Dead Giveaways

[Guest]

There have been plenty of reported BF shootings, some involve supposed human deaths, many do not. There have also been run-ins with cars and trucks.

 

As predicted, the questions in my previous posts go unanswered. If you want to be a legitimate skeptic, you have to answer the hard questions.

[Incorrigible1]

More stories. None amount to a hill of beans.

[Guest Trooper1410]

My red flag is up when a video has talking going on by the "filmer."   I think I would be as silent as possible.   

 

Timberbigfootgiant, or whatever his name is, has a new video of what he calls a bigfoot sitting by stream with a fishing pole.   Just like his infamous video of a "supposed bigfoot" popping up behind a clump of bushes/vegetation, he walks away from a potentially historic shot.   All the time his mouth is going AND he can't help but flip the viewer around to see his big old face.   

[Guest]

You don't get to pick David Attenborough (yet?) you get stuck with the guy that's there.

 

Strangely, in front of a putatively powerful creature of unknown habits, the guy has nerves, which tends to make him do some stuff which is less than "perfect" from the armchair quarterback POV.

 

However, he's getting what he's getting by doing what he's doing, possibly muttering away to yourself gets you marked down as "not a threat" and gives you something to occupy your attention, and distract you from the 100% focus that gives a quarry hair prickles...

[spacemonkeymafia]

A fishing pole? Really?

Sometimes I'm ashamed to have been a researcher.

My bigfoot must have been the stupid ones. No telepathy, no orbs,no speaking english, and certainly not fishing with their grandad ' s Zebco!

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I agree with you where bigfoot believers are concerned, as some of us are skeptical of virtually all claims, unless there are details that give us pause, at which point most of us will file the account away as unconfirmed but probable, or unconfirmed but unlikely, etc. The idea that the animal would be looking down is a good one, and honestly I've never really thought about that detail. So good job with that.

 

The first thing I look for is any indication of a suit. Sometimes it is just obvious that the subject is a person in a costume, because the quality of the suit is just bad. I'm referring to your generic "monkey suit," which does not need any analysis at all. For those video subjects that cannot immediately be dismissed, I look at the limbs. Unless a suit is fitted properly there is going to be an excess of material. We would have to assume that this extra material was skin, at least on a real animal, but skin does not really bunch up around the ankles or wrists, nor does it appear in a plane-like fashion- plane-like referring to a flat surface. I see this mostly around the ankles, where the "skin" looks like a pair of pants, or like a sleeve where the arms are concerned.

 

It might be best to look at the physical features first, appearance-wise, and compare them with what is known about real sasquatch, but I take the route I outlined above instead, mainly because the "good" hoaxes usually depict animals that could reasonably be expected to fall within the parameters of a sasquatch. Especially considering that sasquatch start out small and get taller and wider with age. So you cannot immediately dismiss a sasquatch video just because the subject appears to be 5 feet tall, since it could be very young. The same is true with hair color, among many other variables.

 

After checking for obvious signs of "bunching" I move on to the physical features of the animal itself. Although I do not have a pre-planned process for evaluating a piece of evidence, so I am basically just trying to articulate these ideas from memory, lol. Therefore I am not 100% certain that this is the exact process I use every time, since many videos have different characteristics, and there are just too many variables to list.

 

Another one of the more prominent features that I look for is movement. This includes the stride length, if discernible, among other things. Also, the proportions of the creature, such as the size of the head, neck, limbs, etc. in relation to everything else. This is usually not all that helpful though to be honest. The neck is very helpful though, at least where adult or full-sized sasquatch are concerned, because the neck is usually not visible, or is relatively short in comparison to humans. You can also look to see if the hair appears suit-like, because on a real sasquatch hair length will vary depending on location. Uniform hair length can definitely be indicative of a hoax. Also, the matting of hair in certain places should be expected on a real animal, or at the very least some other non-uniform feature of the hair, considering that animals in the wild get dirty and wet, have their hair snagged on trees, etc.

 

With just these few ideas one can eliminate a variety of hoaxes. A huge problem however is that any analysis can only eliminate hoaxes, not prove real sasquatch. So we can only look for the tell-tale signs of a hoax, and if we have done so exhaustively, we can still only place the evidence in the "probable" category. Unfortunately.

Edited December 1, 2015 by JiggyPotamus

[Terry]

If the claimant was a habituator, paranormal fan, portal enthusiast or cloaking groupie...I don't think I'd be mounting an expedition any day soon.

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

Two things that I consider absolute dead giveaways:

 

1) Human proportions and movements.  There is a way a person in a costume looks, and moves.

2) "Patty camerashake" or other camera movement/use that makes no sense given context (such as ducking away from the subject in a way that doesn't make sense).

 

Other things can lend further credence one way or the other; but I rule out 99% of what I see based on those two.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The problem is that Sasquatch supposedly have limb proportions and a walking gait that's almost identical to a regular person. This means that even if the video is clear, it would be extremely difficult to tell if it's is an actual Sasquatch

 

Identifying hoaxes is much easier. Hoaxes are never perfect and costumes are never perfect. Things like a baggy costume and unrealistic frame and movement usually give it away. There's always something that gives it away if the video is clear enough and the subject is close enough. 

 

[Guest DWA]

Actually, the differences although they might be subtle are substantial enough that eyewitnesses consistently report that the proportions told them it wasn't a person.

Movements, ditto.  There are many many "no one could move like that."

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

In person it definitely is. Just being there and observing it yourself can make it obvious that it wasn't a hoax. Patterson for instance knew that what he saw was real, but most people watching the film are left wondering.

[Guest DWA]

And that's my problem with simply sweeping the eyewitness testimony under a rug.  Unless there's a good reason to presume they're lying or mistaken, I can't.

 

Which of course, skeptics please take note, does not mean accepting the anecdotes as proof.  It means asking the question a scientist should ask:  if there are no readily apparent reasons for these people to be either mistaken or making this up...then what is it?

[JDL]

Proportional lengths between joints in the body are somewhat different.  A suit may try emulate longer arms and forearms, but watching where the shoulders, elbows and wrists bend can give it away.  Same for the legs.  Also note where the fingertips line up when down by the legs.  They should fall all the way to the knees or slightly below.

 

Biggest giveaway is the distance between shoulders as seen from the front or back.  Compare where the shoulder articulates to the outermost edge of the shoulder, if it looks like the shoulder breadth isn't broad enough, or the shoulders seem to have padding (the shoulder joint isn't all the way out to the end) it's a fake.

[southernyahoo]

Even the most ardent bigfoot proponent is often very critical of new media and claims related to bigfoot. 

 

So what are the things that you consider to be dead giveaways that what you are looking at is a hoax?

 

For me, one of the things that causes me to immediately reject a video is if the subject is looking down at the ground when it walks, as if it can't see where it is putting its feet and has to be careful in doing so. 

 

I don't usually look at the ground when I walk around in my natural environment, I can't think of any animals that habitually do so, and I don't see how a bigfoot could effectively live if it has to walk around with its head down.  The only time I have really done this as a matter of course is when I have been wearing a chem-bio protective mask and overgarment (MOPP gear).  When wearing a gas mask, you have limited peripheral vision, your hearing is impaired, and the boots are prone to get caught on tent pegs and other obstacles.  Not to mention the heat load and greater effort to breathe while wearing the outfit.  I believe the same would be true for a man in a bigfoot suit.

 

Realistically we are able to walk around with our heads up because our peripheral vision complements our gait, so we have a general sense of the area around us, and because we are naturally accustomed to the coordination, movement and balance of our own bodies.  So when I see a video with a bigfoot walking along looking at the ground and stepping carefully, I conclude that the subject is a human in a suit.  One unfamiliar with the environment in which it is walking, one whose tactile sense of the ground is inhibited by oversized footwear, or one whose peripheral vision is restricted by a headpiece making it necessary for them to look down to see where they are walking, and one who is unaccustomed to the change in coordination, movement and balance due to the suit.  Add to that a level of discomfort due to heat load from the suit and impaired access to fresh air.

 

When a bigfoot moves or walks around it should do so with a natural degree of coordination and apparent comfort to be credible to me.

I generally don't look at the way of walking as a true measure in itself. It makes some sense to me though that a creature that is as large as say the subject in the freeman footage, might develope the habit of watching where it puts each step, at least when it's not in a hurry, to avoid foot injuries while inhabiting diverse terrain like the PNW. Patty on the other hand could look ahead or turn and look back being in the open and having a clear view of what's ahead. I think they have the same reasons for looking down that we do whether we are wearing shoes, boots, large footies or bare foot. This does however raise the question how they could be so agile in that terrain by some accounts and have so little regard for what might injure the foot. There would be a balance somewhere in cost vs. benefit.

[coffee2go]

I don't think I would be able to tell fake from real photos and films unless I actually saw one first with my own eyes.  I would be more apt to suspect a hoax if "knowers" point out things that don't make sense.

What I always wonder about is how someone could get the height if they are accused of wearing a suit and the film shows a bf running or standing by an object that is later shown next to an average-sized person.  Do they wear those stilts that sheetrockers wear???  If so, how could they run?