Hey /x/. Im new here. I would just like to know what everyones

>>17179518
>Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?

I don't know, OP. Maybe because it's a fucking hoax.

>>17179525
/thread

Just a small localized cloud of swamp gas.

>>17179525
Bullshit. Theyre out there man. They just have portals. They are interdimensional beings! protecting 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.

>>17179558
>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.

>>17179568
wat

>>17179597
huh?

>>17179518
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.

>>17179577
You mean like Leprechauns? Man, I fucking hate those things.

>>17179670
I've heard they're even a problem in space.

File: BOREAL FOREST 4.jpg (596KB, 800x471px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 800x471px

>>17179518
>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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

Obviously they're using the deep woods as cover.
Only one thing left to do.
AGENT ORANGE

>>17179518
It's a fucking gorilla you retarded cunt

>>17181721
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.

>>17179518
I'm Yetinsyny.

>>17181721
You're right. I only call out certain bullshit, as long as said bullshit pertains to Bigfoot.

Are you retarded?

>>17179518
Bigfoot = old and busted
Dogmen = the new hotness


Both are very real.

My grandma was face to face with bigfoot once. Except my grandma is short and hes tall. So it was more like face to crotch.

>>17181980
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.

>>17181817
Tell me about dogmen! This is new to me.

File: 71AGJZ6xAOL.jpg (150KB, 884x1000px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 884x1000px

>>17181864
And then as to mouth. Hawt.

File: skunk-ape.jpg (22KB, 350x354px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 350x354px

>>17179518
>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.

File: 53e1c524b30fe.image.jpg (24KB, 300x280px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x280px

>>17183462

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.

>>17183468
Thats more terrifying then any bigfeets

>>17181731
Gorillas arent shaped like that you fucking stone

>>17179518

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.

>>17183734
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.

>>17179525
>No clear picture
>It must be a hoax
>Just like the existence of people who know fuck nothing about computers or photography

>>17183462
That thing has a nose so small that it makes Michael Jackson look like a Jew

>>17183855

How can you tell? It seems to be wearing those fronds as a mustache or something.

>>17184684
I saw a bit of a nose behind one of the blades of grass

>>17179518
>Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?
Watch Bigfoot's Reflection. It explains all of it well.

>>17180335
>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.

File: image.jpg (895KB, 770x665px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 770x665px

All I gotta' say is dat he's my spirit animal...

File: mission-dam.jpg (61KB, 620x395px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 620x395px

>>17184938

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dusOMElGcH0

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.

>>17182025
Buckle up
https://youtu.be/OXi6Umu6pWg

>>17185458
Also it's mind boggling /x/ isn't talking more about dogmen sightings. They're the new thing right now and scary af.

>>17179518

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.

>>17183462
>>17183468

Skunk apes are spooky dooky. Wasn't it called that because it stunk like hell, as well?

>>17185601
Of course it smelled bad, it was in florida

>>17185582
>Easily faked
>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

File: giphy (2).gif (556KB, 400x278px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 400x278px

>>17185680
It's still highly unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just wouldn't bet on it.

>>17185582
Corroborated evidence is enough to put people behind bars, but not enough to confirm a new creature? So retarded.

>>17185741
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.

oooooh, /x/, it's me! Bigface. Come out and groom my mangy fur.

>>17185708
I think I recognize that gif from some porn

>>17185974
it's chewbacca's son

>>17185774
How is it really any different, faggot?

>>17179518
>Why the fuck has nobody caught a clear picture of a big ass ape creature walking in the woods?
Uh, did you not see the pic related?

>>17186008
Here's a real creepypasta

What if they make a new Star Wars holiday special?

>>17186134
>Clear
>Not focused properly
>blurry
>shaky
>for ants
>clear

pick one

>>17186226
Higher resolution is not the same as sharp, and you need to face the facts, the picture isn't clear, the trees are sharper than the subject

>>17181990
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.

>>17183486
They're the same fucking thing. You'd know that if it weren't for autism.

>>17185472
For real. You guys love things that have absolutely no evidence. You guys wouldn't have a single shill show up. Sounds fun. Go roleplay it.

>>17186412
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

>>17186442

And what's wrong with roleplaying? This is /tg/, isn't it?

>>17183468
wasnt this an orangutan?

>>17179518
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.

>>17183462
>>17183468

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIwvOiSZrr0

>>17186442
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

>>17188137

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.

requesting all videos and photos that /x/ believes to be legit bigfeets. I'm a skeptic who wants to believe so show me the best the internet has to offer.

>>17190185
the P&G film is literally all you need. it's also all there is really. You gotta go into youtube and find shit yourself.

File: Yowie-1-2-480x788.jpg (136KB, 480x788px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 480x788px

>>17179518
Bigfoot is ahoax to distract people from the real threat.

Yowies.

>>17190295
yowies are REAL. please, if your in australia dont go out into the forests. these thing are real and they WILL kill you.

>>17186427
Well the ape in the picture is actually real thats what makes it scarier then a made up ape you fucking faggot

>>17190295
>>17190572
Yowies, even the word itself, do not exist. They are complete bullshit spread by Rex Gilroy in the 70's.

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?
https://youtu.be/wTsdbKUwenI

>>17190295
>>17190572
>>17190874
Idiots, the lot of you. Dropbears are the real threat.

>>17186205
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.

>>17190295
is that mf doom

>>17190572
yowies? no
abbos? absolutely

File: abkabkabk.png (51KB, 556x424px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 556x424px

>>17192171
sure bud

>>17191110
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

>>17186412
Holy shit.
This dude is hilarious.
The Patterson Footage is a dude in a monkey suit.
You should go try to get laid bro.
Do you think the moon landing was a hoax also?

Time for me to ramble a bit

>>17179663
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.
>>17180335
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.

>>17179518
anyone who hunts for big foot probably also wears socks with sandals. Bigfoot isn't real, Patterson footage was fake as fuck.

rolling rolling

>>17179663
It's literally just a fucking guy in a suit. It's from a movie. Stop looking into it so much

>>17196208
>It's literally just a fucking guy in a suit.
Got proof?

>>17179663
>>17196030

This.

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.

>>17179518
"BURDEN OF PROOF" MOTHERFUCKERS !
fucking google it. then kindly fuck off back to making your usual troll rping reddit threads

>>17196750
>talking about bigfoot is rping
You need to leave.

>>17196237
you want proof?

how about zero fucking bigfoots anywhere ever and it looks like a fucking bloke in a suit

jesus christ m8

>>17197125
The other anon is a dick but you need to up your reading comprehension

>>17198221
>you want proof?
Yeah let's see proof that it was a man in a suit. Do you have any proof that it was a man in a suit?

>>17198246
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.

>>17196750
The OP is being skeptical about Bigfoot you retard. You fedoras are so aggressive.

>>17198256
If you want to believe it's a man in a suit without having any evidence to support that belief that's your decision.
>you win
I don't care about winning arguments on the internet. I'm not a fedora.

>>17198275
burden of proof m8

its your burden to PROVE bigfoot exists, it is no ones burden to prove a crappy old film is a bloke in a suit lrn2science m8

>>17198279
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".

>>17198301
kek

enjoy your delusions never being confirmed because they are just that... delusions

>>17198279
>it is no ones burden to prove a crappy old film is a bloke in a suit
If you're going to claim it's a man in a suit why can't you back it up with anything?

>>17198325
I don't need to back up shit.

If you are claiming its an unidentified ape then please go ahead prove it.

>>17198331
>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.

>>17198342
>research
>opinions

confirmed for not being able to prove shit

>>17198358
Expert research and opinions from real scientists and people with reputations in their field. What do you have? Nothing. You're just a fedora.

>>17198377
Real scientists? Oh this ought to be good.

Look... why is a world without bigfoot such a bad thing?

Oh and nice ad hominen

File: fightme.gif (497KB, 500x240px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 500x240px

>>17198385

>>17198399
I was willing to be shown wrong... never mind... no bigfoot it is

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film#Bernard_Heuvelmans

>>17198403
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.

>>17198429
wtf is a "fedora"

>>17198426
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?

File: Loser.jpg (32KB, 583x601px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 583x601px

>>17198432

>>17198432
Someone with autism and StopLikingWhatIDontLike.jpeg personality disorders

>>17198434
>As for "plenty" of scientific and film "personnel" claiming it's real, not one of them has been able to prove it.

See you can see from both ways,

>>17198434
because no one cares enough to

>>17198473
Of course I can. But that's because I'm not a fedora.

>>17198246
you bigfoot cucks simply refuse to understand the concept of "Burden of Proof'

kill yourselfs

>>17198535
Getting emotional isn't the way to have a debate.

>>17198535
anything to keep the monkey man myth alive right?

>>17198519
>Of course I can.

From your posting it really doesn't seem that way.

>>17183462
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.

>>17198568
Read the thread before posting.

>>17198580
I did. It's quite clear.

>>17198591
Read it again.
>>17198429
>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.

>>17196030
I'd also add- primates have mostly bare tits, not hairy. So the tits don't add proof, but subtract.

>>17198598
>Because I'm not a faggot.

There's no evidence for that conclusion.

>>17198634
Tryhard/10

File: Roe-Patterson-composite-600-px-tiny-Sept-2014-Darren-Naish-Tetrapod-Zoology.jpg (130KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 600x463px

>>17196030
>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.

ahem...

>>17198659
>hard

See you already started with the sexy talk.

>>17198671
That's nice. So where is the suit or something comparable?

File: 1966patterson4gp.jpg (33KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x374px

>>17196030
>>17198671


>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.

>>17198602
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.
See
>>17198671

>>17198692
Where is the suit or something comparable?

>>17198692
>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.

File: Homo Capensis.jpg (141KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x800px

>>17198703
>>17198684

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

File: recreatecostume.jpg (44KB, 460x339px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x339px

>>17198736
>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.

File: b11c42dbee339da4fd7e5388b4d89762a11549d0.jpg (91KB, 692x376px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 692x376px

>>17198741
>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.

>>17198741
>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.

There are worse things than bigfeets out there. You guys cannot begin to comprehend.

https://youtu.be/SpKXuMjGKlA?t=37m40s

>>17198770
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.

>>17198754
pop quiz: how many times did patterson make trips down to hollywood prior to shooting the PG film?

>>17198770
>a mask is an entire suit

you sure got me there, retard.

>>17198770
What is this even? Where is the suit? Anyone can make wild claims about how something was done but where is the evidence or proof?

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....

>>17198783
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?

>>17198783
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?

>>17185680
Your theory is more complex than a simple no.

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?

File: Art Miles.jpg (41KB, 511x640px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 511x640px

>>17198754
>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...

File: 41ZJLh87rgL._SX342_.jpg (13KB, 342x256px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 342x256px

>>17198850
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.

>>17198838
>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.

>>17198872
>Your picture would look like a I don't
Your picture would look like a feather duster at best. Mangled that post.

>>17198872
>Patterson creature had fur hugging it's skin and flexing with muscles.

It's not possible to see that level of detail in the Patterson Film. It's wishful thinking at best.

>>17198912
you can't because you don't want to.

>>17198850
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.

File: 14ujfo3.gif (157KB, 657x492px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 657x492px

You true believers are so desperate.

File: 41-bullmontanaas-ape-6.jpg (47KB, 331x432px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 331x432px

>>17198921
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?

>>17198912
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.

File: David_Paulides1.jpg (330KB, 501x503px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 501x503px

>>17198792
>yeti/sasquatch/big feets =demonic. check the missing 411 stuff.

>muh campfire stories

>>17198935
>busting out the mspaint pictures again
Please no.

Like holy fuck


Do any of you know how evolution works

Can you not FUCKING see why something like this isn't even possible

My God.

>>17198963
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.

>>17199000
Fedora 5000 mode engaged.

File: paracasdo.jpg (2MB, 1575x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1575x2100px

>>17198736
>bigfoot is an inter-dimensional sub-species of homo capensis with an advanced from of dolphin-based sonar.

File: IMG_4981[1].jpg (307KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 600x400px

>>17198986
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.

>>17198838
>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.

>>17199064
>fake footprints look like footprints
And?

>>17199113
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.

>>17179577
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.

>>17199140
There was a time when people thought that gorillas were a myth. It took 52 years for them to be discovered and classified.

>>17199152
To be fair a lot of that was do to them being on another continent.

>>17199095
>blind belief

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.

>>17199137
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.

>>17199172
>do to them
>do

>>17199365
>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.

>>17199390
Oh noes a typo. The point stands.

>>17179518
http://abc13.com/news/sasquatch-spotted-in-north-carolina/910106/

>>17199405
>Oh noes a typo.
Do and due are two completely different words.

>>17199405
>You choose to believe them with no other proof. Other people need more.
Don't tell other people what they do and do not believe. This is why nobody takes fedoras seriously.

>>17199389
That's where the prints are from you dumbass.

>>17199423
Eh the guy originally asked why people don't believe. I told him. Believe what ever you want just don't be surprised when other people don't share them.

File: post-37-023111500 1287472453.jpg (19KB, 327x196px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 327x196px

>>17199425
The faked footprint posted here >>17199064 looks nothing like those collected at Bluff Creek.

>>17199433
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.

File: post-37-068293700 1287472509.jpg (181KB, 420x600px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 420x600px

>>17199064
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.

>>17199425
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.

>>17199433
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".

File: patterson_1966drawing_with_tits.jpg (93KB, 844x556px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 844x556px

>>17199441
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.

>>17199464
>moron
>idiot
>gullible as fuck
>more conspiracy theory pictures
You're losing me.

>>17199453
>Where is the fake costume that made the fake footprints? Why can't we make any costumes like the patterson creature today?

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?

>>17199464
>film's a female bigfoot
>film's
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
>film's

>>17199474
It's nonsense to ask you to prove your claims? Again the fedora shows how they operate outside of the law of science.

>>17199460
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.

>>17199479
Fine. If big foot is real why haven't anyone ever caught or killed one?

>>17198986
>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?

File: childress.jpg (88KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1440x1080px

>>17199477
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?

>>17199499
>repeats mantra to ward off logic.

>>17179518
Lloyd Pye convinced me

>>17199512
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.

>>17199487
[mass noun] Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement: you will be asked to give proof of your identity

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proof?q=Proof

>>17199513
I didn't claim any of that just telling the meaning of words.

File: morrissuit.jpg (113KB, 500x306px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x306px

>>17199499
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.

>>17199500
>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?

>>17199523
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.

>>17199513
>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.

>>17199522
>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.

>>17199531
are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't see the seams at the waist and across the upper thigh?

>>17199536
exactly. the film is inconclusive and therefor not "evidence" of anything.

>>17199535
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.

>>17199540
not that anon, but if i say no, i can't see the seams, would you point them out to me?

>>17199549
Your attempts at avoiding the facts by harping on about a typo is very revealing about the real status of your basic argument. It's pathetic.

>>17199540
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.
>>17199559
Sorry. The truth hurts. You should have higher standards about what things you use to support your arguments.

>>17181980
Sure. Thanks cum taster.

>>17199464
>1 year latter
lol

File: 199saf7dqu5b0jpg.jpg (39KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x400px

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...

>>17198692
>>17198716
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

>>17179518
This is the best bigfoot documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkzHZIK5yqs

File: sweetandgentletruthseeker.jpg (72KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x540px

>>17199554
>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.

>>17199516
Cute.

>>17199064
>Fake footprints
>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

>>17199603
You're talking out of your ass.

>>17199513
Continue ignoring the fact that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those claiming bigfoot exists and Patterson film is legit.
Prove it, faggot.
Protip: You can't.

>>17199579
If you can't seriously tell the difference you aren't smart enough to argue with.

Muscles, haha
Remind me of the song fat man in a little jacket.

File: ws2l8sW.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

teenage boys anonymously arguing about bigfoot online, lol

>>17200321
problem?

File: 11201874_565829843572711_6497119738438840835_n.jpg (57KB, 720x546px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x546px

>>17192171

>>17179518
i think it's fake.
there's something off about the face, looks like a balaclava and the footpads look fake, they're light colored and there's something fake about it

>>17199613
>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.

8 seasons of finding bigfoot and zero bigfoots found despite going to all the "hotspots" and where the latest sightings are.

Bigfoot believers on suicide watch

>>17200344
You're a real winner

>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.

File: 1441942385772.jpg (650KB, 1200x880px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 1200x880px

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.

>>17179518
Fun to imagine but there's a 99.9% chance it's a hoax

>>17198535
gr8 b8 m8

File: lf11-burden-of-proof.png (205KB, 1600x1374px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1600x1374px

>>17201717
Learn it, you little charmer.

>>17202071
Get a life faggot.

>>17199523
It is closer, but the biceps are too big, and the legs too thin, as well as the head not being very well defined. desu it looks more like a hairy thumb that forgot about leg day

>>17183849
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.

>>17202071
Fuck off.

The entire purpose of this board is to speculate and discuses things that can't be proven.

>>17202456
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

>>17199152
The people who lived near the gorillas, however, saw them regularly. They were never a myth to them.

>>17179518
>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.

>>17202652
Just like natives in America, Tibet, etc. regard Bigfoot-type creatures as real

>>17202466
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

>>17202911
>I bet you're all atheists, too.
Where the fuck does that come from? I hate an irrational hatred for people like you now.

>>17200632

Have they even found a footprint? Some hair? Maybe some shit?

>>17202934
>I have an irrational

>>17181721
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?

>>17183720
> you fucking stone

lol #rekt

bigfoot never existed

>>17203521
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?

>>17199513
>the only way you can prove it is by providing the suit

lol no

File: giganto3.jpg (54KB, 468x564px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 468x564px

>>17204368

File: 6c7ba71171abdcf59786f420e6609f34.jpg (102KB, 600x882px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x882px

>>17204368

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.

>>17204424
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?

>>17204424
>Since we know suits can (and did at the time), exist

they didn't not even in the same capacity, dude. holy fuck are you blind?

>>17204443
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.

>>17204439
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?

>>17204478
>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.

I'm just saying the people who have nothing better to do than "fake and gay lol" all day on a paranormal board need to fuck off and find somewhere else to get their rocks off.

>>17204488
>You may never get that proof

Why? If they're real, then why?

>You believe what makes you most comfortable

Just like the bigfoot cucks?

>>17181721
>What are you queers trying to hide?

lmao

>>17204488
>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.

>>17204501
>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.

>>17179518
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

File: dead foot.jpg (22KB, 504x266px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 504x266px

he aint not never existed, he just ded

File: multifoot.png (701KB, 468x567px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 468x567px

o shit new sighting

>>17204377
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.

>>17204557
I used to believe in Bigfoot until I started coming to /x/ and reading these morons trying to prove its real.

>>17204810
No one said "people" you shill. Do you even know the story behind the pic? Besides, anything can be caught off guard

>>17204847
Dont leave that tinfoil on your head too long, it causes split ends and will give you a nasty case of dandruff.

>>17204847
>anything can be caught off guard
Go on.

>>17204558
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvYeLxMKN8

>>17204558
From?

>>17204698
kek

>>17204810
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.

>>17192170
Hearty kek

>>17199016
You are fedora 9000 plus model "truth is out there"

>>17199549
So you know how sience works. Shame no impotant or relevant scientist believes in bigfoot.

>>17201651
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

>>17204698
Those light reflectins those tighs, those muscles flexing with life!!!

File: IMG_20160112_104458.jpg (44KB, 297x348px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 297x348px

Thing on pic anatomy of human.
Red guy is manlet

Orion's bros say they're multidimensional beings.
5 : 30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqL_QpIwbIw

>>17179518
There was a documentary about this

Got monkey?

Has anyone here heard of the term "object impermanence?" I think it could be used to describe why some people write off the subject entirely

>>17198754
Why did they make the fur color completely wrong on purpose?
If this was a legit attempt to recreate, why did they deliberately make it the wrong color?

>>17179525

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.

>>17212095
Russell's teapot is more apt.

>>17181741
>You're just a fucking butthurt faggot

That is not a real big foot there was man under that suit.
And the people who shot the video pay him money to do so

>>17213660
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.

File: 1452702507047.png (212KB, 741x747px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 741x747px

>>17198671

>bigfoot bewbs

File: relic_population.png (112KB, 280x345px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 280x345px

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.

>>17198716
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.

>>17186226
Love that gif, but really makes it look fake.

>>17179663
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.

>>17198692
Really, 'bro'- Im assuming you have a source for that claim, right?

File: B^U.jpg (7KB, 186x213px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 186x213px

>>17185680
>getting mad at "science"

>>17179518
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

People reported seeing a skunk ape in florida. not a "bigfoot" but an ape. im open to the idea a few monkeys are left roaming the empty vast forests

>>17196030
>Being 1967, this wouldn't happen as sex was culturally taboo.
This sentence is retarded for a couple of reasons

>>17198434
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?

>>17179518
Did you even see Harry and the Hendersons?

>>17202466
Porcupines eat bones for the minerals.

>>17215178
yes. patterson's own book, "bro."

File: lloydps.jpg (733KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1280x720px

>>17215214
>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?

>>17215153
That is why they shook it up when filming.

>>17214997
>COMPUTER! ENHANCE IMAGE!

>>17198671
>>17198692
Well shit, that kinda seals it for me.
So long, losers! I'm gonna go hang out in the woods which I am no longer afraid of.

>>17215348
theres still like.. bears.. wolves and hungry coyotes and shit..

>>17199579

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.

>>17202911

I am, but I'm also from the country.

>>17214997
>I think we can safely conclude that my opinion is the right opinion
K

>>17185680
"science" doesn't have feelings. "science" is a method of study and nothing observable is beyond it

>>17215113
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

>>17215472
>The best ape-man suits that Hollywood had were for 2001:ASO, and those look like shit compared to Patty.

hyperbole.

File: Strange-Wilderness-Poster-jonah-hill-5652025-810-1200.jpg (587KB, 810x1200px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 810x1200px

>>17207022
I'm almost positive that's from that idiotic movie, Strange Wilderness.

>>17217073
Yeah, they murdered bigfoot, then made it look like he hung himself in his cave...while full of bullet holes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbW1L_pJvpw