One was a bulge or hernia in the thigh of the creature as captured in high definition reproduction of a extremely small sequence of the Patterson footage. The bulge went undetected for almost 35 years, Haijcek said, and now some scientists are concluding because of the hernia, leg movements and stride of the sasquatch, it simply is not possible that what has been seen on film for 35 years was a man dressed in a monkey suit.
Huh? I thought the original film was lost. How do you make a high-def version of a copy of an eight mil film?
Well, first you hire seethroughart, and then you start using that CSI image enhancement technology. With computers.
Some people don’t understand the concept of artifacts in images.
The saola (pseudoryx nghetinhensis) - a cow/goat like mammal discovered in Vietnam in 1992. It is the latest of six mammals found in the last 100 years or so.
Lack of fossil evidence etc isn’t much of an argument - there is not one single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing stages of evolution, and what we know (well, think) about evolution is based on a soberingly limited amount of fossil evidence, particularly when you think about the millions of humans that have walked the earth in the last six-ten thousand years or so. Ditto for animals, and it’s not like you run across old human or animal remains or bones everytime you take a nature hike.
Now, I’m with you guys - I haven’t seen any evidence to make me believe bigfoot exists - but my view was that the lack of particular evidence can’t really be used to argue that it doesn’t exist.
But I have zero experience and technical knowlege in this field, so I could well just be talking out my ass.
Psst. North America. Not Asia.
America, Asia, all the same, right?
N. America, hmmm. I believe some mammal believed to be extinct was found not too long ago in Cuba?
ahem
SHOW ME THE MONKEY!!!
Sometimes a moose, sometimes a bear, sometimes a person in a monkey suit.
Yeah, I said monkey suit. “Ape suit” doesn’t have the same comedic ring. Nor fur suit. I use monkey colloquially, the same way creationists like to say I believe we’re monkeys.
DocCathode, I’d like to see your cite that hair and feces have been found of an unknown mammal. Not results that were inconclusive, but results that concluded these were from an animal never before identified.
Having studied ( by this I mean 'read a lot about") Cryptozoology, I’d have to classify Bigfoot as one of those creatures in the 99.99% doubtful class, along with Nessie.
To give a more likely example, I’d put finding a live Tasmanian Wolf at over 10%.
If I discovered it? Borealopithicus macei. 
Ah, I misunderstood you. I don’t embrace that man’s claim to be the one in the suit without proof. I accept that it was a man in a suit based on the film.
The film itself is proof of a hoax.
The suit would not be proof. After watching the film, anybody could make a suit to match it.
Was he the man in the suit? Maybe, maybe not. But we have ample evidence that the film is a hoax showing a man in a suit- the film itself.
It is you who are unfamiliar with Occam’s razor. In its true form, it is simply this “Never multiply entities beyond necessity.”. It is often mistated as “The simplest explanation which fits all the facts is usually the correct one.”. We know that humans exist. We know that some of them put on hoaxes. There is no reason why the subject of the film could not be a man in a suit. Either we accept a creature that has evaded capture for centuries, leaves no clear hair, dung, or bone samples, and can’t be tracked, OR we accept that the film is a man in a suit. Which conclusion multiplies entities beyond necessity?
Fine. Just accept the film itself as proof that the film was a hoax.
I never said that. I said that dung and hair samples claimed to be sasquatch always turned out to be known animals.
EG “I have proof that bigfoot exists! I have these tufts of hair and these bigfoot droppings!”
"After analysis, this hair is not bigfoot but the hair of a bear. As for the feces, we have now scientifically proven that yes, bears do indeed do that in the woods."DocCathode you are being disingenuous. I said:
Why did you respond to a question regarding embracing a man’s claim, if you don’t embrace his claims? And why ask me this:
The rest of your response to me is made based on you preferring to discuss whether or not the film is a hoax.
I have made no claims regarding the film being a hoax. My question was and remains: Why are we so quick to believe a man’s confession based on little evidence? And upon closer inspection of the thread, a much *better *response to my question would actually be: No one here *really *embraced the claim. The truth is **Xtisme **mentioned it and **ElvisL1ves **helpfully provided a link - but no one really used it as a cite. So my question, in retrospect, is not useful to the discussion.
I thought Monkey Suits came with cumberbuns.
My call, for what it’s worth: man in an ape suit.