I gave up after ten minutes of this drivel and turned off. First ep was good and I was led to believe the whole series would be more science-based but it`s turned into a platform to allow hicks to lie to the audience.
What I enjoyed about it was that it gave "the hicks" you describe the platform they so clearly wanted, but then very neatly removed that platform by using scientific analysis.
I expected the "Sasquatch killer" to stick to his guns (no pun intended!) and say that the science must be wrong, or claim that a bear must have come along and eaten his Sasquatch, and another bear then ate that bear, but he too just caved in.
What I enjoyed about it was that it gave "the hicks" you describe the platform they so clearly wanted, but then very neatly removed that platform by using scientific analysis.
I expected the "Sasquatch killer" to stick to his guns (no pun intended!) and say that the science must be wrong, or claim that a bear must have come along and eaten his Sasquatch, and another bear then ate that bear, but he too just caved in.
I love the fact that this prize lumpendolt had a licence to hunt with a high velocity firearm yet mistook a bear [ an animal very likely to be found in the locality ] for an unknown man/bear/primate hybrid species.
Perhaps the first episode was good because there really IS a Yeti, albeit probably another bear subspecies, and there really isn't a bigfoot.
Just look at the mental quality of the Yeti witnesses against that of the bigfoot killers/woodknockers.
Next episode Russia : and from my experience the bullshit levels will be off the charts there! ... although the likelihood of a real unknown something is in my opinion very high. The place is vast and underpopulated.
I love the fact that this prize lumpendolt had a licence to hunt with a high velocity firearm yet mistook a bear [ an animal very likely to be found in the locality ] for an unknown man/bear/primate hybrid species.
Yup! Not even as though he saw it from a distance either! He was about a foot away from it according to his account!
The moral is ... don't go hiking in that neck of the woods!
"Hey ... what's that?"
"Dunno. Let's kill it and find out!" .... boom! "Sheeee-it! That's the fourth tourist this month!"
Did anyone else catch the final programme in this series?
I was quite gobsmacked by the final few minutes and if anyone decides to take-up Mark Evans on his choice of language I doubt he will ever work in the media again.
Did anyone else catch the final programme in this series?
I was quite gobsmacked by the final few minutes and if anyone decides to take-up Mark Evans on his choice of language I doubt he will ever work in the media again.
Yup, although I did love those kids who'd filmed 'Bigfoot', I think the smirking and barely contained giggles may have given the game away somewhat
Did anyone else catch the final programme in this series?
I was quite gobsmacked by the final few minutes and if anyone decides to take-up Mark Evans on his choice of language I doubt he will ever work in the media again.
I was skipping in and out of it as I did some other work, and I'm being a bit lazy here, but what "language" did he use?
Did anyone else catch the final programme in this series?
I was quite gobsmacked by the final few minutes and if anyone decides to take-up Mark Evans on his choice of language I doubt he will ever work in the media again.
I saw it.
It was quite sad in the end, when they revealed that the so-called 'wild woman' was an African female.
What a way to treat someone.
What the Bigfoot Files revealed that there is pretty much no such thing as a Yeti/Sasquatch/Almasty/Snowman/Bigfoot etc, but it won't stop folk believing in them.
much of it was sad, mainly because it highlighted how cruel/stupid some people are. the american hunter as a case in point - he alone is a good reason to arm bears... I thought he was a complete scumbag and I wanted to hit him over the head with his rifle. his story was simply not credible and even if he had shot a bigfoot, surely he would have taken his prize trophy home (or at the very least photographed it).
I hope he's now mocked wherever he goes. last night was another example of human cruelty if the story of the african woman is true. part of me suspects that its simply a case of embellished folklore.
for what its worth, i think the evidence indcates that there is some sort of bear / polar bear hybrid at high altitude around Everest and the hypoxia probably adds to the 'sightings'. the others are simply hoaxes or mis-identification. one thing is for sure, if such a rare creature did exist man would probably shoot it and it would soon become extinct
Having only suffered the opening episode, I'm pleased I wasted no more time on it.
Mark Evans' mock surprise and pretend shock soon became a little wearing. The cranky camera work and focusing on Evans' eyes as he questioned the prof. were ridiculous.
Indeed, the presence of an Oxbridge professor failed to give the necessary gravitas intended and required.
I think the tone was set with that hilarious SS comedy monstrosity which had the canines in the wrong way round.
I'm sure I recollect making a far more convincing creature in junior school many decades ago.
What I enjoyed about it was that it gave "the hicks" you describe the platform they so clearly wanted, but then very neatly removed that platform by using scientific analysis.
I didn`t need DNA and a microscope to know Cletus was lying through what was left of his teeth.
Yup, although I did love those kids who'd filmed 'Bigfoot', I think the smirking and barely contained giggles may have given the game away somewhat
Well if that didn't the foot prints certainly did.Judging by the way those footprints were laid out,either Bigfoot was hopping on one leg or walking as if he was on a tightrope.:D
I was quite gobsmacked by the final few minutes and if anyone decides to take-up Mark Evans on his choice of language I doubt he will ever work in the media again.
Well if that didn't the foot prints certainly did.Judging by the way those footprints were laid out,either Bigfoot was hopping on one leg or walking as if he was on a tightrope.:D
The footprints looked like they'd been made by the three of them stepping into each others footprints. There's a cut in the vid just as the creature appears.
The footprints looked like they'd been made by the three of them stepping into each others footprints. There's a cut in the vid just as the creature appears.
I must admit that it looked spectacularly fake the first time I watched it on the programme, but seeing it again, it's laughable! The "footprints" are different sizes and shapes with little sign of any forward motion; just a vertical stamp. I assume the good Doctor must believe it's footage of some "catwalk Almsaty", judging by the way it rather delicately put one foot directly in front of the other!
Mind you, I wouldn't have been arguing that with Nikolai Valuev at the time! :eek:
I was skipping in and out of it as I did some other work, and I'm being a bit lazy here, but what "language" did he use?
Well, the conclusion was that Zana was a sub-Saharan African - probably a slave - and they described her (mixed race) son's skull as having an "intriguing mixture of primitive and modern features".
Well, the conclusion was that Zana was a sub-Saharan African - probably a slave - and they described her (mixed race) son's skull as having an "intriguing mixture of primitive and modern features".
Yes ... because as the geneticist Bryan Sykes clearly explained, although the DNA showed Zana's (and therefore son's) origins as being Sub-Sharan Africa, the physical features of the son's skull exhibited ancient, as opposed to modern, human features.
The conclusion was that Zana may not have been of recent origin (Homo sapiens), but descended from a more primitive species of the genus Homo which possibly migrated north tens of thousands of years ago. This was interesting as there had previously been suggestions that the Almasty might have been descended from Neanderthals; another ancient species of the genus Homo.
The word "primitive" is defined as "relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something" and is commonly used to refer to ancient species of the genus Homo. To take offence because it was used in this programme to refer to a possible primitive species or sub-species from Africa, is frankly ridiculous!
Would anyone have been offended if the programme had referred to a more primitive species or sub-species originating in Northern Europe?
I must admit that it looked spectacularly fake the first time I watched it on the programme, but seeing it again, it's laughable! The "footprints" are different sizes and shapes with little sign of any forward motion; just a vertical stamp. I assume the good Doctor must believe it's footage of some "catwalk Almsaty", judging by the way it rather delicately put one foot directly in front of the other!
Mind you, I wouldn't have been arguing that with Nikolai Valuev at the time! :eek:
When I saw him get out the car I thought they were going to announce they'd found bigfoot!
Comments
I want to believe in bigfoot and other cryptids, but the non existence of evidence and whatever shows up being something else makes me a sceptic.
I think the owners of the film are very selective, due to the film being a load of bull crap ?
Plus most if not all the people involved are dead now.
The annoying thing is, that even though the Patterson film is probably fake, there is still a small doubt about that.
IMO, there is no doubt that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax.
The way the 'creature' turns to look at the camera is almost laughable.
What I enjoyed about it was that it gave "the hicks" you describe the platform they so clearly wanted, but then very neatly removed that platform by using scientific analysis.
I expected the "Sasquatch killer" to stick to his guns (no pun intended!) and say that the science must be wrong, or claim that a bear must have come along and eaten his Sasquatch, and another bear then ate that bear, but he too just caved in.
I love the fact that this prize lumpendolt had a licence to hunt with a high velocity firearm yet mistook a bear [ an animal very likely to be found in the locality ] for an unknown man/bear/primate hybrid species.
Just look at the mental quality of the Yeti witnesses against that of the bigfoot killers/woodknockers.
Next episode Russia : and from my experience the bullshit levels will be off the charts there! ... although the likelihood of a real unknown something is in my opinion very high. The place is vast and underpopulated.
Yup! Not even as though he saw it from a distance either! He was about a foot away from it according to his account!
The moral is ... don't go hiking in that neck of the woods!
"Hey ... what's that?"
"Dunno. Let's kill it and find out!" .... boom!
"Sheeee-it! That's the fourth tourist this month!"
I was quite gobsmacked by the final few minutes and if anyone decides to take-up Mark Evans on his choice of language I doubt he will ever work in the media again.
Yup, although I did love those kids who'd filmed 'Bigfoot', I think the smirking and barely contained giggles may have given the game away somewhat
I was skipping in and out of it as I did some other work, and I'm being a bit lazy here, but what "language" did he use?
I saw it.
It was quite sad in the end, when they revealed that the so-called 'wild woman' was an African female.
What a way to treat someone.
What the Bigfoot Files revealed that there is pretty much no such thing as a Yeti/Sasquatch/Almasty/Snowman/Bigfoot etc, but it won't stop folk believing in them.
I hope he's now mocked wherever he goes. last night was another example of human cruelty if the story of the african woman is true. part of me suspects that its simply a case of embellished folklore.
for what its worth, i think the evidence indcates that there is some sort of bear / polar bear hybrid at high altitude around Everest and the hypoxia probably adds to the 'sightings'. the others are simply hoaxes or mis-identification. one thing is for sure, if such a rare creature did exist man would probably shoot it and it would soon become extinct
Mark Evans' mock surprise and pretend shock soon became a little wearing. The cranky camera work and focusing on Evans' eyes as he questioned the prof. were ridiculous.
Indeed, the presence of an Oxbridge professor failed to give the necessary gravitas intended and required.
I think the tone was set with that hilarious SS comedy monstrosity which had the canines in the wrong way round.
I'm sure I recollect making a far more convincing creature in junior school many decades ago.
I didn`t need DNA and a microscope to know Cletus was lying through what was left of his teeth.
Well if that didn't the foot prints certainly did.Judging by the way those footprints were laid out,either Bigfoot was hopping on one leg or walking as if he was on a tightrope.:D
Yeah, I must have missed it too, what did he say that provoked that reaction?
The footprints looked like they'd been made by the three of them stepping into each others footprints. There's a cut in the vid just as the creature appears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHkFCFnc7J4
I must admit that it looked spectacularly fake the first time I watched it on the programme, but seeing it again, it's laughable! The "footprints" are different sizes and shapes with little sign of any forward motion; just a vertical stamp. I assume the good Doctor must believe it's footage of some "catwalk Almsaty", judging by the way it rather delicately put one foot directly in front of the other!
Mind you, I wouldn't have been arguing that with Nikolai Valuev at the time! :eek:
That was brilliant! How Mark Evans managed to keep a straight face is beyond me!
I still don't get what Mark Evans said that was bad enough to prompt the suggestion that he might never work in media again? Did anyone pick up on it?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=www.bigfoot.com&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=6941E299C2B8B6A31B886941E299C2B8B6A31B88
Still laughing!
I love the on-screen comments people add to these videos ...
"is that shoulder muscles?" (sic)
Em ... the significance of that would be ... what?
Well, the conclusion was that Zana was a sub-Saharan African - probably a slave - and they described her (mixed race) son's skull as having an "intriguing mixture of primitive and modern features".
Yes ... because as the geneticist Bryan Sykes clearly explained, although the DNA showed Zana's (and therefore son's) origins as being Sub-Sharan Africa, the physical features of the son's skull exhibited ancient, as opposed to modern, human features.
The conclusion was that Zana may not have been of recent origin (Homo sapiens), but descended from a more primitive species of the genus Homo which possibly migrated north tens of thousands of years ago. This was interesting as there had previously been suggestions that the Almasty might have been descended from Neanderthals; another ancient species of the genus Homo.
The word "primitive" is defined as "relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something" and is commonly used to refer to ancient species of the genus Homo. To take offence because it was used in this programme to refer to a possible primitive species or sub-species from Africa, is frankly ridiculous!
Would anyone have been offended if the programme had referred to a more primitive species or sub-species originating in Northern Europe?
I doubt it! :rolleyes:
I'd love to hear Charlie Brooker's take on that.:D
I want it as my ring-tone!
When I saw him get out the car I thought they were going to announce they'd found bigfoot!