Jump to content
Guest

5 Most Compelling Pieces Of Bigfoot Evidence

Recommended Posts

adam2323

PGF really stands alone all the others are hoaxed or inconclusive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

PGF really stands alone all the others are hoaxed or inconclusive

 

A firm conclusion that the PGF is real or any evidence for that matter would pretty much answer the question about all the inconclusive stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Regarding the topics in this video...

 

5. The Skookum cast - I'm undecided on this one, it could easily by an elk imprint but with the fruit bait disappearing without imprints close to the pile, I am accepting it may have been a sasquatch lying down and reaching over the more imprintable mud.  Except:  no tracks where they would *have* to be for an elk to stand up; and what one of the last century's more prominent anthropologists concluded was a giant bipedal primate's heel and Achilles' tendon.

 

4. Paul Freeman film - I am highly skeptical of most things Freeman had presented. The stories of his truthfulness regarding authenticity of evidence is strongly impactful. I think Freeman was a person who originally did encounter something and/or found tracks but then in his quest to prove bigfoots exist, he succumbed to "Ivan Marx Syndrome" as Thomas Steenburg calls it.  I really can't call this film one way or the other.  But it sure doesn't look like what I'd do if I were hoaxing something.

 

3. The Myakka Ape photos - I don't think I ever accepted those as real. It just looks so much like a cardboard standee or possibly an orangutan. There is debate about the eye flash between pictures but I still don't think it is an authentic skunk ape/bigfoot.  Don't know about this one either; but I still consider it debatable.

 

2. The Jacobs photos - Having seen and read many pro-con debates on this and each sides presented arguments, I lean towards it being a young mangy bear.  Can't conclude there, either; but there is much about that figure that just doesn't look like a bear.  Particularly reprehensible were efforts by 'serious' 'experts'  to Photoshop bones taken from anatomical drawings onto the figure, or compare it with bear photos that it really didn't resemble, in an effort to appear 'skeptical.'  We don't know what that is; that those are the only 'bear' photos I have ever seen that I could not readily ID a bear just shouldn't be the case.

 

1. Patterson-Gimlin Film - I'm a 99%er on this for it being a real filmed creature which these two men came across. There are so many debates on this topic but I certainly don't accept anything regarding Mr. Bob H. allegedly being 'the man in the suit'. I think about the only thing that would sway my opinion about this film being authentic is if Bob Gimlin came out and stated unequivocally it was fake and he had proof of that. I'm not saying Roger Patterson couldn't have pulled one over on Bob G. but with firepower involved, that's a big risk to go on a verbal 'no shooting' agreement.  That one's a bigfoot.

 

 

I really don't think that the OP title is the way to approach the 'most compelling evidence' question anyway.  What is most compelling is the volume and consistency both of sighting reports and tracks; and the PGF could not tie those two threads of evidence together more compellingly than it does.  That is the most compelling evidence.  Any one piece - or any five - could be faked, although the PGF wasn't.

 

I would add as most compelling:  no scientist demonstrably applying him or herself to the evidence fails to come away an advocate, and that would be ever.

There is nothing like this in the history of the sciences...that isn't proven.  Which should tell any scientist:  get crackin'.

Edited by DWA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JiggyPotamus

I take sightings from Florida with a grain of salt, mainly because I believe that if any known primates are to be found in the wild in the US, it is probably going to be in Florida. It seems to be the main hub for exotic animals entering the country, whether legally or illegally. People get animals as pets and then simply let them go when they become too large to handle. It probably happens more with reptiles than anything, but it would not surprise me if this has occurred with primates. I do not doubt that there are sasquatch in parts of Florida, but I have yet to see any evidence that impressed me from that state. At least none that I can recall. The photo from Florida that is being discussed in this thread does not depict anything even resembling a bigfoot IMO.

 

The Skookum cast has never impressed me much either. That is not to say it couldn't be a sasquatch, but probability dictates that a known animal is the culprit. If both an elk and a bigfoot could fit within the impression, I would always go with the former unless there is accompanying evidence.

 

The Jacobs' photograph is still interesting to me, mainly since if it's a bear its positioning is perfect for creating ambiguity. Given that other photos showed bears in the same area, I have to logically conclude it is also a bear. If we could have seen the face then there would be little room for debate. Ha, that is just wishful thinking I suppose.

 

The Freeman footage...meh. I would agree that he probably had at least one sighting. I am not sure about his footage though. Might be real, might be a hoax.

 

Patterson footage is real in my opinion. There are certain aspects of that footage that are extremely convincing, while other aspects could be either real or fake, essentially meaning "average". I think that the convincing aspects outweigh the average characteristics. This is analyzing the footage while setting aside my personal experience. If I were to include my personal experience then I lean even more towards authenticity where the PGF is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I take sightings from Florida with a grain of salt, mainly because I believe that if any known primates are to be found in the wild in the US, it is probably going to be in Florida. It seems to be the main hub for exotic animals entering the country, whether legally or illegally. People get animals as pets and then simply let them go when they become too large to handle. It probably happens more with reptiles than anything, but it would not surprise me if this has occurred with primates. I do not doubt that there are sasquatch in parts of Florida, but I have yet to see any evidence that impressed me from that state. At least none that I can recall. The photo from Florida that is being discussed in this thread does not depict anything even resembling a bigfoot IMO.

 

The reports are enough; they don't describe anything known...but dovetail perfectly with sasquatch reports from other states.  What I am reading is not known primates.

 

The Skookum cast has never impressed me much either. That is not to say it couldn't be a sasquatch, but probability dictates that a known animal is the culprit. If both an elk and a bigfoot could fit within the impression, I would always go with the former unless there is accompanying evidence.

 

Again:  no elk hoof impressions where they would *have* to be; and a heel and Achilles' tendon that are too big to be human (the only other NA possibility).    Feeding behavior similar to that postulated for what left this impression has been observed in zoos ...and it wasn't elk.  And released apes are a low-prob for Washington.  This is one of those pieces for which the "probable" or "logical" choice...isn't the confirmed animal.

 

The Jacobs' photograph is still interesting to me, mainly since if it's a bear its positioning is perfect for creating ambiguity. Given that other photos showed bears in the same area, I have to logically conclude it is also a bear. If we could have seen the face then there would be little room for debate. Ha, that is just wishful thinking I suppose.

 

That's not necessarily a "logical" conclusion.  If I saw a tiger I wouldn't call it a coyote because coyote shots occurred elsewhere.  This may not be that distinct.  But again, that it is the only "bear" I ever saw over which I'm still puzzled just seems way more than coincidence.

 

The Freeman footage...meh. I would agree that he probably had at least one sighting. I am not sure about his footage though. Might be real, might be a hoax.  It doesn't worry me one way or the other.  But everything Freeman does in that footage seems authentic...and everything like it in most every other video, faked.

 

Patterson footage is real in my opinion. There are certain aspects of that footage that are extremely convincing, while other aspects could be either real or fake, essentially meaning "average". I think that the convincing aspects outweigh the average characteristics. This is analyzing the footage while setting aside my personal experience. If I were to include my personal experience then I lean even more towards authenticity where the PGF is concerned.  Yup.  Real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

I take sightings from Florida with a grain of salt, mainly because I believe that if any known primates are to be found in the wild in the US, it is probably going to be in Florida. It seems to be the main hub for exotic animals entering the country, whether legally or illegally. People get animals as pets and then simply let them go when they become too large to handle. It probably happens more with reptiles than anything, but it would not surprise me if this has occurred with primates. I do not doubt that there are sasquatch in parts of Florida, but I have yet to see any evidence that impressed me from that state. At least none that I can recall. The photo from Florida that is being discussed in this thread does not depict anything even resembling a bigfoot IMO.

 

The reports are enough; they don't describe anything known...but dovetail perfectly with sasquatch reports from other states.  What I am reading is not known primates.

 

My take- Yes something is going on in Florida just as the other States.

 

The Skookum cast has never impressed me much either. That is not to say it couldn't be a sasquatch, but probability dictates that a known animal is the culprit. If both an elk and a bigfoot could fit within the impression, I would always go with the former unless there is accompanying evidence.

 

Again:  no elk hoof impressions where they would *have* to be; and a heel and Achilles' tendon that are too big to be human (the only other NA possibility).    Feeding behavior similar to that postulated for what left this impression has been observed in zoos ...and it wasn't elk.  And released apes are a low-prob for Washington.  This is one of those pieces for which the "probable" or "logical" choice...isn't the confirmed animal.

 

My take- People need to be more informed on the complexity to understand it.

 

The Jacobs' photograph is still interesting to me, mainly since if it's a bear its positioning is perfect for creating ambiguity. Given that other photos showed bears in the same area, I have to logically conclude it is also a bear. If we could have seen the face then there would be little room for debate. Ha, that is just wishful thinking I suppose.

 

That's not necessarily a "logical" conclusion.  If I saw a tiger I wouldn't call it a coyote because coyote shots occurred elsewhere.  This may not be that distinct.  But again, that it is the only "bear" I ever saw over which I'm still puzzled just seems way more than coincidence.

 

My take- Again there's a lot of misinformation, I have read that bigfoot are suppose to live in areas that bear live. Since it waited for the bear to leave and was sort of watching from the shadows, waiting to investigate the bait is kind of sneaky like what we would expect from bigfoot. With some very strange looking parts I  have to conclude it was not a bear. As with the Patterson footage some have been caught trying to make it look like it was not a bigfoot that gets me looking in the other direction.

 

The Freeman footage...meh. I would agree that he probably had at least one sighting. I am not sure about his footage though. Might be real, might be a hoax.  It doesn't worry me one way or the other.  But everything Freeman does in that footage seems authentic...and everything like it in most every other video, faked.

 

My take- The footage looks real I guess we will have to wait and see what comes out of it all.

 

Patterson footage is real in my opinion. There are certain aspects of that footage that are extremely convincing, while other aspects could be either real or fake, essentially meaning "average". I think that the convincing aspects outweigh the average characteristics. This is analyzing the footage while setting aside my personal experience. If I were to include my personal experience then I lean even more towards authenticity where the PGF is concerned.  Yup.  Real.

 

My take- Yes I have to agree and again like with the Jacobs photos there's too many caught trying to hard to make it look fake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I think that when it comes down to it - if one is taking *single pieces* and not *patterns* as the criterion - it's PGF and the Skookum cast.  It is very hard, when one is conversant with the details, to conjure up what else could have been responsible for those.  I can consider other pieces at the very least problematical enough to be worthy of serious thought (if not follow-up field research where they happened).  But these are the two that point most clearly to the non-human source, and are the hardest to explain in any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

The Myakka ape photos were debunked as a hoax.

I believe there is a thread somewhere in these forums on it.

yes, iirc youre correct....... something about a leaf or blade of grass glued to the upper lip if you compare different pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixxgunner

Great post! Lots of conversation to make you think. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Cliche perhaps but that tends to be the way things go. There is nothing I have experienced in my own research that has not already been experienced by others. That repetition is to be expected when you are dealing with a real thing.

 

Exactly.  This is the point bigfoot skeptics continually miss, since they aren't doing the science, and the point that any field biologist will tell you about consulting the locals for information.

 

One can be pretty sure that many people are having independent encounters with a common thing external to them when they repeat details...particularly when those details have nothing to do with the public perception of the animal, e.g.  behaviors and morphological characters that only primate specialists know are common to higher primates, but are repeated by laymen, over and over.

 

Eyewitness reports are like 100 people seeing, say, a robin.  They describe the same things, over and over.  People who actually devote time to the reports understand that if these people are copycatting, the deed is the verbal equivalent of expert forgery, IOW...it ain't no way happening.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

 

 

Again:  no elk hoof impressions where they would *have* to be; and a heel and Achilles' tendon that are too big to be human (the only other NA possibility).    Feeding behavior similar to that postulated for what left this impression has been observed in zoos ...and it wasn't elk.  And released apes are a low-prob for Washington.  This is one of those pieces for which the "probable" or "logical" choice...isn't the confirmed animal.

 

 

Meldrum's example of where the hoof prints were supposed to be used an illustration of an elk sitting with it's legs underneath it- therefore the hoof prints should have been directly under it. The Skookum impression shows the legs to the side of the animal, not under it.

 

This shows a proper comparison to the cast with an elk laying on it's side- with all features matching up.

 

skookum2.jpg

 

 

This site has a video example of an elk laying with it's legs in the same position, and then bounding up from it's position without setting it's hooves where Meldrum claims they "have" to be.

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

 

 

This article has specific details on why it's an elk, including the matching contour of the hair:

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

None of those links are any more compelling than the argument it wasn't an elk.

For the record I'm on the fence with the Skookum Cast. I see no conclusive proof either way, just opinions. Both are kind of persuasive but neither side has proven anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Even with the hair found in the cast?

 

Dr Fahrenbach said he identified 16 elk hairs, and a single hair that matched his own reference for Bigfoot hair.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

So he found a bigfoot hair...or is the bigfoot skeptic again saying "if a proponent found it, it's baloney"?  Nice way to excuse oneself of any work.  Shame it's wrong.

 

(The only debunking that has ever occurred in this field?  The proponents.  Bigfoot skeptics debunk the crap the proponents *know* isn't genuine.)

 

That elk in that cast..didn't stand up.  It couldn't have.  Sorry.  We're talking physics here.  But the guy who faked that?  Impressive piece of work just to win a silly argument.  

 

(Unless you know you just neglected to draw Red Lines That Prove Nothing to the elk prints a couple of which I can possibly see...right where Meldrum says they have to be, and physics concurs with him.)


Then we have Swindler's ID of a calcaneum and Achilles' tendon...and I don't see any part of an elk that "matches up."  Never mind that the feeding position has been documented in zoos...and not for elk.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

WOW.  Just looked at the sequence that shows the elk "bounding up from it's position without setting it's hooves where Meldrum claims they "have" to be."

 

THE HOOVES ARE WHERE MELDRUM CLAIMS THEY HAVE TO BE.

 

What people will say to make an invalid point.


You can argue details all you want. That elk put all four legs RIGHT UNDER IT to get up.  No such impressions exist in the Skookum cast.

 

And they found a bigfoot hair, did they.  Um hum.


YOU WOULD EXPECT ELK HAIR!   There were, after all, elk prints...around the margins of the cast.

 

Swindler was a skeptic.  Skookum turned him.  Against that we have...people who badly need to believe what they badly need to believe.


And I know I do not need to toss out there that if any one - or *any 5* - of "the most compelling pieces of evidence" were debunked today, the situation would remain, essentially, unchanged.  But only those who have steeped themselves in the evidence could possibly understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×