Bigfoot Evidence?

[outhouse]

No amount of evidence will convince them

your right about that.

But no one can even come close to disprove the film. Theres so much that does match a real creature. Moving muscles plus foot prints that move, showing a midtarsel break to the toes moving from one another. That film consist of, the film itself and tracks, and eye witness testimony, none of which that have been recreated to this day 40+ years later. Eye witness is the weakest part I would say has 0 merit.

Take into account that the tracks found through out the US that are not %100 hoaxes match up to one another with the exact way any other animal of the same species do. There are things that can and cannot be faked. I understand this proves nothing at all, but it is something to take into account.

It looks as real as the one in your video.

not on video, if it so easy someone would rent that suit and make a vid. Everyone thats tried was an epic fail. theres a reason for this.

 

[Magic Man]

your right about that.

But no one can even come close to disprove the film. Theres so much that does match a real creature. Moving muscles plus foot prints that move, showing a midtarsel break to the toes moving from one another. That film consist of, the film itself and tracks, and eye witness testimony, none of which that have been recreated to this day 40+ years later. Eye witness is the weakest part I would say has 0 merit.

Take into account that the tracks found through out the US that are not %100 hoaxes match up to one another with the exact way any other animal of the same species do. There are things that can and cannot be faked. I understand this proves nothing at all, but it is something to take into account.

You don't seem to have understood what he was saying. His whole point was that you'll come up with some reason why it's not disproven. Unless the actual guys who took the video come out and say it was a hoax, you're simply not going to buy anything anyone says against it. You want to believe it's real, and so you'll find ways to believe.

not on video, if it so easy someone would rent that suit and make a vid. Everyone thats tried was an epic fail. theres a reason for this.

Who has tried? You can pretend other suits wouldn't work on video, but there's nothing to support that. It would not be hard at all to make a video as realistic as the one you support.

 

[outhouse]

If it's not valid it threatens their faith or belief and the foundation of that belief will be jeopardized.

some of he best scientific investigators are trying to move past this film and concentrate on new evidence

the film starts to many debates for one to put enough weight to call it a foundation.

same for the shroud, if a hoax it doesnt discount the bible one bit. the PGF would hurt more then the shroud thats for sure but after 40 years if it was ever going to be disproved it would have been. It does hold this over the shroud.

Like it or not, PGF is not debunked

 

[outhouse]

It would not be hard at all to make a video as realistic as the one you support.

then do it.

you would be the first, if you did a good job you would be a star

 

[Magic Man]

some of he best scientific investigators are trying to move past this film and concentrate on new evidence

the film starts to many debates for one to put enough weight to call it a foundation.

same for the shroud, if a hoax it doesnt discount the bible one bit. the PGF would hurt more then the shroud thats for sure but after 40 years if it was ever going to be disproved it would have been. It does hold this over the shroud.

Like it or not, PGF is not debunked

I'm not sure how many times we have to go over this. You keep making this claim that it hasn't been disproven or debunked. It doesn't have to be. There's absolutely no reason to believe it can't be a guy in a costume. Unless someone can give us a reason to believe it's real, it's not very good evidence.

And yes, discounting one piece of evidence doesn't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but since all you have to go on is evidence like this, disproving the evidence that makes you believe should have the effect of making you disbelieve.

 

[Magic Man]

then do it.

you would be the first, if you did a good job you would be a star

OK, send me the money to buy the suit and travel to the location where they took the video.

 

[outhouse]

His whole point was that you'll come up with some reason why it's not disproven

I feel your wrong.

if there was a good reason I and many other people would go OK ha ha they got us and move on. We dont need the film to be real, its the best evidence but far from the only evidence.

So far theres not one good reason to debunk the film, films dont stand for 40 years for no reason.

your smart please debunk it and solve the mystery regarding the film. i would love proof one way or another.

plain and simply its NOT debunked nor has it even come close to being debunked. theres a reason.

 

[outhouse]

it's not very good evidence.

I agree

 

[Magic Man]

I feel your wrong.

if there was a good reason I and many other people would go OK ha ha they got us and move on. We dont need the film to be real, its the best evidence but far from the only evidence.

What other evidence is there?

So far theres not one good reason to debunk the film, films dont stand for 40 years for no reason.

How about the fact that it's just as easily a man in a costume as it is an actual bigfoot? Do you have any reason for us to believe it's not just a man in a suit?

your smart please debunk it and solve the mystery regarding the film. i would love proof one way or another.

OK, it's simple. It's a guy in a costume. There you have it, folks.

plain and simply its NOT debunked nor has it even come close to being debunked. theres a reason.

You really need to stop saying this. You sound like someone claiming "God has never been disproven". The only debunking it needs is "It's a guy in a suit". If you claim it's not, then debunk the claim that it's not a guy in a suit.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree

Then why do you hold it up as a good reason for you to believe in bigfoot?

 

[outhouse]

Then why do you hold it up as a good reason for you to believe in bigfoot?

because I have seen and believe Gimlin

and everything i have researched for 35 years leaves me to the conclusion theres a high probability the creature exist.

I have family members that are not mistaken in what they have experienced.

I believe a few of those that are reporting sightings

I believe the some of the tracks found are real.

I know people hoax this commonly, I find a few that I believe are not.

 

[outhouse]

You sound like someone claiming "God has never been disproven".

Ill give you that both are myths and or legends in my opinion.

One has no proof and the other has a little but none with certainty.

I however will not to there face or behind there back, call someone that says he has seen a large hair covered man in remote spots in the high mountains a liar like you do.

 

[Magic Man]

because I have seen and believe Gimlin

and everything i have researched for 35 years leaves me to the conclusion theres a high probability the creature exist.

I have family members that are not mistaken in what they have experienced.

I believe a few of those that are reporting sightings

I believe the some of the tracks found are real.

I know people hoax this commonly, I find a few that I believe are not.

This is not what I asked, though. I asked why you hold up this video as good evidence, even though you just agreed that it's not good evidence.

As for the rest of this, it boils down to you believing the evidence for bigfoot that you dismiss for other things like God.

 

[Magic Man]

Ill give you that both are myths and or legends in my opinion.

One has no proof and the other has a little but none with certainty.

I however will not to there face or behind there back, call someone that says he has seen a large hair covered man in remote spots in the high mountains a liar like you do.

I don't necessarily call them liars. I don't claim they're all lying. Some may be lying, and others are most likely just mistaken. They might actually believe they saw a bigfoot, which means they're not lying.

And neither one has proof, and they both have the same evidence for them, which is to say neither has real evidence.

 

[outhouse]

And neither one has proof, and they both have the same evidence for them, which is to say neither has real evidence.

we know this

it's not good evidence.

we know this

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

My bad. Patterson did die of cancer in '72. I meant Patterson and Gimlin initially claimed the Bigfoot was 7 feet 4 inches while Gimlin later changed it.

The Patterson-Gimlin film is a lot like the Shroud of Turin: they both have devotees who insist it must be authentic. If it's not valid it threatens their faith or belief and the foundation of that belief will be jeopardized. The main problem I have with claims that the Bigfoot in the film can't be replicated is that there are much better looking costumes that existed then and certainly exist now. The problem is that just like Turin Shroud defenders, Bigfoot defenders will never accept any recreations of either.

Nothing will ever match the Bigfoot's hair in the Patt'-Gim' film in the exact same hue and shadow and texture despite many much better costumes that have been provided in the past. Nothing will precisely match the gait or arm length or leg angle to the satisfaction of Bigfoot enthusiasts- even Bob Hieronymus' walk which mimics the Bigfoot's in the film will never be as exact as the film's defenders require. No amount of evidence will convince them; they will just move the goalposts and insist that subtle hints of shadow and light are not adequately mirrored as in the Patt'-Gim' film, so any and all recreations will be inadequate.

In the same vein variations of the Shroud of Turin have been made by several investigators and artists but none are sufficient to convince the sindonologists. They claim that even though the faked versions (recently faked that is) have the same 3-D effect when scanned the pigment doesn't penetrate the fibres in the same way the image does on the original Shroud. Even though the faked copies of the Shroud may match every detail of the original there will always be some nuance that the Shroud's defenders will point to as confirmation of the artifact's validity. In this the Shroud of Turin and the Bluff Creek Bigfoot film are similar.

It's like someone insisting you haven't made a bullseye because the dart you've thrown didn't enter the hole the previous dart had made on the dartboard- even though it was clearly in the bullseye region. No attempt or faked version of the Shroud or a Bigfoot film will ever be adequate for those so deeply invested in belief.

The big difference is the Shroud of Turin is used as "evidence" of the validation of religious faith as some physical connection to proves a divine being such as Jesus really did exist, and for many devout believers I have spoken to they use it as “evidence” in some kind of obscure kind of way, proof that God exists (sic) . As much as I don’t believe in Bigfoot to many or its believers it is just a zoological curiosity like any other large animal which actually did or currently does exist such as the blue whale or the gorilla. I know this because when I was a teenager I did believe there was a Bigfoot, but I did not connect that belief to religion in any way. I viewed it as just another rare creature such as some rare parrot.

 

[outhouse]

Ancient Mysteries - Bigfoot - with Leonard Nimoy

theres a old tv special ancient mysterys with leonard nimoy

shows allot of how research was being done 20-35 years ago.

had some good info

my favorite part was the 14" footprint found in the same area as the PGF, 7 years before the film captured the creature.

 

[Magic Man]

we know this



we know this

OK, just so we're clear that you believe something for no good reason while disbelieving something else which has the same lack of good reason.

 

[outhouse]

OK, just so we're clear that you believe something for no good reason while disbelieving something else which has the same lack of good reason.

ah No we havnt.

What I think is a strong possibility due to a little bit of film, family members testimony, sightings from credibil people for 400 years as well as 1 president,, as well as backing by a few scientist as well as footprint cast and hair found. I also want to believe from the work ive done investigating people in BF prone areas.

in my opinion religion has nothing at all except ancient book's that contradict each other and our obvious works of fiction and forgery. AND a 2 handfulls of faith

Im not alone in my belief on either side.

 

[Magic Man]

ah No we havnt.

What I think is a strong possibility due to a little bit of film, family members testimony, sightings from credibil people for 400 years as well as 1 president,, as well as backing by a few scientist as well as footprint cast and hair found. I also want to believe from the work ive done investigating people in BF prone areas.

in my opinion religion has nothing at all except ancient book's that contradict each other and our obvious works of fiction and forgery. AND a 2 handfulls of faith

Im not alone in my belief on either side.

OK, you believe in bigfoot due to a couple photos and videos that may or may not be faked, sightings from a lot of people for a long time, and supposed backing by scientists. That's established.

Now, God has the same evidence, except on an even bigger scale. More people believe in God than in bigfoot, and the sightings of God have been going on for a lot longer than those for bigfoot.

So, why is it you accept a certain kind of evidence in one case, but not the other? It's because of your desire for bigfoot to exist, where you lack the desire for God to exist. It's the same reason people buy the evidence for God, because they want him to exist.