Jump to content

Non-PGF Films and Photographs of Sasquatches


Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Moonface said:

 

How was that photo obtained? What's the story behind it?


Todd Standing. We THINK its a hoax.

 

But Im posting this to prove a point. 
 

Clear photos are not going to get us anywhere. 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

I did, but the snow is gone now. What's in the photo is before everything was sterilized, sealed, labeled, and ready to go. All I needed was an undisputed, identifiable trackway. And I was in the field looking for it in an area that has had recent reports. It could've happened...but it didn't:

 

1078325143_DNAStuff001.thumb.jpg.f0207fd349bd9e5d170ee8cf262eb3a7.jpg

 


You keep at it, your going to find a trackway, Im sure of it!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
14 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

I agree with you that ultimately, in order to prove Bigfoot's existence, we are going to need a physical specimen (living or otherwise) of some part thereof such as a bone.  However, I think a pragmatic approach is necessary regarding other forms of evidence.  While the animal's existence is not going to ever be proven satisfactorily to the scientific community through film, photographs, audio, or plaster casts these forms of evidence still have at least some practical use and I would argue that they are worth pursuing, if only tangentially to the acquiring of a type specimen.  My reasoning for this is because these forms of evidence, though not conclusive, are useful for the purpose of attracting enough interest in the subject so that the search for the species continues.  Although history does not suggest that most or even many scientists will be persuaded of the species potential existence, there are certainly SOME scientists who have been thoroughly persuaded through this very type of evidence.  Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum for instance, both physical anthropologists, were skeptical of the species existence until the examined plaster casts themselves.  The Bossberg Cripple Foot track for instance, was instrumental in convincing Grover Krantz that Sasquatch exists.  

 

So yes, while a physical specimen is absolutely vital in proving the species existence, the lesser evidence does have its place.  Especially in generating enough public and professional interest to keep the search moving.


Those are fair points. Its true the evidence has swayed some scientists. Unfortunately even that has not moved the needle far though.
 

Personally Im only interested in trace evidence as scouting reports. The same reason a hunter uses a trail camera or follows tracks. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
10 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Absolutely. 

 

 

Uh ... good question.   I don't like my answer because it doesn't fit neatly in the box-o-expectations, but based on what I know of the water depth there (from being in it myself a number of times) and where it hit on the BF's anatomy relative to mine, 10 to 11 feet.   I'll go with 10-1/2, nice average.    I suspect, because such height is seemingly unusual, that it was the same individual who left the line of 24-1/2" tracks with a 6-1/2 foot step length that I found 2 years earlier.    I've tried for years to somehow find a more acceptable answer that still fit the measurements available to me and .. there's no way, I can't make that guy 9 feet tall or even 9-1/2 feet tall, it just doesn't work.

 

Remember up-thread I mentioned Bergmann's rule in the context of sizes varying regionally?    Call that exhibit 1.   Then consider track shape ... the Canadian researchers had a bit of a head start on those from the US it seems.   The were initially very skeptical of the validity of the northern California tracks because they were relatively broader across the ball of the foot than those they were used to.    The tracks I found were comparatively narrow for their length, 8-1/2" across the ball of the foot, 6" approximately across the heel, and they had just the slightest hint of curve.    I didn't know it at the time, but I gather that's what the Canadians were use to.   Call that exhibit 2.    My guess, then, is what I saw, and found tracks from, was a wanderer from farther north.

 

It's all speculative of course but the pieces do fit.

 

MIB

 

I am inclined to agree with you here.  Big brown bears sometimes migrate south from the normal range, it is only feasible that large northern Sasquatches would do the same on occasion.  Do you ever listen to Sasquatch Chronicles?  Wes Germer is a strong advocate of Bergmann's Theory for Sasquatches and mentioned that the sub-arctic variety as being largest, normally 10-12ft tall and occasionally as tall as 15ft.  Germer postulates no fewer than four Sasquatch sub-species in North America of which the northernmost, or the sub-arctic variety, is the largest.  Personally I think his theory has its merits, and would certainly explain the size and behavioral discrepancies of Bigfoot-like creatures reported from different areas of the continent.

 

He also mentioned that the sub-arctic variety is a pure carnivore, and has jaws likened unto a bear trap.  Did you happen to notice the animal's teeth or jaw structure by any chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
MODERATOR
14 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

Did you happen to notice the animal's teeth or jaw structure by any chance?

 

No.    That first sighting was near dusk, not dark enough to introduce mistakes / misidentification, but not enough to make out fine detail.    Once we got past "what is that?", my cuz put the headlights on it.   The combination of it not being dark and early 1970s vintage incandescent, not halogen, headlights, and the engine being off, meant we didn't light it up very well even at 75-80 yards, but there was enough illumination we should have gotten reflection off of clothing, fishing rod, and/or light colored skin .. and we didn't.    My impression was "the thing" turned its back to us to keep the light out of its eyes.     (Perhaps this also addresses the earlier question about whether I think it was aware of us, also?)

 

MIB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonface
On 4/7/2021 at 3:39 PM, MIB said:

 

Absolutely. 

 

 

Uh ... good question.   I don't like my answer because it doesn't fit neatly in the box-o-expectations, but based on what I know of the water depth there (from being in it myself a number of times) and where it hit on the BF's anatomy relative to mine, 10 to 11 feet.   I'll go with 10-1/2, nice average.    I suspect, because such height is seemingly unusual, that it was the same individual who left the line of 24-1/2" tracks with a 6-1/2 foot step length that I found 2 years earlier.    I've tried for years to somehow find a more acceptable answer that still fit the measurements available to me and .. there's no way, I can't make that guy 9 feet tall or even 9-1/2 feet tall, it just doesn't work.

 

Remember up-thread I mentioned Bergmann's rule in the context of sizes varying regionally?    Call that exhibit 1.   Then consider track shape ... the Canadian researchers had a bit of a head start on those from the US it seems.   The were initially very skeptical of the validity of the northern California tracks because they were relatively broader across the ball of the foot than those they were used to.    The tracks I found were comparatively narrow for their length, 8-1/2" across the ball of the foot, 6" approximately across the heel, and they had just the slightest hint of curve.    I didn't know it at the time, but I gather that's what the Canadians were use to.   Call that exhibit 2.    My guess, then, is what I saw, and found tracks from, was a wanderer from farther north.

 

It's all speculative of course but the pieces do fit.

 

MIB

 

 

I don't disbelieve you, but it's hard to imagine a 10/11' creature.

 

Are there any photos/videos of BFs of that sort of height with something for size reference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
 

 

Absolutely. 

 

 

Uh ... good question.   I don't like my answer because it doesn't fit neatly in the box-o-expectations, but based on what I know of the water depth there (from being in it myself a number of times) and where it hit on the BF's anatomy relative to mine, 10 to 11 feet.   I'll go with 10-1/2, nice average.    I suspect, because such height is seemingly unusual, that it was the same individual who left the line of 24-1/2" tracks with a 6-1/2 foot step length that I found 2 years earlier.    I've tried for years to somehow find a more acceptable answer that still fit the measurements available to me and .. there's no way, I can't make that guy 9 feet tall or even 9-1/2 feet tall, it just doesn't work.

 

Remember up-thread I mentioned Bergmann's rule in the context of sizes varying regionally?    Call that exhibit 1.   Then consider track shape ... the Canadian researchers had a bit of a head start on those from the US it seems.   The were initially very skeptical of the validity of the northern California tracks because they were relatively broader across the ball of the foot than those they were used to.    The tracks I found were comparatively narrow for their length, 8-1/2" across the ball of the foot, 6" approximately across the heel, and they had just the slightest hint of curve.    I didn't know it at the time, but I gather that's what the Canadians were use to.   Call that exhibit 2.    My guess, then, is what I saw, and found tracks from, was a wanderer from farther north.

 

It's all speculative of course but the pieces do fit.

 

MIB

 

By the way, I was just looking over John Green's "Sasquatch the Apes Among Us" and he mentioned in his chapter "The Giants Profile" that statistically speaking (at least according to his records) that Oregon has the highest percentage of Sasquatch reports were the creature was described as being 10-11 ft tall. 

 

So apparently your sighting wasn't unique in that regard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Admin
On 4/8/2021 at 4:43 PM, Moonface said:

 

I don't disbelieve you, but it's hard to imagine a 10/11' creature.

 

Are there any photos/videos of BFs of that sort of height with something for size reference?

 

 

Not totally related, but something most folks can understand....a regulation basketball goal is 10 feet. So if you can imagine a BF bumping his head on the rim (or resting its chin on it...), that gives a pretty good idea of the size (but not bulk).

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
On 4/8/2021 at 4:43 PM, Moonface said:

I don't disbelieve you, but it's hard to imagine a 10/11' creature.

 

Are there any photos/videos of BFs of that sort of height with something for size reference?

One of the more popular stories of a 12' creature is the Bighorn Dam Incident in 1969.

 

Article: Bighorn Dam Incident

 

MBM Video: THE BIGHORN DAM INCIDENT - Mountain Beast Mysteries (Episode 53)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

Here is an interesting video from Josh Highcliff of a Bigfoot tearing at a tree trunk to presumably get at some bugs or ants to eat. If it is a hoax, it's a good one!

 

Strange Figure Breaking Trees In Forest Called ‘Best Bigfoot Sighting Ever’ In United States

 

 

Bigfoot-sighting1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Admin

This guy is only eight foot, but he is on a base and is slightly hunched down. However, it might serve to get a better idea of size proportion....

 

Image may contain Human Person Animal Wildlife Mammal Electronics Monitor Display and Screen

 

 

https://www.wired.com/2012/07/bigfoot-on-ebay/?utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Top+Stories)&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner

 

 

Some that I cannot quite discount:

 

The recent UT photo at a distance

 

The Hovey image of "something"

 

The 93 Wallace photo, although the credibility is highly suspect 

 

The Seven Chutes photo, although not a typical BF specimen

 

 

 

These may have already been debunked, but I am unaware of it if they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, VAfooter said:

 

 

The recent UT photo at a distance

 

The Hovey image of "something"

 

 

.

Do you possibly have a link to these pics?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

Junior caught on camera in March (from Arkansas Bigfoot Facebook page). The linked video start at 24:47, when the money shot happens.

 I don't know enough about these people yet to gauge credibility. This is at least Junior's 2nd appearance on camera. I will dig up the other.

 

Here is the other video of Junior (that I know of - maybe there is more)

He says the top of the hole in the gifting tree (in the middle of the frame) is 9 1/2 feet so we can use that for size comparison. If true, Junior is over 7 feet tall.

image.png.0b4f4a019c1de711f3918b5d4d319111.png  image.png.79784e17914d0bbbe3887bc60b31cb2a.png

This link starts when he first appear on the right side. He will make his way to the gifting tree in the middle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
 


Todd Standing. We THINK its a hoax.

 

But Im posting this to prove a point. 
 

Clear photos are not going to get us anywhere. 


You keep at it, your going to find a trackway, Im sure of it!

My wife and I watched a YouTube documentary about a month ago that attempted to vindicate Todd Standing. Basically the premise was that the familiar photographs used by some in the Bigfoot Community to discredit Standing were deliberately altered to make the figure in the photograph look like a puppet. The guy who made the documentary claimed that the actual photograph used in Todd Standing's documentary shows a creature with more hair on its face. And that the more familiar photograph circulating around the internet had the facial hair digitally removed and the skin smoothed and lightened to make it appear fake. 

 

And the other famous photograph that many Bigfoot researchers claim is really Todd Standing's face with makeup, was claimed by the maker of the documentary to have an entirely different shaped mouth and eyes spread too far apart for it to be Standing's face. He also said the creature's "eye blink" appears to be computer generated which he admits throws up red flags. But he said it's possible Standing added the eye blink to an actual Bigfoot photograph in order to silence criticism from skeptics who might otherwise say it was a model of some kind. 

 

I'm not defending Standing in any way, I'm simply reporting what I saw. I will see if I can find the video. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
48 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

My wife and I watched a YouTube documentary about a month ago that attempted to vindicate Todd Standing. Basically the premise was that the familiar photographs used by some in the Bigfoot Community to discredit Standing were deliberately altered to make the figure in the photograph look like a puppet. The guy who made the documentary claimed that the actual photograph used in Todd Standing's documentary shows a creature with more hair on its face. And that the more familiar photograph circulating around the internet had the facial hair digitally removed and the skin smoothed and lightened to make it appear fake. 

 

And the other famous photograph that many Bigfoot researchers claim is really Todd Standing's face with makeup, was claimed by the maker of the documentary to have an entirely different shaped mouth and eyes spread too far apart for it to be Standing's face. He also said the creature's "eye blink" appears to be computer generated which he admits throws up red flags. But he said it's possible Standing added the eye blink to an actual Bigfoot photograph in order to silence criticism from skeptics who might otherwise say it was a model of some kind. 

 

I'm not defending Standing in any way, I'm simply reporting what I saw. I will see if I can find the video. 


Especially when the muppet heads that first came out were criticized for having unblinking shark like eyes. So round two we have a head that blinks..... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
 


Especially when the muppet heads that first came out were criticized for having unblinking shark like eyes. So round two we have a head that blinks..... 

The documentary originally aired with unblinking eyes? When I first saw his documentary I desperately wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since legitimate researchers such as Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagle, and Les Stroud vouched for him. But it seems more and more likely that Todd Standing hoaxed at least some of his material. 

 

He may have done some legitimate research, and he may even have had some real encounters. But hoax any evidence even once in my opinion, then the researcher needs to be written off and ostracized from the Bigfoot Community. 

Edited by Wooly Booger
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...