Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eagles, ravens, coyotes, bears, and a whole bunch of other carrion eaters. If a deer dies where I live the corpse is stripped within a day or so. The bones are quickly scattered afterwards. Humans disappear as well.
The above does not mean that Bigfoot exists, but it's an indication that Bigfoot could exists. Bigfoot sightings are generally in wilderness or near wilderness areas. Scavengers exist in all of these areas.
Sure, 99.99% of dead animals disappear. And yet a few will stick around and be found... skeletons, fossilized dinosaurs, frogs trapped in amber, an entire mammoth frozen in ice, etc. On my desk I have a little fossil fish called a Knightia -- they're common. Shouldn't some kind of identifiable Bigfoot remains have been uncovered by now? A leg bone, a rib, a skull, a jawbone? No one has produced even a tooth or a piece of fur. Isn't it odd that every individual of a species, across history, should disappear without a trace?
Most films are just grainy shaky shadows, you can't prove what it is.
The famous Patterson-Gimlin film from the 60s however, probably the best video record - I mean how do you prove it's a guy in a suit vs. Bigfoot. The ones that filmed (just coincidently when they were filming a documentary on bigfoot) I guess never claimed it was a hoax but they guy that supplied the suit came forth, and the guy that portrayed "bigfoot" came forth and admitted his role. Both passed polygraph tests.
For the purposes of this thread then with the evidence given - yes...yes it has been proven to be a hoax.
A university did a walking gait study on that particular film and found its literally impossible for any human being to walk like the thing in that video was.
Besides that, passing a polygraph does not mean squat, if you 'believe' something to be true, you can pass one too, point is, there is a reason why they are not admissible in court.
A university did a walking gait study on that particular film and found its literally impossible for any human being to walk like the thing in that video was.
Besides that, passing a polygraph does not mean squat, if you 'believe' something to be true, you can pass one too, point is, there is a reason why they are not admissible in court.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film) I quote: "One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting." So there is virtually no way to even discus whether or not his Bigfoot was walking faster, slower or at the same speed as a human.
Regardless of the 'Holy Grail' where is the new photographic evidence? There are simply too many cameras out there to not have good pictures. There is absolutely no place to hide for Bigfoot!
A university did a walking gait study on that particular film and found its literally impossible for any human being to walk like the thing in that video was.
Besides that, passing a polygraph does not mean squat, if you 'believe' something to be true, you can pass one too, point is, there is a reason why they are not admissible in court.
You go to that Wikipedia page and there seems to be an equal number of "experts" that have done studies and say it was impossible for human to duplicate, along with an equal number that say it is entirely possible for a human and in fact looks like someone in an ape suit, and then a third number that say it's just impossible to determine based on the perspective and scale and movie quality.
I'm sure you can find an "expert" that says it's Jesus in the second coming.
Conclusion - inconclusive.
A university did a walking gait study on that particular film and found its literally impossible for any human being to walk like the thing in that video was.
Besides that, passing a polygraph does not mean squat, if you 'believe' something to be true, you can pass one too, point is, there is a reason why they are not admissible in court.
We need a citation and, ideally a link, to that university study. This post is worthless without it.
We need a citation and, ideally a link, to that university study. This post is worthless without it.
I know what he is talking about, the wiki page goes into some detail when you into the "Analysis" section -"Scientific studies favorable to the film"
-"Scientific studies unfavorable to the film"
What's good about this film is this is all pre-digital enhancement technology. It's either bigfoot or some guy in a monkey suit. I say it's a guy in a monkey suit, I mean come on this guy goes out to do a documentary on bigfoot and just so happens to run into bigfoot?
"That wildlife film company just mentioned, American National Enterprises, turns out to have been pivotal. Patterson had been driving down to Hollywood a lot, trying to sell the idea of a pseudo-documentary about Bigfoot; based on Patterson's own self-published 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Studios wouldn't bite, but ANE did. It was with their money that Patterson rented his camera and took some pre-production stills of his buddies allegedly on a Bigfoot hunt, but actually in Patterson's own backyard. They included Bob Gimlin costumed up as a native American guide. ANE's movie was to be titled Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman.
Bob Heironimus was a sturdy, hulking 26-year-old laborer who lived a few doors down from Bob Gimlin. One day Gimlin told Heironimus that Patterson would pay him $1000 for a day's work on a film set wearing a costume. Heironimus readily agreed; that was a lot of money. He met with the men once or twice to try on a gorilla suit and make some adjustments. Then one day, he drove down to Willow Creek. He spent the night at their camp, and the next day they shot the footage.
ANE's money had also been used to buy the gorilla suit. It came from Philip and Amy Morris, established makers of gorilla suits for carnivals. They told Greg Long that they had recognized the suit when they saw Patterson's film on television, and that Patterson had asked their advice in modifying the suit to make the arms longer. They'd even shipped him extra synthetic fur, made from a material called Dynel. They also advised him to put a football helmet and shoulder pads on the suit wearer to make him look enormous. Not surprisingly, when Greg Long asked Bob Heironimus about the suit, he also mentioned that he wore a football helmet and shoulder pads inside of it.
Bob Heironimus then went home, where his mother and two brothers also saw the suit, and waited patiently for his $1000. In accordance with his character, Patterson never paid Heironimus a dime. When he saw the film hit it big, Heironimus feared prosecution for fraud for his role in its production, and so made no further efforts to collect, nor ever spoke up about it to anyone. A groundless fear perhaps, but very real for an honest and innocent young man.
The camera store had to file charges for theft against Patterson to get him to finally return the camera. ANE lost every penny of their investment; Patterson immediately abandoned their pseudo-documentary and, in essence, stole the film clip that was rightfully their intellectual property. It was only 30 years later that Greg Long was able to piece together the entire story by talking to all of those involved. Holes still remain; for example, Al DeAtley claims to have no recollection of where or when he supposedly developed the film, or how he received it from his brother in law. The October 20 timeline is clearly impossible as given, but no evidence could be found to provide actual dates for when the film was actually shot or developed. With much credit going to Greg Long, we now have a reasonably solid reconstruction of the film's complete history, with plenty of space in the gaps to fill with anything more plausible than the Patterson-Gimlin claim of the world's luckiest Bigfoot hunt."
I know what he is talking about, the wiki page goes into some detail when you into the "Analysis" section -"Scientific studies favorable to the film"
-"Scientific studies unfavorable to the film"
What's good about this film is this is all pre-digital enhancement technology. It's either bigfoot or some guy in a monkey suit. I say it's a guy in a monkey suit, I mean come on this guy goes out to do a documentary on bigfoot and just so happens to run into bigfoot?
It's really not difficult to prove it was a man in a suite. Replicate it.
Just watch the old 80s movie "Harry and the Hendersons".
To replicate it you would have to replicate the exact suit, which is likely in Patterson's widow's closet along with the original reel of film which she refuses to release (and if we had that original, it's likely it could very easily be determined if fake or not).
BBC had a documentary some years ago where they kind of tried to replicate that walk - indeed they had some special effects guys create a suit and recreate the walk at the exact spot. The suit was really bad however but I think they were studying the gait and not really attempting to recreate the suit. The problem is the gait and size of the animal was based on footprint casts at the time - cast at the site by, you guessed it - Patterson, the guy that claimed to film bigfoot. If the film is fake, the cast is fake.
I know what he is talking about, the wiki page goes into some detail when you into the "Analysis" section -"Scientific studies favorable to the film"
-"Scientific studies unfavorable to the film"
What's good about this film is this is all pre-digital enhancement technology. It's either bigfoot or some guy in a monkey suit. I say it's a guy in a monkey suit, I mean come on this guy goes out to do a documentary on bigfoot and just so happens to run into bigfoot?
Given that technology has greatly improved since those days, why dont we see many fake bigfoot videos made today, those that receive the same level of scrutiny the patterson footage did?
I do not believe it was a guy in a suit, mainly due to the walking gait study and the muscle movement that can be seen in the footage, if thats a suit, its EXTREMELY good for its time, and it should be considered, nothing even remotely close has been done since (thats a BIG one)!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
