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.
You are forgetting that these creatures are not normal animals. I cannot name what it is, but there is 'something' about these creatures, that allows them to be so extremely elusive...
I was just talking about this in a recent post, how so many witnesses are LIFE LONG hunters, hikers, outdoors type people...and until their first sighting, they had NEVER seen any of these things! Many of them state that, they say, "Ive been in these forests my entire life and thought I knew every creature that lived here, but now I know Im wrong"...
How is that these life long outdoors people can go thru their lives and NOT see one of these things, but then, that one time they do, they come to the realization, that they do indeed exist, how did they never see footprints, scat, bedding, nests, activity, the smell, etc? Im not claiming to have the answer, but its obvious to me, 'something' enables these creatures to be so elusive.
I am not forgetting anything. We know that some people have faked videos and some are guilty of a hoax. How do we know that any of this is legitimate?
These films are short films. Sometimes just a few frames. That is what one calls editing. You take the best you have and show and delete the rest. You don't want to show the picture of the man getting out of the suit or stumbling when trying to walk in a heavy, sweaty, Big Foot or Dogman suit. The Freeman video is just a few seconds shown over and over again and this other one is the same. Plus the added music and narrative to make people believe what they want them to believe. You have to do a lot better than that if you want me to buy that Brooklyn Bridge! All I smell are more hoaxes!
You cite two poor quality films and you have 55 years of no proof. Do you ever look at what our modern trail cameras are capturing today? Now we have high quality films of many of our elusive wild animals and no current trail camera pictures of any Big Foot.
My feeling is that when one can properly identify what they are looking at; that your crowd of believers are not interested! Instead your side produces the pictures that others throw out!
"My side" has produced buttload after buttload of evidence for scads of years. The two very best BigFoot videos I have seen yet are the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin video and the 1994 Paul Freeman video. Both are fine videos that hold up through time, they hold up through time because they're of real, actual live BigFeet. Interestingly, both are female Sasquatches. Many people believe that the reason they've let themselves be captured on film is because they are doing their maternal duties during that time - they're making sure their young are well and accounted for. It's worth being caught on film because they're doing their job. I have watched these two videos over and over and over and over again and there's not one time I was thinking "wait...wait a minute...is that a man in a suit?" They're too authentic.
Paul Freeman's BigFoot is classic BigFoot and she actually looks a tad like Patti in the Patterson-Gimlin film of 1967. The BigFoot in this latest video we're watching on here does blink several times - this one may very well be the real deal, too. This is something BigFeet will do - peer in to homes to see what's in there. That one had been raiding their apple tree and had been carrying on making those noises - noises like I heard way back in 'ole '72 in Edmonds, WA. Edmonds, WA, like most of the state of Washingon, northern California, Oregon and British Columbia are prime BigFoot headquarters.
fisheye - your arguments are lame and of no value. In a tightly-wrapped nutshell, your arguments are lame and of no value.
elkotronics And all I see from your side are blurs and very questionable video evidence. People telling stories are only stories. Where is any tangible evidence?
Like your account: You saw a tree shake and you heard a sound you never heard before - you didn't even see what made that sound! You believe it came from a Big Foot; but you really do not know. But you are content with believing; even though you will never know. You look at poor quality films and say: There he goes just - like Freeman. But you have just a few poor frames to make that opinion. None of this is scientific; it is all about your feelings and not real evidence.
elkotronics And all I see from your side are blurs and very questionable video evidence. People telling stories are only stories. Where is any tangible evidence?
Like your account: You saw a tree shake and you heard a sound you never heard before - you didn't even see what made that sound! You believe it came from a Big Foot; but you really do not know. But you are content with believing; even though you will never know. You look at poor quality films and say: There he goes just - like Freeman. But you have just a few poor frames to make that opinion. None of this is scientific; it is all about your feelings and not real evidence.
Your lame arguments stink of cynicism and nonsense. How can you watch either of the two BigFoot community classics and then say "nonsense?" Those stand up for themselves as convincing arguments for the true existence of BigFoot. But I'm not going to argue with you - I don't need to argue my point with someone's who fishy eyes are permanently glued shut and who's ears are stuck full of nasty old wax. Why would I do that? Have a good day, fish.
elkotronics And all I see from your side are blurs and very questionable video evidence. People telling stories are only stories. Where is any tangible evidence?
Like your account: You saw a tree shake and you heard a sound you never heard before - you didn't even see what made that sound! You believe it came from a Big Foot; but you really do not know. But you are content with believing; even though you will never know. You look at poor quality films and say: There he goes just - like Freeman. But you have just a few poor frames to make that opinion. None of this is scientific; it is all about your feelings and not real evidence.
Your lame arguments stink of cynicism and nonsense. How can you watch either of the two BigFoot community classics and then say "nonsense?" Those stand up for themselves as convincing arguments for the true existence of BigFoot. But I'm not going to argue with you - I don't need to argue my point with someone's who fishy eyes are permanently glued shut and who's ears are stuck full of nasty old wax. Why would I do that? Have a good day, fish.
How can you look at the history of BF and no evidence and say they exist! I don't have a lot of ear wax and I had a great eye surgeon! You did not see anything; but you believe in what you didn't see!
What is it that you don't know how to quote somebody? Just hit the "Quote" button; it works great.
You're not the only city data poster who has tried to teach me how to quote. What, are you having trouble trying ta keep up with my posts? I make my posts as I want to. You old-timers who can't figure out who I'm quoting are just going to have to pedal harder and try to keep up with the program.
If you can't tell that those two classic BigFoot videos depict real BigFeet I can't help you. I am really concerned that your case of fisheye has you reeling more than one could know.
How can you look at the history of BF and no evidence and say they exist! I don't have a lot of ear wax and I had a great eye surgeon! You did not see anything; but you believe in what you didn't see!
What is it that you don't know how to quote somebody? Just hit the "Quote" button; it works great.
Ive never even had one of those 'maybe encounters'...and yet I fully believe these things exist.
The history Ive read, along with the 1000s of witness reports, tell me, that something is definitely out there, (and it looks nothing like a bear up on its hind legs).
Yes but in the end it is rather irrelevant isn't it? A rational person would consider a trail camera a tool, note the "a", it is not the end all be all.
A rational person would network and find someone who was reputable to make casts, someone who knew about how to gather evidence and rules of chain of custody, and a person with tracking dogs. You see something on your trail cam, check the date, the weather conditions and determine if it is still worth it to look at the are for tracks and DNA evidence. And if it is within a few days the dogs should be invaluable. Just so you know, bloodhounds usually do a fast track by following the scent of skin cells that adhere to plants. So if you had moisture in the air, the track will good for several days. That is what is interesting about Bigfoot, he seems to hang out in areas where a Bloodhound could easily track him. All a trail camera needs to do is give you the indication of Bigfoot activity. It does not need to capture a clear picture. If Bigfoot was there, there will be evidence: DNA, footprints (likely with DNA), scent trail, scat, food remains etc.
Sure it would be nice to get Bigfoot footage, but actual physical evidence in the form of DNA or a body is really what is desired. You can get that by using trail cameras to guide your searches.
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.
