This is a Soap Box section of our Forum where those who hold passionate views/opinions regarding various aspects of Theology, Creation, Religion, Paranormal etc - pertaining to the Yowie can be POLITELY debated, away from our mainstream friendly Yowie / Bigfoot Discussion Board.
Be kind to each other. Our standard rules of etiquette and behaviour apply in all areas of our Forum.
theOTyoWAYS777 wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:37 pm
Hey in the dark. Im a believer, but really enjoy your posts from a skeptical point of view. You clearly think things through and majority of what you say has merit. As for patty i tend to agree with you but im trying to see it for what others see. Because a lot of good minds in this subject seem to be certain its legit. Anyway, fingers crossed you experience something someday because something tells me you'd be pretty handy on the "believers" side. Ill continue to read your replies with interest and urge you to keep researching. The scene needs people like yaself. Cheers.
Gosh, thanks for saying such nice things I will say that I'm not in any hurry (at ALL) to meet Sasquatch! I do forest night hikes several times a week, and already find that somewhat disconcerting at times, even without worrying about BF
Meantime, I try not to pay too much attention to the 'weight of numbers' argument in favour of PGF. Since millions of people believe in gods which almost certainly don't exist (not saying any specific gods do or don't exist ... but clearly they don't all exist), we know that sheer numbers don't really amount to much in terms of evidence, or even likelihoods. When something is sold as reality long and loudly enough, eventually it becomes an article of faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and is therefore beyond argument. Consequently, I go back to basics. The physiology and behaviour of the animal, the likelihood of the location, and the possible motives of the human/s involved.
When you compare Patty's movement to the movement of the Russian Almasty running (and leaping) past a father and son in open forest, there is a significant difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhYxK2rjHI0
Inthedark.
I just went and looked at this video. Ive seen it before but did pay much attention to it for obvious reasons.
Compared to PGF, its worthless. There is absolutely no detail. Its blurred and the subject is too far away so you have
no way of telling if its a guy in a suit OR if its CGI. Theres a moment where the figure dissappears when changing
direction with its back facing the camera. Its essentially a blobsquatch video.
PGF has clear detail. Thats what makes it a winner.
ripperton wrote: Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:01 pm
Inthedark.
I just went and looked at this video. Ive seen it before but did pay much attention to it for obvious reasons.
Compared to PGF, its worthless. There is absolutely no detail. Its blurred and the subject is too far away so you have
no way of telling if its a guy in a suit OR if its CGI. Theres a moment where the figure dissappears when changing
direction with its back facing the camera. Its essentially a blobsquatch video.
PGF has clear detail. Thats what makes it a winner.
Fair enough. I'm not as convinced by clarity of image as I am by other factors, but accept that others will be. As regards the Russian vid, it's been cleared for CGI (I had an expert in the field look at it, and he said 'absolutely not' CG), so it must be something else. A guy in a suit almost certainly, but there is still that small doubt for me, given the ease and balance of the non-human elements of movement. There are other reasons I like it, but that's the primary reason.
ripperton wrote: Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:01 pm
PGF has clear detail. Thats what makes it a winner.
Meant to add that another one I like (of the very few on my short list) is the Pennsylvania White footage. It's about 1.5 seconds in total, but what's captured in that second is remarkable, and very clear, as BF footage goes. Much better all around than the PGF, IMO. The mate's response to the 'accidental' capture is the single sour note, for me. The only way I can explain his rather lacklustre 'what was that?' is that it was all so quick and so unexpected that he didn't realise what he'd stumbled into .. and had an inappropriately low key response as a result.
Pennsylvania White. The first thing that strikes me is how did these bungling stumbling humans catch up to this supposed
super athletic stealthy predator. Why did it get so scared and take off when it saw the humans.
If its so scared of humans how did it not hear them crashing through the bush and exit the area before there was ever any contact.
F A K E
inthedark wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:09 pm Once again, there is footage out there which I'm far less certain about. As in, I'm not at all sure they're hoaxes. I'm a skeptic, but a skeptic who is open to accepting the existence of these creatures. I give most video 'evidence' a chance.
I would very much like to know which footage, and where it can be found and viewed. This is the second time you've said this, so I'm sure many of us would like to see for ourselves, if you wish to share.
Shazz
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Dr. Carl Sagan
The Patterson footage, is one of the most successful hoaxes ever perpetrated on the public. Half a century later, and people are still debating its merits!
As far as I'm concerned, it's had fifty years to prove itself as authentic, and it's failed. Not one more second ought to be devoted to this charade.
Patterson and his assistants that day, are no doubt, laughing in their graves. It was a combination of sheer dumb luck they used the right camera equipment, grainy film, film speed, a good enough costume, and they came up with the right back story and story.
Regarding that 'Almasty' video; my opinion is that it's either someone in a suit who's extremely athletic, or it's an actual ape (possibly a gibbon) that they've let loose in the forest. Probably it's both those things.
The first figure we see disappears behind some bushes for a moment before 'doing a runner' - my belief is that the first figure we see is someone in a suit, and that they run behind the bushes, let the ape out of a cage (or whatever) and that's what we see bounding away.
Plenty of Russian circuses still use animals, and I don't think it'd be that hard for someone who had access to one (a handler, trainer, etc) to set this up.
It also strikes me as odd that neither the kid we see or the guy holding the camera seem startled. Also, why are they standing there with a video camera trained onto that exact part of the forest, seemingly waiting for the 'Almasty' to jump into the shot? It's all a bit contrived looking (to me).
The only two examples I've seen that have given me reason to think are these -
...but even these are questionable, for obvious reasons. They could still be fake, but they seem somewhat plausible (to me).
The 'tree throwing' one - based on the reactions of the onlookers - seems to suggest that this group of people had seen this thing before, or were aware of something being there ("I see the ...cker") which makes sense if they're working in a remote location. I don't know. It's interesting, and not what I would imagine a faker would do if they wanted to create a dramatic 'Bigfoot sighting' video. It seems almost mundane in a weird way...but it could just be a really well executed fake.
The 'guy chases Bigfoot' one is precisely what you'd expect a faker to do, but there's something about it that makes me think it could be legit. I can't even explain why it grabs my attention. It's the opposite of what any rational person would do in those circumstances, but maybe the guy was just protecting his family and was running on adrenaline (he tells someone to "get in the house")? It's interesting to watch, anyway.
They're probably both fake. I have no way of knowing, but the tree-throwing one is different than the usual stuff people put on YouTube. Even if it's a really big guy in a gorilla suit throwing a length of balsa wood and those guys set it up, it's a genuinely imaginative fake if nothing else. It's rare to see a Bigfoot video where they're interacting with the environment, or doing anything other than running in the opposite direction.
If any piece of physical evidence - video, photo, footprint, or whatever, has you perplexed and sitting on the fence, always move the magnifying glass over the less obvious evidence hidden in plain sight.
1. The accompanying story.
2. The characters and motivations of the human participants.
In the case of the Patterson footage for instance, the accompanying story has more holes than a block of swiss cheese used as a target on a firing range, and Roger Patterson's character, history, financial status, beliefs, and motivations (financial, family, and attention seeking), puts him squarely in the fake it til you make it basket.
You can't see any muscle movement in that back muscle clip. It's called hair movement and light and shade change across a moving body or plain of hair. The author of that clip wouldn't know the difference between sh_t and clay.
Incredible. Some people still believe if they speak in a low deep tone gravely voice with authoritative conviction, listeners will just lap up whatever is said.
It’s a simple decision. Either the 1967 PG film represents a real Bigfoot or it’s a man in a suit. There are no other choices.
I have read reams of material from Hollywood costume and makeup people and none can throw any real light of who could have made this supposed suit or where the potentially famous piece of evidence could be now.
Personally, I don’t believe it’s a man in a suit. Instead, I lean towards the findings of almost all modern day digitized technical analysis videos that find reason after compelling reason why this film is genuine.
Let’s face it… Bigfoot and Yowies are real. There are way too many thousands of eyewitness reports over 100’s of years to completely deny their existence. So if that fact is accepted, it is not so strange to see one has finally been captured in detail on camera.
Patterson was obsessed with the search for bigfoot.
Patterson was in debt, owing lots of people lots of money who helped fund his bigfoot expeditions.
Patterson was frustrated and penniless, having spent years and years exploring the woods in search of bigfoot, to no avail.
Patterson is reported to have hoaxed footprints in an attempt to gain a wealthy investor for his expeditions.
Patterson knew Ray Wallace and spent time with him. Wallace famously hoaxed bigfoot tracks years earlier in the very same area, and later admitted it.
Patterson was actually making a documentary about bigfoot at the time, using actors, at location, recounting a famous bigfoot story from the 1920s. Umm, suiting up a guy in a costume for this project alone, never crossed Patterson's mind?
Patterson had visited Hollywood prior to making the famous film.
Of all the places in the world Patterson could have filmed a bigfoot, he made his film in a creek called, " Bluff" creek.
** He called the whole world's bluff and it payed off big time.
ripperton wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:29 pm
Pennsylvania White. The first thing that strikes me is how did these bungling stumbling humans catch up to this supposed
super athletic stealthy predator. Why did it get so scared and take off when it saw the humans.
If its so scared of humans how did it not hear them crashing through the bush and exit the area before there was ever any contact.
F A K E
Oh for sure, it's almost certainly fake, but for me there's still just that little doubt.
As regards your (very good) question ... I immediately thought the same thing. Thought there was no way such a canny beast could be caught out so apparently clumsily and easily. But there's the rub - I don't think this was a clumsy and easy catch. If legitimate, it was simply 1.5 seconds of sheer luck which landed a small spotlight in the pitch black. But a 'possible' explanation for how it plays out can be found in the initial split second the creature is captured. It's quite obscured, and appears to be crouched or down on all fours .. presumably having heard the idiot crashing through the bushes, it did what BF's are claimed to do, and went into 'stealth mode' rather than barrel out of the place and potentially be heard and seen. Then when the guy kept coming, it stood up to do that other alleged BF behaviour 'tree hiding'. This potential scenario actually explains how startled it was when the torch light hit it square in the face, and also its quick exit. I actually find the creature's response (to discovery) in this footage to be far more convincing, when measured against known mammalian behaviour patterns, than just about any I've seen.
Again though, it's almost certainly fake. I'm nowhere near convinced, just slightly more doubtful than I am about others. Hope that makes sense!
Shazzoir wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:27 pm
I would very much like to know which footage, and where it can be found and viewed. This is the second time you've said this, so I'm sure many of us would like to see for ourselves, if you wish to share.
Shazz
Both of those. Russian Leaping Almasty, and Pennsylvania White.
Both in bonafide 'wilderness' areas, or the fringe of wilderness (very important from my POV). Both capture creatures which do exactly what you would expect a very shy, large mammal to do upon discovery. Both have mobile physiological definition very difficult to replicate in a suit.
The human element in both are the primary sour notes. Can't really speak to the Russian response, since Russians are known for being somewhat blase in the face of danger. The Pennsylvania White guy does raise suspicions - but again, it could be argued that it was all so quick he didn't really process what was happening.
Black wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:06 pm
The Patterson footage, is one of the most successful hoaxes ever perpetrated on the public. Half a century later, and people are still debating its merits!
As far as I'm concerned, it's had fifty years to prove itself as authentic, and it's failed. Not one more second ought to be devoted to this charade.
Patterson and his assistants that day, are no doubt, laughing in their graves. It was a combination of sheer dumb luck they used the right camera equipment, grainy film, film speed, a good enough costume, and they came up with the right back story and story.
Simon M wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:21 pm
Regarding that 'Almasty' video; my opinion is that it's either someone in a suit who's extremely athletic, or it's an actual ape (possibly a gibbon) that they've let loose in the forest. Probably it's both those things.
The first figure we see disappears behind some bushes for a moment before 'doing a runner' - my belief is that the first figure we see is someone in a suit, and that they run behind the bushes, let the ape out of a cage (or whatever) and that's what we see bounding away.
Plenty of Russian circuses still use animals, and I don't think it'd be that hard for someone who had access to one (a handler, trainer, etc) to set this up.
It also strikes me as odd that neither the kid we see or the guy holding the camera seem startled. Also, why are they standing there with a video camera trained onto that exact part of the forest, seemingly waiting for the 'Almasty' to jump into the shot? It's all a bit contrived looking (to me).
All good points!
But having spent a fair bit of time around gibbons, I can tell you that they're tiny in comparison to the Russian creature. As in, less than 10kg. There is plenty of scale in the vid telling us it's something 'man sized', or larger. Otherwise, I'd agree that the beast looks very like some sort of ape. The balance it has during the all fours 'run' seems too good to be human.
As for the human reactions .. yes, that's an issue. But again, we're talking about Russians. Have you seen how they react to close encounters with bears? They actually laugh, sometimes. On the convenient filming, I would assume (if it's legit, that is) that they used a phone. You can hear the critter crashing through the bush before it becomes visible (to the viewer), and I'd guess that's what prompted them to start filming. It's likely they had glimpses of it earlier.
...but even these are questionable, for obvious reasons. They could still be fake, but they seem somewhat plausible (to me).
The 'tree throwing' one - based on the reactions of the onlookers - seems to suggest that this group of people had seen this thing before, or were aware of something being there ("I see the ...cker") which makes sense if they're working in a remote location. I don't know. It's interesting, and not what I would imagine a faker would do if they wanted to create a dramatic 'Bigfoot sighting' video. It seems almost mundane in a weird way...but it could just be a really well executed fake.
The 'guy chases Bigfoot' one is precisely what you'd expect a faker to do, but there's something about it that makes me think it could be legit. I can't even explain why it grabs my attention. It's the opposite of what any rational person would do in those circumstances, but maybe the guy was just protecting his family and was running on adrenaline (he tells someone to "get in the house")? It's interesting to watch, anyway.
They're probably both fake. I have no way of knowing, but the tree-throwing one is different than the usual stuff people put on YouTube. Even if it's a really big guy in a gorilla suit throwing a length of balsa wood and those guys set it up, it's a genuinely imaginative fake if nothing else. It's rare to see a Bigfoot video where they're interacting with the environment, or doing anything other than running in the opposite direction.
Thanks for posting those. I really like the tree thrower .. had quite forgotten about that one! Of course it's probably a bear (yes, they can and do throw things .. who knew!), and is known to hang about that work camp - which would explain their response :p. Still, it's amazing to watch. Definitely not a guy in a suit, either way. Tree is way too big and heavy, even for those guys who do it for sport .. in kilts
The second one I think is a really good fake. The suit becomes much more obvious in the last capture .. very baggy, loose legs, and no definition. Still, it's a great 'short film'. Very nicely done.
Black wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:45 pm
If any piece of physical evidence - video, photo, footprint, or whatever, has you perplexed and sitting on the fence, always move the magnifying glass over the less obvious evidence hidden in plain sight.
1. The accompanying story.
2. The characters and motivations of the human participants.
In the case of the Patterson footage for instance, the accompanying story has more holes than a block of swiss cheese used as a target on a firing range, and Roger Patterson's character, history, financial status, beliefs, and motivations (financial, family, and attention seeking), puts him squarely in the fake it til you make it basket.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.
This is one of the things I look at first. Who is behind it (are they anonymous .. or 'nobody'?), and what did they gain from it? Or expect to gain from it? Clearly, if the person responsible for the film capture is never seen, nor even named, there is little that such a person could ever gain from the film's publication. In which case, why do it? There are reasons for faking apart from notoriety and/or money, of course. Fun, for example. Or to further the BF 'cause'. Trolling BF 'believers'. Though I'm not sure that any of these are really good enough reasons to spend so much money on an elaborate costume, and take such risks to life and limb - when there is no direct personal gain.
Apparently he spent that much or more on his research and publishing efforts. Then a lot went to lawyers and court cases.
It certainly did not make him no millionaire...
And how much the price of abuse, slander and ridicule on top of that?
Look, I've simply presented argument for the Patterson footage likely being a hoax and for 50 years being devoted to analyzing and attempting to finally determine it one way or another, being long enough.
I know many people in these circles can be passionate about it, want it to be the real deal, and see it as the gold standard in video proof of the hairy man.
Most people have seen it, even if they don't know the backstory or who Patterson was. It's the image of Bigfoot that's been absorbed into the collective societal memory (whatever it actually shows). It's been copied/parodied so often that it's become ubiquitous. There's no getting rid of it, as such, but I do agree that it has to be seen in context. Patterson was a dodgy character for sure.
There's no way of erasing it or ignoring it, but I do think the cryptid community needs to stop viewing it as the 'gold standard'. I think it's fascinating, but I wouldn't swear in court that it's really anything other than a person in a suit because I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
All these videos show something/someone in motion, from a distance, in conditions that aren't conducive to making any kind of serious size comparison.
Well, I'm clearly wrong about the gibbon...but I still think it's a fake video. It just seems too staged to me.
...and yeah, the 'guy gives chase' one is also too stagey. They're well made little short films, though, and entertaining.
Simon M wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:06 am
That film has become a pop-cultural artefact.
Most people have seen it, even if they don't know the backstory or who Patterson was. It's the image of Bigfoot that's been absorbed into the collective societal memory (whatever it actually shows). It's been copied/parodied so often that it's become ubiquitous. There's no getting rid of it, as such, but I do agree that it has to be seen in context. Patterson was a dodgy character for sure.
There's no way of erasing it or ignoring it, but I do think the cryptid community needs to stop viewing it as the 'gold standard'. I think it's fascinating, but I wouldn't swear in court that it's really anything other than a person in a suit because I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
All these videos show something/someone in motion, from a distance, in conditions that aren't conducive to making any kind of serious size comparison.
Well, I'm clearly wrong about the gibbon...but I still think it's a fake video. It just seems too staged to me.
...and yeah, the 'guy gives chase' one is also too stagey. They're well made little short films, though, and entertaining.
It bugs the hell out of me that PGF has become the gold standard. It's effectively a closing of the mind, given it impacts our ability to appreciate the real thing when we see it.
As regards the Almasty .. yes, it is likely to be a hoax, but it's a very well done hoax. Most entertaining!
The only one which is clearly not a hoax (of those mentioned in this thread) is the tree thrower - for obvious reasons. Bear, probably, but still awesome
I will say that I'm not in any hurry (at ALL) to meet Sasquatch! I do forest night hikes several times a week, and already find that somewhat disconcerting at times, even without worrying about BF 
