What explains Bigfoot sightings?

It's a multi-part podcast, not video. I listened to it while driving, mowing the yard, taking walks, etc. I've listened to a number of paranormal related podcasts, and these guys are easily the most objective hosts I've heard.

Not that what I think either way makes any difference, but after listening to AL's fifteen hours and reading/reviewing a number of the sources cited in their copious show notes, I tend toward skepticism, but just slightly. I approach this the same way any trained investigator would....looking at motive, opportunity, and capacity (to fake the film.) The first two are gimmes, Patterson was a known con man, even Gimlin admits that. Opportunity is equally a given, they were the only two (besides Hieronimus, if you believe his story, and I have trouble doing so) there. It's the capability I have a problem with.

We know Hieronimus claims to have worn the suit, and a NC company (Morris) claims to have made the suit. I listened to/read interviews with costume designers and special effects legends who disagree on whether P&G filmed a man in a suit. Same with kinesiologists and actors who've worn gorilla/monster suits in movies on whether the movements in the film are those of a human. Seemingly equally qualified "experts" disagree, so who to believe?
some of the physical traits are what keeps me on the skeptic side of this footage, the high buttocks' and the slumped over posture, they are great ape/ gorilla traits, the problem is that that posture is designed for apes..... knuckle walkers.... humans (as a species) don't walk on knuckles, something this tall and heavy would have a more upright posture, (or serious back problems...lol)… the hair is also questionable. if fake it was genius to make it female, that explains the shorter stature of something thought to be 9 + feet tall.... but the full hair in the breast area is questionable, most animals (primates in general)don't have that.... or thick hair in the rear or thigh areas, along with elbows or full on facial hair to that extent..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogLet and ozentity
It doesn't appear in Urban centers /with dense population (5 plus million .)

It does appear in more rural or ground with uncultivated (un furrowed -no annual row crops)
Like high desert, oak grasslands, & conifer mix.

Does this mean a bigfoot travels through there
Or lives actually within the biome?

Or

Does this mean that bigfoot (aka criptid) is a "projection of human consciousness " /check this phrase meaning/ onto an unrecognized item seen visually

something which IS there in the setting/rural biome?

Or is it a projection from within the recognizing person from themself /ie projecting their own shadow, fears, visually pre conceptualized "nightmares" onto a visual pattern /shadow?

Or is it a mental acuity "like attracts like" magic moment occuring -- where this is the real focus of the individual and they are reeling in that towards them across leylines or portals or what have you
Willy nilly focused unconscious force. Lol stop watching those movies before go camping (note to self)

Does this mean -- oh, so many questions!
I think studying the hunter gatherer groups of the past is needed in this study... if they exist, they are hunter gatherers, they don't farm or grow food, they would have to travel from season to season and follow the food source, since no "tools" have been found or real shelters for that matter, it is obvious they don't "live" in one area for very long.... to be able to sustain a colony would take a very large territory to move around...as the wilderness shrinks, if real, they are bound to be found sooner or later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozentity
Have you heard interviews by Bob Gimlin? He comes off as true blue as they come.
I watched one on YouTube yesterday. Gimlin is convincing. Even if the film was ever conclusively proven to be a hoax, which I don't think it will be, then Gimlin probably had no knowledge of it. I still think the film may be one of the best pieces of evidence there is for a physical BF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne and Debi
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.

They were looking for Bigfoot, thats why they had the camera, Bob tells this in his story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne
I know this sounds way out there and most will think im just a religious nut, but that is ok. I think that BF and DM are the same shape shifter and appears to those people in the form that it thinks will scare them the most, BF is just as intimidating as DM because of its enormous size. I think its a demonic entity, or the Nephilim, like Melba, and Scott Carpenter believe, and that is why the photos come out blurry, and trail cameras cannot photograph them, and that is why they say things telepathically to some people, no body etc etc. I see many photos taken by people that say they are seeing BF in the woods or behind their house and I see multiple face images, sometimes stacked one on top of the other, or images of different BF versions and even a DM with its head right next to a BF, and that just spells one thing to me, and that is demonic. I have to say that I am no paranormal expert, and a lot of you are.

Maybe there really is a flesh and blood BF out there, but if that is the case there sure seems to be a lot of demonic activity out there in our woods also, and I can see that from the photos people are posting online.

Some people are saying that DM and BF are friendly and are being healed by them, and protected by them, but who knows those people could be being deceived by a demon i just don't know.

Some say they protect native sacred lands, but if that is so then why do they chase their cars, I guess they could be driving on a highway that passes through sacred land.

Why do they protect a land one day and disappear the next day, makes no sense?

As far as the Patty film being authentic, I just watch a video by Thinker Thunker and he shows how Patty raises her feet up at a higher degree or angle when she walks than a human and this proves the video is real, but if you look at photos of Apes, you will see that their faces skin color blend in with their hair and with patty the small face part where the nose is looks white Caucasian to me.

On many occasions listening to Sasquatch Chronicles witnesses report the skin color as being gray or black.
 
the Patterson tape I think will be debated until the end.... there are things in it that go both ways, muscle movement etc... but then there are places where it looks like folds of fabric..so who knows.. but comparing it to Hollywood is not possible....mainly because Hollywood and movies in general are under budget restraints... and horror films get the least amount to work with, its not that Hollywood couldnt do better, its that they have to stay within a budget to make as much profit as possible...so comparing it to films of that era is not really accurate.. yes planet of the apes was cheesy, but 10 years earlier, "the creature from the black lagoon" was much more realistic,...all due to budget and the era... there are horror movies today that have the worst effects ever....(any movie on the scifi network...lol)… but then groups of average ppl who can out do the low budget productions easily....its done all the time just for fun.… so yes I think an ordinary person with the right contacts and setting could have pulled this off, even back then, just as cosplayers today can almost equal the million dollar costumes of the big screen.
I’ve listened to Bob Gimlin and I think he is an honest man.
 
I watched one on YouTube yesterday. Gimlin is convincing. Even if the film was ever conclusively proven to be a hoax, which I don't think it will be, then Gimlin probably had no knowledge of it. I still think the film may be one of the best pieces of evidence there is for a physical BF.
I agree. I do not believe these two old cowboys had the money or technical ability to pull off a hoax of that magnitude. I think Patterson probably did have a custom made to parade around at fairs and carnival type places to make money. He and Heronomius did some money making touring. He may have come up with lies to sell his story. I believe Bob was inocent of this. He was just the trail leader. I think they did get real footage and Patterson capitalized on it. Bob G didn’t get anything but his pay for his horses. He was there and was an eye witness. I totally believe him and he had no reason to lie. He admits this event ruined much of his life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crux