Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Squatchy McSquatch

Bluff Creek Pre-PGF: "Very large, definitely human tracks."

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
BFF Donor

^^^

Interesting in this video when they cover the PGF at about 27:00 mark in:

 

The one objection it seems the expert Bill Sellers states to the PGF being real has to do with Patterson background and NOT what appears on the film itself.  He basically admits this is his objection to it.  To him it seems you cant trust Roger regardless of how good the suit looks.    "If it is a suit" seems to be the prevailing statement from nearly everyone else.  They are not saying it is a suit.  Nikaris seems to focus on the walk and how fluid Patty looks.  She obviously leans toward Patty being real.

 

The other guys states, "the part that really bothers me is the head turn where it looks at the camera.  It looks so human to me."   Seems like a pretty weak objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Not trying to hijack squatchy’s thread with a PGF debate. Just posted that video because it does address the idea of feral Homo sapiens being responsible for Bigfoot sightings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I just can't imagine wild humans bein' responsible for sasquatch sightin's, maybe someone catchin' a glimps of movement, or a person whoopin' back durin' call blastin' etc., but not a road crossin' in broad daylight, or a nighttime sightin with eye shine. 

 

"At 2:20 a.m. the same night something was again reported behind the house, and when the sergeant arrived, along with several other people, his spotlight quickly picked up what looked like a very large ape standing in the backyard. While someone else held the light on it the sergeant walked to within 35 feet of the animal, which made no attempt to run but crouched down as he got nearer. There they stayed for "many minutes," while the sergeant wondered what to do next. He had a shotgun loaded with buckshot but he was not sure if the thing was some kind of human, and if it wasn't, he did not know how much buckshot it could take. He noted afterwards in his report that it was black in color, would stand seven to eight feet tall and appeared to have no neck. It was covered with short hair, except on the face. He could see no ears. The eyes were small. It appeared to have four teeth larger than the others, two upper and two lower. It's nose was flat. He could see nostrils. At the end there were seven people watching it, although only two others approached close to it. Then there were noises heard off in the dark at both sides, and the man with the spotlight swung it off to the right and called that there was "another one over there." At that point the sergeant to return to his patrol car." (Washington 1975) The Best of Sasquatch Bigfoot, John Green pg. 138 

 

I was always fascinated by this sightin' in John's book, wish there was more, I regret not askin' him if there was more to it. 

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
11 hours ago, PBeaton said:

I just can't imagine wild humans bein' responsible for sasquatch sightin's, maybe someone catchin' a glimps of movement, or a person whoopin' back durin' call blastin' etc., but not a road crossin' in broad daylight, or a nighttime sightin with eye shine. 

 

"At 2:20 a.m. the same night something was again reported behind the house, and when the sergeant arrived, along with several other people, his spotlight quickly picked up what looked like a very large ape standing in the backyard. While someone else held the light on it the sergeant walked to within 35 feet of the animal, which made no attempt to run but crouched down as he got nearer. There they stayed for "many minutes," while the sergeant wondered what to do next. He had a shotgun loaded with buckshot but he was not sure if the thing was some kind of human, and if it wasn't, he did not know how much buckshot it could take. He noted afterwards in his report that it was black in color, would stand seven to eight feet tall and appeared to have no neck. It was covered with short hair, except on the face. He could see no ears. The eyes were small. It appeared to have four teeth larger than the others, two upper and two lower. It's nose was flat. He could see nostrils. At the end there were seven people watching it, although only two others approached close to it. Then there were noises heard off in the dark at both sides, and the man with the spotlight swung it off to the right and called that there was "another one over there." At that point the sergeant to return to his patrol car." (Washington 1975) The Best of Sasquatch Bigfoot, John Green pg. 138 

 

I was always fascinated by this sightin' in John's book, wish there was more, I regret not askin' him if there was more to it. 

 

 

   

 

It happens for sure. I’ve watched Mick Dodge do it on TV intentionally.  But are hobos and wild Indians responsible for everything? It’s kind of hard to imagine that  a wild Indian is responsible for 16x7 inch tracks. Which in my video that is Primatologist Ian Redmond’s position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I use ta watch that show as well, an I seem to recall the episode(s) you're talkin' bout. An I'm sure researchers doin' calls or tree strikes may get responses back from other people now an again.  

 

I watched some of the video you posted, seen the program as well when it aired. Far as I know Redmond is of the opinion they exist, is that what you meant, that he also finds it hard to believe people are responsible ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

If 16x7 bare prints are/were found anywhere I have a hard time believing they belong to a human.  Sure it’s technically possibly but IMO, very highly improbable. I’d rather hedge my bets on faked or a real living breathing BF.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Start my video at 1:20:00

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
3 hours ago, Twist said:

If 16x7 bare prints are/were found anywhere I have a hard time believing they belong to a human.  Sure it’s technically possibly but IMO, very highly improbable. I’d rather hedge my bets on faked or a real living breathing BF.  

 

It's not technically possible without some kind of distortion introduced.   According to Guiness Book of Records, the largest human feet on record are just 15-3/4ths (rounded) and second are under 15 inches.  Neither would be mistaken for bigfoot feet, the angle across the toe tips is way to exaggerated for bigfoot feet.   I would agree with your conclusion which I would phrase like this:  real or fake, but not merely mistaken.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Size and stride yes. But the shape of the toes? Supposedly not so much. As modern foot wear is to blame.

 

http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2011/05/05/why-does-the-modern-foot-look-the-way-it-does/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Robert Wadlow's feet were reportedly 18.5 inches long (size 37AA).

https://shihyenshoes.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/robert-wadlow-and-really-big-feet/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×