A Few (Simple) Questions.

[Guest]

I guess I'll take the heat for this one guys. I don't see any posts here that are flaming, everyone just seems to be answering the OPs questions. I chose to try to infuse some humor, but I guess it came across as inflammatory. Sorry!

[Guest Navuri]

I guess I'll take the heat for this one guys. I don't see any posts here that are flaming, everyone just seems to be answering the OPs questions. I chose to try to infuse some humor, but I guess it came across as inflammatory. Sorry!

for you and Mike for sending the message. I'll be nice and friendly.

[Spader]

To me Bigfoot feeds that need to REALLY wonder what is out there. When I am satisfied that they do indeed exist and can be studied from afar or just leave them be, at least I will stop having those "Bigfoot is real because.... Bigfoot can't be real because....." arguments with myself on long car trips. He is my adult version of Santa Claus, I had the same argument with myself about whether or not he existed until I demanded that my father tell me yes or no, pleeeeeeease just let me know so I won't go insane. Unfortunately dad can't do that for me now.

In my opinion there is absolutely no way to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. But there IS a way to prove he exists, when that will happen nobody knows, but until then....Happy hunting!

Sorry Mike G. I was writing when you put the cease fire into effect. You are right, that's no way to treat a newcomer, I apologize Navuri. I hope you will stick around for a while because you did bring up worthy arguments and everybody loves a good argument.

Edited July 11, 2012 by MikeG
.....edited to bring it into compliance

[Guest MikeG]

Right folks, that's my work done in the thread.

Some of you haven't yet received PMs, but you will. Some of you should have hit the "report" button, not the "send" button.

Now, behave!!

Mike

[Cotter]

Hi Navuri:

I would recommend that you continue reading the threads on the BFF. You raise a lot of good questions, many that have been discussed in length.

A couple quick comments to your questions:

There HAVE been reports of BF's being photographed, however, these photos were either sold to private parties, or not released to the public. I'd also like to add that there have been reports of BF's being shot and hit by vehicles, however, again, the findings/remains have never been made public (there's a decent thread on the BF Conspiracy on this site you may want to check out).

Addtionally, regarding the PGF, the best analysis done on the film have come to the conclusion that the subject is indeed a live animal, not a suit as some would claim. What really adds credence to the subject being a live entity (as has been brought up) is that any subsequent attempts at reproducing a subject looking like what is seen has fallen terribly short and has been easily identifiable as a person in a suit (see the Munn's report in the PGF section for more info on the analysis).

And one other comment I'd like to make is that we have multiple members here that have seen the creature, some more than once. That's the tough one, once someone sees it, how can someone else begin to convince them they're not real?

We're dealing with a wild forest primate here of intelligence that is not matched by anything living in the woods. Rather than making comparisons on the chances of seeing a rare wild animal (you used lion) in the wild, start thinking about trying to spot a highly trained outdoorsperson that does not want to be seen.

And welcome to the forum!

[Guest Navuri]

Hi Navuri:

I would recommend that you continue reading the threads on the BFF. You raise a lot of good questions, many that have been discussed in length.

We're dealing with a wild forest primate here of intelligence that is not matched by anything living in the woods. Rather than making comparisons on the chances of seeing a rare wild animal (you used lion) in the wild, start thinking about trying to spot a highly trained outdoorsperson that does not want to be seen.

And welcome to the forum!

Thank you Cotter for your reaction. So what are we dealing with in your opinion? A kind of creature like the one in Predator? It's about it's size and it's very stealthy. And I'm not trying to be funny.

While I was typing this reaction I wondered if anyone ever tried to capture a Bigfoot from above? Like, sitting, waiting in a tree or having multiple cameras high up in the air instead of plain sight. Just occurred to me. Maybe it has been tried, I don't know. Could be a way to spot one I guess.

[Guest ToTheBatCave]

I can relate to Navuri somewhat.

I grew up hearing tales of "black panthers" roaming around in southern Alabama. I've spent most of my life hunting, fishing, camping, etc... and I had never seen nor heard anything that would lead me to entertain the thought that somethat like that would be in this neck of the woods. Biologists say that's not possible. They say that the only large cat with black pigments are a leopard or jaguar. So I would just brush off the stories and silently wonder how much "stump juice" this old coot has been sippin' on. My thoughts concerning BF were similar.

However, my wife had a very large, long-tailed black cat come to within 25 ft of her just off our backyard one night (flood lights were on). About 2 weeks later, I watched him walk across an open field about 200 yds away in mid-afternoon. About 1 yr. later, my 30 yr old nephew jumps the cat about 15 ft away while walking the woods on my property. Alabama Game and Fish officials say that is absolutely impossible and we are "seeing things". The bottom line for me is that I've seen what officials say doesn't exist.

I've never seen a BF but I have heard some sounds that are similar to things that some experts say are BF related (expert in no way relates to "Finding Bigfoot"). So that leaves the door open for me. Just because it hasn't been "proven or dis-proven" doesn't mean it's not possible. And if an "official says it ain't so", then that just lends more possibilites of it being so. Just my 2 cents.

Edited July 11, 2012 by MikeG
......font size

[Guest Navuri]

The quality of Rogers camera isn't as bad as you might think. In fact the resolution is very high by Digital standards http://thedavisrepor...t-quality-2.jpg

Are there hi-res pictures of every frame of the Patterson Gimlin movie like the one you have linked? Or is this the only one? Thanks for the link by the way, very interesting.

[southernyahoo]

1. We all know the PGF like the back of our hand(s). All coincidences aside; why if the PGF was made in October 1967 hasn't there been anyone in almost 45 years that has shot actual quality images of a Bigfoot? Most of us have better camera's in our phones then Patterson had in his movie. We live in the HD era, where 720p and 1080p Full HD videos are the standard. DSLR photo camera's have at least 7-10 MegaPixel if you buy one today. So where is the actual proof? I just browsed through the photo/video topics on this forum and every picture of a Bigfoot is either blurry, the creature is 1000 meters away from the camera or the creature isn't seen at all except 10% of it's so called face.

I mean, come on guys. I really would love it if it were true, but why hasn't anyone ever in the last 45 years made one clear picture of a creature that is 200cm in height?

The HD era didn't start Oct 21st 1967, people who found bigfoot didn't carry a camera around their neck, Subtract from those folks who had cameras in their immediate vacinity, the time it takes to get it out, add a delay for recognition of the fact that a picture needed to be taken, factor in probable cheap consumer level gear, poor media resolution ,probable less experienced at action photography, obscuring habitat , elusive nature of the quary and the cherry on top ( the unexpected nature of the encounter and utter shock) leaves us with a few shaky fuzzy videos which we would rather believe were hoaxed. I think that addresses most of the last 45 years.

[Guest Navuri]

The HD era didn't start Oct 21st 1967, people who found bigfoot didn't carry a camera around their neck, Subtract from those folks who had cameras in their immediate vacinity, the time it takes to get it out, add a delay for recognition of the fact that a picture needed to be taken, factor in probable cheap consumer level gear, poor media resolution ,probable less experienced at action photography, obscuring habitat , elusive nature of the quary and the cherry on top ( the unexpected nature of the encounter and utter shock) leaves us with a few shaky fuzzy videos which we would rather believe were hoaxed. I think that addresses most of the last 45 years.

So are you saying that due to human error that there hasn't been any good recording since the PG movie? I would say that people have been making home videos for over (fill in the correct number to get a cookie) years now and that cameras have gotten better every year. Thus, increasing the chance of actually shooting or capturing a real bigfoot on camera.

I would say it's also very likely that there hasn't been anything to actually record on video. Maybe that's the case in this example.

[Cotter]

Navuri - I would say that we are dealing with something along the lines of human intelligence, completely honed for survival and stealth over generations of development and evolution. Not so much as a predator type in regards to technology, but yes, predator type in the ability to camouflage (naturally). And evasiveness using natural indicators (concentric rings for example).

[Incorrigible1]

TTBC, agreed with your posting. I, too, am fascinated by the reported sightings of "black panthers." I concur the research tells us the only black cats of that size are leopards or jaguars, and that there has never been a confirmed black cougar/mountain lion.

Yet people continue to report seeing "black panthers." It's evident folks are seeing something, I doubt all the reports can be of large, black house cats (but some reports are just that, I suspect.) Interesting stuff.

[salubrious]

The PGF movie isn't easy to duplicate, but it's the single thing Bigfoot believers keep saying "Well if it's fake it should be easy" and that is simply a misconception.

I saw one from **8 feet** away. It was well-lit in my headlights and I stopped and looked at it. There was no ambiguity, but it was so big (at least ten feet tall) I felt I had good reason to fear for my safety even though I was in a truck. I now know that the idea that 'BF is not real' is a made up story, because there is no doubt what I saw. I felt it too risky to take my eyes off of it and grab my camera; that's why I have no photo.

So I have this to say: It does not matter what you *think* about BF. It does not care. What does matter is that if life hands you an encounter, what you think will go right out the window. I can't say if its a blessing or a curse knowing that they exist; I have come to wonder how many other things that I thought I *knew* are also not factual.

Edited July 11, 2012 by salubrious

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Yup, there are so many people like salubrious who have had sightings. It's one of the things that tell me they really do exist. Skeptics will argue that it isn't reliable, but the evidence speaks differently.

[Guest Navuri]

Yup, there are so many people like salubrious who have had sightings. It's one of the things that tell me they really do exist. Skeptics will argue that it isn't reliable, but the evidence speaks differently.

But there is no evidence, that's the whole point isn't it? If there was evidence that it was real, we wouldn't have to discuss the matter at hand and just go back to business as usual. The problem is that 'sightings' are not pieces of evidence.

Salubrious says he/she saw a Bigfoot that was at least 10ft tall, which in Europe would be more than 3 meters tall. I have a very hard time believing that. I think it's sightings and stories like this that keep fueling the fire with no shred of evidence. Only the 'I know what I saw and it was real' testimonies.