Jump to content

Non-PGF Films and Photographs of Sasquatches


Recommended Posts

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
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
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
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
×
×
  • Create New...