- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 8,949
- Reaction score
- 24,040
The bottom line is that the footage is a lot less interesting and exceptional than you think to most people. There are no muscles or striations visible. A guy on YouTube enhancing contrast in PS using an inherently very low quality image from the 60's, and imagining he saw something in some exaggeratedly contrasted shapes, doesn't really count. I don't see any muscles or "skin" sections, there's simply not enough detail to tell what's going on. It's most likely the fibers in the fur reflecting light in different directions because they don't all lie perfectly flat, artifacts from the film, or anything else. But you cannot make out details in the fibers because there's simply not enough detail in the image, and it's not unusual that there will be little changes in tone due to lighting instead of being completely uniform. You see this on any furry object.
There's almost no detail in the foliage, and the ground looks completely white, even though it's full of rocks, and if you asked me about a mark on a specific rock in the ground or leaf on a tree, I wouldn't know what it is either. There's nothing anyone can show you to convince you, because there is nothing to show there in the first place, other than what's already there: A pretty human-proportioned thing moving in a pretty human way aka most likely a guy in a suit. It’s hilarious that you talk about confirmation bias, because the physical evidence for Bigfoot is literally zero. “Oh if they brought a body they wouldn’t believe it”. You forget the detail that there is in fact no body and there never has been.
Ultimately, if any strong physical evidence was presented, like bones, skulls, skin, living specimens, DNA samples, even high quality footage from a modern tracking camera in full lighting, then the skeptics would concede or be interested. This is a normal request. Scientists believe the Big Bang happened, which is crazier than Bigfoot. But the evidence is strong, it's been thoroughly examined, and that's where it points, so we concede.
However, there is nothing you can give to the believers on the other side to convince them this footage isn't real. You won't eat crow, because you're not willing to. It's not clear what you would want to have "explained"; there's nothing really to explain. You want someone to explain little changes in tonality in a gif taken from a film from the 60's with complete scientific certainty? How would you propose someone would do this? Would you expect it to reflect light in a totally uniform way as if it was a matte surface with zero texture? Your immediate conclusion that it must be muscle fibers is something you’re making up with no evidence, not much more than that. Therefore it's impossible to disprove because there is no proof for it in the first place. You say Gimlin wasn't part of a hoax why, because he said so? Lol. Reaching immediate unlikely conclusions like that with weak evidence, when much simpler explanations are available, is the antithesis of scientific thinking.
Seriously? Some fat guy in Michigan was able to build a Stonhenge by himself without using any modern mechanisms. And this video is from years ago. Here he is moving 1600lbs by himself, with a small wooden gadget. Now imagine with virtually unlimited cheap/free labor, resources, and time. Then you have clowns like Graham Hancock claiming they used telekinesis, lmao.
Last edited:
