Hey /x/. Im new here. I would just like to know what everyones opinion on bigfoot is. What is it? Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?
I think they're real and probably people.
>Wasn't this a hoax ?
What did he mean by this? Is it a skeptic making fun of people who still talk about the film, or a believer being like "that's what THEY want you to think, but it really isn't!" Either way it doesn't sound right.
>12/20/15 New trial board added: /wsr/ - Worksafe Requests
>11/28/15 New trial text board added: /news/ - Current News
>11/12/15 Name changed. WWE topics on /asp/ - Alternative Sports & Wrestling
>[Hide] [Show All]
Im confused. what chu talkin about
Yeah, there's maybe something out there. Know a guy who claims to have seen one.
Just think it's a shame that there have been so many hoaxes that potentially legitimate sightings or evidence get treated as a joke and are ignored. People should be more open minded.
this was from a video and people want to disbelieve so badly that they ignore some of the more impressive aspects it has to offer.
I encourage you to watch the video and consider the following.
If this was a suit with a man inside , this man would need very disproportionate arms to bend with the suit properly.
Also the suit, this is no ordinary suit. The way the muscles move would require an extremely intricate suit. As the human moved, the suit would need a substitute for muscle underneath its skin, the muscle substitute would need to be attached to the skin in a certain way to prevent unnatural folds, and lastly the muscle substitute would need to be attached to the human inside in a certain way as to prevent unnatural rippling/curling. Please watch the video and ripple of muscle. Obviously i cant prove if this species is real or not from a video, but people really do not give this video enough credit, certainly not enough observation.
>Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?
well the people who belive in bigfoot says its because its shy and the areas it inhabits are remote and huge imagen pic related for about a quarter of north america
i would say its highly unlikely but it could be possible if the populations are small
i mean big apes have existed
Are you fucking kidding me? These guys are the same people who go into RP threads and shit on them.
You're just a fucking butthurt faggot because this, just like almost everything else on this board, is fake.
You need to stop with this infantile projecting. No one is going to come to your side and back you up when you sound like an angry 14 year old kid losing an argument.
People don't call bullshit on bigfoot because they're ignorant of any evidence, they call bullshit on it because they've seen all the evidence turn out to be debunked hoaxes. There really isn't a single shred of reputable evidence anywhere to support the existence of a bigfoot whatsoever. Its a cultural phenomena, exactly like UFO sightings turned out to be after Roswell. The first bigfoot footage, which is a fake, was released and all of a sudden a whole host of similar fakes followed suit. Tons of supposed eye witnesses came forward, and dozens of them even made it on TV for telling their made up stories.
No bones, no fur, no scat, no real video or photographs. Just one fake and a series of copycats who followed in the extra large footsteps.
>Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?
Supposedly they did and your post has that exact incident. The only proof we have that it was a man in a suit was when some guy came onto Fox News in the 90s and did a lie detector test saying he was the man in the suit, he passed (according to Fox) and everyone was expected to shutup about Patterson after that. It didn't go according to plan. The man couldn't provide the suit, recreate a suit or point out where the original filming took place. Any efforts to recreate the footage with a suit have failed as well.
There was another notable incident with a Bigfoot photo though which was the Florida Skunk Ape sighting where a woman expecting to photograph some punk kid messing with her garbage cans photographed this instead. Expert analysis including those from primatologists and wildlife biologists determined it was an authentic photo. The nearest explanation they could give was that it was an Organutan. The primatologist noted in particular that it bared it's teeth like great apes do when threatened.
The second photo. These were sent to police in the area who then passed it along to the news. They considered the woman who took the photos to be credible.
Because apes are intelligent and are capable of remaining unseen if the so choose. Throughout human history homo sapiens have lived along side various other "human" ancestors and there is no reason to think now is any different.
There is all the reason we are the only remaining "human" species left because..well there are billions of us. All connected via internet with hd cameras in our pockets.
Its no suprise that since the smartphone the supernatural and extra terrestrial sightings have all but vanished.
>the people who belive in bigfoot says its because
Speak for yourself, thanks. Every researchers has their own reasons for believing what they do and they aren't some unified singular entity with only one belief system.
Bigfoot is real.
I live in Southern Florida, one night camping I saw a large footprint in the mud that could not have been a humans. Had a picture of it on my old phone, wish I still had that phone.
I knew of a lady who photographed footprints around here but I never bothered to find her and ask to see them. In the same spot a former school principal watched one for a long period of time through his binoculars and became depressed when nobody would believe him. I examined the location on video for /x/ not too long ago
I've also had 3 experiences with vocalizations, one up close in the dark, and might have experienced one spooking me and family members out of a camping site.
No conclusive proof. All we have or witness accounts and easily faked footprints. I think it's possible, but unlikely. Of course, the theory that requires the least amount of assumptions wins, and that theory is simple: No.
>People's feet always have the same shape in each print
>I don't know how to spot out minute differences because little things don't matter
>Theory of least assumption instead of theory with highest probability and realism
>Science is NOT supposed to be used to discover new creatures outside of places we assume they would live instead of where they can actually be found
My theory is more simple, of course science won't take kindly to such a creature, it would flip the entire theory of evolution on its head and go against everything that we have been taught beforehand, it would show how hypocritical it is to claim that the pacific northwest and North America cannot support such a creature when it is perfectly capable of supporting other large animals such as large birds, moose, deer, elk, bears, mountain lions, and whales.
It would show that we can't cherrypick which species can live where because it would make us realize that nature is not in our control and what we say can and cannot be created are just words, and that they have no impact on what animals the earth creates through evolution
It's still highly unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just wouldn't bet on it.
You're honestly comparing the legal system to identifying a new species of primate in North-fucking-America? Common, dude, I know /x/ is better than this. While it would be cool if it were someday proven that sasquatch/yeti/bigfoot is the real deal, you can't honestly believe this without firsthand experience.
Keep shilling. Denying evidence doesn't make it nonexistent. You can say I sound like a 14 year old. That doesn't change the fact that you have less intellect and deductive reasoning than the average 14 year old. You say the first video(which it wasn't) was fake(which is wasn't) because it's easier for you to do than actually research the subject. You know that you're not capable of researching or debunking anything, so you ignore evidence and cry on the internet. You should honestly kill yourself.
You also need to keep in mind that when we say X doesn't exist or Y does, those are just words, they have zero influence on what animals live in the world and which ones have been created through evolution and natural selection
Unrelated but is this image copyrighted? Because I've been trying to find some Big foot artwork to jazz up my bedroom and, on etsy at least, all the Bigfoot stuff isnt that famous pose.
There's plenty of evidence, but you're going to be a fucking skeptical shit either way, so what's the point? You haven't seen them, that doesn't discount the hundreds of people that have
The primatologist refused to classify it as one because it wasn't quite right and if it turned out to be a man in a suit that would be bad for her reputation, she just said it resembled one and was behaving how most great apes would if you walked up to them in the dark and spooked them with flashing lights.
Bigfoot is ahoax to distract people from the real threat.
There's definitely enough shit that goes on innawoods to give some degree of possibility to Squatch existence. I believe, at least. Whether it be interdimensional beings or some zoological anomaly, I really believe there's something out there.
Also, who said Bigfeets can't be spooky?
Okay, I pick clear. It's very clear. Stop being a nitpicking asshole. It's an extended video of
>a big ass ape creature walking in the woods
You can say it's a hoax, but saying there's no
>clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods
because the man who took this video that shows
>a big ass ape creature walking in the woods
didn't bother to strap on a steady cam before taking his forest footage?
Again, I'm not saying you have to think that's bigfoot, but it's deifinetly
>a big ass ape creature
even if its some dickhead in a suit.
I swear to god, bigfoot could have a whole segment on girls gone wild and everyone would say it's not in fucking focus enough.
It doesn't necessarily have to be an ape, anon, nor is it some biblical alien giant, maybe it's something that's entirely in a league of its own. The people who don't say that it's in focus are also likely coming at this from all those videos that are shot with potatoes by people with Parkinson's. I'm not saying that there's nothing there or that it's some queer jackoff who spent millions to get fake tits and hairs glued all over their body
Time for me to ramble a bit
adding to this from a SPFX view. IF the Patterson Bigfoot is a costume, why include female breast? If you are going to make up a creature you're going to model it on existing creatures. Then you choose a gorilla or ape. Male would be used not female (same goes for hunting, you display males). But if you made a female, there is a problem. Humans are the only ape to have prominent breast. Being 1967, this wouldn't happen as sex was culturally taboo.
Adding here based on a country folk view. Walk through the woods, you don't see bobcat, or lynx, bear, wolf etc. Why? Predators mostly hunt at night. Their senses can detect you from 100s of feet away and the leave the area or hide. Issue with hiding, every ape in the world climbs trees, yes gorilla do too they spend 5-20% of the day in trees. Humans have this bad tendency to not look up. Want proof? there are plenty of cases of missing persons were the person hung themselves near their house and no one looked up. If you are walking through a forest, you look down to watch your footing and for holes. Gorillas were a myth and only proven 200 years ago.
As much as my dumb human brain wants to deny it there are some glaring flaws that are hard to overlook if you actually analyze it.
That fur reflects light perfectly as well. I don't think you mentioned it.
Ah the classic "prove its a suit".
Well anon, with out proof of such a creature then by default it is a suit.
If these creatures exist, there must be thousands to be a viable breeding population. So please just provide the single bigfoot and we can compare it to the footage, and you win.
If you want to believe it's a man in a suit without having any evidence to support that belief that's your decision.
I don't care about winning arguments on the internet. I'm not a fedora.
There is more evidence to support the patterson footage being authentic including expert opinion than there is to suggest it's a man in a suit.
You're not intelligent enough to have this debate properly, it's best that you just tell yourself you "win".
>I don't need to back up shit.
Well that's convenient. If I wanted to make the claim that the film is evidence of bigfoot I can drop volumes of expert research and opinions to back it up. It's not proof but it's evidence.
You're making a claim that it's a man in a suit but you don't have anything to back it up. No evidence. No expert opinion or research. All you have is attitude.
Also you're changing your writing style in between posts which is psychotic shitposting behavior not sure if you're aware of that.
Plenty of Scientific and Film industry personnel think it's a fake as well.
Both sides are on the wiki. It's far from been proven real.
It's perfectly fine not to believe in something even if there is evidence to support it's existence. A fedora is upset when people are willing to consider things that they don't believe however. But not all of us are fedoras. To each his own.
If it were proven real it would be proof, not evidence. As for "plenty" of scientific and film "personnel" claiming it's fake, not one of them has been able to prove it. Nobody has successfully recreated the Patterson footage with or without CGI or suits and it's been over 40 years. Why is that?
Really not mysterious. Florida, where Hurricane Andrew, back in the day, wiped out several roadside "zoos", liberating the inmates. Now Florida has wild monkeys thanks to Andrew, as well as pet owners who become disenchanted with little bastard monkeys shitting up their houses. Not much doubt that one or more of these zoos had large primates as well as small. They certainly had large cats that are now roaming the wilderness.
Read it again.
>It's perfectly fine not to believe in something even if there is evidence to support it's existence.
I can see both perspectives. Because I'm not a faggot.
>IF the Patterson Bigfoot is a costume, why include female breast? If you are going to make up a creature you're going to model it on existing creatures. Then you choose a gorilla or ape.
>no one would think to put tits on a fake bigfoot!!1!
Sorry, bro. Patterson drew several pictures of female bigfeet with big droopy hairy tits in the years leading up to the PG film.
The film is a hoax.
Gorillas and other primates live in tropical climates. Without hair covering their breasts a Bigfoots breasts would freeze during the winter. There are other sightings of female bigfeet with hairy breasts.
>The film is a hoax.
And yet there is no proof to support that claim. You have evidence that a man who supposedly filmed a Sasquatch was fascinated with them and from this you make claims you can't back up.
red herring. so you think they would have kept the suit as a souvenir? that's not very logical.
p.s. • bigfoot is an inter-dimensional sub-species of homo capensis with an advanced from of dolphin-based sonar.
prove me wrong. protip: you can't
p.s.s • sandy hook was a hoax. the earth is flat. kennedy was killed by aliens. you can't melt these shill memes.
Do you fucking skeptic clowns even know how a suit like that has to be made? Do you even have a clue? You write it off by saying... oh its just a suit. As if such things can just pop out of thin air. There was absolutely nothing in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world that was on that level yet. Special effects involving full latex body suits were still decades away. Plus P&G weren't professionals in that field anyhow. They would have had to outsource it, there would be receipts there'd be more people in on it.
And if they didn't profit off of the video, why bother? Who is willing to JUST their reputation so hard for nothing?
Do any of you even live near the fucking sticks and woods? How do you discount the hundreds of people who have seen these things and give shaking testimony while recalling the events. These people aren't actors, but they all recall what they saw so vividly. Why do this at all if you gain nothing but scrutiny for it?
You choosing not to believe in something, is fine. but for fucks sake try a little harder next time
>red herring. so you think they would have kept the suit as a souvenir?
What does it matter? If some cowboy was able to make a suit like that why can't Hollywood? Every attempt to make a suit as realistic as the Patterson creature has been an embarrassing failure. Why?
The rest of your post is just shitposting because you know you have nothing to stand on.
>There was absolutely nothing in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world that was on that level yet.
i guess you aren't very familiar with this case.
>You choosing not to believe in something, is fine
That's already been said but it goes in one ear and out the other for people with fedora personality disorders. They need everyone to thin like them or else they get upset.
You're treading deep into conspiracy theory territory now. Fedoras are more than willing to believe in conspiracy theories if it helps them dismiss evidence they don't want to consider.
yeti/sasquatch/big feets =demonic. check the missing 411 stuff. also old folklore here in america relates stories about the "hairy man" & that he was pretty much the boogie man....y'all better get right with Jesus before y'all go inna woods....
Oh I see. Patterson went to Hollywood and learned how to make the most realistic monster costumes in film history even up to this very day. That's called a conspiracy theory. Do you have evidence or proof to back up your conspiracy theories?
He also rented a camera before getting the footage. My question is where is the proof that it was a costume? A costume good enough to fool experts and people who researched the footage into believing it was a real creature. Why can't we make such costumes now if it was possible 40 years ago?
Not even just the "suit", getting the walk of the creature right, the proportions, the size. These are all things you can't just throw a person out in the woods to do. If you've ever seen the lord of the rings films, look at what actors had to go through, body movement classes, and techniques. Hours and hours just to learn how to walk like an orc or elf the right way. Either P&G were also professionals in this field, in addition to being master monster suit builders with their own materials. Decades ahead of their time, who will leave no legacy for the luls.
Or the creature you're seeing is real.
We already know there have been large apes before, so why is this one so unconvincing? The deep woods are so vast and so thick, just as unexplored as deep oceans. You can fly over them for hours over the treetops and not see below the canopy.
Just a personal curiosity, do any of the skeptics here even live near sighting hot spots or are you just 18 year old city faggots? What do you personally get out of not believing in anything? That humans are the only things to exist out of any note in the history of the universe. What do you get out of it?
>Every attempt to make a suit as realistic as the Patterson creature has been an embarrassing failure.
>There was absolutely nothing in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world that was on that level yet.
pic related: Art Miles 1930s gorilla suit. You think that's not sophisticated? LOL. And that's just one...
That would look like this >>17198754 if taken out and tested. It would look like a feather duster at best. Patterson creature had fur hugging it's skin and flexing with muscles. Your picture would look like a I don't understand why people like you get into discussions over things you haven't bothered to study.
>We already know there have been large apes before, so why is this one so unconvincing?
No bodies or specimens in the zoo.
>What do you get out of it?
They are reconfirming a belief system they were raised with. It gives them a religious sense of security to believe they know for sure what exists and doesn't exist in the world. Like the Europeans and Americans who thought Gorillas were just fairytales 100 years ago.
you can't because you don't want to.
looks nothing like Patty, looks like an obvious gorilla suit in the most comical way. and that doesn't prove that P&G were able to make a suit of their own themselves or any of the other points i've brought up. You aren't even trying, kiddo.
And you can because you do. haha.
They didn't have to "make it themselves" entirely now did they? And are you denying that Patterson had considerable artistic skill?
Pic related: Wildman makeup for a movie from 1920. I guess you're going to tell me that it's not the Patterson creature. How pedantic. I guess then you're going to tell me, as good as that 1920 makeup looks it's still not possible for ape costume technology to advance in the following 47 years up to the filming of the PG film?
Why are you people so desperate to hold on to your modern day leprechaun myth?
Tell that to the experts who researched it including biologists and scientists. You haven't researched the topic or even bothered to watch introductory films or documentaries on it, the easy stuff. It's not worth having a debate with you or people like you on /x/ except out of sheer boredom.
>yeti/sasquatch/big feets =demonic. check the missing 411 stuff.
>muh campfire stories
That's another costume that would look exactly like the BBC recreation >>17198754 you're not going to find a costume that can compare to the patterson figure and there's a very simple reason for that but you can't accept it.
>bigfoot is an inter-dimensional sub-species of homo capensis with an advanced from of dolphin-based sonar.
Tell that to the experts who researched it including biologists and scientists. You haven't researched the topic or even bothered to watch introductory films or documentaries on it, the easy stuff.
You mean like scientist jeff meldrum who insisted the the prints at bluffcreek show a unique anatomical feature called a "midtarsal break" but, he failed to do even a simple null hypothesis experiment to prove it wrong?
that's ok. because pic related, this guy did. guess what looks like a midtarsal break? a guy walking with a big fake foot strapped to the bottom of his shoe.
>What do you personally get out of not believing in anything?
Reality. But seriously you don't believe everything you hear of either. It's not a hard concept. Personally I would love for cryptozoology to be real but blind belief won't make it real.
Stop being intentionally thick. It means the idea that the bluff creek footprints show a previously unknown animal with a "mid-tarsal break" is pretty dubious considering that the same effect is created with a board strapped to a dudes foot. Had Meldrum actually been doing science instead of bigfoot fanboy bullshit, he would have known that right off the bat.
Let's think about this rationally.if they exist why do we not have any sound evidence? What point would there be to hiding the existence of big foot? If so many people have seen him while hunting why has one never been caught when hunters can somehow manage to shoot all sorts of animals, from bears to moose to deer to bobcats? Its not like he's found in the Amazon where it's hard to document every animal. If Bigfoot exists it would be the only species not documented in the areas it's been spotted in. I mean, rationally you have to believe there is no bigfoot, because all you have to support him is one original sighting followed by hoaxes inspired by the original sighting, which could have been a bear or a man in a costume or an alcohol or drug induced dilusion. All logic leads to no bigfoot. If you're still questioning it's existence then you have been wronged by your education. This isn't like aliens. There's no reason for anyone to hide this, and there's no way they just are that good at hiding.
there's nothing blind about the people who have had experiences with these things. this is a biological creature, it's not some phantom monster. you're going to always be a skeptic because nobody will convince you, no footage, no matter how good. And what does it matter, youll probably live in a comfortable city for your entire life and always be far far away from any of those sighting spots. just sit there in your chair in front of your computer and think that's reality.
I thought we were talking about the figure shown on the Patterson footage? There are more experts than Meldrum who have examined it and believe it's a real creature. You would know this if you had bothered to research.
>people who have had experiences with these things
You choose to believe them with no other proof. Other people need more. Simple as that.
>just sit there in your chair in front of your computer and think that's reality.
That's some real hypocrisy here. We are all using a internet device to communicate here.
Oh noes a typo. The point stands.
The faked footprint posted here >>17199064 looks nothing like those collected at Bluff Creek.
and don't surprised when there is no such thing as bigfoot or leprechauns or gray aliens probing people's anuses.
The only scary, dangerous monsters you're likely to encounter in the woods are other people. True fact.
This is what happens when someone doesn't set out intending to fake a midtarsal break. Looks like shit right? That's because faked footprints look like shit. The footprints at Bluff Creek didn't look fake and were never proven to be fake. Just like it was never proven to be a man in a suit.
Where is the fake costume that made the fake footprints? Why can't we make any costumes like the patterson creature today? You're trying to steer the conversation away from the footage at the mention of experts who examined it and declared it a real creature on film.
Why are fedoras always so eager to discuss "beliefs" instead of objectively talk about something? It's because you aren't as logical as you pretend to be. You operate on religious dogma, not science. That's why you use the word belief more than any supposed "true believer".
the point the anon made was about the mid-tarsal break moron. not that the prints are the same. you're an idiot if you can't see the similarity. also, you're gullible as fuck if you think that's actually a footprint of a living creature.
>film's a female bigfoot
Jesus christ. Fedoras are actually retarded. You would rather "believe" in badly written conspiracy theories that read like they were written by someone who never graduated highschool than just talk about things in an objective and honest manner. That's because these topics go beyond the paranormal or science for you, they are matters of personal ego and an inherent need to feel superior and intelligent. But holy shit
>film's a bigfoot
Again >>17198838 asked and it was answered.
Also you need a need a new insult. You saying fedora ever other post.
The only proof is some eye witness, some disputed footage and disputed footprints.
>the experts who researched it including biologists and scientists
If they're an expert then they don't actually find anything but stories. So, who are you referring to? Also, "scientists" is pretty vague when specifying the types of experts, and a biologist is a type of scientist so it was redundant to say that.
There are some people who actually are experts in some relevant field of science who also support the theory that big foot exists. Like the guy who made $60,000 off of a tour before revealing his bigfoot was a prop. Or the kids who got $50,000 for a frozen bit of plastic and nylon. Or, my favorite, the guy who says, "there is no scientific evidence that bigfoot exists, but I believe he exists."
So, where so they live? What do they eat? How many are there? Why have we never found one dead, or killed one, or caught one alive? How long do you think one generation can live?
Hey, smart guy. The point being made in the graphic is that Patterson must be the luckiest man to ever live. It's sure amazingly coincidental that a man obsessed with "wildmen" writes and illustrates a book on the topic featuring drawings of female bigfoot with big hairy tits, then exactly a year later FILMS THE SAME CREATURE.
These facts are in no way suspicious to you, right?
You could just as easily repeat to me "where is the body" and I would acknowledge there is no body. Being mortally afraid of not "winning" an argument is why fedoras are fedoras. Not scientists.
[mass noun] Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement: you will be asked to give proof of your identity
I didn't claim any of that just telling the meaning of words.
an argument could be made that the one on the left is actually more believable. at least on that one you can't see the obvious seams like on the patterson film.
>These facts are in no way suspicious to you, right?
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Here's a more important question. Where is the suit and why can't we create one like it today?
Show me muscle flexion. Until then the Patterson "suit" is superior. The suit on the left looks like retooled bear costume. Patterson has shiny fur that hugs skin and flexed muscle as she walks. Her calves, thighs and butt flex while walking. And there are no seams. You're resorting to lying now.
>where someone is stupid enough to use the phrase "film's a female bigfoot" as long as it supports their argument.
So, you're dismissing the timeline facts because of an apostrophe? Facts are pretty easy to confirm independently, you know.
>I didn't claim any of that just telling the meaning of words.
It's okay to speak in generalities on an anonymous message board. Those claiming it's a suit have no proof. Just like there is no proof that bigfoot exists in the form of a body, there is no proof that the patterson creature is a man in a suit.
If you're comfortable making your arguments with 7th grade level writing that's fine. Just pointing out the fact that you're a fedora. You don't have the scruples you pretend you do. I can admit there is no proof of Bigfoot, only evidence. You can't admit that there is no proof of a man in a suit. You are insisting on "beliefs" and posting shoddy jpegs with arguments by other fedoras who can't spell properly. This isn't how science works.
Where is the muscle flexion on that other suit? Do you have footage of it moving? That other suit looks like a carpet wrapped around a person. Show me moving muscles like the Patterson film demonstrates.
Sorry. The truth hurts. You should have higher standards about what things you use to support your arguments.
Patterson film - 1967 - if a costume, would have been produced privately. Costume would include rubber feet with intricate toes, breast, etc.
Planet of the Apes - 1968 - Hollywood quality production with 2 million dollar production budget.
How is the Patterson Bigfoot's costume better...
I don't really see how they look alike, the drawing has much saggier and less full breasts, and thicker hair on its head than the rest of its body. If you are attempting to imply that Roger's artistic interpretation of what a Bigfoot looks like means that the film is a hoax, you have to forget that correlation does not mean causation, and that you are connecting two things that have nothing to do with each other at all save for both works being related to Sasquatch
>No, it is evidence. If you want to disprove that evidence you need to prove that it's a man in a suit. You will never be able to prove that.
Evidence of what?
Also, it's not necessary to "disprove" someone else's claim. In this case, the claim is that the PG film shows an unknown bipedal primate. This claim can't be substantiated or proven. Therefor, the film is inconclusive. And as a result, not affirmative evidence for the claim.
>People think they look realistic
>Looks so inorganic that it looks like an astronaut boot with toes
>People actually fall for this and use is as evidence of hoaxing
>People who like to side with and actively feed trolls
teenage boys anonymously arguing about bigfoot online, lol
>Using logic and critical thinking
>Basing discussion on truth and facts, not emotions and random blind beliefs
>Asking for scientific evidence
This is "talking out of your ass"
lol, ok. yeah sure kid.
>getting so upset that you literally started reporting posts
Is it so hard to just step away from a topic? Topics like this are not healthy for autists. Nobody is trying to force you to believe anything. If you can't handle internet discussions you shouldn't be on the internet.
Wow. Seems like every 3rd or fourth bigfoot thread really brings out the die-hard true-believer 'footer crowd. They're even more desperate than the gray alien and monuments on Mars gang.
It must be tough when you live in the age of instant communication and 24 hour access to information yet still believe in fairies and wood nymphs.
Learn it, you little charmer.
No picture I can understand but no remains? No bones?
There are so many people out actively looking for Sasquatches and none have have clear evidence of one live or dead.
Unless it's a supernatural creature the odds are just too low.
The lack of bones is something that is hard to explain, but judging by how intelligent it is made out to be by various sources, it should be safe to theorize that the bones are either buried or taken away by other animals, or even used for making tools
>Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?
Because the woods are a massive fucking place and camping trips usually take place somewhere much less natural than Borneo.
Watch Bigfoot's Reflection. They explain it all well.
Just like natives in America, Tibet, etc. regard Bigfoot-type creatures as real
Nature wastes nothing, anon. Bones are moved away from their original location within days of death, sometimes within hours depending on which species are local
There are shitloads of investigation teams out in every forest in North America and not one has actually found any evidence whatsoever or filmed a bigfoot since OPs picture years ago. Lots of hoaxes have been exposed though. There is no bigfoot and you dont find it funny how all the people who say they saw one are toothless moonshine inebriated hicks?
if someone were to place bait into the living room of your house you'd fucking know it was there. why can't the same apply to them? deep woods are their territory, not ours. We put a fucking obvious electronical box on a tree with a lazer pointing out of it and we expect they'll just walk right up to it for a selfie? are you fucking stupid?
Since we know suits can (and did at the time), exist, it is wholly illogical to force the non believers to prove that it was a suit. I could see if the concept of a suit had never existed at that time for some reason, but they in fact did.
That's cool. We know giant apes can and did at one time exist, so I guess we can stop trying to prove that they still exist. If you don't believe they can exist because nobody is showing you the physical specimen as proof, we can believe there is no suit because nobody has ever shown it as physical proof and they can't even make one. Do you have a problem with this?
I think people choose to believe whatever makes them most comfortable. They really want to believe it's possible that the creature was a man in a suit and really don't want to believe that these things exist and that we've already filmed them. Even if they can't prove such a suit can exist or ever existed, they will do anything to avoid acknowledging that something exists that they weren't taught about in school growing up as children. That's just how some people's minds work.
It is far more logical to assume that it was a human in a suit rather than some giant ape creature. If I filmed my dick painted green with googly eyes glued to it and told you it was an alien, would you believe it? Or would it just be more logical to assume it was my cock that I filmed?
>It is far more logical to assume that it was a human in a suit rather than some giant ape creature.
Not some giant ape creature, a type of giant ape that has already been proven to exist in the past and could very well still exist. The only real proof you need to believe them is a body or for mainstream science to declare they're real. You may never get that proof. Nobody honestly cares whether you believe they exist or not. What you do believe is that it's a man in a suit yet you have no proof of that. You believe what makes you most comfortable.
>You may never get that proof. Nobody honestly cares whether you believe they exist or not. What you do believe is that it's a man in a suit yet you have no proof of that. You believe what makes you most comfortable.
This could be applied to you as well.
>Why? If they're real, then why?
Does it matter? Just believe they aren't real, it's the more sensible conclusion anyway. Stop worrying about it. You're on a paranormal message board. The way you're ending your posts with shitposting indicates you're taking this all too seriously.
I don't wanna believe in it, but I kind of do
too many testimonies only known among close friends and families. Yet they legit believe their own story
that patterson film freaked me out too. You can see it's muscles, firm and define. Inhuman skeletal frame, and uneven patches of hair
b4 ape costume, keep in mind most are overly hair so you can't see the frame or muscles. Too keep it from being obviously human. Even in the op you can see the calf muscle and its insertion points. This is fucking bananas
Your explanation further proves OPs pic is a hoax.If theyre so smart that they can sense people in their vicinity then how did that video get filmed ?? You cant have it both ways retard.Now STFU and go drink your moonshine.
Hey shitbird, that was the first time they'd probably even seen a film camera. They can't LITERALLY vanish into thin air. And it's the ONLY case where one is on film, and the last.
Fairies and wood nymphs dont exist. Bigfoot DOES exist you hear me, the muscle on the tigh, the dispropotionate arms, the credibility and expertise of patterson, all those are HARD EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EEVIDEEENCEE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENBCEE, EVIDDDDDD
Thing on pic anatomy of human.
Red guy is manlet
They only first got video of pandas in the wild a few years ago, and those fucking things are stupid and clumsy as hell. So it doesn't surprise me that the only real pics or vids we have of supposed bigfoot are just blobsquatches. The majority of sightings happen very quickly, and most people can't get their camera up and running in time to catch an image of it.
object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist even when you aren't looking at them.
not the same as not believing something exists because you've never seen it in the first place.
I think we can safely conclude that there is a remote possibility that such a creature could exist in the pacific northwest on into canada but, the patterson film is an intentional hoax and can't be used as any kind of evidence.
god dammit stop trying to shift the burden of proof you fuckign thick headed plebian.
BURDEN OF PROOF is on the fucktards claiming the film shows a real living bigfoot.
it's your job to prove its real. not our job to disprove it ya dumbfuckin cuck.
Experts often offer conflicting statements. A day in any courtroom will tell you this.
Its a really interesting video, but you'd be jumping the gun to treat it as irrefutable based solely on the words of experts.
The only way Bigfoot works at this point is if there's something supernatural about it. I've heard people talk about Bigfoot being some sort of mystical interdimensional thing. Last person I heard that from also believed that vaccines caused autism so make of it what you will. There are references to big, hairy man-creatures of the wild in native american lore but that seems like the kind of myth that arises naturally so who knows
Why has nobody found hard evidence of bigfoot? No bones, no scat, not even ecological evidence. What is a 400kg ape eating in North American forests? Why can't we see an ecological footprint?
>Why can't we see an ecological footprint?
annnd. this is the final question to which there is no rational answer. after that, we're into interdimensional dolphin sonar bigfoot homo capensis elongated skull aliens lloyd pye territory.
If you accept that the Patterson footage is real, then what? What changes?
You've still got a supposed creature out there which apparently never eats, never shits, never dies and has never been captured despite 10s of thousands of people searching for it for decades.
How do you "classify" this animal if it cannot be studied?
The PotA costumes consist of ape heads and Star Trek alien-style clothing and hand-makeup. The few times we see nekkid apes, they look like fake fur unconvincingly stapled to union-suits.
If Patty is a suit, it's a full-body, with arm and facial prostheses, and a spandex muscle suit under the fur suit. Not sure how widespread spandex was in the late 60s.
The best ape-man suits that Hollywood had were for 2001:ASO, and those look like shit compared to Patty.
Wait, did they get rid of the word filter?
I tend to think it's real, I wouldn't say that I believe in its existence, but I think that such a creature is real because truth can be stranger than fiction and that whatever opinions we have on a subject have little to no influence on whether such an organism had evolved in nature
I'm almost positive that's from that idiotic movie, Strange Wilderness.