BIGFOOT V: Cryptid Apes General

File: 424168_10151365470720338_869150337_23069666_466637606_n.jpg (109KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 720x960px

Where'd everybody go?

I was part of the first three threads but it just started being about people giving their subjective beliefs over and over. That is why I dipped out of the last one.

Skeptics don't believe professional opinions and vice versa, of your mind isn't open, then no one is going to be swayed

>>17963365
there was nobody here to begin with

File: 28f4b83022c3c5cf7add2c15d7c2ac89.jpg (125KB, 736x933px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 736x933px

>>17963392
I think as long as we don't discuss the video we'll be fine.

>>17963415
*as long as they don't discuss the video

File: bigfoots_pantleg.gif (51KB, 333x340px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 333x340px

>>17963392
what i saw was cognitive dissonance from a Bill Munns youtube video disciple who couldn't accept that the patterson film is inconclusive at best and most likely shows a man in a suit.
every argument he made was taken directly from the Bill Munns video. when contradictory interpretations were offered, all he could do was refer back to the video and claim that all possible issues have been addressed. which is to say, bill munns has an answer, however feeble, for every possible objection. it's nonsense, and i think most people who can think rationally know that.

for example, he kept claiming over and over again that the calf muscle flexes, but just take a look at pic related and see what's happening just below the calf area. when the figure takes a step, all the material compresses in a downward motion and we can see the suit material bunching up on impact.

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

90KB, 800x667px

>>17963438
Can't we just meet halfway and say that the video is inconclusive at best and leave it at that?

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

33KB, 500x374px

>>17963445
sure. and that's what i've said since the first thread. the film is inconclusive.

the problem is the believers will not leave it at that because they need this film to be real because it's the cornerstone of their belief.

it would be like saying to christians, "hey guys, can we just agree that the evidence for jesus being a real person who lived 2000 years is inconclusive at best? let's just move on with our discussion of christian principles shall we?"

File: 1440895422492.jpg (44KB, 481x554px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 481x554px

>let's try to expand our reach to other cryptid apes as well.

File: BH Orang Pendek As Dwarfed Solo Man.jpg (28KB, 480x321px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x321px

>>17963498
Seems fine to me. I myself am a "sasquatch believer," but not one who'd hold that piece of junk as the cornerstone of my belief. I'm more of a believer in the same way Jane Goodall is a believer. I'm an optimist.

File: 19evfecjqyav0jpg.jpg (273KB, 1885x1060px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1885x1060px

Perhaps this could be useful?
http://undebunkingbigfoot.blogspot.com/?m=0

>Shits on the only guy to have digitally photographed the original film
>searches for shitty copied images to confirm his own bias


Seems reasonable.

File: patterson_drawing_film.gif (304KB, 220x232px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 220x232px

>>17963570
Right. More of the same bullshit.

But seriously no matter if you think sasquatch is a real animal or not, what are the mathematical odds of drawing a female bigfoot numerous times, writing a book about bigfoot, trying to get backing to make a movie about bigfoot, shooting scenes for a bigfoot movie in the area where fake footprints were made, then stumble onto the real thing that looks exactly like the female creature you drew only 2 years before?

File: ass shot.jpg (48KB, 400x562px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x562px

>>17963438

Since you have such a hard on for Bill Munns, here's an example from M.K. Davis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-8FeEEo-8

:38 seconds
1:19
2:05
2:10
2:52
3:40

All show the right calf flexing, and the natural contours of the leg that would not be visible if it were a costume.

You're trying to argue that you can see "pants" when you can clearly see the fur below the calf maintain its streamlined contour down to the ankle throughout the entire movement, and in every other picture that allows you to observe this area.

"Pants", and a costume in general, would drape over the calves, masking them from visibility, and the material would bunch up at the ankle as the foot flexed. The recess behind the knee would also be masked, as the material would drape over this recess while the leg is straight, and would bunch while the leg is bent. We see none of this in the film, which clearly demonstrates that it is not a costume.

>>17963734
>guy researches American bigfoot stories for a book
>draws bigfoot from descriptions given by witnesses in the book he publishes
>guy tries to make a documentary about bigfoot based on his book
>guy goes to area of California to film fresh bigfoot prints found their by locals
>guy actually manages to film a bigfoot while looking for bigfoot in an area where bigfoot prints and sightings were reported

Pretty crazy.

>>17963805
>*there

>>17963797
That foot looks like a boot. There is no toe separation at all.

There are no creases or folds similar to a human or primate foot either. It's just a flat white surface with no toes.

File: Boot.jpg (41KB, 450x460px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x460px

>>17963848
Agree.

Look at this boot in pic related: Absolutely no toe separation, which is a clear sign of a boot.

>>17963853
Are you seriously trying to compare that image to the bigfoot one?

You can't be this stupid... surely? Please say you are just joking.

File: There is no young girl.jpg (14KB, 257x285px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 257x285px

>Alright, look at this pic and tell me what you see.
I see an old woman
>Right, but when you look at the outline here, you will also see the profile of a young girl.
No you can't.
>Sure you can, here's her neck, there's her necklace, and she's looking to the right
It's NOT a young girl, it's an old hag!
>right...but when you look at the nose of the old hag, it's the outline of the young girl.
NO it's not, you're seeing what you want to see!
>No...no, dude. Look, you see the eyes, those are the ears of the young girl
They are not! Those are clearly the eyes of a hag!
>....and the mouth of the hag is simply a necklace around the
It is not! It is not! There is no young girl, it's only a hag!


Skeptics don't have the courage to admit their bias and accept evidence that contradicts their opinion.

>>17963898
It's hilarious because this goes both ways.

Please explain why, despite you claiming the resolution is good enough to see every muscle movement, you can't see any detail in the foot.
No toes, no creases, no folds, nothing. Just a flat grey surface, like the bottom of a boot.

>>17963898

I feel sorry for people who can't see it both ways at the same time.

>>17963923
>>17963898
I feel sorry for the people who can't see the hidden 3rd image.

File: bigfoot_hipwadersfold.gif (502KB, 844x869px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 844x869px

>>17963797
>mk davis
>alters film
>sees other bigfeet hiding in the shrubs
>claims bluff creek is site of bigfoot massacre
>"enhances" footage to show "blood everywhere"

so, you go from one "expert" who clearly suffers from confirmation basis (see bill munns attempted recreation of bigfoot breasts) to another "expert" who is mentally ill and makes even more absurd claims.

>"Pants", and a costume in general, would drape over the calves,

Your'e assuming a baseline of the most conventional application of fabric material. You're also assuming that a skilled artist like patterson would have zero creativity and skill to create what he had envisioned.

>masking them from visibility, and the material would bunch up at the ankle as the foot flexed.

Yes, that's exactly what we see when watch that footage. the figure takes a heavy step and the material bunches below the calf area.

>The recess behind the knee would also be masked, as the material would drape over this recess while the leg is straight, and would bunch while the leg is bent. We see none of this in the film, which clearly demonstrates that it is not a costume.

Again you make the massive assumption that there is only one way for fabric to behave and if you don't see that behavior then it can't be a costume.

where you claim there is "recess behind the knee" isn't exactly behind the knee is it? it's actually towards the back but on the side of the knee. this conforms to what we would see if fur material was glued or otherwise attached to tall rubber boots like hip waders that don't drape as you describe they must but, would in fact crumple and make shapes exactly like what we see in the film.

>>17963906
>this goes both ways
And that, along with the fact that none of us are expert video analysts, means there is no right answer for us to find. When you can see it both ways, the only valid conclusion is to not try to draw one at all. If you aren't an expert video analyst, your lack of belief in Bigfoot does not constitute evidence, nor a valid argument.

>>17963906

For the same reason you can't get a very clear shot of the nose or eyes.....size.

Calves, and the other muscle groups, are larger, and easier to see.

Crazy how that works...

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

3MB, 1024x1002px

>not a suit.
COME ON!

>>17963955
The film is blurry as fuck and contains tons of surface debris yet bigfooters are claiming calf flexing, boob bouncing, and invisible thumbs.

crazy how that works.

>>17963968
As I understand it, they're saying that because they're citing the conclusions of expert video analysts. The skeptics cite literally nothing. It's not hard for me to decide who's worth possibly trusting and who's just being an opinionated shit.

File: Waders draping and bunching.jpg (147KB, 1224x477px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1224x477px

>>17963943
>...the material bunches below the calf area.

There isn't a single photo, or film, that shows any material bunching, let alone below the calf area. The line and contours from the ankle to the calf remains consistent throughout, as demonstrated 6 times in the link I provided.

>Again you make the massive assumption

That's you, anon.

>attached to tall rubber boots like hip waders that don't drape as you describe they must but, would in fact crumple

Waders do, indeed, drape over the limbs masking the contours and muscle. They also bunch. What they DON'T do, however, is contour around the calves, or the back of the knee.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the legs you see in the PG film are WADERS with fur glued to them?

Really, anon?

That's even dumber than the gorilla suit argument.

File: blurr2.png (970KB, 1352x675px) Image search: [Google]

970KB, 1352x675px

>>17963968
>>17963991
>watches film and loops
>can see calf muscles flexing despite quality of the film

Crazy how that works.

Pic related: I don't know, because it's too blurry to tell.

>>17964006
>>Again you make the massive assumption
>That's you, anon.
Lurker here. Just want to point out that this adds nothing to the discussion. Keep it impersonal so we don't have to wade through that shit.

>>17964013
Well how about weighing in on the pictorial evidence and comparisons instead of just "lurking"....

>>17963991
Who is the expert video analyst? Bill Munn? He's not a video analyst, he was fx guy in the 80s and is now a fulltime bigfooter.

M.K. Davis is also a fulltime bigfooter and has the added advantage of being completely insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMm07pitD48

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

>>17964021
I'm not an expert video analyst, nor do I have some expert video analysts to cite, nor do I think my opinion matters.

>>17964034
>He's not a video analyst...
[citation needed]

>>17964006
>Waders do, indeed, drape over the limbs masking the contours and muscle. They also bunch. What they DON'T do, however, is contour around the calves, or the back of the knee.

Good job.

Everybody knows it's impossible to modify rubber boots with a pair of scissors and needle and thread.

Also, there's no way hip wader boots can account for that heavy dark line across the top of the thigh. That line can only be caused by a thumb we never see.

>>17963955
The foot in that shot is equal in size to the calf which we can supposedly see flexing. And yet there is detail enough to see all these subtle muscle movements, but not enough detail to see the toes on a 17 inch foot?

And it's laughable that you compare a fucking foot to the nose or eyes.
You must look pretty fucked up if your eyes, nose are equal in size.

>>17964046
>He IS a video analyst.
[citation needed]

>>17964034
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGPcqbsLkiU

LOL. This motherfucker thinks bigfoot is carrying a fucking purse. When do we get off the crazy train???

>>17964046
>>17964065
Honestly, I don't care if he's a video analyst or not, so long as he's done more than you faggots have.

>>17964073
>he's done more than you faggots have.

except look at the material objectively.

>>17964077
That's the one thing none of you faggots can do. If he actually drew lines on the video and tried to go over every frame to see what might have happened there, then he's done more than you have here.

File: back wader comparison.jpg (287KB, 1780x612px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1780x612px

>Surely rubber hip waders with fur glued / sewed to them would appear as if it was a form fitted elastic fur suit allowing the leg muscles to be seen flexing while walking

>>17964061
>The foot in that shot is equal in size to the calf which we can...

....actually see. Just like the foot.

>>17964065
Burden of proof is on you, since you made the accusation.

>>17964083
>bigfoot carries a purse
>bigfoot has a ponytail
>bigfoot family was massacred at bluff creek
>massive pools of blood can be seen in the film

Sometimes more is actually less, anon.

>>17964092
What does any of this have to do with the film?

People say stupid shit about the Zapruder film too, but that doesn't mean JFK didn't get his brains blown out...

>>17964084
You can clearly see folds in the fabric of the bigfoot suit on the last image. You must be blind to miss that.

>>17964088
What? Your post makes no sense. The foot shows 0 detail, despite us apparently being able to make out loads of other subtle details.

Strange how the resolution of the film is only good enough when it's convenient.

>>17964098
Except it does. Have you seriously never heard about the conspiracy involving his brain being removed by the secret service, stored in the library of congress or something, and then mysteriously going missing, never to be found again?

I can easily see time travelers wanted to revive Kennedy by arranging a non-lethal shooting just so they can take out his brain and transport it to the future. He may yet be president again some day.

>>17964135
Wasn't that film shot by a river? I think they have a lot of white sediment in that area. Trust me, you can't make wrinkles on your foot very easily when you have that much debris covering them.

>>17964158
If that happens, then I'm voting for Nixon's head.

>>17964135
>You can clearly see folds in the fabric of the bigfoot suit on the last image.
>Strange how...

You claim to see the signs of material bunching, despite the fact that that this visual evidence would be smaller, and harder to detect, than the calf muscle flexing, which you claim you can't see.....

So which is it?

Is the film good enough to see the finer signs of bunching, which means the calf muscle is perfectly visible, or is the film too grainy to see the calf muscle flex, which means you wouldn't be able to see material bunching?

Decisions, decisions...

File: AngryAntiTrump-1200x675-e1458242905455.jpg (104KB, 1200x516px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1200x516px

>>17963960

>>17963960
Look at the front of the waistline. If that's not "material bunching" then what the fuck is it? LOL

>>17964238
>>17963960

damn. never noticed that before. another childhood bubble busted.

File: tubster.jpg (109KB, 736x1104px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 736x1104px

>>17964238

The same belly fat that exists in the other great apes.

>>17964609
huh? are you even looking at the gif? wait. so are you admitting its fake or are you saying that bigfoot wears shorts for fat to hang over?

>>17964238
Actually, I think it's a distortion of the film. Look at that ass....it's doing the same on the bottom. In two places.

>>17963805
Its even crazier how its never happened ever again
Spooky huh?
#paranormal

File: 1469664091484.jpg (229KB, 900x539px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 900x539px

>>17964203
Yeah material bunching is such a fine detail that can't be seen.

Not like this picture you posted shows otherwise
>>17964084

And once again you ignore the issue of the foot, because you know for a fact that there should be toes visible and you have no counter argument for it.

And here is an image highlighting the bunching.
And also outlining the "natural contours" of the body.
I don't know about you, but I have never seen such bumpy natural contours before.

>be 16
>on the roof of the house sorting shit out
>between me and the woods is about 7feet of deck and 20 feet of grass
>privacy fence with a chain link fence on the other side
>sitting there look at the stars and other faggy shit
>mom and little sister get out of the hot tub and go inside
>still chillin
>start to get real uncomfortable
>real primal "something dangerous is looking at me" feeling

The reason black is a bad color to sneak around in is because it's TOO dark.

Anyway
>start scanning the fence line
>get to the middle of the fence
>see nothing but brownish black of the bush/trees behind it.
>then I spot what looks like the black outline of a head and shoulders looking over the fence
>think "the fuk"
>my dumbass starts to walk to the edge of the roof to get a better look
>hear this huge goddamn bassy roar scream screech.
>haul my ass to the other side of the house
>parkour off the goddamn roof and run inside.
>start crying to mom about what I heard and saw.

Did measurements and it was at least 2 feet over the 6ft privacy fence.

I have more weird shit I'll post and then pass out.

>>17965874
I brought this up to my mom a few years later and they also had some weird shit happen. They moved out and then back in to the house. This was after they moved back.

>mom and stepdad laying in bed
>dog starts growling
>wakes up mom and stepdad
>they both pull out the pistols from their bedside tables(God bless the south)
>sitting there for probably a minute or two
>hear what sounds like something punching the side of the house above their bed.

That doesn't sound too spoopy, but the house is on a decline going down toward their room so the floor of the bedroom is like 4 feet above the ground. Also they have one of those fucking tall backboards. Thing's almost 6 feet tall. They say they heard the boom up and above their bed.

>>17965874
>>17965884
After I learned about that shit my parents heard I decided to look around for what it could've been.

My dad and stepdad told me about animals that might've made that noise. None of them even came close.

Different types of owls? Nope
Bears? Nope.
Big cats? Nope.
Foxes? Nope.

>>17963415

You mean the patterson/gimlin hoax?

Not much to discuss...a dying drunk cowboy hoaxed a monkey man video to help provide for his wife.

Grow up footers your beloved monkey-man is a myth.

>>17963445

no. it's a hoax.

>>17966129
patterson = hiesenberg

>>17966129
>>17966131
Hard to judge if you're being serious or not.

File: bigfoot_leg.jpg (223KB, 900x539px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 900x539px

>>17965870
>I don't know about you, but I have never seen such bumpy natural contours before.

Thanks for pointing this out, anon. Also note the big "x" shape that has two deep concavities on either side of it. This is a common shape formed when heavy material compresses.

Very often we read the claim that the lower concave part of that "x" is the recessed area behind the knee but, it's actually not behind the knee at all, it's on the side of the leg.

>>17966593
It's amazing how he can go on about natural contours when the leg is nowhere near natural.

Not to mention all the obvious bunching of the material that we both pointed out.
Of course, he will just claim these are folds in the fat, or lines from the fur being brushed by the fingertips.

File: 1469646491216.gif (1MB, 1630x590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1630x590px

>>17966721
This is a discussion thread, not an echo chamber.

>>17966756
Not an argument.

>>17965855
I agree, it is even crazier how that suit has never been replicated, despite the fact that apparently all you needed was a gorilla costume and some hip waders...

>>17965870
>you ignore the issue of the foot, because...

There is no issue, as toes are observable in other frames.

>And here is an image highlighting the bunching...

That's not bunching.

Material bunching and draping would be consistent throughout the entire film, but it isn't.

>>17966903
Have there ever been any serious attempts to recreate it?

I don't think tv shows and bigfoots specials count, because for them not proving it either way means more money down the line.
That's why they always hype up these tv shows with claims of extraordinary new evidence but then it's all inconclusive at the end.

>>17966936
> toes are observable in other frames
Care to post some then? Because I haven't seen the toes in any of the videos.

>That's not bunching
Why? Because you say so? What is it then?

It's interesting that you can take two frames and say "this is inconclusive proof of muscle movement"
But then you turn around and say "nope it doesn't count because it's only that one image"

The image clearly shows bunching, and your only argument is "no it doesn't!"

>>17966903
>all you needed was a gorilla costume and some hip waders...

falsely characterizing and minimizing the arguments of others without offering a legitimate rebuttal is a good indication that you've lost the debate.

and still you can't explain this:

>>17966593
>>17965870
>>17963960
>>17963943
>>17963734

>>17966980
I think he knows he has lost.

>Why do you keep ignoring the issue of the foot not having toes
>There is no issue the toes are visible in other frames
>Doesn't post anything to back this up
He will probably ignore it now.

>>17966955
>Care to post some then? Because I haven't seen the toes in any of the videos.

Prepare yourself for the MK Davis "enhanced" and "deblurred" images that show toes and braided fur and ponytails and pools of blood...

Also, images showing toes on these feet wouldnt be a surprise because that's only consistent with the fake feet used to make the fake tracks that we see in the same film. proves nothing.

File: bigfoot_fakefeet1.jpg (128KB, 956x733px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 956x733px

>M.K. Davis [h]as done it again!

Yes. He sure has.

LOL. Totally realistic looking "enhancement" by MK Davis.

File: bent legs.png (557KB, 1311x325px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1311x325px

>>17966593

None of that looks any different than what you find in a normal leg....minus the fur.

>>17967035
It looks completely different, are you blind?

>>17966955
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-8FeEEo-8

2:54

There's a loop that allows you to observe the toes bend.

File: More shitty fakes.jpg (93KB, 755x499px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 755x499px

>>17966937
>Have there ever been any serious attempts to recreate it?

Pic related claims he spent 10 years building this piece of shit.

They've built numerous "bigfoot" costumes for use in TV and film after the Patterson film came out, and they all look like shit.

>>17966955
>Why? Because you say so? What is it then?

Read the post again. The answer is there. >>17966936

>>17966980
>falsely characterizing and minimizing the arguments of others without offering a legitimate rebuttal is a good indication that you've lost the debate.

Tell it to the "skeptics" that offer zero evidence, in the form of pictures, or otherwise, that can actually substantiate their skepticism.

>and still you can't explain this:

Those arguments were crushed in the very first thread.

>>17966996
>Prepare yourself for the MK Davis "enhanced" and "deblurred" images

You bitch about any source of footage.

> images showing toes on these feet wouldnt be a surprise because that's only consistent with the fake feet

Toes bending is not consistent with fake toes.

>>17967040
Apparently you are.

>>17967051
I don't see any toes there, just a single flat piece like a shoe bending, like a shoe would.

>>17967066
Jesus that looks bad. Probably just someone trying to make a quick buck off the film.

Like I mentioned with the TV things, they never really try. Look at how bad the colours come out in some of them.
They make a fuss about how they can totally prove it, then at the end they give inconclusive results which lets them do another tv special next year.

>>17967081
That post doesn't answer anything.

It doesn't even try to explain what those lines are.

>>17967089
What about the pictures showing the lines, which you just brushed off without giving a counter explanation for?

>>17967121
>>>17967081
>That post doesn't answer anything.
>It doesn't even try to explain what those lines are.
>>>17967089
>What about the pictures showing the lines, which you just brushed off without giving a counter explanation for?

He has an MO:
He does exactly the same thing every time: claims that (fill in the blank) is totally consistent with biology accompanied by a pic of a human leg, ass, arm, etc. He will say nothing of substance or offer any reasonable argument to support his claim.
When a reasonable argument is offered with supporting image clearly delineating the point made, he just ignores it and strawmans some offer tagential point.

He's a true believer who has no arguments just pat responses that can't answer any reasonable questions or cope with any level of scrutiny.

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

198KB, 1272x757px

>>17967121
>That post doesn't answer anything.

It answered the very question you asked, you just choose to ignore it.

>What about the pictures showing the lines, which you just...

Answered repeatedly using pictorial examples of evidence in the past 3 threads....which always go ignored.

>He has an MO:

You're right.

My M.O. is as follows.

Examine the film and loops, and compare it to visible biology, and known costumes.

The film has, and always will, be more consistent with biology, and has absolutely no consistency with any known suit.

This is the, what, 4th post, and not a single skeptic has ever offered a contemporary suit that can match any of the "performance" of the PG film.

>He's a true believer who has...

Backed up every argument I've ever made with either pictures or video.

Meanwhile, you expect people to believe that a calf muscle can be seen flexing under a set of hip waders and fur......and you call me a "true believer"?

File: ugh.png (207KB, 580x326px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 580x326px

never went to this board but my whole idea of bigfoot is that people around america and the world like rare and illegal pets, usually when they realize they fucked up keeping a gorilla in their basement, they fucking free the thing so its not their hassle or they never have to be accountable.

Shit, my uncle kept a mountain lion in his fucking house and when it got out he just didn't assume any responsibility it was ever his. I also knew a woman that let her chimp out in the woods after she couldn't care for it anymore. Its illegal to have them as pets so its why you never ever hear about it because people are smarter than to go to jail for keeping a big ass ape for a pet.

>>17967187
>It answered the very question you asked
No it didn't.

>What is it then?
>That's not bunching.
That doesn't answer the question at all. You said what it isn't, not what it is.

>Answered repeatedly using pictorial examples of evidence in the past 3 threads
None of those pictures address the lines highlighted, or the fact that the "natural contours" you describe are clearly not there. Instead the arms and leg are anything but natural, and look more like fabric, bunching.

Go ahead, explain the weird shape of the arms and leg in this image
>>17965870

You can blatantly see the unnatural wavy lines of the arms. Which is the complete opposite of hte "Natural contours" you keep claiming.

>>17963445
those bones look like small penises

File: 1469664091484.jpg (283KB, 900x539px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 900x539px

>>17967187
Oh and here's something interesting for you.

Notice the wavy line of the front of the PG film bigfoots leg?
Interestingly enough, the same kind of wavy line appears in the leg of this costume.

>>17967187
It's ok. I believe you think you're answering the questions, but if you look at it objectively, it's pretty obvious to an outsider that you're not actually addressing the points made:

>>17967035
posting a picture of human legs and saying:

>None of that looks any different than what you find in a normal leg....minus the fur.

is not an answer to these very detailed and annotated questions:

>>17966593
>>17965870

DICKS OUT FOR H A R A M B E

>>17967222
It did.

You just choose to ignore it.

>>17967230
LOL

>>17967236
That costume provides an example of how material drapes over the limbs, completely masking any visible muscle in the legs.

It also demonstrates material bunching at the ankle joint, and the knee, as the leg is bent.

Both of those are completely absent in the photo on the right, and the hams, quads, and calves can be identified throughout the film.

>>17967335
*photo on the left...not the right.

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

157KB, 657x492px

>>17967335
Well, it's good there is only one way for any kind of fabric, rubber, latex, lycra, nylon, or other kind of material to behave. makes it so much easier to claim that the figure in the film can only be a 7 foot tall unknown primate for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever.

>>17967230
Your penis looks like a small bone.

>Bigfoot thread
>entire thing is Patterson-gimlin arguing

I'm fucking fake the only ape human hybrids are you fucking mouthbreathing retards discussing this old ass hoax,

>>17968001
good point.

if you're going to debate about these fucking hoaxes stop talking about fabric folds and droopy titties.
at least spice this shit up with bloody horrors of some sort.

File: leg.gif (1MB, 376x539px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 376x539px

>>17967325
It really didn't. You're a fucking idiot if you think it did.

There's nothing to ignore because he didn't say what he thinks it is, only what he thinks it isn't. That isn't answering the question.

>>17967335
I think you are missing the point. Look at the front of the leg. See how it is wavy, in a manner similar to baggy trousers on a person?
That same wavy/baggy line can be clearly seen on the PG film as well, in almost the exact same place as the costume.

Here, I made you a gif lining up the lumps on the leg showing how they are nearly identical on both the suit and the "creature"
Sure the "calf muscle" isn't on the orange suit, but that's because it's a different suit.
But you can still clearly see the same folds at the front of the leg in both cases.

File: bigfoot_photo2.jpg (31KB, 282x403px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 282x403px

>>17968046
>>17967335
And as an added bonus, here's a photo of a bigfoot suit where the calf definition is visible.

Post more ape tits

>>17968046
wow. well done. that's almost a perfect match. now watch, he'll come back with a post re-stating some talking-point cribbed from a bill munns video and a pic of some dude doing aerobics in a leotard.

>>17967800
I like this pic it is like Bob and Patty are friends.

>>17968046
Saved to the bigfoot folder. Thanks for doing that.

File: Tim_White_2010-01.jpg (408KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1920x1440px

Still saying we should look for fossils.

>>17968046
>I think you are missing the point. Look at the front of the leg. See how it is wavy, in a manner similar to baggy trousers

I'm not missing the point at all.

You wouldn't even be trying to argue about material bunching, or draping, if I had not taught you guys what the hell it even is, and what you are describing is clearly not material bunching, as it would be consistent throughout the film, and it's not.

None of your arguments, or the arguments of any other skeptic in these past 4 threads, have had any merit whatsoever. Everything you've cited as a "seam" or "bunching" can be observed as natural anatomical features, like fat or muscle, found in humans, and gorillas alike, in the same areas they occur on the PG creature.

The one thing you can't do, haven't done, and won't do, is show the same characteristics you find in the Patterson creature on any contemporary suit, or even a suit made in the 70's. There isn't a suit that's been made capable of displaying the muscle and fat that's seen moving in the arms, legs, and torso of the PG film.

That never seems to concern you though...

>>17968048
That's a great looking suit, and it certainly is form fitted, however, I bet you a keg of beer you wouldn't be able to see the calves flex, though, the way you can in the PG film. Most contermporary suits use fake muscle, which doesn't contract like real muscle.

Regardless, until you and your fellow skeptics can show me some evidence of a contemporary suit being able to replicate the PG film, then you've got no evidence to support any claim of a suit, as every characteristic of the PG film more closely resembles the real anatomy of a living creature than a man in a costume.

>>17968183
which brings us full circle back to the original claim.

where are the bones?
where are the teeth?
where are the hairs?
where are the turds?
where are the habitations?
where is this creature?

SHOW ME THE MONKEY.

>>17962822
Who in fuck designed the one on the far left? That's not how occipital ridges work

>>17968623

All good questions that could be solved with a federally funded research project conducted in any one of the many national forests these things roam.

Sadly, because people treat it as a joke, that effort hasn't been forwarded.

>>17968647
You mean the Giganto skull or the dryopithecus?

>>17968697
Yeah, I meant right.

Also, does anyone have a link to the Samurai Chatter?

>>17968690

So, based on no evidence, you want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to fund a wood-ape hunt?

And who would you select for your team on this expedition?

I can't offer anything useful toward the image analysis. It's blurry as fuk.
But as far as personal experience goes I can say that I was once very close to some creature that was very large and moved by jumping from tree to tree in jumps of about 30 to 50 feet.
Each landing made the large tree sound like a log drum with a clear musical note.
This happened at a time when several people were reporting sightings and for me personally it serves to confirm that they exist and that they have migratory patterns to their behavior.

File: tumblr_l1wbqgea1U1qbt3bo.jpg (47KB, 500x519px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x519px

>>17968734
Here ya go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ4ScpzhaNI

Also, any info on this pic?

File: 2dc50c9bad888756bcf567b491a92444 (1).jpg (13KB, 236x345px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x345px

Report any interesting sightings.
(267) 368-7666

>>17968817
>humans cannot mimic these sounds.
>humans cannot mimic these movements.
>humans cannot create this suit.

must be real then.

also, pic related isn't a model about 9" tall and those aren't blades of grass in the foreground because humans can't mimic that.

>>17968883
Wasn't the pic taken on a ledge?

File: meier.jpg (110KB, 392x260px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 392x260px

>>17968888
>wasn't that ufo behind a tree?

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

222KB, 1039x1000px

>>17968948

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (01).jpg (591KB, 1024x1629px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1024x1629px

>>17968959
i wouldn't cheat you, gooby. here's something just for you.

BIGFOOT BY RICHARD CORBEN

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (02).jpg (530KB, 1024x1682px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1024x1682px

>>17969063

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (03).jpg (235KB, 1024x1653px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1024x1653px

>>17969074

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (04).jpg (291KB, 1024x1658px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1024x1658px

>>17969085

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (05).jpg (392KB, 1024x1635px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1024x1635px

>>17969096

>>17969063
>Rob Zombie
Dis gon be gud.

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (06).jpg (448KB, 1024x1636px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1024x1636px

>>17969103

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (07).jpg (369KB, 1024x1644px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1024x1644px

>>17969111

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (08).jpg (305KB, 1024x1630px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1024x1630px

>>17969117

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (09).jpg (356KB, 1024x1603px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x1603px

>>17969122

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (10).jpg (284KB, 1024x1604px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1024x1604px

>>17969128

>>17968742
>And who would you select for your team on this expedition?

1. north American wildlife biologist grad students
- young, dumb, motivated, work for peanuts, can develop intel analysis of potential feeding areas based on available local resources.
2. national park rangers
- provide local area intelligence

I'd have them establish bait sites throughout their given area of operations overwatched by trail cams, and have them patrol the area for sign until they capture a specimen on film that can be corroborated with prints.

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (11).jpg (412KB, 1024x1613px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1024x1613px

>>17969132

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (12-13).jpg (643KB, 2048x1623px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 2048x1623px

>>17969137

>>17969133
Would primatologists be useful for this expedition? I think we need to know how apes work beforehand.

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (14).jpg (382KB, 1024x1626px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1024x1626px

>>17969141

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (15).jpg (304KB, 1024x1661px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1024x1661px

>>17969150

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (16).jpg (274KB, 1024x1667px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1024x1667px

>>17969156

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (17).jpg (329KB, 1024x1651px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1024x1651px

>>17969167

>>17963906
The light reflecting off the lighter skin on the bottom of the foot causes a glare effect which would blur out any details for example the rocks in the footage seem to have blurred together because of a light glare effect on footage taken with a video camera from the late sixties. The darker areas are not reflect as much light so you can see them a lot better than lighter areas.

>>17969142
>Would primatologists be useful for this expedition?

I would think so for the intel they could provide on feeding habits, and general daily activity habits, however, I'd prefer a north American wildlife biologist simply because they should be more familiar with the potential food sources available to north American wildlife, like black bears, brown bears, and ungulates.

I hold the position that if you patrol the potential food sources long enough, you'll find evidence of the big hairy bastards.

File: mVeez1r00_YJMFEkqH_xuuw.jpg (106KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 400x400px

>>17968183
Once again you are ignoring the evidence against your belief.

Look at the fucking leg. I don't care that you brought up bunching and draping in the first place. Are we not allowed to use those terms for our arguments because you said them first?

Just look at the fucking leg. I made you that gif and everything that shows the exact same shape on the leg in both the costume and the PG film.

That wavy nature visible at the front of the leg (not to mention the arm) is consistent with clothing.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (178KB, 546x420px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 546x420px

>>17969732
>>17968183
I took some of the better/clearer shots from stabilised gifs.
It shows the same consistently wavy lines as seen on clothes.

The rest of the gif/footage is mostly unusable because too much motion blur from the shaky camera work.

>>17969212
A plausible explanation. To me it doesn't look like the foot is bright enough to cause that. The white would need to be blown a bit for that to happen, but they still have enough information there that it should show some kind of toe definition.

>>17969172
any more of this?

>>17963934
What's the 3rd?

>>17963960
BTFO

Faggots need to explain why the gluteus maximus isnt moving. I thought you could see the muscle movement so well?

>>17964090
Thats not how that works

>>17968061
I second this

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (18).jpg (416KB, 1024x1659px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1024x1659px

>>17969172

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (19).jpg (342KB, 1024x1650px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1024x1650px

>>17970106

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (20).jpg (394KB, 1024x1636px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1024x1636px

>>17970114

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (21).jpg (460KB, 1024x1652px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1024x1652px

>>17970117

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (22).jpg (376KB, 1024x1616px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1024x1616px

>>17970120

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (23).jpg (230KB, 1024x1620px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1024x1620px

>>17970126

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (24).jpg (258KB, 1024x1638px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1024x1638px

>>17970131

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (25).jpg (256KB, 1024x1619px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1024x1619px

>>17970153

File: Bigfoot #01 (2005) (26).jpg (208KB, 1024x1642px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1024x1642px

>>17970158

File: B2 cover.jpg (385KB, 1024x1608px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1024x1608px

>>17970172

File: B2 p01.jpg (541KB, 1024x1648px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1024x1648px

>>17970293

File: B2 p02.jpg (357KB, 1024x1587px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1024x1587px

>>17970299

>>17970172
>can't tell if a boy or a girl

File: B2 p03-04.jpg (668KB, 2048x1583px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 2048x1583px

>>17970303

File: B2 p05.jpg (419KB, 1024x1629px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1024x1629px

>>17970322

File: B2 p06.jpg (406KB, 1024x1641px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1024x1641px

>>17970328

File: B2 p07.jpg (342KB, 1024x1604px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1024x1604px

>>17970338

File: B2 p08.jpg (352KB, 1024x1612px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1024x1612px

>>17970350

File: 20160729_095611.jpg (152KB, 450x398px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 450x398px

>>17970158

File: B2 p09.jpg (289KB, 1024x1611px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1024x1611px

>>17970355

>>17970359
>DON'T EVER TALK TO ME OR MY WIFE'S SON EVER AGAIN! - BIGKEK

File: B2 p10.jpg (346KB, 1024x1628px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1024x1628px

>>17970363

File: B2 p11.jpg (327KB, 1024x1612px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1024x1612px

>>17970372

File: B2 p12.jpg (334KB, 1024x1557px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1024x1557px

>>17970374

File: B2 p13.jpg (350KB, 1024x1627px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1024x1627px

>>17970376

File: pants.jpg (376KB, 1409x581px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1409x581px

>>17969732
>>17969778
>Just look at the fucking leg.

The pants you posted are not form fitting, and the material drapes, and bunches, over the contours of the legs, masking them, and all the muscle. Even if the model were to bend their legs, you would not see any muscle, and the contours would still be masked.

The Sasquatch photos, on the other hand, show NO signs of material bunching or draping due to the fact that you can see the contours of the leg muscles, and observe the calf muscle actually flex while the creature is walking. If this were costume material, and not real flesh and blood, the accusation of material bunching you are making would also result in the material visibly draping over the back of the legs, especially during leg extension, and the recess and calves would be masked from view. Instead of material draping, we see the natural contours of the legs, even from behind, the leg muscles, and can observe the recess behind the knee, all indications of real biology and not a costume or fabric.

The material bunching you claim to observe on the Sasquatch is more than likely the result of the fur or of the shitty image quality you chose to use.

File: B2 p14.jpg (329KB, 1024x1589px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1024x1589px

>>17970377

File: treadmill.gif (4MB, 531x298px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 531x298px

>>17969906
>why the gluteus maximus isnt moving

Because your ass doesn't move much when you walk...unless you're a bitch that's swinging her hips to get attention.

File: B2 p15.jpg (363KB, 1024x1640px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1024x1640px

>>17970387

File: B2 p16.jpg (377KB, 1024x1660px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1024x1660px

>>17970394

File: B2 p17.jpg (356KB, 1024x1638px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x1638px

>>17970399

File: B2 p18.jpg (304KB, 1024x1614px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1024x1614px

>>17970404

File: B2 p19.jpg (326KB, 1024x1638px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1024x1638px

>>17970407

File: B2 p20.jpg (409KB, 1024x1648px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1024x1648px

>>17970409

File: B2 p21.jpg (359KB, 1024x1636px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1024x1636px

>>17970411

File: B2 p22.jpg (262KB, 1024x1617px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1024x1617px

>>17970413

File: B2 p23.jpg (368KB, 1024x1626px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1024x1626px

>>17970419

>>17970392
show us a gif where an upper thigh disappears into an ass check like it's an empty box: >>17963960

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

112KB, 351x664px

>>17970564
>an upper thigh disappears into an ass check

That's not an unusual occurrence at all.

Pic related.

>>17970381
>The Sasquatch photos, on the other hand, show NO signs of material bunching or draping due to the fact that you can see the contours of the leg muscles,

They show every sign of material bunching and draping. you just don't want to acknowledge it.

>and observe the calf muscle actually flex while the creature is walking.

The calf "muscle" area only changes shape when the visual edges of the entire leg is blown out by the over-exposed background. that's why the leg appears to significantly "shrink" from one frame to the next.

>If this were costume material, and not real flesh and blood, the accusation of material bunching you are making would also result in the material visibly draping over the back of the legs, especially during leg extension, and the recess and calves would be masked from view.

You repeatedly insist that there is only one possible kind of behavior for "material" when in fact you never say what material this is you're referencing. Also, you've drawn conclusions about how said material will behave but you've never described how this suit of material is constructed. If it is a suit, then how do you think it was made?

>Instead of material draping, we see the natural contours of the legs, even from behind, the leg muscles, and can observe the recess behind the knee, all indications of real biology and not a costume or fabric.

The "recess behind the knee" is actually on the side of the leg not in the back. And what about the recess we see above the "x" shape? There should certainly be a massive, rounded, convex thigh muscle there, not an indentation. How do you explain that?
See:
>>17966593

>>17970635
That's not a gif and even if it was and the subjects were walking, we would not see the leg subducting under the glutes which in the PGF, tellingly, never change shape or show any resistance to the thigh as it pushes back into that recess. We can even visually follow a detail on the upper thigh as it disappears into the ass.

The ass looks every bit like a cut-out opening in a suit assembly. You can't even acknowledge that.

>>17963960

>>17970647
>They show every sign of material bunching and draping. you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Bunching is a result of excess material, and you claim that the material you see bunching is visible on the FRONT of the leg, and yet the back of the leg is contoured throughout the entire range of motion, and all muscle can be viewed, which is the exact opposite of what would happen if there was excess material in any given costume.

>The calf "muscle" area only changes shape when the...

...foot articulates while walking, just like a calf should. It is observable throughout the entire film, and is NOT due to any issue with the film.

>The "recess behind the knee" is actually on the side of the leg not in the back.

The recess is visible from both, side views, and the rear view that can be later observed in the film, because the creature is walking at an oblique angle.

>there is only one possible kind of behavior for "material"

Material is either form fitted, or it's not. Period. If it's form fitted, it will contour around the body to an extent, and if the material is elastic, like lycra, there may be no signs of bunching or draping, if properly tailored, due to the fact that there is no excess material, and the elastic material adheres to the contours of the body. If material is not form fitted, there must be extra material to allow for movement, and this extra material WILL bunch and drape over the contours of the body, masking them. What's so hard to understand about that?

>And what about the recess we see above the "x" shape? There should certainly be a massive, rounded, convex thigh muscle there, not an indentation. How do you explain that?

Every single "x" shape, "recess", or "line" that has been singled out as some part of a "costume" can be demonstrated to be the same muscle, tendon, or fat, that's visible in human legs as well.

>>17970677
>we would not see the leg subducting under the glutes

Sure you would.

Are you claiming asses don't hang over the legs? Plastic surgeons are making millions from lazy vain women because their asses are doing just that...

Pic related.

File: Saggy assed bitches.jpg (85KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1024x768px

>>17970796
Forgot the pic...

>>17970126
Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees schlomo as a cop.

>>17970764
>Material is either form fitted, or it's not. Period. If it's form fitted, it will contour around the body to an extent, and if the material is elastic, like lycra, there may be no signs of bunching or draping, if properly tailored, due to the fact that there is no excess material, and the elastic material adheres to the contours of the body. If material is not form fitted, there must be extra material to allow for movement, and this extra material WILL bunch and drape over the contours of the body, masking them. What's so hard to understand about that?


You've just explained exactly how the figure in the film can be a man in a suit. Thanks. I'll step off your merry-go-round of delusional confirmation bias now.

File: great_ape_size_chart_by_harry_the_fox-d4sh0uc.jpg (512KB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 3508x2480px

>>17970870
Middle man here. I think both sides suffer from this due to the ambiguous nature of the film. Facts against either side strengthen the biases of the opposed parties. In other words, you're stepping off of one merry-go-round and onto another.

>>17970381
So you have no real argument to explain the inconsistencies in the shape of the leg?

>Oh it must be fur
Then show us an image where fur creates folds and creases that match clothing.

>It's shitty image quality
I'm using the stabilised and enhanced images. So I'm probably using the same ones as you.

File: ginger-matted-dog.jpg (26KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x270px

>>17970894
>Then show us an image where fur creates folds and creases that match clothing.

Do you shave the fur on your arms and legs?
I think it's so weird that women have to constantly shave their hair to keep it from overwhelming their skin, because I've never had a problem with my hair

>>17967230
that's what yo dick look like? ...smfh

File: pattys_toes.jpg (64KB, 628x743px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 628x743px

>>17963848
>It's just a flat white surface with no toes.

But that's wrong...

File: skull.jpg (24KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x300px

Found this while searching on google images (the only place to find resources). Apparently it's a primate skull that was found in Texas back in '09. No one's sure what kind of primate it is. I say gorilla, but I could be wrong.

>>17970930
>MK Davis "enhancements"
>>17967024

>>17970870
>You've just explained exactly how the figure in the film can be a man in a suit.

In 2016? Maybe, as long as they use longer fur to mask the muscle.

In 1967? Nope. They didn't have elastic fur material, and any fur sewed to an elastic material would no longer make the material elastic. No elastic material means no form fitting suit, and surely not a form fitting suit that displays the calf flexing.

>>17970894

No, it's you that doesn't have an argument, or reading comprehension skills.

You try to argue that there's excess material visible on the front of the leg creating bunching, and yet there is no excess material in the back to create the draping that would be visible on the back of the leg. The same draping that would mask the recess of the knee and the calf muscle throughout the entire range of motion. If there was enough material to bunch up at the front, there would be enough material to drape over the back of the legs, but no such draping occurs.

You fail.

Again.

Just like every other skeptic that tries to attack the suit.

File: WW I imagery.jpg (85KB, 640x362px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x362px

>>17970930
You've got to excuse these >>17970970 fanatics, as they apparently believe the practice of enlarging and enhancing imagery is unprecedented in history, and the act alone is a sign of a surreptitious hoaxer.

>>17970974
Or maybe all the material is bunched at the front, which is why there is none at the back creating the appearance of muscle movement.

I forget though, you are an expert on every fabric and costume that has ever been made. So you know exactly how all materials should act in every situation.

File: s521972503441136676_p1274_i1_w640.jpg (101KB, 529x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 529x640px

>>17970948
Not a gorilla skull, more likely a chimp or similar.

>>17970994
>military images
>comparable to some asshole with a trash consumer-grade video camera when they were first becoming available

>>17971017
Think it was someone's pet? Considering it's Texas, that seems likely.

>>17971011
>Or maybe all the material is bunched at the front

Again, and for the last time, this would be made apparent as the leg is extended, creating draping that could be identified on the back of the legs. It doesn't.

>>17971018
>thinks the PG film was made using a video camera and not a 16mm FILM camera

File: 1433902957638.jpg (443KB, 900x1269px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 900x1269px

>>17970994
Sure, we have to accept his "enhancements" i.e., alterations of the film, but we can just ignore his analysis that what we see is a scene of a bigfoot massacre with other bigfeet hiding in the trees and bigfoot has a ponytail and wears jewelry and carries a purse and is surrounded by pools of blood.

That's what he actually thinks.

Also, the "enhancements" this lunatic has made including "deblurring" are in no way some sort of objective procedure. It's a highly idiosyncratic process in which this mentalist can focus on whatever pareidolia he chooses to believe he sees and then edit and filter that into reality.

Rest assured, as soon as his youtube views drop enough you can bet he'll be back with another amazing revelation discovered in the frames of the patterson film.

This is the very reason why scientists and serious technical people steer clear of the bigfoot topic. The basic claim is not credible and the people involved are not credible.

>>17971057
for this to be similar to the patterson film the bear would need to be wearing furry boxers.

File: vibramsasquatch.png (1MB, 628x743px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 628x743px

>>17963848
>>17963857
>>17970930
>>17970970
After careful analysis I have concluded that bigfoot wears meme shoes.

>>17971074
>but we can just ignore his analysis

We have been....for the past 4 threads. Nobody gives a shit about his opinions.

>This is the very reason why scientists and serious technical people steer clear of the bigfoot topic.

They avoid the subject because they're cowards, and would rather work in the safety of the academic echo chamber, and avoid anything that is even remotely controversial. This is the same reason race, gender, and homo topics are avoided by science.

Regardless, you're so biased, you'd shit on anyone that enhanced the film, despite the fact that the process is simple enough to do these days, thanks to computer programs.

>>17971131
But anon
If these things existed, surely we would have conclusive proof by now - and lots of it.

But like all the cryptids bigfoot is camera shy, despite the high numbers of people who are (and have been) looking for them for years.

File: hamad_lat.jpg (35KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x327px

>>17970948
>>17971017
Wow, this is a genuinely interesting case! Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Looking at it, it's definitely not a chimp, or any ape for that matter. While the flat face and the sagittal crest are definitely suggestive of a great ape, those teeth and that snout immediately rule out any Great Ape. The only primates with a long protruding snout or dentition quite like that is a baboon, or a lemur, but they have a much more gracile face.

Compare >>17970948's dentition and snout with that of a baboon

http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/mwjane2/BaboonSkullFemaleMale.jpg

A chimp

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_large_3163.jpg

A lemur

http://www.connecticutvalleybiological.com/isotope/s/sp3087-a1694fa4.jpg

A gorilla

http://www.boneroom.com/uploads/4/8/1/1/48118243/s521972503441136676_p1274_i1_w744.jpeg

An orangutan

https://www.a3bs.com/thumblibrary/VP761/VP761_01_1200_1200_Orangutan-Skull-Pongo-pygmaeus-male.jpg

And a spider monkey

http://www.educationalbiofacts.com/images/CA-RB0825-Vervet-Green-Monk.jpg

Even where they come close in terms of those massive canines, none have the same kind of long snout with the low-set nose. It *has* to be a baboon. The sagittal crest means it's definitely an old-world primate, so any chance of it being a New World ape, much less bigfoot, goes right out the window. The only question is what kind of baboon is it?

In my humble opinion, it very closely resembles pic related- a hamadryas baboon. It has the same flat, forward-facing, heavy and disturbingly anthropoid face, and a sagittal crest. Potentially a juvenile, deformed, or a new species/subspecies, but it's definitely a baboon. A rather cool one, considering how closely it resembles an ape. But no prospects for being a proto-bigfoot.

>>17971028
It must be. Even if a lineage of New World Monkeys convergent on both apes and baboons arose, no way it'd be in Texas. Mexico or South America, more likely

>>17971136
>If these things existed, surely we would have conclusive proof by now

That seems like a reasonable argument, however, combine the nature of the terrain they inhabit, with the possibility of an intelligence level common to all great apes, and maybe at a level second only to homo sapiens, and it's not unreasonable to believe they could successfully avoid most human contact and escape at will.

>>17971181
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/

File: Papio_ruhei_1952_276_S.jpg (29KB, 555x413px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 555x413px

>>17971178
Found an even better match; Papio ruhei. Only trouble is I can't find a picture of one with a prominent sagittal crest, but otherwise it's a perfect match.

>>17971185
this..

>>17971185
He makes some good points, however, his arguments are just that....arguments.

For example, he argues about the inconsistency of vocalizations, however, dialects have been found to exist in whales and dolphins, so why not Sasquatch?

He argues that the tracks "would be easy to find" by people who "know what they're doing", and then he cites the opinions of people he claims are "professional trackers". However, he never cites how many of these trackers have actually LOOKED for a Sasquatch, where they looked, or how long they looked. Then he attacks the tracks that have been found for not being "biological" enough, and for simply being "suspect"?

Regardless, the dude is entitled to his opinion, but that's exactly what it is...an opinion. Other scientists differ.

>>17971181
What about signs of life? What do great apes do when one of their own die?

>>17971027
It's hilarious that you keep making these images to try and "win" the arguments.

Notice how the front of the leg has a smooth even line? Funny how that just vanishes on the bigfoot leg.

>>17971057
Not even close to the same. Notice how despite the fur you can still see the smooth curve of the bears form?
On the PG film the form is all over the fucking place, consistent with folds in clothing.

File: 6215150_orig.png (167KB, 300x336px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 300x336px

>>17971236
If it's a baby, the mother may continue to carry the infant long after the death, even when it's nothing more than some bones and hair. With adults, not sure. They may move it somewhere or eat the carcass to detract predators.

>>17971181
>it's not unreasonable to believe they could successfully avoid most human contact and escape at will.

their DNA wouldn't be able to escape and it would be literally spread around everywhere.

scientists studying coyote migration patterns and the birthrate of bison, or the snail population of washington state etc, etc, would constantly be coming across unknown primate DNA.

they're not find unknown primate DNA, because it's not there.

>>17971233
There is only one argument needed and it's the one you failed to mention:

NO UNKNOWN PRIMATE DNA FOUND ANYWHERE.

>>17971236
I don't know, but elephants are known to cover their dead.

The natives seems to think Sasquatch cover their dead in rocks, essentially creating an urn.

Maybe looking for urn like structures in some of the rockier areas they're suspected to live in might reveal some bones.

>>17971261
>would constantly be coming across unknown primate DNA.

Why is that?

>>17971293
because,

>the collection and examination of eDNA – that is, residual DNA collected from the environment (yes, from water, ice and sediment) – is now widespread and commonplace.

>>17971233
>so why not Sasquatch?
No where near the diversity. Samurai Chatter/ Sierra Sounds sound liuterally nothing like any other Bigfoot vocalizations.

File: 31BA4FF300000578-3470859-In_West_Africa_for_example_chimps_throw_stones_at_trees_resultin-a-2_1456825899076.jpg (124KB, 634x419px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 634x419px

>>17971279
So we should raid Sasquatch graves? I feel like that could lead to some unwanted confrontation.

>>17971303
That's interesting.

I'd have to do some research on the process before I formed an opinion.

>>17971261
Sorry, not the person you were talking to but what you suggested has flaws.

First it's not as if DNA just floats about clinging on to whatever animal passed by, for even some of it to be on an animal there would have to be physical contact of some kind.

And of course, if bigfoot doesn't go around stroking animals or bleeding on them - only touching them when hunting (in which case the dead animal won't migrate) then this would really lower the chances of DNA being found on them.

And even if DNA was planted on another animal, which was subsequently picked up by a biologist or whatever who ran tests for DNA, they would most likely do this via a sample of blood/saliva and not by checking the animals own skin - why would they?
And even if they found that particular DNA it would probably have degraded OR be ignored the scientist as being anomalous.

>>17971233
>Other scientists differ.
Such as?

>>17971279
Any kind of cairn/ mound structures west of the rockies would have been identified long ago.

>>17971303
Huh, neat

but still even if DNA was found, I feel it's probably more likely the person examining it will go
"oops, says there's some primate dna, just ignore that, obvious error"
rather than
"primate DNA? Huh. that must mean... Bigfoot is real!"

>>17971311
And?

Certain passages of an opera performance don't sound much like normal speech either.

File: 6_bore_BP_shotgun_used_for_elephants_1880s.jpg (32KB, 600x307px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x307px

>>17971313
>I feel like that could lead to some unwanted confrontation.
I find that an elephant gun can resolve most confrontations.

>>17971319
Doc Meldrum, and some of his peers.

>>17971327
Question, is it legal to hunt bigfoot?

>>17971317
He didn't say physically on animals. Scientists recover fragments of coyote and snail DNA in the wild constantly, not *on* them. Taking a piss or a shit, bumping into trees or branches, shedding hair, even sweating- all of these things should leave behind distinct primate DNA.

>>17971325
Nearly all zoologists would be absolutely thrilled to be the ones to discover bigfoot- see, Darren Naish, the writer of that article. In fact, most zoologists get into it because of cryptids.

File: Meldrum91.jpg (36KB, 240x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 240x360px

>>17971319
"Hi. I'm Dr. Jeff Meldrum. Pleased to make your acquaintance. Have a seat right over there and let me tell you why Bigfoot is real."

File: cairn.jpg (505KB, 1600x1088px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1600x1088px

>>17971323
Maybe if they were found and recognized, sure.

Who the hell is going to waste time and energy investigating a rock cairn at high altitude, though? I'd imagine only anthropologists would take the time to do that.

I wouldn't pay much attention to any rock formation that looked like pic related, and I sure as hell would try to dig it up....

>>17971333
In certain states it isn't.

>>17971333
Nice trips.

>>17971333
It's explicitily illegal in California and Washington. In Oregon 9alleged epicenter of Bigfoot activity), it's technically illegal to kill any animal out of its hunting season- and, not being real, Bigfoot doesn't have a hunting season. So you might get slapped with something if it proves to be real and you kill it, but I would wager you could make enough money from selling the body to pay any fines or legal fees. Though if it proves to be a human subspecies of some sort, you may even get charged with manslaughter.

>>17971317
this is why i stay out of these kinds of threads. idiots everywhere.

>>17971353
Pic related really does just look like a clump of mountain rocks, though. But any archaelogist or anthropoligst would be willing to investigate, and so would Indians- they get so pissy about native graves and cultural artifacts that they would be willing to pay for an excavation.

>>17971387
>>17971347

>>17971378
>Though if it proves to be a human subspecies of some sort, you may even get charged with manslaughter.

Genetically wise, if bigfoot was real, how different from a human COULD it be while still being similar enough to get you done for manslaughter ?

And is the whole human subspecies thing something theorists believe could be a possibility?

File: 6a01156e4c2c3d970c01b8d05c6506970c.png (2MB, 1175x885px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1175x885px

>>17971389
What happens if we find bones though? I remember that whole Kennewick Man fiasco.

>>17963365
>>17963365
Maybe we can't find Bigfoot because s/he can't find us.

>>17971389
>Pic related really does just look like a clump of mountain rocks, though.

Exactly.

If Sasquatch bury their dead, their graves / cairns could look exactly like that, and not garner any attention at all.

>>17971396
I'd say if it were Neanderthal or closer, you'd get charged with manslaughter.

>And is the whole human subspecies thing something theorists believe could be a possibility?
I don't believe in Bigfoot, but I think it being a Denisovan is by far the likeliest possibility. Larger then humans, and with an as-of-yet unknown morpohology meaning it could resemble a Bigfoot. It lived in Siberia- the only ape other than humans or Neanderthals to do so, and thus the only likely candidate to cross into the Americas.

>>17971411
Natives will get fucking uppity for a bit, no doubt. But they weren't able to get Kennewick man in the end, so they're sure as shit not going to get a Bigfoot, which will be demonstrably non-human/

>>17964238
Poopoo PeePee maybe?

Unknown primate DNA would be literally everywhere.

>>17971422
Special pleading.

I really wouldn't expect an ape supposedly second only to humans in intelligence to create something indistinguishable from stones scattered by glaciers.

Even if they do bury their dead in such a haphazard manner, at least one should have been uncovered by now; rain, ice, wind, people clearing fields or using fieldstone for construction (nearly all old buildings in Pennsylvania were made this way) really should've uncovered a Bigfoot by now.

>>17971454
In the mountains of the PNW? Or the rockies?

These things live where we don't....which is why they are such a pain in the ass to find.

File: pic_058.jpg (164KB, 800x909px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 800x909px

>>17971436
Hoping for a Dryo/Hispanopithecus descendant, but a Denisovan is fine too.

>>17971464
They wouldn't have just lived in those places in pre-histroic, pre-clovis times.

>>17971467
but bigfoot doesn't exist so.. that's a problem.

File: Oreopithecus.jpg (40KB, 511x564px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 511x564px

>>17971467
Dryopithecus/ Hispaniopithecus seems a bit odd- neither was bpedal. More like an orangutan or a sloth then anything. If you want to go for dryopithecines apes (which I admit are third or fourth most likely) Oreopithecus is a much better choice.

>>17971487
Suspension of disbelief, friend-o

File: grosseto_oreopiteco_1.jpg (217KB, 900x598px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 900x598px

>>17971501
Mainly going off of the orthograde orientation for Hispano. Also, Oreopithecus was an island species, and functioned like an orangutan in terms of bipedality.

>>17971516
>Also, Oreopithecus was an island species,
Not inconceivable that they could have made it off prior to the Vallesian Crisis.

Why is everyone so hostile and worked up about some giantass monkey dude existing or not ?
Does this somhow clash with christianity vs atheism ?

>>17971508
then why not speculate about something interesting and reality-based like a possible relationship between homo floresiensis and the speculative orang pendek?

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

1MB, 1198x783px

>>17971526
True. Also, I think this might be useful. It's just a list of Miocene apes I found. Seems rather up-to-date (2015) and thorough, and even comes with this nifty map.

>>17971548
Forgot the link.
http://evolution-involution.org/hominoid_radiation.html

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

46KB, 663x382px

>>17971548
nigga, why my people not on yo map?

File: sahelanthropus_diorama.jpg (221KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 400x400px

>>17971565
Who says they ain't?

>>17971539
I'm happy to do that, and this is the Cryptid Apes General. Personally, I don't think that it's too likely that Orang Pendek or the Ebu Gogo are H. Floresiensis. In the former case, H. Floresiensis is normally the size of a man. In the case of ebu gogo, a simple Negroid/ Melanesian pygmy pre-austronesian population is just a more likely explanation.

And, of course, there's no Hobbit fossils outside of Flores. Splendid isolation and all that.

In terms of likelyhood, I'd rank it Sun Bear, Orangutans, Pygmies and then Hobbits.

what about the skunk ape

>>17971633
Proven at this point to be a loosed Orangutan.

That said, in a post-apocalyptic scenario, I could totally see feral chimps or orangs surviving in the swamps of Florida and Louisiana, effectively making Skunk Ape myths true.

File: hobbit-fossils-1.jpg (22KB, 593x155px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 593x155px

>>17971592
I think they may have m8.
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/06/09/oldest-hobbit-fossils/

>>17971665
But what about the local legends told by some NA tribes near the area? Those legends must've been around long before orangs were loosed there.

>>17971592
i think youre not up on the current literature, mate.

File: Woodwose-Illustration-2.jpg (567KB, 532x743px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 532x743px

>>17971669
If I'm reading that article right, they found tools on Sulawesi, not hobbit bones. That's hardly suprising- Homo erectus (likely ancestor of H. floresiensis) was all over the place in Indonesia. In fact, it was discovered in Java (Du Bois and his "Missing Link"). So it's not really proof of island-hopping Hobbits.

>>17971673
Protip: Literally every single culture in the world has myths of ape-men or beast-men, from Australia to Amesbury. There are two reasons for this.

One, humans tend to make our monsters in our own image. Look at Alien, Zombies, the Terminator. Uncanny valley, and the notion of humans losing their humanity, being savage and bestial is a frightening notion. And what better way to make a human lose their humanity then by covering them in hair and casting them to live out in the woods like a wolf or a bear?

Second, people always percieve the material cultures that came before them as savage, uncouth, and animal like. Just look at Europeans and their perceptions of primitive africans, belieivng that they were literally just overgrown chimpanzees instead of another race of humans. When the Vascones entered Europe and met fur-clad hunter-gatherer cro-magnons, they surely seemed more like animals then men. This justified them wiping them out. When the Celts moved into the British Isles, they surely saw the Vasonic/ Pretonic peoples living there savage. So they wiped them out. And so on and so forth.

>>17971703
Then please, refer me to some.

>>17971731
feet are on the wrong legs in that drawing. that sets my autism on edge.

File: apocalypse_neanderthal_1.jpg (3MB, 4491x2994px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4491x2994px

>>17971731
I remember hearling that woodlouses and the like were actually misinterpretations of neanderthals during the Middle Ages. Imagine seeing an individual draped in animal skins, using crude stone tools to hunt and butcher their prey, and live in caves since all the territory was taken by modern man.

File: tumblr_n3oxayL08c1rx4fboo1_1280.jpg (298KB, 550x442px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 550x442px

>>17971665
>Proven
but this animal is too big to be an orangutan, and also the wrong color

File: ape_HJtnas4z6y.jpg (40KB, 629x399px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 629x399px

>>17971807
Hair can make an animal appear bigger than it really is.

>>17971817
ok but why is it black with a white beard? i am not aware of any orangutans that look like this

File: 42574040_Anorangutanfromthene001.jpg (36KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 460x276px

>>17971826
May be a rare specimen like this one, but at an older age.
Also, do apes have eyeshine? I thought color vision doesn't allow for that.

>>17971807
Looks pretty much like an orangutan to me.

>>17971840
Looks the same as red eye in humans from a flash.

File: 465803650_1c35c909aa_z.jpg (175KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 500x375px

>>17971900
So about the same as in the picture. Ok then.

>>17971807
I will continue to deny the fact that folk believe this to be the picture of an actual living animal.
It's stationary as fuck and drapped in long hairs unlike anything I've ever seen.

But on a different note what do you guys think the distrobution(range?) of Bigfoot is on a map?

>>17971840
apparently there are no known great apes that have eyeshine

it looks similar to red-eye effect you see in old photos