"Squatchers"

Here is his latest find.
aetdo9.jpg

2nk2akg.jpg
 
I have always been a Sasquatch fan :)

Growing up I read and watched everything I could

Honestly just never believed it . Would love to and I really hope there is still magic out there but I just spent to much time outside to really believe in them

I'm kinda lucky with all this Bigfoot stuff on tv which is great, I love watching these folks run around at night yelling with bright lights. Kinda like a tiger beat except in the dark and every bodies on acid :)

But my point is my kids saw the bigfoot show and are now into Bigfoot which is great and we watched every Bigfoot show on Netflix :)

I feel like a kid again :)
 
The most compelling squatch footage I have ever seen is the police car dash cam footage from "finding Bigfoot".

That seemed like legit real time footage and the cops expressions were genuine.

It was bi-pedal and furry, that's all you see. They couldn't identify it.
 
This one?

[video=youtube;XzyTErYbkRs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyTErYbkRs[/video]

Can I put a funny one in here too? No disrespect intended guys, I promise.

[video=youtube;Vg4vJKcjfDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg4vJKcjfDg&feature=endscreen&NR=1[/video]
 
I never believed it either, in spite of all the stories of sightings right here in my county. But, I do believe there indeed was something around now, after hearing what I've heard and finding a single track at the base of a cliff, in the dry dirt. Then. I've talked to good honest people that said they did see a gorilla like animal. So, there you go, I guess it's not very believable until you have experiences of your own. (I would post the story of what went on here, in the sixties, but I can't without giving my exact location and that's not something I like to do in a public forum) It's just as easy for me to believe the Native Americans about this creature and think it has some sort of special powers, at least then I can not be too bothered by what it is. (and I'm part Cherokee so I guess that's fitting)
 
Last edited:
Rick Marchand said:
All the hunting/stealth discussions are intriguing..... but if we aren't catching these things, predators aren't killing them and they aren't having fatal accidents... do they all die of old age? Do they dispose of their own dead? They must smell even worse, dead. How come there are no found graves?.... bears, wolves, etc... have a pretty good nose... 1300lbs of rotting meat is hard to hide from hungry scavengers.

I was an "optimistic" skeptic when I started on this thread... You guys have ripped the last bit of Squatch hope from me.... thanks for killing my dreams.
Click to expand...

Maybe they "bury" their dead. Neanderthal graves show evidence of not only burying, but ritualistic positioning of the bodies, and laying of flowers.


If Squatch is really nearly a ton (much larger than a gorilla based on the Gigantopithacus skull recreation) maybe they just put huge boulders over the graves..........



Maybe it is just Biblical Cain.......cursed to wander the Earth till the end........and made really ugly and hairy by God as a curse.......................
 
5.56 said:
The most compelling squatch footage I have ever seen is the police car dash cam footage from "finding Bigfoot".

That seemed like legit real time footage and the cops expressions were genuine.

It was bi-pedal and furry, that's all you see. They couldn't identify it.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it is, if that could have been a bigfoot, then the Patterson film could easily be as well.
 
This thread really raised the mods eyebrows when it was first posted. Some take it seriously and others don't... that's a recipe for breakdown. I'm glad we have been able to state opinions without getting too hot under the collar. I would have never thought this conversation would go on this long without getting shutdown.

It's a bit off topic but we need to spice up the forum from time to time.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Rick
 
Also, nearly 50 years later, this shows me nothing close to the Patterson film. And I'd say these people have a lot more resources than Patterson did. (they don't even show a full clear body shot, or walking) If they really knew what they say they do, they'd have a lot better movies and pictures.
http://www.sylvanic.com/
 
I believe it's a scam, Jill. I'm still not convinced of the Patterson film's authenticity but the marketing hype that surrounds Standing's videos is quite repulsive.
 
About the Patterson film, there is one man still alive that was there. Has this man ever been subjected to a lie detector test that anyone know's of?
There is another thing I thought of after seeing the BFRO show featuring the Patterson film. Since these were all men, why would they decide to make the suit, to be a female BF? Anybody ever give this some thought? Seem's if you were going to make a BigFoot, too me, human nature would want it too be a Big Giant Male Bigfoot. I did find it interesting that it was made to be female. Maybe nothing to that thought, it just popped in my head that night and am curious if anyone else gave it any thought.
At any rate, since there is someone alive making these claim's, there should be enough technology available to make a reasonable assesment if he is telling the truth or not. Like I stated before, it's going to take a body to prove it's real as Bigfoot has went viral for sure, at this point.
People certainly believe in thing's a lot more absurd than Bigfoot, without a shred of proof, and will even die and kill for those belief's no matter what science or commonsense proves otherwise. It's been a interesting read at any rate. :)
 
Much has been made of why indeed, if they were making a suit, they'd go to the considerable trouble of adding two breasts to the suit.
 
"Grover KrantzAnthropologist Grover Krantz offered an in-depth examination of the Patterson film.[35] He concluded that the film depicts a genuine unknown creature. Primarily, Krantz' argument is based on a detailed analysis of the figure's stride, center of gravity, and biomechanics. Krantz argues that the creature's leg and foot motions are quite different from a human's and could not have been duplicated by a person wearing a gorilla suit.[citation needed]

Krantz pointed out the tremendous width of the creature's shoulders, which (after deducting 1" for hair) he estimated at 28.2 inches, or 35.1% of its full standing height of 78", or a higher percentage of its 72" "walking height," which was a bit stooped, crouched, and sunk into the sand.[36] The creature's shoulders are almost 50% wider than the human mean. (For comparison, André the Giant had a typical human ratio of 24%. Wide-shouldered Bob Heironimus (see below) has 27.4%. Only very rarely do humans have a shoulder breadth of 30%.) Krantz argued that a suited person could not mimic this breadth and still have the naturalistic hand and arm motions present on the film.

Krantz wrote, "the knee is regularly bent more than 90°, while the human leg bends less than 70°." No human has yet replicated this level lower leg lift while maintaining the smoothness, posture, and stride length (41") of the creature.[citation needed]

Krantz and others have noted natural-looking musculature visible as the creature moved, arguing this would be highly difficult or impossible to fake. Hunter and Dahinden also note that "the bottom of the figure's head seems to become part of the heavy back and shoulder muscles... [and] the muscles of the buttocks were distinct"[37]

Krantz also interviewed Patterson extensively and, as noted below, thought Patterson lacked the technical skill and knowledge needed to create such a realistic-looking costume.

Krantz reports that in 1969 John Green (who at one point owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film) interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who, after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film."[38] Krantz argues that if Disney personnel were unable to duplicate the film, there is little likelihood that Patterson could have done so.

More recently, Krantz showed the film to Gordon Valient, a researcher for Nike shoes, who he says "made some rather useful observations about some rather unhuman movements he could see."[38]"
 
The breasts, I have seen explained, were noted by the earlier (1958?) reports of Bigfoot by another researcher. They also appeared in Patterson's drawings before he made the film.

The shoulder width hypothesis is noted by the guy who claimed to have made the suit as being football shoulder pads.
 
I see a real animal in the restored film, it doesn't look like anything in a fake fur suit to me, nor does it move like a man would wearing all that padding.
People see bigfoot all the time, this guy gets a film and it can't be real? I don't see that logic. If 1000's of people have reported seeing them, then why couldn't it be real? It would be different if nobody had EVER seen one before. You even have one running across the road at night caught on a police dash cam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top