm:   

This is getting a tad silly...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nachtsider
Username: Nachtsider

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 9:59 pm:   

From page 236 of 'Unearthly Disclosure' by Timothy Good, a 2001 publication by Arrow Books:

In May 1996, 20-year-old Luciano Olimpio dos Reis was walking home one night in Passos, about 40 miles north of Varginha, Brazil, when he claimed to have been attacked by a five-and-a-half-foot tall, hairy creature with a strange growl. The witness, who is six feet, five inches in height and weighs 190 pounds, was knocked to the ground, his shirt and jacket ripped by sharp claws. "He kicked out and knocked the creature off balance, jumped up, and ran, but was knocked down again," report Bob Pratt and Cynthia Luce. "In the scuffle, Luciano kicked the creature in the groin, causing it to double over, and he was finally able to escape to a nearby house." Vitorio Pacaccini, who extensively examined Luciano's injuries and torn clothing, concluded that the incident (one of four in the area) really occurred.

From page 275 of same:

On 4 July 1997, 22-year-old forester Rogerio Roche Grance was attacked while walking along an unlit stretch of road in the municipality of Jardim, south-central Brazil, by a large, foul-smelling creature 'with big hairs scattered all over its body'. Grance was treated at a hospital for wounds to his left arm caused by the creature's claws.

'Harry and the Hendersons' is nothing but cheap fiction. By contrast, the incidents I mention were backed up by physical evidence, which was thoroughly evaluated by highly qualified individuals – Bob Pratt is a veteran journalist with 48 years’ experience, Cynthia Luce holds a master’s degree in anthropology and experimental psychology, Vitorio Pacaccini is one of the most proficient investigators into such occurrences there is, and Timothy Good is an internationally-renowned researcher of unexplained phenomena. My earlier views still stand.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 11:42 pm:   

No recent reports of the big guy in Oklahoma. Remember, I am an unveliever in bigfoot but I have to agree that if he did exist Eastern Oklahoma would be his type of territory. Just 40 miles east of me begins a southern pine forest on every more hilly terrain. 50 miles or so on you are in continuous up and down big hills, all heavily forrested with a low human population. It also gets more and more weird the farther you go, probably due to moonshine, cannabis farming and meth labs. So lots of weird tales take root and flourish. I know BFRO has had at least one or two searches in that part of Oklahoma. So who knows? If somebody shows me the carcass of one they've just shot or runover I might have to switch!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ratman
Username: Ratman

Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 9:48 am:   

Nachtsider,
The attacks in Brazil were most likely from a Chupacabra (another "mythical" creature) not a Bigfoot. I haven't heard of any sightings down there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:47 pm:   

Mike, as a former resident of Eastern Oklahoma (Leflore Co.), I can say the area holds many tales of bigfoot encounters. Maybe the creatures there prefer meth over Copenhagen. The sightings seem to have subsided since the new meth laws went into effect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:53 pm:   

Not according to the BFRO:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=ok
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:07 pm:   

There was even a bigfoot sighting here in Napa County in 1989! It was near LB, so I'm wondering if the purported bigfoot was actually Allen walking home after scuba diving at LB looking for Monticello...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:34 pm:   

Tom, I, too, saw that report before I made the above post. Unless I am mistaken, there was quite a surge of OK bigfoot sightings in the late 1980s and through the 1990s. There continue to be reports, but I seem to remember them being a bit more frequent than they are now. Then again, it could be the media attention that has cooled.

I used to get all kinds of email about all types of Okie creature sightings when I ran a website about such things.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nachtsider
Username: Nachtsider

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 4:41 am:   

Ratman, world-famous chupacabra researcher Jorge Martin documents in his seminal study La Conspiracion Chupacabras (CEDIPOP, 1997) that the critters are bipedal, dark-furred, kangaroo-like creatures standing three to four feet tall, with large, oval-shaped eyes, three-clawed limbs, long fangs, underarm membranes similar to a foxbat's wings and moveable spines down their backs that are akin to those of a porcupine. They are capable of phenomenal jumps and limited flight, invariably attempting to drain their victims of blood with their fangs during an attack. The beasts involved in the attacks I mentioned previously did not look anything like chupacabras and did not display chupacabra-like behavior - they were clearly described as being similar to yetis and therefore also similar to Bigfeet, as cryptozoologists concur that both species are related.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 1:02 pm:   

Cryptozoology is a total pseudoscience Nachtsider. A cryptozoologist saying an animal exists is like your mom telling you the easter bunny is coming. There's no way to tell if a Yeti is related to a Bigfoot because: A. No one has ever captured or killed one to study its biology and B. No one even knows whether they exist at all. There's absolutely no empiracle data to suggest that Bigfoot, Yeti, Chupacabra, or the Easter Bunny exists - not one shred. The people in Brazil could have been attached by any number of things....bears, big dogs, I'm not familar with all of the animals there...but something like that is certainly more likely than a bigfoot because Bears and Dogs actually exist
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 3:46 pm:   

Sanfran: something to consider is that exobiology is a total pseudoscience as well. In fact, it is the only "science" with no data that one can study. Carl Sagan claimed to be an exobiologist, so I guess technically he was a pseudoscientist. Why then did anyone take him seriously but cryptozoologists are made fun of? In fact, they have lots of empirical data: photographs, the Patterson film, plaster casts of footprints, hair, dung and thousands of recorded sightings. Carl Sagan didn't even have a single scrap of evidence, like an alien body from Roswell... he's the one that should be made fun of!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Greg
Username: Greg

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 12:10 pm:   

I re-watched a disected color version of the Film..and that "seam" Johno points out in the previous thread is actually the shadow of an overhanging tree branch. The whole area where Bigfoot walks is full of dead and dying trees..the sun was behind Patterson as the shadow of a large tree passes on Bigfoot's body earlier in the footage.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 1:14 pm:   

I would think if it were a simple costume, there would be multiple seams to be spotted, especially with thousands of sets of eyes looking for it.

Betcha I could find old photos of legit animals that appear to have seams. Not proof they're faked.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 6:54 pm:   

I'm not familar with Exobiology Ed, so I can't speak on that or Carl Sagan. But I can say that hair, plaster casts, et. al. have not proven compelling enough to end this debate. I'm not making fun of cryptozoology - I'm saying that they make assumptions about stuff like Bigfoot and then try to insert evidence to support their own theories instead of being objective. That's not science.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 6:56 pm:   

I agree with Tom though - it is a compelling piece of film - that doesn't make it authentic, but there are certain undeniable features of the patterson film that need to be scrutinized
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 11:56 pm:   

Sanfran: no one else is familiar with exobiology either, because there is no data to be familiar with! And yet, as I pointed out, Carl Sagan (who had absolutely nothing to study in his field) was taken seriously. And yet, cryptozoologists have something to study and are made fun of (I'm not saying you are doing so, btw). Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the mass media and science in general, that's all.

And speaking of something that is not science, we have "global warming"... and yet, the pseudoscientists who peddle this unfounded propaganda are taken seriously once again by the media, but cryptozoologists are not... I'm beginning to see a pattern here...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 6:16 am:   

Ed - I'll check out Exobiology sometime so I can better comment on it. It's hard for me to argue my point by arguing against yours. I understand there is some question among non-scientists and business interests as to the validity of global warming, but for the most part, scientists are in agreement that global warming exists. That doesn't mean they all agree on every detail of it, but there are actual scientific studies on it. You can observe it. You can't do that with the chuppacabbra.
And if you start arguing for the scientific validity of creation "science" next - I'm going to just give up on you completely Ed ;)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 12:11 pm:   

Sanframquns,

If I read correctly, the scientists that support the "theory" of global warming are scientists in non-weather related fields.

Ed. I don't see too many laughing at crptozoologists. Hell, someone has to study what they study. I just see the numbers not believing what they are studying.

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 1:14 pm:   

Scientists that are considered members of that particular global warming consensus are in agreement. There is another consensus of respected scientists (that aren't in that "global" political circle) that happen to disagree. Of course, they are instantly "discredited" by liberal scholars who note that they aren't exactly climatologists. They may not all be climatologists, but many specialize in the studies of meteorology, geophysics, and other sciences where climate and weather history play a large role.

I haven't missed the point of the comparison. All of the scientists, for or against global warming, have a lot more data to work with. I found a very interesting article on the Bigfoot phenomenon at the Skeptic's Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html

The article presents claims by certain prominent people that the Patterson film, and the concept of Bigfoot, is a hoax. Despite the lack of evidence, we should consider hundreds of new species, on land and in the sea, that are constantly being discovered. These discoveries are not limited to tiny insects or a aquatic microbes. New species of primates are currently being found in different parts of the world. One may ask, how can sasquatch be so elusive? Eric Rudolph managed to stay at large for 7 years. He was only caught when he decided to dig in the garbage. Had he stayed in the woods, he might still be at large. I would venture to say that if Bigfoot does exist, it would certainly have more reasoning ability than Rudolph did.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 2:41 pm:   

Yarbchris,

I'm assuming that since Rudolph was at least partially human he is of a much more intelligent species than a bigfoot and therefor more capabile of hiding out. He lasted 7 years, yet thousands have been searching for bigfoot for what, a hundred? Not a good comparison.

What was the last species discovered that was bigger than a loaf of bread?

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 4:56 pm:   

An examination of Rudolph's beliefs tells a lot about his intelligence. Since bigfoot is harder to track than a wild tom turkey, I would say his intelligence or instinct must be far superior than Rudolph's. Rudolph, despite his survivalist lifestyle, was naturally more used to living as a human. The species we refer to as Bigfoot would be even more accustomed to living off the land. An omnivore would have little reason to venture outside of a densely wooded area that contained everything it needed for survival.

As for new species, Two new Titi monkeys (house-cat sized) have been discovered in Central and South Central Amazonia.
In 2001, a new species of camel able to survive on salt water was discovered at the edge of the Tibetan mountains (king size). In Tanzania, 2005, a new species of monkey called the "highland mangabey" was discovered (monkey size). These are but a few examples.

There are cryptids that have been sighted more frequently than bigfoot, and their researchers seemingly have earned more credibility.

The Orang Pendek is a fairly new (cryptozoologic) species and a rarely seen one at that. It is the size of a seven year old boy. I'll admit its existence is also debatable, but it is given a lot more credibility among

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 5:48 pm:   

The problem with cryptozoologists though isn't what they study, its how they study. Cryptozoologists are rarely the people who discover new species. Real scientists are.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oklahoma_mike
Username: Oklahoma_mike

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:19 am:   

Yarbchris, hey! I did not know you used to live in Oklahoma! Indeed, LeFlore county is the hotspot of bigfoot sightings in Oklahoma. I now live between Durant and Hugo, if that helps you place me. No bigfoot claims closer to me than Antlers, but I did see a mountain lion just a few miles from home. I used to think humans were the top of the food chain here but I have reconsidered after that sighting!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:07 pm:   

Mike, I still live in (Southwest)Oklahoma, just not in the eastern part of the state. Back in 1971, in Lawton, there was a report of a Bigfoot-like creature described as half-man, half-wolf. It was found in someone's backyard. The police investigated the report. I have a clipping somewhere of the newspaper story. I do seem to remember some Bigfoot sightings in the Durant/Ada area.

A good source of Oklahoma strangeness (including bigfoot, every now and then) is Butch Bridges' website and newsletter.

http://www.brightok.net/~bridges/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Greg
Username: Greg

Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 8:15 pm:   

I also looked at the bottom of Bigfoot's left foot (in the photo of the previous thread)..it appears that the bottom has turned hard and callous almost like a pad..this would be consistent with a foot which has to bear weight and has little or no protection from the elements.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim_t
Username: Jim_t

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 04, 2007 - 10:07 pm:   

Last week on the Dscovery channel there was a program on Bigfoot called "Best Evidence". Some sceptic scientists stated their ideas about bigfoot versus bigfoot experts. They showed the Patterson film and tried to recreate it with an actor at Stanford university. A Hollywood special effects master John Chambers said he thought the Patterson film was a suit and he mentioned the nose and feet were poorly done. A Scientist also talked about the lack of remains or bones of bigfoot and another talked about how apes dont hibernate and bigfoot would starve to death in the winter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Etphoto
Username: Etphoto

Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 6:19 am:   

Good point Jim. I never thought about that part. What would bigfoot eat in the winter?

ET
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Douglas_oswell
Username: Douglas_oswell

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 9:50 am:   

Big Macs, no doubt.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 12:10 pm:   

I've never understood why it's assumed that if Sasquatch actually exist, it must be an ape. According to whom? There's just as much evidence that it's in the bear family, and bears survive quite well in the winter.

Regarding that costume designer, he never gave reasons for believing the footage was fake. Rather, he simply critiqued it as he would a costume. Pointless and misleading, IMHO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 4:35 pm:   

FWIW, there are some Indian tribes who apparently believe that Bigfoot is actually a spirit that can take on physical form when it visits this dimension. This certainly explains the bizarre aspects of BF cases that are usually never reported as more than a line or two because the BF hunters simply don't believe them because they're looking for a purely flesh and blood missing link between man and ape. I've read stories where BF tracks have been followed for miles, then they suddenly ended in the middle of a field, others where tracks were found going up steep inclines (45º+) without evidence that hands were used to assist in the ascent, and there has even been (if one chooses to believe them) at least one instance where a BF was chased over a patch of mud and it left no tracks, one where a BF was observed to shapechange, and one where a witness saw through (not between) its legs because they were translucent.

Then again, maybe they were indulging a little too freely in their drugs of choice...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vscantu
Username: Vscantu

Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - 6:18 pm:   

Sanfransguns, excellent post about the $75,000 study of the 'Patteson' film by the North American Science Institute. See film here:
http://www.zodiackiller.com/bigfootani.gif

However, my questions are: 1) Why doesn't Bigfoort's ass wiggle? With a butt that big (puts my highschool girlfriend's to shame- just kidding!), there would be lots of shaking & flabbing. But on the video, there is no hint of independant movement by said butt.

2) What is that crease in the middle of Bigfoots' thigh? You can clearly see it runs sideways, in a perfectly straigh line around his right thigh. There is no muscle group that would make this indentation. Granted, he may have fallen asleep on a fallen tree branch, but it's a pretty permanent-looking marking. So it brings up the suspicion of a costume flaw.
I like your quoting the study about,

"Face morphology: The jaw of the subject is below the shoulder line, as in a gorilla." This is reminiscent of Kenny Kilgore. See photo on Tom's post of Jan. 25 (3/4 of the way down) here: http://www.zodiackiller.com/discus/messages/27/955 .html?1170812565

As for capturing Bigfoot, well, by all accounts he's an extremely big fellow. As opposed to an AK-47, I would recomment The Gustav Gun. It was the biggest artillery weapon ever made, and took 500 men to operate. See photo here: http://www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com/railgun/Content/Ra ilwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 11:45 am:   

Just curious Tom - what evidence is it that its a bear?

I don't think you can dismiss the costume expert straight away - he is an expert on costumes - there is some validity to his statements just based on that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 1:30 pm:   

There is no evidence it is a bear. Or an ape. There really is no evidence, period. That's why it could be anything.

That costume designer was reviewing the footage as if he was looking at the work of a cohort. He even mentioned how the bottoms of the feet were light colored, and how he would have designed it differently. Of course, the creature had been in water and was walking through ligh-colored sand, but the designer was oblivious to things like that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 2:04 pm:   

Quite right, Tom. A costumer looking at the Patterson film, assuming it's fake and there's a guy in the costume then judging it on that basis is not being objective. Looking at it with no preconceptions and wondering, "WTF is that???" and then looking for possible explanations is objective.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_voigt
Username: Tom_voigt

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 3:24 am:   

PROOF
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Yarbchris
Username: Yarbchris

Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 6:59 am:   

MORE PROOF
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanfranguns
Username: Sanfranguns

Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 12:27 pm:   

OMG! Tom that's my favorite episode of the 6 million dollar man - I was just talking to a friend about that episode the other day! How funny...

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous"
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration