|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Jan 30, 2007 23:33:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on Jan 31, 2007 0:27:18 GMT -5
Here's another great site that not only deals with Bigfoot but every kind of weird creature you can think of. www.cryptomundo.com/Thanks for the link to the other site, RB. I enjoy reading about Bigfoot. A&E last week had some show on that was hosted Leonard Nimoy but it wasn't the old show "In Search of...." this was something newer than that. Anyway, this particular episode was about the Yeti or Abominable Snowman. I guess every country has their own name for this creature. Which if you think about it that's quite amazing in itself. That just about at every corner of the globe there have been sightings of a creature like this and that these sightings stretch back 100's of years as well. I guess the thing I don't understand is how some scientists can believe "Bigfoot" could be the missing link between man and primate. Shouldn't this particular species have evolved into man? Unless , if you believe it's real , most of mankind did evolve while some didn't and these are the ancestors from the ones that stopped evolving. Oh, man my head hurts.....  The one thing that frustrates me more than anything is how people search for Bigfoot. Not once has anyone made the suggestion to search underground for these things. Most of the time they're spotted in areas of the country where there could quite possibly be an underground network of caves that these things are living in. I also believe that they're nocturnal and they come out and gather food at night. I don't think they're violent but I wouldn't want to back one into a corner either. With all of this satellite technology we have available I can't believe there wouldn't be someway to use some of that to search these areas where there have been sightings. |
|
|
|
Post by Havana on Jan 31, 2007 9:23:16 GMT -5
I'm always torn on the issue of Bigfoot.
On the negative side, I just can't see how there hasn't been more interaction with these things in this day and age? It just doesn't seem plausible that they can still evade a confirmed discovery in North America. That alone seems to beg the question of how Bigfoot can be real.
On the positive side, there are some witnesses that I just have to believe. I think 97% of the witnesses are just out for attention but there are those few whom I really believe. There is also some pretty credible scientific evidence such as DNA from hair that can only be identified as an unknown primate even though the DNA sample is complete and undamaged, footprints that show flexible feet, occassionally broken toes, and sometime rings in the skin like fingerprint rings. I believe the legendary Patterson film to be real. Even though there is some yokel running around doing interviews who claims he was the guy in the suit. He's not the first to claim this and it's easy to do since the two guys who were present are now dead. Some heavily biased shows like Unexplained on Nat. Geographic have demonstrated how it could have been faked but their explaination was not very credible or convincing. They used an off the rack gorilla suit and just had a guy run by the camera. They also pointed out that it must have been a hoax set up by Patterson because he told his companion not to shoot the creature. FX masters Rick Baker and Stan Winston have both examined the footage frame by frame. Both said there was no way an amatuer or even a Hollywood professional could have created a suit with such anatomical detail as independently moving muscles in the arms, legs, buttocks and back in 1969. The foam latex so commonly used in creature effects today didn't even exist in 1969. Rick Baker said that making a suit like seen in the Patterson film today would cost about a million dollars and would take at least 2 months of full time work by a team of highly trained effects people to create. These guys know more about creating fake monsters than anyone in the world and if they say the film couldn't have been faked, I have to believe them.
I've often wondered that if I encountered one of these creatures, would I shoot him dead and settle the question once and for all with a confirmed specimen. I would become world famous and probably make a lot of money. A lot of people would also hate me. Or would I just let the thing go. I think I would let it go.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on Jan 31, 2007 9:57:03 GMT -5
Well, if you look at all of these other previously thought to be extinct or not even exist type of animals that have popped up recently I think it's very plausible that "Bigfoot" or whatever you want to call him does exist.
They're obviously very intelligent and most of the time these creatures are spotted in parts of the country and world that are remote and haven't been fully explored.
I really don't think enough money and man power has been poured into trying to track one of these things down. I'm talking about government type funding and the use of satellites and sophisticated equipment.
And like I mentioned before I don't believe IF these things exist that they're living above ground and I think the mainly come out at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stefana Jones on Jan 31, 2007 23:09:11 GMT -5
Tell me about it ! I met the guy (or thing) a couple of years ago.  I accidentally walked into his campsite and he came running after me...   ... ...  |
|
|
|
Post by GCR on Jan 31, 2007 23:39:42 GMT -5
I believe the legendary Patterson film to be real. I'm with you on that one, Havana. I used to think it was a hoax when I was younger, it almost seems too easy to just dismiss it as "a guy in a suit". But when you have scientists pointing out the complicated gait, muscle tone and structure, etc, along with guys like Winston who know it could NOT have been any sort of "suit" available in the late 1960's...that pretty much seals it for me. If it could not have been a guy in a suit, then there's SOMETHING out there and until someone provides evidence proving that there ISN'T such a thing as bigfoot, you can count me as a believer. -GCR |
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on Jan 31, 2007 23:44:44 GMT -5
Tell me about it ! I met the guy (or thing) a couple of years ago. I accidentally walked into his campsite and he came running after me... ... ... ;D Somehow I knew these were going to surface again!   |
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Feb 1, 2007 0:11:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Stefana Jones on Feb 1, 2007 10:43:10 GMT -5
Well, the door was wide open !  |
|
|
|
Post by indianatone on Feb 2, 2007 12:45:56 GMT -5
History Channel had a thing on last night that touches on this. Some scientists finally seem to be taking a logical approach in researching the Bigfoot phenomenon from the position that there really may be another classification of Great Ape - Gigantopithicus - as a legitimate species. Not so mysterious or mythical if that turns out to be the case. They had some very interesting info about the patterns and locations of the sightings that really make a person think it wouldn't be that surprising if they do exist. It's those split tales of people who've claimed to come into contact with one where the creatures seem, by nature, very shy and want nothing much to do with humans; and those of the folklore in different cultures depicting giant apes in a more ferocious manner, snarling and running off with people from the village. (And then of course, Stefana's rare and well documented encounter there. )  Bigfoot's still one of those legends worth looking into without seeming too hokey at all. |
|
|
|
Post by GCR on Feb 2, 2007 14:08:08 GMT -5
History Channel had a thing on last night that touches on this. Some scientists finally seem to be taking a logical approach in researching the Bigfoot phenomenon from the position that there really may be another classification of Great Ape - Gigantopithicus - as a legitimate species. Not so mysterious or mythical if that turns out to be the case. They had some very interesting info about the patterns and locations of the sightings that really make a person think it wouldn't be that surprising if they do exist. It's those split tales of people who've claimed to come into contact with one where the creatures seem, by nature, very shy and want nothing much to do with humans; and those of the folklore in different cultures depicting giant apes in a more ferocious manner, snarling and running off with people from the village. (And then of course, Stefana's rare and well documented encounter there. ) Bigfoot's still one of those legends worth looking into without seeming too hokey at all. I think I saw that same show last night...I must say, I got the feeling it was slightly biased against the Patterson film since they had some old-timer "analyze" the video footage and determine that the creature was not only a man in a suit but a man in a "bad" suit. he noted things like "a big white nose sticking out" on the face and the lack of color and definition in the soles of the feet. Nevermind the fact that he was looking at an enhanced version of the film that appears to be in black and white, making those areas of the creature that appear as shades of gray in the original footage seem much lighter. Quite frankly I'd take the word of Stan Winston over this guy (don't remember his name, but he was some old Hollywood FX guy) as Winston seems to know what goes into creating a realistic, life-size creature. The study also proved that the gait of the creature (one of the most highly debated aspects of the film, which some folks believe "proves" the film is genuine) could indeed be faked, but not without some practice. So a human could walk like bigfoot in the video, but if the bigfoot in the video is in fact a human, why did they opt to walk in such a bizarre manner to begin with? One other thing the show covered was the mid-tarsial (sp?) break that can be found in the foot structure of all primates except humans. Humans have an arched foot for balance and bipedal mobility, with the big toe inline with the others toes to assist with forward propulsion. Primates like apes and chimps have a big toe that is more like a thumb, opposable to the rest of the digits on the foot, to assist with climbing and they also have a mid-tarsial break (like a second joint in the foot, before the heel area) that allows them extra grip and mobility on rough surfaces such as rocks and trees, again, to assist with climbing. The bigfoot foot exhibits both a human-like big toe inline with the rest of the toes as well as a mid-tarsial break. Some experts point out that that type of foot is an evolutionary oddity. Some suggest it makes no sense. Others say that it shows a creature that was once a tree-dwelling primate (like apes and chimps) could have evolved and adapted to bipedal locomotion with a human-like big toe but retained the mid-tarsil break for added stability in a rough, wooded and rocky environment. All in all not a bad show, but it just drives me nuts when they trot out some "expert" who "proves once and for all" that the Patterson film was a hoax. I honestly don't think there is enough evidence either way, to make a solid conclusion (though I do think th film is real). If you go by the little things one person points out that supposedly prove the film to be fake, then how can you rule out the many other things people have pointed out that supposedly prove it is genuine? Kinda reminds me of some of the heavy scrutiny we sometimes can put our gear through, in the name of "proving" something is screen-accurate or not. Without a living or dead physical example of this bigfoot creature (or in the case of gear a real, screen-used hero jacket or hat), it will always just be speculation. -GCR |
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on Feb 2, 2007 15:29:39 GMT -5
I've got a feeling we are going to know for sure sooner rather than later. It just seems like the world keeps getting smaller and smaller as the population grows and our cities expand outward this leaves animals no where to go.
I think there's a really good chance this exists. I just don't think people have really invested the time and resources into it that they should be. I think that's because enough people don't take these type of things seriously.
My biggest concern is the ramifcations this will have if it is discovered or even captured. A part of me thinks maybe it should just stay hidden.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianatone on Feb 2, 2007 15:39:22 GMT -5
The Patterson Footage may be one of those "right in your face, LOOK! It exsists!" type of things. There are still some interesting points from both sides on that one. Although they classify it as a female bigfoot, being smaller in general, the one thing that makes it hard for me to believe (about the Patterson film specifically) is that most, if not all, other accounts describe something that is physically much larger and wider in structure. If Patterson's film is real, that looks like not only a female, but a young one at that. Whether that footage in particular is a hoax doesn't really prove that they don't exist; just that this instance was a hoax. What is very noteable, and of extreme relevance, are the separate accounts of these things from different cultures and regions, (not all with TVs, the same show lineups, or means of mass communication to help the idea along) all with very similar descriptions so specific on some features that it seems definitely more than a coincidence. But it's always a much thicker being than what that Patterson film shows. Almost like a walking treetrunk thickness. Thick and boxy, long-haired bearish, to a degree. It exists in folklore of many different tribes across the globe; not only in location but in their own histories. The sightings are fairly consistent within specific areas. (In other words, we never hear about that guy up in Flagstaff who saw a Sasquatch using his outhouse "that one time.") I wouldn't classify anyone as crazy in the hobby of Bigfoot study. |
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Feb 2, 2007 17:45:48 GMT -5
I think there is a part of us that wants to believe these sorts of things are out there. As a kid, I always looked for the "In Search Of" or similar type specials on Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster or UFOs. Older people always said things like.... "the stuff's all fake, like those crop circles". It must be part of the innocent wonder to accept this sort of thing that most have as a child, but tends to wither away as we get older. My son watches all the latest versions of those types of shows now, and I said nothing to him about any of it to get him interested. There are certainly people out there trying to fake these sorts of things, but I believe much of it is rooted in the truly unexplained experiences of regular people. Who knows? I certainly can't say that something doesn't exist in this world until I have covered every square inch of it or below it. That trip could be a little costly, so I'll just stick with curious wondering for now. Ken |
|
|
|
Post by indianatone on Feb 2, 2007 18:35:50 GMT -5
It's all wonder. Just with the evidence, arguments, and occurrences out there on this topic, I'm swayed more on the side of the likely existence of Gigantopithicus over the myth only take.
The only scary part is how hard it must be to tell between bigfoot and a bear in the darkness. Bigfoot, I'd probably follow for a moment. A bear I'd probably have just enough time to recognize it as a bear. "Hey, this isn't bigfo-"
|
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on Feb 2, 2007 21:51:45 GMT -5
IF Bigfoot or whatever you want to call it does exist and the creature has been around for 100's of years then there has to be a whole race of these things living and reproducing right under our noses. Maybe they live in underground "colonies" or maybe they just migrate in packs. Although, if that were the case then why are there usually only one set of tracks found all of the time?  I don't know if I'd be able to tell at night between a Bigfoot and a Grizzly Bear but I do know you'd know the difference if you heard them. I've listened to quite a few "reported" recordings of Bigfoot "screams" and whatever is making those sounds on those recordings really sends shivers up and down my spine. I guess what I find really bizarre right now are these more recent reports of creatures that people are mistaking for a bear or Bigfoot and they turn out to be something entirely different.....like in my "BearWolf" thread. Has it come to a point now that even seeing a Bigfoot is so "ho hum" that people are starting to invent seeing something even more terrifying. |
|
