BIGFOOT THREAD PART III: IN 3D

>>17937884
Yeah you really only summarized over 300 posts with stuff you liked

File: 1468911227695.png (311KB, 616x812px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 616x812px

First for bigfoot being fake as shit.

>>17937884
>only source of info is [...] the history channel. your face should be impaled on a foot-long steel spike
I am content with this interpretation.

Not related to Bigfoot I mean, just in general.

>>17937892
Oh thank god what a relief. I was afraid my tryhard voice of false consensus was never gonna be heard.

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

1MB, 1630x590px

>>17937892
7.
why would anybody even think to put tits on a bigfoot if they're going to create a hoax? that's just way too complicated but in fact, roger patterson was known to have written a book about bigfoot and drawn pictures of female sasquatches with big ole swingin' titays and stayed up late drawing pics of ladyfoots in his bedroom while fantasizing about being carried off into caves for rough sex-play.

There is a real thread up for those who want to discuss this not like children up

>>17937911

>>17937939
This thread looks more promising, honestly. Why not contribute your thoughts here rather than pouting and creating an anti-thread thread?

>>17937926
What's this gif meant to depict? that bigfoot is no larger than a man? Hmm, i thought bigfoot was supposed to be like 8 feet tall or some shit.

I didn't make that thread, this thread is just pessimistic and has outright no real discussion. Everyone who is a supporter of the idea of Bigfoot is already discredited besides all the evidence one brings in.

That's why I think >>17937911 is a better discussion

>>17937967
but there is no discussion there lol. i think you think it's better because you made it. and that's the only reason. this thread has all the framework in place for a fruitful discussion and vigorous debate in the style most accustomed to 4chan or even ancient greece, i dare say. if you have information to present then present it here discussion, anon. all shall be heard and given their due.

>>17937978
He didn't make it, I did lol

>>17937967
OP here. i listed 7 things i personally learned from the last thread. sure, i made it humorous but the truth is a lot of is in fact contradictory. if you have some really good data that you want to contribute i would love to read it and learn more. but until then, you're just another whiny crybaby faggot with nothing to do on a wednesday

>>17937989
>>17937990
I dunno his thread just feels more sincere, yeah there are contradictory things. But that is the point of discussion, meanwhile those who provided actual evidence and did cite things are given the same respect as skeptics who don't?

File: 1920_wildman_makeup.jpg (10KB, 148x276px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 148x276px

>>17937995
sure but i'm one of the people who provided quite a lot of data in the previous thread. this thread is just lighter tone seeing as people in the last thread were will to engage in all sorts of logical fallacies and not actually discuss relevant data.

in fact, did anyone ever mention that a frame from the patterson is smaller than a postage stamp and the figure inside the image is only 1/10 the height of the frame? NO. nobaody bother to mention that at all. yet, they go on to agree with "experts" who make all sorts of outlandish claims about muscle movements and hair flow patterns and other fantastical things can't cannot be seen in the film frames.

also, i've never heard, not once, anybody address the fact that the bigfoot in the film appears to be wearing SHORTS. how do you explain that? no, really.. how do you explain that???