Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Here is a stabilized clip I put together of the 1st encounter in the Freeman footage. It sure looks like the BF is carrying something big in her right arm, such as a youngun' (which she picked up later in the footage).
  2. 4 points
    Photogrammetry 101 90% of photogrammetry is solving triangles. Since we lose the 3rd dimension on film we only have FOV (field of view) angles to work with. The object is then to derive the sides of the triangles which represent distances from the camera. The vertical and horizontal angles of view on a full frame of film depends on the focal length of the lens and the dimensions of the camera's aperture gate, which restricts the field of view from circular to rectangular. Here is the K100 full FOV and the rectangular gate that represents a full frame of film: The horizontal angle of view for the PGF (25mm) = 23.26 degrees. Here is the Camera-T1-T2 triangle relative to the HAV and the 3 rules for solving triangles. Note that the Tree triangle calcs the distance between them at 14 feet, which is right in the ballpark of the measured distance between them of 12 feet. Also note that the distance between T1 and T2 was likely measured from the outside circumference of each tree at breast height and not the center of each tree at ground level. That could have underestimated the distance by 1 to 2 feet and puts the photogrammetry in sync with the measured distances and confirms that a 25mm lens is most probable. Smaller focal lengths only increase the distance between the trees. The angles between any 2 objects on the film can be measured but unless we know at least 3 of the six triangle measurements (A,B,C,a,b,c), we can't derive the other three to solve the triangle. Refer to the 3 triangle formulas.
  3. 3 points
    I've heard of red orbs being seen in areas of Bigfoot sightings, but never anything blue. I cropped Madison's photo and ran it through PhotoZoom Pro6 and Topaz Adujst 5 to clean it up as much as possible with this result: I'm convinced that the three panel pattern is caused by branches in front of the light source for two reasons; they are not symmetrical and there are other quite similar patterns of branches near the light. Because of the occlusion I believe it is a light source rather than a lens reflection. There also appears to be a metallic appearing portion on top of the light, that is reflecting a bit of the blue glow. The light isn't a point source but looks more like an electro-luminescent or LED panel. In the following photo, I simply eliminated the branches in front of the light to see if it seemed like anything familiar (it doesn't). I also carried the portion at the top down, and a portion at the left of the top that seemed to have a blocking branch in front as it didn't look natural to me. I have no thought on what it may be, other than being sure it is there. There is a company that markets triangular LED panels that can be ganged together on walls and/or ceilings and programmed to emit various colors, but someone would have to put it in place, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Ideas anyone?
  4. 3 points
    I've done 2 field trips in the last week. The first was to an area in the mountains NE of Mission, B.C., last Sunday afternoon, Sep.15th. It had rained heavily for the previous few days, and into that morning, but by noon it let up, so I took the opportunity to head out to look for possible tracks in the wet areas near the numerous old logging roads. There are sightings reported over many years in the vicinity, including one that our group investigated 2 years ago. We found the witnesses reported location, and found a game trail crossing the road, along with 1 large print in the soft shoulder of the road, but definition was poor due to rain between the sighting and our trip to the site. On my solo trip this time, I found no sign of any sort, but had a nice outing in the forested valley.
  5. 3 points
    What stood out for me in this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-bunch-of-eel-dna-in-loch-ness-raising-questions-about-nessie-s-identity is the fact that soooo much DNA was found that belonged to land mammals. Needless to say, no Nessie: "There was - and this may or may not be a surprise, depending on your feelings about the Loch Ness Monster - absolutely no evidence of any Jurassic-era animal DNA, including plesiosaurs, in any of the samples tested.......We find a large amount of eel DNA. Eels are very plentiful in Loch Ness, with eel DNA found at pretty much every location sampled - there are a lot of them," the researchers wrote on the project's website. "Researchers had earlier suggested that a giant eel might explain some sightings. That idea then lost popularity as theories about extinct reptiles became more common. But there have been ongoing reports of very large eels by a number of witnesses." Specifically, the DNA is from European eels (Anguilla anguilla), which does present another problem. As far as biologists know, these fish don't grow any larger than about 1.5 metres (4 feet, 11 inches). To be consistent with Nessie reports, an eel would have to be quite a bit bigger. The data doesn't reveal the size of the eels shedding their DNA into the loch, but the whole idea is not without precedent. Another strange beast sighted in a highland loch could have been an eel. In 1865, a huge "sea serpent" was reported in a loch in Leurbost, eel-like in appearance - leading to the conclusion that it was, probably, an eel. More research will need to be undertaken to understand how an eel fits in with Monster sightings, if it does at all, but the team's findings revealed more about the loch than just ruling out Nessie candidates." What this really means for us Sasquatch researchers is that soil samples needn't be the ONLY place to search for Sasquatch DNA: "One of the more intriguing findings was the large amount of DNA from land-based species in the Loch system," the researchers wrote. "These included high levels of DNA from humans and a variety of species associated with us, such as dogs, sheep and cattle. We also detected wild species local to the area e.g. deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles and multiple bird species. These findings show eDNA surveys of major waterways may be useful for rapidly surveying the biological diversity at a regional level." There has been a lot of water sampling done everywhere at minimum in the last five years. I think some deeper research needs to be done by folks here into just what F&W and academia is finding for land mammal DNA in their local ponds and lakes. It's something we never really hear about. Just stick with the science and all will be well. https://labs.wsu.edu/edna/documents/2015/05/field-protocol.pdf/
  6. 3 points
    Steve Streurfert provided me with a link to a podcast interviewing the man who owns the film and talks about it. https://www.spreaker.com/user/forkermedia/supernrml-special-edition-with-john-john One thing to consider is he described the edge latent image markings, and felt such markings indicated he likely had the original. However, I have the exact same markings on one of my copies, as shown here. On the top row, you can see how bold and obvious the original Kodachrome film type and related edge markings are. But then go to the second row, along the bottom, and see how subtle the markings are for a copy. It would be easy for someone to see only the bold obvious Kodachrome markings and miss the copy markings. So the man most likely just has a copy, like mine. Added: He also said the date code symbols repeat every 10 years, but the Kodak chart states quite clearly that the codes repeat every 20 years. So while the man may be of good intention, his facts are not quite on the mark.
  7. 2 points
  8. 2 points
    Leroy Blevins was my neighbor for years, I have lots of videos of him and I setting up Halloween dummies to scare the neighborhood kids! His precursor to his Patty Bigfoot Costume which his wife did most of the work on! I think Leroy just did the head!!! Leroy was real religious but he loved Halloween more than any other holiday! I have bunches of DVD's of us making full size Monsters complete with Fog Machines to make them Spookier! Half buried Skeletons, Ghosts in Trees, Dummy Humans hanging from trees, etc... Now just because we made realistic Human Dummies doesn't mean Real Humans don't Exist!! lol This thread I wanted to post what remains of his Patty Bigfoot research of which I got him started on by saying the the Patterson Film was real which launched him on a quest to prove me wrong!!!
  9. 2 points
    It’s starting to seem to me that the supposed evidence we have is not enough to get the ball rolling any more than it already has. We can scream all day about a finger bone that lead to a discovery but we cannot even produce that in regards to a creature that supposedly inhabits most of North America currently. The biggest claim of evidence we have, sightings, are detrimental to our argument. We expect them to believe that BF is damn near everywhere yet leaves virtually no tangible, verifiable, repeatable evidence. That’s egg on our face as a community. I don’t want to hear about the secret evidence in private collections, the vids or pics that may exist etc. We do not produce the goods.
  10. 2 points
    Rob Alley of "Rain Coast Sasquatch" fame put together a nice book on BF in the Alaskan panhandle for the Colorado "Mile High Mystery Conference" this month. It is not perfect, or complete, as he was working on a tight time-line. It is a section of his big Alaska Sasquatch book which is in draft form now. The book is far from perfect, but is a valuable resource since most of the reports in it come from Native Americans and First Peoples. Rob, in addition to being an adjunct professor at the University of Alaska, Ketchikan, was a physical therapist who traveled the islands developing strong ties to the local, normally "not speaking" communities. Early stage wraps {i.e. not polished} 154 pages, B&W, color wraps: Maps, lots of maps. Photographs. Many drawings. For once, a nice tight conclusion. The usual: Bibliography of books Rob respects, and a thorough index. Signed and numbered: I have #102 and #103 of 105 printed here. $17.95 shipped Media Mail in the USA. Please email me: PayPal or money order / bank check preferred. joebeelart@comcast.net
  11. 2 points
    SackScratch: I think the line you are referring to runs sideways across the middle of the thigh. In the video above, I lectured about it, and what was discussed was that as the arm swings forward and backward, the fur color tone above the line goes light and dark, depending on which way the arm swings. The most credible explanation is the hand is rubbing the fur and changing the lay of the fur, and by changing the lay of the fur, the reflectance of light on the fur changes, thus resulting in the lighter/darker effect. So this means the palm of the hand is literally rubbing the thigh fur as the arm swings. And the line is exactly where the thumb would be, so the line is caused by the thumb dragging across the fur. Bill
  12. 2 points
    Here's another that I took this morning. Same blue orb. Must be the camera lense flare - though the original one is still odd and freaky. This is how we test things! Try the same thing over and over, snd have several people try it. Thanks everyone! Very happy it wasn't a creepy invisible UFO! 👍
  13. 2 points
    Here's an alternate take maybe, this one has gone as far as it's going to get imo. The Film hasn't been proven or disproven by either side, and those who were there and are still with us aren't getting any younger, memory is an issue at this point. It's increasingly likely this one is doomed to go down in history with a question mark and nothing more.
  14. 2 points
    Madison, I’ve been online for over an hour now, trying to figure out the freaky teal colored lights! Fungus bioluminescence is the closest I came to an explanation - but I can’t find evidence of it in Oregon. So..... As Madison knows, I always have my skepticals on, even though I’m a knower. So my mind was running through every possibility I could think of to explain the clearly barefoot, deep, tracks. The area does see quite a bit of humanity, as it’s a popular recreation reservoir. But no human-made explanation makes any sense to me. The combination of: apparent mid-tarsal break, depth of tracks, wild animal tracks in the same area, and the location and how it relates to the water level and access all make me think that one or two young Sasquatch went for a walk, and momma watched from the forest trees just up the (steep) bank. It would be good to look into the access and potential game trails up in the trees. I studied the area well, with binoculars, from the opposite bank. Distance can be helpful when trying to discern pathways (and trackways). We also tried to look from just below the treeline, but because we were down a steep bank it was hard to get the perspective to see into the forest. Anywho - that’s my “take” on the tracks, and the area. As with most all of western Oregon, it’s insanely “squatchy”!
  15. 2 points
    While the mountains of the West may be pretty and good BF habitat, they work to make BF even more elusive. I think they use their superior strength and ability to manage difficult terrain to their advantage. I have seen evidence that they go straight up inclines that would require us to use switchbacks. My first footprint find was on a low mountain where the human trail was a series of switchbacks and a BF had been down to the water and went trucking straight up the mountain in a 45 degree incline and stepped on the trail margin. I would have needed ropes to make the same climb. Another place nearby I found where one had come down to the river down a 60% incline, leaving streaks of its toes. It must have grabbed tree root hand holds well out of my reach when I gingerly climbed up to photograph the streaks. They put those long arms to good use. So perhaps flatter habitat puts us more on an equal footing to get close to them? Who knows, places like Michigan may give us a better shot at encounters.
  16. 2 points
    I call BS on this one. I know how these algorithms work and this is no neural network effort. This is just a digital filter that re-samples too much. I've seen much better blends of CGI and frame averaging than this.
  17. 2 points
    I remain unsure about this topic, which is not a problem for me. Did you know that orcas are the most widely distributed mammal in the sea and without predators besides humans? It occurs to me that the BFs fill a similar niche in nature, as contrary to what some think, they are found in nearly every habitat. I remember an old forum member describing activity in an urban area in central Oklahoma, for one example. I later visited there myself and found some interesting evidence. That's just one place where BF activity is underestimated, but dedicated investigators know differently. They're often present in close proximity to human populations. Back on the topic, I sort of agree with something I heard elsewhere, what they are not. Not apes, not monkeys, not human, yet a kind of people. That's all I've got.
  18. 2 points
    If it evolved in North America rather than traveling here more or less in the form we know it, it's not an ape, it's a monkey. There are examples in zoology of similar-ish creatures filling similar niches that come from different roots ... essentially if a niche is open, something will evolve to fill it. An example is the mara or patagonian hare which is a rodent whose ancestors adapted to fill the niche since there are no true hares there as would be found in similar niches in Europe. There are a couple things seemingly wrong with the true monkey idea. First, no true monkeys that we know of have grown anywhere that large, second, none are bipedal, third, there's not a single hint in the fossil record from North America for either current or previous species of that size. For it to be correct we'd have to be breaking new ground in several areas at once ... seems less probable than an immigrant from Asia (or even Europe). Everything seems to point towards something from genus Homo sharing a close common ancestor with us, the question is ... what, which ancestor, and how far back? H. erectus is a serious possibility but far from the only one we should consider. IMHO, we should not take any cards off the table. None. We simply don't have enough information to support doing so, all we have are belief systems. Filtering what you will look at because if you find it, it won't fit your belief system, is about the surest way I can think of to be wrong. It's dogma, no more, no less. MIB
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    Maybe, or maybe when push comes to shove, they decide prudence is the better part of valor .. maybe tomorrow will be a safer day to pull the trigger. Can't say that I blame them. I remember "the plan" when I first started going out: if I had activity in camp, I was going to unzip my tent, just stick one hand out, move it around, and see if "anyone" would touch it. So when the footsteps were moving around camp, tree knocks were happening, apparent infrasound, and all that, you know what I did? I said something to the effect of "forget" this, I think I'll try that NEXT time. "Next time" has come and gone several times now and I still haven't done that. It is easy to be big and brave talking trash from the safety of your couch at home with the lights on. It is a whole different story out there in the dark, alone, with a myth that can see you but you can't see it. Suddenly prudence makes a whole world more sense. MIB
  21. 1 point
    BFH has been moved to a hospital in my town, so I plan to see him tomorrow. I'll definitely pass on your good wishes to him. From what Thomas tells me, after he visited him a couple of times, is that he's still very ill, intubated, and sedated, but looking better for an eventual recovery. The ICU at Abbotsford Hospital is top notch, I know from my own experience there a couple of years ago, so he's in god hands.
  22. 1 point
    If we can't see them they won't be able to see us either . Boy I don't want this to be a pissing match but if they are within range and showing them selves thermal will see them and night vision will see everything else . When you say how many others ? How many people who are in an active location are going out with thermal , night vision with the intention of killing one? I think most hunting for them never see one . The people who seem to have the encounters are the ones who pose no risk to them . We have members here and I think including you ? Who have said they have had many encounters if I am remembering the right person. If not I apologize . The prokill never seem to have an encounter or there would be a body already .
  23. 1 point
    Right you are SY. This is what peer review is all about. I was using an old graphic where I was calculating the HAV for a wide angle lens and I mistakenly assumed it was for a 25mm lens. Also, my intent was to show how to solve triangles based on any size lens and an example using a 25mm lens put the protractor too far from the image to measure such small angles. However, we don't actually need the protractor which is why I introduced the triangle formulas. Here is the tree triangle based on a 25mm lens: Full frame = 1683 pixels HAV = 23.26 degrees T1->T2 = 228 pixels HAV = 228/1683 x 23.26 = 3.2 degrees Using the cosine rule: Historical distances to T1 = 85 feet, T2 = 95 feet Distance between T1 and T2 = b = sqrt(95*95+85*85-2*95*85*cos(3.2)) = 11.2 feet SY thinks ( as do I) we should add 20 feet to the distances to T1 and T2: b = sqrt(115*115+105*105-2*115*105*cos(3.2)) = 11.7 feet If SY is correct and Roger's camera position was 20 feet farther back than historical claims, then the distance between T1 and T2 based on a 25mm lens is 12 feet We have a bingo!
  24. 1 point
    When it came to the PGF Bigfoothunter was unshakable. I learned so much from him. Our thoughts are with you for a speedy recovery BFH. There's still a lot to do and you're one of the best there is. Hang tough, my friend.
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    When some of you guys say they hunt and kill deer or elk easily I just don't know how you come to that conclusion unless they hunt bedded deer . Then I can see it . Every film I have watched of them they don't display lighting speed , maybe they are ambush predators jumping out of trees ? I don't know 😎
  27. 1 point
    If Sasquatch IS a species residing in the genus Homo? Then the question becomes why is it so much different than every other known species in the genus Homo? We cannot have our cake and eat it as well. Either it’s a archaic human species that is evolving into something different? Or it never was a human species in the first place. Humans = tools. If Sasquatch has no want or need for tools? That’s a red flag. Maybe Sasquatch uses tools but hides the fact very well? Or maybe it is a descendant of Gigantopethicus, and has never used tools.....
  28. 1 point
    I wasn't with Madison when she took the pics, but we went there a week or so later so I have an idea of distance based on where she said she was. It looks to have been 275-300 meters.
  29. 1 point
    That's what I said, he's trying to tailor the evidence to his liking more than basing it on facts. There are other more humany knowns that are a better fit, and it doesn't even have to be a known one, we have been finding new ones of late. That said, as an aside, Meldrum's cred for me has slipped in recent years, more a celebrity at this point.
  30. 1 point
    No, we don't, not fully and reliably. There are something like 3 billion base pairs in play. Many DNA segments can be in play in determining a single physical trait while some influence multiple traits but are not absolutely deterministic for any of them. It's like playing cards with only a fuzzy view of the rule book. This is why type specimens are important. While we can't say, in an absolute and deterministic way, that "this combination, and only this combination, causes that", we can say "when trait X is present, this segment matches that segment" understanding that we may not be looking at all the other things that also have to be in place at the same time. MIB
  31. 1 point
    These are just my general thoughts, M. First off, if there are creatures in the area then my thinking is that they may already be feeling exposed and therefore somewhat on edge. I say that because of what looks like a low water situation which has created a wider expanse of open shoreline. It means that in order to secure water a creature would have to venture into the open whether it is day or night. Another thought is that your presence there may be relatively a bit too frequent? I know it must be interesting and exciting to be there and see the things you've been kind enough to post here but my gut feeling is that it may also serve to cause whatever is there leaving tracks to vacate the area. Especially since there are other water sources available. Might not be a bad suggestion to give the location a respite I order to allow any creature apprehension to abate. Wild creature always are wary anyway and an intelligent one will be surely wary and then some. It has happened before where activity has ceased after follow up visits into a certain local and I just wanted to remind you of that particular dynamic. Sure, there is probably Human activity there anyway with a boat launch and all but an intelligent creature would know when a Human isn't acting like the rest such as casting prints and using the body language of someone doing something different than simple normal recreational activity? Didn't think it would be bad to bring these thoughts up to you.
  32. 1 point
    My apologies. You struck a cord and memories of very uneducated people asking, "do you believe HE is real?!?". If it was a singular he or she...it's magic or a demon, or not real.
  33. 1 point
    I'm not exactly sure which space you mean, so if you'd like to show me, that would be great! I'm not sure how good the prints are going to be, in that pea gravel. I'm hoping the one that was muddied turns out. If you want to see the video, I've posted it on my YouTube channel. Then you'll have a good idea of the layout. I would also like to thank you all for encouraging me to go back out there. Thank you! https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCGcgtibIWESmOAtVZM-K88A
  34. 1 point
    Anybody from here gonna be there? Am only able to go Saturday but really looking forward to hearing Ron Morehead & Scott Nelson speak, among others....my first BF event...
  35. 1 point
    What I find most compelling about Patty is that she had very short hair for a costume, which would normally be used to cover suit flaws, yet I defy anyone to spot 1 fabric fold/crease over her entire body. How the hell did Roger do that? Styrofoam padding like Dfoot?
  36. 1 point
    Because out of all of the other claims, Kit's supposed suit was the lynch pin to his own undoing. So he never produced the suit. Getting the ISF itself to pressure him to do it is a good move IMHO. Of course to date, the ISF had not done so either because no one thought of it or someone knew there was no suit but kept the carrot dangling. I think the ISF should make him come clean rather that be allowed to hide behind the ISF front line unchallenged.
  37. 1 point
    Were you downwind of that NorthWind character? 😉
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    Both. No way do I want another court date, criminal or civil. And I wouldn't kill somebody who didn't need killing just to satisfy the demands or ideological needs of others. When I thought it was an ape, I would'a done it. As I've evolved to believe that they're a hominin.......a human species, and pretty much peaceful...........well, I think I'll pass on the killing stuff.
  40. 1 point
    That's why I think e-DNA is the best approach. It gives us a peripheral advantage that we've never had for determining the creature's existence. It's our best chance for discovery and that's where our focus and energy should be focused. I think there are citizen science programs linked into universities and F&W agencies that would allow the general public to be involved. Need to look into that aspect to be sure though.
  41. 1 point
    A round of boxing is 3 min long. When you watch the round, a lot of things happen in just 3 min. I think we do need to consider all Bob and Roger claimed to do post- PGF event and see if they could fit them in. Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't. I'm open to both. I think people can accomplish a lot of things in a short period of time though. It's not like Patterson said, "If we ever see a bigfoot I want to do a stomp test" It would be more like Roger reloading the camera while Bob is doing something else such as mixing and pouring plaster. Then, as Roger walks over to the trackway with a newly loaded camera he starts filming the trackway. Then just seconds later he might say to Gimlin, "Bob claim up and jump off the stump for me. Let's see how deep you go. Wait, OK I'm Ready." That again just takes seconds. That activity alone is just one off the list which doesn't take long. They can do other activity while the plaster dries. Now the distances of travel, that is another thing all togather. We can only go by Gimlin's claim here but that all did occur after the PGF events occurred. Time is not so much an issue on that point but maybe others things are. We do know from Al at the store Gimlin got the boxes from Al at the store so Al can confirm that. It doesn't tell us if Patty is real or fake only that Al or someone said it might rain so, "Hey take these cardboard boxes" Gimlin did not use them but did claim to use some bark early in the AM when the rain came to try to cover the tracks. If there was no cardboard at the site the next day; that jives with the facts since Gimlin did not used the ruined/ wet boxes. Gimlin claimed to cover a couple tracks with bark. I don't know if others claimed to have seen this bark.
  42. 1 point
    I fully believe there are bodies that have been found, they just get swept away by government agencies whom, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to keep the existence of Sasquatch a joke to the vast majority of the public and even the vast majority of themselves. I'm sure some of those bodies are hidden away in secret government storage areas or laboratories. There almost certainly bones that have been found buried deep in the bowels of the Smithsonian's archives, purposefully not labeled and "lost" so as they never see the light of day. You'd also have to factor in that there simply isn't anyone really out there looking for Bigfoot, alive or dead. I mean, sure, it might seem like Sasquatch is a big deal and super important to discover here on the bigfootforums. But the reality is that most people don't believe they're real. Most of the people that do believe aren't out in the woods looking for them. Most of the people that do venture into the woods looking for them don't have a clue what they're really looking for or how to really look for it (I'd venture to say that almost all the people who go out into the woods looking for Bigfoot do so because they watched a few episodes of Finding Bigfoot and thought it'd be fun to try it themselves). Basically, the number of researchers who are actively out in the forests of North America seriously looking for proof of Sasquatch's existence is so tiny compared to the area they'd need to cover it's harder than finding a needle in a haystack. I'm also willing to bet that at least half those serious researchers have techniques that are far more likely to drive a Sasquatch away than to attract them. I'm guessing that given the obvious intelligence and purported family groups of Bigfoot, they also have some sort of death ritual that involves disposal of the body in some manner. Sasquatch are NOT just any ole animals. They're far closer to people than they are animals. As far as hunting or shooting one goes. There just aren't many people out there trying to do that and the odd hunter than happens to get one in the crosshairs probably can't bring themselves to pull the trigger. As previously mentioned, most hunters are looking for food, hides, or trophies. They're after animals, not giant hairy people. It's real easy to sit in front of a computer screen or around a campfire and boast how you would never pass up the chance to bag yourself a Bigfoot. It's an entirely different thing to be in the moment, starring down the barrel of your gun at something that's "not supposed to exist" and looks far more human than animal. 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to take a shot like that. To expect that you'd find anyone from that 0.1% of the population that could take a deliberate kill shot in a situation like that to actually have the chance to do so... Well, you've got better odds when buying a Powerball ticket. I'm sure there, indeed, has been some hunters to happened upon a Sasquatch and blasted a hurried or panicked shot or two at the big guy. Maybe even hit them, but panicked or excited shots rarely land well enough to bring down a being the size of a Bigfoot. And who's to say they don't have much thicker skin that any known animals? It's entirely possible that a bullet simply wouldn't do as much damage to them as it would to a human. Bottom line is that there are a number of reasons why we "don't have" a body. At least not one known to the general public.
  43. 1 point
    ^^^ In my opinion these Hollywood creations all have the same basic look to them. In other words, they look like they were made in Hollywood. Are they meant to look realistic? To actually fool anyone? To be kid friendly? It is important to consider the intent of the creator. What are they attempting to convey? Patty looks nothing like these slick L.A. movie industry offerings.
  44. 1 point
    I do believe we are looking at individual variation and maybe differing genus like trout populations in the east and west for instance based on possibly regional influences/barriers, but many of these guys may be trim like the most athletic NFL linebackers; I suspect you could call many of them massive. The way sasquatch have been viewed hauling away white-tails, razorbacks and elk I would say they have muscle mass above and beyond for sure in many cases. I was more talking height here than anything. My night-time education involved a 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 footer and I did not get the impression it was a juvenile sent on a counting coup adventure to directly approach me. It was not alone that night though and two others may have been on a counting coup mission. Aging in sasquatch is a little too far out there for me and others to probably speak to however. Based on some TN sightings they do suffer from bone infections or strokes, probably dental problems just like humans. I'm primarily in the southern appalachians now and have given thought as to how a wide body, tall sasquatch fits nicely in the North Cascades but maybe not so much in the Blue Ridge, having spent some time on both coasts now.
  45. 1 point
    As I posted in another thread, I have the Scout TK arriving tomorrow. I was going to go with either a Leupold or drop some coin on the Scout II. I went with the TK due to its ability to record images and video. Down the road I may upgrade to a better thermal unit that can record video out to a separate piece of equipment. However, for now I want to keep it simple. We are in the Smokeys a lot at night, and I think that a thermal scope will be worth the expense.
  46. 1 point
    It's been hot & dry, hoping for some cooler temps and rain! There are a few places that are still holding water, and lotta critters using these woods oasis'. The first print is a good example of a BF non-print, with a large wolf print, Lulu probably, also been seeing some juvie prints lately that I hadn't seen before......new kid on the block:)?
  47. 1 point
    Honestly I just see a gap in foliage there with lots of darker, shadowed leaves further back. Did you actually see this creature move in front of the branches and leaves at all?
  48. 1 point
    Zana and Sykes came up in a previous thread and I forgot. Still haven't looked into it but it appears to be a different Sykes DNA study AND a different book by Sykes than what I was thinking. I will have to look into it more closely. I guess I am baffled at how Zana, if she really was a BF, was captured and became a willing participant in being "property" or a housewife or whatever social dynamic among humans she was in. I also don't get your fascination with the word compelling but I guess that is your business. Either Hersom or Erickson or maybe a tag team effort by both, originally funded Paulides . I don't know the reason why Paulides would have been hired at that time because he had not yet written any books or anything in the field. Guessing he sold his law enforcement, investigative background. He claims on his web site that "they" found Ketchum to lead a DNA study so maybe it was a group decision. It is also clear from events that followed that Ketchum was not the best choice to represent the interests of the study. I can't imagine how or why people with money to burn on BF studies would have allowed it to go on that way. So I put it on the financiers shoulders to permit Ketchum to drift into the orbit of the blueberry bagel lady's habituation area, which is what (I think) drove Ketchum's motivations. I also think that Erickson was swayed since he talked about it on his web site. Not sure if that content is still up there. There was talk about a secret habituation site, maybe even the short clip of the BF allegedly sleeping was taken there, who knows. The fact that they tried to use the sleeping BF as a link to the study was really a bad turn. Mainstream news picked up on it. Just comes down to professionalism. Either do it right or keep your money. Then Hersom says he wanted the "whole genomes" returned to him after the project bombed. He must have very deep pockets to do so after the fact. For 150 grand (I think that was the figure he gave Ketchum?) I would have gotten real scientists to lead the study.
  49. 1 point
    I watched the sequence trying to see more details of the baby. What has not been mentioned is that the first part of the video Mom does not seem to be carrying anything. She makes a beeline for some large rocks then raises up holding the baby after a few seconds staring at the person doing the video. Then the baby is visible most of the time. She does not withdraw away from the camera but at about 90 degrees to the camera holder. Most likely because of the huge boulders directly away from the camera. Which she could not navigate holding a baby. I have always contended that Patty was on a mission. She could have withdrawn directly away from Roger and Bob but proceeded along the creek in the direction Roger and Bob were traveling. That and her prominent breasts suggests to me Patty was lactating and had a baby stashed someplace. Her mission was to get to baby before Roger and Bob did. Just like this Mom single mindedly proceeded to her baby, and retrieved it, when it could have just gone into a crouch and not been seen at all. In both cases getting to baby first was priority.
  50. 1 point
    Perhaps one of the best and most informed opinions is someone that is mostly forgotten in intelligent discussion about the P-G film. His name is Robert "Bob" Merle Titmus, who met with both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin right after the film was shot (in Canada) and was on the P-G filmsite late October 1967, not only to inspect the trackway that was left behind, but to make castings of the footprints as well. He told me by telephone when I was preparing my Bigfoot At Bluff Creek, "that is a genuine film." Bob was equipped to give a very informed opinion. Having researched the film myself for decades I am 100% confident the P-G film depicts what we have come to know as Bigfoot, not a man in a costume.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...