BIGFOOT IV: THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES

File: bigfoot_proportions_comparison.jpg (74KB, 925x601px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 925x601px

>>17947280
It's difficult to look at the above .gif and not acknowledge there are some serious issues with accepting this film as documentation of a real animal.
the line across the thigh is an obvious seam.
the thigh moves in and out of the ass.
the ass doesn't move or flex.
the point of rotation of the shoulder is too low, just as you would see an arm swinging from under football shoulder pads. also, the trapezius is very stiff (shoulder pads) and requires the figure to rotate it's upper body in order to look back.
the tits are "pendulous" and saggy looking but don't jiggle or bounce around, but instead look stiff and stationary.

>let's keep arguing about whether bigfoot is real
No thanks. I enjoy sightings threads better because you get to hear from people who have actually seen bigfoot, not just people who want to argue about it.

File: bigfootponytail-flip.gif (1MB, 463x454px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 463x454px

>>17947358

Sighting are up for debate as well since most sightings cases are dubious at best due to eyewitness mis-identification and rampant, blatant hoaxing.

The Patterson film is the single best piece of visual evidence ever presented.

>>17947351
>The line across the thigh is....
Shown, on the film, to be caused by the hand making contact with the fur as the arm swings, causing the direction of the fur to change, which causes the light to reflect differently off of it and forming the line we see.

>the thigh moves in and out of the ass.
The same way human thigh muscles move in subjects that have a layer of subcutaneous fat in their ass.

>the ass doesn't move or flex.
Any differently than human bipeds when they walk...

>the point of rotation of the shoulder is too low, just as you would see an arm swinging from under football shoulder pads. also, the trapezius is very stiff (shoulder pads) and requires the figure to rotate it's upper body in order to look back.
The triceps and the biceps can be observed to be connected to the delts exactly the way they should be, and there is no costume material seen to be draping over any possible set of shoulder pads, nor is there visible costume material bunching at the joint.

>the tits are "pendulous" and saggy looking but don't jiggle or bounce around, but instead look stiff and stationary.
The breasts can be observed to bounce and jiggle just like human breasts.

Go to 22:35 to observe them tittays floppin' around

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0

File: FAKE.jpg (203KB, 1001x1620px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1001x1620px

>>17947351
>the line across the thigh is an obvious seam.
You mean like the zipper people used to claim they could see?
>the thigh moves in and out of the ass.
You're seeing what you want to see.
>the ass doesn't move or flex.
It absolutely moves, but it's a big ass. How much flexion do you expect to see from something walking on a straight plane? The only muscles below the waist that would show flexion are the thighs and calves, and that's exactly what's show in the footage. Flexing thigh, flexing calfs, even the toes are seen lifting and raising in some parts.
>the point of rotation of the shoulder is too low
Again seeing things you want to see.
>the trapezius is very stiff (shoulder pads) and requires the figure to rotate it's upper body in order to look back.
Muscular bodies have big traps and upper backs even on humans. The figure looks back while walking exactly as a human does. You think humans can look behind them while walking without turning their shoulders?

>>17947358
>>17947559
Both me btw I just couldn't help myself.

>>17947427
The "line" on the thigh doesn't correspond with the location of the fingertips as the arm swings. it's a few inches above that. additionally, if you look closely the line appears to follow on around the circumference of the thigh in both directions.

thighs do not disappear into asses like there is a hollow cavity under the butt cheek. even the fattest asses will move and jiggle dramatically when a person takes a heavy step. also, no matter how fat an ass is, the butt cheeks will move independent of each other following the movements of the legs.

regarding the shoulder joint, it's interesting to me that everything that you say can't possibly be padding or fabric bunching, you will in turn insist must be fat rolls and skin creases.

there are no titties flopping in that video. all you see are compressions and expansions of the whole form as it moves.

you're credulous if you think it any of this is so self-evidently factual.

Bill Munns is a former hollywood prop maker who is now making a career out of insisting that bigfoot is real based on the patterson film. Everything depends on it not being fake.

Stop sucking his choad and parroting his diatribe. Think for yourself.

>>17947559
You're simply denying what can be seen with your own eyes in favor of a belief.

File: 082a5251b41f32153288a81e2a53ab57.jpg (186KB, 736x849px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 736x849px

Remember the pact, guys.

File: KY-snow.jpg (134KB, 470x428px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 470x428px

>>17947686
>>17946040

Agreed.

They exist. I have seen them.

>>17947709
Go on..

>>17947714
Had one run in front of my car at night. Saw one in the middle of the day crossing a field. Had rocks thrown at me in the woods. Found scat.

File: vomiting candy corn.gif (2MB, 499x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 499x281px

>>17946534
That's bigfoot believers in a nutshell, bro.

>>17947358
>you get to hear from people who have actually seen bigfoot
>who have actually seen bigfoot


I've seen the tooth fairy, and several unicorns. Are you ready to document and publish my personal report of these "sightings" ?

Many people think they have seen something and it wasn't really what they think they saw.
Many people see things in the woods and don't know what it was they saw and easily mistakenly identify it as something it is not. or they completely imagine they saw "bigfoot"

Myself and many people i personally know have spent most of our lives wandering and exploring the mountains and forests of the PNW.

Any one who is not mentally retarded and has spent this much time deep in the forests knows that it is quite easy and common to see things that look like something they are not.

The human eye is naturally looking to locate and recognize certain shapes and patterns and somehow identify them as one thing or another.
It is hardwired into our brains to do this.

Just walk through the woods and look all around as you move. look at things at different distance and from different angles and under different conditions of light and shadow.
You will start to see all kinds of things that aren't really there, but the way trees, stumps, branches, hanging moss and everything else together with a little movement and sound provided by wind and gravity, you can imagine all kinds of things when its nothing but the natural forest.
This is not even considering the various large and small animals roaming around that contribute to things you smell, see or hear.
And add to that the fact that sometimes people exaggerate or just make up stories.

>>17947773
So what's the craziest thing YOU have seen in the PNW?

... see any stairs?

>>17947731
no details? this isn't fucking twitter. come on, bro!

>>17947819
The car incident happened about 2am on a dirt road miles from the nearest house other than my own.
The field sighting was middle of the day, once again near my house. I had hunted coyote there before, so I know the place. I would estimate its height to be about 6'6-7'.

>>17947584
Your posts are shit but this is the worst

>Bill Munns is a former hollywood prop maker who is now making a career out of insisting that bigfoot is real based on the patterson film

Wow what a "career", instead of being paid hundreds of thousands on set making costumes he's going to seminars for free and giving speeches. Yes, quite a "career".

File: Tribal-Bigfoot-drawings-1.jpg.w560h519.jpg (38KB, 560x519px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 560x519px

>>17947852
I'll post a few pics (starting with this one), and you can tell us which it most resembled. Ok?

File: ramapithecus_origins.jpg (26KB, 287x512px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 287x512px

>>17947859

>>17947773
>tooth fairy
>unicorns
Stopped reading. If you're going to come at a topic with nothing but dogma and attitude you can't expect anyone to give a shit what you have to say.

File: image023.jpg (35KB, 525x434px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 525x434px

>>17947863

File: mg56402,1252420625,ramapithecus3.jpg (55KB, 400x371px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x371px

>>17947867
Here's the last of them.

>>17947788
>craziest thing I've seen in the PNW?
Aside from spooky hippie camps or weird things stashed in the woods, not much.

Nothing really "crazy" because eventually I recognize what I see or what i thought I saw as the perfectly natural things that are actually there all the time.

I've had a few times where I saw something at first glance and it scared the shit out of me because at first it looked like a gargoyle demon or an alien or something.
Then at second look I can see it is nothing more than a tree or stump with an odd shape combined with a trick of light and shadows along with my brain trying to make out organized shapes and patterns from everything it sees.

Never really seen anything that I thought was supernatural or paranormal. Found a few odd artifacts here and there, and slightly odd wear patterns on trees and stumps but nothing to ever give me the idea there was anything like a bigfoot creature out there

of course I've heard plenty of "stories" from acquaintances. stories about things they saw or heard that made them think it very well could have been a bigfoot.
Those were just stories they tell and entirely based on their own personally skewed perceptions of things they think they saw or heard.

The main thing I got from spending so much time deep in the forest is that, it can be easy for a person to mistake perfectly ordinary shapes and sounds for any fantastical creature your care to imagine if your mind and your personality is prone to such imaginings. But in reality the only thing out there is the natural forest and its inhabitants that we already know about.

The inexperienced, crazy, or dishonest people go out there and imagine they see all kinds of things that aren't true

>>17947864
>you can't expect anyone to give a shit what you have to say.

did you forget? this is a thread about an entirely fictional, imaginary creature you know?

File: homo_erectus_by_zdenek_burian_1955.jpg (785KB, 1530x1102px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1530x1102px

>>17947872
One more, sorry.

File: 0181d68c3ff802e3f48dc8ba35c2ec45.jpg (9KB, 236x147px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x147px

>>17947280
Bigfoot has been seen by enough military officials and soldiers in training that the U.S. Army had to classify them as a known type of wildlife.

This doesn't mean they have any interest in proving their existence to civilians or the public at large. There's nothing to be gained from that. But they cared enough to acknowledge within their own organization that these creatures were out there because if you allow people in your organization to have encounters with something they aren't sure you're aware of, you look incompetent. Secrets are kept about it and it damage morale.

There are documented sightings by high ranking military officials who would never risk their reputation if they didn't already know that the military acknowledged these creatures.

It's not a myth or a legend, but popular culture has designated it as such, and that's a convenient place to leave the topic for officials. Just let people continue to believe it's imaginary or not real. The truth is there are a species of people on this planet who have been here for millenia who are not yet fully extinct, and subsets of this species exist all over the planet, not just in North America. There was no point that this "legend" did not exist on Earth, because they have always been here and humans have always co-existed and bumped into them.

>>17947880
And on the fourth thread the trolls returned.

>>17947895
>Population of military personnel contains roughly the same percentage of whack jobs and easily fooled idiots as the rest of the population

what a surprise

>>17947859
This looks like the one I saw in the field, as far as posture. It was slumped over more, and looked more scrawny. I couldn't see the face. Hair was a dark tan.

>>17947904
>questions dubious claims and blatant falsehoods
Yep, must be a troll.
Nice attempt at damage control there mr fantasyland unicorn believer

>>17947922
Might have been an adolescent just before they start to bulk up.

File: Fatass foot.jpg (187KB, 1225x806px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1225x806px

>>17947584
Pic related: All of those lines that people believe indicate a costume have been accounted for as the sam subcutaneous fat that appears in human bipeds, or, the fur simply being contacted with the hand while walking.

>thighs do not disappear into asses like there is a hollow cavity under the butt cheek.
An ass most certainly can appear to drap over the thigh as demonstrated here:

Start at 35:09 for ass comparisons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0

> it's interesting to me that everything that you say can't possibly be padding or fabric bunching, you will in turn insist must be fat rolls and skin creases.

Padding can create both, fabric bunching, and fabric draping, however, by observing the arms, and the upper arm connection to the deltoid area, there are no noticeable signs of either bunching or draping during arm swing, and this is indicative of natural biology, and not padding, or the lack of padding.

Fabric bunching, and draping, tends to be most notable at the joints in the body. This is because the material collects and bunches in the joint while the joint is bent, but when the joint is straightened, it doesn't contour with the joint and simply drapes over it masking the joint and its recessed areas.

When you observe the PG film, you would expect to see material bunching up at the inside of the elbow joint as the arm is bent, at the back of the knee, and at the ankles when the feet are bent, but there is no visible fabric bunching at those locations. You would also expect to see fabric draping over those joints as the arm / leg is extended, but again, you don't see that on the creature, and you can see the recess of the back of the knee, and the recess on the inside of the elbow joint as both are extended.

These two facts are what prove the creature to be real, and not a fake. We just couldn't make suits like that then, or even 20 years after.

>>17947872
This one has the same posture as the one that crossed in front of my car. I think it was a juvenile, because of its size, a little over 5' tall. It also looked scrawny. I was living in N. Arizona, in an area with trees, but not a lot of large game, or water. I believe they were just passing through to greener pastures.

>>17947927
>dubious claims
Not the same as fairytales.
>blatant falsehoods
Irrelevant. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence at these scales. You are literally the faggot that thinks opinions are knowledge. They aren't.

File: steven_greer_logical_fallacies copy.jpg (507KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1280x720px

>>17947895
>high ranking military officials
>Argument from Authority Logical Fallacy

Hhhmm. Sounds familiar. Where have I heard almost exactly the same argument before regarding another not-so-paranormal load of shite.

Oh yeah, Steven Greer

>G-guys we have to believe what THE AUTHORITIES tell about stuff that i'm making a profit off of! Otherwise, society will crumble!

>>17947955
I'm more of a "diamond in the ruff" type of person. Once you sift through the shit, you'll find a few gold nuggets here and there.

>>17947584
>there are no titties flopping in that video.
They sure looked like floppy titties to me....


>Bill Munns is a former hollywood prop maker who...

Funny how you guys shit on anyone that supports the existence of Sasquatch, regardless of their experience or credentials....actually, it's pretty sad.

The dude took digital pics of every frame from the original film, and provided a visual comparison of the creature in the film with costumes, animals, and people. That's a lot of effort, and should be commended.

Zapruder could have been a piece of shit, but his film of JFK getting his brains blown out speaks for itself, and so does the Patterson film, and the comparisons done by Bill Munns.

Skeptics always cry "burden of proof", and it's because of dudes like Munns, and Dr. Meldrum, and Patterson himself, that we HAVE proved the existence of Sasquatch, via film and footprint evidence.

So unless you have any visual comparisons that support your claims, then you're no different from the common skeptic that brings nothing to the discussion but the repetitive rantings of "is nots" and "burden of proof!".

>>17947948
Forgot to mention I got a good look at the juveniles face. It looked Almost human, but not quite. It was hairless, with flat features. But not like>>17947859

>>17947955
>Otherwise, society will crumble!
That's not what he's saying. What he's actually saying is that witness testimony is the foundation of all civilization and cooperation and law. Playing double standard is anti-human.

>>17947921
>>17947955
Nobody cares what you do or do not believe. The point is that more intelligent men with more credibility than you have classified this creature as being a real thing. Why should we disregard that because some anonymous loser on the internet doesn't "believe"?

And make no mistake about it - that's all you are. An anonymous loser on the internet whose opinions or belief mean nothing. Prove otherwise.

File: Gazajunk+rolled+a+random+image+posted+in+comment+4028+at+_b0333b23020e82e58379b320524ebfc4.png (222KB, 1039x1000px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1039x1000px

>>17947973
But you said here >>17947922 that you didn't.

>>17947955
>Argument from Authority Logical Fallacy
Another way of saying "la la I can't hear you" whenever experts are brought into the topic.

>>17947955
Wow, someone mentions military officials and suddenly you're on a steven greer tangent? You're surely a level headed person capable of honest debate. Not desperate at all.

>>17947976
>Prove otherwise.
there you go again with those idiotic bigfoot truthers argument fallacies.
It is not our burden to "disprove" any of these fantastic "claims"
Yes, that is all they are is fantastical claims.

>>17947978
NO, I said I didn't see the face of the one in the field. I saw the one that crossed in front of my car.

>>17947955
>Using high school debate club terms like "argument from authority logical fallacy"
>doesn't understand probability and why "authority" figures are deemed to be authority figures

Steven Greer is a hack, though, I'll give you that...

>>17947993
Oh, ok. Sorry, I didn't notice. I've got a lot going on.

>>17947991
So you're not more credible than officials in science, the military and biology? You're just a sad person who uses "muh appeal to authority logical fallacyyyy" as a lazy argument to points that challenge your belief system?

How surprising. Very brave of you to admit that.

>>17947985
>experts
There's no such thing as an expert skeptic. Disbelief is not evidence, no matter what kind of credibility an authority purports.

>50 posts
>9 posters
These threads are always the same.

Just remember there's no point trying to argue the existence of something to people who can't accept it, so if you don't "believe" Bigfoot is real - who fucking cares? Who are you? Why should anyone care what you believe or do not believe? There are greater minds in the world who have proven themselves worth listening to who are open to the existence of if not certain of the existence of these creatures. You're literally nobody. Go back to screaming "ROLEPLAYER" in skinwalker threads.

>>17947941
OK. This is the 5th or 6th time I've gone down the rabbithole with you on this Bil Munn video and it's the 5th or 6th time that what you claim is explained away by his brilliant "research" is in fact not explained at all.
I've watched that video in it's entirety several times on my own and now I've given you the benefit of the doubt more times than many others would in the hopes that something will miraculously be explained that wasn't clear before.
Now I'm fairly certain that you are either A. not playing fairly and just having a laugh by wasting everyone's time with this nonsense or B. you've drank the koolaid and truly believe Bill Munns has the final word on the Patterson film. Either way, I'm done with it. In the future, try to avoid referencing that poorly made video presentation. Let's see where we can go without using that as a crutch.

>>17947975
>witness testimony is the foundation of all civilization and cooperation and law.

People always like to focus on the negative aspects of witness testimony and observation, largely due to our current legal system that depends on this negativity to aid their defense of clients.

People lie, and people make mistakes, but people also tell the truth, and can be surprisingly accurate in any given observation.

The bottom line is that you can't discount human testimony, because for every liar out there, there's a lot of people that see exactly what they say they saw.

>>17948021
This, but board-wide. There's an authority for every belief. Our population size guarantees at least one.

>>17948020
>There's no such thing as an expert skeptic.

Who said anything about skeptics? The appeal to authority argument is being used to refute things determined by officials (in the military).

Anyway, there is such thing as an expert skeptic, people whose profession is to use scientific proof to test theories or render a carefully diagnosed verdict on things.

They're called scientists, some of them work in the military and deemed fit to allow Sasquatch into the category of wildlife for official military manuals. We shouldn't listen to them though, that'd be an "appeal to authority logical fallacy".

>>17947955
I have no problem with this criticism.

>>17947975
>>17947976
>>17947985
>>17947989
>>17947996

>TRIGGERED

You true believers are making exactly the same argument as Greer. Seems appropriate.

>>17948013
As per usual the bigfoot truther refuses to see the huge lack of weight in his own argument.
Fantastical claims of sightings mean absolutely nothing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A "Sighting" is not physical evidence you gloriously thick headed buffoon.
High ranking military officials have allegedly given testimony as to the reality of UFOs and ETs too.
Yet not one shred of physical evidence is available for public disclosure or open to independent scientific scrutiny.

I don't care how many "sightings" you claim have been testified to or reported by "credible military personnel". It amounts to nothing in the absence of tangible physical evidence.

But go ahead and keep on believing your so intellectual to believe in nonsense with no proof whatsoever. You probably believe in the bible too. religious nutjob levels of belief and faith in something there is no actual evidence of or any reason to believe whatsoever other than somebody tells me so.

Spent most of my life roaming and exploring mountains and remote forests. seen and done plenty out there. never seen or heard anything to indicate bigfoot.

Is it possible it exists?
for the 100th time, Yes. Maybe possible.
It may be possible.
Is it proven? NO it is not.

>>17948052
All I know is what I saw. And what I saw was not a bear, or a man in a suit.

>>17948071
>All I know is what I saw. And what I saw was not a bear, or a man in a suit.
And who are you?
And what did you see?
Where did you see it?
When did you see it?
How far away from you was it?
What time of day?
What was the weather like?
What were you doing during the time leading up to and immediately prior to this event?

File: Fatty comparisons.jpg (198KB, 1272x757px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1272x757px

>>17948029
>what you claim is explained away by his brilliant "research"

I'm not claiming anything, and neither is that dude. It is what it is, and the film speaks for itself.

It's not hard to see the difference between the back of a costume, a Sasquatch, a gorilla, and a person, and by making these comparisons, one can draw conclusions.

>This is the 5th or 6th time I've...

.....offered nothing to the thread but unjustified "is nots".

Guys why can't this just be civil? Why do you have to attack each other with subjective claims. Yes there are appeal to authority fallacies, but those people are trained in field more than we are. it is a fallacy yes, but it is still more likely that they are correct in their analyses than we are with our beliefs

>>17948052
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'd settle for a single piece of mundane (extraordinary) evidence like a hair, bone fragment, or tooth that shows "Unknown Primate" DNA found in the PNW.

That's all that's needed.

>I don't care how many "sightings" you claim have been testified to or reported by "credible military personnel". It amounts to nothing in the absence of tangible physical evidence.

This is correct. 1000 pieces of shit-tier evidence will never compile to somehow form collectively "good evidence".

similarly, 1000 "testimonies" are not equivalent to and will never equal one single piece of physical evidence.

>>17948033
This, exactly.
>>17948041
>whose profession is to use scientific proof to test theories or render a carefully diagnosed verdict
Except those people don't actually exist.

>>17947351
>It's totally real guys
>Foot looks like a shoe

>>17948080
The fuck does it matter? Your mind is already made up.

>>17947559
>You're seeing what you want to see.
Haha holy fucking shit! You were trying to be ironic here, right?

>>17948108
>Haha holy fucking shit!
Awesome argument! I tip my fedora to you sir!

File: 1469292533628.jpg (83KB, 240x263px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 240x263px

>>17947427
>Shown, on the film, to be caused by the hand making contact with the fur as the arm swings
Hand is too low for that.

>>17948080
>A human being
>See >>17947852->>17947922->>17947973->>17947993
>The car crossing was at about 15'- 2am- clear almost full moon- october- driving home from work

>The field was aprox 100 yards- midday- clear- october- driving down same road.


>

>>17948114
Not the thumb....which you DO consider part of the hand, yes?

>>17948087

>I'm not claiming anything, and neither is that dude. It is what it is, and the film speaks for itself.

I don't believe you are this stupid so I will have to conclude that you are intentionally lying.

You are most certainly making claims that the figure in the film is an unknown animal and there is absolutely nothing factual or self-evidently true about those claims.

The only fact that can reasonably be taken away from the film is that it is inconclusive as to what the figure in the film represents.

>all these anons that think that Bigfoot evolved from apes that lived in either Africa or Bamboo forests and primarily ate plants

>>17948132
>I don't believe you are this stupid so I will have to conclude that you are intentionally lying.
More awesome arguments from the "skeptics".

Seriously why do you faggots even bother? What happened in your life that you can't contain yourselves from being such prissy little bitches about things like this? Your opinions and beliefs on something like bigfoot don't matter... to anyone. They certainly don't matter enough to warrant constantly flipping attitude at strangers on the internet about it.

Fedoras are such frustrated and pissy creatures. I'll never understand you.

>>17947895
>the U.S. Army had to classify them as a known type of wildlife.
[citation needed]

>>17948138
>evolved from apes that lived in either Africa or Bamboo forests and primarily ate plants
You mean like humans?

Primates eat meat all the time by the way.

>>17948114
Agreed and already stated previously. Also, you'll notice in the OP gif that the angle of the shadow across the torso would indicate that the arm is swinging at a slight outward angle away from the body.
>>17948119
No part of the hand is coming into contact with the leg. You'll also note that the line or seam curves around the circumference of the thigh at both ends. This is consistent a seam.

File: dryopithecusGE.jpg (75KB, 640x499px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x499px

>>17948138
Incorrect, I'm a dryo man myself.

>>17948143
He's talking about giganto and australo most likely. One was a panda in an ape suit, and the other has no documented fossils outside of Africa.

File: army 4.jpg (67KB, 556x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 556x400px

>>17948140
>refusing to do your own legwork

http://www.worldcat.org/title/washington-environmental-atlas/oclc/38261291

Washington environmental atlas
Author: United States. Army. Corps of Engineers.; University of Washington. Institute for Environmental Studies.
Publisher: Washington, D.C. : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975.

>>17948150
das cute

>>17948132
>an unknown animal
Please.

>there is absolutely nothing factual or self-evidently true about those claims
Nice word salad.

> it is inconclusive as to what the figure in the film represents
Please.

>>17947955
Biggest conman in the business.

>The government are hiding the truth about aliens!
>Give me money to get them to reveal the truth!
>Oh by the way I can also contract aliens and could reveal them myself
>But lol I still need money to get the government to reveal the aliens

>>17948154
Why is this an issue? They're erring on the side of caution that the animal might exist based on reports. They are not saying that they have bigfoot bodies stored in cryo-chambers somewhere underneath area 51.

>>17947967
>we HAVE proved the existence of Sasquatch
You have far from proved the existence.

File: Blurred leg comparisons.jpg (180KB, 1006x574px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1006x574px

>>17948146
>No part of the hand is coming into contact with the leg.
>Despite the fact that the picture posted clearly shows the thumb area of the hand exactly on line with the line in question

At :41 seconds, you can clearly see the fur line change colors back and forth as the hand sweeps across the leg while it walks.

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

The line changes from dark, to light, to dark, to light.

>>17948162
No arguments presented.

>>17948013
Hold up. What makes a military official more credible when discussing bigfoot?
Are all military people trained in the science of bigfoot spotting?

>>17948172
I see it. Switches between dark and white sheen from the hair being brushed in a different direction. Like carpet.

>>17948174
You really need someone to spell it out? The creature is Bigfoot. Your post is bullshit because you're just saying a whole lot of nothing.

Who talks like this?
>there is absolutely nothing factual or self-evidently true about those claims
Someone who is full of shit, that's who. Just say you don't believe, say there is no proof. No need to talk like a faggot.

>>17948172
That's ridiculous. Not only is the line clearly visible throughout, but you can clearly see at the beginning of the sequence the line wraps all the way around the back of the leg. That's clearly visible.

>>17948182
>Switches between dark and white sheen from the hair being brushed in a different direction. Like carpet.

Exactly...

>>17948100
Are you trying to make some kind of point about denial of bigfoot by denying that credible scientists exist? Because there's not really a comparison.

>>17948197
>clearly
>clearly
>clearly
You sound so desperate in your argument. A common theme with "skeptics".

>>17948197
Holy shit. You're right, anon. That's a fucking seam. Never noticed this shit before.

>>17948210
>inb4 bigfooters call this post a samefag

>>17948197
You're going to have show me, anon, as I can only see the side of the thigh, and not the back.

Post a vid link, or a gif.

File: bigfoot_asstorso.gif (3MB, 1024x1002px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x1002px

let's take a closer look. i wanted to believe but it seems pretty clear this is a suit. look at the way the leg goes under the butt. and yeah, that seam.

>>17948216
What? During the repeating stabilized portion of the above video you can see a large portion of the back of the thigh as well as the side of it.

>>17948197
>>17948210
Hey great it's a monkey suit. Too bad you can't prove it, we'll just have to take your word for it because you swear you can see seams.

Also it's too bad there are no suits in existence that can flex fake calf and thigh muscles, but hey. You swear you can see seams and zippers in the suit so it's case closed.

>desperation increases
And now the "skeptics" become the one thing they claim to hate. Religious zealots and "believers" of their own flimsy arguments.

It's always the same, always will be. There's a reason /x/ gets tired of these threads and we often go months at a time without them.

File: Two-orangutans-012.jpg (230KB, 722x480px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 722x480px

>>17948217
Or fat.

File: Get in the trash.png (193KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x600px

>>17948220
Hey great it's a monkey. Too bad you can't prove it, we'll just have to take your word for it because you swear you can see flexing calf and thigh muscles.

Also it's too bad there are no animals in existence with seams and zippers, but hey. You swear you can see calf and thigh muscles so it's case closed.

>>17948218
Here's another vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-8FeEEo-8

At 2:42 you can see the back of the thigh, and it is the same uniform dark color, so there's no hand sweep, and no seam back there.

>>17948217

>>17947941

File: Irony.jpg (53KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x640px

>>17948227

File: blackbear.jpg (116KB, 826x574px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 826x574px

See all these lines in the fur?

Seams.

>>17948105
>Your mind is already made up.
No it is not.

jesus fucking christ you are fucking thick headed and blind and cant read.

Yes, i remain skeptical. But in almost every single one of my posts I have stated explicitly that I believe Bigfoot maybe possible.
But I refuse to "blindly Believe" in it.
I remain interested and would love to find that it exists. but it is not yet proven that it does in fact exist. not by a long shot.

Another one of your bigfoot truther argument fallacies. Skeptics are labeled trolls and "un-believers" just because they are wanting actual evidence.

Sorry if your such an easily manipulated child brained fool that you cant distinguish the difference between an honest skeptic with a discriminating mind and an internet troll.
Your Bigfoot hysteria has made you paranoid, illogically defensive and close minded

>>17948217
Ok. Fuck it. I believed this was video of a real creature for a long. But this shit's too obvious.That's not a butt cheek dimple or skin crease. That's a fucking cut-out for the leg-hole of a suit. Jesus. You can even see at the front of the waistline there's a fabric fold that compresses. Fascinating but disappointing at the same time.

>>17948230
Hey great it's a faggot. Too bad the faggot isn't an accredited expert or biologist like those who reviewed the film and declared it impossible to be a suit due to limb proportions and the proven inability for people to create a suit like that either now or in the 60s when the film was made.

Also it's too bad the faggot can't live with the idea that people might take the opinion of accredited experts and biologists over his own, but hey. He's a faggot.

>>17948105
Well it may as well be if you don't make any sort of concerted effort to change it.

File: bigfoot taco.gif (569KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 300x300px

>>17948247
>Hey great it's a faggot. Too bad the faggot isn't an accredited expert or biologist like those who reviewed the film and declared it to be a suit due to limb proportions and the proven ability for people to create a suit like that either now or in the 60s when the film was made.
Also it's too bad the faggot can't live with the idea that people might take the opinion of accredited experts and biologists over his own, but hey. He's a faggot.

>desperation increases
YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE IN BIGFOOT IF I CAN HELP IT

FEDORA GIVE ME STRENGTH

>>17948255
>declared it to be a suit due to limb proportions
Show me experts who showed the limb proportions were possible with a suit.

I can show you the experts that prove it's not possible. You can't show me experts proving that it is.

But hey. You're a faggot. Case closed.

>>17948239
i wanted to believe but it seems pretty clear this is a suit. look at the way the leg goes under the chest. and yeah, that seam.

File: Fake.jpg (396KB, 1547x798px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1547x798px

>>17948239

Definitely fake.

>>17948021
>so if you don't "believe" Bigfoot is real - who fucking cares? Who are you? Why should anyone care what you believe or do not believe?
So in other words

>Agree with what I believe in or fuck off
This isn't your circle jerk hugbox. This is a place for paranormal DISCUSSION.

>>17948239
Ok. Fuck it. I believed this was picture of a real creature for a long. But this shit's too obvious.That's not a fur behaving like fure. That's a fucking cut-out for the neck-hole of a suit. Jesus. You can even see at the front of the waistline there's a fabric fold that compresses. Fascinating but disappointing at the same time.

>>17948041
>allow Sasquatch into the category of wildlife for official military manuals
[citation needed]

>>17948233
what a joke. just watching this over and over. for years now.
Its so plainly obvious that is the natural walk of a man.
and the little foot notes at the bottom of the screen are so disingenuous they're outright lies.
they highlight how supposedly the foot goes from "curled toes" to "flat feet" to allegedly substantiate the articulation of genuine feet.
The feet are only halfway in frame when they are trying to point this part out.
This would only convince a gullible child or a complete retard

>>17948270
>[citation needed]
Trademark of the skeptifag. Read the thread kiddo.

>>17947280
The PG fim would never be considered credible evidence in any real scientific field.

>>17948112
It's not an argument. Just pointing out the irony of someone accusing others of doing the exact thing they are doing.

>>17948239
what a joke. just look at this over and over. for years now.
Its so plainly obvious that is the natural walk of a man.
and the little claws at the bottom of the screen are so disingenuous they're outright lies.
they highlight how supposedly the paw goes from "curled toes" to "flat paw" to allegedly substantiate the articulation of genuine paws.
The back paw is totally hidden behind that fake leg when they are trying to point this part out.
This would only convince a gullible child or a complete retard

OP here. Thread's turned to shitposting by bigfooters. I doubt i'll start another thread, but I did enjoy the conversation while it lasted. Thanks guys!

Cheers.

>>17948154
>the U.S. Army had to classify them as a known type of wildlife.
>Reports of sasquatch tracks and sightings
Ok, so where does it say that they have classified it as a known type of wildlife?

>>17948282
Never post here again.

>>17948284
>desperation increases

>>17948260
>I can show you the experts that prove it's not possible
Go ahead.

>>17948287
How is that desperation? You said they had officially classified it as a real creature.
But provided no proof of that.

Making a record of sightings and supposed tracks is not even remotely the same as officially declaring it a known type of wildlife.

This thing you're claiming is a seam was already acknowledged as one of many lines on the thigh. So are there multiple seams in the leg? How would that make sense?

Here's the post you're choosing to ignore because your brain is tiny and the idea of monkey men that you weren't taught are real in school upsets you.
>>17947941

Lines are visible in the fur of all animals. It's a natural phenomena.

>>17948287
>Desperation ceases

>>17948296
You're the one insisting it's a costume. Prove it.

Oh what's that, you don't have any proof or any experts on your side of the argument proving that it's possible to be a suit?

Sucks to be you.

>>17948280
>copying my comment and pasting it as a response to completely un related image
more disingenuous retardation by the bigfoot truther nutjobs

File: 8ba0f77a8eef5bb98c9c9ea4237b5785.jpg (69KB, 500x429px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x429px

The pact.

>>17948305
>tfw the burden of proof would be on your side if this were real science
>tfw none of these "muscle movements" even make sense when you look at this old grainy video made by a con man

>>17948300
>>17948305
see:
>>17948217

Can you prove it's a suit?
>"i see zippers and seams"
And I don't. I see naturally occurring lines in black fur as happens with all animals. Does that prove it's a bigfoot? No. Not anymore than you claiming you see seams proves it's a suit.

>"prove it's bigfoot"
I can't, but I can show you expert research by accredited scientists and professors and experts in the film industry that concludes it is not a suit.

Can YOU prove it's a suit? Do you have expert research to show that concludes it's a suit?

No? Then why are you adhering to these beliefs that can't be proven? Are you insane?

>>17948327
>claims it's a suit
>has nothing to back his claims up
Sorry you make claims you can't back up I guess?

>>17948300
>This thing you're claiming is a seam was already acknowledged as one of many lines on the thigh. So are there multiple seams in the leg? How would that make sense?

Oh yeah? Haha. It's just one of many lines. Sure.

>>17948335
You don't see multiple lines here? >>17947941

>>17948310
It seems to have been forgotten.

>>17948334
Likewise, Anon.

File: 1465779539633.jpg (23KB, 720x290px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x290px

>>17947280
Who gives a fuck about the asshole who filmed obviously he's a scam artist and we all know it! Look at the shitty suit, IT HAS FUCKING HAIR ON ITS TITS! I fucking dare you to tell me about a mammal with hairy tits (besides my mother) even gorillas have no hair on their tits. No primate has hairy tits. And it's shoulders are football shoulder pads. It's a shitty suit and the "Bigfoot" in the gif walks just like a dude in a suit with heavy ass shoulder pads would walk slouched and those muscles in his legs, fucking stitches.

>>17948350
Or ignored.

>>17948087
It's got hairy tits you dumb fuck. Also I can clearly debunk your little picture of "evidence" that Bigfoot "exists" the man in the suit was a fatty, therefore his back fat was showing through his suit. Kinda like when you put on a shirt.

>>17948381

None of the other great apes live in a climate that warrants hairy breasts. Sasquatch do, though.

There isn't a single contemporary man made fur costume that has demonstrated the ability to display the muscle and fat below the costume itself. If you would like to provide an example of one, I'd love to see it, but until you do, your theory has been disproved, as that post demonstrates.

>>17948310
It was fine until the 'footers ran out of bill munn video answers and started shitposting.

>>17948404
we've been over this 50 times. the film is inconclusive and proves nothing.

there isn't a single hair, fingernail, turd, or eyelash to prove that this unicorn exists.

not one single piece of physical evidence.

demanding that others prove it's a suit in a film is just deflection.

File: dryopithecus (1).jpg (57KB, 575x673px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 575x673px

>>17948410
To be completely honest, I have never read any serious books or watched any of the videos by these experts. I specialize in speculative biology and physical anthropology. Cryptozoology is a little much for me.

>>17948423
That's neato. Tell me more please. I have a masters degree in art and have spent the past 5 years drawing figure models (mostly fatties). I had two years in undergrad studying anatomy extensively ( i thought i wanted to be a medical illustrator) and I can tell you the claims being made about the Patterson film showing muscle and fat really stretch credulity and in some instances, completely bogus.

>>17948300
>already acknowledged as one of many lines on the thigh
>I said it's a line on the thigh therefore it is and can't possibly be anything else
Funny how in the image 3 identical lines are labelled as two different things.

File: oreopithecusWC.jpg (34KB, 640x354px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x354px

>>17948439
Personally, I think the video is inconclusive. It all boils down to what the people viewing the video believe. It's like that Ham vs Nye debate, you won't convince anyone and only strengthen the morale in either group. I propose a fossil hunt around the areas where the creature has been sighted (but only after finding out which are fraudulent, of course). The only forseeable problem is the paucity of ape fossils in any given area. Even if this creature was already well-established in the ecosystem by the pleistocene, it was most likely still a forest-dweller rather than a plains-dweller, which would mean the chances of finding anything remotely apelike are slim. It would probably be best to look in places that were once heavily forested.

>>17948479
Have there been fossil hominid remains found in north america?

>>17948486
At this moment, none so far. The creature I posted is one of the best preserved apes of the Miocene, located in modern day Italy.

>>17948334
Same thing that has been posted tons of time- why do I have to prove that an animal with no real evidence of its existence isn't a guy in a suit?

I just go along with this >>17948419

An old ass film made by a con man that is too grainy to pull any real evidence from. Get a real piece of evidence and maybe the film would have more credibility. But this thing can be enhanced and enhanced and it still won't be considered proof among anybody but believers.

There are too many things going against the likelihood of this animal existing for me to look at this grainy ass film (did I mention it was made by a con man?) and say that one piece of """evidence""" 100% proves this thing is real.

There's another anon who mentions about bigfoot being metaphysical, and I think that is much more likely than a natural ape-like creature. I'm open-minded to all of this stuff but there is nothing conclusive about it like lots of people here seem to believe. Especially when that one clip is the strongest thing that squatchers have had for decades to back up their claims, and that clip in itself is really weak. You're not going to change biology textbooks with that video.

>>17948419
>we've been over this 50 times. the film is inconclusive and proves nothing.

To biased people like you?

Sure.

You think it's no different than a "unicorn".

But when people actually do the comparisons of what is seen in the film, and what can be seen in anatomy, and in man made fur costumes, many realize that what they are seeing isn't a "unicorn" after all, but a living flesh and blood creature, and not a dude in a suit.

If it was a suit, it could have been reproduced, but it never was, and never will be, because it's not a suit...

>>17948502
>If it was a suit, it could have been reproduced, but it never was, and never will be,

the things you say. they are not true.
You're just saying things like an emotional woman child.
It means nothing. your words are feeble and twisted as an old woman!

>>17948502
>to biased people
You mean reasonable people who expect a little more than a grainy video made by a con man decades ago?

This isn't some strange bug or bacteria either. This is a 7' tall ape and human like creature supposedly living all over the US and Canada.

>>17948541
>You mean reasonable people who...
...believe in the existence of a magic monkey suit they claim they see in one film from 1967 that has never been seen, or duplicated, ever since.

At least the Sasquatch leaves tracks and makes noise, but that suit, its creator, and the man in it, seem to have disappeared into a different dimension.

>>17948522
Fuck off. The last three threads have pretty decent discussion from what I read. I can tell you're a shithead by this one simple rule:

>do you know which side of the debate this anon is on from this post?
>no?
>then their opinion doesn't matter

>>17948541
>>17948583
These are both good points. If you're not an expert video analysis professional, I don't think you're going to get anywhere beyond colloquial belief. Neither of you is more or less rational than the other, it's just a matter of belief. Some are more ready to believe than others. It's a personal thing and there's really no reason to try to form a consensus on the matter. One of you accepts one interpretation of the evidence, the other doesn't. It's not like either of you is more or less tuned into some psychic channel of truth.

File: hominoid_radiation_map.jpg (1MB, 1198x783px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1198x783px

Gonna put this here.

>>17948583
Kek, so the bigfoot skeptics are more irrational because they believe it is more likely that the thing in the grainy old film made by a con man was a suit?

While on the other hand, the bigfoot believers believe in this 7'+ tall creature living all over North America based on a video made by a con man even though somehow no other strong evidence had been found in decades of people actively searching?

I maintain it wouldn't be hard to believe in bigfoot if it weren't 2016. The older I get, the better technology gets, the more forested area is destroyed for McMansions, the more sightings and footprints are confirmed myths, the more nights spend in bigfoot hotspots by people actively searching for the thing, yet no real tangible evidence has come out of it. I'm not young and naive anymore, I need more than this one suspect film clip.

>>17948619
>One of you accepts one interpretation of the evidence, the other doesn't.

The issue is about quantifying your assessment of the footage, and most skeptics simply can't.

There's been plenty of posts that demonstrate the characteristics of man made costumes, and how those characteristics can be used as evidence to support the suit claim. However, when those characteristics can't be found on the PG film, the skeptics still argue that it's a costume, without being able to quantify their argument. Or they claim the film is too blurry, grainy, or whatever, despite that claim having already been disproved.

At this point in the game, either a suit is brought forward that demonstrates the same kind of performance as the PG film, or the skepticism is all just a bunch of hot air.

>>17948657
>confirmed myths
My bad, I mean fakes

>>17948657
>I need more than this one suspect film clip.

I'm not trying to argue that the film is the sole piece of evidence that confirms the existence of Sasquatch, but it is simply one form of evidence that corroborates witness observations, tracks, and vocalizations.

>>17948660
Why not bring forth a better piece of evidence besides this grainy old video made by a con man?

If there was ANYTHING better brought up in the decades since that video, we wouldn't even have to debate it.

>>17948660
>the skepticism is all just a bunch of hot air
It was hot air from the very beginning. It'll be hot air even if they make a suit to recreate the video. The mark of an educated man is that they don't get haughtier with every huff.

>>17948676
I mean, fuck, we're finding new species of snails in Borneo that are 0.5mm in width. Why can't all these people get evidence of this giant ape which supposedly resides all over North America besides heresay?

>>17948671
That's the only thing that keeps me from saying it is 100% fake, and the metaphysical thing could be a strange possibility because humans don't know everything about the universe. But if this is the same biological creature from the film that everybody is seeing and hearing, why is there no good film evidence or DNA evidence? There should be so much of it.

>>17948676
>made by a con man?
Someone being a conman isn't evidence.

And I'm not saying he was. There's no excuse for dismissing evidence, but you can say any piece of evidence isn't very good evidence. One is rational, level-headed and properly skeptical. The other is being an argumentative opinionated cunt that thinks truth appears if you sit in your armchair long enough and think about things.

>>17948486
No nonhuman hominids.

>>17948502
There are three differences between Bigfoot and a unicorn: Hooves, a horn, and a unicorn walks on four legs.

I suppose Bigfoot doesn't shit rainbows and happiness, but we don't really know that for sure.

>>17948695
>snails in Borneo that are 0.5mm in width
Because people have the funds to go to Borneo because it's an obvious cradle of life with unprecedented levels of biodiversity. Finding new species there is like finding hay in a haystack. North America is fucking huge and there are tons of forests that have never seen a single human foot in the entirety of their existence. Pair that with your exact brand of skepticism demotivating people from ever trying to get the funding or nerve up to actually go explore for awhile and you have a recipe for letting an ape species hide itself in the thicket for ages to come.

>>17948712
>because it's an obvious cradle of life with unprecedented levels of biodiversity.
So is the American wilderness.

>>17948695
http://www.newsweek.com/21-coolest-new-animal-species-2015-410008

>>17948712
Damn I would love to find the numbers on that. I would bet money that there are many, many more people actively looking for bigfoot in North America than looking for snails in Borneo. I think you underestimate the amount of neckbeards who spend their weekends trying to get pics of bigfoot or some EVPs at their local hospital. Just look at MothDan, that fucker is out there all the time and can't get anything besides some spoopy sounds that he automatically blames on bigfoot when there are other loud animals in the woods.

Also, these people are finding tiny, tiny snails in Borneo yet nobody can snap a pic of a gaint fucking hairy man in North America? The average person could walk past that snail and not give a fuck. The average camper is not going to walk past a bigfoot without noticing.

>>17948729
Not on the same scale as Borneo. We're not a rainforest biome.
>>17948745
Looking for new species where you know there are new species simply does not correlate to looking for a species that makes a living hiding from you. You can catch up to a snail without breaking a sweat or risking having your arms torn off. The same logic does not apply to great apes.

File: Bili ape.jpg (40KB, 269x384px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 269x384px

>>17948676
When better evidence is found, it will be put forward, until that time, you go with the evidence you DO have, and not the evidence you would like to have.

Case in point, pic related: Bili ape from the Congo.

These big ass chimps were unknown to western science until 1996 when some conservationist dude heard about them through the locals, and bought a photo of one they had taken. He used the photo to recruit a team and went back with some researchers to try to find them in 2000, but he failed. He recruited some other dudes, including a guy from Harvard, and tried again in 2001, but failed yet again. It wasn't until 2003 that some chick finally managed to find some of them, and a team in 2006 spent a year looking for them but were only able to manage 20 total hours of observation.

The mountainous and forested area that Sasquatch live in is every bit the pain in the ass to move through as the Congo jungle, and if those fuckers are as smart as, or smarter, than other great apes, it's not hard to understand how they can maintain their hidden status.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 238x267px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 238x267px

>>17948773
That pic is better than this

And the difference is that people have been searching for bigfoot for decades, and there hasn't been anything credible. How?!

File: Cali hills.jpg (338KB, 1817x620px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1817x620px

Pic related: California Sasquatch country

The problem with finding these fuckers is that they live in an absolute nightmare habitat to hunt for them.

The only access is usually via logging roads, or foot trails, and by the time you see one and point a camera at it, it can simply walk away into the brush.

I don't how many of you have had to walk up and down mountains, but it fucking sucks, and it kicks your ass, and that's one of the main reasons so few people actually look for these things where they're most likely to be found. Then you've got the 7 foot, 500+ pound, possibly pissed off monster aspect to contend with if you do find one, and the fact that they seem to be most active at night.

I'm not surprised we haven't captured a sample yet, dead or alive.

File: sci-am-special-online-issue-2005no23-the-human-odyssey-8-638.jpg (216KB, 638x845px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 638x845px

I propose a taxonomic classification for this creature:
Pefkopithecus Americanus
"Pine Ape of America"

Pic unrelated.

>>17948847
Cryptopithecus Americanus sounds cooler

>>17948908
"Hidden Ape of America?"
I love it.

>>17948847
>>17948908
I think Taurusexcretumpithecus Americanus works. T. excretumpithecus Americanus for short.

The most obvious tell that the Patterson vid is a fake: the tits are completely hair covered. No mammal, let alone ape has completely hairy tits. The nips got to be bare for the babies to latch on, so no hair that will cover nips. They probably just didn't think abt that..

>>17948697
>There's no excuse for dismissing evidence
Dogma. It's what "skeptics" hold in spades but can't realize. The tell tale sign of an ignorant person is that they believe they are smarter than everyone. These "skeptics" are incapable of comprehending how little they know about this topic, all they know is that they have an opinion and surely anyone with a differing opinion is less intelligent than them.

All they know is how to emotionally react to the idea that a creature exists that they weren't taught is real.

>>17949096
Don't be a polarizing faggot. Explaining someone's psychology is dehumanizing, vile, and assholish. Treat them as if they have the right to react, faggot.

>>17949096
Sure are ASSuming a whole lot there

File: Japanese Macaque.jpg (145KB, 800x917px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x917px

>>17949081
>No mammal, let alone ape has completely hairy tits.

The only great, that we know of, that lives outside of temperate climates are humans, but we don't need fur, because we make our own.

Pic related: Japanese Macaque female with infant

No other nonhuman primate is more northern-living, nor lives in a colder climate, which is probably why the boobs are covered in fur.

Sasquatch live in cold climates, and it's likely that their boobs are furry for just this reason.

File: kenham.jpg (23KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x240px

Do we really have to keep arguing about this? Can't we have a dicussion with it turning into a shouting match?

>>17948143
Humans spread out more. I don't think that Bigfoot shares a common ancestor with us like say Chimpanzees would. I think they evolved from a different ancestor that lived in a habitat similar to the one they live in now. Humans didn't really start eating meat until Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus, before that it was mostly plants and grubs.

>>17948153
I was, I refuse to accept that Bigfoot descended from Giganto based on size alone. You shouldn't assume that x animal is related to y because they're similar in size when they differ in almost every other aspect(habitat, diet, intelligence level, facial structure)

>>17949165
It's not possible, because science has abandoned us and keeps treating us like shit the community is developing a gang culture similar to the crips and bloods

File: 07aba4a1-2037-4072-b002-ea7d3c26cf39.png (4MB, 1074x1257px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1074x1257px

>>17949473
Not even just facial structure. The creature most likely was a quadruped just based on its size.

I think that, if it turns out to be real, it most likely came from sivapithecus or dryopithecus. One (dryo) was more generalized which would allow for it to survive even in the most harsh conditions, while the other (siva) already had some terrestrial adaptations, but was more robustly built in the jaw, and had more monkey-like features than dryo.

>>17949165
SHUT UP YOU FAGGOT

I'm a bigfoot. AMA fags. And yes, we do have big dicks. No, I don't know the meaning of life. And yes, Paulides is a stupid little faggot.

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

1MB, 3080x3595px

Seriously if u look back with alot of native tribes in the Asian contient and also north America have reports of these bipedal animals walking in the woods and some fear them so much that they wont step foot over boundaries that there ancestors have put out on there homeland centuries ago just from fear and also almost all tribes have stories of these creatures, and a bear doesnt walk on its back feet for that long they are unable to keep that balance for a long distance and there bodies arent built to keep them on 2 feet. So seriously they can still be out there i mean it is so well known of a creature from to many different countries to rule out. You talk to locals and see the fear that it puts into there face and some of my friends hated me for taking them into the woods that they bust out crying in fear. You tell me of an animal that will make a grown man cry just because they had a close encounter with it. Look into the history of the animal before u try to rule it out.

I am a true believer and i wont stop believing it is to easy for animal to hide from humans if it wants to, how many species of animals are found each year in the amazon is a good enough reason for me to believe in a species still alive today that we do not know of in the northern countries i mean come on science it will never be the golden age for science we will always find something else to build or find something in the wilderness that we didnt know was real.

Anyway, if you dont believe bigfoot is real you can fuck off

>>17947280
Guys, fucking kill yourself. It is absolutely retarded to think that picture isn't just a fucking man in a suit.

What if bigfoot is a human-gorilla hybrid?

File: divergance.jpg (61KB, 1280x674px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x674px

>>17949673
Too much speciation has occured for that to even be a possibility.

>>17949673
what if your mom's a human gorilla hybrid

>>17949642
Another air tight argument from a "skeptic".

File: giant_mound_builder.jpg (68KB, 620x981px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x981px

>>17949673
Bigfoot is not an ape, Watch David Paulides bigfoot DNA videos. They are a sub set of Homo, not a great ape. The natives knew this, they had a rudimentary language all their own that some human tribes knew. There were many such derivatives of the genus Homo in north America. they just didn't survive colonization. If there are any of them left, they've learned to live away far from man, without fire.
The government is aware of them, but doesn't consider it a threat to national security or anything.

>>17949081
possible that a small area around the nip is bare and you can't see. or they are just differently adapted to have hair there.

but yeah it's suspicious to me.

File: allman1a.jpg (27KB, 985x362px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 985x362px

>>17949927
Aren't those DNA samples considered contaminated by the geneticists who studied them?
Also, you do realize that humans have giant chimp brains, right? Homo erectus is often sited as using a form of proto-language even with their smaller brains and subpar jaw design, so it doesn't seem too out of the question to think that we are the only apes who developed speech. Perhaps the American dryopithecines produced an anolog for Africa's australopithecines due the similar terrain.

>>17949927
I think homo sapiens are the last remaining species of homos

File: Andre.jpg (17KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x300px

Thread theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kEs1Em3pac

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

3MB, 5028x3549px

>>17949927
>Watch David Paulides bigfoot DNA videos.

No thanks.

This is the main problem with the "bigfoot community". It's leading "experts" and researchers are hack writers and nutcases that are constantly back-stabbing and fighting amongst themselves, making up fairy tales, faking footprints, hoaxing videos, producing shitty, fake DNA studies.

It's been like that since the beginning. This carnival barker atmosphere coupled with the fact that no hairs, bones, teeth, or turds have ever been found it's no wonder that reputable scientists steer well clear of this "field".

And you bigfooters always blame scientists (you do it even in this thread) for ghetto-izing you, when in fact you did it to yourselves from day-one and continued to do it in bigger and more elaborate and public ways ever since.

>>17949904
I still think it's funny how much info people try and pull from this

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

4MB, 1070x216px

furfags will defend this

File: bigfoott.webm (2MB, 588x674px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 588x674px

too me it always looks like a normal man walking. even the way he turns to look right at the camera.
i can just hear it now:
Bigfoot scene: Take 2;
"Ok, great!, Looks good Bob, keep walking, yes that's it, keep going."
"OKAY! Okay Now! Turn and look back towards the camera for us!"
"Now just keep on walking straight until your out of view!"

>>17951111
QUADS!

Do you know what I just realized? Bigfooters always say this is a fat female animal and compare the "folds" on the back to similar structure in fat humans and apes. But for a chubby human-like animal, those are some really skinny thighs and calfs.

Also quads confirms man in suit

File: Fattop.jpg (169KB, 1055x756px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1055x756px

>>17951131
>But for a chubby human-like animal, those are some really skinny thighs and calfs.

Nah, it's normal.

>>17951142
Not sure where you cherry-picked those from or how long it took to shoop, but that is not normal. Especially when you consider this animal can scale up the side of hills at lighning speeds.

The thighs and calves should have large muscles covered by a generous layer of fat with an ass that saggy.

File: more fattops.jpg (94KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x335px

>>17951157

It's not a shop, and it's not cherry picked, because that shit is totally normal.

Go to the beach, or find a public walking track / route.

There's always a few middle aged people that walk for exercise, and they have great legs, because of the walking, but they still have fat asses and belly's because they don't push hard enough to burn off the belly fat.

You just need to get out of the house more, anon.

>>17947280
Im in Tahoe/Truckee tight now about too go on a hike thorough deer trails and secluded areas I will keep you posted if I see anything

File: Nice try.jpg (140KB, 1055x513px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1055x513px

>>17951178

Holy shit!

I just realized that lady on the far left in that picture is not real!

IT'S A MAN IN A SUIT!

You can see the costume seams on the leg and on the back, the butt is obviously fake because it hangs over the legs and looks padded, and the legs are too skinny for the girth.

Who can it be in that suit?

File: 1468678955872.png (178KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1190x906px

>>17951203

File: mermaid proof.jpg (125KB, 904x593px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 904x593px

>>17948071
All I know is what I saw. And what I saw was not a fish, or a woman in a suit.
See? mermaids are real, better start believing in them. How could you deny such a claim? MANY trained military personnel in the United States Navy have seen such creatures. Pic related, it's where they saw the mermaids.

File: ape.jpg (121KB, 640x566px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 640x566px

>>17951363

File: image.jpg (48KB, 590x421px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 590x421px

>>17951178
Or... Without cherry-picking images...

>Google Image search of "Overweight People"
>Pic 1 of first 1,000,000 results
>find pic related is the norm

Not to mention, the saggy ass of the bigfoot is something that has been mentioned a lot. All of these people you have posted with a larger mid section but skinnly legs, they have like zero fat on their ass.

Flabby ass + super skinnly legs = ????

File: image.jpg (37KB, 470x349px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 470x349px

>>17951421
>>17951178
Look how big those legs start to get with a little bit of weight!!!

File: 5765742542.jpg (654KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1920x1080px

Can you hurt a Sasquatch with firearms?
I'm new to this Bigfoot enthusiasm and was just curious if these things could be injured by mechanical means. Read and heard a few stories online of hunters or hikers who had taken shots at cryptids only for them to run off. Usually there's a blood trail but only up until a certain point and then the trail just ends, leading absolutely nowhere and the Bigfoot/dogman/etc. is nowhere to be seen.
Do these things manifest into our reality at will and walk on an entirely different plane of existence or what?

>>17951392
Why is that woman naked and alone with all those different types of primates?

File: image.jpg (29KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 333x333px

>>17951142
>>17951178
>fattops
But the PG film believers themselves are the ones who constantly mention the animal's flabby ass! How does it have a flabby ass but legs as skinny as a skeletor?

Pic related is the closest real ancestor to these creatures.

>>17951421
Get your mom to drive you to the beach, kid, so you can see for yourself.

You will find that people come in a wide variety of different configurations, including those with a fat belly, ass, and skinny little legs.

File: ..jpg (14KB, 446x299px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 446x299px

>>17951157
>shopped

You idiots are so biased you can't even accept the reality of human pictures....

File: image.jpg (113KB, 950x634px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 950x634px

>>17951445
I'm not seein it. The big gut with small ass and skinny legs is possible, but the flabby ass always comes with some thick tree trunk thighs and often calves. Then add the fact that these things are supposed to be incredibly strong and can walk up and down hillsides with no problem. There is no way that frame and ass would be supported by those twig legs.

File: BigFoot.png (1MB, 766x860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 766x860px

I captured these photos while hicking

File: fatttops2.jpg (69KB, 813x272px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 813x272px

>>17951462
>I'm not seein it.

No, you obviously aren't, anon.

>>17951517
Where are the flabby asses like the PG bigfoot has?

File: Meanwhile in Africa.jpg (112KB, 351x664px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 351x664px

>>17951525
>Where are the flabby asses like the PG bigfoot has?

>>17951635
The only two of those that even could possibly be real photos, look how fucking thick their thighs are!

>>17951666

Your bias is matched only by your naivete.

>>17951666

If you can't even accept the reality of human pictures, why are you even bothering to comment about Sasquatch?

File: image.jpg (31KB, 200x343px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 200x343px

>>17951678
>>17951685
I mean if you believe everything these people try and deduce from the blurry PG film, I guess this looks like HD to you.

>fat ass = fat thighs
They are one in the same, that's just how it works

>>17947280
Look at that ass, it won't quit

>>17951203
You reek of desperation, son.

File: img_7784.jpg (131KB, 418x557px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 418x557px

>>17951080
>>17951080
THIS.

Bigfooters please stop whining and get your shit together. Honestly, i doubt they are even remotely interested in whether or not this is an actual living creature. It's more like they are just roleplaying and invested in the fantasy surrounding the whole mythology and this weak ass film. Grow up squatchers.

File: Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg (950KB, 800x948px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 800x948px

>>17952367
I still say we look for fossil evidence. That would prove that they existed at one point in North America's history. It doesn't even have to be complete, a skull would do nicely.

>>17952390
The natives say that Sasquatch build cairns over their dead, which wouldn't be that crazy, seeing as how elephants seem to bury their dead, and dead shit in general.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3818833.stm

I wonder if anyone has ever noticed cairn-like rock formations in Sasquatch country? Might be a viable place to find bones.

File: 4521139467_a9d8f220ba_b.jpg (515KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1024x683px

>>17952468
I believe chimps do something similar to that. I've heard that if the infant dies, the male will sometimes dispose of the body to ease tension in the mother.

Harabe back and takin revenge

>>17951705
Plz can anyone tell me waht this is? It's driving me crazy!?!

>>17952390
Sure. But, there aren't any fossils, there aren't any bones at all. Also, no hairs, no shits.

No Bigfoot.

File: anoiapithecus-brevirostris-ips43000.jpg (56KB, 670x293px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 670x293px

>>17952928
Do you know how hard it is to find ape fossils in general?

File: 0.0.jpg (105KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1800x1200px

>>17952935
finding fossils of any animal is actually quite rare and finding ape fossils is extremely rare.
while it would be amazing to find ape fossils in america, as it stands, it really has no bearing on the case in question because we are talking about an animal that is supposed to currently EXIST.
which is to say, physical evidence for it's current existence should be, statistically speaking, many thousands of times more likely than finding a fossil that may somehow be related and tangentially prove that it's possible for such an animal to currently be walking the earth, maybe. yet, we find no no physical evidence whatsoever. zero point zero.

>>17953450
>we find no no physical evidence whatsoever. zero point zero.

Footprints are physical evidence.

File: 839px-Orangutang_&_Ramapithecus_01.png (1MB, 839x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 839x1024px

>>17953450
Maybe they primarily remain in more remote areas and only come near civilization when pickings are slim. Is there any fluxuation of sightings throughout the year, or is it constant?

File: NCFAIL GIF.gif (2MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x200px

>>17953450
>There is no such thing as fossils of an animal that currently exists

>>17953469
>Footprints are physical evidence...

of hoaxes and misidentifications.

>>17954788
nice reading comprehension you have there.

File: evoluzione mano.jpg (90KB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x667px

Could this be a possibility?
http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/hall-dryopithecus/

>>17948811
Yes, and that pic is from 2006, while this is from thee 60s. Hmmm, what possible advances in technology could have occurred in that time frame? Certainly no changes in camera technology, no siree

>>17947427
Le kognitibe disonans hee hee

>>17957280
>Le...

Oh, look, it's reddit...

Anybody know how tall the bigfoot in the patterson film is supposed to be?

>>17957364
It's estimated to be around 6'6".

>>17948175
Le autoriti loggikel fallaci ^___^

>>17957379
Tallest members of my immediate family are either me or one of my uncles, at around 5'11" to 6' even.

File: Bait_3d5a71_5515578.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>17948265

>>17957387
Uh good for you? What does this have to do with the big foot video?

>>17958058
Never said I was human.

>>17958326
Oh I see, so you're roleplaying.

>>17958335
Nah, I was tired when I wrote that. I tend to ramble when I'm tired.

>>17958344
>I'm not human
>Lol I'm not roleplaying though

>>17958395
Ever heard of a joke.

>>17958444
*joke?

>>17958444
>Joke
You are the joke you fucking manlet. Your whole family are manlets.

>>17948695
>>17948745

Apples to oranges. A snail is slow as fuck for one. Also a snail isn't going to try and hide from a person. An ape would. You guys are rediculous.

File: bigfoot_lineacrossthigh1.png (415KB, 594x747px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 594x747px

>>17947351
>the line across the thigh is an obvious seam.

Can confirm that this is the most likely answer to this heavy dark line. Also, it does [PIC RELATED] wrap right around the back of the leg - that's consistent with a seam in a suit.

First it's claimed that the heavy dark line is caused by finger tips brushing the leg. when it's pointed out that that can't possibly be right, then the bigfooters say that's because it's not caused by fingertips but it's caused by an imaginary thumb that we never see.

Pffft.

>>17959143
There's been a vid posted that shows the fur change color as the hand brushes back and forth past it while it walks, so it's not a seam, and there's also been a vid posted that shows the line does NOT go all the way around the thigh.

And then there's this post: >>17951203

....that shows how fat is observable under the skin....unless that's actually a man inside of an old woman costume.

File: Fabric draping despite form fitting suit.jpg (57KB, 300x431px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 300x431px

Check out this suit in pic related.

Where can YOU find fabric draping that identifies this as a costume?

>>17959164
Haloween costume shops ?

>>17959205
Nope.

Ankles, right crotch area, and right arm all show signs of fabric bunching, despite the fact that it's a relatively form fitted costume compared to most.

>>17959161
Wrong. what that video shows is the line changes when the leg is lifted momentarily. the angle of the leg changes and therefore the line visibility changes. Has nothing to do with the hand.
This pic shows the line going around the back of the leg:
>>17959143

So, this very clear picture of an old lady on the beach where cellulite can be seen is somehow analogous to what?
That has absolutely nothing to with the heavy, dark line that wraps around the upper thigh.

File: Draping issues.jpg (103KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 720x720px

Here's another one.

Quantify an argument why it's an obvious suit.

>>17959231
>what that video shows is the line changes...

....color as the hand sweeps the fur back and forth. It clearly goes from dark, to light, to dark, to light, as the hand swings.

Troll somewhere else.

>>17947280
ayyy lmao

>>17959161
>It's a line from the fur being brushed by the fingertips!
>Oh wait actually it's a line of fat lol

>>17959267
>>17947941

>I'm so retarded I can't even understand pictures....

>>17959293
>This line is the fur being brushed back
>But these identical lines are totally fat folds

File: bigfootlives.png (205KB, 295x418px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 295x418px

>>17959164
>>17959234

you're doing it wrong.

>>17959375
Nah....

It's easy to detect the signs of a man made suit from that era, and both of those pics demonstrate that fact, while the PG film shows none of those obvious signs.

>>17959234

This suit demonstrates fabric draping, despite the fact that it, too, is form fitted compared to most.

You can see how the fabric drapes over the arm and knee joints, and the waste area, and pretty much eliminates all the natural contours that exist in the arms and legs.

You don't see that in the PG film.

>>17959407
>It's easy to detect the signs of a man made suit from that era, and both of those pics demonstrate that fact, while the PG film shows none of those obvious signs.

LOL. I think you missed the anon's point.

>>17959407
>It's easy to detect the signs of a man made suit from that era, and both of those pics demonstrate that fact, while the PG film shows none of those obvious signs.

Dude...

>>17959375
fuck me. lmfao. this about sums up the whole sasquatch meme. well played anon.

File: dryopithecus (2).jpg (152KB, 1184x734px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1184x734px

>>17959375
A wee bit clearer, and it's spot-on.

>>17959407
>You can see how the fabric drapes over the arm and knee joints, and the waste area
You really are just seeing what you want to see in these images.

The image you quoted has pretty much 0 information because of crushed blacks and horrible compression.
No wonder you think you can see muscles, thumbs, and all other manner of shit in the PG video.

>>17959590
>You really are just seeing what you want to see in these images.

This. Same guy in each of these threads citing Bill Munn's videos as fact and staring into the pareidolia of fuzzy images.

>>17959590
>>17959642
>You really are just seeing what you want to see in these images.

That's not how it works.

When people make a statement like, "it looks like a man in a suit!", the way a lot of people have in these threads, they can never quantify it, because they don't know what to look for, despite the fact that there are indeed visual clues that give them away.

Fabrics don't contour to the body unless they are elastic, and they didn't have the access to elastic fur material for costume design in the 60's, or the 70's. What that means is that even a tailored fur costume will have to be designed over-sized to accommodate joint movement by the actor, and it's this excess material that can be identified at the joints as it bunches up while the joint is bent, and drapes over the joint while it is straightened.

It's not rocket science, and when you can demonstrate it visually, people start to realize that the PG film is indeed an animal, and not a man in a costume.

File: Orang_Pendek.png (1MB, 1240x999px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x999px

Anyone think we should shift some focus to the other cryptid apes toalleviate some of the tension? Maybe the Orang Pendek, Skunk Ape or the Yeti?

>>17959730
*to alleviate

>>17959710
And that explains how you can see all this obvious costume bunching in that image with basically 0 detail?

File: 198418_rekonstruksi-wajah-homo-florensiensis--spesies-orang-pendek-di-flores_663_382.jpg (46KB, 663x382px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 663x382px

>>17959710
You just keep repeating the same excuses over and over. When it's pointed out to you that the figure in the patterson film does show the tale-tell signs of being a suit, you don't have an argument, you just reference the Bill Munn video like it's an infalible sermon by the Pope.

>>17959730

Good point. In fact, the orang pendek is a much better candidate for a living cryptid or hominid considering there is actual fossil evidence in the homo floresiensis discoveries made in indonesia that actually support the age-old folktales told by the people who live in the area of luang bao cave where the fossils were first found. Real 3m tall perfectly formed human relatives co-existing with modern human as recently as 14,000 years ago. It's really stunning to think about it.

>>17959813
There's enough detail in both of those photos to see bunching and draping.

>>17959164
The left ankle shows bunched up fabric at the joint between the foot and leg. You can also observe bunched fabric in the belly area.

>>17959234
This pic shows fabric draping from the arms, legs, and torso. Most of the natural contours of the arms and legs are masked, and you see no muscle definition in the chest or stomach area. The lack of contours make the "creature" look like it's wearing a shirt and pants, rather than being an actual creature, and there's almost a straight line from the armpit down to the ankle.

You can I.D. these issues in pics that have a wide variety of quality and resolution, as posted in this pic >>17948172

File: Misteri-Dunia1.jpg (55KB, 536x439px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 536x439px

>>17959868
Are there any cases where they were seen with tools? Most of the sightings describe something like a small bipedal short-faced ape rather than a tiny human. Personally, I'm fine with an ape at this point.

>>17959868
>film does show the tale-tell signs of being a suit,

None of you have ever argued for material bunching, or draping, at the joints of the creature. That's because none of you would even know about it if I had not shown you multiple examples in a failed attempt to alleviate your ignorance. The other reason you haven't tried to make that argument is because there is no bunching at the joints of the PG film, because it's not a costume.

You try to argue for a visible "seam" that has been demonstrated NOT to be a "seam", against visible subcutaneous fat, and to make matters worse, you've failed to post a single picture to support any of your arguments, and essentially have done little more than shitpost and say "is not", like a child.

I have posted supporting photos to support every single claim I've made, but skeptics are so biased they've even made accusations that some of the human pictures posted were "shopped" and cherry picked.

You guys are delusional...

>>17959891
>>>17959813
>There's enough detail in both of those photos to see bunching and draping.
>>>17959164
>The left ankle shows bunched up fabric at the joint between the foot and leg. You can also observe bunched fabric in the belly area.

Yes. That's because that's a very clear photo. if you make it look more like a frame from the patterson film, all of those obvious details go right out the window. as this anon pointed out perfectly:

>>17959375
Those obvious details you've pointed are no longer visible.

This highlights the ridiculousness of the extraordinary claims you've made about the patterson film.

File: proof.png (384KB, 694x369px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 694x369px

>>17959938

Pic related: All of these images are clear enough to make those observations.

They show the natural recess in the back of the knee, and no material draping. There is no visible evidence of material draping over the calf, as the calf muscle is visibly flexing. The contours of legs are clearly visible, and there is no material draping at the ankle.

All of this can be observed in a variety of loops from the PG film as well.

>>17959710
You use all these words but you're argument is still full of shit

>>17959954
Bullshits again!

seeing what you want to see

>>17959959
>>17959972

A picture is worth more than words, and I've posted plenty to support my argument.

You haven't...

File: 'Hesperopithecus'.jpg (77KB, 809x693px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 809x693px

It worries me that there is someone defending Hesperopithecus of all things.

>>17959954
>proof

...of nothing (for ants).

This idea of material draping you keep harping on about is a red herring.
you're assuming that there is only one way of making a costume.

It's the laziest sort of thinking that you then use to prop up this idea that if it isn't bell-bottom jeans with fur glued on then it must be a 7 foot tall man-ape.

You've demonstrated that you're incapable of thinking critically and you refuse to even entertain other possibilities.

You're a dimwitted true believer and your mind is closed for business - reasonable conversation need not apply.

File: Material draping an bunching in other materials.jpg (249KB, 1512x678px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1512x678px

>>17960040
>This idea of material draping you keep harping on about is a red herring.

No, it's a visible piece of evidence that can be used to determine fabricated costumes from real people and creatures.

>you're assuming that there is only one way of making a costume.

I've never said that.

I have, however, argued that elastic fur costume material did not exist in 1967 when the PG film was made, and I have yet to see evidence, or a costume, that disputes this fact.

Pic: more examples of material draping with different textiles. Note that lycra was not used in fur suit costume designs in 67'.

>>17959868
pic legit looks like an abo

I had a feeling that big foot was just a guy in a suit from the cia and fbi.

>>17959891
>There's enough detail in both of those photos to see bunching and draping
No, there really isn't.