deirdre
Senior Member.
great. now i see her pursing her lips and blowing a kiss. i'm never gonna be able to remove that view from my mind now!! (even in the original pic) :0to look at the image flipped
great. now i see her pursing her lips and blowing a kiss. i'm never gonna be able to remove that view from my mind now!! (even in the original pic) :0to look at the image flipped
i think you need to drop the "Patterson had no money" thing. 1. that aldritch? guy was funding Patterson and more importanyly 2. if my friend said 'help me with this, and i'll give you 1000$ or i'll give you a thousand from the money we make off this", i would still do it even if i never expected to see a dime. it would be fun (and funny) to dress up as bigfoot and make a film. Remember there were no video games back then and frankly, squat on TV. How else are you gonna spend your time?Bob H.'s answers during the interview just don't make sense to me. The questioner basically says "so for 10 minutes work you get $1000" and Bob H. agrees entirely, concluding "that's the end of it". You'd think he'd mention if there was extensive practice involved in a very uncomfortable 'hot as hell' suit, to justify the $1000. But apparently he nailed the "gorilla walk" (which is nothing like a gorilla) on the 1st go, and was ready for the main shoot at a subsequent date. I guess he was a natural in performing a gorilla walk, which magically turned out to be a walk completely in line with an animal weighing hundreds of pounds and could not be matched in all respects by a person being given verbal instructions by two experts on gait kinematics?
I agree. There's nothing strange in Bob H. just taking the money and walking away. The movie is more than half a century old. Bear in mind that none of the participants could possibly have foreseen that the movie would still be getting close scrutiny this many years later.i think you need to drop the "Patterson had no money" thing. 1. that aldritch? guy was funding Patterson and more importanyly 2. if my friend said 'help me with this, and i'll give you 1000$ or i'll give you a thousand from the money we make off this", i would still do it even if i never expected to see a dime. it would be fun (and funny) to dress up as bigfoot and make a film. Remember there were no video games back then and frankly, squat on TV. How else are you gonna spend your time?
he didnt return (ie pay for ) the camera rental, and I think an arrest warrant was issued. So if he was being financed, he didnt set aside enough to pay a camera rental. No comment on the Bob H. interview, and why he would not take a souvenir of the multi-item 'apparatus' ? (calling it merely a 'suit' seems an insult: main body portion (maybe 2 parts, I've heard reference to an upper and lower half), helmet, head covering (if not sewed on fur to the helmet), extension 'arm' sticks, booties ... am I missing anything? Watch the Gimlin interviews, everybody thinks he's telling the truth - even Packham from the BBC. So then it becomes a character study of Bob H. and Roger. Plenty of interviews with Roger on Sasquatch Archives YT channel ; he may have been a dreamer and a schemer, but he comes across as sincere to me in all prior and subsequent film interviews. I love this quote from Mark Twain: "“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” That's what I see/hear when I listen to his interviews. Bob H. (with respect to the PG footage - not so much). I do think Patterson had a suit for his documentary, probably at the ready for nefarious purposes. So maybe Bob H. was involved in some way. But not as the PG subject.i think you need to drop the "Patterson had no money" thing. 1. that aldritch? guy was funding Patterson and more importanyly 2. if my friend said 'help me with this, and i'll give you 1000$ or i'll give you a thousand from the money we make off this", i would still do it even if i never expected to see a dime. it would be fun (and funny) to dress up as bigfoot and make a film. Remember there were no video games back then and frankly, squat on TV. How else are you gonna spend your time?
He had already tried making a film about Bigfoot hunting with Gimlin and Heronemus:"1. Film related; the equipment used at the distances the creature was, cannot resolve many crucial details of a hoax or a real creature."
How would Roger have known that beforehand? And that goes against a key Packham objection, that Roger was "right on top of the subject". I've read 60'. That's 20 paces - very close. Seemingly a huge risk by Roger if the suit was actually loose around the ankles, or the neck - the typical areas where suits show their 'suitness' (and suit problems in the making of TV shows have been covered extensively by experts like Munns - yet not a single glitch happened during this one-time filming)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_filmIn May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend.[23][24] Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.
In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie.[33] They copyrighted or trademarked the term "Bigfoot".[34]
"2. Contextually, as noted in my previous post, there has to date been NO Bigfoot bodies, remains, skeletons, fossils or any DNA evidence for this species of hominin. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that that is what is in the film."
I cant deny the first sentence. I'll just mention that 95% of the matter in the Universe is considered 'missing' , yet the Universe and that missing matter is definitely out there.
"might produce all sorts of strange looking gaits. " 'Strange' is your term, bio-mechanic experts have said "highly efficient" and "more efficient than a human". Bob H. spontaneously 'invented' a gait that humans have extreme difficulty doing, yet it matches up perfectly with what a 500 pound biped would have to do.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htmSince the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.
Persistence hunting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting(sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short distances, use a combination of running, walking and tracking to keep pursuing prey over prolonged time and distance until it is exhausted by fatigue or overheating. A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
I don't know, I just don't think the resolution is up to that.During this phase certain muscles of the leg are extended and become tense in preparation for the subsequent toe-off.
https://theconversation.com/the-tra...-folly-of-political-meddling-in-science-72580In reality, Lysenko was what we might today call a crackpot. Among other things, he denied the existence of DNA and genes, he claimed that plants selected their mates, and argued that they could acquire characteristics during their lifetime and pass them on. He also espoused the theory that some plants choose to sacrifice themselves for the good of the remaining plants – another notion that runs against the grain of evolutionary understanding.
Pravda – formerly the official newspaper of the Soviet Communist Party – celebrated him for finding a way to fertilise crops without applying anything to the field.
None of this could be backed up by solid evidence. His experiments were not repeatable, nor could his theories claim overwhelming consensus among other scientists. But Lysenko had the ear of the one man who counted most in the USSR: Joseph Stalin.
In 1948, the Lenin Academy announced that Lysenkoism should be taught as the only correct theory, and that continued until the mid-1960s.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Physical+Culture,+Institute+ofIn the 1976–77 academic year there were 5,000 students enrolled at the institute. The teaching staff numbered approximately 400, including 27 professors and doctors of sciences and more than 200 docents and candidates of sciences. The faculty also included 57 Honored Masters of Sport and Honored Coaches of the USSR and of Union republics and more than 100 Masters of Sport. Outstanding teachers include D. D. Donskoi, K. V. Gradopolov, V. L. Karpman, L. P. Matveev, N. G. Ozolin, P. A. Rudik, and V. M. Zatsiorskii.
In addition, some Soviet scientist did think a relic group of Neanderthals, often known as "Almas" or "Almasti" lived in remote parts of Siberia, though if true we now know they would likely be Denisovans:The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.
As noted in another post, the other Soviet associated with Donskoy, Bayanov has a long history of searching for relic hominins:In 1964, a Soviet scientist from the Soviet Academy of Sciences proposed that the Almasti could be a relict population of Neanderthals still living in Siberia.[8]
So, while you repeatedly use the notion of bio-mechanic experts proving the film can't be hoaxed, it seems to just be the opinion of one Soviet scientist and his cryptid hunting associate. Unless you have other sources?Bayanov and Bourtsev have been at the forefront of investigations into the identity of these hairy hominids of Russia which have come to be known as Kaptars and Almas depending upon the geographical location in which they are to be found.
And those footprints left behind leave no doubt it was heavy.
I agree with you on this, which is why the person in the suit made up a strange walk. That could still resemble Heronimus' natural walk if he's the guy in the suit.Was a Bigfoot 'walking like a person' the best outcome here with respect to showing the world (and experts) a new unknown creature? That's exactly what they wouldn't want. Then the immediate objection would be "it walks just like a human!"
And they are not eunuchs' In fact, quite the opposite. The stadium goes dead silent, and then some quiet murmuring can be heard all around: "we have to go". A packed stadium cleared out in 1 minute. The nearest person to me was now 20' away. It was hilarious.
Mark Twain: "“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
it would never in a million years occur to me to keep a "souvenir" from a costume my friend made.No comment on the Bob H. interview, and why he would not take a souvenir of the multi-item 'apparatus' ?
apparently not, because i don't. Bob H doesn't. even the guy who was financing them doesn't believe it.Watch the Gimlin interviews, everybody thinks he's telling the truth
so did Ted Bundy.but he comes across as sincere to me in all prior and subsequent film interviews
That's cool.I do think Patterson had a suit for his documentary, probably at the ready for nefarious purposes. So maybe Bob H. was involved in some way. But not as the PG subject.
me too. but Bob wasnt taken aboard a UFO. he was the UFO.I know if I'm ever taken aboard a UFO, I'm grabbing an ashtray
85%."2. Contextually, as noted in my previous post, there has to date been NO Bigfoot bodies, remains, skeletons, fossils or any DNA evidence for this species of hominin. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that that is what is in the film."
I cant deny the first sentence. I'll just mention that 95% of the matter in the Universe is considered 'missing' , yet the Universe and that missing matter is definitely out there.
On the other hand, IF the suit was for the mockumentary about Ape Canyon, you'd not want a suit with pronounced genitals, whether or not they might show up in this short clip. Not sure you'd want breasts either, unless the script specifically called for a female creature. REALLY wish the script for that planned film existed!) In any case, fur-covered breasts would be less likely to raise issues with obscenity laws (as essentially clothed by the fur) than would dangly naughty bits in the groinal area ...As the film turned out, male genitalia would not likely be seen, so maybe it wasn't a concern
you can not have a mockumentary without big, firm perky breasts. let's try to have a serious conversation here.Not sure you'd want breasts either,
only 85%? well then, never mind I think there's some doubt even about the figure itself, but I've seen 95% a few places and this: "In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy." The 27+68 = 95. In any case, must be disconcerting to be an astronomer or astrophysicist and realize your measurements and theories and models all differ so much. It's all beyond my comprehension, much like being told that the universe and everything in it was once (briefly) the size of a soccer ball. When I read the layman oriented articles on this dark matter / dark energy 'missing' problem I always think "and what about dark meat, the best part of the turkey?" Believing in a 'real' Bigfoot (albeit vanishing small probability) or 'something else' seems easy when compared to a soccer ball sized universe.85%.
And the difference is that, given the evidence for it, "dark matter" is the simplest explanation (but may yet prove to be incorrect), while for the bigfoot sightings "hoax" is the simplest explanation.
Indeed it is, as it's easier to believe in a sun god rather than in a giant ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing complex nuclear fusion reactions in its core. One needs to be open-minded even to the most apparently absurd theories: the discriminant is the evidence.Believing in a 'real' Bigfoot (albeit vanishing small probability) or 'something else' seems easy when compared to a soccer ball sized universe.
I do think Patterson had a suit for his documentary, probably at the ready for nefarious purposes. So maybe Bob H. was involved in some way. But not as the PG subject.
I think this is getting into 'extreme conjecture'
compared to the simpler one, that a 400+ pound 'something' created the deep prints.
I think anyone can admit however that the Soviets were extremely good at basic science and math, things that did not require a lot of money to investigate. My background is Applied Math (Numerical Analysis), and the Soviet contribution to that field is substantial. They may not have had the money to make a supercomputer, but they knew how to efficiently solve equations should they ever get one. Same goes with bio-mechanics - its a 'cheap' field and yields valuable results. Their Olympic athletes in the 60's and 70's benefited no doubt.
Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus. It's not suitable for people, which is why he has great difficulty doing it (as he states).
Coincidentally I just watched that Soviet computer video last week, out of all the millions of videos we seem to have 'synchronized' on that one.
That's why the film is so important. I've now watched 3 or 4 videos on the footprints, and with Ray Wallace involved in that area, it becomes a confusing mess. I disagree about using hands, or shovel, the skeptics analyzing back in the 60's felt maybe a machine of some sort. Considering Wallace was involved in clearing forest and whatnot, heavy equipment was certainly present. Could he have adapted some machine, versus just strapping on some 'stompers' (as they are called). But that doesnt explain the Patty prints.Patterson did in fact have a suit ready for a hoax, and Heronemus was somehow involved, but then he just happened to stumble upon a real Bigfoot? But them faking the footprints is:
Faking footprints is a standard in the Bigfoot world.
I'm pretty up front in saying not a real animal. Doesnt rule out something fake (not human fake though) with mass. Let me sidebar for a bit: you've probably seen the famous Sagan video of 'Flatland' a 2D land inhabited by 2D 'people'. They cannot of course perceive the 3rd dimension, but we could certainly 'intrude' by lowering a 2D cut-out of a 'creature' into the only world they know. It would come out of nowhere, be no different than they were , and could disappear in an instant by being withdrawn from Flatland. Sagan basically presents what I've just said. Now extend that to a 4th spatial dimension: something could be placed into our 3D world, would be indistinguishable from what we are aware of (assuming the 4D denizens had sufficient skill) and could be withdrawn at will. No difference than what Sagan describes, except the dimension difference. Of course there is apparently no 4th spatial dimension. But it cant be ruled out, and I read a laymans article at Forbes.com of all places, written by an astrophysicist that says as much. His concluding line is hardly on par with the usual "that's not even wrong" dismissal of unusual ideas. And with 85 or 95% of the Universe AWOL with all the effort put forth to 'find it', physicists have a good reason to be humble.A 400+# what? As you agreed to above, there is no other compelling evidence for a large hominin in North America.
according to Bob H. that's how he and Roger agreed to walk, ya know, like a gorilla. A gorilla in deep powderThe walk reminds me a lot of how it felt to walk in snowboard boots in powdery snow. Exaggerated knee bends to lift the boot out of the powder and on to the next step. Kinda like walking in oversized shoes in sandy gravel.
I'm reluctant to post an entire video for a few lines, but in the 1971 interview with Roger there's a lady who gives her impressions, presumed to be anthropologist Marjorie Halpin since she was working at the Univ. of British Columbia at the time, and this occurred in British Columbia. She says she felt the creature walked "very smooth" like a "gliding walk". So if it was her, it lends some credence about the walk not being difficult for whatever it was to do (although I admit an anthropologist is not the same as a bio-mechanics expert. Still, Krantz and a Russian expert leave you requesting more?Again, see above. It's ONE (1) Soviet guy looking at a fuzzy film and Krantz. If there are "others", please provide a source(s).
if your next post begins "You'll never believe this ..."On a side note, the Mrs. and I are planning on doing a little Bigfoot hunting this weekend. That is, take a day trip up into Lassen National Forest. I'll report back any sightings.
I'm pretty up front in saying not a real animal. ....... we can remain open to extra spatial dimensions as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical." ......
so that's one possible 'solution' , as is of course The Simulation Hypothesis...
Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus.
Correct, we don't have any evidence for extra dimensions. But since we have what I think to be a fairly likely explanation (hoax with guy in a suit) and another possible explanation (unknown creature), is it helpful to muddy the waters with what remains "highly speculative"? It seems a real stretch to promote a notion from the speculative to the category of "possible" without first having evidence that it is indeed possible.But unless we obtain direct evidence that points towards these claims, we have no choice but to consider them as highly speculative. In physics, as in all sciences, it’s evidence, not popularity, that determines what is true about our Universe. Until that evidence arrives, we can remain open to extra spatial dimensions as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical."
No.And with 85 or 95% of the Universe AWOL with all the effort put forth to 'find it', physicists have a good reason to be humble.
Depth of footprints is a function of pressure, so if bigfoot's foot is twice as big as a human's, his weight can double to achieve the same pressure.Faking footprints is a standard in the Bigfoot world.
It's not that hard. If the perceived weight of the creature is based upon the depth of the footprints left in sandy gravel, then no equipment is needed except a small shovel.
and mud viscosity? <not sure if that's the right word.Depth of footprints is a function of pressure
The measured footprints need not have been the ones left during the creature walk on the film either. Maybe a footprint mold with hoaxer standing/jumping hard on it, left at a different time?Depth of footprints is a function of pressure, so if bigfoot's foot is twice as big as a human's, his weight can double to achieve the same pressure.
No.
Physicists are proud to have found evidence that allows them to pose these kinds of questions. Having questions nobody can answer (yet) is not a cause for shame, but a cause for pride.
Your attitude betrays your lack of insight into what science is about.
— MARK WISE“I am humbled by the universe. We should be embarrassed at some level about how little we know, but this can also be an opportunity to learn more.”
there's nothing to prove they were.how were deep casts made the same afternoon by Roger ?
you mean our constraint on not buying an interdimensional 500 lb human-gorilla hybrid dropped into our matrix?it's only 'fairly likely' due to your own constraints.
I never said both Interdimensional and part of a Simulated Universe, don't exaggerate my positionyou mean our constraint on not buying an interdimensional 500 lb human-gorilla hybrid dropped into our matrix?
i didnt mean too, i actually never saw The Matrix so i'm not actually sure what it is. i thought it was an interdimensional thing.I never said both Interdimensional and part of a Simulated Universe, don't exaggerate my position
I can just see whoever is responsible thinking "how many more clues do I have to give them? It walks like a man, an inhuman man, yet has breasts. It leaves impressions consistent with a 500 pound object, but there are no 500 pound objects available to make them. It has shown up repeatedly in nearly every state in the most advanced, developed country on earth, even those with nary a mountain in sight. It has never been hit by a car, died later to be recovered, stumbled into a town searching for food. It was filmed at close enough range to convince perhaps the most relevant observers (costume / special effects experts) that it could not be a hoax consistent with the tools available in the year 1967.
Definitely looks like a suit to me.This is ancient history and was debunked a long time ago. Philip Morris exposed that he made the suit back in the 70’s.
lacks evidence / 100% speculation / physically impossibleit seems like an end run attempt around any request for proof,
of course what you say is true, nobody can 'argue' otherwise. At this point, and perhaps forever, it's an unproveable alternative. We can all agree there are either 2 options (hoax | real animal) or 3 (something besides those 2). We agree it's not a real animal, even Meldrum has to question his belief on that position despite his always calm, steady, delivery of 'supporting' facts (and I have emailed him on a point and he responded with a detailed reply, so he seems like the nicest guy). But the hoax idea for PG is equally untenable in my mind, there's no cohesive theory that explains all facets, without contradictions. In a court case the prosecutor lays out a single theory, he's not all over the place with disparate ideas. It was funny when in 'Get Smart' , Don Adams, when confronted with some fact would counter with "would you believe ...". That's the feel I get here about the PG hoax case. When told that Bob H. is/was 6'1" and the McClarin overlay (totally endorsed by the skeptical BBC host) shows a subject "slightly taller" (his words) than 6'5" Jim McClarin, I havent' gotten an explanation ("would you believe elevator shoes?"). When told that the PG casts were made by something to a depth that indicated a weight of perhaps 500 pounds, I get no explanation ("would you believe a pogo stick with a fake foot?"). It's the 100 cups of weak coffee quip from Shermer, but applied in the other direction , and with equally ineffective results. Maybe someone will be bold enough to say Bob H. wasnt in the suit, it was someone else (TALLER). That takes away Greg Long's book, and you are back to square 1: Who was in the suit? What very tall, very heavy, individual from Yakima or vicinity has kept a secret for 55 years without once bragging "that was me, and I have the proof". With only 2 options, your .999 probability option is 'hoax' , there is no alternative. So really 'proving' the hoax is unnecessary, its hoax by process of elimination. QED. I realize it's the coldest of cold cases, but at one time 55 years ago, it was front page news. Where were the metabunkers back then, it should have been a slam dunk to prove hoax. Fame to whoever could have, when everything was fresh. If it was 'known all over Yakima' that it was Bob H. in the suit, how come no reporter followed-up? And that 'known all over' line, wouldnt that imply Bob H. was leaking some info, despite a vow not to? How can it have been 'known all over' back then and nobody thought to break the story. How did it endure till 2005 as a secret to the outside world? ("would you believe Yakima has no phones?")Essentially it's no different to "God did it" as it posits that the agent responsible is utterly different and or beyond us in their understanding of and control over our universe, that they might as well be a deity. I've even heard proponents of these kind of theories argue (I think it was on a Metabunk thread) that attempts to investigate these kind of phenomena are themselves interfered with directly by the mysterious "hand behind the curtain", making any logical/scientific investigation futile.
Thumbs up, well written!The problem I have with an interdimensional/matrix explanation for the Patterson Gimlin film is that it seems like an end run attempt around any request for proof, as it can be used as an explanation for anything, extraordinary or mundane.
A bigfoot film when bigfoot can't exist = interdimensional/matrix.
UFO's that "defy the laws of physics" = interdimensional/matrix.
Where do all the odd socks go = interdimensional/matrix.
Essentially it's no different to "God did it" as it posits that the agent responsible is utterly different and or beyond us in their understanding of and control over our universe, that they might as well be a deity. I've even heard proponents of these kind of theories argue (I think it was on a Metabunk thread) that attempts to investigate these kind of phenomena are themselves interfered with directly by the mysterious "hand behind the curtain", making any logical/scientific investigation futile.
The chances that there are some unknown facts, misremembered details, odd co-incidences and possibly outright lies and fabrications that makes a hoax possible are all known and well understood properties of reality and human events as we know them.of course what you say is true, nobody can 'argue' otherwise. At this point, and perhaps forever, it's an unproveable alternative. We can all agree there are either 2 options (hoax | real animal) or 3 (something besides those 2). We agree it's not a real animal, even Meldrum has to question his belief on that position despite his always calm, steady, delivery of 'supporting' facts (and I have emailed him on a point and he responded with a detailed reply, so he seems like the nicest guy). But the hoax idea for PG is equally untenable in my mind, there's no cohesive theory that explains all facets, without contradictions. In a court case the prosecutor lays out a single theory, he's not all over the place with disparate ideas. It was funny when in 'Get Smart' , Don Adams, when confronted with some fact would counter with "would you believe ...". That's the feel I get here about the PG hoax case. When told that Bob H. is/was 6'1" and the McClarin overlay (totally endorsed by the skeptical BBC host) shows a subject "slightly taller" (his words) than 6'5" Jim McClarin, I havent' gotten an explanation ("would you believe elevator shoes?"). When told that the PG casts were made by something to a depth that indicated a weight of perhaps 500 pounds, I get no explanation ("would you believe a pogo stick with a fake foot?"). It's the 100 cups of weak coffee quip from Shermer, but applied in the other direction , and with equally ineffective results. Maybe someone will be bold enough to say Bob H. wasnt in the suit, it was someone else (TALLER). That takes away Greg Long's book, and you are back to square 1: Who was in the suit? What very tall, very heavy, individual from Yakima or vicinity has kept a secret for 55 years without once bragging "that was me, and I have the proof". With only 2 options, your .999 probability option is 'hoax' , there is no alternative. So really 'proving' the hoax is unnecessary, its hoax by process of elimination. QED. I realize it's the coldest of cold cases, but at one time 55 years ago, it was front page news. Where were the metabunkers back then, it should have been a slam dunk to prove hoax. Fame to whoever could have, when everything was fresh. If it was 'known all over Yakima' that it was Bob H. in the suit, how come no reporter followed-up? And that 'known all over' line, wouldnt that imply Bob H. was leaking some info, despite a vow not to? How can it have been 'known all over' back then and nobody thought to break the story. How did it endure till 2005 as a secret to the outside world? ("would you believe Yakima has no phones?")
Some will point to newly discovered species, often missing that some 'new' species are of animals that were already known to exist, but were previously thought to be all part of a known species and are declared a new species after genetic evaluation of a specific population.Never knew the bigfoot rabbit hole went so deep until reading this thread haha... I've always thought that famous video just looked like a guy in a suit to me, but never considered aspects like how advanced the suit must have been at the time. Pretty interesting stuff.
But I don't understand, if bigfoot is real, why can't just walk into the forest and find bigfoot society? Like we can find gorillas and chimpanzees. Is the idea that there are only a handful of them? But why would that be the case? Not that I'm seriously entertaining the idea that bigfoot is real, just wondering what bigfoot believers would say about it.
Not always. Looking for bigfoot relatives, I found out there's a newly discovered species of water bear:Some will point to newly discovered species, often missing that some 'new' species are of animals that were already known to exist, but were previously thought to be all part of a known species and are declared a new species after genetic evaluation of a specific population.
Article: A newfound species of tardigrade, or "water bear," with tendril-festooned eggs has been discovered in the parking lot of an apartment building in Japan.
Kazuharu Arakawa, a researcher who studies the molecular biology of tardigrades at Japan's Keio University, discovered the newfound species in a small sample of moss. He'd scraped the moss from the parking lot of his apartment in Tsuruoka City along the Sea of Japan.
Oh well, yeah for microfauna new stuff gets discovered all the time, megafauna is different.Not always. Looking for bigfoot relatives, I found out there's a newly discovered species of water bear:
Article: A newfound species of tardigrade, or "water bear," with tendril-festooned eggs has been discovered in the parking lot of an apartment building in Japan.
Kazuharu Arakawa, a researcher who studies the molecular biology of tardigrades at Japan's Keio University, discovered the newfound species in a small sample of moss. He'd scraped the moss from the parking lot of his apartment in Tsuruoka City along the Sea of Japan.
They're microscopically tiny.
Many of us might agree with that. Perhaps all of us. Where you lose me is in jumping from "something else besides those 2" to "therefore unprovable interdimensional something for which there is zero evidence." That looks to me like a false... trichotomy? Is that really the only third option? Why not a demon, or a time traveler, or a secret CIA experimental hologram, or alien UFO pilot, or...? Once you open the door to things which are not known to exist and for which there is no evidence, the options seem to extend well beyond the one you picked.We can all agree there are either 2 options (hoax | real animal) or 3 (something besides those 2).