People always complain about how videos of strange things ar

Who really cares if bigfoot is real? Very boring cryptid

>>18544499
>>18544506
this. if real, leave them alone faggot.

>>18545118
This thread is more about my frustration about how a lot of people are literally just covering their ears and screaming "alallala" while asking for evidence and denigrating everyone around them even when there's good evidence like this.

>>18544499
It's 60 years old? Well fuck, no wonder its blurry.

>>18544506
Sasquatch are interesting as fuck. Read some abduction cases and stories about them harassing people in their houses.

>>18544499
50 years

>>18544499
>despite the fact that nobody has been able to prove it fake
Burden of proof is on them to prove it is real.

>>18545453
It's literally a recording, and a pretty good one at that.

The burden of proof (which is considered a logical fallacy btw) is on the claim that Big Foot is real, and this is evidence supporting that claim.

>>18547065
It's a logical fallacy if you insist that the burden of proof is on us to disprove he claim.

As it stands, burden of proof is on the people who filmed it to prove that it is what they say it is.
They have to prove that the video is real.

File: 1482985737809.jpg (66KB, 441x638px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 441x638px

>>18547260
>Big Foot is real
>Prove it
>Here's this recording of him.
>How do we know it's not fake?
>None of the tests conducted show it to be fake.
>No, no, you have to prove it's real, we don't need to prove it's not fake.

>>18544499
>>18545138
I think most people go "llallalala" etc when other people won't shut the fuck up about stuff. E.g. This could be great evidence of Bigfoot or some other cryptid, but most people really don't care one way or the other. So when someone's like "look at this! it's real", the first response, skepticism, is to avoid later embarrassment when it's proved fake, and the second response, lack of caring, is because it doesn't matter to them.

In this specific example, sure, this video has been around for 50 years, and there's lot of other random stuff on the internet that circumstantially points to the possibility of Bigfoot, but until someone finds more than a video, it really doesn't matter. This might be great proof, but we need more before we care.

>>18544499
I want to believe man. I do. But just the fact that a guy who is a KNOWN con-artist happens to be the one to find bigfoot is too big of a red flag to me.

>>18547306
>This is a real video of bigfoot
>How do we know it's real
>Because we filmed it and it's real!

>>18547334
>Known con-artist
>Says he is going out to film bigfoot movie
>Just happens to stumble across bigfoot

>>18547326
Well, if someone isn't interested in the subject then whatever. But in this is mostly done by people in the context of an argument.

People go into hard-mode skepticism, which I guess is fine, but they'll come up with all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and disprove anything that has the "paranormal" or "unknown" stigma attached to it, even when it's not needed.

You'll always hear scientists and researchers go on about how there's a ton of things we don't know about the planet and what's in it. But as soon as a person without authority claims to have found or seen something of such a nature, they'll intermediately get ridiculed and ignored. It just doesn't make sense to me desu

I mean, there isn't a biologists in every bumfuck village out there, researches always use the locals as a source of information when they're looking for something. What's the point of having scientists if anything that isn't documented already intermediately gets called a hoax and has no serious research done on it? This isn't the case with Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster (I think) since they're very famous, but how do you ever expect to find out about new creatures and animals if you are literally waiting for the evidence to find you rather than going out and finding it yourself?

>>18547355
>How do we know it's real?
>Because there are tests and methods to prove if a video is faked and they haven't proven this one is.

>>18547371
>>Because there are tests and methods to prove if a video is faked and they haven't proven this one is
They have proved that the footage hasn't been tampered with.

There is 0 conclusive proof that the thing in the video is bigfoot.

>>18547379
They have also proven it couldn't be a man in a suit.

So what are the other alternatives? Whatever it is, it's a big monkey-looking thing wandering the forest, which is basically what the thing referred to as "big foot" is.

>>18544499
Just from the way 'it' walks you can tell it's a guy in a costume. A really good costume, but a costume.

Didn't this come out as a hoax from the people who made it?

>>18547386
Actually, the way "it" walks is what I've seen get mentioned as the biggest reason it couldn't be a person.

>>18547387
Far as I know the guys ho recorded it still claims it's real, tho I think only one of them is alive.

>>18547382
And how have they proven it isn't a man in a suit? Please elaborate I'm legitimately curious as to how they can tell without a shadow of a doubt that it's not a guy in a suit?

>>18547386
NIGGA IT HAS BREASTS IF I WAS MAKIN A MONKEY SUIT IT WOULDNT HAVE FUCKING BREASTS

>>18547382
>They have also proven it couldn't be a man in a suit.
No, they haven't.

>>18547434
The guy who made the film was obsessed with Bigfoot with breasts. Even drew pictures of them and wrote some fanfiction

>>18547421
if you look closely you can see muscles rippling and moving (check the hip) this type of tech doesnt exist even now and not in the 1960's even now the only way is with CGI which they didnt have in 1960

this is realer than anything nasa shows us, thats for true

File: patterson_bigfoot_42009b-600x389.jpg (47KB, 600x389px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x389px

>>18547434

File: cool pepe.jpg (8KB, 236x306px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x306px

>>18547437
where? i know what im doing tonight

>>18547462
ok fair enough, but that doesnt explain the literal thousands of zoologists and film analysts that say (A) it wasn't doctored and (B) its not a dude in a suit

>>18547439
>if you look closely you can see muscles rippling and moving
It's just fabric folding and bunching. Just because some youtube video told you that it's "totally muscles moving!" doesn't mean it is.

>>18547476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Meldrum
check out this boi. Additionally what the hell fabric waving in the wind or some shit. folding and bunching how the fuck would that make shit look like muscles moving under skin

i think these monkey men used to exist.

why are there stories of them and names for so many areas and climates. seems strange that all these cultures would create the same "imaginary creature"
yeti, sasquatch, bigfoot, yowie, almas, wendigo, yeren, etc

>>18547531
this boi gets it

>>18547503
The fabric is folding and bunching, not blowing around in the wind.

It looks like muscle movement because those are the parts of costume being stretched and bunched back up by the movement of the person underneath.

As the leg moves up the fabric slackens, then as it moves down it pulls tighter, causing what appears to be muscles tensing.

>>18547421
>>18547476

A discovery channel documentary (So you know up to you who much trust you put in the source) tried to recreate the video and wasn't able to do it.

The way the thing walks is actually very unnatural, and they weren't able to get anyone to do it, and it got even worst when they put them on the monkey suit, since they had their movement even more restricted.

I'll try to find it, but I don't know what it was called or from what year it was, tho it was at least 10 years ago.

>>18547644
Fact or faked nigger

>>18547644
Those documentaries have to fail so that they can keep making more.

If they prove the whole thing is fake then that would be it, no more shows about that bigfoot film, and no more money for them.

Instead they bait people with promises of getting to the heart of the mystery, but then will just be like "Lol maybe it's real, maybe not, it's up to you to decide"

>>18544499
When it goes on for a long enough amount of time, people are going to get annoyed by it due to the quality stagnating. It's not because people want to be assholes, it's because people want to make excuses so that they can spend their money on blurry trail cams and bulky unnecessary drones. They don't seem to comprehend that in order for you to get good footage you need to have a good camera as well

File: 1478226749913.png (577KB, 952x681px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 952x681px

>>18547705
Nothing is a fact.

Don't act like you can ever know something is 100% truth, even science is constantly correcting itself.
Asking someone to prove without a shadow of a doubt that something is truth is essentially the same as disregarding them completely.

>>18547813
Fact or faked is the name of the site faggo

>>18547757
Well, I suppose so. I know what you mean (tho I always figured they just didn't wanted to be "controversial) But it's the only kind of big serious research that ever gets done for this kinds of things.

Which is kind of the problem, when everyone is dead set on something being fake without any prove that it is, and nobody bothers to conduct research, you are never going to be able to prove it isn't false.

>>18547775
Yeah that's something that bothers me with UFO footage. I won't deny that there is a lot of shitty footage that is shittily shot even for amateur recordings. But people want TV quality footage, and in reality any amateur footage is going to look slightly shitty.

>>18547821
Oh, sorry, I tough you were making a statement.

File: IMG_1318.jpg (26KB, 251x234px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 251x234px

>>18547828
>he said sorry
Proceeding to feel like a dick...

>>18547705
>>18547821
Also, i'm not sure that's it. It could be, definitely does ring a bell, but to be honest I don't remember.

I don't have any of the channels that are mentioned on the wikipedia page, so I'd have to see if it was on the Discovery Channel at any point as i'm 100% certain that's what I saw it.

>>18547847
If you check the bfro's page about the patty film they mention a documentary where the aim is to recreate the suit and discredit Paterson and Gimlin. From what I remember from seeing it the documentary producers labelled their tests as a resounding success when the orange haired ape suit looked painfully like an ape suit. If I recall correctly they had also set out to use the technology of that time period and the same type of camera Patterson used.

Additionally from what the bfro says there are two versions of the documentary, one being the focus on discrediting Paterson and Gimlin while the other actually gets into some challenges the prop department had in making their rival suit.

>>18544506
t. bigfoot

>>18548448
Additionally from what the bfro says there are two versions of the documentary
> its a two part doc. not versions

>>18544499
You don't have to prove something is fake, you have to prove it is real.

BTW, gait analysis shows it's a human being

>>18548448
If it's the one I'm thinking of then the whole thing is bullshit.

They didn't even try to make the suit accurate.
>Hey this suit is brown
>Lol just make it orange