A Few (Simple) Questions.

[southernyahoo]

PS: English is not my main language, so please forgive me if you see weird sentences and typos.

BTW Navuri, I've not detected the slightest discontinuity of your sentence structures, out of place words, or punctuation and grammer errors. So if you are using any translation software, it is extraordinary.

[Sasfooty]

That would be fun, BFSleuth!

And even if it turns out to be a hoax, it won't give the "Bigfoot Community a bad name".

[ShadowBorn]

" I don't agree that cameras got better after 16mm film. VHS tape and 8mm tape media was worse than film. How would you know the bigfoot is real in any video? How would a clear video be proof? How could you rule out hoaxing with super fantastic suits and makeup? After all, you must believe Patterson did it somehow, and suits have gotten better with spandex materials."

Southern Yahoo

I am certain that a good clear video of this creature in it's habitat would be more then sufficient . There would be no way to deny them with a good clear picture. Fake no way. But again my own personal opinion .

[southernyahoo]

Maybe so Julio126, Like most people I haven't seen one in person, so I can see the trouble a skeptic would have without a frame of reference they can rely on. Add to that some variability in the species and you could have multiple witnesses that wouldn't be sure some video is real or would disagree on it.

[salubrious]

So if Patterson would have had for example an iPhone 4s with him that day in October 1967 and shot the same footage with 1080p image quality, we would still be having this discussion?

And just for the record, I would absolutely love it if the PG film was real. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around all the improbabilities that surround the whole encounter (including it's aftermath).

First to the former, yes.

To the latter, the film is real. Here is how you can tell its not a person in a suit. First, you have to be able to see it walking **from the side**. The issue is the shin rise, the angle of the shin with respect to the ground when the creature takes its next step. With humans this is about 51 degrees, with about 1 degree of variance worldwide.

But BF is different. I can tell you from close observation that their thigh is longer than a human's and the shin shorter. Their foot is only preportionally larger. So the shin has to go to a larger angle, about 21 degrees more than a human. **There is no way a human in a monkey suit can do this, with any known technology.**

So, the PGF is real, the White BF at night in Pennsyvania is real, there is a video of BF near a gokart track also in Pennsylvania, and finally an Iphone video of a BF near Stillwater, Minnesota. These are all real- they all have the shin rise. Once you know to look for that, the fakes are easy to spot if the view is from the side.

Take a look:

[Guest poignant]

The shin rise is usually the first test, almost like a litmus test, that I'd go for.

[Guest Mudder]

I have taken the liberty of truncating the original post down to a paraphrased list of short questions. I have done some editing that I believe is entirely fair to the original post. This list is alpha vs numeric to distinguish these questions from the OP. Hope it helps. Corrections welcome.

A) 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?

B ) Why hasn't anyone ever in the last 45 years made one clear picture of a creature that is 200cm in height?

C) What are the chances that nobody in the 45 years since the PGF has seen or captured what P and G have captured on film?

D) Why doesn't anyone actually find a Bigfoot?

E) Gimlin is making money off of his short story about the encounter. Why would he ruin the fun and his wallet and admit it's fake?

F) Don't [bigfoot/Sasquatch believers/enthusiasts] get tired of all these so called claims of sightings?

G) How likely is it that the creature in the PG movie is real?

H) The Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon boils down to keeping the public drugged with the idea that there might be Bigfoots living in the woods. Are there people here who agree with my statement?

Thanks, @spasticskeptic. Was a loooong main subject (which I respect).

If anybody is looking for a 100% "de-fin-i-tive" aspect of it all, they won't find it here, nor anywhere. This is kind of like talking about alien greys, in a sense. I think I'm a witness to BF, and I know I'm a "believer" of it all, but we're all going to beat it to smithereens until something is proven -- hopefully soon.

(Of all which, above, I'm open for.)

[Guest Navuri]

BTW Navuri, I've not detected the slightest discontinuity of your sentence structures, out of place words, or punctuation and grammer errors. So if you are using any translation software, it is extraordinary.

No I'm not using any translation software, so thanks for the compliment.

Hi Navuri, welcome to the forums. I personally have not seen a bf live, but there is sufficient testimony and accounts for me to be inclined towards the idea that they are a real, flesh and blood, reclusive, surviving, relic great ape.

Here are some reasons why:

• Eyewitnesses from all walks and professions (not just one suspect demographic e.g. pranksters or vagrants). The absence of photographic evidence does not negate the combined weight of their accounts.
  

Having considered all this, I cannot say with a clear conscience that this is all just a bunch of misidentification and hogwash.

I understand your points and there is of course a lot of work that backs them up.

But then again, I haven't had the pleasure of talking to somebody in real life who claims to have seen a Bigfoot or a Sasquatch. Hey, maybe it was Orson Welles in a suit, who knows

Edited July 12, 2012 by MikeG
.....religious content removed

[Guest Mudder]

... But then again, I haven't had the pleasure of talking to somebody in real life who claims to have seen a Bigfoot or a Sasquatch. Hey, maybe it was Orson Welles in a suit, who knows

I'm here. There's many of us here. Join. Come to the fire. We will enlighten you

[southernyahoo]

keeping the public drugged with the idea that there might be Bigfoots living in the woods.

Are there people here who agree with my statement?

No, I don't agree with that. The forms of evidence that we've had over the last 45 years falls into the hoaxable category with exception of some biological scraps (hairs). There may be some bones stashed somewhere too, but we've not had any tests or examinations publicly released on those or the bones have been lost.

The technology involved in hair testing and DNA extraction on hair have not been all that good up-until about the last 5 years or so, and the data bases were'nt so extensive either. This technology can prove it today IMO, so it's not been that this mystery is perpetuated by it's proponents, but kept alive by the persistent witnesses and and drug out by the slow response of science.

[Guest Mudder]

"... keeping the public drugged with the idea that there might be Bigfoots living in the woods. Are there people here who agree with my statement?"

Not I. Until you've have experience in the woods, then I'd suggest that one not judge or opinionate what another says on a bigfoot forum of what a witness types, but who am I to judge also. But this is open discussion to everyone, so have at it.

[Cotter]

One of the biggest reasons I found myself in the proponent camp is my discussion with 3 Class A witnesses (1 of whom is a very close friend) and 2 children of class A witnesses.

When you have an opportunity to look people in the face, ask questions, and they speak with conviction and seem to 'pass' my truth test, it gets extremely hard to NOT consider the possibility very strongly.

[southernyahoo]

First to the former, yes.

To the latter, the film is real. Here is how you can tell its not a person in a suit. First, you have to be able to see it walking **from the side**. The issue is the shin rise, the angle of the shin with respect to the ground when the creature takes its next step. With humans this is about 51 degrees, with about 1 degree of variance worldwide.

But BF is different. I can tell you from close observation that their thigh is longer than a human's and the shin shorter. Their foot is only preportionally larger. So the shin has to go to a larger angle, about 21 degrees more than a human. **There is no way a human in a monkey suit can do this, with any known technology.**

So, the PGF is real, the White BF at night in Pennsyvania is real, there is a video of BF near a gokart track also in Pennsylvania, and finally an Iphone video of a BF near Stillwater, Minnesota. These are all real- they all have the shin rise. Once you know to look for that, the fakes are easy to spot if the view is from the side.

Take a look:

Neat video comparison. I think in order for a human to match the 73 deg. shin rise thay would be forced to walk in a more unnatural bent knee gate which might be forced somewhat by slipper feet if a suit was worn. I remember that Meldrum participated in an attempted recreation of "the walk" on one of the BF documentaries, but I don't recall them checking the shin rise angle on that meme. If the segment could be captured from the show, I'd love to see what his shin rise angle was. Humans don't typically have to walk bent knee'd so it needs to be checked with a suit. If the thigh is longer and shin shorter there should be incongruence between three points, the hip , knee and ankle.

Edited July 13, 2012 by southernyahoo

[bipedalist]

You also might want to look at the other videos from youtube by the same producer. I was disappointed when I saw the Maine porcupine being played with again. To me a high-heeled human is hardly comparative but there are other examples on that same vid. on youtube.

Agree with the slippered observation though and would like to see other comparisons from the BF documentaries too. There is a cross-country skiing type motion to the way Sasquatch move too as if skating across ground which might make a straddle less evident too I suppose. I was lucky enough to see that at dusk from a sideview the evening of my sighting (not as much a walker but more brisk like a jogger). I'm not sure I buy the shin-rise until I see more methodology but the gait is certainly different due to morphology differences of some kind.

Edited July 13, 2012 by bipedalist

[salubrious]

The morphology is the difference in the relative length of the shin and thigh. I'll never forget it....

Navuri, feel free to ask questions- I'm glad to tell you what I know, if it helps.