Bigfoot Evidence?

[outhouse]

The pic I posted

a pic does not replicate a gait in any way shape or form

the arm length is longer then a mans, the body larger ect ect ect

 

[painted wolf]

I'm still wondering about the featureless feet...you can see fingers, hair... but the feet are blank surfaces... not even toes/toe shadows..any shadows.

The feet really bother me.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

actually far from it bud, a british tv station spent a million bucks trying to recreate the whole event thinking it would be easy. There BF is laughable at best and looks to be a lankey tall skinney man in a suit.

I agree. It was a sad looking Bigfoot.

no one has even come close to the patterson creature with any costume anywhere let alone try and film it walking.

the only way to make that costume would be to glue each hair on individually

Could you explain this? Why would they need to glue each hair individually????

bob does not walk like that in person. he never has.

I'll say it again: that's irrelevant to my argument. My point remains that the gait is easily copied. There's nothing in the anatomy or gait that excludes a person from walking like that whether it's Bob Hieronymus or JFK or Amelia Earheart in the costume.

actually discovery channel did have a show called sasquatch, legend meets science. they put the balls [points] on the creature in the film and made a virtual gate. The scientist involved not BF researchers, said a man could not move like that more then one or two steps and it would not be a fluid walk as the creature was.

I haven't seen it but I'd avoid using the Discovery Channel shows as evidence. Regardless, such reproductions for pseudo-documentaries are useless as scientific evidence when I can point to anthropologists like David Daegling who argue that the gait could easily be replicated.

 

[outhouse]

I'm still wondering about the featureless feet...you can see fingers, hair... but the feet are blank surfaces... not even toes/toe shadows..any shadows.

The feet really bother me.

wa:do

what i can figure is, it was known the feet were wet and had walked through wet sand then dry sand.

what i see is sand covered soles

who knows, the feet are blown way up yo get what little view we have

 

[Nepenthe]

a pic does not replicate a gait in any way shape or form

Sure it does. I'm a broken record here but it does show how a human can walk exactly like the critter in the film.

the arm length is longer then a mans, the body larger ect ect ect

The intermembral index (that is, the humerus+radius and femur+tibia) has been greatly exaggerated and propogated as unusual by Bigfoot proponents despite the poor quality of the film. The problem is that determining specifics like frame rate of the film, the creature's stride, height, etc. is made difficult by the quality of the film and so all kinds of numbers can be generated and shoehorned in. While acknowledging a tentative interpretation I can't see anything overly unusual about the IM for the Bigfoot in Patterson's film.

 

[outhouse]

Could you explain this? Why would they need to glue each hair individually????

most costumes have the same colored fur as well as the same length

the "hair" is different length as well as different color and shaded through the whole creature.

gait is easily copied.

but once studied completely its actually not easily copied. By background trees ect the creature is over 7" tall most estimates put it at 7'6" the arm length is also longer then a man of that size.

I'd avoid using the Discovery Channel shows as evidence

I agree to a point, some ofthe stuff is major bs lol. I purposly avoided the camera because i wasnt involved this time, but my riding buddy will have a one hour special in december based on all facts about the new motorcycle landspeed record he set.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I haven't seen it but I'd avoid using the Discovery Channel shows as evidence.

We're talking about Bigfoot. I suspect that there aren't any scientific journals that entertain the topic regularly.

Besides, the Discovery channel isn't that bad.

 

[monta]

We're talking about Bigfoot. I suspect that there aren't any scientific journals that entertain the topic regularly.

Besides, the Discovery channel isn't that bad.

It is pretty bad, it's all Roswell landings and reality tv. National Geographic is going downhill as well. When you have to appeal to the populous it is imposible to stay credible I guess. :sad:

 

[painted wolf]

a pic does not replicate a gait in any way shape or form

Time to step back and put our science brain in.

the arm length is longer then a mans, the body larger ect ect ect

There is no evidence in the film that the creature is any taller than human normal. The arm is not significantly longer than normal... a slight change in angle can account for the difference.

This image shows a man (6'5) in the same place as the bigfoot with a landmarks to key them.
Bigfoot is not taller than normal.. add a bulky suit and you make up the difference.

video of the comparison here: http://pgfilmanalyze.webs.com/howtallwasthebigfoot.htm
and another (lower quality) here:http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/Comparison.wmv

We are not addressing the gait here... just the height... This bigfoot is not outside the human range of height.

wa:do

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is pretty bad, it's all Roswell landings and reality tv. National Geographic is going downhill as well. When you have to appeal to the populous it is imposible to stay credible I guess. :sad:

I don't watch it very much, lol.

NatGeo is far cooler, and the History Channel is hit and miss.

I see these three channels as a forum where scientists and others can postulate theories that they can't elsewhere without destroying their careers. That's how I sleep at night hearing the crap that I hear from the History Channel.

 

[monta]

I don't watch it very much, lol.

NatGeo is far cooler, and the History Channel is hit and miss.

I see these three channels as a forum where scientists and others can postulate theories that they can't elsewhere without destroying their careers. That's how I sleep at night hearing the crap that I hear from the History Channel.

I do like me some Dr. Aryk Nusbacher but some of the speculative stuff does my head in.......What if hitler had turned right instead of left would we be ruled by dolphins, who can say for sure

 

[Nepenthe]

most costumes have the same colored fur as well as the same length

the "hair" is different length as well as different color and shaded through the whole creature.

I still call pareidola on this claim. Blowing up the poor resolution of a 43 year old film does not make details like fur length visible. I suspect Patterson bought or rented a costume then added custom details like breasts and altered the face as well. He made a costume that was a reflection of how he thought Bigfoot would appear based on the accounts of female Bigfeet from Albert Ostman and William Roe.

 

[Nepenthe]

We're talking about Bigfoot. I suspect that there aren't any scientific journals that entertain the topic regularly.

Besides, the Discovery channel isn't that bad.

Point taken.
There aren't any that do so on a regular basis but there are certainly papers out there on the various disputes about Bigfoot. I disagree with the Meldrums and Krantzs and Grovers involved with Bigfoot research but I certainly take them at face value since they're competent anthropologists who have published peer reviewed stuff consistently.
I do like Myth Busters still and American Loggers is oddly addictive. I just know some day a Bigfoot is gonna walk across a logging field and get clobbered by a massive tree. I know it!

 

[outhouse]

That's how I sleep at night hearing the crap that I hear from the History Channel.

ancient aliens is such a joke, those guys stretch so far its not even laughable. Having been to the sites they film at in peru makes you realize how whacked in the head they really are

 

[Nepenthe]

a pic does not replicate a gait in any way shape or form

Time to step back and put our science brain in.

There is no evidence in the film that the creature is any taller than human normal. The arm is not significantly longer than normal... a slight change in angle can account for the difference.

This image shows a man (6'5) in the same place as the bigfoot with a landmarks to key them.
Bigfoot is not taller than normal.. add a bulky suit and you make up the difference.

video of the comparison here: How tall was the Bigfoot - The Patterson & Gimlin Film Analyze
and another (lower quality) here:http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/Comparison.wmv

We are not addressing the gait here... just the height... This bigfoot is not outside the human range of height.

wa:do

It's a great video.It's an excellent demonstration of how the 7 foot tall and taller claims are unwarranted. Back to my previous IM index post and the argument the Patterson creature isn't human due to the hands extending below the knees:
Watching the film you can see the hands clearly do not go below the knees. A lot of the claims about Patterson's film- height, gait, arm length, fur, etc.- get repeated and verified in proponents minds by the mere fact they're repeated. An objective look at the film shows these assumptions are often just plain false.

 

[outhouse]

a pic does not replicate a gait in any way shape or form

Time to step back and put our science brain in.

There is no evidence in the film that the creature is any taller than human normal. The arm is not significantly longer than normal... a slight change in angle can account for the difference.

This image shows a man (6'5) in the same place as the bigfoot with a landmarks to key them.
Bigfoot is not taller than normal.. add a bulky suit and you make up the difference.

video of the comparison here: How tall was the Bigfoot - The Patterson & Gimlin Film Analyze
and another (lower quality) here:http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/Comparison.wmv

We are not addressing the gait here... just the height... This bigfoot is not outside the human range of height.

wa:do

the measurements of 7' 6" still stand to this day. the math used for measurements is avaliable publicly

real scientific work was done to get the height and it was redone recently by other scientist who came up with the same conclusion.

the site that those picture originate from were not scientific and he was shot further up the slope a little giving the illusion he was bigger. the same sight has photoshopped pictures for refference and also claims a man hiding in the woods whish is no more then a play in shadows.

that measurment is from one spot and poorly done. the scientific measurements are not from that one location but one where height can not be mistaken

 

[Magic Man]

I believe that it was recently shown to be genuine by the folks at MonsterQuest.

They did some cool stuff, like showing how a human couldn't physically walk like that and so on.

I think I saw that, but it was ridiculous. Of course a human can walk like that. The human they used might not have walked exactly like it, but that show obviously wants to tend towards not proving things fake. I sure as hell can walk like the video.

 

[outhouse]

I sure as hell can walk like the video.

in a monkey suit 7' 6" tall and make it look fluid over rough terrain

if you could you would be the first


A few things are certain, people will argue this for another 100 years since no one can re-ceate it as of yet. a million was spent and they made a joke compared to reality. Patterson didnt have enough money to go all out hog wild like a pro to get the footage he did, he filmed something to this day hasnt been proven a hoax and if it is a hoax its the best one ever done since time began. I believe jesus was a better hoax and the PGF [patterson gimlin film] comes in second.

 

[outhouse]

EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY

this link is done by prof meldrom, this might give painted wolf something to look at

 

[Magic Man]

in a monkey suit 7' 6" tall and make it look fluid over rough terrain

I could recreate the walk in the video.

if you could you would be the first

No, I wouldn't.

A few things are certain, people will argue this for another 100 years since no one can re-ceate it as of yet. a million was spent and they made a joke compared to reality.

I don't think anyone has really tried that hard. All it would take is getting a decent bigfoot costume (very easy), and actually trying to do it, instead of trying to find ways to make it seem like it's impossible to recreate. I just got up, went into a room where I could walk around a bit, and tried. My gait might not be exactly like the person's in the film, but it's certainly the same basic movements. If you're trying to get someone to look exactly like the person in the video, you'll probably fail. If you're trying to get someone to look pretty much the same, it's easy. It's like talking. I might not be able to sound exactly like a Scottish person, but I can do the brogue pretty well.