• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot Follies: part trois

Craig4 said:
Great, find a body. We find rare animals all the time. We document jaguars and ocelots in Arizona and bobcats in Maryland regularly. For all your claimed skepticism, you fail to grasp the triviality that would be documenting your furry forest friend.
Click to expand...

It has to boil down to this. There is no place even in a vast country like the USA that they could exist so that they are both occasionally seen but leave no evidence of their existence. We share the same habitat.
 
Patterson was making/pitching a film about hunting Bigfeets. It would be astounding that he didn't have a suit (as reported by some who saw the suit)) for such an endeavor. Once he saw how "good" it turned out the con-man, thief went ahead and pitched it as the real thing and the rest, as they say is history.
 
Cervelo said:
Patterson was making/pitching a film about hunting Bigfeets. It would be astounding that he didn't have a suit (as reported by some who saw the suit)) for such an endeavor. Once he saw how "good" it turned out the con-man, thief went ahead and pitched it as the real thing and the rest, as they say is history.
Click to expand...

He also rented a gorilla suit that is very well evidenced in "The Making of Bigfoot" and of course the problem was... it looked like a gorilla.

That's why he had to buy a suit from Philip Morris, also well documented in the same book.

One of the most disingenuous tactics of the pretend skeptics is to dismiss the mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding the hoax in order to pretend it is just one man's word (Like Bob Heironimus admitting he wore the suit).
 
Resume said:
Jesus Christ, that place is still active? I guess it's a core group of credules, though that cowboy hat credule may be is the dumbest of the group.
Click to expand...

It seems to be nothing more than a circle jerk at this point of their little group.
It was fun watching Norse getting his ass handed to him, he seems to spend all his time sock puppet hunting LOL
 
William Parcher said:
Also it was on 16 mm film and using a quality camera.
Click to expand...

Which was, no doubt, a "clockwork" camera, because pretty much all cameras were then. But a quick google tells me that 16mm film gives a resoultion equivalent to at least 1080p. Perhaps not as good as the best digital video we can take now, but certainly capable of producing quality images. The poor quality of the Patterson film was not the fault of the camera. I think it was likely intentional, as Patterson knew that a really good movie would not stand scrutiny.
 
I know what would convince me that bigfoot is real, and I think it is probably true of most skeptics: Clear physical evidence. Find a dead bigfoot, or at least a big enough piece of one to make it clear that it is not from a known species of animal and is consistent with a large bipedal primate. DNA data would help nail it down.

I do not expect this to ever come about. If bigfoot were real, it would have happened by now, but if it did happen, I would happily change my opinion. I would love for bigfoot to be real. I'd love to see one. But the probability of it existing is very near zero
 
CORed said:
I know what would convince me that bigfoot is real, and I think it is probably true of most skeptics: Clear physical evidence. Find a dead bigfoot, or at least a big enough piece of one to make it clear that it is not from a known species of animal and is consistent with a large bipedal primate. DNA data would help nail it down.
Click to expand...

And it's not like this is an extraordinary ask. A specimen is fairly standard for establishing a new taxon.
 
CORed said:
I know what would convince me that bigfoot is real, and I think it is probably true of most skeptics: Clear physical evidence. Find a dead bigfoot, or at least a big enough piece of one to make it clear that it is not from a known species of animal and is consistent with a large bipedal primate. DNA data would help nail it down.
Click to expand...

Oh, come now. With clear physical evidence you can prove anything that is remotely true. ;)
 
Spektator said:
Oh, come now. With clear physical evidence you can prove anything that is remotely true. ;)
Click to expand...

And we get mild criticism for not considering the mountains of circumstanal evidence that has never been supported by physical evidence.
The believers think they own the playing field.
 
CORed said:
Which was, no doubt, a "clockwork" camera, because pretty much all cameras were then. But a quick google tells me that 16mm film gives a resoultion equivalent to at least 1080p. Perhaps not as good as the best digital video we can take now, but certainly capable of producing quality images. The poor quality of the Patterson film was not the fault of the camera. I think it was likely intentional, as Patterson knew that a really good movie would not stand scrutiny.
Click to expand...

As an experiment, I tried to reproduce the level of shaking going on in the PGF and was amazed how hard you have to try in order to produce footage that bad.

Generally science requires that people be able to repeat the experiment to establish independent verification. Instead I was scolded here.
 
The scene of the film was a logging area covered in slash and some seriously uneven terrain. No logging equipment seen so it was already gone or behind the camera.
I remember that well from the film.
It would be a feat of superior skill to walk through that while filming and keep it steady.
But to make it a bit worse just trying to walk fast would probably do the trick. The ape suit was just outside/on the edge of the slash area and walked on near level ground on a hillside.

Probably a good choice for somebody that can't see well for the costume.
 
8enotto said:
The scene of the film was a logging area covered in slash and some seriously uneven terrain. No logging equipment seen so it was already gone or behind the camera.
I remember that well from the film.
It would be a feat of superior skill to walk through that while filming and keep it steady.
But to make it a bit worse just trying to walk fast would probably do the trick. The ape suit was just outside/on the edge of the slash area and walked on near level ground on a hillside.

Probably a good choice for somebody that can't see well for the costume.
Click to expand...

I've been logging for 37 years. Felled over 50 trees this year, less than average. We cannot cut along streams. We have a setback. What you are seeing in the PGF is the normal wind blown, insect killed, or undercut bank falls. Not logging slash.

That's why there are no clean chain saw cuts. These are broken trees and limbs, not cut. The spring high water cleans all the sand bars off, and leaves branches and stuff in the eddys. That's why where you see that stuff collecting up there are depressions.

These are lazy guys who rode their horses on logging roads to film their fake documentary and there was a stream crossing right there. We use the easiest terrain for our crossings. I don't put my bulldozer or other logging equipment at risk.

The experiment I did was on far rougher terrain. Patterson is on a easy sand bar of a stream, not bushwhacking like I was in my experiment.

Am I really awesome - or is it that you just didn't do the experiment like before when I raised this point.

Patterson was this stud rodeo cowboy, a gymnast and performing tumbler that could walk upstairs on his hands. A boxing champion like me. But he can't hold a camera steady if he wanted to?

Was Patterson a genius level IQ to have Bob walk on clear sandy ground? Then the genius became a moron and choose the hardest ground for himself to walk on?

No sense in filming from sitting right there on his horse. Or having the horse move closer. Oh, but you want a perfectly steady hand, right? So you dismount and cause maximum chaos with the camera instead. In the name of steady shooting.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I do see a certain amount of paranoia there. Like anyone here cares that much about bigfootery? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, if you believe in bigfoot, you'll believe in just about anything.

Read Northern Light's post; he's still a member here, and he's still FoS.
 
From the phenomenon that is Terrible Maps:

80cc733a4fb802fc2e01e7adeacfc7a5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom