View Single Post
Old 15-08-2017, 04:17 PM   #3
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
That film is the definitive Bigfoot film. How anyone can still call that piece of film fake, or rather the creature, is beyond me, when it clearly is real.

There's another excellent Bigfoot video analyser by the name of Bigfoot Tony. Does some excellent work of dissecting many Bigfoot videos to determine whether he thinks they are hoaxes, misidentifications or a real Bigfoot. I think the Patterson/Gimlin film has been done to death. I don't know how much you can do with that film considering its quality. I think some Bigfoot researchers become a little obsessed with it.
Will check out this Bigfoot Tony dude, thanks for the tip.

I think the Patterson Gimlin film will remain the most valuable visual evidence because it was recorded on film.

Any video that shows up in the future will always be suspect due to the ease with which it might have been faked with digital effects software.

My take on Bigfoot is pretty much in line with that of researcher and author Nick Redfern.

People are genuinely seeing these creatures but it is very unlikely that they are just some form of undiscovered primate lumbering about the woods. Their uncanny ability to evade detection suggests they have some kind of ethereal quality, as Native American, Australian Aboriginal and other indigenous cultures assert.

This is why I find the PG film so fascinating. The more details that are revealed, the more clear it becomes that we're looking at an actual flesh and blood creature, which is a head-spinning thing to contemplate when you're convinced it isn't a wholly physical being.

Last edited by size_of_light; 15-08-2017 at 04:18 PM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote