In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Bigfoot video, sure looks real to me....
jltrent
Member Posts: 9,337 ✭✭✭✭
Look at the muscling, long limbs, slumped walk. What do you see that doesn't look real?
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-footage/p6du3d2?q=Bigfoot&rel=msn&from=en-us_msnhp&form=msnrll
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-footage/p6du3d2?q=Bigfoot&rel=msn&from=en-us_msnhp&form=msnrll
Comments
Convenient how the camera was bouncing around all unsteady like AND out of focus too!![:0] Can't see much in that film....
Just like amateur porn. Don
Convenient how the camera was bouncing around all unsteady like AND out of focus too!![:0] Can't see much in that film....
If you seen Bigfoot and had to grab a camera how would you do?
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
Convenient how the camera was bouncing around all unsteady like AND out of focus too!![:0] Can't see much in that film....
If you seen Bigfoot and had to grab a camera how would you do?
with, or without, the tin-foil hat?
I recognize that big booty,,thats moochele wearing a fur coat,,,
[:D][:D][:D]
Franc, how close to where you live did that incident take place?
About 400 mi +- North of me.
Forgot to add, the above video was back in the late 60's early 70's
But we do have a local "Bigfoot museum" that have been rumored to roam our area in the Redwoods since I was a kid. Never seen one-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPVG7XWLuV0&feature=related
quote:Originally posted by montanajoe
I recognize that big booty,,thats moochele wearing a fur coat,,,
[:D][:D][:D]
Thats no coat...she forgot to shave that day!
If Michael J. Fox gave up acting and took up videography it would look just like that.
[:0][:0][:0][}:)][}:)]
I thought that the people who filmed that finally came clean that it was a hoax. Or am I thinking of something else?
If I remember correctly, and I may not, the three men in on the hoax fessed up several years ago. One of them confessed on his death bed and another man confirmed his story and the other man would neither confirm nor deny.
That film has been shown more than the Zapruder film. [:D]
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
I thought that the people who filmed that finally came clean that it was a hoax. Or am I thinking of something else?
If I remember correctly, and I may not, the three men in on the hoax fessed up several years ago. One of them confessed on his death bed and another man confirmed his story and the other man would neither confirm nor deny.
That film has been shown more than the Zapruder film. [:D]
Yep. Saw that. It is a confessed hoax, but the foil hatters want to believe the original hoax story and not the confession.
You where down here in Skamania county, this is the only county in the U.S. that has an ordnance against harming Bigfoot.
Bigfoot don't live here all the time, but he gets his mail in Carson.[;)]
W.D.
I recall being somewhat interested in the seemingly authentic film, but many years later saw an interview with a man who claimed to have been the ape in the Patterson film. He was about 6'7" or so and wanted to come clean because he was dying.
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
Randy,
You where down here in Skamania county, this is the only county in the U.S. that has an ordnance against harming Bigfoot.
Bigfoot don't live here all the time, but he gets his mail in Carson.[;)]
W.D.
Yep, isn't there a place right there called Ape Canyon? A group of hunters had a contact incident there with a group of bigfoot back in the 50s or 60s IIRC
If it's a suit, it was the best of it's kind in 1967.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
Here is a stabilized version of the film. There are some real problems with that 1967 footage. The Achilles tendon, calf and thigh muscle movement, * crack, and shoulder blade moving, are all visible. As well as the foot flexing. And the shorter fur on the sides where the arms rub is interesting too.
If it's a suit, it was the best of it's kind in 1967.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
Now thats a bigfoot.[:)]
Looks like the same'ol BS I been seeing for 30 years..
But that is only because it is the same ol' BS you have been seeing for 30 years. Otherwise it is pretty convincing. Just like it was in '67. Wonder why in 45 years we have gotten no closer to actually finding one? Hoax.
If Bigfoot was real, some old hillbilly woman would have a recipe for it.
True Dat [:D][:D]
http://www.bfro.net/
Was the Patterson-Gimlin film ever proven to be a hoax?
The short answer: No.
But what about the rumors? What about the rumor that one of the people who helped obtain the footage "confessed" to wearing the costume?
There are, in fact, several different stories involving different people who claimed (or were suspected) to be the man in the costume ...
Logically, if the stories involve different culprits ... then most of those stories must be completely bogus ... because not everybody who made the claim of being the guy in the costume ... was the guy in the costume ...
Some of those bogus stories have been commercially exploited in books and TV documentaries. That his how most people have "heard" that the Patterson footage was "proven to be a hoax".
On this page you will find links to youtubery of the most influential documentaries, and some relevant background informaton most influential rumor of all -- the Hieronimous "confession".
Thankfully, in January 2010 new information was presented on television which graphicly demonstrates that all of those costume stories were falsified.
A new documentary on the National Geographic Channel titled "American Paranormal: Bigfoot" presented some compelling math and anatomy to show it's not a costume at all.
The strategy for analysis of the Patterson creature built upon strategies employed in prior documentaries, namely "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" and at least one episode of Monsterquest (History Channel).
That's not a bad thing. The three different examinations all mutually corroborate each other in various ways. The mathematical data of the latest examination gives a more precise measurement of the Patterson creature's height:
Seven (7) foot, six and a half (6 1/2) inches tall
The math is there to be re-examined, anytime.
There wasn't sufficient time in the documentary to examine any of the pervasive hoax rumors still floating around, but that can be done here.
BFRO, Really, and you consider that a reliable source? Did you buy one of the BFRO caps while you were there?
I did not state that I support or denigh the exsistance of a bigfoot like creature, all I did was post a link from an opposing viewpoint. I don't know if it is a hoax or not, but I do find it very interesting.
Fair enough. As a biologist, I guess I am a little exasperated at all the BS surrounding 'cryptobiology.' An unknown small antelope may indeed well turn up in Viet Nam, and did, but the chance a man-sized or larger creature is lurking in the Pacific Northwest unknown until 1967 is vanishingly small. The Western wilderness is just not that wild or uncharted.
I agree. I have spent literaly months and months in some of the most remote backcountry the lower 48 has to offer, that being the back woods/mountains/wilderness of western Montana. Never once did I see any sign that would lead me to believe such a creature exists.
Another not fully grown.
[img
Fair enough. As a biologist, I guess I am a little exasperated at all the BS surrounding 'cryptobiology.' An unknown small antelope may indeed well turn up in Viet Nam, and did, but the chance a man-sized or larger creature is lurking in the Pacific Northwest unknown until 1967 is vanishingly small. The Western wilderness is just not that wild or uncharted.
The biggest thing that bothers me is that there have been stories of a creature such as this from many cultures around the would dating back thousands of years, however serious science has completely dismissed any and all sightings as myth or hoax depending on the age of the sighting. This has left the exploration to non-reputable sources and each of there findings are then completetly dismissed without a single thought. It would be nice for a serious study to be taken place to finally prove what is or is not out there.