17 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Scorbing]

Judge for yourself and comment.



http://www.grindtv.c...embles+bigfoot/

[fehu]

bears are a good reason to run too

[siah1214]

So it was a momma bear instead of a baby bear.

[Growled]

Whatever it is, it is time to run.

[Hum]

Sure seemed like a human-like creature standing up, and an arm.

I would have followed it.

[Marshall]

Moved Here.

[Scorbing]

Hum, on 05 November 2012 - 03:46, said:

Sure seemed like a human-like creature standing up, and an arm.

I would have followed it.

I agree 100%. It does seem to have human characteristics, the problems I see with this kind of videos is this:

1. They are never clear
2. The cameras always seem to be shaking
3. People run away

Personally, I would have stayed there and I would have tried to get closer. Those creatures are not stupid. It knows they are there watching him and if it was aggressive, it would have attacked them in an instant. This could very well be a hoax.

To date, the only Big Foot footage that seems to have any validity is the Patterson film, which has been analyzed and re-analyzed over the years with different technologies and it has been determined that it has a 50-50 chance of being real because they cannot detect any anomalies on the film that may indicate its fake and the fact that back then when that happened, there were no fancy HD cameras or CGI technology to fake such a creature.

[Scorbing]

[Hum]

Scorbing, on 05 November 2012 - 13:14, said:

I agree 100%. It does seem to have human characteristics, the problems I see with this kind of videos is this:

1. They are never clear
2. The cameras always seem to be shaking
3. People run away

Personally, I would have stayed there and I would have tried to get closer. Those creatures are not stupid.

Most people in the woods are wimps.

They are scared of what they do not know, get shaky, run away.

Unless the animal acted very aggressive, I would have tried tracking it and get close, communicate.

[Growled]

Hum, on 05 November 2012 - 21:28, said:

Unless the animal acted very aggressive, I would have tried tracking it and get close, communicate.

You have to be careful, though. A situation can turn in an instant. It's not like on a TV show.

[+exotoxic]

Scorbing, on 05 November 2012 - 13:14, said:

To date, the only Big Foot footage that seems to have any validity is the Patterson film, which has been analyzed and re-analyzed over the years with different technologies and it has been determined that it has a 50-50 chance of being real because they cannot detect any anomalies on the film that may indicate its fake and the fact that back then when that happened, there were no fancy HD cameras or CGI technology to fake such a creature.

Before CGI they had things called costumes. Just take star trek for example, they could easily have made a video that clearly showed an alien which would look extremely realistic and no amount of "analysis" would be able to prove it wrong.

[Hum]

^ Just because something can be faked, is no proof that it was.

Growled, on 06 November 2012 - 00:43, said:

You have to be careful, though. A situation can turn in an instant. It's not like on a TV show.

I know that -- I just see Bigfoot as a little more intelligent than the average bear.

[Scorbing]

exotoxic, on 06 November 2012 - 18:23, said:

Before CGI they had things called costumes. Just take star trek for example, they could easily have made a video that clearly showed an alien which would look extremely realistic and no amount of "analysis" would be able to prove it wrong.

They needed to get closer to see it. I would have. You don't think that creature, whatever it was, didn't know they were there watching it? Of course it did, and what did it do to them? Nothing. They ran away and made noise like crazy and the creature still didn't follow them.

[+exotoxic]

Hum, on 06 November 2012 - 18:28, said:

^ Just because something can be faked, is no proof that it was.

At the end of the day its going to be near impossible to prove anything, even seeing something with your own eyes doesn't mean it was actually what you thought it was, i think it was scientifically proven that your brain "lies" to you or fills in the gaps and makes you believe you saw something even if it wasn't actually what you saw.

[+Blank]

Damn, i thought it was Oprah.