Jump to content

5 Stood the test of time!


Grubfingers

Recommended Posts

All of them since they lasted so long even though there’s so many new ones that just don’t get the attention they had. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An elk print,a

fat guy in a suit,a fake photo, and a mangy bear are not very convincing. 

The Patterson-Gimlin film is outstanding. Probably not a man ape but more likely a tall mime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

An elk print,a

fat guy in a suit,a fake photo, and a mangy bear are not very convincing. 

The Patterson-Gimlin film is outstanding. Probably not a man ape but more likely a tall mime.

I’ve seen elk prints and that’s no elk print? I’ve killed bears they don’t have heads like that or arms longer than their body?    If those are costumes they are really good ones.CDD83821-811E-46E2-827C-8D179DC358EB.thumb.jpeg.cdf01599092ab70e100803e12dfc09a2.jpeg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DB1B3C36-524D-48EF-8A0B-2DD30C2C9250.thumb.png.004027ffb0c0a513da45d9781160f51b.pngIt’s scary when you see how they have compared it by gradually fading the upper left hunters photo into the lower right chimpanzee. They are practically identical!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic

Thanks for sharing 

Still think it is Elk and bear 

The only one that is difficult to explain is of course the Patterson film subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for sharing 

Still think it is Elk and bear 

Why would you think Elk in such a long print?

 

As for a bear I don’t think that’s even possible when it was found to have 22” long arms and a 18 3/4” long torso. This primate specialist that thought it was possibly a chimpanzee back in 2008 used stakes to estimate the size of it at the location in front of that actual tree in the Allegheny forest where it stood. I’ve seen some bear and chimpanzee  pictures compared but that wouldn’t be as accurate as measuring while accounting for the terrain shape and position of it plus the camera to get the real size of it. 

 

.15FC041C-1C52-4653-9A65-C242E3CC93BB.jpeg.691cd5a44afe592989f998c73330d6ea.jpeg

537EBC4D-AED1-433B-8624-897FCE42B169.thumb.jpeg.065498b53b8aacad69d8be9590425fa7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the Skookum cast. Shame they didn't have a camera set up. 

 

Edited by Stabbath
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stabbath said:

In regards to the Skookum cast. Shame they didn't have a camera set up. 

In regards to it being elk. One of the scientists involved found Elf prints in it. And concluded if it shows anything, it's that of an elk. Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum think it was a primate. 

Exactly it was a primate heel shape to big to be from a human. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin
19 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

Why would you think Elk in such a long print?

 

As for a bear I don’t think that’s even possible when it was found to have 22” long arms and a 18 3/4” long torso. This primate specialist that thought it was possibly a chimpanzee back in 2008 used stakes to estimate the size of it at the location in front of that actual tree in the Allegheny forest where it stood. I’ve seen some bear and chimpanzee  pictures compared but that wouldn’t be as accurate as measuring while accounting for the terrain shape and position of it plus the camera to get the real size of it. 

 

.15FC041C-1C52-4653-9A65-C242E3CC93BB.jpeg.691cd5a44afe592989f998c73330d6ea.jpeg

537EBC4D-AED1-433B-8624-897FCE42B169.thumb.jpeg.065498b53b8aacad69d8be9590425fa7.jpeg


This explains the skeptical side of the argument. My argument is that while Elk hoof prints were found close by. They were not found directly in the Skookum cast.

 

https://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/11/03/16/

7 minutes ago, Stabbath said:

In regards to the Skookum cast. Shame they didn't have a camera set up. 

In regards to it being elk. One of the scientists involved found Elf prints in it. And concluded if it shows anything, it's that of an elk. Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum think it was a primate. 


Not in it. But around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect elk prints around everywhere in elk country. I’ve watched them many times while they herd around like cows on a farm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come July I’m heading to Northern California and plan on  going to a couple BIGFOOT museums on the way. The plan is to learn more and  I’m taking my new 45 70 I’ll be looking to blast one if it doesn’t move like a human. If I find some idiot in a mask I’m going to try to tackle him and take their picture too. I will post any good pictures I get here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin
18 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

I would expect elk prints around everywhere in elk country. I’ve watched them many times while they herd around like cows on a farm.


Sure. But an Elk standing up out of its lay is going to leave corresponding tracks to that action. We don’t see that with the skookum cast. Where there elk tracks else were in the mud? Yes. But that doesn’t immediately mean a Elk made the skookum cast.

 

Of course casts of feet, butts, hands and bodies are suggestive but not proof of a undiscovered primate in the North America either.

4 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

Come July I’m heading to Northern California and plan on  going to a couple BIGFOOT museums on the way. The plan is to learn more and  I’m taking my new 45 70 I’ll be looking to blast one if it doesn’t move like a human. If I find some idiot in a mask I’m going to try to tackle him and take their picture too. I will post any good pictures I get here.


Be safe.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...