Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) You're absolutely right, just watching the video it can be whatever walks on two legs. It's a stretch though to think the flailing is due to a hiker in that area wearing sandals (OK, for all the Cody L fans, yes, some don't even wear shoes). Many more hikers wear hiking or mountaineering boots in the American "alps" than sandals in the terrain in which the subject was filmed, could be though. I think PTs post is far less "interesting" when you correctly remove the "nest" from the equation. Remember, they are unrelated, not related, have no relation to each other. If you fail to understand that then things get much more circumstantial; although those circumstances have nothing to do with each other. Edited July 4, 2011 by Ace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I never said I had my own video evidence but that doesn't mean I'm going to swallow some of the inclusive stuff out there. People are just too desperate to see one I think. I really would expect more field sense from ya Tracker. Ace, do you know that the hiker didn't climb that ridge from the other side? Why would you assume he took the route from where they are? And its obvious that the place of the subject and filmer are very different. The point I was making is that in the recreation, they aren't using the same angle either. And how can you say the 'nest' is unrelated? That is supposed to by why the er 'bigfoot' is making the whole ridiculous fuss it was making between the trees when it saw the people at its nest. That's where a major part of the assumption derived from that it is bigfoot. All those 'non-human' movements. So how can you say ignore it when its the premise for the footage? Time for me to head up into the hills on this nice sunny day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) The other major thread on this sighting here on BFF: http://bigfootforums...h__1#entry27179 And for a completely different point of view (i.e. hoax): http://www.bigfooten...marble_hoax.htm There was considerable discussion on this one on the previous board, if I remember correctly. It is unfortunate that we do not have access to it. Inconclusive in my opinion. Of course it's inconclusive, they are all inconclusive. Sure it looks kinda skinny and awkward to be a Bf. But unless a Bf is charging at a witness who holds their ground and films. We are only going to see Bf's at a distance in daylight conditions on distant ridges or on the other side of a lakes or rivers. Look for the positive not the negative. that is unless some don't want them to be real and want others to walk away too? Maybe that's why some try so hard to debunk? They don't just want to uncover the hoaxes. Maybe they want to kill the idea of Bigfoot from inside the field?? moles ?? Do Bf forum moles exist? Stay tuned that's my next thread It's JMO tracker, Edited July 4, 2011 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I for one know that bigfoot exists Tracker so hopefully you are not alluding to me. What I have a hard time with is when bigfoot evidence and behavior is misrepresented by some in the field who should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I for one know that bigfoot exists Tracker so hopefully you are not alluding to me. What I have a hard time with is when bigfoot evidence and behavior is misrepresented by some in the field who should know better. yea i know some of these vids are borderline or worse? It's just counter measures Pt. We need to start raising the awareness to combat the negative media attitude that is projected on the public to disbelieve everything first. Bf enthusiast should start working together especially in public. Every time we beat up on the evidence at hand or each other it makes the road alot longer IMO. respects tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted July 4, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 4, 2011 Of course it's inconclusive, they are all inconclusive. Not true! PGF..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Look at the map and see if the nest sites are accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I gotta say this... I am in the woods a lot, and I am forever running across 9'-10' tall hikers in sandles with no backpack or sign of water being carried... Enough to make a grown man cry... And with their ability to grow their arms to their knees, extraordinary... As they just gingerly walk the high ridges of the Cascades and Olympics... PT I am with you man, must be a Pro-Basketball player, they are all known to walk around the woods day and night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Not true! PGF..... yea i know but there will always be some that will reject even great vids like PGF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 ... Ace, do you know that the hiker didn't climb that ridge from the other side? Why would you assume he took the route from where they are? And its obvious that the place of the subject and filmer are very different. The point I was making is that in the recreation, they aren't using the same angle either. And how can you say the 'nest' is unrelated? That is supposed to by why the er 'bigfoot' is making the whole ridiculous fuss it was making between the trees when it saw the people at its nest. That's where a major part of the assumption derived from that it is bigfoot. All those 'non-human' movements. So how can you say ignore it when its the premise for the footage? Time for me to head up into the hills on this nice sunny day... The footage has nothing to do with the BFRO, or the commentary, or the DVD that most people see it on. I don't assume it took the route from where they are, and other people shouldn't either (seems to make people think it's related to the "nest" when it isn't). You're taking into consideration too much information. Look at the video, don't worry about what commentators have to say. People are looking for relationships that don't exist. When you accept they are not, it becomes less ridiculous; although it may still be ridiculous, it's not because of the nest. It's not the premise of the footage. Incorrect assumption. Again, they have nothing to do with each other, and when you accept that it becomes less ridiculous (to repeat myself). I haven't seen the recreation, so I can't comment on that. I have met some of the people that did analysis of the subject, and it borders on unquestionable (and remember, I'm a skeptic), but I don't know anything about the recreation or commercial part of it (selling DVDs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) The bear claw marks are irrelevant to the story, assuming it is bear and not just age cracks. There are bears crawling all over the Sierras. At 2:41 - 2:46, you get a good look at an orange nylon string lashing the structure. And since when did BF begin building nests next to fire pits along the Pacific Crest Trail? This is either someone's hunting blind or improvised shelter. Nothing more. At 2:59, you get a very brief look at a straight saw cut of one of the green tree tops piled on the ground next to the so-called nest. People do hunt here. There are Elk, deer, bear, pigs even. Hunters do build blinds just like this. Yep. I was going to mention the same things. Furthermore, why would the guy behind the video camera state that "some creature" had constructed the shelter, and then suddenly pan to the "claw marks". Not to mention one of the kids pointing to the subject on the ridge and exclaiming, "There's Bigfoot!" It's a classic a set-up for their video, IMHO. Too bad the guy was unaware of the general consensus that sasquatches do not have claws and cannot operate a saw. Edited July 5, 2011 by Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I have not studied this video enough to form an opinion. On the surface it appears genuine but ONLY if the perspective was reproduced almost exactly. If the BFRO reconstruction was done from the same spot, then I think it's a viable Bigfoot. However, if they moved 10-15 ft back or to the left/ right, then the perspective is not the same and the comparison dimensions would be thrown off. Anybody that has spent time sighting in a rifle can relate to this. Ten feet will throw off the trajectory of a bullet, even though the distance looks to be the same. Of course, the same would be true if the comparison subject, in the video, was 10 ft more forward or back. Couple that with the camera being placed at the incorrect spot and you have something that appears true but is not. I'll have to spend some more time looking at the video. My knee jerk reaction is that it looks plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 5, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 5, 2011 Or, maybe Norcallogger will chime in.[/font] Anyone have any idea about Norcal ?? He used to be one of my favourite Posters but i haven't seen him on for ages.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Anyone have any idea about Norcal ?? He used to be one of my favourite Posters but i haven't seen him on for ages.. I agree. And have tried a few people on here to contact him. Miss him for sure. And - he knows more about this one than any I know. I believe the person who took the video is deceased. (Could be wrong of course) Where's Dave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BootsnSaddles Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 "Just a little FYI there are many hard core hikers who wear sandals almost all year round." LOL! My best friend is one of those. When I laugh at his footwear when we are hiking he comes back with “the Romans concurred have the known world wearing sandalsâ€. As far as this video, what is most striking is when it holds its arms straight out. They are way too long to be human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts