Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
youtube.com/watch?v=B3tCFWR6hJM

I'm impressed with the strength displayed by whatever it is we're looking at in this video.
 
kitakaze said:
I'm impressed with the strength displayed by whatever it is we're looking at in this video...
Click to expand...

You're not even trying Kit...

...but you're right, it's probably not bigfoot. If it's a hoax, then it's one of the better ones I've seen in a while. With bigfoot, I'll take what I can get :)
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
WP, where did you find this, man? It's awesome. I have never seen this version.
Click to expand...

A little bird dropped it.

I see that Óðinn has now posted it on BFF.


Questions: Who had proven that this is not a pregnant Bigfoot? PGF believers seem to want the suit or a hoaxer confession to officially declare that Patty is not a Bigfoot. It seems that we do not have this suit and we do not have a confession for this. So this is supposed to still be on-the-table, right? It has "withstood debunking" for decades just like the PGF, right?

So why do Bigfoot believers universally declare this a hoax? Is it because they really do think it is valid to simply look at something and declare it a hoax? No real need for proof that this is a hoax? But why then do they demand proof that the PGF is a hoax?
 
William Parcher said:
Vintage Bigfootery circa 1993/94...
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/fab19faa.jpg
Click to expand...
Finally, a clear picture of...one. Whadda ya know, there is a Bigfoot. Boy am I embarrassed.

But seriously, it seems all that Bigfoot hoaxing done by the Sassy 3™ back in the glory days wasn't about making Bigfoot Hoaxes™ near as much as it was about making Really Ugly Bigfoot Hoaxes™. I mean, seriously? And getting back to seriously, Ray Wallace musta walked around half erect most of the time knowing his 'shtick' was inevitably being seriously discussed by others.

Seriously?
 
William Parcher said:
A little bird dropped it.

I see that Óðinn has now posted it on BFF.


Questions: Who had proven that this is not a pregnant Bigfoot? PGF believers seem to want the suit or a hoaxer confession to officially declare that Patty is not a Bigfoot. It seems that we do not have this suit and we do not have a confession for this. So this is supposed to still be on-the-table, right? It has "withstood debunking" for decades just like the PGF, right?

So why do Bigfoot believers universally declare this a hoax? Is it because they really do think it is valid to simply look at something and declare it a hoax? No real need for proof that this is a hoax? But why then do they demand proof that the PGF is a hoax?
Click to expand...

I had read that Wallace claimed to have paid $10,000 for the photo from a researcher who took it in the Mt. St. Helens area in 1992/93. Rick Noll commenting on it at the BFF is convinced he saw it on a record from the 70's, which I personally am thinking sounds right considering the way the photo appears.

Bigfooters seem off-the-cuff in terms of accepting the photo (the other main one) as a hoax. Infoman was under the impression it has come from Ivan Marx (I think due to the wife in suit element). I asked Bill to give his professional opinion on the construction of the suit, but he said he couldn't offer anything based on the photo I gave him. I think it would be worthwhile connecting to the Wallace family and seeing what they have kicking around. IIRC, Meldrum is the only person who tried to see Wallace's stompers. You may have seen at the BFF where I matched all three Blue Creek Mountain Road "Bigfoots" to Wallace stompers.

What was staggering to me is that members such as Mulder were not-fricking-kidding seriously trying to say the claim that Wallace hoaxed anything has no evidence. These are the people who would get a suit from Patricia and say it was a setup and hear a confession and say they were bribed.
 
Regarding the picture of the Vintage Bigfootery circa 1993/94...

I don't think it is Bigfoot but then again I have never seen one.:)
 
On the Wallace Alderfeet...

Gigantofootecus on BFF said:
A wooden foot can not make a track narrower than its actual width.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. If the bottom is rounded, rather than flat, a partial impression will be narrower than the potential full width of the wooden foot. We've already seen this with Wallace tracks where there is an incomplete impression. The bottom of the Wallace Alderfeet are not flat.
 
Not so common photo of the Wallace Alderfeet...

a211371e.gif
 
Huntster said:
Sure. A heavy person with a foot approximately 15" long and a very long stride could have been walking about barefoot at least 20 miles from the nearest road in the southern Sierra Nevada range, and instead of walking along the trail, he/she crossed it by walking/sliding down a rockslide, through the bushes on a faint game trail, and through mud and water.
Click to expand...

What is this business about the rockslide supposed to be demonstrating?


It's also possible that a huge bear (with rear footprints larger than I've ever seen in Alaska, including Kodiak Island, and without any sign of clawmarks) was walking bipedally (there was no evidence whatsoever of a front pawprint).

It's also possible that a human walked those 20 miles up that particular, lonely trail, carrying bigfoot "sandals" in order to fool any hikers that might possibly happen by, and that we never saw that person before, during, or after the trackway find.
Click to expand...

A human walked 20 miles? My God, too incredible! Oh wait - you did it yourself. So you're.... incredible!

Let's see. It's a big surprise to you that the hoaxer hid from you. Youve got to be kidding!

So you expect a hoaxer to not be on the look-out for others I guess. Not concerned at all with concealing his actions. He's gonna hike out singing loudly with those big 'ole feet a-floppin whilst tied to the outside of his backpack, right?

A hoaxer would never be on a lonely trail if I understand your imnplied logic. No, he's going to make the tracks in broad daylight in his own front lawn on main street. That way nobody will suspect anything, right?

Well, it's entertaining.
 
I can whole-heartedly understand there are mis-identifications and people 'seeing what they want to see'. However, has anyone had the opportunity to sit and talk with someone that has a prolonged encounter?

I've met 3 people in my life that have claimed to see a large bi-pedal ape-like creature in the USA. One person in particular observed this creature for over 3 hours - more exactly the creature was observing him. I find it hard to believe that, in this case, the person is hallucinating or mis-identifying. A person's conviction is hard to argue face-to-face.

Also, in 2005, the Bali ape was 'discovered' (I may have missed this discussion). But perhaps a BF hangup here is that people may assume it's some new species. Could be a current species that has adapted. A solution that would make both camps correct in their assertations of the existence. (IMO).

xxx.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015856-1,00.html
 
Here it is 2011 and people are still talking about Bigfoot like it exists.

So
Damn
Absurd
Totally
Ridiculous

It's a mistake to think that Bigfoot exists.

Cotter, you are JREF's newest Bigfoot believer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom