David Paulides' latest: American Sasquatch movie

[Patterson-Gimlin]

The paranormal woo aspect is quite disappointing. It is my opinion that these are excuses for no proof of the creatures existence.  Better time could be spent  procuring a body on a slab instead of being explained by

Science fiction. 

   

  This only makes the case that the creatures probably don't exist in any form. 

   Ufos by definition are certainly real. Are they manned by extraterrestrials,probably not.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:58 PM by Patterson-Gimlin

[norseman]

1 hour ago, TD-40 said:

They only go home once a year. While here they have to live and deal with the natural elements. Hence you get footprints, nests, food selection, etc. And they use portals, not crafts. There. See how easy this is? 

Yes. But that still doesn’t explain why one isn’t stuffed in a museum. One year is plenty of time for a specimen to be collected by science.

[MIB]

On 12/3/2025 at 12:56 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

The paranormal woo aspect is quite disappointing. It is my opinion that these are excuses for no proof of the creatures existence.  Better time could be spent  procuring a body on a slab instead of being explained by

Science fiction. 

   

  This only makes the case that the creatures probably don't exist in any form. 

   Ufos by definition are certainly real. Are they manned by extraterrestrials,probably not.

 

 

I wouldn't quite put it that way though I can see how someone else might.   I think people are just too "danged" sure of themselves, too sure of their infallibility, too sure a mere (monkey, primitive human, near human .. pick one) can't outsmart them.    That leads to believing either bigfoot a) doesn't exist or b) must be "magical".    For people who have seen enough, non-existence isn't an option.    When confronted with what is left, a binary choice between accepting their own limitations or leaping to "magic", their feeble egos choose "magic" as the explanation.

 

I don't happen to fall into that trap.   

 

That said, there are a few repeating occurrences ... in other words, good probability there is something real ... which are either beyond current science -or- there's a bit of trickery in play so that we fail to use the correct piece of current science when trying to understand / study / identify it.   

 

I think both of those are a cool challenge to try to get to the bottom of and I accept in advance that I may fail to do so.   Doesn't make them magic though.

 

(I think your assessment of UFOs, overall, is a very sensible place to start.)

 

MIB  

 

[norseman]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I wouldn't quite put it that way though I can see how someone else might.   I think people are just too "danged" sure of themselves, too sure of their infallibility, too sure a mere (monkey, primitive human, near human .. pick one) can't outsmart them.    That leads to believing either bigfoot a) doesn't exist or b) must be "magical".    For people who have seen enough, non-existence isn't an option.    When confronted with what is left, a binary choice between accepting their own limitations or leaping to "magic", their feeble egos choose "magic" as the explanation.

 

I don't happen to fall into that trap.   

 

That said, there are a few repeating occurrences ... in other words, good probability there is something real ... which are either beyond current science -or- there's a bit of trickery in play so that we fail to use the correct piece of current science when trying to understand / study / identify it.   

 

I think both of those are a cool challenge to try to get to the bottom of and I accept in advance that I may fail to do so.   Doesn't make them magic though.

 

(I think your assessment of UFOs, overall, is a very sensible place to start.)

 

MIB  

 

I have gone hunting in snow and made a large loop and when I get back to the start? I have cougar tracks in my tracks. I have never seen a Bigfoot but I wonder how many times they have seen me.
 

Sobering thought.