BIGFOOT VI: Cryptid Apes General 2

Previous thread.
>>17962822

>>17972646
I just find it very unlikely that a creature as large as Sasquatch could live in the woods without being documented very well, maybe if it's a lot more intelligent than we think it is and it's TRYING to stay elusive, then maybe, but taken at face value I feel Bigfoot is a great urban legend and nice story to tell around campfires and nothing more.

Call me a weird fuck but I don't believe they are purely physical creatures. I feel as if they can travel between planes of existence, as if they are more of a spiritual creature.

I was once on a reservation in Canada talking to an elder about sasquatch and the like, he brought up his belief that they can 'teleport' and make themselves 'appear' when they want to appear, because they are not an ape. They are not the missing link, they are something else.

That idea stuck, and sure there's no proof to it but it's what I always jump to in my mind when I think of bigfoot. It's always good to consider everything, even the potentially impossible

File: sediba-ardi.jpg (52KB, 536x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 536x720px

>>17972722
Sound like a wendigo, they have a tendency to "teleport."
Maybe he conflated the powers of the wendigo and the appearance of the sasquatch into one being.
Though, to be fair, I have heard that they may actually be angels taking on semi-human forms, or the ghosts of warlike ape-men that once roamed the area.

>>17972722

I don't buy into any of the "teleportation" / paranormal abilities, as the probability is much higher that it's simply an intelligent, rare animal, skilled at maintaining a hidden presence in inhospitable terrain.

The wolverine, as an example, is estimated to have a population of 40-45 in glacier national park, compared to 2-300 grizzly bears. The wolverine has proven to be a tough little motherfucker to find, and should the Sasquatch numbers be even smaller, and their intelligence higher than the average non-human primate, they could avoid humans at will.

>>17972754
>>17972829

Yeah, for sure. You never know, really. The scientific explanation definitely sounds more plausible, it's just a thought and sort of a belief some people have. Even if it's somewhat silly

why are there so many people who believe in bigfoot but not skunk ape

>>17972871
I kind of see them as the same deal, just a different variation

>>17972875
exactly

florida has the second or third highest number of anonymous reports to the BFRO after Washington iirc

>>17972871
yeah skunk ape is just a stinky Bigfoot cause it hides in swamps,

File: opcast.jpg (127KB, 597x400px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 597x400px

Anyone got some stories?

>>17973305
I live in the northern great plains region of north america so experiences are far and few between here. So no, I don't have any. I'm just waiting for someone else to post

File: a-winter-night.jpg (308KB, 999x713px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 999x713px

There is nothing quite like the sensation of night/winter camping in a secluded area.

The trees have no vegetation, so sound travels extremely well. Laying in front of a dying fire, the only sounds being the crackling of the embers...and then a sudden, far away howl drifting on the wind. Or a distant shuffling somewhere in the dark. Hazily drifting in and out of REM sleep, not asleep enough to know if that heavy breathing and slight crunch of snow-just barely within earshot- is a pesky black bear, looking for your tree stash, and not being awake enough to register it as something more worrisome...

Seriously. If you want a sensation like no other, do an overnight winter camp in the deep woods.

Let us pray we don't have a continuation of the pg film wars.

>>17973584
this is pretty much every bigfoot thread on /x/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10KZontKuUg

missing 411 -david paulides, look that shit up, you are right it does teleport and it DOES go to another dimension. sometimes taking you with it...

>>17973839
So is it like the monster in Stranger Things?

>>17973846
dont know the movie but this is for real, elisa lam, that kid that had that phone call with his last words to his dad were "oh shit.." before his phone hung up and was never seen again. Jared Atedaro 1999 never found, Dennis Martin- never found and thats just a sprinkle on the cupcake kids.

>>17973852
I know these cases and dont think they are related to bigfoot. There are many reasons for a person to go missing. Interesting stuff, tho
Stranger things is a show that recently came out. Pretty good, would recommend

>>17973857
I could be wrong but the Dennis Martin one even has accounts of a strange creature holding a boy.. and one has a kid tell his crazxy story of him finding a robot version of his grandma in a cave telling him to defacte.. like what the fuck? thats some" it" shit lol .

>>17973864
>finding a robot version of his grandma in a cave telling him to defacte
oh boy, I hate when that happens
kek

File: 1034789196598021.jpg (108KB, 720x712px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 720x712px

>>17973868
hey you know what they say: "shit happens"

>>17973852
What the fuck does Elisa Lam have to do with it?

>>17972871
He just stinky Bigfoot

Swamp smell bad make Bigfoot smell bad

He smelly monkey!

>>17972829
>>17972870

an animal, however smart, can't hide it's DNA.

File: heidelberg_man_by_zdenek_burian_1952(2).jpg (414KB, 1600x1099px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1600x1099px

>>17974282
Depends on its patterns. It seems like a primarily forest-dwelling species, only going into plains/civilized areas if absolutely necessary. They may have certain spots that they just don't go.

Also, there's the possibility that if they found primate DNA, they'd assume it was just a human, rather than an ape.

>>17974282
It can if nobody is looking for it...

File: 1428907919392.jpg (92KB, 500x702px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x702px

>>17974445
>>17974508

You're both wrong. Environmental DNA sampling is now very common and is being used in every state to conduct a wide variety of scientific studies. Unknown primate DNA would have been turning up repeatedly and bigfoot would have been proven to exist and whether or not we ever actually see one with the naked eye would be irrelevant. Unfortunately, That's not happening.

Unless you want to make the argument that "bigfoot" is a tribe of primitive inbred hillbillies like in the Wrong Turn movies...

>>17974765

So your argument is that environmental DNA sampling has captured the DNA of EVERY single living species that exists in the USA today, and therefore, would recognize an off sample when they found one, like a Sasquatch.

I don't agree with you, anon.

>>17974803
Not that anon, but if they found some unknown DNA they wouldn't just fuck off with it. They would be studying the shit out of it, comparing it to other species and connecting dots.

Not to mention the scale of DNA found. Giant hairy apeman would be leaving behind a fair chunk of hair and shit

>>17974963
Literal* shit

>>17974963
Not only hair and turds, but every bigfoot that dies (all of them) would be food for worms and snails and birds and marmots and mice right on up the food chain through the soil and into the rives and ponds. Unknown Primate DNA would be everywhere. And it isn't.

>>17974963
Right.

However, I'm still under the impression that you, and that anon, seem to think that environmental DNA samples from every creature in the U.S. have been somehow captured and catalogued.

I just don't think that's a very reasonable assumption.

File: zpage173.gif (291KB, 514x442px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 514x442px

Reminder that the Mountain Gorilla was originally thought to be nothing more than a ape-man monster until 1902, when one was killed and brought back to civilization.

>>17975023
Reminder that Washington State 2016 is not equivalent to The Congo 1902.

>>17974990
Why not? We have all this tech, and all these biologists. We wouldn't even close to *every* organism catologued. But cmon, anything larger than a fly surely IS catologued. Even finding trace amounts of strange primate DNA would raise flags.

But, to you, why do you think that such research is so far fetched?

File: medecine_man1.jpg (236KB, 1171x1400px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1171x1400px

I remember seeing this one documentary that suggested several explanations for sasquatch attacks. One of the hypotheses was that they were actually seeing shamans-in-training who had to survive as an animal in order to pass initiation. Any support for this idea?

>>17975107
What about the Canadian wilderness?

>>17975124
*survive by living like an animal

>>17974990
Why do you assume they need to have every creature catalogued?

Just finding unusual primate DNA that they can then compare to samples from around the world would be enough for them to be like "hey we found something!"

>>17972708
/thread

>>17975109
>But, to you, why do you think that such research is so far fetched?

Because of the lack of scientists and funding for such a wide scale project, first, and due to the difficulties of obtaining DNA samples that aren't contaminated.

>>17975109
I would assume if they found unknown primate DNA, they would most likely assume that the DNA was contaminated by human hands prior to the analysis

File: bigfoot_patterson_footprint.jpg (266KB, 660x800px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 660x800px

>>17975168
that's been the logical default position on this topic since the first fake footprints were laid down by Ray Wallace in the 1950s.

pic related: Roger Patterson holding faked footprints.

>>17975159
Probably for the same reason you all assume that they'd find random primate DNA just floating around in the streams and rivers and shit....

>>17975195
Jesus he even looks like a con man.

>>17975196
There would be DNA evidence though.

And just because they don't have a copy of every creatures DNA on file, they could still tell that it's primate DNA, and then try to match it with known primates and see that it doesn't match.

Not having every DNA sample on file literally has no bearing on the discussion.

>>17975208
>There would be DNA evidence though.

[citation needed]

File: 1430762987100.jpg (79KB, 608x608px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 608x608px

Are there any good bigfoot/sasquatch movies (not documentaries)?

File: Wallace vs Crews.jpg (120KB, 876x618px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 876x618px

>>17975195
>the first fake footprints

Weren't the prints found by Jerry Crew that resulted in the name "Bigfoot" being adopted and used by the media and the public in 1958.

First, the fake wooden feet don't match the casts of the tracks found by Crew. Second, the stride length, and depth of the print, can't be replicated by a human using fake wooden feet.

Here's an article written in 59' on the story.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/true1959.htm

Lastly, apparently Mr. Wallace had a history of making crazy bigfoot claims, and attempts at recreating the tracks the way the family claim they were created, failed.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wallace_flap.htm

>>17975229
Willow creek was alright.

Nothing special, but it didn't totally suck ass...

>>17975314
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/true1959.htm

>Ivan T. Sanderson

My favorite from Sanderson is his giant penguin in Florida theory. The Minnesota Iceman would a close second though.

>>17975320
I saw that too. It was pretty good i guess. It was basically blaire witch project with bigfoot instead of witches.

>>17975314
ray wallace made a lot of fake bigfoot feet, though. not just the ones in that picture.

>>17975130
Still not as isolated. Or with an equivalent ecology capable of supporting gorilla-or-larger animals year-round.

>>17976009
moose and bears can survive up there and they're bigger than gorillas

>>17975948
Right.

However, unless he made a 500+ pound man capable of maintaining a 40-60 inch stride, the tracks Crew found weren't his.

>>17976009
>>17976093
>moose and bears can survive up there

Not to mention entire mule deer and elk herds....

File: ivan.jpg (186KB, 563x600px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 563x600px

>>17976214
>However, unless he made a 500+ pound man capable of maintaining a 40-60 inch stride, the tracks Crew found weren't his.

right. that's the same thing ivan sanderson said about the giant penguin prints in florida:

>“If made physically by a man, either with devices strapped to his feet or on stilts, how did he carry a ton on each leg – the absolute minimum that the road engineers said could have made the imprints even in soft ground? He manifestly could not…”

stop being so gullible.

>>17976293
>stop being so gullible.

You first, Mr "everybody is an idiot, liar, or hoaxer".

>>17976293
Poisoning the well.

>>17976489
Facts are a bitch when you're a true believer.

>>17976093
>>17976224
Moose, deer, elk and reindeer don't spend most of their time in one place, is the thing. The canadian wilderness is so unforgiving that they're constantly on the move. Bears have to literally do nothing for half the year, and the other half they essentially half to rely on fish because food is so sparse. And bears aren't especially rare or hard to find in the Canadian wilderness.

And besides; if Bigfoot existed, why would bears even still exist up there? They occupy essentially the same niche.

>>17972722

I totally agree with you. I think they do teleport because there is no way that not one of them have gotten caught. Because in any tribe there has to be some stupid one or an accident in which they get caught in a net or on camera.

There are some reports of the smell of sulfur whenever a Bigfoot appears. I think this may have something to do with the manifestation process.

>>17976572
Same goes for a skeptic.

>>17976625
>smell of sulfer
You cheeky bastard.

>>17976639
*sulfur

>>17976636
Being a skeptic just means you don't jump to conclusions. You stick to paradigms and the null hypothesis, not because nothing outside them can be true, but because if we rated all knowledge equally there would be no method of progression. It would just be chaos.

>>17976636
You're just mad because you got BTFO

File: three-ways.gif (26KB, 300x164px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x164px

>>17976658
I'm not implying that skepticism is bad, I'm saying that outright denying anything shown seems a bit rash.

Believe me, I've dealt with my share of denialists on another front. They profess themselves to be "skeptics" but instead try to deny or ignore any posibility of the idea being true. The also tend to overuse frauds and hoaxes to poison the well.

My theory on where Bigfoot came from:

It's basically a subspecies of Yeti that crossed the land bridge that connected Asia and North America during the last Ice Age (the same way humans migrated from it). There's nothing paranormal about it, it's just a primarily bipedal ape that resides in North America. Probably eats sap, honey, mushrooms, berries, small game, etc.

ANOTHER theory I have is that the existence of the animal is known, however due to the limited population numbers, it isn't safe revealing it's existence to the public, which is why every time someone has 'proof' of bigfoot, it always ends up being something lame like bear DNA or something. Just let everyone think the legit people are crazy to spread disbelief.

But really, it wouldn't be hard to hide it. There ARE sightings of the things all the time, and as someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest, there are huge and vast expanses of uninhabited land for them to live in.

They're pretty elusive and will almost always notice you before you notice them, and they have a very wide habitat. They're probably crepuscular and build small, inconspicuous nests like gorillas to sleep in.

>>17976676
Also, probably a descendant of the now extinct gigantopithecus, which once roamed ancient Asia. Which is why we still get Yeti sightings around the Himalayas and all that.

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

>>17976572
You mean like the belief that it's logical to automatically discount all Sasquatch observations and track discoveries as the work of idiots, liars, or hoaxers?

You're right, facts are a bitch for true believers.

>>17976709
you got BTFO. stop whining.

>>17976588
>Moose, deer, elk and reindeer don't spend most of their time in one place, is the thing.

Nor do they eat moose, deer, or elk, Sasquatch probably do, along with fish, shellfish, and anything else they can get their hands on.

>They occupy essentially the same niche.

They also hibernate for a significant amount of time leaving a "power gap", so to speak, and are arguably dumber than a possible member of the great ape club, like Sasquatch.

>>17976725

>thinks his shitposting is anything other than shitposting

>>17976673
So, how exactly did I poison the well?

>>17976293
>This nigger probably thinks the moon landing was a hoax as well.

>>17976751
The world's flat, isn't it buddy?

All that "space stuff" is just a hoax.

>>17976726
>Nor do they eat moose, deer, or elk, Sasquatch probably do,
How do you propose they hunt them? Just run in and punch them to death? Either way, there should be tell tale signs of predation. And what happens when the caribou leave?

>so hibernate for a significant amount of time leaving a "power gap", so to speak,
The reason they hibernate then is because there's nothing to eat

>and are arguably dumber than a possible member of the great ape club, like Sasquatch.
That was my pont why didn't Sasquatch outcompete brown bears and grizzly bears a long time ago?

>>17975023
What is this meant to prove? The fact that people in 1902 could fucking verify the existence of the mountain gorilla in the Congo but somehow can't do the same for the Bigfoot is pretty damning for Bigfoot believers.

>>17975219
How about the fact that every animal that size DOES have evidence. We know that there are bears because we can see the evidence of bears, we know there are no unicorns because there is no evidence of unicorns.

This video ever get officially debunked? The "comments disabled" makes me assume it did.

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

>>17972708
/Thread

File: heat.jpg (530KB, 1200x2000px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1200x2000px

Best bigfoot docus?

>>17976775
>How do you propose they hunt them? Just run in and punch them to death?

The same way any other predator would, by selecting the weak adults and young, and by either ambushing them and breaking their necks, or possibly using a tool, like a rock or stick. They might even use group tactics to drive them into kill zones.

>That was my point why didn't Sasquatch outcompete....bears

Who says they haven't? There's been a lot Sasquatch sightings in California over the years, but how many brown bear sightings? There used to be a lot of brown bears in the lower 48, but they were pretty much hunted to extinction.

>The reason they hibernate then is...

Because that's how they evolved, not for lack of food. Ungulates have a far less diverse diet and depend almost entirely on plants for their survival, and yet they didn't evolve to hibernate come winter time, they just developed the ability to find and eat winter food sources.

>>17976939
And there's evidence of Sasquatch in the form of prints, and observations.

Where are the most recent hotspots in the Pacific Northwest? I'm at a campground right along the Fraser River and I'm getting nothing

>>17977182

MonsterQuest: Sasquatch Attack I & II , Mysterious Ape Island

Bigfoot: The Complete Guide

File: bigfoot_wallace_roadside1.jpg (78KB, 460x365px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 460x365px

>>17975314
That image you used is blatantly misleading and the claims you've made are just parroted from some bigfooter website.

Wallace made many different fake feet, some of which look very similar to the plaster cast made by Jerry Crew, it's important to note, from footprints he found on Wallace's construction site.

In the article you linked written by Ivan Sanderson, he says:

>"Not even a machine, and certainly nobody on stilts, could have navigated the inclines the "wearer" of these feet negotiated."

Which has about as much credibility and is almost verbatim the same statement he makes in another article he wrote but, this time it's about what he claimed were giant penguin tracks on a beach. That too, later turned out to be a simple hoax:

>“If made physically by a man, either with devices strapped to his feet or on stilts, how did he carry a ton on each leg – the absolute minimum that the road engineers said could have made the imprints even in soft ground? He manifestly could not…” Sanderson also described how some engineer friends were asked to design a machine which could duplicate the tracks, but they were unable to do so. A giant, 15-foot tall penguin, Sanderson concluded, must be the explanation, one which “would obviously have to be a wanderer in Florida, out of its natural element and perhaps lost.”

Sanderson was a zoologist but he was also a showman and an embellisher and full of shit. Whether it was gaint apemen or gaint penguins, he had no problem getting paid to write sensationalistic hype stories and embellish hoaxes to sell magazines. He was perfectly happy to embellish hoaxes to sell magazines.

>>17975314
>Lastly, apparently Mr. Wallace had a history of making crazy bigfoot claims, and attempts at recreating the tracks the way the family claim they were created, failed.

Yes. Wallace was a joker and a bigfoot track and cast hoaxer and full of shit.
The article you linked says this right at the beginning:

>Family members agreed that they had always known about it and that Ray did it as a joke on his employees, walking around wearing a huge pair of carved wooden feet. For proof one of them showed a photographer just such a pair of carved feet, with strap harness attached. The story was nonsense on the face of it, since everyone who had looked into the subject knew that huge bipedal tracks had been reported from all over North America starting long before Ray Wallace was born.

So, the admission of the hoax is nonsense because reports of tracks had occurred in other places at earlier times?

That's pretty stupid and biased logic that sets the tone for the whole article.

Bigfooters can't have the bluff creek/ willow creek footprints turn out to be a hoax, they desperately need them to be true to support the patterson gimlin film.

There are no professionals among these people and they are as bad as the ancient aliens crowd in making shit up out of thin air to support they silly theories that can't stand any level of scrutiny.

>>17978
>Bigfoot is a hoax!
>9/11 was an inside job!
>The moon landing is fake!

You believe what you want to believe, true believer.

Nothing I can offer will change your biased mind.

File: image-828.jpg (245KB, 900x592px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 900x592px

>>17978249
Sound like a creationist, anon. You ain't the only one claiming "ape-men" don't exist.
>silly evilutionists. They're trying to say that we came from monkeys, but all they have to support it are glorified chimp bones that mean nothing, and hoaxes that were proven false long ago.

File: It's a conspiracy.jpg (229KB, 478x599px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 478x599px

>>17978225
>>17978249

What do you guys think of Sasquatch Utah, ThinkerThunker and the other bigfoot youtubers? There's many videos on each of them and many are too compelling to flat out say they are fake, but idk. Nobody on 4chins seem to even know these youtube channels because I absolutely never see it discussed here.

>>17978321
>>17978387
>>17978402

I notice you have no arguments.
Just what I expected from bigfooters.

File: It was a wild injun.png (1MB, 791x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 791x1600px

>>17978465

IT WAS A WILD RETARDED INJUN!!!

>>17978484
yawnfest.

got any other tired old bigfoot shit you want to re-hash?

maybe PG film can't be a hoax because wrinkles and because Bill Munns?

go on.. turd up the thread with your folder of screencaps from bigfoot-is-real.net

>>17976636
This literally doesnt make any sense whatsoever. This has to be the most retarded "no u" butthurt reply, I have ever seen

File: Fake wolverine.jpg (120KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 960x720px

>>17978420
Never heard of those channels.

Regardless, species tend to move around and adapt.

For example, mountain lions / cougars were thought to be completely absent from the east coast for a long ass time, but the little fuckers have actually managed to migrate east and carve out a niche in places like the Carolinas and as far south as Florida.

Even the wily wolverine has managed to make somewhat of a return to the lower 48, as one was discovered on a trail cam in California....though skeptics claim it's actually a midget in a Wolverine costume trying to hoax the scientific community.

>>17977842
thats just a big fat lie

>>17978515
sure. because evidence for the existence of bigfoot is somehow equivalent to evidence of wolverine migration.

back to bfro.

File: sinners repent.jpg (133KB, 433x277px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 433x277px

Bigfoot ain't in the bible, so it's not real, and all those that claim it exists are liars and sinners.

>>17978534
Australopithecines were sort of a transitional group, being dependent on both the plains and the woodlands.

Baboons aren't even apes. M8.

>>17978515
Please look up what "sceptic" means. You are using the word wrong

>>17978534
I'd be curious to find out how their digestive tracts differ from gorillas, as gorillas have a long tract that allows them to process all the vegetation they eat, while humans is much shorter.

It'd be interesting to see if a Sasquatch has something in between, kind of like their feet.

File: Human-Chimp-001_zpsahoepoz7.jpg (390KB, 1024x564px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1024x564px

>>17978542
Oh, it's that Cercopithecine enthusiast from the last thread. How goes it?

>>17978321
>>17978402
>>17978465
>>17978484
>>17978539

when the ass-blasted 'footer has lost all his arguments he will shitpost like a petulant child.

>>17978552
I've shifted my attention to Paranthropus robustus

File: image_t6.jpg (168KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 640x430px

>>17978578
Interesting.

File: Jay-Matternes-II_2_original.jpg (265KB, 1600x908px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1600x908px

>>17978604
This might be a better pic.

>>17972708
Not necessarily. The panda was thought mostly a mythical until the last century because it was barely ever seen. It took something like thirty years to capture one, and that's when resources were given to find one.

It'd be quite easy, if BF existed, for it to maintain anonmynity.

>>17978645
No. No, it wouldn't.

File: triggered.jpg (38KB, 720x621px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 720x621px

>>17978556
>arguing with a lunatic

No, thank you, true believer.

File: Onoda.jpg (135KB, 450x385px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 450x385px

>>17978645
Pic related: Imperial Japanese LT. Hiroo Onoda on the right.

Dude lived in the jungles of the Phillipines for damn near 30 years after the surrender of Japan in 45'. He, and a few stragglers, didn't get the word to surrender, and when they found leaflets claiming the war was over, they didn't believe it. They waged a campaign against the locals, and the police, alike, and could never be found.

He eventually turned himself in after the dudes he hid with were either killed or left.

It's easy to hide from people in mountainous terrain.

File: apesuit_1930s.jpg (38KB, 534x401px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 534x401px

>>17978805
not an argument

>>17978899
that's a trained soldier not a species of primate that's reported to have been seen in every state of the union for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

>>17978952
>that's a trained soldier not a species of primate

Agree.

A trained soldier would have a much harder time eluding people than a primate would, due to the fact that he wouldn't have been raised to be familiar with all the available food in the environment, and would be more dependent on human interaction for survival. A primate could go its entire life without the need to interact with humans.

>>17972722
U are a weird fuck and i think your right m8

>>17978387
They actually believe in evolution when it's convenient. Recently, in my job, I asked someone how the Flood didn't kill saline and fresh water fish. So, he started babbling about evolution or something and went away. Of course said evolution is a big no for "monkeys".

>>17978387
>>17979181

What are you guys on about? Nobody said anything about evolution or creationism in this thread that I'm aware of?

>>17975195
>pic related: Roger Patterson holding faked footprints.

[citation needed]

Best Youtube vids? Shit is all fake as shit.

>>17976464

You are a special kinda of stupid.

>>17979277
>on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

>'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

>>17976709

True beleevers have no need for facts. Bigfoot is religion to you assholes. Its like talking to a brick wall.

>>17978542
That's a gibbon, not a baboon

>>17978578
>>17978604
>>17978617
Makes no sense. Never left Africa. Far more probable that bipedalism evolved independently in another lineage of primates, or it's Homo erectus or Denisovans.

>>17978899
Except he was a trained soldier (and human being) in the phillipines

File: Ray-Corrigan-Beauty-and-the-Beast.jpg (159KB, 424x500px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 424x500px

>>17979814
>Makes no sense.

none of it makes sense because there is zero point zero physical evidence for bigfoot.

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

175KB, 500x375px

>>17979814
Considering the Asian apes seem to be much more suited to bipedalism than their African cousins (save for us), that doesn't seem too far off.

>>17979798
And?

You can do the same for bear tracks, deer tracks, or human tracks on a beach, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, does it?

>>17979803
Facts don't matter to you either, as long as there's some idiot to make a claim of a hoax.

You are every bit the "true believer" you label others as, and are no different than the flat Earthers or Moon landing denialists.

>>17979819
I agree with you that as a human, it would be more difficult for him to survive and avoid human contact.

>>17979908
Suspension of disbelief

>>17979944
Actually, bipedalism is basal to all apes. Gorillas are in a sense more advanced then we are.

>>17979908
Except for the prints, photos, and witness observations.

There's more evidence for Sasquatch than there ever has been for "Jesus".

File: F1.large_.jpg (209KB, 1280x955px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1280x955px

>>17980052
I remember hearing about the "bipedalism is basal to all apes" thing, but I can't remember where. The gorilla thing seems a bit odd, but ok. I've heard that chimps technically have more "evolved" hands then us, because our common ancestor's hands looked like Ardi's.

File: bip-12.png (169KB, 958x690px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 958x690px

>>17980066
Another pic.

>>17975023
Reminder that mountain gorillas have plentiful food, habitat, and no competitors for their niche.

None of these things are true for Bigfoot.

File: hq1.jpg (116KB, 920x684px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 920x684px

So if Bigfoot is real would there be just one species or would there be more than one? Like would a northwestern bigfoot be different than say an Appalachian one?

>>17980344
It's rather difficult to speculate on the precise taxonomy and speciation of creatures which don't even exist. But I can give it a shot.

If there are Bigfoots living east of the rockies (which is only slightly less ridiculous then the idea that Bigfoot exists) there would definitely be a heavy divide. If Great Plains Sasquatches existed during historical time, they would've been easy to see for Europeans, and easy to hunt for Indians and Paleoindians. So east and west coast bigfoot are probably at least subspecies by now. It's possible the only representative of East Coast Bigfoots is the Skunk Ape (which is an orangutan).

Otherwise, it's impossible to say just how differentiated west coast bigfoots are from one another. I'd guess that the Sierra-Nevada apes are distinct considering how advanced their vocalizations are, which were a hoax.

okay, so i have a theory for why we've never found corpses or anything, why they're so hard to find, and how they can exist with such seemingly small numbers and everything.
What if there's just like, ten bigfoots out there, but their lifespan is several hundred years

>>17980046
>Literally admits to faking those prints
>Doesn't mean those prints he is holding aren't real!
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the bigfoot believer.

>>17980809
So there's only ten of them, and they are advanced enough to know they should only breed every thousand years or something?

A species like that would never last. One accident would wipe them all out.

>>17980436
underrated.

shills and trolls gtfo

>>17980436

The eastern woodlands aren't too terribly different than the Pacific Northwest, both in flora and fauna and climate. I've lived in both.

>>17980053
there is no physical evidence that bigfoot exists.

>>17981669
You can't prove the moon landing happened either.

>>17981669
You're discounting prints, photos, and eyewitness reports.
If you make plaster casts of the prints, that's physical evidence.
If you download and print photos, that's physical evidence.
If you type and print eyewitness reports, that's physical evidence.

Stop being so fucking thick.

>>17981061
>disregards all information that conflicts with his bias
>complains about people ignoring facts

>>17981669
Right....except for the footprints, photos, and hair.

>>17981065
i'll be honest with you, last night i was stoned as shit and thought that post was a hilarious joke and now that i'm awake and sobered up, i realize that's a thing people on here would say dead serious.

>>17981690
>>17981704
>>17981747

This is what bigfooters believe.

>>17981690
>>17981788
When did I mention believing in bigfoot? You know what physical evidence is, don't you?

>>17981704

Eyewitness and photographs/films are documentary evidence, not physical.

>>17980344
>would a northwestern bigfoot be different than say an Appalachian one?

I'd imagine there would be some noticeable differences in size and coat due to the different environments.

White tail deer, for example, get smaller the further south you go compared to the big 200+ pounders you find in the cooler northern states. Sasquatch might share this characteristic and be much smaller in the south east compared to those that live in the PNW and British Columbia.

>>17981704
are people really this dumb?

>>17981747
>hair

post links to confirmed bigfoot hair.

>>17981859

What you're describing is known as Bergmann's Rule. There are a good number of exceptions to it.

According to a study by Valerius Geist in 1986, Bergmann's rule is false: the correlation with temperature is spurious; instead, Geist found that body size is proportional to the duration of the annual productivity pulse, or food availability per animal during the growing season.[17]

Because many factors can affect body size, there are many critics of Bergmann’s Rule. Some believe that latitude itself is a poor predictor of body mass. Examples of other selective factors that may contribute to body mass changes are the size of food items available, effects of body size on success as a predator, effects of body size on vulnerability to predation, and resource availability. For example, if an organism is adapted to tolerate cold temperatures, it may also tolerate periods of food shortage, due to correlation between cold temperature and food scarcity.[5] A larger organism can rely on its greater fat stores to provide the energy needed for survival as well being able to procreate for longer periods.

Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.[18]

File: homofloresiensis1.jpg (38KB, 384x376px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 384x376px

>>17981893
>over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size.

This is Island Dwarfism like we see on Flores with Homo Floresiensis.

>>17981893

Ok? Lol.

Biological rules are not analogous to laws in physics, etc. They simply reflect patterns instead of certainties.

And I don't know exactly what you're arguing? I posted that for anyone interested in reading about it. As I said, there are exceptions to the rule.

>>17981905
But, it isn't a rule. That's the point.

>>17981917

Good lord, I just said rules aren't analogous to laws. They reflect patterns, not certainties. Since you enjoy Wiki:

>There is some scepticism among biogeographers about the usefulness of general rules. For example, J.C. Briggs, in his 1987 book Biogeography and Plate Tectonics, comments that while Willi Hennig's rules on cladistics "have generally been helpful", the rule on biogeography, namely that "the species with the most primitive characters are found within the earliest part of the area, i.e., the center of origin for that group", is "suspect".[23]

Worst case scenario, you have a name synonymous with the phenomena you are describing. Google, you'll see plenty of discussion regarding Bergmann's rule.

http://www.bigfootresearchnews.com/2014/09/bergmanns-rule-sasquatch-research.html?m=1

>>17981745
Once again
>Admits to faking prints
>Doesn't mean those prints are fake!!!

>You can do the same for bear tracks, deer tracks, or human tracks on a beach, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, does it?
You are literally saying that you can fake tracks, but it doesn't mean those tracks aren't real. That's dumb as shit and you know it.

>>17981924
Oh I see. You're a 'footer. That explains your lack of comprehension.

>>17981930

>lack of comprehension

Oh the ironing. Let me really, really spell it out for you: the pattern that I originally quoted is what is commonly known as Bergmann's Rule, which does not mean that is is irrefutably proven.

Better? Or do you need a peer reviewed paper that discusses it to ease your qualms? If so, Google.

File: piltdownFORG.jpg (358KB, 1622x1012px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1622x1012px

>>17981927
I think he means something more along along the lines of:
>admits prints are fake
>therefore ALL prints are fake!!!
That's all-or-nothing talk.

To get this conversation back on track, can Bigfoot/ Sasquatch proponents please post links to what they believe is the single best piece of evidence of the existence of this unknown primate in these 5 categories:

1. photographic evidence
2. eyewitness reports
3. physical evidence (hair, scat, bones, teeth)
4. footprints
5. sound recordings

>>17981948

Footprints.

Grover Krantz' book on footprints were the final straw for me. For someone as qualified and renowned as him, and his expertise was primate locomotion, to analyze the prints and become convinced that they weren't manmade was pretty substantial.

He breaks down the gait of whatever creature made them, dermal ridges, etc. and basically says no one could have faked such intricate details.

>>17981947
>#NotAll

What he really meant was that even if Roger Patterson faked the footprints it doesn't mean that two days later he faked the bigfoot film. Bigfooters are this credulous.

>>17981927

At one point, I thought you were just the typical biased skeptic, but now I believe you simply lack the reasoning and comprehension skills of even a below average adult.

Your logic is non-existent, and you are little more than a fanatical denier, every bit as gullible as those that believe shit without conducting any research.

We're done.

File: wp9a8dfdd6.png (341KB, 300x403px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 300x403px

>>17981968
Personally, I think that most, if not all prints that resemble that of a man are most likely fake. Anyone have more ape-like footprints?

>>17981984

The Cripple foot casts and subsequent analysis.

File: Fossils-feet-and-the-evolution-of-human-bipedal-fig2.jpg (49KB, 500x277px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x277px

>>17981991
Meant something closer to this.

>>17981973
I bet the only research you have done is watching biased youtube videos of dubious quality.

File: product-467-main-original-1415039869.jpg (187KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1000x1000px

>>17982012
For comparison, here are the casts.

>>17982019
>bossberg prints
>ivan marx

why is it that every time these TOTALLY LEGIT apeman tracks turn up there's a known bigfoot hoaxer within a hundred yds of the amazing find?

>>17981948
1. photographic evidence
Patterson film - People talk mad shit about this film, but it can't be proven to be a fake, as the suit claims have never been replicated. Listen to some Bob Gimlin interviews about the incident, and his story never changes.

2. eyewitness reports
Gimlin is among the best sources, but there's really too many to cite. The best reports come from hunters, as they tend to have better field "eyes" than non-hunters.

3. physical evidence (hair, scat, bones, teeth)
Hair has been found and examined, but to my knowledge, they've never been able to extract any DNA from it, however, they have identified common characteristics that differ from known animals.

4. footprints
Too many to cite. Dr. Grover Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum are your best sources, as they were / are anthropoligists. Tracks and casts, contrary to what morons believe, provide information about how the track was made mechanically, which means they leave evidence of how their anatomy operates.

5. sound recordings
Can't really be verified.

There's no single source of information that you can examine to make an assessment, as there's biased assholes on both sides of the issue that have intentionally "shit in the well", so to speak, for their own benefit. Regardless, when you examine the subject from the beginning, you'll find that there's more honest people that have had incredible encounters, and more evidence to support them, than there are liars and hoaxers, and the evidence to support their bullshit.

>>17982037
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Kill yourself.

File: Can confirm it's a hoax.jpg (3KB, 125x113px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x113px

>>17982037
>Why would hoaxers and charlatans try to associate themselves with legitimate researchers and evidence?

>People are throwing feces at each other like gorillas
>I just want to know where the latest hotspots are
Kill yourselves, Harambe would be ashamed of you

>>17982055
>Why would hoaxers and charlatans try to associate themselves with legitimate researchers and evidence?

To gain support for and lend credence to their hoaxes, obviously. Which is exactly what they did. Case in point: Bossberg Cripplefoot casts.

Point of order: It really isn't appropriate at all for you to post pictures of mentally handicapped people in your childish attempts to smear other posters. It's really distasteful and weak. Up your game or get off the thread.

File: Chief Bigfoot thread monitor.jpg (55KB, 487x396px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 487x396px

>>17982089
Congratulations, you figured it out, sunshine!

File: marx_hoax1.jpg (57KB, 400x521px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x521px

>>17982019
>>17982041

Right. So, we're to believe that a guy who made a hoax bigfoot film didn't make the hoax footprints he found?

This is why Bigfooters have such low credibility.

>>17982105
>hoax bigfoot film
>hoax footprints
[citation needed]

But keep on repeating it and it will become true eventually!

>>17981690
Yes you can. With a powerful telescope you can see all the stuff we've left on the moon. With a powerful laser you can shine it at mirrors placed on the moon by humans and get a reflection. You can look at the rocks we've brought back

>>17982113
here come dat cripplefoot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK--v1j0L3E

There is no visible evidence of draping or bunching present in these videos so the onus is on the skeptic to prove this film doesn't depict an actual crippled bigfoot.

Protip: You can't DISprove it! Checkmate, atheists!!!1!

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

Think it's fake? Show me the suit then. Can't? HAHA Didn't think so.

File: Authentic Bigfoot costume.jpg (21KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x600px

>>17982113
It's a hoax alright.

My cousins uncle mad3 the original gorilla costume used in the Patterson film, and his company is still making those costumes, which you can own for the low, low price of only $300.00.

Pic related

>>17982113
>>17982139
are you seriously saying you believe this shit is real?
>>17982136
LOL

>>17982136
>There is no visible evidence of draping

Yea, there is.

The arm / leg ratio is also human, unlike the Patterson film.

>>17982146
>you believe this shit is real?

I don't have to "believe" in Sasquatch, as the motherfucker has been seen by thousands, left footprints, and got captured on film.

"Belief" is for shit you can't prove...

File: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com 6eb0b3d8425f3c864361dbdc208d5390.jpg (50KB, 468x564px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 468x564px

Don't kill me bro don't kill me

>>17982156
>>17982163

so fucking gullible.

>>17982192
>believes every single bigfoot incident spanning hundreds of years is a hoax, lie, or mistake

Sure, pal.

Sure.

>>17982192
people are convicted of murder on less evidence.

>>17982192
>Believing those who say bigfoot is shadows and costumes.
That's not gullible at all.

>>17982163

Yes. Just like the Loch Ness monster.

>>17982222
They don't leave footprints...

>>17982222(checked)
>Loch Ness has physical evidence
S T R A W M A N
T
R
A
W
M
A
N

>>17982212
yes. that's shameful.

>>17982234

Please show the physical evidence for Bigfoot.

>Hoax video footage and faked footprints don't count

Maybe some more bear hair?

>>17982245
>>17982113

File: Weeeeeee.gif (967KB, 490x367px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 490x367px

>>17982245

>>17982134
>With a powerful telescope you can see all the stuff we've left on the moon
There is no telescope powerful enough to see that stuff.

File: medicine-bad.jpg (51KB, 400x316px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x316px

>>17982040
>1. photographic evidence
>Patterson film - People talk mad shit about this film, but it can't be proven to be a fake, as the suit claims have never been replicated. Listen to some Bob Gimlin interviews about the incident, and his story never changes.

The Patterson film is inconclusive at absolute best. Requiring that something be proven to be fake is a logical fallacy. The individuals making the positive claim bear the burden of proof (pic related). The consistency of Gimlin's story is irrelevant to what is on the film. Gimlin also refused to take a lie detector test; that doesn't prove anything either.

>2. eyewitness reports.
>Gimlin is among the best sources, but there's really too many to cite. The best reports come from hunters, as they tend to have better field "eyes" than non-hunters.

Eyewitness reports are some of the worst kinds of "evidence". Mistakes and hoaxes abound. Who will sort them all out?

>3. physical evidence (hair, scat, bones, teeth)
>Hair has been found and examined, but to my knowledge, they've never been able to extract any DNA from it, however, they have identified common characteristics that differ from known animals.

No evidence has ever been found to suggest an unknown species of primate is living in the PNW.

>4. footprints
>Too many to cite. Dr. Grover Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum are your best sources, as they were / are anthropoligists. Tracks and casts, contrary to what morons believe, provide information about how the track was made mechanically, which means they leave evidence of how their anatomy operates.

Mistaken identifications and outright hoaxes. Even your beloved Krantz and Meldrum have been dead wrong.

>5. sound recordings
>Can't really be verified.

100% garbage. Ever supposed bigfoot recording I've heard is fake.

>>17982136
This is satire, right? Nobody actually believes these videos or footprints from this guy Marx are real, do they?

>>17982385
>The Patterson film
Is conclusive. The footage has found to be untampered with, and all attempts to falsify the creature using contemporary costumes have failed.

>eyewitness
Eyewitness reports are neither excellent or shitty, as they follow a bell curve of accuracy, just like every other aspect of human performance. By examining the individuals and conditions surrounding an observation, an accuracy probability can be calculated. The only people that buy into the "humans are shitty witnesses" meme are lawyers, as perpetrating that lie helps their profession. Interestingly enough, Patterson took a polygraph test, and passed, in 1970....but then again, Bob Heironimus claimed he passed one as well...

>Physical evidence / tracks
Take it up with the thousands of people that have found tracks, and the anthropologists that agree they are real, and of an unknown primate like species.

>sound
You claim the Patterson film is "inconclusive at best", but every sound recording is automatically dismissed? That's not reasonable. Vocalizations can be compared with known animals and either confirmed, or eliminated, so there's a scientific method to confirm or deny their origin. I'm not aware of the results of this approach, if they've ever been done.

Regardless, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of the Sasquatch, and has been for 50 + years, whether you agree with it or not.

>>17977182
Sauce?

>>17982385
>5. sound recordings
What do you make of this, then? An old military fart trying to relive his glory days?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNxe4K3u-iA

Mind you, this is only one example.

>>17982385

>Krantz wrong

Sure, can I see your evidence to the contrary?

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

14KB, 446x299px

>>17982497
>evidence actually supporting a skeptical claim in a bigfoot thread

>>17982464
>The footage has found to be untampered with, and all attempts to falsify the creature using contemporary costumes have failed.

I'm unaware that anyone has EVER claimed that the film was "tampered with". That's a sideshow red herring and has no bearing on this case whatsoever. Because no one has produced a costume that replicates what's seen on the film does not prove that what is on the film is an unknown primate. That's ridiculous.

>>17982636
>Because no one has produced a costume that replicates what's seen on the film does not prove that what is on the film is an unknown primate.

No, it proves that it's not a man in a costume....

>>17982040
> Listen to some Bob Gimlin interviews about the incident, and his story never changes.
Even Gimlin admitted it might have been a hoax.

>>17982464
> The footage has found to be untampered with
That just means they didn't edit the tape. Doesn't mean it wasn't a guy in a suit.
And there have been no serious attempts at recreating a suit.

>>17982658
How?

>>17982659

No he doesn't. Gimlin was on C2C with Connie Willis a few months back still telling the same story. For an old dude, he's got a pretty sound mental faculties.

File: casts smaller.jpg (44KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x300px

>>17982497
>>17982503

Krantz wrong:

>"...Krantz assures us the track "passed all my criteria" including the "two sasquatch traits that I have never revealed to anyone." Since we do not know what these "two traits" might be, it is difficult to imagine how one could evaluate the professor's assertion of authenticity. It occurred to me that one other person might be able to give information regarding the track: the unnamed construction worker who sent the cast to Krantz. According to Krantz (1992a: 85) "The man who sent this Indiana track provided me with only a brief description of the footprint circumstances, and has since moved to an undisclosed location. He indicated that he wanted nothing more to do with the 'damned thing,' and cannot be reached for any further communication on the subject." Through my contacts I learned that the cast had been sent to Krantz by J. W. Parker.

>After an eight-month effort, I was able to talk with Parker, then living on the East Coast. He told me the footprint was a fake. He knew this because he had made the imprint and the cast! Originally he had intended only to see if Krantz could, as he bragged, "differentiate between [a track] made artificially or naturally." Parker said he now feels the thing has gone too far and regrets he made the [Bloomington] track. I asked how it had been made. "It took about twenty minutes to form the print in the mud," he said. The dermal ridges came from his foot and hands, placed in areas where the "least amount of wear or abrasion would occur." What about the "two traits"? "Oh," Parker replied, "I wasn't sure about that. I thought they might be toenails and scars, so I added both." Parker also told me he made "the ball of the foot appear deeper near the inside of the foot to simulate the weight-bearing area during a light push-off." At the last minute, he embedded the shell of an American black walnut where the fifth toe would have been to make the print look more realistic.

File: bigfoot_all_small3.jpg (174KB, 533x484px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 533x484px

>>17982497
>>17982503

Meldrum WRONG:

>Even Jeff Meldrum, the chief academic spokesmen for Sasquatch, has grudgingly conceded this piece of evidence for Bigfoot is lost. According to the December 2005 Bigfoot Times, Meldrum is quoted as saying, “However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley’s] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site.” This is unnecessary, as Crowley has always maintained the Onion Mountain cast was a specific case and the results were the product of this particular set of conditions. But Meldrum is wrong. The Crowley experiments have a larger message: that seemingly impressive “evidence” for the Sasquatch monster can turn out to be no more than one man fooling himself. This is a lesson that is not confined to this specific track.

>>17982775
is....is nr 18 bigfoots dick imprint?

>>17982756
>"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now...and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."

>>17982659
>Gimlin admitted it might have been a hoax.
Under what conditions, and what context? That actually matters. Regardless, his story hasn't changed at all over the years, while Bob Heironimus managed to consistently change his tale of being the "man in the suit".

>And there have been no serious attempts at recreating a suit.

That's not true at all. There's been over 50 years worth of Hollywood film and T.V. bigfoot costumes that have tried to create a realistic looking creature for their respective projects. All are shit, despite the fact they were made, and funded, by professionals.

The "they could have made a suit if they wanted to" argument doesn't hold up to contemporary costume designs, or any design 10 years or more after.

>>17982772
>>17982775
[citation needed]

>>17982772
>>17982775

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

>>17982787
Chris Packham did a docu for the BBC, and is one of many biased idiots to do a hit piece on the Patterson film.

>Among Packham's tricks was his editing of the phone call with Bob Gimlin. What you don't see or hear in the documentary: Packham manipulatively goaded Gimlin on the phone into making some type of equivocating statement about the footage. Packham needed that type of statement from Gimlin. He needed something he could deceptively twist as "confession" by Gimlin that he's "not entirely sure" of what he saw that day. Packham goaded that type of statement by asking Gimlin, in such a tone as to gauge his reasonability ... if there could have been "any possibility at all" that it was a hoax. To which Gimlin gave an answer demonstrating that he wasn't too narrow-minded to consider the hoax possibility. Gimlin says Packham edited the phone conversation so it sounded like Packham merely asked Gimlin whether he "thinks it was a man rather than an animal." In that context Gimlin's response sounds much more equivocating than it was intended to be. But Packham had what he needed -- a statement that could be stretched to sound like doubts on the part of Gimlin.

>Not unlike Greg Long, Packham was on a predetermined mission to cast doubt on Roger and the footage. He had promises to keep back home.

Surely a "journalist" would never distort information or mislead the public to support their agenda....

>>17982812
>while Bob Heironimus managed to consistently change his tale of being the "man in the suit".
Ah moving the goal posts I see.

> There's been over 50 years worth of Hollywood film and T.V. bigfoot costumes that have tried to create a realistic looking creature for their respective projects.
But those aren't attempts at recreating the PG suit.

Movies have a budget. That budget has to be spent on actors, sets, costumes, and a whole shit load of other things.
They can't just focus on creating one super awesome bigfoot costume and call it a day.

>>17982855
You don't need to stretch anything to get that even Gimlin admitted that it could have been a hoax.

The statement stands on it's own regardless of what was said before or after it.
He literally said he thinks there could be a possibility of it being a hoax. No twisting of his words needed.

>>17982889
>The statement stands on it's own regardless of what was said before or after it.

>Did your wife fuck your neighbor last night?
-No...she stayed at home, and we went to bed last night at 10:00.
>Well, you were asleep, how do you know that she didn't leave and fuck your neighbor while you were asleep?
-Uh....I don't
>Ah HA! So it's possible that your wife fucked your neighbor last night.
-Well...it IS possible.

Context matters.

But don't let that stop you.

>>17982904
>Do you think it could have been a hoax?
- I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]
Not even remotely the same as your stupid comparison.

>>17982887
>But those aren't attempts at recreating the PG suit.
No, they were attempts at creating a Sasquatch....all of which failed, because they didn't have elastic materials, let alone elastic fur materials, available to build costumes with in the industry yet.

>Movies have a budget.

That far exceed the amount of cash available to a dude that had to bum money from his brother in law, and rely on a friend to transport horses and kit to do field research.

>They can't just focus on creating one super awesome bigfoot costume and call it a day.

The costumes they designed WERE "super awesome" for their time period, because they used the best material available, and people from the Hollywood costume industry with years of experience to design them.

>>17982917
>Packham goaded that type of statement by asking Gimlin, in such a tone as to gauge his reasonability ... if there could have been "any possibility at all" that it was a hoax.

What is context.

>>17982938
.>Packham goaded that type of statement
[citation needed]

>>17982943
Bob Gimlin interview.

>>17982944
So he has no proof other than his own word. Cool.

Also simply saying "It was in an interview" is not giving a citation. How the fuck is anyone supposed to know which interview, and at which point in the interview?

Packham blew bigfoot out the water decades ago. Im not sure why bigfoot is even still a thing. Let it go already.

>>17982955
>Packham blew...

A bunch of cash on tabloid bullshit...

>>17982950
He's done a lot of interviews, and his story never changes.

>>17982959
>hes still butthurt about it
Also a more recent case of gimlin slipping up can be seen in a recent interview when questioned about the horses where he completely contradicted things he had said previously

After 50 years, nobody has ever offered anything that "debunks" the Patterson film.

Nothing.

No costume. No legitimate claims to having helped make the "hoax".

Nothing.

All the skeptics are just in denial.

>>17982928
>they didn't have elastic materials, let alone elastic fur materials, available to build costumes with in the industry yet
Hmm, really?

Because this is interesting
>Spandex, Lycra or elastane is a synthetic fiber known for its exceptional elasticity.
>Because of its elasticity and strength (stretching up to five times its length), spandex has been incorporated into a wide range of garments, especially in skin-tight garments.
>When introduced in 1962, it revolutionized many areas of the clothing industry.
But yeah, you're right. I'm sure there were no elastic materials back in 1967...

Oh and another elastic material used for clothing before the 1960s? Neoprene. You might know it as the skin tight stuff wetsuits are made out of.

Hey, you know what else is an elastic fabric available before the 1960s? Nylon.

But once again, you must be right, and there were no elastic materials available within the industry in 1976.

>>17982961
>He's done a lot of interviews, and his story never changes.
So he has brought up the Packham stuff in every interview? Good to know, seeing as that is what the citation was requested for.

>>17982974
Lycra wasn't used for large scale clothing until 68'.

>>17982984
[citation needed]

>>17982974
Then it should be easy to find some examples of of said elastic materials being used in the clothing industry for something more substantial than bras and girdles, right?

Get busy.

>>17982990
Search yourself.

>>17982917
It's possible that your father was a gay prostitute when you were growing up, anon. It's possible that he could have been kissing you, and your mother, with the very same mouth he filled with strange cock for money every weekend, but what's the probability?

>>17972646
Not sure where you guys left off, but in my opinion I know the best way to track bigfoot.
The Gorilla is a recent discovery, and is still considered hard to find. You need expert trackers who know how to find gorillas in the wild. In my opinion, you need to use those techniques to find "bigfoot." If this is a giant ape, It'll probably use the same techniques to stay away from civilization as gorillas do. No screaming at the top of your lungs like they do on finding bigfoot and other shows, but a quiet approach.

>>17982787

So basically he said nothing is outside the realm of possibility....

Out-fucking-standing point. Carry on with your nitpicks, good sir.

>>17983162

The easiest way isn't boots on the ground.

The easiest way is to have drones flying around the clock in a "hot spot". You code up some software that puts them in a grid flying pattern, similar to SAR teams, and triggers alarms/events if thermal imaging detects something. This alerts a manual operator to investigate. If deemed worthy, then you put boots on the ground.

This would require substantial investment, however, as you would need a fleet: some in the sky, some ready to replace those in the sky, and some in backup/repair.

File: iceman1.jpg (146KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1920x1080px

>>17982464
>all attempts to falsify the creature using contemporary costumes have failed.

two words: Minnesota Iceman

>>17983183
That's a costume? They made a caveman suit and froze somebody in it? Do they plan on thawing him so he can demonstrate his practiced gait?

>>17983183

There was a segment on this in the second hour of Darkness Radio's Friday show. Basically the original owner started getting contacted by the FBI and local law enforcement because of complaints that he had a "humanoid" on display. He commissioned a prop as a result.

>While searching for evidence of Bigfoot in 1968, cryptozoologists Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans examined the Iceman in Hansen's house trailer in Minnesota, and concluded it was a genuine creature, saying they found "putrefaction where some of the flesh had been exposed from the melted ice."

For what it's worth, Heuvelmans PhD was in zoology.

File: R and S platform.jpg (24KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x259px

>>17983180
Pic related and the drone combo would do it IMO.

Especially in winter when the heat sigs would stick out like a sore thumb, and the hardwoods would drop their leaves.

>>17983183

Really, anon? Did a man wear that, walk around, and get mistaken for a Sasquatch?

No, he didn't.

Don't be a dumb ass, as there's enough idiots in this thread already.

>>17983197
sure. that's exactly what happened...

>>17983196
>>17983220

You're slow on the uptake aren't you?

>>17983230
I'm sorry, I'm not able to process your retarded posts, as I'm used to dealing with people of average to exceptional intelligence.

File: minnesota_iceman1.jpg (32KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x333px

Guys.. Use your heads.. Look at this...
How many times have we heard:

>"no suit existed in 1967 that had that level of detail"

i know it's not a suit you stupid fucks.

it is however, a highly detailed prop made in holywood by pro fx guys at around the same time as patterson made his film.

It's a piece in the puzzle.

>>17983197


>Napier, in conjunction with the Smithsonian, made preliminary investigations of Hansen's affairs and said he found that Hansen had commissioned the creation of the Iceman from a West Coast company in 1967, leading Napier to quickly conclude there was only ever one Iceman latex model that he theorized was repositioned and refrozen between appearances. Napier stated that "The Smithsonian Institution…is satisfied that the creature is simply a carnival exhibit made of latex rubber and hair...the 'original' model and the present so-called 'substitute' are one and the same."

>>17983323
Go on..

>>17983323
Models meant for static display are no comparison to a full fur costume meant to be worn by an actor.

Static displays require no excess material to allow for joint manipulations, and it is this excess material requirement that made contemporary, and later, costumes so fake looking to the audience.

A taxidermist can use a pelt to make a static replica of a bear that is almost indistinguishable from a real bear, however, that changes when he tries to use that same pelt to make a costume for a man. Since the pelt isn't elastic, it wouldn't conform to the contours of the actor, and would create noticeable bunching at the joints, and draping that masks the contours of the actor, so the same pelt that creates realism in a static display looks absolutely fake when used to make a costume for an actor. This impacts every material used to create a costume that isn't elastic and form fitting, and it's why all those old costumes looked like shit.

File: MIM2.jpg (188KB, 729x1023px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 729x1023px

>>17983466
Yes. But as we learned in the previous thread, fur, real or fake, was available in the late sixties as was nylon, spandex/lycra.
And we see in the Minnesota iceman prop, vinyl/latex models were made with laboriously "injected" fur. In that case, most likely yak hair. So, why can't we have these elements in some combination present in the Patterson suit?
Obviously, it was technically possible because all the elements needed were in existence at the time. And let's not forget that the suit didn't need to be perfect and probably was far from it. Film grain, motion blur, and distance from the lens do a lot to limit our ability to clearly see any details within the figure.

>>17983651
>fur, real or fake, was available in the late sixties as was nylon, spandex/lycra.

Fur, yes.

Spandex, not so much. At that time, 67', spandex was used to replace rubber as the elastic part of shit like bras, girdles, underwear, and such, as it maintained it's ability to flex longer than rubber, and wouldn't wear out. The stuff wasn't used to create fabric in quantities large enough to make shit like shirts, pants, etc, and it wasn't until 68' that the first lycra suits were custom ordered by the French Olympic ski team.

>Obviously, it was technically possible because all the elements needed were in existence at the time.

It was technically possible to create the Saturn V rocket in the 40's, but we didn't. We eventually got there because we developed a need for it, and worked our way to create the thing through a series of small steps. The same thing applies to costume design, and the materials used to make them, and it wasn't until sports teams created the demand for spandex uniforms that the fabric became largely available for clothing and costume purposes later in the 70's and 80's.

File: australian_aboriginals.jpg (109KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x426px

aboriginals are part-apes part-humans

>>17983844
the theory is that they sprung from the population of homo erectus that made its way through SE asia (java man 500-100k yo, homo floresiensis, as recent as 50k yo).

check out the sloping frontal braincase and browridges.

>>17983844
All humans are full-ape dumbass

>>17982995
>Make a claim
>Refuse to back it up
Discarded.

>>17982993
Search yourself.

>>17983782
>Provide 3 different elastic materials
>Focuses on one and ignores all the others

>>17981903
Every tinder profile for black women.

So many people butthurt because bigfoot obviously doesnt exist. Get over it.

File: ..jpg (54KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 490x333px

>>17985012

>>17985131
Point proven. Buttblasted footer.

>>17985143
>If I say it then it is true.
Sound logic. Why are you mad? Do you like using the word "butt"?

File: 7d73986d41bfcf6d448508e418bf1408.jpg (34KB, 236x357px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 236x357px

>>17983782
Spandex/elastane/lycra was in full use in a wide range of clothing items by the early 60s. It was combined with nylon to make stretchy tights as early as the late 50s. pic related is an ad from a 1964 catalogue. These tights were extremely popular and available everywhere. Neoprene used in wet suits was also in common use. This is not even to say the PGF suit used these materials per se.

The point is, materials and techniques that included nylon, elastane, fur injection, and padding were available and in widespread use commercially and within the film industry at the time that could have been used to make the PGF suit.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/lifestyle/fenwick-hosiery/11558849/history-of-tights.html
http://connect.lycra.com/en/About-the-LYCRA-Brand/50-years-of-innovation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantyhose

>>17975229
Harry and The Hendersons

File: neanderthal-man-of-chapelle-aux-saints-paul-d-stewart.jpg (134KB, 711x900px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 711x900px

>>17983782
Your rocket analogy doesn't work because you're wrong about spandex but, it does somewhat work more broadly in that necessity is the mother of invention:
Patterson envisioned his bigfoot being a type of homo erectus or neanderthal (as was popularly conceived at the time in the form of a large hairy manbeast) as can be seen in his numerous and highly skilled illustrations. Patterson was smart; he was connecting the science of the day with the man-beast legends of the past and he would not have been content to just use an off-the-shelf gorilla suit for that purpose. There's your necessity and what we see on the film is his invention; aided hugely by film grain, motion blur, and distance.

Pic related is how neanderthals were conceptualized from in the early part of the 20th century. (drawing by Frantisek Kupka)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html

File: b7378294ebad83a91aca6c28dc7a6740.jpg (33KB, 564x751px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 564x751px

>>17985547
it's interesting how our perception of neanderthals went from "oonk mongani" to "bix nood mutha fugga" to "greetings gentlemen. pleasant evening we're having isn't it?" within a hundred years.

What are your guys' thoughts on the Freeman Footage?

>>17985667
Do you have a link?

>>17985694
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z1XAK3W-CY

File: 68 french ski team.jpg (81KB, 640x465px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x465px

>>17985478
>The point is..

You have zero reading comprehension.

In the post you're replying to is written:

>At that time, 67', spandex was used to replace rubber as the elastic part of shit like bras, girdles, underwear, and such

The materials you cite are not suitable for use in costuming, as they are too sheer and subject to tearing, which every chick that's ever worn nylons can attest to, as can those men that have ever had girlfriends. Regardless, the material isn't strong enough to support the addition of the necessary amount of fur. It wasn't until 68', when the French Olympic Ski team commisioned lycra suits that large scale production of lycra material started to become available.

Just like everything else, Lycra production slowly escalated as new uses were discovered for it, and materials suited for full sized costumes and sporting uniforms weren't widely available until the 70's.

https://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7707scitek4.html

>>17985667
It's not clear enough, and there aren't really any shots of tracks.

When you look at the Patterson encounter, you've got the film evidence, the track evidence, and the fact that it can be corroborated by a witness that also saw the creature, and multiple witnesses that observed the tracks after the fact.

To my knowledge, there is no other encounter that has that kind of corroboration, and certainly not the Freeman film.

>>17985736
You're a fucking moron.

>>17985736
not the anon you were reacting to, but i think the point was you were wrong about when spandex and lycra were introduced. you make it sound like late 60s when in fact it was the early 60s. significant to this conversation because if lycra isnt widely used until late 60s then its too late to have been used in the patterson film. but, we can see that it was widely used in leggings or tights at least as early as 64.

also, you didn't even acknowledge neoprene which the other anon mentioned. neoprene is very strong and could be a perfect substrate for applying fur and pads.

File: smugsquatch.png (444KB, 429x429px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 429x429px

>>17985771

File: Dive suit in 67'.jpg (65KB, 800x529px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x529px

>>17985828
First, I have addressed and acknowledged the use of lycra in UNDERGAMENTS prior to 67'.

Second, neoprene, like every other fabric barring spandex, would create noticeable bulging at the joints due to the fact that the creature has very short hair. Though I agree it would be more suitable for use than pantyhose and other undergarments.

If the creature had long hair, then I would agree that the suit theory is not only possible, but highly probable, as the long hair would be ideal for a hoaxer as it would have masked the joints and visible muscle. However, the short hair on the creature not only provides the ability to see additional detail, but it also makes the probability of it being a man in a suit that much less.

In order for the suit theory to have any reasonable chance of being probable, you have to solve two key problems:
1. Create a form fitting anatomically correct suit
2. Cover it in fur that also allows for the visibility of muscular contraction

Those two problems have never been resolved, which is why the suit theory is, and always has been, untenable.

Daily reminder that there have been 0 (zero) verified bigfoots or evidence thereof.

0 (zero) peer reviewed papers.

>>17985900
You think patty looks like a real animal? Incredible.

>>17986141
Is it already time for that merry-go-round again?

>>17985704

This is actually decent footage.

File: fb3f8cac35f3e228a619483cc41141d0.jpg (58KB, 635x1000px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 635x1000px

>>17985900
Yeah full body form fitting suits didn't exist back then.

Oh, by the way, this form fitting full body, elastic material suit is from 1952

File: adam_west_as_batman__60s__by_kriegdersterne77-d51jcx0.jpg (85KB, 960x1248px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 960x1248px

>>17986238
>>17985900
Oh, and would you look at that! another form fitting elastic material suit! This time from 1966

But of course, as always you are right. Form fitting elasticated suits weren't available in the industry back then.

File: 2D7B99AA00000578-3274882-image-a-108_1445024058231.jpg (197KB, 962x1232px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 962x1232px

>>17986242
>>17986238
>>17985900
Take a look at these form fitted elasticated suits. Must be from the 1970s right?
Nope. They are from the 1930s.

So please tell me again how that kind of fabric wasn't available in 1967.

>>17986238
>>17986242
>>17986250

Costumes, such as those depicted, are not elastic, but simply form fitted by tailoring lightweight material to the actor, however they fail to maintain their shape when stretched out. Add fur to those costumes, and the material stretches, bunches, and drapes, due to the lack of elasticity in the material. This bunching and draping would be hard, if not impossible, to notice if using long fur to hide and mask it, however, it would not be concealed by the short fur visible on the Patterson creature.

The lack of elasticity, and the loss of the original form fitting shape in these garments, is exactly why athletes started wearing Lycra in the 70's in the first place, as it retained its shape better, even after stretching.

>>17986310
[citation needed]

>>17986238
>>17986242
>>17986250
Good job on the suits, anon.

>>17986310

>This bunching and draping would be hard, if not impossible, to notice if using long fur to hide and mask it, however, it would not be concealed by the short fur visible on the Patterson creature.

OR, the very small amount of bunching and draping would be nearly impossible to notice if you filmed it from 100 + feet away with motion blur and a thick haze of film grain.

And that's exactly what we have with the Patterson film.

Good job everyone!

>>17986513
>OR, the very small amount of bunching and draping would be nearly impossible to notice

With long fur? Sure.

Not with short fur, though.

Combine that with the fact that you can still see muscle movement despite the fur, and you still haven't solved the suit issues.

>>17986513
Well, let's not start sucking each others dicks just yet. The case isn't solved (and probably never will be).
But, I think this idea that a suit wasn't possible for material or technical reasons has been soundly defeated.

Respect to all participating anons.

1) indian folk memories of holdout pockets of ancient hominids, plus

2) modern consciousness of evolution, plus

3) human imagination, equals

BIGFEET IN THEM HILLS

>>17986544
Agreed. It's good to see this idea finally get stuffed. Although, the idea that materials and skills weren't available at the time is pretty nonsensical anyway.

>>17986577
>1) indian folk memories of holdout pockets of ancient hominids

I've been thinking about this for awhile. How about this idea:

What if the indian legends were not referencing encounters with "ancient hominids" but, were essentially encounters with culturally debased or extremely primitive hill tribe(s)?

The Indians themselves insisted that these beings weren't "monsters". They always refer to them as another tribe.

Imagine a nasty, cannibalistic tribe of fur wearing, disgusting troglodytes coming down out of the hills in the middle of the night kidnapping your women and eating your babies.

File: getsquatch.png (68KB, 150x260px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 150x260px

>>17986666(checked)
>The Indians themselves insisted that these beings weren't "monsters".
It would make sense to separate evil spirits from the hairy men in the woods.
>They always refer to them as another tribe.
Always? Even so, complex social behavior is not something I would put past bipedal apes.

>>17986577(checked)
Could go either way with 1. If they are memories of ancient hominids, why wouldn't they still be avoiding us in the woods?

>>17986544
>But, I think this idea that a suit wasn't possible for material or technical reasons has been soundly defeated.

I'd agree if you posted a batman suit covered in fur, or any suit covered in fur that form fits like the batman suit, but nobody ever has.

If it's your contention that a similar suit as those costumes pictured was used as a base garment for a Sasquatch costume, then what method was used to attach the fur. and who did it?

>>17986666
>were essentially encounters with culturally debased or extremely primitive hill tribe(s)?

possible, but it's not implausible they might have been other species.

the native ebu gogo myths in florens were potentially validated by the discovery of homo floresiensis.

now those fossils have been estimated, after initial overestimate, as being 50k years old. so this "little raiding people" folklore may have transmitted information with surprising accuracy over that length of time.

File: neanderthal_evolution_meme.jpg (268KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 640x640px

>>17985604
Some have proposed a reason for that.

File: 1925-the-lost-world-apeman.jpg (186KB, 1101x825px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1101x825px

>>17986851
>I'd agree if you posted a batman suit covered in fur, or any suit covered in fur that form fits like the batman suit, but nobody ever has.

Are you having a fucking laugh?

Pic related was made in 1925!

If you can't understand how a suit can be made 42 years later that looks even better than that, with all the materials and techniques already discussed, then you're a lost cause.

File: 234.jpg (57KB, 332x286px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 332x286px

some paranormal researchers believe bigfoot to be an interdimensional being due to the odd circumstances surrounding this phenomena. if you go bigfoot hunting chances are they will find you rather than you finding them. you better hope they run away from you because apparently they are not friendly to humans.

File: lost-world.jpg (112KB, 550x700px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 550x700px

>>17987363
This is very good. Good find, anon.

>>17987090
It's also been found that the Neanderthals were much smarter than we originally thought.

>>17987385
2spooky4me I guess we should stop looking for them, huh?

If any of you guys encounter a bigfoot out in Canada and it's getting territorial, just remember the tips from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkyyMj0i1Ns

>>17986533
So you can see the muscle movement on an animal despite the fur, but a skin tight suit with fur hides the muscle movement?

File: wig lace.jpg (59KB, 624x468px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 624x468px

>>17987363
>>17987482
Both of these highlight the issues costume designers dealt with since the 90's.

The suit completely masks the contours of the body, and all muscle and fat, giving it the appearance of a costume, and not a real creature.

>>17988410
>So you can see the muscle movement on an animal despite the fur...

Of course.

With costumes, the problem is the method of attaching the fur.

You can punch hair straight into latex, and latex can be used to make realistic masks, but latex doesn't make a costume that allows you to see muscle contraction. So that leaves you with some kind of cloth or elastic material needed for the base of a costume, but you can't simply punch hair into it, like latex, because the material won't seal over the hair, and it will just fall out. That means you have to have a backing for the fur, like lace for a wig, and that backing wasn't elastic. When you sew your fur onto your form fitting suit, or an elastic suit, you lose the elasticity due to the non-elastic nature of the fur backing, and that's why fur costumes have always looked like shit.

Pic related: lacing for a wig

>>17982889
>context doesn't matter in conversations
>this is the "skeptic" arguing too
lmfao, you should feel ashamed

>>17988819

So, as each of the claims you make is refuted with citation and details, or the criteria you demand be met is satisfied, you just move the goalposts. You just retreat into further minutiae.

There is always another level to your denials. And you persist with this muscle movement canard...

There isn't enough clarity in that film to detect all the things you claim and you know it.

I feel bad for the people who think they are actually having a productive dialogue with you.

>>17988943
>There isn't enough clarity in that film
Analysis has been inconclusive at worst. Somehow it is clear enough for the professionals who think it's not a costume.

>I feel bad for the people who think they are actually having a productive dialogue with you.
I feel bad for you.

>>17988943
None of the claims have been refuted.

The last thing they offered here is a non-elastic leotard, but they offer no method of attaching the fur, because they can't. Then they offer ridiculous costumes from the 20's that share none of the characteristics of the Patterson creature.

This thread has been little more than a denialist circle jerk, and none of them have offered any evidence that supports their contentions.

>There isn't enough clarity in that film...

Every single time the suit argument is proven wrong, as it always is, it comes back to trying to attack the film, and then of course, it goes to attacking Patterson, and anyone that supports anything to do with the Sasquatch.

Your suit arguments are untenable, and always have been.

new thread

>>17989087
>>17989087
>>17989087

>>17989006
Every claim you've made has been demonstrated to be false. it's in the thread for anyone to read.