Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
OntarioSquatch said:
Certain things about her like the knee bend aren't possible for humans to successfully replicate http://i40.tinypic.com/1zzj6e8.png
Click to expand...

The comparison between a woman wearing high-heels walking normally and Patterson's Bigfoot walk is bogus. If it is a real Bigfoot, you would want to compare its walk to a human trying to mimic the leg bend. Are you saying it would be impossible for a human to walk in that fashion?

If its not a Bigfoot, then you must consider the intent was to create a walk not common for humans in order to disguise the fact that it is, in fact, a human in disguise.

The Patterson Bigfoot is walking in a compliant gait, unlike the pictures of normal human gaits that Munns likes to use for comparisons.
Here is the compliant walk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3rdOUNr8XE

Also, you may want to check out the angle of camera to subject in the photo comparison you used.

At the other end of Patterson's subject, you may want to consider the face. In profile we see that Patterson's Bigfoot is flat faced. This seems unique and counter to many reports as well as the ape hypothesis. Wonder why Patterson's Bigfoot is flat faced? Maybe it's because that is the way he envisioned Bigfoot to look.

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/bigfoot-face/
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Certain things about her like the knee bend aren't possible for humans to successfully replicate http://i40.tinypic.com/1zzj6e8.png
Click to expand...

As long as you can ignore impossibilities like this:

Soarwing-1_zpsdc808234.jpg


:rolleyes:

RayG
 
I have rarely ventured into GS&P until a few days ago.
It's just silly.

But these latest FigBoot threads have had me laughing hysterically like a madman.

Comedy Gold. Absolute genius.
 
Yeah, I'm finding BigFoot more fun than I ever imagined it would be, too.
 
ComfySlippers said:
I have rarely ventured into GS&P until a few days ago.
It's just silly.

But these latest FigBoot threads have had me laughing hysterically like a madman.

Comedy Gold. Absolute genius.
Click to expand...

kellyb said:
Yeah, I'm finding BigFoot more fun than I ever imagined it would be, too.
Click to expand...

Resume said:
Well, some it's fun, some of it's sad, and some of it's plain silly.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/forum/19-general-bigfoot-discussion/

Read a couple threads; you might wish you hadn't however.
Click to expand...

About as much fun as that other sub forum I have seen you all post in, iirc.
For comparison, the BFF if about equivalent to LCF.
 
idoubtit said:
Bigroots and Bigsuits. It was quite a week in Sasquatchery. Same old ****.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-hill/bigsuit-and-bigroot_b_4044723.html

And it's not just jerky hoaxers in Bigfootery but it seems more frequent.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/10/edwards-unrepentant-about-his-nessie-hump-photo-hoax/
Click to expand...

Sharon,

I enjoy your website and other articles. However, I was wondering where you found the explanation verified for the Penn. photos as hoot balls?

All I could find seemed to suggest the root ball explanation is a hoax:
http://www.bradfordtoday.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3136&start=84#.UlB_-VYo7zA
 
Resume said:
NL:

Can you see how confirmatory bias can make one susceptible to hoaxing?

A few points.

You were handed a Flir camera, sort of the way neophytes were handed a burlap sack before embarking on a snipe hunt. So who handed you the camera? Why? Well, one reason could be that it's the perfect vehicle to produce an ambiguous image subject to interpretation. Paranormal "investigators" are way ahead of bigfoot enthusiasts in this regard. Then, of course, the files were empty the next morning, and you were left with your memory of the events from the night before. Then, what ho, you found a trail that matched your memory. Which leads us here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

Have you given much thought to the perfectly rational idea that your fellow campers hoaxed you? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

I've been pondering this for a little while and am wondering how someone would be able to pull off a hoax for what I witnessed. It was through a thermal scope, so it was producing a heat signature, it was approximately 9 feet tall, and was making it's way through a very thick forest without a light source. Now, you tell me how a person could pull off a hoax fitting all those details.
 
Northern Lights said:
it was approximately 9 feet tall
Click to expand...

You mean the trees or wherever you decided to place the top of the "head" of the "creature" is approximately 9 feet tall, which may not even be the exact location that this event took place. It's 3 different kinds of useless.

You can be absolutely sure that there is NOT a Bigfoot walking around Northern Minnesota.
 
ComfySlippers said:
I have rarely ventured into GS&P until a few days ago.
It's just silly.

But these latest FigBoot threads have had me laughing hysterically like a madman.

Comedy Gold. Absolute genius.
Click to expand...
It's Comedy Gold™. And we better not find out you just became a fan of Seinfeld too. But seriously, you're late to the show. :p Many here including myself wait in anxious anticipation for the next laughable post by ChrisBFRPKY or Muldur, or a fresh link to some new Bigfoot lunacy or happenin somewhere. There is no actual beast and we can't get enough of it.

William Parcher says BOTH sides are plumb crazy for thinking about Bigfoot for more than a minute a year. He is of course right. ;)
 
Northern Lights said:
I've been pondering this for a little while and am wondering how someone would be able to pull off a hoax for what I witnessed. It was through a thermal scope, so it was producing a heat signature, it was approximately 9 feet tall, and was making it's way through a very thick forest without a light source. Now, you tell me how a person could pull off a hoax fitting all those details.
Click to expand...
How do you know what/who was making that heat signature? The claim that it was 9 feet tall came the next day; you found a path that appeared to "match" the one from night before, then you found some foliage to fit your 9 foot claim.

Northern Lights said:
The next morning, we downloaded the thermal files to find them empty. They didn't record anything, much to my frustration. We went into the woods and discovered a small trail which matched the path the image took that I viewed through the scope. I had one camper stand on the path as I went back to my original location and discovered I couldn't see him. There was a line of trees between me and him and he had to wave his shirt over his head so I could see it. We measured the line of trees and they topped out at 8 feet. The image I viewed was above the line of trees so we determined it to be approximately 9 feet tall.
Click to expand...
Who is "we?" If the the thermal files were empty, how the hell could you confirm the path you discovered "matched" the one from the previous night?

Again, confirmation bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

And, memory bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

You have no way of quantifying anything in your anecdote. We have no method with which to eliminate a tech-driven snipe hunt-type hoax. Which is exactly how your anecdote reads.
 
Last edited:
Northern Lights said:
I've been pondering this for a little while and am wondering how someone would be able to pull off a hoax for what I witnessed. It was through a thermal scope, so it was producing a heat signature, it was approximately 9 feet tall, and was making it's way through a very thick forest without a light source. Now, you tell me how a person could pull off a hoax fitting all those details.
Click to expand...


In your account, you haven't included the distance between you and "It: behemoth of the woods". How far away was it?


Northern Lights said:
...I watched it move in the deep woods as it slowly approached our camp. The movement was very fluid, appearing to glide along. One of our campers was playing the flute as the others were talking. I could only see a rounded image and did not see any other distinct shape through the scope, but it was very clear and moving and a slow but steady pace. It would disappear behind the trees and reappear on the other side. I watched it for approximately five minutes and lost sight as it got very close to the camp. I decided to walk back to camp and take up another vantage point and see if I could find it again. I was not able to find it again, so I walked back to my original location.

After a few minutes, I was able to find it again close to our camp and it started moving back towards the west away from camp. It was moving slowly and again, I could only see a rounded image on top. It took a few minutes, but it went back to the spot where I first picked it up where it stopped moving. It stayed at the location for approximately 10 minutes where it just faded off and the screen went black.

The next morning, we downloaded the thermal files to find them empty. They didn't record anything, much to my frustration. We went into the woods and discovered a small trail which matched the path the image took that I viewed through the scope. I had one camper stand on the path as I went back to my original location and discovered I couldn't see him. There was a line of trees between me and him and he had to wave his shirt over his head so I could see it. We measured the line of trees and they topped out at 8 feet. The image I viewed was above the line of trees so we determined it to be approximately 9 feet tall.

So, to recap, I watched it for a total of approximately 15 minutes, it traveled a distance of approximately 100 yards to our camp and 100 yards back, and it was measured at approximately 9 feet tall...
Click to expand...


Think about the details of your recollection.

1. It glided along.
2. It moved silently.
3. It moved through the forest without a light source.
4. It approached and got "very close" to your camp.
5. It then moved away from said camp, using the same path.
6. It moved slowly and steadily.


The next day, you find a trail, that it followed. No wood ape skilz required to do what it did.


7. It returned to the same spot where you first picked it up, where it happened to stop moving.


What are the odds, huh?


8. It faded away to black.


You don't have any problems with this? You may have been punked. If you were, it wasn't much of an effort. Have you considered that you just saw something, like... some dude checking out the weirdos who were playing the flute and whatever other nutty things bigfooters do around the camp? Something else? Anything else, beside bigfoot? Mind you, it did vanish.

It wasn't bigfoot. I say it was "The Predator". You guys just weren't worth killing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom