Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/28/2026 in all areas
-
6 points
-
^ Good points, although I have my doubts about them being classified as humanish. To me, just too much about them are non-human. But we will see...maybe... I would certainly love to see a reporter ask Trump at a news conference when he is going to release the "Bigfoot Files". I am not holding my breath for that to happen though. Currently reading Where The Footprints End, Vol. II. Finished Vol. I a few days ago. The basic premise is that Bigfoot is totally related to the Fae, UFOs, ghosts, orbs, etc. and all sorts of paranormal activity. Even if you are a firm F&B believer, you do have to admit that their research is impressive. They catalog how Bigfoot is intertwined with activities and events that have been described throughout history as Fae activity, ghosts, trolls, etc. and other folklore. Interesting reading and thought provoking, even if you dismiss their hypothesis. It will make you think. While I have always been a strict F&B guy, there is a lot of weirdness with Bigfoot that defies explanation. Thanks to Joe and Jessi over at Hellbent for helping me to "evolve" my thinking on this. Still believe in F&B for the most part, but I think there are other things happening as well that do not fit neatly into the traditional Bigfoot "box". Yeah, Woo happens... And finally, in regards to the original question, it will mean nothing. Plenty of other evidence point to their existence. As I have always said, every single one of the 10s, probably 100s, of thousands of reports cannot be hoaxes, hallucinations, misidentifications, and outright lies.3 points
-
Yea I am sure he was at the time 6' tall. No one looking for accuracy uses a tape measure to measure height. You mark the height and THEN measure the height if you are limited only to a tape measure. When people use the standing tape measure method it is full of errors and often measures them taller than they are esp. due to a wraparound effect. Further Long has a bias where he needs Bob to be as tall as possible. Not saying he did this and if Bob H is 6' 2'' that's fine by me. I won't take longs word for it but would gladly take Bob H doctor visit records as accurate. I personally could care less how tall Bob H is now so long as he is measured accurately. Most people know how tall they were at their youngest and fittest. When long quotes Bob H as saying he was 6" tall that is the most likely accurate take on his height in 1967. I am sure Bob H reported these many times on any driver's license. If he was a veteran, they measured him in the military. Doctors' visits at the time would measure and weight him. Bob Heironimus would know his height and have many opportunities to drill it into his head. Patty could be 6'1'' tall and Bob H and millions of others could fit in a Patty suit if it was a suit. That's fine. The issue is if Bob H could be a man in a suit. If I asked Roddy McDowell about his makeup process for Planet of the Apes, Roddy could likely tell me accurately in great detail all about the process. He could describe how it was applied, who applied it, how long did things take to dry, did it itch, and so on. He could tell you who the nice person who brought him coffee and doughnuts by name. Bob Heironimus cannot do that. Bob H -just on a suit alone- has constant changing the descriptions. They can't all be right and if they are constantly changing his testimony cannot be trust if the change is dramatically different from previous claims. Anyone who was there that day and camped that night before knows the soil is not "White as snow " For all these and more, reasons bob H height is the least of his concerns.2 points
-
I think they're suppressing discovery because these creatures will be determined to be a human species, and that will cause a whole new level of political, legal, and real estate problems. Simultaneously, discovery will be too disruptive to the sasquatch species. Currently, they're almost universally left alone by humanity. That will not be the case after discovery. Keeping them mythical is better for everybody, especially the sasquatches.2 points
-
Have you heard of the Otang? The YouTube video called 'South Africa's Sasquatch: The Otang'. Simply go to YouTube and call up the title to see this video. Maybe someone can post a clickable title. Is this a new primate that popped up in a flash or has it been hiding in the jungle all along? Why are some calling it a Bigfoot? Will this discovery help the economy of South Africa or will this discovery shut down profits from the jungle?1 point
-
1 point
-
Or? How do you burn green horse hide and a football helmet with a glass eye ball?🤷🏻♂️ Yah its some weak sauce.1 point
-
https://www.amazon.com/Primate-Myth-Latest-Science-Theory/dp/B0F27ZZ9ZN1 point
-
1 point
-
I would agree that in the interest of the government, its better off to just deny deny and deny what it can't explain or control. But as far as to "why" it leaves us to speculate. I would imagine if there was a disclosure about Sasquatch and that if the government basically said sasquatch is an alpha apex predator and that they possibly hunt and abduct humans, it would change A LOT about how humans approach nature.1 point
-
I just want to emphasize this before anyone gets in trouble. No religious topics may not be discussed in the open forum. However, you may discuss them in the Tar Pit if you like. Thank you RedHawk, for your discussion of your incidents. I would have been out of the basement a lot sooner than you!1 point
-
This is kind of where I'm at on it, only to say that I don't think it is suppression so much as in-action, which is the easiest thing to do. If I were a Government, or University Scientist that believed in Bigfoot, I don't think I would say too much either, until I had indisputable truth. (They have some great benefits there that most people don't want to lose. lol) As far as the OP; imo, that won't happen in a million years so, I can't say much about that.1 point
-
Bingo! Or tries to....even if revealing it or confirming it would be in everyone's best interest. Or would be a five minute topic and then disappear.1 point
-
I thought it was the December 1960 edition, but it was in one of the True magazine articles that ITS wrote. Right now I believe that they're all probably on the Bigfoot Encounters website, but they have text only for most articles.1 point
-
The Green/McClarin discussion (between themselves) is on YT. McClarin is quite sure he was stepping "within inches" of the trackway. He says there was still some plaster residue to observe. He also had been to the site a few days (or maybe it was a week) after the PG filming , so he knew the trackway well. Green is considered to have been within a yard of where Roger was filming (they triangulated it repeatedly until things lined up), and knelt down to mimic what Roger had to do. So its a very good re-creation. Even Packham in the (skeptical) BBC documentary admitted that Patty was "just a few inches taller" than McClarin, but that puts the subject at 6'8" or more. And that's in stride, hunched over. Standing height would be more (there's a formula for it). Seven feet even is not out of the question at all.1 point
-
But....but.......but Hairy Man Road said it's now a proven hoax! Heh!1 point
-
And here we go w/a quick review of Evidence v. Egos. All times are from the YouTube transcript; all comments are made by Eric from Hairy Man Road. He managed to squeeze 3 minutes of specific information into 12 minutes this time, so his signal to noise ration is at least improving a little. 1:00 Patricia Patterson "admits that the 67 footage is a hoax." Who calls the P-G film "the 67 footage?" Is he referring to the new footage, which he mistakenly referred to as being shot in 1967 in his first video? Starting at 6:41, the narrator states that Jeff Meldrum (RIP) agreed that it was a dry run. In the last video he has Dr. Meldrum saying "it looks like a dry run." That's not an insignificant difference, and had a follow-up question been asked, it would clarify if Dr. Meldrum would have been able to offer a more complete answer. He might have, and that answer might be on the cutting room floor. The narrator then states that Patricia Patterson admitted that it was Bob Gimlin in the film. That's like claiming as a shocking development "that Japan once attacked U.S. forces in Hawaii." I think everyone with some actual knowledge of this matter knows that there was an earlier attempt at making a commercial film. Then at 6:51 the narrator declares that Bill Munns is only defending the film because he (Mssr. Munns) has a financial stake in the P-G film being real. If that's the case, Eric from Hairy Man Road has no credibility on anything he says because he has a financial stake in pushing his YouTube channel. He also claims that Bill Munns is about to release another book on the P-G film. "Everybody's saying that ..." Actually, there's only about 2 minutes of specific information that's even worth mentioning in this 12-minute clip.1 point
-
Part of being fooled is wanting to believe the thing one is being fooled by. If a person has 100% belief there are no such thing as any life on other planets, they probably have a 0% chance of being fooled by a hoaxed lying saucer photo or story. If a person is 100% convinced Martians are visiting earth, they are more likely to believe stories about UFO's and the like and thus increase their chance to be fooled by any hoax of such a topic. This is why people who are die hard bigfoot skeptics will ignore all the holes in Bob Hieronimus story and be convinced he was the man a Patty suit. When it comes to this new film (and I have not watched it) we have two main forces at work: 1) those who produce it as a work product will craft the story and film in any way which helps sell a smoking gun. 2) those who wish to believe it will dismiss things which hurt the narrative and elevate anything which they can stretch to fit the narrative. Being fooled by something is easier if the person is already convinced before the fooling begins.1 point
-
Kinda researching this new documentary and it seems like proponents of this documentary are heavily relying on anecdotal evidence.. which is ironic since our side gets ridiculed all the time for relying on anecdotal evidence.1 point
-
Just got back from a 3200-mile road trip from Washington to the AZ/Mexico border and back. I won an auction for a 2009 IH ambulance in Marysville, WA so had to take a sidetrack to there and pick it up. Plan is to convert it into an RV for exploring the Idaho woods. I would have loved to find one in 4x4, but realized most of my weekend trips didn't really need 4wd. The new rig is very beefy and not in too bad of shape. Going to strip the interior and build a log cabin-themed interior complete with little wood stove.1 point
-
I could go on for an hour about what has gone on here. The constant is that there is always the sound of static electricity or much like the crinkling of a potato chip bag at ceiling hight and the room gets extremely cold during the less than welcome shenanigans.0 points
-
I've known at least one other person in real life who experienced what felt like a giant cat crawl on their bed, starting from the foot of the bed. I believe aliens/poltergeists/hauntings/orbs/ufos have the same origin Also, years later like around covid I would see this clip from the movie communion and its very similar to what i saw and experienced except that i saw it in the reflection of the mirror and it was peeking at me through the gap in the door that I left open. Its eerily similar to this clip from communion.. except it skin was brown and its almond shaped eye was smaller.0 points
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
