Digerati

Level 6
Verified
Costume makers in Hollywood have affirmed that in the late 1960s they did not have the capability to make a monkey suit that could have been used in the Patterson film.
Sorry, but not true. The rumor was that "special effects" in the late 60's were not yet that sophisticated, but costume makers could make such a costume - especially as seen from a distance and in such [conveniently?] grainy film.

Just because the Patterson film was never proven to be a hoax, that is not proof it (or Bigfoot) is real.

As far as found scat not being bear or human, those tests were "inconclusive". "Inconclusive" does NOT translate to the "conclusive" existence of Bigfoot.

The reason I believe the Patterson film is a hoax (or Patterson was tricked by a hoax) is because the Bigfoot turns around and looks at Patterson. I believe such an intelligent humanoid creature that has so successfully eluded "conclusive" discovery since the first reported sighting in the 1790s would have taken off running as fast as it could at that point. But it just kept strolling along continuing the ruse.

Believe me when I tell you... user-land has much greater problems than the CIA.
Exactly.
 

conceptualclarity

Level 20
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
The reason I believe the Patterson film is a hoax (or Patterson was tricked by a hoax) is because the Bigfoot turns around and looks at Patterson. I believe such an intelligent humanoid creature that has so successfully eluded "conclusive" discovery since the first reported sighting in the 1790s would have taken off running as fast as it could at that point. But it just kept strolling along continuing the ruse.
If that line of reasoning satisfies you, fine. It doesn't satisfy me. Just the other day I looked out my window and saw three deer very near the back of my house. I banged loudly on the window frame and yelled at them. They clearly heard me and moved a short distance but then held their ground as I continued to make noise. In view of my intention to be working in the back yard and not wanting to encounter their droppings, I was therefore compelled to go outside into the back yard and personally chase them off. If deer, not known for their bravery, would show this kind of boldness to a human, I find no difficulty in imagining that a very tall and strong creature like Sasquatch would dare to momentarily look at a human she encountered as she continued waking in a direction away from the human, rather than suddenly fleeing in terror.

As far as found scat not being bear or human, those tests were "inconclusive". "Inconclusive" does NOT translate to the "conclusive" existence of Bigfoot.
If you are saying that results for all these scat piles were "inconclusive" in excluding human or bear origin, I am certain you are wrong. Logically of course the results would be "inconclusive" in regards to a match with an unrecognized, uncatalogued species. No matter how real a species is, until it is recognized and catalogued, things pertaining to it will always draw a "question mark" when tested. I think it worth noting here that no reputable scientist would go on the record saying that man has recognized and catalogued all mammal species and no unrecognized ones can be out there.

Sorry, but not true. The rumor was that "special effects" in the late 60's were not yet that sophisticated, but costume makers could make such a costume - especially as seen from a distance and in such [conveniently?] grainy film.
I am not referring to what you have in mind. What I heard had nothing to do with special effects. It was explicitly about costume making art not being able to produce in the late 1960s something that could account for the Patterson film.

The film is not "conveniently" grainy. As technology has gotten better, it has been possible to zoom in and see aspects not consistent with a monkey suit, such as the detailed facial expression and the severe leg muscle injury to which I referred.

Let's not take it personally, Digerati. Thank you very much for your fine contributions to Major Geeks and Malware Tips. :)
 

Digerati

Level 6
Verified
I don't take it personally, so no worries there. I hope you don't take my comments personally either.

As for deer, I don't see how you can use their behavior as some sort of proof your bigfoot is genuine. The first instinct for deer is to freeze as they know motion is detected more easily. Once spooked, they dart away quickly. Plus, if they regularly visit populated areas (as they do in my neighborhood), they are not as quickly spooked by humans. Your bigfoot was already in motion and made no attempt to get away faster - that is, did not appear to feel threatened by two men on big horses - which would not be natural for a highly intelligent but elusive animal.

Facial expressions mean nothing, except maybe it really was a human in disguise. The enhanced Patterson film I saw shows no leg injury. A bump on the leg could mean anything - especially with a furry leg. To me, if there was a "severe" leg muscle injury as you suggested, why isn't bigfoot seen limping or favoring that leg?

And for the record, digital film enhancing is never conclusive, even as forensic evidence in a court of law UNLESS the enhanced image can be compared to the actual person, place or thing depicted in the enhanced image. That is, if an enhanced image of a car suggests a 57 Chevy, it would not be considered conclusive without a genuine 57 Chevy to compare it to. Same with a license plate or whatever. Since there are no authentic images of a genuine bigfoot, enhanced images in that film just leads to more speculation, i.e., guesses.

I am not saying science has cataloged all animals. In fact, we know they haven't by evidence in the vastly unexplored Amazon Rain Forrest, for example. Not to mention 90 - 95% of the world's oceans have yet to be explored. By inconclusive, I mean the discovered scat was not ruled out to be from a large bear or big cat. A male black bear, for example, can weigh over 500lbs.

I am not of the type who must see it to believe it. I believe ET must exist, for example, though I have never seen a flying saucer or alien. But that is because I know for a fact there are ~400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone with ~100 billion planets. And recent survey's by the Hubble Space Telescope reveal there at least 2 Trillion :eek: galaxies (that's 2,000 billion!!!) in the observable universe. So it is just inevitable, to me, that we are not alone.

I do believe there are many who believe they have seen bigfoot, but until I see further concrete evidence, I think they were either hoaxes, one too many beers, or perhaps humans in ghillie suits. If bigfoot really existed, I believe someone from National Geographic, the BBC Nature and Planet Earth series, or some other professional wildlife photographer would have filmed one by now.

Instead, we have, National Geographic: Patterson Video Hoax.

I also believe we have run this topic about as far off topic as possible.
 
Last edited: