2 Things

>>16930543
Have you seen the stabilized version?
Have you read about Patterson?
The second missing reel?

I wouldn't claim that the Patterson-Gimlin footage is real.

>How can this be?
>Did this bigfoot tell all the other cryptids to avoid getting caught on camera?
>This makes no sense at all. Cameras are everywhere. There should be countless videos of undeniable paranormal encounters.

You just answered your own question man. What are the odds that some random dude captured Bigfoot on camera decades ago with a shitty camera, and then countless other people decades after with better quality cameras are unable to capture it?

The Patterson film is not real.

It's a real video of a guy in a sasquatch suit complete with fake hairy tiddies

I know you won't believe this but I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is no species of ape men. What I do not know however, is what we are looking at.

>>16930543
Theres actually dozens of encounters filmed. You've just never heard of them.

Heres one, the Freeman footage:
http://youtu.be/rMR05mVRZMs

Can deliver more if people are interested.

>>16930802
>>16930899

The proportions of the upper to lower arm show it's literally impossible for it to be a human in a suit.

Also you can see thigh muscles twitch.

>>16931011
sure

>>16931014
Repeating the standard shit all Bigfoot fetishists say, how original.

When it turns to face the camera, arms look normal for a human. And the quality of the film isn't that great, you can't see a difference between a muscle twitch or a fur suit glare/shine. It's gait is what gives it away that it's a human.

>>16930543
Graham Roumieu wrote the best book on Bigfoot and I think his explanation makes sense. Look it up if you are interested. Think about it like this: in 2008 125,000 Western lowland gorillas were found living in a swamp in the Congo. If we can miss a population of 125,000 of a known creature for centuries, what does that say about a few thousand (all you'd need for a breeding population) of "Bigfoots" in an equally remote area?

>>16931355
The difference is that we've actually found these gorillas. Meanwhile every year for the past tens of years there have been countless people spending countless years specifically searching for this Bigfoot and no good evidence of it has been found.

bigfoot isn't paranormal at all, it's mostly an urban legend that stems from the fact other species of hominid were still extant around the time human civilization was starting to form and become dominant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

>>16931486
it would be easy for intelligent/evolved primates to evade detection in an expansive rural habitat that they are familiar with while the people hunting them are not. Read Roumieu if you want the theory in whole.

>>16930882
B b b but it has boobies

File: bigfeets.jpg (59KB, 925x601px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 925x601px

>>16931014
>The proportions of the upper to lower arm show it's literally impossible for it to be a human in a suit
yeah sure thing buddy.

>>16930988
Well no shit. Ask any Native American about squatches. They'll tell you they are human.

>>16931953
That picture proves nothing

File: MothdansGimlinSignature.jpg (286KB, 1757x941px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1757x941px

>>16930543
>The Patterson/Gimlin footage is real

I'm alright with that. I know researchers who both agree and disagree however. Although, the ones who agree it's real are actual professors and have citations etc. I think other people are just uncomfortable with the idea that the existence of Bigfoot was nearly proven by two men who had set out to prove it and simply got what they wanted, whereas thousands of other squatchers throughout history had no such luck, or if they did, nobody believed them or gave their footage as much credence as they gave the PGF.

>There has not been a legitimate paranormal encounter caught on film since.

I'm alright with that as well but you'll never get me to give up muh ghosts and UFOs. I'm also inclined to believe Bigfeet have been caught on camera since but that the footage simply wasn't as good as the PGF encounter, or we've already been desensitized to it as a species and would rather believe everything is a hoax. And maybe it is.

Pic related is my Bob Gimlin signature. He still laughs about skeptics because he knows there's no way to convince them. There has yet to be a costume created by anyone that can replicate the Patterson creature, many men claimed to be the man in the suit and had no evidence or couldn't point out the location of the filming at Bluff Creek (Gimlin had to show them), the most convincing person to come forward passed a lie detector test on Fox News claiming he was the Patterson costume wearer but still couldn't provide a suit or point out the location. It's a pretty messy topic.

In any case I'll be squatching with a camera soon on /x/'s behalf and will be sure to keep you updated! I'll be reviewing sighting locations near me and stuff.

>>16932092
>They'll tell you they are human.

A couple men throughout the decades have claimed to shot and killed Bigfeet and felt sick with guilt because they essentially murdered a "person" in cold blood, except the person was a giant covered in hair. Without evidence, they may as well be lying. Sure makes an interesting story though.

I big fut Ama

>>16932979
Oi, Mothra, little tid bit of information regarding going out "squatching." There was an article posted in a newspaper around Stayton Oregon (late summer-ish 2015) regarding Sasquatches. In it they had a bunch of hearsay about them being psychic or magic and whatnot, but besides all the ridiculous fluff that can't be proven without first proving the existence of Sasquatches they had 1 seemingly good piece of information. The information was to spend 200 consecutive hours on site in an area with frequent Sasquatch sightings and you're almost guaranteed to have an encounter of some kind. Basically try to spend a little more than 8 days camping in an area for potentially guaranteed results.

So keep that in mind Mothra, and try not to get yourself killed too badly.

>>16930543
Different dimension, "bigfoots" are 4th dimensional beings, but they do get caught and seen by humans in our 3rd dimension.

>>16933761

That's a good amount of time, I doubt many squatchers have done that, everyone seems to just spend a 1-3 nights and move on (like many ghost hunters). Thanks for the tip. If I can afford it, maybe I'll try that this coming spring.

>>16933852

I've heard this as well, in fact I met an author who had experiences with Sasquatch wherein they seemed to move either ridiculously fast or ridiculously slow and the environment around them would change. I also heard about a local Sasquatch sighting which I'll be following up on for /x/ soon with a camera where the man described the Bigfoot as moving "impossibly fast, like a machine". Neither of these people ever openly suggested that the creatures were in a different timespace but it makes you think.

File: powell.jpg (100KB, 800x625px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x625px

Also, I spent some time with Thom Powell who is a science teacher who authored some books on Bigfoot and researches them and he is constantly tip toeing around the fact that Sasquatch can "disappear", but he won't risk his reputation on theorizing why, and that's understandable. Saw him on Joe Rogan's SyFy show a couple years back, which was cool. I also met Cliff Barackman who now has his own show "Finding Bigfoot" on Animal Planet. He won't touch far out theories about Bigfoot with a ten foot pole either. Also understandable.

File: missing map updated.jpg (78KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x480px

>>16932979
i really don't think you will catch it on camera. perhaps it does not work that way. and don't do that stuff alone.

>>16931522
No it would not. We have cameras with thermal vision, night vision.. wireless cameras which got activated by sensors.. Drones... and humans who spend day and night..
Your argument maybe worked 50years ago when 3 guys with their rifles and maybe a hand camera from 50 years ago tried to find it but now? Bigfoot also had to have higher developed equipment to actually have a chance against all our stuff..
hiding behind some trees isn't enough for what we have now

>>16931953
>>16932485
Actually, it shows that the proportions are outside of the Human norm but those who deny it are so reliant on creating a facade that they cite contrary evidence as supporting their claim.

>>16933961
Perceiving different dimensions is difficult to conceptualize. I think of the reality and landscape we inhabit as the Ocean. Different zones harbor creatures with different adaptations and traits, some can only dive so deep and have varying degrees of awareness of different zones.

Dolphins and Whales are arguably a relevant way of thinking about how we relate to Sasquatch. They have similar capacities, both are Cetaceans and they are in the same habitat. A major difference is that Whales have more powerful Sonar and are adapted to diving deeper then Dolphins. What happens when they encounter each other as a Whale rises from the depths and surfaces? Wouldn't they recognize their common heritage despite their different capacities?

A big part of the reason why Whales are able to navigate and access the deep Ocean is because of their greater ability to use sonar.

Suppose Sasquatch have a comparable ability to produce sound and echo-locate that allows them to perceive and enter into different dimensions of land-based space and time then we are commonly aware of?

In which case: We should be able to find physiological traits indicating this. Just as Dolphins and Whales have specialized neurological organs: Sasquatch appears to as well, a common characteristic described and shown on film is an enlarged cranium.

Keep in mind, the effects of sound are something carried down from our most ancient esoteric traditions. Is there evidence that other human species have existed who displayed traits potentially indicative of an evolved capacity to produce and work with sound? Yes and evidence for this faces academic censure and disinformation exactly the same as the topic of Sasquatch.

>>16935261
Ok, I need to stop you right there. First, if Big Foot uses anything like echo location or some special sound communication, you can easily pick that up on sensitive equipment (remember to add that when going out there). It's just a wonder that no one ever mentioned it or caught any kind of strange noise- bat-like or otherwise.

2nd, if Big Foot is a " trans-dimensional" being, then it could appear ANYWHERE at ANYTIME. Not confined to just a wooded area when a single person has no alibi or only has a super shitty camera.

>>16935570
You need to try and stop this line of discussion? That's odd.
There are recordings of Sasquatch vocalizations but as far as I know, no one has attempted to analyze them for unusual frequencies. It would be a form of sonar different from and with more exotic effects then that used by Bat's and Cetacean's. They might not even be in the range of audible frequencies, identifiable as Sasquatch produced, or used in specific circumstances that haven't been captured or witnessed.

>>16935640
>They might not even be in the range of audible frequencies, identifiable as Sasquatch produced, or used in specific circumstances that haven't been captured or witnessed.

>Or, they may not be real at all and i'm just having a wank.

>>16931486

The first issue is that you're attempting to compare apples to oranges and say that the oranges are apples. Keep in mind that what I am saying is completely hypothetical at this point in time, but an organism such as Sasquatch would have a significantly larger brain capacity than a gorilla, so it should stand to reason that a creature with a larger brain would be more easily able to find ways to deal with animals that it would perceive as a predator or threat.

The concept that these creatures can only survive in a very specific climate completely ignores the fact that animals all around the world have adapted to environments that could usually be considered unsuitable for them to normally live in.

The idea that there are not enough resources would mean that other large animals such as moose, deer, bears, cougars, and large birds shouldn't be able to survive either. A skeptic is someone who questions things, they don't simply write things off. What Isee them doing is write off the idea of Bigfoot and cherry pick which species can live where and completely ignore the entire concept of animals adapting to foreign environments, and when they do say that it could exist, they question why eyewitness testimonies all point to a different appearance in different regions, which would be an example of diversity in the species and even genetic mutations.

>literally a fucking gorilla
>so low res it can be easily enhanced

lmao

>>16934426
>i really don't think you will catch it on camera.

That's okay, following up on sightings is fun to put yourself in the same physical spot where someone else saw a sasquatch, or to stand in the area where they claim one was standing. Maybe I'll find footprints someday!

>don't do that stuff alone.
I've spent the majority of my time outdoors alone and have been okay so far, but thanks, maybe I will bring someone with me sometime, we'll see.

My most recent investigation was yesterday and I just went to some places where some old Bigfoot sightings happened near town, also covered the creek that comes from the mountains and goes through the valley that these Sasquatch supposedly followed and possibly lived around.

Thread here
>>16937055

>>16935261

There are certainly researchers in the field who believe after studying sightings or having their own experiences that Sasquatch can emit subsonic sounds which trigger feelings of intense unease. Many sightings include deep rumbling sounds in the earth or even deep mechanical sounds, could be related. Good post.

>>16935570
>you can easily pick that up on sensitive equipment

I've never met a squatcher who brings equipment that can pick up subsonic sounds, but surely there must be a way since nature scientists have recorded elephant subsonic communication with instruments. I guess the trick is actually finding one to be close enough to record it.

>>16937259
I think a big problem is that many people who end up taking pictures of Bigfoot, investigators and researchers included, have little experience in actual photography

>>16937259
i had an idea about photographing one, if you are determined.

bigfoot can detect people and cameras, and then it will hide. that's why nobody gets one on film.


you have to use a long range camera so you would be undetected. and hopefully spot one with its guard down.

>>16937275
This. And shitty consumer grade cameras

>>16930543
it's possible that the creature has gone exinct since then.

Actually in the documentary "Shooting Bigfoot" they interviewed the man who was inside the costume. Its kind of hilarious because they interviewed a scientist that said "It couldn't have been a costume because what person would dress like that during hunting season? They'd get shot." Then they cut to the bug foot man "God, I told them to film it and get it over with quickly. I didn't want to get shot."

He was a normal guy who was asked to do it by the guy who came up with the idea.

The scientist said Bigfoot couldn't be a hoax because no human naturally walks like the video. Except the man who claims he was in the costume. He has a very particular walk that you might find very familiar.

He also has a pear shaped body that matches the Bigfoot body in the video exactly.

The scientist said it couldn't have been a hoax because Bigfoot in the video had dangling boobs and nipples can be seen which is far too detailed to be a costume.

"The costume was hand made by [guy who filmed and planned the hoax]. When I got it, it had fake boobs sewen onto it and nipples. I thought it was weird."

>>16931011
y e s

>>16938028
Read >>16937275

>>16937259
It could explain a lot of the weirder aspects of Sasquatch, such as evidence that they can cloak under certain circumstances. They might not be cloaking as we think of it, these kind of ideas get the woo factor applied but we know sound can do some seriously strange things with physical matter. Cymatics goes into more then just causing sound to create patterns in sand. If you've looked up one of those experiments, keep in mind that the sound-waves are not just interacting with the sand but the entire space in which the frequencies resonate. Furthermore, these are tones being produced by a machine, if cymatics affects physical matter, we can consider it likely that sound produced by a conscious being is going to not only influence It's surrounding but that entities conscious perception as well. Or even the conscious perceptions of other's, I can admit the probability that there are rogue Sasquatch involved in missing person's cases as documented by researches such as David Paulides and Stephanie Young but going over such cases shows that a common thread is an ability to manipulate human perception of time and space to a frightening degree. What if not only are there other species that have the ability to do this using subsonic/infrasound frequencies. What if this capability has been picked up on by black-ops programs that have been testing this technology on civilians using national parks as a testing ground?

>>16938450
Lets trust the claims of someone who produced no proof that they were in a suit on that day as related by an anonymous poster online with no citation. Over the word of those qualified to analyze the footage and determine if it is someone in a suit. Flawless logic everyone, flawless.

You Bigfoot faggots always forget how batshit lucky Paterson (a "Bigfoot buff") was to have caught "Bigfoot" on camera.

>guy who says he's a Bigfoot researcher totally finds Bigfoot and videotapes it
>trolls people for years, knowing they'll be too stupid to see that it's a guy in a suit

I don't necessarily doubt the existence of humanoid creatures other than humans, but the Paterson film is a hoax.

>>16939363
Here we go again . . .

>>16930899
My dad always said it was real because of the tits. "Why would they put tits on the costume!? There's no way they'd think of that! It must be real!"

>>16939422
Apparently, Patterson drew a sketch of a female Sasquatch with breasts in a book, so pseudo-skeptics cite that as proof that he must of faked it. Despite all evidence to the contrary, that's what happens when you don't really have anything definitive to support your argument.

>>16932485
>That picture proves nothing
That's funny, because that's what we've been saying about PG film all along.

>>16939467
The fuck is a pseudo-sceptic? Are you implying they're pretending to not believe in bigfoot?

>>16939204
>Over the word of those qualified to analyze the footage
where do you get a qualification to study bigfoot footage? a lucky packet?

>>16939531
You can get the forms in the back of a comic book.

>>16930543
Hundreds of videos are posted a day to the internet. To say they aren't real jist because they haven't been examined yet is nonsense. Check "Robert Dodson Bigfoot is Pissed" video. This dude has some good footage of a now flooded area of creatures he calls 'bigfoot". They don't look like Bigfoot to me. More like an alien type being.

>Did this bigfoot tell all the other cryptids to avoid getting caught on camera?
Yes, Bigfoot brought it up in that year's cryptid expo. Rumors also say Nessie hooked up with Mothman.

>>16939992
>get BTFO
>have no counter argument
>just repeat what was said and try make it funny "heheh"
>Y,,YES, hehe, he did, heheh

>>16939467
>Despite all evidence to the contrary,
But there is no evidence to the contrary.

>>16939506
pseudo means not really, a pseudo-skeptic would likely be those people who just write something off without giving any critical thought, real skeptics question things

>>16940064
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

Just because you accept no evidence to the contrary does not mean that evidence does not exist. Time to move the goal-post again.

Also, good job trying to reign the thread into a spammed back-and-forth on the Patterson film, instead of more interesting probabilities and new information. It's become a recognizable tactic.

I want to learn more about the missing 411

>>16939422
This is the easiest way to prove it's fake. There are no apes with hairy tits.

>>16940700
Wouldn't that actually prove that It's not an ape? Oops . . .

>>16930543

I find it funny people actually think something that big could hide anywhere in the US and never be caught by someone not filming on a Motorola Razr. When's the last time we discovered a mammal that big walking around anywhere? Let alone in the US? I live out in the country, and we can't keep bears out of people's yards for shit, so what actually, truly makes people think 8 foot tall gorilla chimps could live here and nobody have ever hunted one down and brought it back, or got a good irrefutable picture/video of it? I mean, damn.

File: 1444747041777.gif (4MB, 1070x216px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1070x216px

>bigfoot

>>16940675
>http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm
Not the guy you were responding to but what do you think about that article you linked? What are the important things to take away from it?

>>16939363
it is true that it is a huge coincidence patterson saw a bigfoot. i think this has something to do with the phenomenon.

the patterson film speaks for itself, you could not have made a suit that good back then. not even now has anybody made a suit with moving muscles and moving feet/toes.

>>16940699
why not buy the books? i have the first 2 they are filled with interesting tales.
http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/home.html

soon there will be a documentary.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1032329905/missing-411-the-movie

david paulides also does many podcasts and has a youtube channel with his own stuff. you can find the podcasts easily just search his name in youtube. his research is truly groundbreaking.

>>16940329
Actually classical (as in ancient Greek) skepticism is to write everything off, which is why I don't like the label. Critical thought is called rationalism.

>>16940675
Just because you consider something evidence doesn't mean it is. The goalpost for what constitutes scientific evidence is quite firmly planted, and no Bigfoot evidence has as yet met it.

>more interesting probabilities and new information
Like what? Todd Standing?

>watch finding bigfoot
>most of the sightings take place during the day
>investigations take place exclusively at night for extra spoopyness

My belief in bigfoot has actually declined in recent years, the people researching this stuff seem like retards.

>>16932485
Except how they're exactly proportionate? Retard.

there was a documentary on tv i saw. They would disprove bigfoot "evidence" such as hair samples and footprints.

Anyways the guy in the gorilla suit came forward and admitted to having been paid to wear it because he walked funny. He said maybe he would have kept his mouth shut if they had paid him the original amount spoken about.

Of course some could say this is a hoax within a hoax to get people to not believe.

the wookie is real and will cock bang your face

File: BIGFFOT.jpg (215KB, 866x703px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 866x703px

>>16939467
>Patterson drew a sketch of a female Sasquatch with breasts in a book
Patterson was huckster for his entire adult life. the Bigfoot phenomenon was just another scam he invented to try and make some money. He set out on this "documentary expedition" to film some bigfoot footage and wow what do you know he just happened to find one and film it. just in time as his borrowed money ran out and he desperately needed something to sell.
for years before and leading up to this expedition he had basically been writing and sketching fantasy illustrations and stories of bigfoot.
and the one he captured on film just happened to look exactly like the ones he had made up in his drawings for his stories. amazing.

>>16941178
Notice how immediately after we get posts going into more in-depth discussion about the more paranormal aspects of Sasquatch: The thread gets derailed back into spammed and unsubstantiated claims that the Patterson film was hoaxed?

>>16939204

>>16943076
But the Patterson film most likely WAS hoaxed. And we're discussing it because it was OP's first point.

> evidence that they can cloak under certain circumstances
Where is this evidence (and remember, evidence is not the plural of anecdote)?

>>16942403
>red lines in MSpaint
>exactly proportionate

As far as calling people retards I guess it would take one to know one, especially if you think this picture has one single iota of relevance to this topic. Go shill a magyk thread.

>>16931344

guess what shill, by definition bigfoot is a human whether or not he is real. You basically said nothing.

File: bigfoot.jpg (77KB, 925x601px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 925x601px

>>16931953
>Literally one thing lines up
>ITS A SOOT!

>>16943139
>>16942610
Didn't an Italian special effects guy say that in order for it to be a hoax, the actor would have had to have glued every individual hair onto their body? Also, keep in mind that this is the late 1960s we're talking about, so the cost alone of such a suit with prosthetics included would have been enough to finance a big budget Bigfoot movie. The BBC tried to recreate it, and they got the hair color wrong and the arms were too short. Heironimus' suit is also the wrong color, its skin is too gray, and the hair on it looks like it was ripped off of a teddy bear.

>>16943445
Lots of people talk bollocks all the time.

>>16943445
Do some research into the history of Paterson and you will find he was huckster all his adult life. Especially his early bigfoot propaganda works. Years before the film was made he had written fictional bigfoot stories and books for sci-fi fantasy magazines and drew pictures of his imaginary bigfoot creature. lo and behold, the one on film looks exactly like the ones in his fantasy stories.
anything he produced is highly suspect.

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

File: tumblr_lun1vnTuZt1r6ti0go1_500.jpg (271KB, 500x601px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 500x601px

Is it unreasonable to believe that a Wood Ape lives out in the forest simply to remove itself from humans, almost like a primal instinct to avoid natural predators? That's always been my belief as to why they are seldom captured in footage.
Also with the Patterson Gimlin film, what about the Russian biomechanist Dr. Dmitry Donskoy's analysis indicated it's unnatural walk?

>>16943139
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6F5UqItf2c

>>16943495
>>Because ad-hom and Patterson having a previous interest in Sasquatch, the Patterson footage must be a hoax.

Lets ignore all further testimony and film that has been documented and captured since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxG_o0ujqjA

>>16943548
>what about the Russian biomechanist Dr. Dmitry Donskoy's analysis indicated it's unnatural walk?
read the wiki articel
>>16943495
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film
aside form the fact that his "analysis" is conjecture and speculation.
this is also explained by the fact that they used something like football shoulder pads and other stuff under the suit, and oversized fake feet, all this made it impossible for a guy to walk "normally".
and compare that to the videos of a regular clothed guy copying the walk in actual live non fake video and it's really not such an impossibility for a man to walk like that.
those scientists claiming it's no way a human could walk like that are just obscure no-name academics tryhard to get their name in some publicized documentary of any kind

>>16943576
>further testimony and film
which all amounts to jack shit

>>16943576
>Lets ignore all further testimony and film that has been documented and captured since then.
That the thing though, there hasn't really been much in the way of good documentary evidence since then. Patterson went into the woods and got film rather quickly. Today much better funded groups have produced entire seasons of TV without anything even approaching the level of the P/G film.

>>16943495

That's some nice shilling. Nothing you said was in that link you just provided. I did find these though.

>In 1961 Sanderson published his encyclopedic Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, a worldwide survey of accounts of Bigfoot-type creatures, including recent track finds, etc., in the Bluff Creek area, which heightened his interest.

>Patterson's book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?, was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterized as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson's circus-poster style prose."[20] The book, however, did include 20 pages of previously unpublished interviews and letters, 17 drawings by Patterson of the encounters described in the text, 5 hand-drawn maps (rare in subsequent Bigfoot books), and almost 20 photos and illustrations from other sources.

>>16943548
Furthermore, with how long such a population of another race of humans would have to evolve in the wilds: What kind of traits and capabilities or traits might they have developed or carried over the eons to help them survive? We think of intelligence in terms of civilization and It's trappings but there is no reason to suspect that intelligence and extraordinary capacities could not flourish in a species living without this. Or that they would not develop sophistication of different aspects that have not been fully considered by our world-view.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

Undead nightmare had the best representation of sasquatch ever. You go and hunt them and get to the last one and he's all depressed because his family's dead.
"You're a monster, you eat babies."
"Babies? We eat berries and shit!"
"Oh."

>>16942439
that guy couldn't even find the location where the film took place

>>16943576
>that first video
what a bullshit. birds, insects, squirrels, slight breeze, water drop, dead twig or pine cone falling, any fucking thing in the forest can make small branches, trees move without the human eye catching sight of the creature or inanimate object causing it, because they move fast and are naturally camouflaged.

This is such fucking drivel and nonsense you should be ashamed to dilute the discussion with it.

I have lived near and worked full time 40+ hours/week in the forest and mountains for over 20 years. I have seen all kinds of shit in the woods. Nothing ever made me imagine for a moment to have been caused by some unknown cryptid

You people and the one making these videos ought to have their shit pushed in for propagating this nonsense. Anybody can go into the woods and wait for a branch to move, and claim it's evidence of some cloaking "predator" creature.
Completely destroys any possibility of having a legitimate discussion or credible research into things like bigfoot.

and if you believe that busllshit videos you need to take some time and go into the woods for 8 hours a day for a year or so and see that the forest is alive and active with all kinds of things none of them are bigfoot or a cloaking predator

These things are real and haven't been spotted because not only do they have a higher intelligence than humans, but they also have special abilities.

It has been mentioned by some that it has the ability to cloak itself with some sort of "invisibility cloak" and teleport itself at will if need be.

There's no question that these things are real. I mean, there's so many Native American stories revolving around this creature before the invention of cameras or publicity for that matter.

The one that Patterson filmed was a female and I do recall that they are able to reproduce. I remember listening to a story on Youtube by David P that some indian chef told him. The chef said that when he was a child, his grandfather told him he saw three bigfoots walking along a creek, one carrying kelp on its shoulder. In between two of these grown bigfoots, was a "littlefoot" walking with them hand in hand. All indians will state that this isn't an animal, but a human being (possibly a hybrid) of some sort.

>>16943593
>Today much better funded groups have produced entire seasons of TV without anything even approaching the level of the P/G film.

This.
Where's all the evidence for the existence of this creature?

>>16943622
You work in the woods, not the wilderness. There's kinda a huge difference there.

>>16943627
>Where's all the evidence for the existence of this creature?
there is none. never has been. maybe never will be. until then its just delusional fanatics spouting their claims and testimonies which amount to absolutely nothing.
I think it would be cool as hell if bigfoot did exist. but there is no evidence yet

>>16943627

You mean evidence that you won't say is a hoax? None exists for you my sad friend.

>>16943636
>woods, not the wilderness
>I said woods
>Implying i meant the tree park in the middle of the city

>>16943637
> but there is no evidence yet

Here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk

>>16943636
Nice projection there anon.

>>16943644
HA HA HA HA HA HYA HA HA HA HA
LOOK IT'S THIS FAGGOT AGAIN

go back to school and learn what "Evidence" means

>>16943644
that's funny because the more i watch it. the more obvious it is just a guy in a suit

>>16943644
That's great, where's the decades worth of evidence since then? The number of video cameras available have gone up significantly, yet the amount of new evidence for Bigfoot hasn't moved. The P/G film is still the best evidence that can be pointed to and that alone makes it doubtful.

Chimps and Gorillas co-existed with modern humans for a much longer period of time and yet we can go to Africa and find them. Why is Bigfoot so different than other great apes?

>>16943640
Where do you live? What woods? You're not going to see Sasquatch in a 2 minute drive from downtown new york.

>>16943655
this is what everybody says.

how but how would a suits toes flex upwards while walking? this kind of detail in a suit would be incredible.

>>16943649
>>16943655
>>16943661

Shilliin it up bigfoot style!

>>16943655

Suit? Where is your evidence?

>>16943639
The fact is there is no solid, much less, conclusive, evidence that this creature exists. Not a single hair or turd has ever been found.

This is why some of you get frustrated and resort to claiming that bigfoot must be an inter-dimensional conehead with dolphin sonar and cloaking ability. If that is the extent you have to go to rationalize why this animal can't be found, it may be time to just acknowledge that it probably doesn't exist.

>>16943663
>You're not going to see Sasquatch in a 2 minute drive from downtown new york
Did I say i lived in the city?
No. I didnt.
I said I lived near the woods(forest) and mountains and worked fulltime for 20 years in the woods(forest) and mountains.

you're either projecting your own delusions onto my posts or you have a problem with reading comprehension

>>16943666
>toes flex upwards while walking?
no such detail is visible in the film. period.
stop projecting your fanatical imagination onto things

>>16943674

So if you're convinced that it doesn't exist then why are you wasting your time arguing here rather than doing something productive?

>>16943679

>where do you live? What woods?

Nice job dodging the question

>>16943668
It doesn't seem like there's much money to be made saying that Bigfoot doesn't exist. You can at best get a single hour of TV out of that. Now say Bigfoot does exist and you can get whole seasons of TV from that.

>>16943698
trying to stop the spread of this cancerous bullshit.
would like to discuss it. but not with retard fanatics that insist the PG films proves it beyond a doubt

>>16943679

oh yeah. Well I work 10 hours a day 7 days a week in the most remote parts of the forested world and I see about one bigfoot a day. Trust me.

>>16943674
Also, considering how knowledgeable some of you seem to be and how you are so absolutely convinced that this creature exists, why don't we see a massive 4mb info graphic as we do on some many other topics that contains links, images, bullet-points of the main points of evidence for bigfoot?

>>16943707
You have to be 18 to post here anon.

>>16943712

So if I post my infographic that makes bigfoot real!

Nice argument!

>>16940795
Look into how long it took to find the panda, even though they knew it existed and where, was slow, brightly marked, operated in the day and is stupid. it took 70 years from confirming its existence until they finally found one.
If bigfoot is nocturnal, moves around quickly, is intelligent and doesnt want to interact with humans, and lives in the deep wilderness in North America, its going to be very, very difficult to find. Probably can hear dumbass /k/ types crashing through the bush 5 miles away.

>>16943718
The point I was making is that if the proponents have a cogent argument to make then why not make it comprehensively as is often done on other contentious topics.

>>16943702
>Nice job dodging the question
Wasn't dodging anything. merely pointing out your mistaken presumptions.
>where do you live? What woods?
All over in the mountains and forests of the PNW. Everywhere, State, Federal and private wilderness forest lands. Remote, untravelled places away from the parks and roads and trails. Places you can't get to but by foot or horseback, mule or UTV. Some places you can only reach by foot due to terrain and vegetation.
Seen all kinds of forests in all seasons under different stages of growth and decay. Seen plenty of animals. Seen all kinds of interesting things in the forest. All of it perfectly natural. Nothing I've ever seen, smelled or heard in all of 20 years has ever once made me imagine for a moment that there was some bigfoot creature out there.

>>16943739

So that proves it then. Bigfoot doesn't exist because this one guy hasn't seen one.

>>16943745
I'm not saying that proves anything. I'm saying i've seen enough of the real wilderness and forest to know that bullshit people say and put on video like this >>16943576
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6F5UqItf2c
is absolute garbage and you faggots should know better than to accept it at face value.

>>16943666
When people say stuff like this i have to shake my head. It is an amazing piece of footage but Jesus Christ. You can clearly see the foot heel strike though, which is widely different than what was first explainex in the footage.

File: anonymous-isometric_grid@Apr_1_19.03.01_2015.jpg (194KB, 464x600px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 464x600px

>>16943745
Wow. For a Korean pornography discussion forum, the conversations around here can get pretty rude considering this topic doesn't relate to Korea or pornography necessarily.

>>16943681
>>16943756
i can clearly see the toes flex upwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AnJWb2fs0

even in this gif you can see them
>>16940797

>>16943755
>>You -insert derogative here- should be ashamed for discussing this and taking paranormal aspects of this phenomenon seriously! I know because I am an authority! Now stop posting about it! Stop it!

>>16944447
Is it a prerequisite for all bigfoot nutters to have zero reading comprehension?

>>16944444
>i can clearly see the toes flex upwards
>>16944444
>even in this gif you can see them
are you on drugs or something?.
thats shit is not visible in the least. it's not even there to see you're just seeing what you want to see even if it's not there

File: screenshot-www youtube com 2015-11-07 17-42-02.png (799KB, 857x479px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 857x479px

>>16944459

it's frame 309.

it may be easier to see in this video, where i took this screen shot. no need to be hostile.

>>16944463
whoops forgot link

https://youtu.be/_Zzy1B_3Xq4?t=146

>>16930543

I'd usually jump straight into a rant and call you several types of retard, but I won't. Fake or not, I have to accept that this is /x/.

It's obviously a hoax, and all attempts prove it isn't are dumb.

>armlength

Stand up straight and place your arms by your side. Your fingertips are probably mere inches away from your knee.. amirite? Now hunch forward slightly, even closer to the knee.. amirite..?

So that's armlength debunked.

The rest of the evidence is non-existent.

Next..

>>16933961
http://metro.co.uk/2009/10/19/ancient-man-faster-than-usain-bolt-and-stronger-than-schwarzenegger-3421373/

If they are in fact an offshoot of our hereditary cousins, they could be much faster and stronger than us. Theres no need to add mysticism and pseudo science into this, they would be subject to the same rules of nature as apply to every other animal on earth - even gorillas can outrun men over short distances for example and are exponentially stronger.

>>16944496
see >>16944463
how do you explain the toes?

>>16935640
I's unlikely they have developed such a useful ability and not come to dominate the food chain in their environment.

We can infer that creatures who dominate the food chain would tend to be very territorial and make their presence known should some outside invader enter said territory (Lions/crocodiles/wolves/humans) - for this reason, I believe there would be many more encounters with bigfoot hunters if this were the case.

>>16944503
The film is so bad, and the enhanced one is so shopped, that trying to figure out if that's a persons toe or a monkey toe, with 1 frame, is impossible.

>>16935570
I gotta agree with this guy, a trans dimensional being would astrnomically more likely to appear in outer space in the last 10 billions years then some creek in the the USA 50 years ago..I think we can put this to bed now. Its more likely very good at camoflague or has some genetic mutation that allows it to change colour like some fish and reptiles can - that already exists in nature.

>>16944534
it doesn't matter what kind of toe it is. the point is that a suit wouldn't have moving toes.

>>16944463
>heel strike

>>16944960
i wish you'd make a complete point, or at least a sentence. what the hell are you saying? jesus, you kids today drive me nuts. have some standards...

>>16944687
>the point is that a suit wouldn't have moving toes.
No. The point is the film does not show a level of detail to see toe curling up or down.
all that is visible is toe like shapes attached to, and moving in conjunction with, the foot.
Nobody's getting hostile here. We're just tired of you bigfoot nutters insisting there are things in the film that aren't really there to see.

>>16944463
>it's frame 309
Oh ! Dear me! Of Course it's clearly visible in that frame. All 17 pixels of it.
How could I have been so wrong.

>>16945223
the foot is flat when on the ground. the toes are curled up when taking the step. what detail is missing here?

>are you on drugs?
how is that not a hostile remark? can't stand when people talk shit then act all innocent.

>>16945283
>people talk shit then act all innocent.
No. I maintain my previous suspicion that you are either under the influence of mind altering substances or you're just mentally delusional.
I've watched the film a hundreds of times. That level of detail is simply not visible in the film. You're either hallucinating or imagining things.

>>16941105


dude. they can make exoskeletons and robots now. making a suit with moving parts is not very difficult if you have the money.

>>16945233

didn't you see the enhanced saturation though? that basically proves it.

>>16937275

Makes sense.

>>16938418

So does this. I shot another video today and the digital compression is just so bad. Unless a Sasquatch walks up on me within 30-50 feet there's no way I'll ever get a solid shot of one.

>>16945389

>>16938028

I believe you're right, as some of the best footage post patterson gimlin was long range.

>>16939204
>I can admit the probability that there are rogue Sasquatch involved in missing person's cases as documented by researches such as David Paulides and Stephanie Young

I find it particularly interesting how vehement that anti-Paulides posters are sometimes. I think they're most upset at the idea of him selling books than anything else.

>>16942610

Patterson wouldn't be the first man obsessed with Bigfoot to (allegedly) get footage of one. The Freeman footage remains notable in (alleged) Bigfoot footage history.

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

Freeman was notoriously obsessed with Sasquatch and some argued that his son was wearing a suit for the footage. Other researchers believe he had filmed an actual Sasquatch, especially after examining footprints (and even hand and knuckle prints) cast by Freeman.

Let me just state for the record this has been one of the least-shitty Bigfoot threads in a while, even with all the debate. Well done, /x/.

>>16944497
>If they are in fact an offshoot of our hereditary cousins, they could be much faster and stronger than us

True.

> even gorillas can outrun men over short distances for example and are exponentially stronger.

Also true. The mind-blowing thing about Sasquatch though is that they are twice to three times (or greater) the size of Gorillas and still have the same (if not greater) muscle density. They would be (if they exist) supernaturally strong and fast.

I went onsite to a spot today where a local man (reputable, well known) claimed to observe a Sasquatch for over 10 minutes with binoculars and among the details I garnered over the years was that he noticed it was moving "impossibly fast", like a machine, or a robot. I'll be uploading the video of that revisit tomorrow or sometime after if anyone wants to check it out. Same thread : >>16936567

>>16945824

Original version of the Freeman footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luue2Mv_VNM

>>16945824
>>16945877
Isn't it just a little bit weird that people will cry hoaxer because somebody is interested in the subject and not simply profit? Usually when someone is faking it all they want is the attention and the money

>mfw /x/ believes Rick Dyer isn't a con artist who's only claiming to have a Bigfoot body for the attention

>>16944990
Lol kids. Settle down and read the thread Mr. 1991.

The point has already been made in this thread and others. A big piece of the PG video used to be that BF stride landed in a distinct and non human fashion.

The best thing the stable video shows is that the BF does indeed walk like a man wearing a boot (heel to toe). The caveat of course being that bigfoot is a natural heel striker (not impossible if, under pronation does happen in humans). However if we are now saying bigfoot is a heel striker all of the data that was collected based on the presumed ape like movment no longer applies.

>>16946554
i don't know where you're getting this ape stuff from. it clearly walks like a human. that was evident from my first viewing of the tape.

also native americans have always said that bigfoot is a person, not an animals. so all this ape stuff seems irrelevant.

>>16930543
>Did this bigfoot tell all the other cryptids to avoid getting caught on camera?
No, he got abducted like everything else that lets people know the truth.

Seriously though watch Bigfoot's Reflection. We don't have more than a fraction of the natural world under any kind of surveillance.

>>16946937
looks like it's on sale at youtube for 4 dollars, what the fuck. where else can i watch it?

>>16945824
>That MK Davis analysis of the Freeman film.
I'll set aside the alleged bigfoot creature in the film and just comment on the other things he says he thinks he sees in the film.
More outright imagination and filling in empty pixels and video artifacts with his imagination.
Poor filming quality, lack of detail due to poor resolution and focus. And these clowns sit there imagining they are seeing things where there is actually just empty pixels and artifacts in the film due to light and shadow in the field of view preventing the film from actually recording everything.
A note on filming in the forest:
The Forest is filled with things (vegetation) from the forest floor all the way to the tops of the tree canopy. Mosses, lichen, spider webs, dead and dying branches, leaves, cones and twigs, usually moving at least slightly in a breeze, in mid air hanging from things they are caught on or growing on, are all through your field view when you walk around and gaze through the forest.
try to record a moving view of the forest and this is what you get. All kinds of visual artifacts that are indecipherable because of lack of necessary film speed and resolution, not to mention the camera cannot possibly focus correctly on all things at all those infinitely variable distances.
It is disingenuous to sit there like these guys and speculate on such foreign things as bigfoot carrying some tool when it is literally impossible to see such thing in the film. same for PG film showing "toes curling" or "muscles flexing"

Just like the people in >>16943576
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6F5UqItf2c
Trying to say they see some predator cloaking crap. Its trees, branches and leaves moving naturally in the forest. together with the camera catching things out of focus.


I am in favour of bigfoot research and conversation. but i wish the proponent or so called researchers would stop this type of nonsense.

>>16947034
nobody has mentioned bigfoot carrying a tool, so why are you?

it would be pretty convenient that some leaves and random pixels happen to look exactly like a flexing foot and butt muscles. it's not like there are visual distortions suggesting he has wings or a tail. the footage, especially the stabilized versions, is very clear.

see photo here >>16944463
this film has the color and brightness adjusted and it is stabilized. it's very clearly a foot with flexed toes.

if you want to say it's photo-shopped that's fine, but don't insult my intelligence. i know what a foot looks like.

>>16947024
Sorry I'm Netflix instant master race.

>>16947063
>nobody has mentioned bigfoot carrying a tool,
MK Davis says it in his "analysis"
He speculates that the bigfoot creature is "Carrying something" he doesn't call it a "tool" or a "spear" but he says it might look like it is carrying something.
whatever, it is just another example of bigfoot nutters making shit up. saying they may be seeing things that just aren't there to be seen in the first place.

>>16947063
>it's very clearly a foot with flexed toes.
no. it's a foot shaped blob of pixels.
attached to what is suspected to be a gorilla suit. (which is also little more than a blob of pixels in a poor quality film).
Saying that blurry blob is concrete evidence of curling toes is the insult to what is purportedly a legitimate conversation

>>16947071
since it is on netflix i am going to assume it's hollywood bullcrap.

>>16947078
yes the vast majority of bigfoot researchers are liars and fools. another reason why OP states that the patterson film is the only legit film.

>>16940700
>There are no apes with hairy tits
Have you met my ex?

>>16947090
>blob of pixels
where do you think that foot shaped blob of pixels came from? it's like youre admitting it is a foot(with clearly curled toes), but it's really just pixels it's not really a foot lol. everything on film is pixels weirdo.

>>16947110
there's a difference between a million pixels making up a clear image with legitimate detail,
and film image zoomed in so far it's just a blurry blob of pixels

File: toes.jpg (73KB, 857x439px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 857x439px

>>16947140
>blurry blob of pixels

you're in denial. the footage is clearly showing the creatures outline. what the hell could this be other than a foot with flexed toes?

>>16947034
I regret reading this post. What a waste of time. You said literally nothing.
>>16947063
He was referring to another video posted earlier, he wasn't talking about the Patterson footage.
>>16947078
>saying they may be seeing things that just aren't there to be seen in the first place.
You seem to firmly believe that pixels on footage just magically appear in places where nothing is really there. What this anon said >>16947110 is true. You're another person who dismisses evidence out of hand using really tiresome logic. Just admit that no video will ever satisfy you because it consists of magical "pixels" and stop wasting everyone's time.

>>16947095
Just remember that you're literally the only person that thinks that. If you think Netflix is just for blockbusters, I can only assume you've never had Netflix.

>>16947195
Could be noise introduced in the duplication process.
Could be a dark spot on the negative.
Could be a be a bit of wood.
Could be a dark rock.

Even if it is toes, why would that be a point in favor of a real animal? Last I checked humans have toes, and costume makers using bare feet with some makeup applied aren't unheard of.

File: frame72.jpg (28KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x270px

>>16947231
i think it's odd that you would assume my judgement of netflix is not based on experience.

i've had it for years, there is nothing but politically correct garbage, like television. the non-pc content is just more garbage obfuscating the truth. especially when it comes to the paranormal there's nothing legitimate on there. i know /x/ loves its fiction though, it does have plenty of that.

>>16947233
noise, dark spot, wood, dark rock... that somehow moves in perfect conjunction with the creature?

you can see the same toes in this gif easily >>16940797

the toes are suggestive of an animal because a suit could have moving toes like that. to this day a suit has some be replicated to have the same movements.

you can see from the bigfoot's sole that it is not simply a human foot. pic related

>>16947260
>noise, dark spot, wood, dark rock... that somehow moves in perfect conjunction with the creature?
There's no proof of that in the single frame that you posted.
The gif doesn't really show whether there are toes that are moving or not. You're looking way beyond what the resolution of the original can show.

As I said even if there are toes that are moving, it could just be the toes of the guy in the suit the same way Chewbaca's fingers are the fingers of the actor wearing the suit.

>>16947140
Not the guy you are arguing with, but 16mm film, shot on a decent camera (which it was- Cine-Kodak K-100), gives results more than good enough for decent image analysis. Obviously, multiple generation digital copies, futher degraded by YouTube compression are of much poorer quality, but there are several 1st & 2nd generation still copies of the original fim that have plenty of information in them.

>>16947260
No, it's actually pretty common for me to call bullshit when I see it. Not odd in the least.

File: bigfoot step showing toes flexing.png (1MB, 649x965px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 649x965px

>>16947280
you can see the toes in my screenshot, the gif, and this youtube.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AnJWb2fs0

really, it's quite clearly a set of moving toes. to deny this at this point is just dishonest.

>>16947333
no it's strange to assume that someone's judgement isn't based on experience. it's like how people assume racists just haven't had experiences with -insert race- as if the only way you have have a negative opinion on something is to be ignorant. you're just being defensive, about netflix of all things. fucking weird.

>>16947260
>the toes are suggestive of an animal because a suit could have moving toes like that.
Sure it could. Have the fur suit end at the ankles stuck in place with spirit gum. The person in the suit's feet would be exposed.

File: turtle.gif (1002KB, 298x351px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 298x351px

>>16945824
>MK Davis

He shares his analysis and "enhancements" of a very poor quality original video by shooting a video of his computer screen? So, we're to believe that a guy who has the graphics skills to stabilize and enhance video footage doesn't know how to use a video screen capture app?
This is also the same guy who insists that the patterson gimlin film is actually a film of a bigfoot massacre showing massive pools of blood on the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMm07pitD48

He also thinks the film shows bigfoot with a massive hemmoroided butthole. Not even joking.

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

How can we trust the analysis from a guy who can mistake the lumbar region of the lower back of the subject for a massive butthole? How can we trust the opinion and "enhancements" from a guy who think the bluff creek site is covered in bifgoot blood?

>>16947335
>you can see the toes in my screenshot, the gif, and this youtube.
That actually makes it look more like noise given the large difference in the foot between two frames fractions of a second apart.

File: 1311763499070.jpg (16KB, 300x354px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x354px

>>16947354
so first you didn't believe it because you couldn't see the toes in motion.

and now you don't believe it because the toes are moving too much?

>>16947366
As I said its likely that its noise in the film. I don't think they're toes. Try moving your foot into that position in 1 frame worth of time, and then out of that position in 2 frames worth of time.

One thing people do not realize, Patterson's footage is a film. It was made with a film camera. No one goes around with that anymore, everyone has a digital video camera. A film will always have a much better quality.

>>16947388
Yeah... no. film is analog, it has grain to it, and the quality of the image you get is dependent on the size of the film. 16mm film running at 16 or 18fps isn't going to be the best quality available. A modern cell phone shooting 2160p, or even 1080p video would likely be better.

File: 352-highest-quality-2.jpg (3MB, 5028x3549px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5028x3549px

>>16947374
I think people forget that the original film frames are 16mm and that the creature in the frame is approximately 2mm in height on the film. Blowing that up 3600% is going to reveal all possible detail but, it's also going to reveal all the grain noise present, particularly in areas of high contrast (blacks framed against white). The edges are going to appear "wavy" and constantly shifting. It's impossible, for example, as MK Davis does in some of his videos to to make reasonable claims about perceiving lip movement, teeth, and "eyeshine" because at that scale, details are indistinguishable from noise.

>>16943601
4chan is 18+.

>>16947388
>>16947400
It depends entirely on who you're trying to convince.

>>16947099
I'm the reason she left you.

>>16932092
>100% certainty

Which means absolutely nothing. Lots of people with "100% certainty" are still wrong.

>>16939506

This >>http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

And here is a description by the man who coined the term (one of the founding members of CSICOP, btw) >>http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

>>16947839
Absolutely autism.

>>16947880
that was a good post with interesting information, pertinent to the thread. this is autistic to you? words have meanings you fucking retarded asshole.

>>16931953
why the fuck is he walking like that on the right?

Looks set up

I don't believe in the bigfoot but whoever took that picture is going WAY out of their way to disprove it.

>>16947951
It's completely tangent to the conversation, actually. You should see a therapist and take a few of her quizzes. You might learn somehting about yourself.

>>16947969
Well it is set up to show that a human can produce the same pose and gait of the supposed Bigfoot in the P/G film. That a human could not move that way, or that the Bigfoot has proportions such that it could not be a human is a common claim of advocates of the film.

People portraying monsters in costumes in films often intentionally push themselves to move in ways that are unnatural.

>>16948058
>People portraying monsters in costumes in films
Source.

>>16948011
how is it not related to the thread when he directly answered someone's question? this is how conversations work. things don't stay exactly on one topic. especially when you've got multiple people involved.

it's funny that you'd call someone autistic when you clearly have a poor understanding of communication.

you can go back to shitposting your memes now.

File: 1446992738803.jpg (286KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1200x803px

how hasn't anyone posted this yet: http://imgur.com/GwJHqF0

>>16948112
you can even see its breasts and its muscle twitch in this one

>>16948112
if that is a suit it's awesome. i'd love to have one.

they could sell these things for a lot and make a killing.

>>16946883
What you and the native americans say is irrelevant for a few reasons:

1. The ape like movment was always a key point from the experts who viewed it. The idea that it landed its foot flat has been shown to not be the case in the stable video.

2. To move like a barefoot human would be a ball to heel. The heel to toe movment that we see to be so human is because of wearing shoes.

I agree it looks like a man moving, but it looks like a man wearing artificial foot coverings.

>>16948221
it's not as irrelevant as your point. so some "experts" made a mistake. who gives a shit?

scientists make incorrect hypotheses all the time. i don't get how this is supposed to me meaningful.

>>16948277
One of the biggest points of the PG footage was that the walk could not be recreated, but as we can plainly see the parameteres used were arguably flawed, as the object in the video does not land flatfooted.

Like i said before we can constantly move the goal posts and say "it is bigfoot anyway" but that requires us to aknowledge that previous conclusions drawn were erroneous and that it is equally possible we are still drawing erroneous conclusions based on several factors that are really limited by technology.

I love the PG footage, it is amazing stuff but the conclusions with which some people use the footage for are atrosious.

So while you are saying "it always looked like a human to me, still bigfoot" does not undo all of the previous support the video enjoyed. It is a very serious point and to dismiss to lightly hurts more than it helps.

>>16948346
how many different ways can you make the same pointless post?

it seems more like you want to discredit bigfoot researchers rather than the PG film. you can do that if you like but i'm not looking to defend some outdated consensus.

lots of people thought lots of incorrect things about the film. thank you for your input.

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

157KB, 657x492px

>>16948058
This is basically the end of the "can't be human because proportions" argument.

>>16948112
>>16948122
You can clearly see that the ass is an add-on extra piece. Also, plainly evident is the seam across the upper thigh.

>>16948419
>more mspaint detective work
>elbow isn't even in the same position
yawn

>>16948419
Are you on the pro side or the hoax side, I can't tell, from what I can see though, the man's arm doesn't match at all, as well, you are assuming that the foot is being covered up by the log and the sand

>>16948419
arm is to small but the proportions angle isnt strong anyways. humans come in many shapes and sizes, and deformities are common enough.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 12.58.58 PM.png (330KB, 1046x537px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1046x537px

>>16931953
>>16948419
>>16948444
>>16948452
It's not about drawing exact matches between the two images. In fact, the derisive remarks about the images not matching perfectly further proves the point.
The point, which seems to have been missed, is that the claim that the subject of the PG film can't be human because of "inhuman proportions" is a false claim. Those making that claim, such as the youtuber, thinkerthunker, have really gone out their way to be deceptive about how they have actually "analyzed" the images. (pic related) Why has he distorted the image? Also, why would he choose to use that particular PG film frame? Why not use the frame showing the same posture of the human figure as i did in the above post? No doubt, because it's much more difficult to make the claim that the proportions are substantially different enough to be meaningful.
I'm not pro or con on this topic, but I am taking a look at the claims being made and accepted as fact by some in these threads.

>>16948082
It's not about the central conversation, ergo it is not relevant to the thread. Take the conversation to your Steam circlejerk if you insist on talking about it.

>>16948556
i see you are still having trouble with the meaning of certain words.
>relevant

relevant: adj. Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.

allow me to show you the connection that you seem to be having trouble with.
>>16930543
>>16930899
>>16939422
>>16939467
>>16939506
>>16947839

you can see that during conversations sometimes people have questions. when people ask questions it's helpful to give them answers. by doing this we all gain a better understanding of the topic and the conversation is more productive.

>>16948640
You need to calm down and stop replying to multiple posts at a time, when they have no business being replied to. I understand you have a difficult time understanding the topic of the thread, but come on.

>>16948651
>replying to multiple posts
i replied to one post. i linked those others to show you the connection(relevancy).

you really do have a problem with reading comprehension. i made that post so explicitly clear and you still don't understand. i'm actually starting to feel bad.

>>16948689
Surprisingly, all of those posts are irrelevant. Go figure.

>>16948549
The likely reason ThinkThunker used the frame showing the entire entity in the PG film was because it showed the entire entity, complete from head to resting foot, as unobstructed as possible. He probably should have used the same posture frame to match his Bigfoot frame though.

In >>16948419 the potential Bigfoot's big foot could be anywhere behind that log/sand pile along that red line.


What I really want to know is if someone has accurately found how far away the PG film's Bigfoot was and if all the "showing human proportions work" images and videos are from that same distance. The biggest thing to me here is the potential for an optical effect that someone is filming from a closer distance to match the creature's height instead of filming themselves from the same distance as the creature.


Also, going to bring up Donskoy's 1973 paper in this thread again http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm
Three things stand out to me in this paper
>“What need be done is neatly done” is another way of describing expressiveness of movement, which indicates that the motor system characterized by this quality is well adapted to the task it is called upon to perform. In other words, neat perfection is typical of those movements, which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

>...evaluate the walk of the creature as a natural movement, without any signs of artfulness that would appear in intentional imitations.

>At the same time, despite the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as is demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.

The guy comes from a background in Biomechanics and just uses his background in biomecanics to analyze the creature in the film and comes to the conclusion that it is habitual and efficient movement for the creature and does not show signs of being imitated while being unlike human movement. While this doesn't prove definitively that it is non-human it does suggest otherwise

>>16948694
>bigfoot discussion not relevant to a bigfoot thread

are you really this dumb or is this the part where you pretend you were just trolling?

>>16948753
>projecting this hard
You can just admit that you were in the wrong. It's anonymous. No one will think less of you.

>>16948768
it really is quite astounding how many words you've used incorrectly. your weak vocabulary, poor reading comprehension, and arrogance makes for an awful combination. totally worthless to the discussion. worse than a troll, you're a genuine idiot.

>>16930543
the only bigfoot ever in existence is dead

his/her/it body will never be found

>>16948902
I just died a little inside.

So ur saying there's cameras eveywhere @Patterson creek? So Every inch of Patterson creek been cover? Stop talking shit.
Obv dey hav some sort of communication 2be survining 4dis long. Deres a lot of unexplained things we as humans cannot xplan, &the Bigfoot is a female. If u bother to do some research u will find once the vid slows down u can see her breast slightly swinging. Judging from what u posted op looks like u don't really knOw or looked into this topic. Just bc we don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not sure if ur aware of this but species that we think been exist for 66mill years has been discovered, best example is the coelacanths, discovered of the coast of Africa and Indonesia. It was believed to has been exinct for over 66mil and its alive and kicking (or swimming). U say there's no vid evidenece? U haven't even looked. U know how many animals and species been discovered?
I can tell u u haven't looked hard enuf. Yes I know not all the footages are real but let's just say there's one that is real: what would u say then?Lastly u should google Dr. Melba S. Ketchum now I'm not sure if ur famarliar with her work but her initial findings confirms (dna) there's a species out there we know nothing abt. Ur prob going say "one hair doesn't prove nothing" well I agree with u but she didn't just test one hair but multi hair people been collecting bc they know what they saw is real and kept it for proof. Idiots like op tries to debunk this but really it just makes u looks stupid when u don't know anything abt the topic. Someone created the suit and put titties on? Maybe ur a cross dresser doesn't mean that footage is fake. They have a lot of experts examine to the footage not just that but also went out to the field to take sames did some bs to estimate how tall that big foot is etc. it be good if OP can get all the facts straight b4 talk shit.
It's just f dumb what u said abt the camera bs. U should shove a camera up ur ass, u might find a Bigfoot

>>16949271
nice wall of text, next time you post that much shit please use your Enter key. i'm not reading that shit.

>>16948549
Isn't opinion being pontificated as fact and gradually creating an echo chamber what happens in every thread about anything on the internet?

>>16949376
No.

File: melba_ketchum.png (53KB, 978x296px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 978x296px

>>16949271
>Melba S. Ketchum

fuck off.

>>16949694
That's it? You believe things pretty easy. Love how u dumb ass dispute any of my points besides some shitty remark. Nice mate keep up the good work

>>16949376
Are u fucking serious dr professor shithead. Maybe talk abt the topic we here for instead contributing bs. We all curious and that's why we're here. If u have got anything constructive to say go back and continue washing toilets.

>>16943624
>invisibility cloak
>teleporter
So Bigfoot graduated from hogwarts and got accepted to starfleet academy?

>>16944463
Why is Bigfoot surrounded by a glowing halo in that photo? Is he an angel?

Or does that shitty video camera lens from the lens from the 60's have awful chromatic aberrations...?

>>16947195
Is that frame the best evidence that exists?

Looks sketchy af to me

Do bipedals curl their toes while walking?

>>16947294
>decent camera
Literally nothing in the video is sharp

2001: a space odyssey was sharp...

>>16949882
The camera was likely good for its time, the blame shoudl be put on hman error, back in those days the lens would have had to be focused manually, and Patterson's eyesight may not have been very good, or the focusing screen was out of whack

>>16931322
Nice argument, idiot.

>>16934740
With all of that technology it's a wonder how troops can still be ambushed in war times using versions of the equipment far more advanced than squatchers would have access to. You're really fucking dumb, dude.

>>16939363
He was told by first nation people where/when to go and to go on horseback. Nice try, but much like every other shill in this thread you're not capable of actually defending your argument without sounding like a try-hard idiot.

>>16943445
An Italian special effects guy from the 40s, yeah. The guy who did special effects work for shit like Predator, Aliens, and the Terminator movies said if anyone in the special effects industry made a suit as shitty as the P&G bigfoot, they'd be out of a job.

>>16949996
he left the camera partially out of fous and was shaking it around on purpose.
he did this partly to fake a nervousness and fear of being close to the alleged creature, and partly to mask the fact that it is a hoax.
Watching the stabilized film, it looks like nothing more than a man walking normally. even the way it turns it head for a perfect cameo shot.
The entire thing screams hoax. anyone who cant see this is a fool.

File: #6 The Stacy Brown Footage .webm (816KB, 720x420px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 720x420px

>>16930543
People really believe this sort of thing huh

>>16931953
That's clearly Bigfoot in a human suit you fucking moron

>>16951279
Uh-uh! it's impossible for bigfoot to walk like a human like that.
Some unknown bio med drop out from russia said so!

>>16931953
>All those claims about humans shins not raising that high or legs not going that far back in normal gait
>Bigfoot fans take this as a genuine point to prove its authenticity

People don't wear giant costumes in tricky terrain in normal life. If you've ever worn a costume, you tend to take huge lunge-esque steps to avoid falling or tripping.

That's why the dude in the costume walked a little funky

Why does everyone say that the Bigfoot thing was never disproven? The whole thing is clearly a fake. I fucking live in Washington, have hiked around all over the fucking state, all over Oregon, all over B.C., and I have not once ever encountered anything to suggest that a colony of giant ape creatures was living here.

It's so fucking ridiculous. It'd be cool as hell if it were true, but you would know. There would be tons of evidence. Especially for a creature of that size.

>>16943666
That's a good question. Irrelevant, though, so why bring it up?

>>16943698
Because you're funny to me.

>>16944444
Are you and I watching the same video? The thing's feet look almost exactly like a pair of fuzzy slippers my mom used to have. Rubber sole and all.

>>16947063
>this film has the color and brightness adjusted and it is stabilized.
So it's edited. Hmm. Okay.

>>16947099
Ha. Ha. Oh, you're quite the clever fellow, aren't you, anon.

>>16947260
>you can see from the bigfoot's sole that it is not simply a human foot. pic related
It looks like the faux-leather/rubber-studded underside of a cheap fuzzy slipper, yes. Hell, in that pic you can clearly see a damning LACK of toes.

>>16947811
Precisely. See: Berenstain threads.

>>16947063
>>if you want to say it's photo-shopped that's fine,
Dude, the MK Davis "enhanced' version is shooped frame by frame.

>>16951279
It's much bigger on the inside.

>>16943289
>Implying costumes don't make you bigger

File: yfw.jpg (701KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1280x720px

bump because yfw you see a bigfoot thread at the top of the catalogue

>>16930543

>How can this be?

The Patterson/Gimlin footage isn't real.

>>16951614
They can, but they mostly make you wider, height-wise they'll add half an inch to an inch at most

>>16951205
>Trust nobody, the whole planet is full of scammers and conmen! Jet fuel can't melt steel memes! Vaccines cause autism!

I never knew Alex Jones was ever involved in Bigfoot

File: IQ_4chan.png (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2000px

ITT: Pic related.

>>16952588
>still posting this image
Only a true idiot would post 4chan infographs as fact. There are a dozen different version of this image all claiming different boards to be the most stupid. Go away Senator Lintwhistle.

>>16952902
Sure, sure. I'll believe that without seeing a pic.

>>16943445
Thats because copying something is harder that doing something original
Patterson got to choose how bigfoot was going to look, he didnt have to go off of anything, he had the creative freedom to make it look however the fuck he felt like provided it fit the general look of a "bigfoot"
Go try to copy a complicated drawing without tracing it
Its fucking hard

File: 1264235744032.jpg (66KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x800px

>>16954728

>copying something is harder that doing something original

I don't think /x/ is from this dimension.

>>16930543
The footage is real - it's a footage of a man in a suit. It answers all your questions.

>>16933852
The fourth dimension is space time u fuckin tard

>>16954838
theres hundreds of other tapes on youtube
i watched 100 videos. 5-6 of them were WTF
the end? reptilians and rake(hybrids) r truth.

>>16951957
>>Your face when you realize that part of the goal of the shilling on this is to keep spamming assertions that the Patterson film is a hoax and that no further evidence exists: In an effort to exhaust those who have done enough research to know better.

It isn't just about trying to control consensus, this also entails ruining enjoyment of this type of discussion.

>>16952902
>>16954728
>>16954851

see:

>>16952588

>>16954904
Some people aren't delusional or into roleplaying but, believe it or not, they actually want to know if phenomena like this are real; hence, the reasonable questions.

File: Homo_Georgicus_IMG_2921.jpg (1MB, 3080x3595px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3080x3595px

>>16954904
>Patterson film is a hoax and that no further evidence exists: In an effort to exhaust those who have done enough research to know better.

If that's the case, then why haven't you created an info graphic in MSPaint that collects all the "best" evidence?

It seems you're not as confident about your bigfoot fantasies as you are about your Mars delusions...

>>16954951
If you want to see delusional behavior, just look at people who look at a film and say that what appears on it can't be real because anything on film is just pixels.

>>16954979
Just a version of asking to be spoonfed combined with paranoia about other posters. Good job bro.

>>16954951
Posting to share further material and cogent reasoning why the Patterson film isn't a hoax and further data and reports indicating that Sasquatch exists?

Delusional roleplaying.

Spamming every thread on the topic with the same exact pattern of posts that deny that cherry-pick one piece of evidence to try and discredit: Along with constant ad-hom and derision directed at other posters and researchers. No matter how many times information and sound arguments are presented that indicate that the Patterson film is of an entity whose existence has been further documented?

http://archive.4plebs.org/x/search/text/Patterson/type/op/

Not willfully deluded playing a role. Because they call anyone who disagrees a deluded roleplayer.

Apparently, they see a different title for this board instead of:
>>/x/ - Paranormal

It would seem that some see it as:
>>/x/ - Disinfonormal

File: two_types_skull.png (561KB, 435x674px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 435x674px

>>16955060
>If you want to see delusional behavior, just look at people who look at a film and say that what appears on it can't be real because anything on film is just pixels.

Right, Because you'd have to be delusional to question the veracity of the PG film.

>Just a version of asking to be spoonfed combined with paranoia about other posters. Good job bro.

>I'm not going to spoonfeed you!!!

It's just another way of saying you refuse to answer questions because you know the answers you can provide are dubious and laughable.

True Believers represent the intellectual death of every topic they glom onto.

>>16955108

OP is a lowest common denominator here.

No one takes this shit even for a second.

/x keeps on failing me.

File: bigfootbullshit.png (297KB, 877x484px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 877x484px

>>16955108
>Posting to share further material and cogent reasoning

Right. Bigfoot is an inter-dimensional being with dolphin sonar, that's why we can't find any physical evidence of their existence.

>Spamming every thread on the topic with the same exact pattern of posts

Agreed. You are extremely predictable.

I guess we'll just have wait for you to produce that big Sasquatch info-graphic that overwhelms the casual observer with exhaustive nonsense sprinkled with wiki-facts in much the same way you do with your Mars Anomalies Bullshit.

Pic related...

>>16955246
> Bigfoot is
IS

>evidence of their existence.
THEIR

Leave,

Just leave.

>>16955200
>>16955224
>>16955246

Do you ever get sad or feel regret over spending untold amounts of time out of your life spamming verbal abuse and manufactured outrage at people online: Just so you can get paid for trying to keep everyone in the dark about targeted information? If your sense of self is so deep in the shitter that this is the only means you have of feeling empowered. Then you should stop and evaluate yourself in light of that. It'll hurt to face it but It's a lot like expressing pus out of an infected wound, you'll be better off.

>>16952326
>Delusion and denial: The Post

File: bigfoot_calf_flex.gif (2MB, 476x709px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 476x709px

>>16955291
>Spamming accusations of shill when you can't debate the facts.

Not every poster who asks questions is a shill. Some people are attracted to the topic because they are actually intrigued by the possibility that this might be a real animal.

I know you're frustrated because threads about bigfoot can't focus completely on paranormal/fringe theories and don't seem to allow you to luxuriate in your furry 'foot fetishist fantasies.
Maybe the solution is to start your own threads where you set the perameters for the discussion in the OP?

>BIGFOOT AS AN INTER-DIMENSIONAL DOLPHIN SONAR EQUIPPED WENDIGO. DISCUSS.

It's worth a try...

>>16955483
Why doesn't bigfoot have an asscrack?

>>16955108

Looks like you got BTFO by a science nerd over here >>16944435 and then the thread got closed. You must be so butt-hurt, ass-ached, posterior-pained, and rump-raged about not getting your way.

>>16955507
Because it's not real?

>>16955483
>Not every poster who asks questions is a shill
lol

it's more the spread of dishonesty, not the questions. you'll notice that not every skeptic gets called a shill.

as if some dumbass ms paint debunks the film. why would it matter if the bigfoot has similar proportions to a human? it's another type a biped, why wouldn't it be similar to us?

>>16955483
Yeah, just spam more ad-hom and never once prove your case. Don't forget to misrepresent a hypothesis so you can apply the woo-factor and try to discredit such ideas: >>16935261
That must make you feel so good huh? Mmm . . . Drink it in.

>>16955565
The fact that you bring up an unrelated thread -sharp-shooting for one point doesn't invalidate all evidence by the way- not only shows this strange fixation you have on other posters, it also shows a sense of desperation.

You're so bent on attacking other posters that you show yourself to be obsessed and monitoring other posters to the point where you feel confident -or find it profitable- to accuse posters in two different threads of being the same.

Both alternatives reveal more about you and why you are here then they do about the posters you attack so obsessively.

>>16955767
This screen-cap: >>16955246 Is actually from one of thinker-thunker's video's where he showed how extremely a person would have to be morphed to fit the body-ratios displayed by the entity in the Patterson film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EicVEOtm1A

Which bears out the point that having no concrete basis on which to declare the film a hoax, they resort to misrepresenting information that actually supports the films veracity.

>>16955831
>unrelated thread

The idea that nano-engineered, light-absorbing, Photo-reactive materials exist on the the surface of Mercury and the idea that Bigfoot is an inter-dimensional dolphin sonar-enabled wendigos are related in that they are both masturbatory fantasies that exist solely in your mind...

>>16955892
Yet your being convinced that it must be a single poster in both threads, while all posters who consider Sasquatch to be real based on the information available are united in a crazed, delusional confederacy against your clearly superior world-view isn't?

>>16955874
>one of thinker-thunker's video's where he showed how extremely a person would have to be morphed to fit the body-ratios displayed by the entity in the Patterson film.

>Which bears out the point that having no concrete basis on which to declare the film a hoax, >they resort to misrepresenting information that actually supports the films veracity.

What convoluted and delusional logic. Let me get this straight, he distorts this image of BH >>16955246 and this image too >>16948549 and compares the human figure to a frame from the PG film that's in a completely different position and angle and then claims that it proves that the two figures can't have the same proportions?

And yet, This image >>16948419 shows a photo of the same man without any distortion compared to a frame of the film in the same pose, clearly demonstrating that the proportions are very similar, not wildly different as thinkerthunker claimed.

But, I'm the one "misrepresenting"?

>>16955909

The image in >>16948549 isn't morphed, the one in >>16955246 is. Misrepresentation again.

Also, the image is sourced from Bob attempting to emulate Patty's stride and despite how you lie about what is right in front of us. Body ratios are going to be consistent regardless of how far away the two subjects are from the camera.

More to the point: Do you have any proof that It's a man in a suit using the video itself? Or are you going to just bring spam more assertions that it isn't while engaging in blatant misrepresentation? Will you engage in more ad-hom? Bring up another unrelated thread? How else will you try to dodge the burden of proof for your claim?

>>16955942
You're reading comprehension is abysmal.

>>16955963
LOL you fucked up

The following comment from ThinkerThunker's video >>16955874
could have been written in this thread. What is it with the exact same fallacious, ignorant opinions masquerading as fact being spammed everywhere on this topic?

>>Jack Baxter 2 days ago
If bigfoot exist then surely by now we would at least found some fossils? And you really think a creature that's 7ft or more has been undetected for all these years. Come on people lets be realistic here. The only evidence is this old ass video which we can't prove its real but plenty of reasons why its fake and other videos that are just terrible quality. But yes the video does make s valid point but I still seriously doubt that its bigfoot. And you can easily make a suit with shorter legs and longer arms. I'm not trying to be a party pooper but the evidence to show the it does exist is so little and so poor quality. There's no way this "creature" as not been seen in over 50 years or even more. Considering the size of it there's no way it would stay undetected. Sorry but I'm a non-believer. But please guys prove me wrong ;)

ThinkerThunker's response is apt:

>>Giant skeletons, twelve to fourteen feet tall, have been found ALL OVER the Americas and the rest of the world, giants with red hair. Do a little research, you'll find articles confirming this fact in major newspapers.

>>So there goes your theory. Ignorance of facts and evidence doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. So for non-believers, your greatest weapon IS ignorance. And some how you guys are proud of not knowing or not even being curious. For non-believers, ignorance really is bliss.

>>And I did prove you wrong in this video. I can't help the fact that you can't grasp it :)

Being unable to grasp it is one thing, insisting that anyone who does is delusional?

>>They don't agree with me! How dare these inferior spergs prove me wrong! The deluded crack-pot "believers" are violating my intellectual bubble! Stop! This isn't right! I must project!

>>16931014
Did you do the research yourself or are you just going off of what History and Discovery HD tell you? If they proved it was a hoax they wouldnt be able to make anymore Bigfoot shows. Those specials lied to you.

It's not easy to film a wild animal that your arent prepared to film. Also it's fucking terrifying. Best case scenario is its an unidentified humanoid that could be dangerous. Worst case is its a fucking bear that is dangerous.

>>16955942
Thinkerthunker distorted his images and used poses that don't match in order to bolster his false claim. It's clearly seen in the images.

File: comparison.jpg (2MB, 1005x2068px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1005x2068px

>>16955942
>>16955989
So, Thinkerthunker's witty retort is..

>Muh giants!

Ugh, so sad.

Just look at the pics...

>>16956000
If it's a hoax why can't you prove it yourself? Why are you putting the blame on television channels now? So lazy.

>>16955989
a better response regarding the lack of fossils is that fossils are incredibly rare. something has to die in just the right spot so that it will be preserved.

there's no reason to expect to find fossils of anything, especially a living animal.

>>16956055
Neither of those comparisons are accurate. ThinkThunker made the mistake of using two different poses, but the bottom image makes the mistake in hiding the legs of the "bigfoot." The end of the leg could literally be anywhere behind that pile of debris and the back leg could literally be in any position behind that pile of debris. For all we know in that picture it could have noodle squid legs that bend in fantastic ways that the debris is blocking.

>>16956055
The idea that the bigfoot figure has different limb proportions from a human is so stupid. Do people really believe this nonsense???

>>16956055
The missing aspect of ThinkerThunkers retort? Wit, meaning memetic insults and ad-hom in your world, right?

>>16956048
Wow, you claim those ratios line up and call anyone who sees that they actually don't delusional? Project any harder and lights are going to start flashing out of your ears.

>>16956092
>>16956097
>>If It's backed up with consensus cracking, maybe I can fool someone!

>>16956092
>For all we know in that picture it could have noodle squid legs that bend in fantastic ways that the debris is blocking.

That's such a feeble comeback..

>>16956098
All ad-hom, no substance.

>>16956107
>>Projection intensifies.

>>16956098

>Wow, you claim those ratios line up and call anyone who sees that they actually don't delusional?

No, dumbass. Clearly, they don't line up at all. That's why thinkerthunker had to disort the images and use mis-matched poses in the first place.

>>16956101
My point was that different poses could lead to errors in evaluation (hence, ThinkThunker's mistake in comparing two different poses) and the mistake of using an image that hides a significant portion (a part of the figure that the analysis relies on) of an entity.

>>16956102
It's a ridiculous possibility that I intentionally stated because literally that leg could be doing god knows what behind that pile of debris. Fuck, that leg might not even exist behind that debris for some ungodly reason.

Still, neither of those two images in >>16956055 are very credible for those two mistake. ThinkThunker could fix his problem with a new video comparing two images with the same poses. He might come to the same conclusion, or he might not.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 1.07.58 PM.png (325KB, 866x541px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 866x541px

>>HEY GUYS! LOOK AT THIS BLOB!
>>IT"S LIMB RATIOS CAN"T BE HUMAN!
>>LOOK I'LL DRAW SOME LINES ON THIS BLOB TO PROVE IT!
>>WOW! 7% DIFFERENCE! NOT HUMAN!

Another of thinkerthunker idiotic claims.

>>16956116
So if they don't line up, you admit that supports that it isn't a human in a suit: In which case, ThinkerThunker must have distorted the images with the intention of obscuring that, even though you offer no proof that they did. Instead relying on taking aspects of the video out of context to misrepresent it to make it seem that this is the case. Same as here: >>16956138
Something readily demonstrated by viewing the actual video. I want anyone reading this undecided to take note of that and watch the video.

So, do you have any independent analysis or means by which to demonstrate proof for your claim that it is a man in a suit? Obviously not if you're going to such lengths. We can also discard the claim that no further evidence exists.

File: Bigfoot McClarin multiwalk comparison animation.gif (1MB, 1630x590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1630x590px

>>16956132
>It's a ridiculous possibility that I intentionally stated because literally that leg could be doing god knows what behind that pile of debris. Fuck, that leg might not even exist behind that debris for some ungodly reason.

That's not accurate. There are several hundred other frames of film from which the lower leg of the figure can be measured and compared to determine with pretty good accuracy how far it extends behind the fallen tree.

>>ThinkThunker could fix his problem with a new video comparing two images with the same poses. He might come to the same conclusion, or he might not.

You're right. And that supports my overall point here- It's not possible to make such accurate measurements and definitive claims based on the film. Thousands of measurements could be made and all of them be different. Considering all the variables involved, the PG film is inconclusive and proves nothing, that is, until a bigfoot body appears...

>>16956158
>demonstrate proof for your claim that it is a man in a suit?

I never made any such claim.

My point all along, and it hasn't changed, is that some people can use images to claim that the proportions between what's depicted in the film and a human being are substantially different, while other image comparisons show that the PG figure and human proportions appear to be approximately the same. It's a wash. It's inconclusive. It's not possible to generate data at that level of detail from an original image that is literally 2mm in height which is exactly what we are dealing with here.

>>16933974
Mothdan you are the only trip fag I like.

>>16956174
> other frames of film from which the lower leg of the figure can be measured and compared to determine with pretty good accuracy how far it extends behind the fallen tree.
That's probably true, but it's bad science to use a comparison that is missing information. There are spots before that tree that could be used as comparison instead.

> the PG film is inconclusive and proves nothing, that is, until a bigfoot body appears...
Can only meet you part way here. It is inconclusive and proves nothing, I will give you that. It does however suggest TWO possibilities. It's either Bigfoot or a Hoax. Neither of which get a conclusive enough investigation into them. There is bias on both sides that either shuts down investigation entirely or trusts too much.

Bigfoot investigators need to step up their game in fieldwork and people who defend to the death that it's a costume need to try replicating an accurate costume for it with what tech was available back in the day and what is available now. Those are the only two ways something is going to be proven.

IF Bigfoot exists and they learn and communicate with each other they could have developed a tendency to actively avoid people at this point.

>>16956188
When the line that It's a person in a suit gets thoroughly railed and misrepresentation on the part of those claiming it is runs out? What do they do? Return back to claiming It's inconclusive anyway!

>>16947195

File: this-is-my-land-michael-wawrzyniec.jpg (141KB, 900x674px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 900x674px

>>16956201

Thanks! For the record I've taken a few more jabs ITT without my tripcode but when I lurk threads like these I'm always reminded why I stopped getting into debates about Bigfoot, let alone individual pieces of evidence.

I've been around too many researchers and other intelligent people who are certain they exist and it's so much nicer being able to talk openly with such people. It is truly exhausting not only to be involved in debates like this but even just reading them is taxing.

So fellow Bigfoot enthusiasts, remember to take a break once in a while, and remember that dozens if not hundreds of these threads have come and gone over the years with not a single skeptic being converted. It may be difficult to avoid skeptics and simply have a lighthearted conversation about Sasquatch but it is possible.

On that note,
[shill] I investigated an area with Bigfoot history, retell a story about the sighting there relayed to me from a reputable town figure, and investigate a few "tree breaks" which are a common topic of discussion amongst Squatchers. If you want to take a break sometime come check it out!

boards.4chan.org/x/thread/16936567#p16952601
[/shill]

>>16956255
>but it's bad science to use a comparison that is missing information.

I think we basically agree, see: >>16956188

>There is bias on both sides that either shuts down investigation entirely or trusts too much.

Again, we agree. My working method for this is to trust nothing i'm told and investigate all the relevant data myself (to the extent that it's possible). Personally, my own interests in this field have gradually moved away from bigfoot and gravitated more to exploring the possibilities for the ebu gogo/ orang pendek/ homo floresiensis creature. In fact, I'll be going to Indonesia in february for unrelated reasons, but I intend to spend some time looking into this when I'm in Sumatera.

>>16956260
If you're going to insist that i've made claims that I never made, then we're done. Cheers.

>>16956307

>>16952601

It's most probably a relation of chew baca .

good night thread

>>16956255
>people who defend to the death that it's a costume need to try replicating an accurate costumE

Not really. The burden of proof lies with the original claim (Bigfoot supporters) who present the PG film as "proof" of bigfoot's existence.

>>16959196
/Thread.

>>16955298
>Projection: the post