The Paterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage

[Limity (BLM)]

Mar 8, 2017 16:31:51 GMT -5 sabretooth said:

In the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Bigfoot, perhaps.
Sadly, logging and human settlement today threaten what might possibly be his habitat. Although if it's not, they don't. Bigfoot populations require vast amounts of land to remain elusive in. They typically dwell just behind rocks but are also sometimes playful, bounding into thick fogs and out-of-focus areas.
Remember, it's up to us. Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist. The end!!

Simpsons, right?

[thirteen3]

Mar 8, 2017 17:06:02 GMT -5 Limity (BLM) said:

Mar 8, 2017 16:31:51 GMT -5 sabretooth said:

In the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Bigfoot, perhaps.
Sadly, logging and human settlement today threaten what might possibly be his habitat. Although if it's not, they don't. Bigfoot populations require vast amounts of land to remain elusive in. They typically dwell just behind rocks but are also sometimes playful, bounding into thick fogs and out-of-focus areas.
Remember, it's up to us. Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist. The end!!

Simpsons, right?

Futurama.

[brody]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxVek1mrRAU

Cliff Barackman breaks down the evidence

[Red Impact]

A known grifter with a history of selling bigfoot merch happens to be filming a documentary and just so happens to come across one walking in the wild in a way no one else in history has every done so. Seems perfectly legit!

There's a reason every Chupacabra sighting winds up being a raccoon with mange or a skunk that drowned in a river. People want to believe there's more there than can be explained, and I get that. There are animals we haven't discovered, they just tend to be small and in very remote areas, not giant creatures in woods that are frequently visited. The problem with all these sightings and such is that you can never underestimate the ability of the human mind to convince people something happened that never did. Someone thinks they see something in the forest and it suddenly counts as evidence of something or whatnot, completely ignoring the fact that both lying and false memories exist and are very common.

If something of that size existed, with all the people who have combed over those areas over the years it had reported to be active, someone would have found evidence that has not been revealed to be fake. Also, it's Berenstain Bears, not Berenstein Bears.

[riseofsetian1981]

I understand why some people would be skeptical of such a creature existing. However, surely they have to understand that if these things exist, and I happen to believe they do, maybe they're a lot more intelligent than we're giving them credit for and perhaps that's why they've remained hidden all these years. It's a lot easier said than done when we're simply just arm chair spectators looking from the outside in.

If we're to believe that these particular creatures can literally hide in plain sight, blend in with their environment so to speak, and there are even some theories that maybe Bigfoot is more supernatural/paranormal than actually being a physical being. Who knows? All I know is that there has to be some form of credibility to the reports, sightings, and documentaries. People who make these claims risk public and private ridicule due to how over the top and ridiculous their stories sound, surely not everyone is having an overactive imagination or is looking for fame and fortune. I honestly believe people are definitely seeing SOMETHING that they simply cannot explain that completely goes above overactive imagination or misidentification of known species.

[riseofsetian1981]

Mar 17, 2017 22:56:39 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

A known grifter with a history of selling bigfoot merch happens to be filming a documentary and just so happens to come across one walking in the wild in a way no one else in history has every done so. Seems perfectly legit!

There's a reason every Chupacabra sighting winds up being a raccoon with mange or a skunk that drowned in a river. People want to believe there's more there than can be explained, and I get that. There are animals we haven't discovered, they just tend to be small and in very remote areas, not giant creatures in woods that are frequently visited. The problem with all these sightings and such is that you can never underestimate the ability of the human mind to convince people something happened that never did. Someone thinks they see something in the forest and it suddenly counts as evidence of something or whatnot, completely ignoring the fact that both lying and false memories exist and are very common.

If something of that size existed, with all the people who have combed over those areas over the years it had reported to be active, someone would have found evidence that has not been revealed to be fake. Also, it's Berenstain Bears, not Berenstein Bears.

If what you say is true and that people are simply just "seeing things". How do you explain this video then? I've already posted it in this thread, but I am posting it in this reply. His name is Robert Dodson and he is an avid Bigfoot researcher in Texas. He's not a hoaxer, he actually despises anyone who attempts to hoax evidence, and in this video you'll see he's capturing something that isn't a bear, cat, owl, or deer. Whatever he is capturing in the video is something that is not only creepy but downright frightening.

By far the creepiest game of peekaboo I've ever seen in a video. If this is a hoax then he and whoever is involved is bold to be playing games like this in the woods in the night. All I can say is watch the video and look for movement along with eyeshines.

[Red Impact]

Mar 18, 2017 0:14:48 GMT -5 riseofsetian1981 said:

If what you say is true and that people are simply just "seeing things". How do you explain this video then? I've already posted it in this thread, but I am posting it in this reply. His name is Robert Dodson and he is an avid Bigfoot researcher in Texas. He's not a hoaxer, he actually despises anyone who attempts to hoax evidence, and in this video you'll see he's capturing something that isn't a bear, cat, owl, or deer. Whatever he is capturing in the video is something that is not only creepy but downright frightening.

By far the creepiest game of peekaboo I've ever seen in a video. If this is a hoax then he and whoever is involved is bold to be playing games like this in the woods in the night. All I can say is watch the video and look for movement along with eyeshines.

Is there something I'm supposed to be seeing there? Because all I got from that video was a guy claiming someone was throwing rocks at him (which is odd for a creature that is supposed to be super intelligent) and him briefly walking away after saying he saw something, without any urgency that I would expect from someone facing an 8 foot tall primate. There's a brief flash that looks like it could be eyes in the distance, but then again, it's the forest and stuff lives there and stuff is there that reflects light in the dark. In all the 24 minutes, I couldn't see anything that I feel the need to actually try to explain.

As far as the "he's not a hoaxer" claim, I don't know one way or the other. But I will say that people often do speak out against things they secretly do. It happens all the time.

[arrogantmodel]

Yeah, that video is...pretty stupid and boring. 😕

[riseofsetian1981]

Mar 18, 2017 16:04:14 GMT -5 arrogantmodel said:

Yeah, that video is...pretty stupid and boring. 😕

We all have our opinions. What you call boring and stupid, I see it as an avid researcher who might be on to something in the process of his research. It's easy for people to sit back and claim hoax, however, those who make those statements probably wouldn't even venture out into a dense forest area in broad daylight or night.

I don't think those movements of obvious eyeshine of an apparent upright creature ducking/hiding and constantly doing it too. We're all obviously in the position to agree to disagree. I don't view Bigfoot as a Lochness, Mothman, Bray of Beast Road, or Lizard Man of Scape Ore claims. There are far more legitimate claims of a Bigfoot(In my opinion) than those alleged creature sightings.

When it comes right down to it though, I honestly doubt we'll ever know the truth. A friend told me that sometimes life's mysteries are sometimes best left as mysteries.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Again though, that video doesn't constitute evidence at all. It's interesting, but it doesn't really 'show' anything falsifiable.

And that's the thing about Bigfoot. There's not one real shred of actual, hard, evidence that stands up to any cursory scrutiny. Not one piece in decades that hundreds of people have been looking for this thing cuz there's nothing out there to find that matches a real creature.

It'd be cool if they did, but they don't.

As a myth/mystery, it's interesting; I can definitely agree there. But in the same way the wolfman or unicorns etc are interesting. The folklore is neat. But there's nothing physical out there to search for.

[Hit Girl]

Bollocks to Bigfoot.

I want Hellboy to be real.

[Kevin Hamilton]

I'd settle for Hellboy 3.

[Citizen Snips]

Mar 7, 2017 13:29:15 GMT -5 Perd said:

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to a little documentary called Harry and the Hendersons.

"Little" is no way to describe the Academy Award-winning Harry and the Hendersons.

Every year, I wait for it to air during TCM's "30 Days of Oscar". Every year, disappointment.

[ritt works hard fo da chickens]

I don't normally follow those stupid reality shows about Bigfoot but the Animal plaet one recently visited my neck of the woods. They went to Yellow River State Park in Iowa. We are a small population county and very rural. However, almost everyone goes into the woods here. Whether you are a hunter, hiker, photographer, horse rider, cyclist, bird watcher etc. it's the main draw for any touristy activity around here is the woodlands. We are unique from most of the rest of the state because of the travel of glaciation bypassed us. There are probably as many game trail cams as there are people. Another thing is that right near the park is a low security prison. Despite numerous flyovers of the woodlands with FLIR, hundreds of game cams, thousands of hunters and photographers and the fact that every bird watcher biker and equestrian enthusiast these days has a camera in their pockets I had never in over 30 years heard of any crazy sightings in Yellow River. However, some guy who is a known story teller, sees one every time he goes out there according to this show. He conned these "researchers" into coming out and looking for it. They didn't interview a single credible person in the county. They had no pictures, scat, hair, bones, etc., but they took this seriously. This isn't a science it's a relgion and people see what they want to and bend the truth to their beliefs.

[ritt works hard fo da chickens]

If Bigfoot is real he is the only North American animal as heavy or heavier then a man never to have been hit by a train. It is the only land animal in North America not to have been killed on a US highway. It's the only night active animal that knows how motion activated infrared cameras work and can avoid them or magically cannot trigger them despite allegedly having the mass able to break sticks when walking. It has been able to adapt to our technology like it has a subscription to Popular Mechanics. It is either immortal or does not leave bones when it dies.

But to me the oddest thing about it is that ONLY humans can recognize it. Plastic owls and hawks can scare birds. Fake deer can draw in other deer and predators. Plastic geese on a pond will draw in not only other geese but all manner of other water fowl who assume the water is safe enough for geese it would be safe enough for them and will also draw in waterfowl predators. Fake wolves have been used to scare off coyotes. No wild animal has ever reacted to a sasquatch recreation any differently then they would a regular mannequin.

[Glitch]

Mar 18, 2017 20:44:55 GMT -5 ritt works hard fo da chickens said:

If Bigfoot is real he is the only North American animal as heavy or heavier then a man never to have been hit by a train. It is the only land animal in North America not to have been killed on a US highway. It's the only night active animal that knows how motion activated infrared cameras work and can avoid them or magically cannot trigger them despite allegedly having the mass able to break sticks when walking. It has been able to adapt to our technology like it has a subscription to Popular Mechanics. It is either immortal or does not leave bones when it dies.

But to me the oddest thing about it is that ONLY humans can recognize it. Plastic owls and hawks can scare birds. Fake deer can draw in other deer and predators. Plastic geese on a pond will draw in not only other geese but all manner of other water fowl who assume the water is safe enough for geese it would be safe enough for them and will also draw in waterfowl predators. Fake wolves have been used to scare off coyotes. No wild animal has ever reacted to a sasquatch recreation any differently then they would a regular mannequin.

Such ignorance.

Obviously Bigfoot is being warned by aliens about possible dangers by humans. You can clearly hear evidence about this if you play an Elvis record backwards.

[BlackoutCreature]

Mar 18, 2017 20:44:55 GMT -5 ritt works hard fo da chickens said:

If Bigfoot is real he is the only North American animal as heavy or heavier then a man never to have been hit by a train. It is the only land animal in North America not to have been killed on a US highway. It's the only night active animal that knows how motion activated infrared cameras work and can avoid them or magically cannot trigger them despite allegedly having the mass able to break sticks when walking. It has been able to adapt to our technology like it has a subscription to Popular Mechanics. It is either immortal or does not leave bones when it dies.

But to me the oddest thing about it is that ONLY humans can recognize it. Plastic owls and hawks can scare birds. Fake deer can draw in other deer and predators. Plastic geese on a pond will draw in not only other geese but all manner of other water fowl who assume the water is safe enough for geese it would be safe enough for them and will also draw in waterfowl predators. Fake wolves have been used to scare off coyotes. No wild animal has ever reacted to a sasquatch recreation any differently then they would a regular mannequin.

Look, if Bigfoot is smart enough to get to Mars then it knows how to avoid a train.

[riseofsetian1981]

Mar 18, 2017 17:12:29 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Again though, that video doesn't constitute evidence at all. It's interesting, but it doesn't really 'show' anything falsifiable.

And that's the thing about Bigfoot. There's not one real shred of actual, hard, evidence that stands up to any cursory scrutiny. Not one piece in decades that hundreds of people have been looking for this thing cuz there's nothing out there to find that matches a real creature.

It'd be cool if they did, but they don't.

As a myth/mystery, it's interesting; I can definitely agree there. But in the same way the wolfman or unicorns etc are interesting. The folklore is neat. But there's nothing physical out there to search for.

Actually plenty of evidence has been found. But nothing will satisfy scientists/skeptics until a living specimen is found which is fair. Evidence such as hair, saliva, scat, dermal ridges, claw marks, etc have been found and tested only for it to come up with the result as either inconclusive or that of a primate of some sort.

However, it is definitely fair to say that until a dead corpse or a physical being is brought in these discussions will continue for God knows how long.

I will say that I hate those Bigfoot shows on Animal Planet. I'll never understand how those guys get ratings because it's the same thing over and over again.

[Kevin Hamilton]

"Plenty" of bad evidence does not equal good evidence. Inconclusive evidence does not equal evidence, and no, sorry there hasn't been peer reviewed evidence stating that any of the evidence they present is a primate.

Again, there's not been a piece of valid, falsifiable evidence that's stood up to any sort of scrutiny. All of the things you've cited that are presented are, like you said, shown to be completely inconclusive or hoaxes.

It wouldn't take a living specimen, although yeah, that would be the definitive answer. Give us a body, or hell even a bone or two that can be tested by multiple scientists and peer reviewed to definitively state that this is some unknown animal and that would do it.

I'm not trying to sound like an asshole here, believe me, it's just that in this case any sort of discussion is not going to be weighted the same. Actual science is far and away on the side of people saying no Bigfoot.

Before you even get into the mountains of bad evidence that don't actually show anything, we go again to the fact that there's absolutely no fossil record of any North American primate species that would match descriptions of anything regarding what this creature is supposed to be. There's not really a way for a breeding population to exist in the numbers it would have to exist to have the amounts of food such an animal would have to consume on a regular basis. Bigfoot as an actual animal just falls apart under any real scientific testing. Hell, there's not even any consistency on the physiology of these creatures: sometimes they have three toes, sometimes they have four or five. The descriptions vary wildly in regards to size etc.

And again:scat, saliva, hair, all of this that's presented is either immediately discovered to be a hoax, or misidentified something else or at best a 'not sure what this sample is'. But there's a huge leap from 'not sure what this sample is' to 'heretofore undiscovered huge primate species that honestly can't exist given there's no fossil record'. Your Bigfoot "researchers" always want to skip the actual science part of science and go from A straight to Z where anything even remotely weird like some random noise in the dark = Bigfoot.

There's no indication that there's an actual animal out there corresponding to the traits these things are supposed to have.

It's a neat idea, but there's no GOOD evidence.

[Red Impact]

Mar 19, 2017 1:33:34 GMT -5 riseofsetian1981 said:

Mar 18, 2017 17:12:29 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Again though, that video doesn't constitute evidence at all. It's interesting, but it doesn't really 'show' anything falsifiable.

And that's the thing about Bigfoot. There's not one real shred of actual, hard, evidence that stands up to any cursory scrutiny. Not one piece in decades that hundreds of people have been looking for this thing cuz there's nothing out there to find that matches a real creature.

It'd be cool if they did, but they don't.

As a myth/mystery, it's interesting; I can definitely agree there. But in the same way the wolfman or unicorns etc are interesting. The folklore is neat. But there's nothing physical out there to search for.

Actually plenty of evidence has been found. But nothing will satisfy scientists/skeptics until a living specimen is found which is fair. Evidence such as hair, saliva, scat, dermal ridges, claw marks, etc have been found and tested only for it to come up with the result as either inconclusive or that of a primate of some sort.

However, it is definitely fair to say that until a dead corpse or a physical being is brought in these discussions will continue for God knows how long.

I will say that I hate those Bigfoot shows on Animal Planet. I'll never understand how those guys get ratings because it's the same thing over and over again.

The problem is that the evidence generally consists of "Guy says he found something, won't turn it over." or "Guy says he found something, DNA tests don't prove anything." Neither of this is actual evidence.

Science is scrutinized. That's part of the process. Things have to be tested and re-tested because nothing is taken on pure faith alone. People have died for scientific theories in the past. You talk about how nothing will satisfy scientists, but yeah, that's the point. Someone saying they saw something isn't science, and if people want to be taken seriously as "bigfoot scientists" or "bigfoot researchers" they have to provide evidence that stands up to scrutiny. But the evidence found by bigfoot hunters doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You can't point to any of it and say "this proves there's a species that hasn't been documented" like you would be able to if you had DNA samples from a species that hasn't been documented. And when technology improves more and more and continues to fail to show the existence of bigfoot, the bar for what the creature is and what he can do keeps moving. Some guy shouting eye shine in a dark video doesn't really meet the bar of scientific evidence.

There's a reason everything bigfoot related is always found by guys who want to get famous proving bigfoot exists, whereas evidence of every other animal in an area can be stumbled on by schlumps who happen to be hiking.