100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is bigfoot real? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. It is a hoax, it was admitted a hoax by the people that took the film footage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. It is a hoax, it was admitted a hoax by the people that took the film footage. No. It was " admitted " long after the person who took the footage actually died. Remember all those people who see UFOs are seeking attention??? Seems like the same thing to me. Not to mention, he was paid ( quite handsomely ) to go on all the shows he went on to say it was a hoax. Especially when there was a study done on that film that included trying to recreate ( with a professional actor ) the way the creature walked. They couldn't replicate the walk, or some of the movements. That study " officially " established that it was definitely not a person in a suit. like I said. It depends on who you find more credible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. It is a hoax, it was admitted a hoax by the people that took the film footage. No. It was " admitted " long after the person who took the footage actually died. Remember all those people who see UFOs are seeking attention??? Seems like the same thing to me. Not to mention, he was paid ( quite handsomely ) to go on all the shows he went on to say it was a hoax. Especially when there was a study done on that film that included trying to recreate ( with a professional actor ) the way the creature walked. They couldn't replicate the walk, or some of the movements. That study " officially " established that it was definitely not a person in a suit. like I said. It depends on who you find more credible. Like I said, it is possible. There are still species yet to be discovered I'm sure, but as to the credibility of this one...sounds a lot like the UFO stories... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. It is a hoax, it was admitted a hoax by the people that took the film footage. No. It was " admitted " long after the person who took the footage actually died. Remember all those people who see UFOs are seeking attention??? Seems like the same thing to me. Not to mention, he was paid ( quite handsomely ) to go on all the shows he went on to say it was a hoax. Especially when there was a study done on that film that included trying to recreate ( with a professional actor ) the way the creature walked. They couldn't replicate the walk, or some of the movements. That study " officially " established that it was definitely not a person in a suit. like I said. It depends on who you find more credible. Like I said, it is possible. There are still species yet to be discovered I'm sure, but as to the credibility of this one...sounds a lot like the UFO stories... Which, thanks to the general mass media, everyone KNOWS are ALL fakes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. It is a hoax, it was admitted a hoax by the people that took the film footage. No. It was " admitted " long after the person who took the footage actually died. Remember all those people who see UFOs are seeking attention??? Seems like the same thing to me. Not to mention, he was paid ( quite handsomely ) to go on all the shows he went on to say it was a hoax. Especially when there was a study done on that film that included trying to recreate ( with a professional actor ) the way the creature walked. They couldn't replicate the walk, or some of the movements. That study " officially " established that it was definitely not a person in a suit. like I said. It depends on who you find more credible. Like I said, it is possible. There are still species yet to be discovered I'm sure, but as to the credibility of this one...sounds a lot like the UFO stories... Which, thanks to the general mass media, everyone KNOWS are ALL fakes. I actually studied them on my own, I don't watch much for TV or anything like that. I generally take in different points of view and apply them to the situation at hand in order to develop my own opinion of said events. A lot of UFO images are real, we used to watch them from the mountains out in Utah. You could really see quite a few of them from the Wasatch Front coming over from Nevada. However I've always found the 'abduction' stories to lack a set thought, most if not all follow the same basis but then have their own personal spin...now if I were to believe that 'aliens' abducted people, given they have this immense amount of technology at their hands...why would they change each abduction and what they do? Much less the interior of the craft is always different? That all sounds a bit too exagerrated to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Fear, I'll take some home vids of Chu Chu. Even though I know he's gonna tear shlt up if I do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have aliens landed on Uranus?  be seeing you they are circling around Uranus and picking off clingons. Bee seeing you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustAGuy2112
on
Wed 08/05/09 06:44 PM
|
|
Just about every bit of the 'evidence' has been debunked. Therefore there is not much evidence that Bigfoot exists, everything from the images captured to the castings of the supposed foot print...debunked. If you are referring to the original film that was taken...there have been MANY differing opinions on that film. It just depends on who you find more believable. There are just as many people who have done in depth study of the film and called it genuine, as there are those who have studied it and insist it's a hoax. It is a hoax, it was admitted a hoax by the people that took the film footage. No. It was " admitted " long after the person who took the footage actually died. Remember all those people who see UFOs are seeking attention??? Seems like the same thing to me. Not to mention, he was paid ( quite handsomely ) to go on all the shows he went on to say it was a hoax. Especially when there was a study done on that film that included trying to recreate ( with a professional actor ) the way the creature walked. They couldn't replicate the walk, or some of the movements. That study " officially " established that it was definitely not a person in a suit. like I said. It depends on who you find more credible. Like I said, it is possible. There are still species yet to be discovered I'm sure, but as to the credibility of this one...sounds a lot like the UFO stories... Which, thanks to the general mass media, everyone KNOWS are ALL fakes. I actually studied them on my own, I don't watch much for TV or anything like that. I generally take in different points of view and apply them to the situation at hand in order to develop my own opinion of said events. A lot of UFO images are real, we used to watch them from the mountains out in Utah. You could really see quite a few of them from the Wasatch Front coming over from Nevada. However I've always found the 'abduction' stories to lack a set thought, most if not all follow the same basis but then have their own personal spin...now if I were to believe that 'aliens' abducted people, given they have this immense amount of technology at their hands...why would they change each abduction and what they do? Much less the interior of the craft is always different? That all sounds a bit too exagerrated to me. I'll give you that one. I don't really buy the abduction stories either. I think the only one that has any credibility as far as that kind of story is the Travis Walton case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Fear, I'll take some home vids of Chu Chu. Even though I know he's gonna tear shlt up if I do! I'm not saying I don't believe, I just haven't seen a credible reference. Even the early film looks off, too precise but little evidence to back the story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Wed 08/05/09 06:49 PM
|
|
It's well known, that every film or picture ever made about bigfoot and UFOs have to be fuzzy and hard to see. Even now, more people with digital cameras and all kind of gizmos that take a picture (mobile phone etc) and yet still there isn't one sharp shot that is proven authentic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's well known, that every film or picture ever made about bigfoot and UFOs have to be fuzzy and hard to see. Even now, more people with digital cameras and all kind of gizmos that take a picture (mobile phone etc) and yet still there isn't one sharp shot that is proven authentic. Ever try to take a picture of a moving object with a cell phone camera??? Ever try to get a picture of a moving object while using the zoom feature on a camera...digital or otherwise??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Wed 08/05/09 07:01 PM
|
|
It's well known, that every film or picture ever made about bigfoot and UFOs have to be fuzzy and hard to see. Even now, more people with digital cameras and all kind of gizmos that take a picture (mobile phone etc) and yet still there isn't one sharp shot that is proven authentic. Ever try to take a picture of a moving object with a cell phone camera??? Ever try to get a picture of a moving object while using the zoom feature on a camera...digital or otherwise??? Still not a good excuse. More people with camera = more chances to capture something in good quality. And there are at least 1000 times more people who carry a camera today than 30 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes.. he is. his name is Mooof.. nevermind
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are enigmas nobody can explain..... there's been enigmas through history......i live in a nat'l forrest, and if i desired, and i felt like it, i could never be seen by human eyes again, but could watch them at my leisure......this is a fact. i have lived in the woods for long periods of time, even stealthy from animals, which may sound impossible, but it's not....they're only other souls here, just like us, but different skin......SO......think of a learned patron of the woods, wise, maybe wiser than us(why not) they found a clubfoot track that could not be duplicated, for the tibia and fibia were part of the track in the limp the entity had....
why would they want to see us? pompous arrogant curiousities that we are? quick to hunt them, just because, and by the dumbest of us!!! what do they think of us?.........not much i assure you.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's well known, that every film or picture ever made about bigfoot and UFOs have to be fuzzy and hard to see. Even now, more people with digital cameras and all kind of gizmos that take a picture (mobile phone etc) and yet still there isn't one sharp shot that is proven authentic. Ever try to take a picture of a moving object with a cell phone camera??? Ever try to get a picture of a moving object while using the zoom feature on a camera...digital or otherwise??? Still not a good excuse. More people with camera = more chances to capture something in good quality. And there are at least 1000 times more people who carry a camera today than 30 years ago. Perhaps. But how many of those " thousands more " have been trained to use a camera properly??? Take a quick look at some of the profiles here and check out how many people have pics of themselves that don't show their HEADS. Not to mention, if someone sees something they think might be a UFO...they can, in some cases, get rather excited. Shaky hands make for bad camera work. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
John1932
on
Wed 08/05/09 08:50 PM
|
|
It's well known, that every film or picture ever made about bigfoot and UFOs have to be fuzzy and hard to see. Even now, more people with digital cameras and all kind of gizmos that take a picture (mobile phone etc) and yet still there isn't one sharp shot that is proven authentic. Ever try to take a picture of a moving object with a cell phone camera??? Ever try to get a picture of a moving object while using the zoom feature on a camera...digital or otherwise??? Still not a good excuse. More people with camera = more chances to capture something in good quality. And there are at least 1000 times more people who carry a camera today than 30 years ago. Perhaps. But how many of those " thousands more " have been trained to use a camera properly??? Take a quick look at some of the profiles here and check out how many people have pics of themselves that don't show their HEADS. Not to mention, if someone sees something they think might be a UFO...they can, in some cases, get rather excited. Shaky hands make for bad camera work. Trained or not, you cant go out in the woods and capture a clear image of anything walking at a distance, much less jogging or running, the way a lens focuses, will focus on far items or closers item, but when it try's to focus on both and everything in between, the lens eye goes nuts or stops trying to focus at all, thus you end up with blurry images of trees and limbs and leaves. Sure there are advanced cameras out there that can focus better than others, but its not gonna happen unless you get right up on it and if it is a big hairy monster, its not gonna stand there, its gonna run away from you, or run at you. There has been footage of dark shadow's that disappear behind a tree only to peek back out from behind it and then hide again. Most people put this off a human or bear. For one, when you walk up the the tree where the shadow was and compare it to the footage by a branch or a lump in the bark, it is obvious that something standing there was 9 or 10 feet tall and shoulders as broad as the front bumper of a truck. Sure bears can stand up and be 9 feet tall, but what bear is gonna tippy toe behind a tree and then peak out at you several times then take off running through the woods on its hind legs taking 10 foot strides at a time, making foot impressions that are equivalent of a size 21 human foot. No there is still no absolute proof, but there isn't anything that completely disproves it either. There is plenty of evidence that suggest its true, but no evidence that proves it is wrong. In my opinion, there is enough evidence to say Hummmmmmm!!!!, but not enough disproof to say it is Hogwash.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nobody can really prove bigfoot is nonsense. i used to work with a guy so fat that he'd probably never seen his penis, but it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
i don't think bigfoot or nessie are very likely to exist, but certainly not impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is bigfoot real? Could there be a creature that huge that we have no evidence of? Are the people who claim to have seen bigfoot just looking for attention? Is bigfoot a hoax perpetuated by locals for reasons unknown and will we ever know for sure? |
|
|
|
|
