Jump to content

What's the best Bigfoot photo or video you've seen recently?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

I agree; hoaxing the baby part in the video seems like it would be very difficult to accomplish.

I've mentioned before on the boards "when you think it through". 

The baby in the video didn't appear to be crying and fussing. For a hoax scenario, the baby's costume would have covered it's body, head and face. What are the odds this would be uncomfortable to the baby and it might start fussing and/or crying? Not to mention being left by itself behind the big rock waiting for the adult to come and pick it up. What are the chances a real human baby would have been quiet the whole time?

 

So for a hoax scenario, we have:

Someone that spent money for two custom made Bigfoot suits that would only fit that person and baby and could be used only one time.

They found a human baby that moved very naturally and unless they had to make a lot of takes, kept quiet when it counted while the camera was rolling. 

This particular adult knew to raise their trailing leg much higher than humans do and bring their knee up higher than humans when it walked, as ThinkerThunker showed. How many people normally practice walking like Patty while carrying a baby in their arms at the same time? And get to be so good they look very natural walking that way.

 

Below is is a link to one site that does "custom made" fur suits, for $315. I didn't find any others that said "custom made". Even a few of the non custom made suits that were obvious fakes were in the $300-$400 range. You can imagine how much a true custom made fur suit that looks realistic would actually cost. And to use it one time.  

http://www.undeadmonsters.com/

 

 

 

 

 

Again, excellent research done!  Given the things you have mentioned above, I believe it is almost impossible that someone would be able to pull this all off with a human baby in a suit.  Just do not see how it would be possible to achieve everything you noted and pull this off as a hoax.  Again, your research is very enlightening and only solidifies the idea that we are looking at a live animal being carried by its mother.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
MODERATOR
2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

That baby is the same size as the one I got my picture of.     Both were being carried.    This babies head seems to have the same crest of mohawk like hair running front to back.   I did not see the adult carrying my picture baby.    However the one in this video has the same light coloring facial features as my baby photo which is unlike Patty.   I can see this adult being my babies parent.   Not Patty.     There has to be a lot of variation in individuals or there are separate species.     

 

Your observation in the underlined sentence is very interesting. In a hoax scenario, it really makes you wonder where the suitmaker would have got the idea that's how the head hair on a baby Bigfoot should look. I don't know what video the suitmaker could have seen that would have shown this.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor

Other than this one,  the only video or picture of a young juvenile I have seen was in New York playing in a tree. Juvenile pictures are very rare.     I do not think the New York video  clear enough to show the head crest which is mostly hair.  I may be wrong.       So unless a hoaxer is a member of this forum,   the mohawk like hair crest on juveniles would be an unknown.   In my photo it is even more pronounced than the picture here.   It is almost like the baby had been bathed and the wet hair was sticking straight up.    That is possible because the time of year was July but they were traveling up a year round flowing creek.  Maybe Mom decided to give junior a bath because it was a very warm day.  

Edited by SWWASAS
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor

I watched the sequence trying to see more details of the baby.     What has not been mentioned is that the first part of the video Mom does not seem to be carrying anything.    She makes a beeline for some large rocks then raises up holding the baby after a few seconds staring at the person doing the video.     Then the baby is visible most of the time.   She does not withdraw away from the camera but at about 90 degrees to the camera holder.    Most likely because of the huge boulders directly away from the camera.   Which she could not navigate holding a baby.    I have always contended that Patty was on a mission.    She could have withdrawn directly away from Roger and Bob but proceeded along the creek in the direction Roger and Bob were traveling.    That and her prominent breasts suggests to me Patty was lactating and had a baby stashed someplace.    Her mission was to get to baby before Roger and Bob did.    Just like this Mom single mindedly proceeded to her baby,  and retrieved it, when it could have just gone into a crouch and not been seen at all.   In both cases getting to baby first was priority.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
spacemonkeymafia

Regarding the mother and baby video, Moms walk is very smooth with hardly any up and down head movement you would expect if it were a human hoarding. Just an observation on my part, first time seeing this video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
MODERATOR

What's with the music . Where are the breast on the adult ? Why can we not hear the witnesses on the camera and their reaction to their sighting if it was so real. Where is the rest of the video after the event and what was discovered by where the infant was hidden. It does not make sense and it sure is not convincing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
BFF Donor
On 8/5/2019 at 1:44 PM, OldMort said:

 

Can anyone explain why the Freeman footage is generally regarded as a hoax?

 

What are the flaws in the suit? Who made the suit? Who wore the suit etc..?

 

Wasn't there also footprint evidence to corroborate this encounter?

Fake trackway confirmed by a professional tracker 

The film subject appears to be a fat person in a suit carefully stepping and looking at the ground. 

Human like movement .No muscles rippling like the Patterson film subject. 

No fluid like glide like the mime in the Patterson film. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MODERATOR
2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Fake trackway confirmed by a professional tracker 

 

Who, as I understand it, was paid to travel there to proclaim it a fake.   No conflict of interest there, huh?

 

The only "faking" Freeman ever did was to make some tracks and cast them.   Can you think of a better way for a researcher to determine real from fake than to create their own fakes the best they can for comparison purposes?   That's not hoaxing, that's proper research and he'd have been negligent not to.   Every serious researcher I know has messed with it for exactly those reasons at one time or another.  I expect nothing less.   Freeman was no different.  It's not hoaxing until you try to convince others the fake is real.

 

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

The film subject appears to be a fat person in a suit carefully stepping and looking at the ground. 

 

Granted.  :)

 

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Human like movement .No muscles rippling like the Patterson film subject. 

 

Disagree with the first.   Second, not visible because of poor light conditions.   

 

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No fluid like glide like the mime in the Patterson film.

 

Different surface / different things to step over.

 

I know people who knew Paul Freeman pretty well.   Did you know that Freeman was not aware of the third figure in his film, it was only noticed after his death?    What faker does not bring his audience' attention to a third figure if they don't notice it for themselves?

 

Nah, Freeman's footage is legit.  

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
BFF Donor

Faked hairs. Professional trackers and apparently Rene Dahinden knew he was a hoaxer. Dermal ridges that were result of the casting process.Mid tarsal breaks occur in 1 out of 13 humans. 

Meldrum believed him. The same Meldrum who endorsed the snow walker fake video and is associated with Standing. 

 

 

https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/freeman-bf/

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/some-people-are-still-running-around-bendy-chimp-feet/ 

 

https://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2015/08/29/a-wooster-geologist-goes-to-a-bigfoot-meeting/

On 8/29/2019 at 5:07 PM, OldMort said:

^^^ Is that just your opinion or were those the results of a scientific study of the film?

 

 

My opinion and many others based on facts and circumstances. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Faked hairs. Professional trackers and apparently Rene Dahinden knew he was a hoaxer. Dermal ridges that were result of the casting process.Mid tarsal breaks occur in 1 out of 13 humans. 

Meldrum believed him. The same Meldrum who endorsed the snow walker fake video and is associated with Standing. 

 

You don't know Meldrum very well.     The only thing Meldrum believes is evidence presented to him that looks like it might be genuine.   He admits he has been fooled by fake prints.    They are probably the easiest thing for a hoaxer to produce.    With a bunch of people present, I don't give prints much credency myself. But present something that flies in the face of evidence to date and Meldrum will question it.  .   He is quite used to grilling graduate students who say things they cannot back up with evidence.     If anything Meldrum probably has never been around someone like Standing and got led down the rabbit hole.   I would not say they are associated any more.   Since I have heard Standing speak, I guess you would say I am associated with him too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
BFF Donor

I know enough about him to form a negative opinion. I do like the fact that you are one of the few proponents that admits footprints are not the best evidence. 

He is a paid spokesman that declined  a free interview on this very forum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
WV FOOTER
Admin

The Video OkieFoot Presented is Very Compelling. Very Compelling.  The Subject is Huge, as well as Having the Barrel Chest, Head Shape is Correct. Did He Estimate How Tall the Subject was?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor
4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I know enough about him to form a negative opinion. I do like the fact that you are one of the few proponents that admits footprints are not the best evidence. 

He is a paid spokesman that declined  a free interview on this very forum. 

So you also have a Doctorate and disagree with his findings?    Who is Meldrum a paid spokesman for?    As far as I know he may be comped lodging but is not paid for speaking at conferences.     Free interview?    Why should he speak here?   If you want to know that he thinks,  read his books and papers.   He sells signed books and footprint castings at conferences to make money.    This forum used to have several members who have been driven off by the nasty behavior of skeptics but I am not sure he ever was a member.        He should be your hero because I have seen him attack statements made by other conference speakers when they have no supporting evidence for what they present.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...