• 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

Seems the old tricks of blurry, shaking camera and brave outdoorsman running like a ninny are passed by now. I watched a compilation of bf sighting vids that the critter was mildly curious at best if he noticed the camera or just didn't care in the least. The "beast" suit ranged from straight up gorilla suits to some with oddly human features .

A few staples that remain are there was little reference to scale and distance. Never near anything of a known size to compare them to. Always slightly bigger than most of the trees in the area however. Always at the edge of a clearing in a woods.
It still looks like theater work but the blurry lens trick isn't always in use anymore.
Now the cameras are amazingly stable as if on a tripod and the need to run from bf is not present. He doesn't threaten anyone as much now.

The narrator of the compilation was completely convinced all videos were genuine somehow despite the bf appearing to be a different species of great ape in each one. Black to tan or orangeish hair, crouched to fully erect posture, stocky or tall and somewhat lean in build it didn't matter.

Bet he had to dig hard to find the best non cliche vids out there too. In a sea of crap he got some fairly clear (if distant) footage.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think Patterson actually believed he filmed a Bigfoot.

I think he did also ~ seems like it was a curse more than anything for the guy.

I think of Patty being the first and last one of it's kind ~ A staged encounter that somehow just captured what a Sasquatch would be at the time and costumes available ~

That said ~ I love the film and what has been done to enhance it over the years is always is a good watch

Still holds up to this day

RRS
Click to expand...
 
AmyStrange said:
Or maybe... just maybe, I'm open-minded enough to understand that my skepticism of Bigfoot may be wrong, but of course, pretend skeptics would NEVER entertain that notion.

-
Click to expand...

Yawn.

The old "no amount of evidence would convince you" fantasy.

We've never heard that straw man argument before.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Yawn.

The old "no amount of evidence would convince you" fantasy.

We've never heard that straw man argument before.
Click to expand...
It's also, as I think I may have mentioned before, the "skeptical of skepticism" argument, which is nonsensical when you realise that the entire point of skepticism is to come as close to the truth of a matter as you can. You shouldn't be skeptical of the process of determining what is real and what is not.
 
AmyStrange said:
Or maybe... just maybe, I'm open-minded enough to understand that my skepticism of Bigfoot may be wrong, but of course, pretend skeptics would NEVER entertain that notion.

-
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Forget a body. Just find some poop! Even bears **** in the woods. :boxedin:
 
There's a great NatGeo video of a snow leopard stalking a markhor. Contrast that with the blurfests that are bigfoot videos.
 
It was filmed on super8 film in a clockwork camera by a guy on horseback.

You don't need more than those three elements to understand why it's fairly crap compared to the phone in your pocket.

I seen the big screen bf film made in the 70's or so. Dad took the family and it was par for the course of that era of paranormal woo slinging. Fifty years later we only have their confession it was faked.

I just seen a yt vids is available that a guy has a footie clan that visits his home and he has befriended them as neighbors. Even gave each of them names.

But, he won't reveal where, offer more than scant details all with a huge "TRUST ME!"
because he says he has to protect them. I smelled bovine defication just watching the intro. Didn't not with watching more.
 
Fact checks aknowledged then. But I seen a film taken by a man on horseback made by somebody that couldn't or wouldn't keep the animal still very well. It was in an area being actively logged at the time.
I recall this well as it was difficult as a veiwer to see whatever he was filming for all the movement. It was also stated as that was part of the reason for the quality of the film.

I haven't followed up on edits done years later to stabilize the footage or take out bits. It wasn't worth the effects.
 
Patterson used a Cine-Kodak K100 16-mm camera, which he rented from (but never returned to) Sheppard's Camera Shop in Yakima. Other footage taken with the camera exists (Patterson and Gimlin on horseback, Patterson pouring plaster for footprint casts).

The Bluff Creek footage begins as Patterson pulls out and starts the camera. Either Patterson fell when his horse fell (Patterson's story) or he smoothly but hastily dismounted (Gimlin's story). In any case, with the camera filming, Patterson sprinted toward the subject, resulting in a good many frames with the camera wildly gyrating, the subject barely glimpsed as a dark splotch. Then the camera steadies and we get the roughly one minute of the subject walking, turning to look back, and then continuing away from the camera.

Might that be what you're remembering?
 
There was a bf movie at theatres in the late 70's, early 80's that featured that particular footage as the kickoff point. Pretty much as rock solid evidence according to the movies director. Then the rest of it was castings, unconfirmed eyewitness accounts taken years later and some other blurry footage from unknown sources for the most part.

Yes, that is the footage I recall. There were extensive bits with Patterson trying to explain what he filmed despite the horse moving so much it made it difficult for anything to be clearly seen.

I do know that by the 90's only enhanced stills and short clips taken from that footage were used on the then popular woo tv genre.
Other sources had created clearer, maybe better "evidence" that became the meat of the genre.

I grew up watching illusionist, magician shows every chance we got and learned early on the truth was usually in the missing details nobody was telling, if not actively making effort to hide them.
I took that same vision into the woo tv/paranormal tv realm and it became clear they forgot to mention where, when, whom or most other vital information that would cast doubts on the story they wanted to sell.

It also became obvious that deep woods, wilderness areas in general were barely accessible areas on the shows. But could be easily accessible by boat or roads somehow anyway.
 
That movie might be ~ Sasquatch The Legend of Bigfoot ~ It's filled with all kinds of BS and ********ter's
Personally I like ~ Bigfoot's Wild Weekend (2012) much Better
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom