• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Off topic but 20 or 30 miles on a unicycle… blimey. How long does it take you to do these distances?
On my 36 inch wheel, direct drive (no gears), I can average around 10 mph (16 kph) on tarmac for a reasonably sustained period. Peak speed is around 16 mph for me, but I've seen people go faster on smaller wheels.

My longest ride without a dismount (deliberate or otherwise) was just over 31 miles/50 km. and somewhere around 3 hours.

I'm 59 and not as fast as I was, and certainly not as fast as the real keen beans out there. My best ever was 12.95 miles in an elapsed hour. I used to know someone who was part of a group that did Lands End to John o'Groats in somewhere between a week and a fortnight.
 
How would a bigfoot use its hands?

They aren't habitual tool users so it would be very different to us.
On what basis do you confidently assert that they are not habitual tool users?

Walking on two legs rather than 4 is a disadvantage in many ways. 4 legged animals are faster and more stable. That's why most large animals, whether predator or prey species, move on 4 legs. A creature would only evolve to walk on two legs if it made a substantial gain elsewhere to offset the disadvantage.

Why would an animal use only use 2 legs? Birds or bats do it to release their upper limbs for flight. Apes and monkeys are capable of walking on two legs and can use their hands for climbing, picking fruit, carrying things, grooming, etc. However, most of the time, they move on 4 legs.

Bears can stand on their back legs either to appear more threatening, or to reach things, or to observe something in the distance, but they habitually move on 4 legs.

Bigfoot, being heavily built and substantially over 6 feet tall is not optimised for climbing (or flight!) and they would only be expected to spend a small amount of time picking fruit, carrying things, or grooming each other, yet they are (nearly?) always reported as walking upright on 2 legs.

So why does Bigfoot walk on 2 legs? The most likely explanation would be habitual tool use.

Tool use is not restricted to humans. Simple tools are used by many creatures, and there are even several that carefully choose stones, and modify sticks, to use them as tools.

My conclusion would be that if Bigfoot is a real flesh and blood bipedal mammal, then it is an habitual user of at least simple tools.
 
Nice article on camera blur and the time it takes to use a camera.
https://globalstrangephenomenon.wor...UGsKHWZGbzuXhkM62l7WWCYugXHv1CFyjVbGQIycERd4s
I, indeed many of us, can attest to how hard it is to quickly snapshot from a camera. When working outside I will sometimes see a bird or an aircraft I wish to photograph or video, but by the time I have my phone out, the app on, the lens directed, and start trying to shoot the object will have gone out of sight. If not, the initial view is blurry, and it takes some seconds to focus and zoom in.
 
Last edited:
Thinking back the PG film was the thing that got me interested in what I later learned was forteana. It was shown on the BBC news at tea time, would have been 1967 and I was absolutely spellbound! A real flesh and blood monster there on the screen!

I remember at school the next day quizzing all my school pals "did you see it last night? A real monster in America!!!"

that's basically how I ended up here years later, slightly off topic, sorry :)
 
Thinking back the PG film was the thing that got me interested in what I later learned was forteana. It was shown on the BBC news at tea time, would have been 1967 and I was absolutely spellbound! A real flesh and blood monster there on the screen!

I remember at school the next day quizzing all my school pals "did you see it last night? A real monster in America!!!"

that's basically how I ended up here years later, slightly off topic, sorry :)
I can only imagine the effect that must have had. I'm fairly sure it appeared on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, which would have been the first time I would probably have seen it. I'd have had zero critical thinking skills back then, so the PG film would have been definitive proof to my tiny, innocent brain.
 
It also appeared on IIRC "News at Ten" albeit as a last item filler. Mainstream news coverage; an honour usually only given to Nessie!
 
I think I saw the Patterson film for the first time on Leonard Nimoy's 'In Search Of', I remember we were all absolutely stunned by the footage, it is so riveting. Especially when the experts claimed it was a female Bigfoot!
 
I have vague memories of seeing it on telly back when I was a kid and being amazed. I was at my grandparent's house and they had a mixed reaction - my grandfather was fascinated and convinced it was real but my gran just said "man in a monkey suit".
I've been bouncing back and forth between those opinions ever since.
 
Right now on our telly is a show 'Bigfoot: I Saw It', showing the Patterson Gimlin film, and saying how 'compelling' their video is.
I don't know if it's available online, it's from 2021, a 2 hour documentary.
 
Last edited:
I think that part of the impact of seeing the film on telly (News at Ten) at that time was that there was no internet and very few if any VCR recorders.
If you were watching you got to see it once, if you were talking to anyone about it and they missed it - tough. There was IIRC no mainstream follow up.
It was almost like an actual sighting, very much relying on memory of seeing something quite unexpected.
 
I think that part of the impact of seeing the film on telly (News at Ten) at that time was that there was no internet and very few if any VCR recorders.
If you were watching you got to see it once, if you were talking to anyone about it and they missed it - tough. There was IIRC no mainstream follow up.
It was almost like an actual sighting, very much relying on memory of seeing something quite unexpected.
Those weren't the days!

We tended to just believe what we saw on the telly back then because we just had nowhere else to go for information.
 
I think that part of the impact of seeing the film on telly (News at Ten) at that time was that there was no internet and very few if any VCR recorders.
If you were watching you got to see it once, if you were talking to anyone about it and they missed it - tough. There was IIRC no mainstream follow up.
It was almost like an actual sighting, very much relying on memory of seeing something quite unexpected.
A good point well made.

You would then perhaps purchase a book on the UFO/Nessie/Haunting and in the great majority of cases read an exaggerated and/or falsified account of an 'investigation' by a true believer who had decided it was a UFO/Nessie/Ghost before they had even met the witnesses/talked to a friend-of-their-friend. (there were and are notable exceptions to this)
 
You would then perhaps purchase a book on the UFO/Nessie/Haunting and in the great majority of cases read an exaggerated and/or falsified account of an 'investigation' by a true believer who had decided it was a UFO/Nessie/Ghost before they had even met the witnesses/talked to a friend-of-their-friend. (there were and are notable exceptions to this)
Yes, often using the technique of dismissing then readmitting the evidence, summarised as:
  1. We estimate we can exclude half of these reports as hoaxes.
  2. We estimate we can exclude half the remainder as honest misidentification of normal phenomena.
  3. We estimate we can exclude half of the remainder as lacking in detail.
  4. That leaves about 1/8 of reports which "cannot be explained by normal science".
  5. Therefore, there must be such a thing as (Bigfoot/UFO/Nessie, etc.)
  6. And if so, how many of the reports we have excluded as hoaxes, misidentification, or lacking in detail are actually genuine reports after all...
  7. Let's assume that as many as 10% of the ones we initially regarded as hoaxes were in fact genuine...
  8. etc.
 
I have vague memories of seeing it on telly back when I was a kid and being amazed. I was at my grandparent's house and they had a mixed reaction - my grandfather was fascinated and convinced it was real but my gran just said "man in a monkey suit".
I've been bouncing back and forth between those opinions ever since.
Years ago my brother-in-law informed me that Bigfoot had finally been proven a hoax after enhancement of a still from the footage had shown a zip. l soon learnt that this enhancement had been some-one photocopying a print and then enlarging the print on the copier and enlarging that print ... What I still don't know is just how serious my brother-in-law had been.
 
Years ago my brother-in-law informed me that Bigfoot had finally been proven a hoax after enhancement of a still from the footage had shown a zip. l soon learnt that this enhancement had been some-one photocopying a print and then enlarging the print on the copier and enlarging that print ... What I still don't know is just how serious my brother-in-law had been.

Someone's seen that old movie Blow Up too many times (or High Anxiety).
 
Years ago my brother-in-law informed me that Bigfoot had finally been proven a hoax after enhancement of a still from the footage had shown a zip. l soon learnt that this enhancement had been some-one photocopying a print and then enlarging the print on the copier and enlarging that print ... What I still don't know is just how serious my brother-in-law had been.
I tried doing that stuff with photocopiers back in the early 80s. After only a few generations of enlargement, the quality deteriorates to the point where it is not useful.
 
(following posts hived off from the main Bigfoot in North America thread - Stu)
Sasquatch arm and leg measurements.
My feeling is when he measured the Patterson-Gimlin entity, he measured from higher on the shoulder, and also if the chunkier bigfoots are suits there's plenty of room for the arm of a man and the elbows of the suit to not match up. Having said that, when looking at the moving P-G film, I always felt the proportions weren't very human. Not insurmountable if it's a suit, just my feeling when watching it.

Also, I think the original post containing the video and this reply should probably be in the P-G thread as that's what the video is really about; proving the veracity of that specific film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My feeling is when he measured the Patterson-Gimlin entity, he measured from higher on the shoulder, and also if the chunkier bigfoots are suits there's plenty of room for the arm of a man and the elbows of the suit to not match up. Having said that, when looking at the moving P-G film, I always felt the proportions weren't very human. Not insurmountable if it's a suit, just my feeling when watching it.

Also, I think the original post containing the video and this reply should probably be in the P-G thread as that's what the video is really about; proving the veracity of that specific film.
When you see the head side on you can see a brow ridge and an acutely sloping forehead. Humans have upright foreheads. Either the guy in the monkey suit had a very abnormal head or it's not a guy in a monkey suit at all. In order to fake a sloping forehead like that the mask would need to be outsized and look to big in relation to the body.
 
When you see the head side on you can see a brow ridge and an acutely sloping forehead. Humans have upright foreheads. Either the guy in the monkey suit had a very abnormal head or it's not a guy in a monkey suit at all. In order to fake a sloping forehead like that the mask would need to be outsized and look to big in relation to the body.
Don't forget the breasts on this figure -
It's a female Sasquatch, just my opinion but that is no human.
The walk, the arms, the length of the arms, the lack of neck, the sheer size of it - no way that's just a person stuffed into a suit.
 
Yeah, this discussion needs shifting to the devoted P-G thread before it progresses, where I'm sure all of this has already been turned inside and out several times.
 
Back
Top