JDL Posted December 9, 2015 Author Posted December 9, 2015 Reminds me of an X-Files episode where they were pursuing a suspect wearing that type of stilt. The guy was able to run for a while, which I would expect someone to be able to do if they wear them regularly. It's the same concept if one uses a piece of sports equipment with which they become so proficient that it becomes an extension of the body. A good baseball player can catch with his glove without consciously thinking about the glove itself. The same with an accomplished skier or snowboarder, or even a skateboarder. There are plenty of animals with "soft" feet that make it through life without worrying every second about where they are placing their feet. Canines, felines, etc. all have durable pads ont he bottoms of their feet, and one has to assume the same applies to a bigfoot. Treacherous footing or terrain may cause an animal to exhibit more caution and pay more attention to foot placement, but the terrain in the Freeman video looks pretty tame to me.
ShadowBorn Posted December 9, 2015 Moderator Posted December 9, 2015 Treacherous footing or terrain may cause an animal to exhibit more caution and pay more attention to foot placement, but the terrain in the Freeman video looks pretty tame to me. Yes , but the Freeman footage looks way too staged and like you said pretty tame while it is trying to make it's way. The prints that I have found the stride was long and off balance inline stride. It stepped with purpose and knew where the next placement would be. Freeman video you just do not see the stride that I have seen in parts of Michigan.
coffee2go Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 I would think another way to tell would be arm length and the use of hands. If the arm length fits the description of a bf and the video shows the longer arm grasping a tree limb or other object. It would be more difficult to make arm extentions that included wrap-around fingers wouldn't it? I wouldn't base my judgement solely on this, but it would be something else to evaluate.
OkieFoot Posted December 11, 2015 Moderator Posted December 11, 2015 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." That's what I had thought. Haven't a lot of eyewitnesses reported arm length as extremely long and extending farther down than we see in humans?
OkieFoot Posted December 11, 2015 Moderator Posted December 11, 2015 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? That's a very good point. I posed a question in a post some time ago about 'how does a hoaxer fake being 7 ft tall, or taller'. When a witness is able to gauge the height by some object, like a tree limb just above the head, or something similar, and it indicates the figure was 7ft tall, or more, it makes it harder to say it's a hoax. And especially when they say it disappeared very quickly.
LeafTalker Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 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. I agree. BF have been shown (in many video recordings) and observed (in many reports) to exhibit different ways of moving across the ground. They walk. They run. They move on two feet and on four. They crawl on their bellies. To suppose they move in only one fashion -- just like Patty did in those few seconds, and no other way -- makes no sense and is not justified, given the evidence. In the Freeman footage, many people have noticed juveniles of various sizes. The adult may have been keeping an eye on a little one. (And others have said a baby was hitching a ride on the adult's shoulders/head, which could affect the adult's motion.) https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/paul-freeman-video-footage-the-dangling-baby-deblurred/
Guest Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 The Freeman footage contradicts some modern beliefs. That squatch is looking down, and bounces when it walks, but there are sightings of ''ninja'' squatches, that seem to ''glide'', that don't bounce up and down when they walk. Also, its looking down to see where it is going? What about when they doodle around at night? Looking down won't help, but it could be a tree-branch thing so they can plow into branches more or less, which may be why they have no necks.
coffee2go Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 So are we giving tips to future hoaxers in this thread?
JDL Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 You know, whenever I was giving anti-terrorism presentations to corporations, I was always looking over the audience for anyone who might use the info the wrong way. You have a valid question, assuming we've got any hoaxers on the forum and that any of them are paying any attention. I think any fixes they might conceive based on what we've discussed would be limited by available funds. It's may be simple to make two joints look like they are proportionally farther apart than normal for a human, but more difficult to make them both articulate realistically. The kinds of special effects necessary are probably fairly expensive. The guy wearing any suit would also have to be familiar enough in it and comfortable and skilled enough to move easily and fluidly. It would certainly be easier to wear a suit than to behave realistically in it. I guess they could play with camera angles, etc. to mask any imperfections, but I consider any convenient filming angles to be automatically suspect anyway. Bottom line for me is that if there is anything at all unnatural or unnaturally convenient, it is likely a hoax. I've considered the Freeman film a hoax ever since I first saw it even though it is widely accepted by others. The subject is a lot shaggier than I would expect and just doesn't seem comfortable in its environment. 1
ShadowBorn Posted December 11, 2015 Moderator Posted December 11, 2015 JDL I totally agree with you JDL, if it is a real animal it will be walking and moving more fluid in its environment. People in suites just do not have that fluid motion that these creature have. People in suites are going to have those tells or hints. Patty has this natural walk with that step. It has that motion of not looking down and knowing where it's next step will be placed. If it was hoaxed then it was done very well. Even though she might not look like what I have seen does not mean she is not real to myself in my opinion.
Guest Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) So are we giving tips to future hoaxers in this thread? It would cost ALOT of $$$$$ to do a good hoax. Probably more than $5000.00, full body suit would be closer to $20,000.00 HAVE AT IT! How about Sas-Chronicles? How much of the BLOGTALKS, all of them, have bogus stories? OR, stories with ''add-ons''. I could do an ''ad-on BF story based on personal experience. Had the incident, just add: "Saw something clearly bi-pedal peak, then turn and move into the shadows. Did not see it walk, but it clearly raised the hair on the back of my neck and gave me a squirrely feeling, as I could tell something LARGE and BLACK COLORED faded seamlessly and effortlessly into the forest shadows. Could not make out detail at that distance, but it was clearly dark colored and blended in with the forest very well, and I got a really ''WEIRD'' feeling when it appeared to be looking at me, I could only tell when what I think was its head moved behind the tree, this was 500 yard away up hill. Maybe 450. Too tall to be a blackbear, and it was too high up on the tree mark, I may go back and look at the branch for height comparison. Edited December 11, 2015 by Wag
Recommended Posts