|
Post by solarstorm on Jun 14, 2008 16:59:47 GMT -11
When I was young I believed in Bigfoot. I grew up in Washington state and I know how dense those forests are. Then, I became skeptical about it, until I saw the Monster quest episode about Bigfoot. They really did a fine job of examining all the facts and hired scientists to try to duplicate the walk of the creature on the Roger Patterson film. They found that a human being is unable to duplicate that walk. The most eerie part of the show was when they set up alarms around a cabin that allegedly was visited by Sasquatch regularly. They heard something in the night and went out to try to film it. One of the cameramen threw a rock into the woods. It was returned with such velocity that it completely cleared the crew and landed on the roof of the cabin. It was a big rock too. The owner of the cabin had placed a board with a bunch of screws sticking up. Something stepped on the screws and left blood and hair. Whatever university lab they sent it to was unable to identify the hair and said that the blood was not human, but contained lots of DNA that was close to being human. It was a great show. I saw that same program that you did. Although the collected evidence is definitely interesting, it just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Like how do we know what threw the rock? The hairs and testing didn't really prove what animal it was nor confirmed human or a bigfoot. The hairs resembled that of a bear but still were not confirmable. In the end it neither proves or disproves bigfoot. However, like you I did find the show worth a watch and would recommend it to anyone out there. As for that infamous Patterson video, I recall a program once where some one camed forward admiting to being the one that wore a suit in that and admitted that they had conducted a hoax and showed how they did it. lol That's hillarious! There's still debate about the Patterson video and whether or not somone came forward and claimed to be in the Bigfoot suit on the footage. Standard belief amongst believers is that most people are confusing the Patterson footage with another Bigfoot film where the wife of the photographer said she was the one in the suit. Recently I saw a special on Bigfoot on the discovery Channel which carefully examined the Patterson footage (I think they got a copy of the original, not a copy of a copy of a copy). Analysis of the footage by the experts gathered said that there were nuances in the movement (muscle movement in the legs) that could not have been duplicated mechanically at the time the footage was shot, or could it have been from someone in a suit, either. Surprisingly, the special did not dispel te idea of a bigfoot, but supported it. They analyzed casts of the footprints (found details that support them being natural and not artificial), a body imprint found at another location, supposed bigfoot calls, and footage one one walking on a hill.
|
|
CougarBob
Hermes
Where is Everybody???
Posts: 997
|
Post by CougarBob on Jun 15, 2008 6:28:21 GMT -11
I saw that same program that you did. Although the collected evidence is definitely interesting, it just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Like how do we know what threw the rock? The hairs and testing didn't really prove what animal it was nor confirmed human or a bigfoot. The hairs resembled that of a bear but still were not confirmable. In the end it neither proves or disproves bigfoot. However, like you I did find the show worth a watch and would recommend it to anyone out there.
As for that infamous Patterson video, I recall a program once where some one camed forward admiting to being the one that wore a suit in that and admitted that they had conducted a hoax and showed how they did it.
lol That's hillarious! There's still debate about the Patterson video and whether or not somone came forward and claimed to be in the Bigfoot suit on the footage. Standard belief amongst believers is that most people are confusing the Patterson footage with another Bigfoot film where the wife of the photographer said she was the one in the suit.
Recently I saw a special on Bigfoot on the discovery Channel which carefully examined the Patterson footage (I think they got a copy of the original, not a copy of a copy of a copy). Analysis of the footage by the experts gathered said that there were nuances in the movement (muscle movement in the legs) that could not have been duplicated mechanically at the time the footage was shot, or could it have been from someone in a suit, either.
Surprisingly, the special did not dispel te idea of a bigfoot, but supported it. They analyzed casts of the footprints (found details that support them being natural and not artificial), a body imprint found at another location, supposed bigfoot calls, and footage one one walking on a hill.[/size][/quote] I saw that too. Great study. I also saw another one, or maybe the same one, where they set out a board with small screws sticking up on the porch of a cabin frequented by Sasquatch. The DNA and hairs they collected their were inconclusive, yet showed indicators from both human and ape. I cannot remember if they identified the hair samples. I've gone from believer as a kid to skeptic back toward believer.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 15, 2008 6:34:29 GMT -11
There's still debate about the Patterson video and whether or not somone came forward and claimed to be in the Bigfoot suit on the footage. Standard belief amongst believers is that most people are confusing the Patterson footage with another Bigfoot film where the wife of the photographer said she was the one in the suit. Recently I saw a special on Bigfoot on the discovery Channel which carefully examined the Patterson footage (I think they got a copy of the original, not a copy of a copy of a copy). Analysis of the footage by the experts gathered said that there were nuances in the movement (muscle movement in the legs) that could not have been duplicated mechanically at the time the footage was shot, or could it have been from someone in a suit, either. Surprisingly, the special did not dispel te idea of a bigfoot, but supported it. They analyzed casts of the footprints (found details that support them being natural and not artificial), a body imprint found at another location, supposed bigfoot calls, and footage one one walking on a hill. I've seen that very interesting documentary as well, several times. Definitely gives a lot of thought to ponder over. However, I believe it is done in the spirit of belief rather than disbelief so I am not too surprised at the supporting findings they produced. The problem with experts too, is while there are always some that say one thing, there are always others, equal credentials not agreeing. I guess this is why it is that, although I highly doubt big foots do exist (gave some reasons why earlier in the thread) I am not necessarily in absolute total disbelief either. I like to at least keep the door ajar on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by solarstorm on Jun 15, 2008 6:59:39 GMT -11
Cougar, the one with the board and the screws was Monsterquest on the History Channel. The one I saw aired on Discovery and was (from what I can tell) a one and done series.
Spooky, I wouldn't say that the show was done in the spirit of belief since they dissassembled another pieces of video (bigfoot walking in some elevated area).
My general belief is that we know so little about our own planet, and we are finding new discoveries all the time, that it is indeed possible that some of these cryptids are out there. If they can find a new species of oxen in Vietnam no more than 15 years ago, then anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Jun 15, 2008 15:25:50 GMT -11
Even believers will debunk some things. Specially skeptical believers. It makes things much more convincing to the audience if they include some debunking. We may perhaps have seen this very fascinating program from a different lense because I felt it was jaded towards belief, rather than impartial, and that's typically how I see monsterquest airing their shows. You could be right. What do you suppose he would be if he did prove to exist? I personally, I believe if he were to be found out to exist he would probably be a thought to be long extinct Gigantopithecus. You can read about them here: www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html
|
|
|
Post by solarstorm on Jun 15, 2008 20:44:15 GMT -11
Even believers will debunk some things. Specially skeptical believers. It makes things much more convincing to the audience if they include some debunking. We may perhaps have seen this very fascinating program from a different lense because I felt it was jaded towards belief, rather than impartial, and that's typically how I see monsterquest airing their shows. You could be right. What do you suppose he would be if he did prove to exist? I personally, I believe if he were to be found out to exist he would probably be a thought to be long extinct Gigantopithecus. You can read about them here: www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.htmlI'm willing to accept the Gigantopithecus theory. I'm just unwilling to accept some close-minded dimwit "expert" who insists on telling me that if Bigfoot existed, we would have seen one, had some sort of evidence of one, and would have found its dead body in the local Dairy Queen parking lot just after closing.
|
|
|
Post by hoobsmom on Jun 16, 2008 14:59:44 GMT -11
Even believers will debunk some things. Specially skeptical believers. It makes things much more convincing to the audience if they include some debunking. We may perhaps have seen this very fascinating program from a different lense because I felt it was jaded towards belief, rather than impartial, and that's typically how I see monsterquest airing their shows. You could be right. What do you suppose he would be if he did prove to exist? I personally, I believe if he were to be found out to exist he would probably be a thought to be long extinct Gigantopithecus. You can read about them here: www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.htmlI'm willing to accept the Gigantopithecus theory. I'm just unwilling to accept some close-minded dimwit "expert" who insists on telling me that if Bigfoot existed, we would have seen one, had some sort of evidence of one, and would have found its dead body in the local Dairy Queen parking lot just after closing. I agree even if they bury thier dead we would still stumble across on by now.
|
|
CougarBob
Hermes
Where is Everybody???
Posts: 997
|
Post by CougarBob on Jun 20, 2008 14:43:11 GMT -11
Cougar, the one with the board and the screws was Monsterquest on the History Channel. The one I saw aired on Discovery and was (from what I can tell) a one and done series.
Spooky, I wouldn't say that the show was done in the spirit of belief since they dissassembled another pieces of video (Bigfoot walking in some elevated area).
My general belief is that we know so little about our own planet, and we are finding new discoveries all the time, that it is indeed possible that some of these crypt-ids are out there. If they can find a new species of oxen in Vietnam no more than 15 years ago, then anything is possible. All I know is that it hurt like hell!!
|
|
|
Post by krystalmoore1986 on Jun 20, 2008 15:24:45 GMT -11
Cougar, the one with the board and the screws was Monsterquest on the History Channel. The one I saw aired on Discovery and was (from what I can tell) a one and done series.
Spooky, I wouldn't say that the show was done in the spirit of belief since they dissassembled another pieces of video (Bigfoot walking in some elevated area).
My general belief is that we know so little about our own planet, and we are finding new discoveries all the time, that it is indeed possible that some of these crypt-ids are out there. If they can find a new species of oxen in Vietnam no more than 15 years ago, then anything is possible. All I know is that it hurt like hell!! Lol bob!!
|
|