What explains Bigfoot sightings?

[Lynne]

I've remained open minded about the existence of BF for all these years for many of the reasons that you cite.

The Patterson/Gimlin film is still one of the most interesting pieces of evidence. And I'm glad you mentioned it. I typically lean towards skepticism by default. However, this film and the circumstances surrounding it appear to lack the red-flags that I've come to associate with a definite hoax or unintentional misattribution. And I have not come across a single scientific or expert analysis that comes close to presenting an argument that conclusively raises the probability that this film is not authentic. Even the Wikipedia article stops short of the usual presumptive labeling that they employ in articles related to the paranormal. Of course that doesn't prove the film is authentic. But without a compelling skeptical analysis, I think it still remains as one of the best pieces of evidence that we have that a large, hairy bipedal creature is indeed still out there.

Have you heard interviews by Bob Gimlin? He comes off as true blue as they come. I believe what he says. Sometimes personal testimony and merit of character are worth as much as any evidence.

 

[Jennifer]

The thing that bugs me though, is WHY did they even have the camera with them in the first place? Were they expecting to capture something extraordinary on film? Was one of them going to be doing fancy tricks out there? Did they find something they needed an expert opinion on like an ancient tomb? Was there a gateway to another dimension? Was Ted Bundy camping nearby? Was there a large rock too heavy to move, but had strange carvings on it? While I do believe that Bigfoot is real, this just leaves too many questions for me to believe in the film.

 

[Bob]

I'm not a believer in Bigfoot. With the technology that we have today, and the fact that more and more acreage is being lost to development, we still haven't proven its existence. All supposed Bigfoot DNA material has come back as belonging to either a bear, deer or another known animal. Bears are known to walk upright and thus can explain a few sightings of the mythological beast.

When I was interviewing experts, one such expert was both a Zoologist (worked at a zoo as an animal expert) and Cryptozoologist. He even admitted that among all the other beasts he had investigated that there is no solid evidence Bigfoot even exists, though he still had hope such evidence would eventually come to light. It may happen. But I doubt it.

 

[crux]

The thing that bugs me though, is WHY did they even have the camera with them in the first place?

Because they were looking for BF. They had heard witness accounts of BF being seen in that area and brought the camera to record any evidence they might find.

 

[Bob]

I wasn't always a non-believer in Bigfoot. But my own research has led me to believe it does not exist; not that it never did exist.
We once had a fraudster close to where I live who claimed to have ran over a Bigfoot type creature. He cut it's head off but couldn't remember where the rest of the body was. It was seen on national TV such as on Sightings, Unexplained Mysteries, etc. They each ran their own tests on the subject and found it was a mixture of different animals pieced together.

This is the actual head:

 

[Jennifer]

Because they were looking for BF. They had heard witness accounts of BF being seen in that area and brought the camera to record any evidence they might find.

That just adds to me believing that the tape is fake. They were specifically looking for Bigfoot, and lo and behold, they captured such great footage of one who just happened to look directly at them as it walked by. Too convenient.

 

[Jennifer]

I wasn't always a non-believer in Bigfoot. But my own research has led me to believe it does not exist; not that it never did exist.
We once had a fraudster close to where I live who claimed to have ran over a Bigfoot type creature. He cut it's head off but couldn't remember where the rest of the body was. It was seen on national TV such as on Sightings, Unexplained Mysteries, etc. They each ran their own tests on the subject and found it was a mixture of different animals pieced together.

This is the actual head:
View attachment 22386

Yeah, that's fake.

 

[Benway]

Ancestral memories don't leave footprints.

What if they do? There are plenty of examples of mind affecting matter; the collective subconscious of billions could potentially cause some really odd things to happen, whether we know we are doing it or not. Maybe. Once an idea becomes famous, it becomes a loop feeding into itself, ideas with footprints.

 

[crux]

That just adds to me believing that the tape is fake. They were specifically looking for Bigfoot, and lo and behold, they captured such great footage of one who just happened to look directly at them as it walked by. Too convenient.

I too am generally suspicious of evidence that seems “too convenient” so I think it's good to consider things from that perspective. But, I think that concluding someone is a hoaxster simply because they found something they were looking for is not logical either.

Combined with the unlikelihood of anyone having the ability to fake something better than Hollywood could, it makes it more likely to me that the creature filmed was not a fake.

 

[Lynne]

That just adds to me believing that the tape is fake. They were specifically looking for Bigfoot, and lo and behold, they captured such great footage of one who just happened to look directly at them as it walked by. Too convenient.

I have to disagree on this. Experts have taken apart this film and can not say it’s a fake. Just because someone finds what they were looking for doesn’t discount what they find. This film taken by two cowboys with a simple camera is better than what the movie people made in the current movie of the time, “planet of the Apes”. The muscle movement and walking gait would be very hard to match.