Been doing my reading into this lately and I can't understand why belief in bigfoot, particularly the Patterson-Gimli footage is such a contentious issue. Why has there never been any extensive efforts to recreate it in this day and age, and why are people so sure that the footage is faked despite the lack of any conclusive evidence? What do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk
>>17899885
Fak you
The rumor of Patterson's "Deathbed confession" is a big reason why a lot of people claim it being a hoax.
I don't know about the confession.
But I find it hard to believe that in 1967 someone could get this great footage. But in 2016 with cameras on almost EVERYONE, we can't get footage even half as good as this.
You constantly hear about bigfoot sightings, reoccurring sightings on people's property, bigfoot throwing rocks at campers, bigfoot attacks... people even killing a bigfoot. Yet no one ever recovers the body or gets any videos worth a damn.
>>17899885
>Patterson-Gimli
>>17899885
People are sure the footage is fake because if a population of giant ape-men lived in a fairly well-documented forest surrounded by civilization constantly being scanned by conspiracy manics you'd think we would have some more definitive evidence by now
If you want to watch "the experts" on both sides of the spectrum debate and investigate the Patterson footage this is really the best documentary to date.
Start at 26:20
https://youtu.be/PkzHZIK5yqs?t=26m20s
>>17899885
>why belief in bigfoot, particularly the Patterson-Gimli footage is such a contentious issue
It is interesting. The Patterson footage is a world in itself within the Bigfoot community. I've talked to investigators who have themselves (supposedly) encountered and filmed Bigfoot who still believed Patterson was a hoax, and I've been keeping tabs on it my entire life and have seen countless other experts and investigators even those outside of the crypto community study the footage and declare it's authentic and impossible to fake.
Patterson footage has been examined forensically in so many instances, and during tons of great documentaries it's just an awesome topic. I really enjoy it.
I also met Bob Gimlin and got his autograph, listened to him talk about the incident. He's actually gotten tired of the whole thing because he's never going to say the film was fake and yet people want him to, and he's kind of tired of talking about it after 40 years. He even said he regrets being a part of the whole thing as it's really done nothing for him except get his name mentioned a lot and nothing really worthwhile has come from that.
>Why has there never been any extensive efforts to recreate it in this day and age
That's a good question. I know the BBC attempted a recreation with period technology to see if it was possible for someone in the age of Patterson footage to fake it and it didn't go too well. If in this current age we went all out, no use of CGI, I do wonder what the results would be using a man in a suit, how close we could get.
There is still the hotly debated argument though that Patty has inhuman proportions and her joints are situated in such a way that no human being on earth could wear a suit that bends at the same places.
>>17900166
My issue is why people seem to get so upset over it. Like I've seen people basically threaten other people because they are "so stupid" as to believe in Bigfoot. I just feel this strong disagreement isn't present with many other things. Like, it effects literally no one to believe in bigfoot, it's not like I'm saying the fucking planet is going to explode or something
>>17899885
>such a contentious issue
Because it's rare enough that people aren't forced to believe in it. Why scientists don't study it is the real question.
Well, the people that faked the footage, admitted to faking the footage. How much more 'evidence' are you looking for at that point?
>>17901054
This is what I'm talking about, that's a straight up lie. There's so much actual evidence you can use to disprove the reality of the footage and instead decide to just make bullshit up
>>17900979
Seems to happen with everything paranormal. UFO, Bigfoot, Ghosts. For some people it's not enough that they don't believe in something, they need to render an opinion on it even if that means resorting to insults. Most people are cool though.
Guy gets paid to film a Bigfoot, guy films a bigfoot.
Or
A guy is obsessed with proving bigfoot exists, goes to great lengths and physical struggles for days, finds said bigfoot, films it for 3 seconds and says, "yep,thats enough. bye bigfoot!"
>>17901054
Patterson died insisting the footage was real and Gimlin is still alive and insists the footage is real.
Nobody has ever offered a suit let alone "the" suit. Nobody has successfully recreated the Patterson footage.
Multiple men came forward claiming to be the man in the suit and never proved it.
One man, Bob Heironimus who claimed to be the man in the suit took a lie detector test and passed on Fox News and did nothing else to prove he was telling the truth.
This is Bob trying to recreate the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMPmMJeEoqY
This is Bob taking the lie detector test and passing on Fox News.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xha5d_Fc7jg
Even after this event researchers, professors and experts continued examining the footage, many of them deciding it was impossible that it was a hoax, so it seems passing a lie detector test on Fox News wasn't enough to switch people off from Patterson Gimlin.
It remains one of the most fascinating crytpozoological or paranormal subjects.
>>17901107
They actually got something like a minute of footage. If it weren't on the other side of a river and their horses weren't scared shitless they probably would have followed it. Having rifles on them it wasn't like they were afraid.
>>17901117
I made a response to this but completely misread your post and so deleted it, lel. Good post BTW.
59 seconds i believe, and a shallow stream, not an uncrossable river. For a hardened cowboy, for an experienced hunter, hell for a first year cub scout, not a problem. Definitely not so for someone who has just found the dream of a lifetime.
Beyond that you're demanding physical proof that ceased to exist, decades ago. By that logic my great great great etc grandmother never existed since no one has shown up with her body.
>>17901117
https://youtu.be/4EicVEOtm1A
Pretty good debunking of Heironimus's claim by concrete comparison of the two footages
>>17901117
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAdFP8HLdoo
>>17901304
>shitposting
Neat!
>>17901177
>physical proof that ceased to exist, decades ago
Except for the footprint casts which were examined by accredited experts like Professor Jeff Meldrum and were declared authentic. As for chasing a Sasquatch across running water while carrying a camera you don't own I don't think any cowboy would do that.
>>17900166
i agree. there are plenty of people, even on here, that have been deep woods enough to see something.
i mean Bigfoot hunters have discovered new species while on the hunt to find it.
>>17900166
>>17901582
If you catch the spoopy threads in /out/ there is usually someone who had a bigfoot encounter or some who actually saw them.
/x/ does not have many outdoorsmen. And there really aren't that many "conspiracy manics" (what a completely bullshit phrase to use).
>>17901612
but no one has a decent picture, and that orangutan from south Florida pic doesnt count.
I kinda believe there is something out there somewhere, but i think most of modern sightings have been by people with hidef cameras on their phones.
or even gopro footage. the old time sightings i think are real, like the ones in the 1700's. according to the indians that were in the area of kunkletown PA, had stories about the bigfoot, and all kinds of weird shit. talking animals, ghosts, bigfoot, even ancient stories about sabertooth tigers. there was also stories about satyrs.
>>17901639
>but no one has a decent picture
Literally what the thread is about bro.
>and that orangutan from south Florida pic doesnt count.
Way to give yourself an easy out faggot. Posting the Florida Skunk ape anyway so everyone can see it. It was never debunked and there's no fucking way it's an orangutan.
>>17901709
its a fucking orangutan. Florida fish and game wardens have seen the chimps in the everglades. there was a tiger shot in 2002 near dundee florida, one that had just given birth.
there is all kinds of shit that had gotten loose from the circus winter camp down there.
>>17901709
>ere's no fucking way it's an orangutan.
>must be some completely made up ape then, because thats more likely because I say so
>>17902513
>>17902579
>>17899885
Burden of Proof.
Of
Proof.
Lack of conclusive scientific evidence to support any claims for the existence of such a creature.
End of story.
Is it possible? maybe.
Is there any real evidence that it does or did, in fact exist? No
>>17903392
>Is there any real evidence that it does or did, in fact exist? No
"real" evidence topkek
fuck off
>>17903392
>>17900979
>My issue is why people seem to get so upset over it.
>why people seem to get so upset over it.
Because bigfoot believing proponents in /x/ threads behave like ignorant fools who flat-out insist the Patterson-gimli film is "real" and is hardcore, be-all end-all "evidence" or "proof" and then they go on to insist its the rest of the world that must somehow, "disprove" it.
Trying to discuss this subject with bigfoot believers on /x/ is like talking to a brick wall. a juvenile, illiterate, uneducated brick wall.
BURDEN OF PROOF
>>17901117
BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS UPON THOSE MAKING THE CLAIM OF BIGFFOTS EXISTANCE
IT IS NOT UP TO US TO 'DISPROVE' THIS DUBIOUS FILM FOOTAGE.
Again, there is no scientific evidence to suggest bigfoot exists.
>>17903392
>>17903409
>BURDEN OF PROOOF MUH PROOOF
There is a difference between proof and evidence you fedora lord.
>>17903408
>historical evidence of a long extinct gigantopythicus
We are talking about the myth of a "Bigfoot" actually being alive today and roaming the forests of North America and other countries.
>>17903423
>Again, there is no scientific evidence to suggest bigfoot exists.
Stop throwing the word "scientific" around like it adds weight to your argument. If there were no evidence that would mean only stories exist but we have footprints and photographic evidence and audio recordings of vocalizations. They are all examined by experts and some experts consider the evidence to be real.
The only proof for existence is a body. There is already evidence.
>>17903427
>There is a difference between proof and evidence you
no shit.
"Burden of Proof" is merely the expression or phrase.
"Scientific Evidence" or lack there of, is the subject matter
>>17903409
But I have proof, the Patterson-Gimli tape. No one is yet to disprove it. The BBC couldn't do it. I'm not even saying you have to believe me but why are you so butthurt people believe in something you don't.
>>17903434
>we have footprints and photographic evidence and audio recordings of vocalizations
lolno.
That is not rigorous science, or peer reviewed evidence.
It is a bunch of trash.
why has noone ever found bigfoot bones or a big foot body? that right there kills the entire bigfoot thing for me. somebody SURELY would have found like a skull or something.
>>17903434
>Stop throwing the word "scientific" around
>Stop using science.
>Stop using Scientific method.
>Stop referring to Science because this is /x/
ok. enjoy your little roleplaying /x/ fantasy
>>17903436
>"Scientific Evidence" or lack there of, is the subject matter
Again using the word scientific like it's a magical phrase. Stop.
Evidence exists and it has been reviewed by experts including professors and even criminal justice detectives and some declare the evidence is real. You haven't researched this topic enough to know what you're talking about.
>>17903437
Film can't be used as proof with this topic.
>>17903440
>lolno that's not science because i don't agree with it
Really? Research done by scientists and experts in their field including primatologists isn't science?
>>17903440
How is physical evidence analyzed by scientists to be real (and others to be fake) not peer-reviewed evidence? And what the fuck does rigorous science mean? Did they need to be wearing lab coats when they say Bigfoot?
>>17903447
You're using the word science like a religious fanatic using the word "holy". You're not adding to your argument by stapling the word science or scientific to everything. When talking about proof and evidence we are already having a scientific discussion. Don't forget your fedora.
>>17899901
>But I find it hard to believe that in 1967 someone could get this great footage. But in 2016 with cameras on almost EVERYONE, we can't get footage even half as good as this.
are you joking? so any movie out there?
chewbaca looks real to you? you niggers basement dwellers
>>17903437
>No one is yet to disprove it.
Are you literally retarded? This is the whole problem people have with these threads and believers like you. They always say this same thing. over and over again.
The gimli film is not "scientific evidence" and it "proves" nothing to the world of science and fact.
The Burden of Proof is not on us to "disprove" your little fantasy film.
Can you not understand and at least accept the method of science and scientific reasoning in the pursuit of cryptozoology?
the film is inconclusive at best. Definitely dubious. And quite possibly outright fraud.
>>17903454
>Film can't be used as proof with this topic.
How arbitrary is that? I'm not saying it's definitive proof he exists, as it could obviously be faked, but so can just about every other piece of evidence of his existence. Remember that monkey-mermaid thing people thought was real years ago? That had a physical specimen that they touted around as real and people believed and they faked that. You could still fake a Bigfoot corpse, not as easily as film obviously, but it's possible. You aren't the final say in what constitutes "real proof".
>>17900979
>so stupid" as to believe in Bigfoot.
exactly.
i'm getting upset.
i can tell you why.
i was 16 when i first heard that people out there didn't believe in common things.
loch ness monster, big foot, lizard people, flat earth society.
everything is retarded as fuck. but they believe it.
it's shitposting in reallife.
why it makes me upset is like people believing judge judy or wwe wrestling is real.
how the fuck did the school system mess people up like this?
the only conspiracy i believe in is that your american government wants your future children to be dumb and obedient.
we europeans are the opposite that's why very few people are retarded like this. we have no big industry so we need smart people for science. your country gives a shit about science and you don't understand a thing about it and prefer weird blogs and sites instead of school books.
>>17903461
>we are already having a scientific discussion
no, this is not an honest discussion based in science and fact. This is Bigfoot Believers blindly believing it exists WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
I only say "scientific" evidence because there are proven and accepted methods and standards and peer reviews that are universally accepted around the world by legitimate people who are doing legitimate studies in biology, anatomy and cryptozoology, etc. etc.
What is being presented here as "evidence" or "proof" in this discussion is not true bona fide science and is therefore unacceptable and meaningless
>>17901054
this.
it's like the scientology guy saying "the easiest way to make money is through a cult" and created a cult about money.
kek
they don't care if it's fake. it's the mystery their life is lacking and they know how to fill the sad void.
>>17903454
>Really? Research done by scientists and experts in their field including primatologists isn't science?
So who are these 'scientists' and what 'evidence' do they have to support the claims of a modern day bigfoot creature being alive?
I have watched every documentary i could find on Bigfoot studies and yes there are a few legit scientists conducting research and analysis studies. Nothing they have produced has ever been conclusive.
Unidentifiable footprints, hair, blood or tissues samples is not evidence of bigfoot
>>17903467
>>17903483
>>17903485
>>17903486
Your problem with the Bigfoot topic is really this simple.
You have a massive fedora.
>>17903497
>shill!
>Fedora!
>Disinfo!
>Set Damage Control to maximum stun!
that's not an argument
>>17903496
>So who are these 'scientists' and what 'evidence' do they have to support the claims of a modern day bigfoot creature being alive?
Again you haven't researched this topic long enough to know what you're talking about. If you did you'd know the names of experts involved in the research like Primatologists and Biologists Esteban Sarmiento, Jane Goodall, Professor Jeff Meldrum.
Your fedora is fierce but you have no idea what you're talking about.
>I have watched every documentary i could find on Bigfoot studies and yes there are a few legit scientists conducting research and analysis studies.
Then why are you arguing that there are none?
>Unidentifiable footprints, hair, blood or tissues samples is not evidence of bigfoot
That's literally the definition of evidence.
Your fedora like so many other fedora wearers is actually a religious fervor you can't give up. It's a mental illness. Let it go.
>>17900979
>Like, it effects literally no one to believe in bigfoot,
it does you idiot.
because you are an idiot. you just can't see it.
no evidence at all. you don't even know what real evidence is. where to look simple things up.
>but i dont use wikipedia in your face
use scientific knowledge.
every single letter to you is wasted. that's the most frustrating part about this.
every single letter.
i don't know you. you could be a fat autistic isolated and uneducated idiot.
i'm going to college and am about to major in history.
that's what's triggering me alot too all of this fact checking is too hard for you dear god.
i thank my parents every year for letting me grow up in germany. our school system is amazing.i know how to check facts, look up things and not be an idiot.
it doesn't hurt people? it's our society and when the smart ones don't pay attention when the rest of us is getting dumber everyday and ohhh all of a sudden a fucking braindead idiot like trump becomes president and your country gets closer to the movie idiocrazy everyday.
screw and fuck you. educate yourself. i did it too and my family was poor as fuck but that didn't stop me.
>>17903454
>Evidence exists and it has been reviewed by experts including professors and even criminal justice detectives and some declare the evidence is real. You haven't researched this topic enough to know what you're talking about.
>evidence is real.
And exactly what is this momentous evidence pray-tell? Huh?
unidentifiable hair samples? Unidentifiable Footprints?
Jack shit is what it amounts to so far.
>>17903503
>>Unidentifiable footprints, hair, blood or tissues samples is not evidence of bigfoot
>That's literally the definition of evidence.
Damn your a thickheaded moron. Just who is wearing the fedora here?
Unidentifiable samples are evidence of nothing. It only means they found a sample of something they cant identify. It doesn't prove or even indicate the existence of bigfoot.
Fedora levels increasing. Approaching maximum fedora.
>>17903497
>You have a massive fedora.
i knew that every word was wasted.
it's ok. not going to argue over the internet.
i don't care about you. you should care about yourself.
if you were a buddy of someone i knew i'd wreck and rape you during a discussion.
>>17903525
And I'm not saying Bigfoot cant exist.
I am interested in it as much as the next person. But I remain skeptical in the absence of any preponderance of evidence
>>17903531
wtf does that even mean?
you bigfootfags are worse than religious people.
>>17903525
So are giant humanoid footprints evidence of something besides bigfoot? They're not really unidentifiable. And if they were all hoaxed they wouldn't have professors and criminal justice department vets investigating them and claiming they are real footprints. I suppose you know better than them though right?
>>17901117
>Nobody has ever offered a suit let alone "the" suit. Nobody has successfully recreated the Patterson footage.
A special effects dude named Stan Winston claimed that he could have made a suit like the one claimed to be used in the P-G film, and yet all of his suits made for film and TV during that time period look exactly like hot garbage.
Pic related: You can see the folds of the material in the joint areas, Bunched up fabric at the joints, and stove-pipping, where the fabric drapes over the joints eliminating the ability to see the knees and elbows, are the two biggest challenges to overcome for costume design, and until spandex and other elastic fabrics became available, most of the costumes looked like shit, and were obviously costumes.
The fact that nobody has ever come forward with THE suit that was supposedly used in the film, or even one that comes close, leads me to believe that the film was genuine, and not hoaxed, as there's no fabric bunching up at the knees, the elbows, or the ankles.
>>17903558
I agree. It's funny how one of the skeptics in this documentary >>17900181
https://youtu.be/PkzHZIK5yqs?t=26m20s
outright says that hollywood is capable of creating convincing bigfoot costumes when that's simply not true and has been proven false dozens of times by now. Hollywood can't recreate the patterson bigfoot and neither can everyone else who has tried. So how did patterson create the suit?
Found this entertaining as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH8n_w_U9UU
>>17903577
>outright says that hollywood is capable of creating convincing bigfoot costumes
I hold the opinion that they made these claims just to drum up business for themselves.
>>17903558
gargoyles is the forgotten freshness.
i wish people gave it more props. that being said, stan was butthurt as fuck, that he could never create a suit that could match a living creature.
i saw one when i was a kid and passed the fuck out from shock. i was up in the stokes state forest in NJ.
>>17899885
Just once it would be nice to have a sincere discussion about bigfoot. One where we could talk about the possibility or likelihood of bigfoot. How would he live day to day? does he hibernate during the winter?
But its always ruined by the hardcore religiously fanatic "believers" that insist its absolutely fact that it exists because of a few hairs, some foot prints and an amateur video
>>17903555
>They're not really unidentifiable
then what are they allegedly?
they are certainly not proof that "Bigfoot"
>>17903872
>How would he live day to day? does he hibernate during the winter?
They probably aren't social creatures, like chimps, gorillas, or us, but more than likely solitary outside of a mating season, like orangutans.
Brown bears once shared their environment, but they were pretty much hunted out, which left them ample room to roam, and more resources for their own use. They probably survive as omnivores, and migrate as the seasons change to take advantage of seasonal plant resources, and warmer temperatures.
They seem to be shy creatures, and are probably very intelligent, and this intelligence, combined with their physical prowess, allows them to remain largely undiscovered in the mountainous terrain they inhabit.
>>17903947
So maybe they could have somewhat taken the place of brown bears in some ecosystems as far as consuming the food resources brown bears did?
I agree with the idea they would be omnivorous.
If only we had the resources to do aerial-based remote high definition infra red heat sensing of large scale areas in these forest places they are supposed to inhabit.
I would think that a heat signature of a bigfoot creature would be as large as a grizzly bear or adult moose or elk.
But would have a different shape. So it could be a way to locate them if they're out there.
Like whatever they use with DEA helicopters to detect marijuana operations, but at a much larger scale so you can scan square miles at a time
>>17903962
I'd imagine they both share and compete for resources in the same territory, with the sasquatch being the smarter of the two, and below the brown bear as far as apex predation goes. Sasquatch have been reported to be pretty big, but not brown bear big, and it's unlikely they have anything even close to the 6 inch claws most brown bears have to fight with. I'd imagine an adult male brown bear could kill a full grown sasquatch, but I bet they don't bother, as the sasquatch would stand a pretty good chance of seriously injuring the bear.
We know bears, and especially brown bears, can be ambush hunters capable of taking down deer and moose sized prey, however, we don't really know if a sasquatch would use a similar approach, and what size prey they could feasibly go for when they do hunt. Would they hit it and try to knock it out, or break their neck or back? Maybe throw rocks? Dunno. Would be interesting to see, for sure.
>>17903409
>believers
>>17903467
>believers
>>17903485
>Bigfoot Believers
>>17903872
>"believers"
lmao fuck off faggots you think anyone is swayed by this tactic of calling anyone open to the existence of bigfoot a believer
kys
>>17904107
>Grizzly vs. Bigfoot
Crypto-Celebrity Deathmatch ?
I think the Bigfoot would be more prone to avoid fighting with large bears if possible. they probably eat alot of fish and berries though.
If they are as stealthy as purported top be. They would probably be good at avoiding contact with grizzlies most of the time.
But also I imagine the Bigfoot might get slightly territorial like bears? Somehow it marks its area and audibly signals to other animals that this is its territory
>>17904167
Your reading comprehension is not good.
I never said Bigfoot is impossible. I merely said its not proven.
And as a matter of fact I did state I maintain its possible. But I remain skeptical in the absence of evidence is all.
try not to get so emotionally invested in this and maybe we could all have a nice discussion of the subject
>>17903872
I like how you claim to want a sincere discussion one moment then label everyone who made well thought out points a "believer". You're clearly not capable of a sincere discussion and if you look how upset some of the skeptics have already gotten ITT they aren't either.
>OMG MORONS
>OMG YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS OMG
That's not exactly a scientific debate or sincere discussion.
>>17903876
>then what are they allegedly?
They're identifiable as footprints of a bipedal primate. Do you really think primatologists with their reputation on the line are examining unidentifiable scuffs in the dirt?
>they are certainly not proof that "Bigfoot"
Obviously, because proof and evidence are two different things. This has already been explained numerous times, seems like a lot of willful ignorance ITT from your side of the argument.
Strange how these "scientific" skeptics still can't get a grasp on basic terminology...
>>17904190
>label everyone who made well thought out points a "believer".
The only ones I referred to as "bigfoot believers" are the ones who keep insisting its been factually proven to exist by the Gimli film or the hair samples or footprints.
I never got emotional or called people names. I am not emotionally invested in this at all.
I am however, sincerely interested in the subject, always have been.
As a matter of fact I have known personally several people who have told me stories of their own direct experiences in the woods that made them think they may have encountered a bigfoot type of creature.
I believe they were being honest about what they experienced, but the stories don't prove anything. they do give cause for serious consideration though
>>17904204
>identifiable as footprints of a bipedal primate.
that doesn't spell bigfoot.
you call me ignorant and you cant see your own ignorance in this discussion
>>17904215
>The only ones I referred to as "bigfoot believers" are the ones who keep insisting its been factually proven to exist by the Gimli film or the hair samples or footprints.
There was one post that said the film proved Bigfoot. That person wasn't making any abrasive posts as far as I could tell. You're basically claiming that them having an opinion that differs from others "ruins" the thread.
People who think they are scientific skeptics tend to have really thin skin and are childish when it comes to having their opinions challenged. It's that simple. There are no "believers" here just open minded people and intellectual wannabe crybabies.
>Krantz wrote, "the knee is regularly bent more than 90°, while the human leg bends less than 70°." Daniel Perez brought out the implication of this, writing, "The subject['s] ... toes lift off the soil at least ten inches in every walking cycle. ... René Dahinden ... filmed and studied how modern man walks, finding ... a maximum of 2–3 inches of distance between toes and the surface it is walking over . . ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film#Analysis
>Meldrum writes that "Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM)" and notes that humans have an average IM index of 72, gorillas an average IM index of 117 and chimpanzees an average IM index of 106.
>In determining an IM index for the figure in the Patterson film, Meldrum concludes the figure has "an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes. In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing."
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Patterson_Gimlin_film
>>17904224
Yeah I suppose it could be evidence of some other bipedal primate whose footprints don't match any other species.
Or it could be evidence of Bigfoot because that's what it is and your argument is headed down a reductive rabbit hole of nonsense. Not surprisingly.
>>17904245
>evidence of Bigfoot because that's what it is
>because that's what it is
there you go again making claims in absolute terms with only marginal pieces of supporting evidence
>>17904238
>>Meldrum
ha ha referencing that crackpot with all those conclusions gleaned form some shitty piece of out of focus film, scaling precise angles and proportions form that out of focus, blurry image of a furry figure.
complete and utter nonsense
>>17904272
If primatologists and professors feel that it is evidence of "Bigfoot" because Bigfoot is the accepted term for an undiscovered bipedal primate in North America then what makes you the authority to say it's something else?
Is there another unknown bipedal primate in America besides Bigfoot that would be leaving footprints?
You seem to be intent on coming across as an idiot by painting yourself into this corner through reductive hemming and hawing, well you're here now. What is your brilliant response?
>Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank"[51] (Ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla.) After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive"[52] and the "arms longer."[53] Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit. His assertion was also printed in the Charlotte Observer.[54]
>As for the creature's walk, Morris said: "The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you're wearing long clown's feet, you can't place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you'll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body."[55]
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Patterson_Gimlin_film
>>17904304
the footprints are most likely hoaxed or distorted remains of something else entirely.
I have seen what it is they are referring to when they speak of these "footprints"
any barefoot human could make that shape by sticking their foot in the mud and smearing it around.
these people are complete whack-jobs that would pick up any ordinary stone off the ground and insist its particular shape is absolutely only possible to have been shaped this way artificially by primitive man as a tool of some sort.
>>17904348
>the footprints are most likely hoaxed or distorted remains of something else entirely.
>any barefoot human could make that shape by sticking their foot in the mud and smearing it around.
And you know this because you're more knowledgeable than the experts who have been examining the footprints for decades. Experts and professors and primatologists and criminal justice detectives fell for these fake footprints but not you!
>muh wackjobs
>>17904293
muh crackpots
Brilliant arguments to disprove the work of accredited experts. Well done.
>>17904361
nice appeal to authority. must be cozy not having to think for yourself.
>>17904313
It's a shame that limb ratio and joint analysis already disproved all of that. It's physiologically impossible that the Patterson figure is a person in a suit. This has been proven.
>Furthermore, there is the film analysis of Bill Munns and National Geographic showing the subject's proportions do not match that of any known human. This is coupled with his experimental work trying to build A Bigfoot costume to match the look of the 1967 film, resulting in his co-authorship of a peer-reviewed paper with Meldrum showing that the film subject is consistent with real anatomy and not a Bigfoot suit. Munns studied film and worked for 35 years making monsters for films, museums, and wildlife exhibits, thus is also highly-qualified for the study have done. Their conclusions cannot be dismissed.
https://youtu.be/MKUwdHex1Zs
What hasn't been proven is the claims of these scammers who say they made the suit or wore the suit. Where is the suit? Why can't they make it again? Seems like there would be a lot of profit and it'd be great for their reputation if they could prove they made the Bigfoot suit right? They can't though. I wonder why that is? Because they're lying. They just want to take credit for being somehow involved in a moment of popular culture and history.
>>17904383
I trust the opinion of accredited experts, scholars and criminal justice detectives far more than I do the opinion of some stranger on the internet. You think experts can be fooled by people smearing their foot in the mud. Your arguments are feeble and child like.
>>17904402
>This has been proven
lolno. only to retards
>>17899885
https://youtu.be/MKUwdHex1Zs
>>17904439
>lolno
More brilliant arguments from a brilliant mind.
>>17904402
>limb ratio
the limb ratio is explained by Patterson (in Morris' account) wanting to make the limbs longer. It looks to me like the forearms are disproportionately longer than the upper arm, which is consistent with a human in a modified suit.
The video is blocked. Searching for similiarly titled videos I found a 12:40sec one with the same title so I watched that. As I understood, their argument is that:
>torso is longer than typical human
>upper leg is longer than lower leg "exceedingly rare" on humans according to Bill Munns
summed up by Munns as "it would be hard to find a human being who had the appropriate anatomy to wear a suit even if you made one".
It seems to me the shoulder level of someone in a suit could be lower than the visible shoulder level as it appears from outside. If so it seems like that would distort the proportions in the way Munns is describing and the only issue you'd have is how to make the head turn if it was raised up say 3 or so inches higher than the suit-wearer's head. The flaw in their arguments seems to be that they assuming the apparent joints (hip, shoulder) exactly line up with the joints of whoever's inside and that isn't necessarily true.
I think that might explain the upper/lower leg ratio discrepancy as well. If they're judging the length of the upper leg by where the hips appear to be and not where they actually are they'll bring up a ratio which wouldn't reflect the anatomy of whoever was wearing the hypothetical suit.
>Why can't they make it again?
Maybe he doesn't much care if you believe him or not. The aspect I found most interesting was his explanation (from a costume designer's perspective) of some of the characteristics of movement in the film.
http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4375
>>17904215
I literally pointed out that it wasn't conclusive evidence. You kept saying there is no evidence of Bigfoot's existence and I disagree. I never insisted Bigfoot is factually proven to exist I just said that there is evidence of his existence that is open to interpretation whether those pieces are hoaxed or not. I think the matter is open for debate which is the whole point of the thread.
>>17904272
>>17904293
Lol what the fuck is it going to take? There's nothing wrong with not agreeing with us but you can't ask for evidence and then say "Oh but that doesn't count" when we provide it. You can make the claim that it's hoaxed but then you have to back that statement up, not just call a guy a crackpot or that it's arbitrarily "marginal evidence"
>>17904313
I've got no problem with people claiming it was a suit, however, nobody has yet offered a suit that matches that which is shown on the video.
Every suit I've seen has failed to be form fitting, and clearly shows fabric bunching up around the joints, or stove-pipping around the knees.
There is no visible stove-pipping or fabric bunching on the P-G film, and the musculature of the creature is visible, and correct.
>>17903392
absence of proof =/= proof of absence
We know for a fact that something like a 'bigfoot' had to exist at some point. We could not exist without it. Ever heard of Darwin's Orchid? If you take a step back and look at modern humans it is not only likely, but necessary for a creature like this to exist. In modern day Earth? maybe not. But the only way to prove or disprove that is to find one. End of story.
>>17904755
>Lol what the fuck is it going to take?
A dead sasquatch. Period.
>>17904172
>But also I imagine the Bigfoot might get slightly territorial like bears? Somehow it marks its area and audibly signals to other animals that this is its territory
I would think that the adult males would be aggressive and territorial of other adult males, as this has been demonstrated in other species, including orangutans, and bears. Orangs don't mark their territories, nor do they vocalize regularly, like wolves, to mark their territory, and I think it's likely that sasquatch are similar.
I'd be curious to know if they have a significant migration pattern that coincides with the seasons. If so, this would mean that they would have a summer and winter territory.
If I had the opportunity, I'd set up a cabin out in the backwoods of the west coast in a place that has terrain that acts as a natural funnel for north-south movement. I think the only way you're going to find one of those things is to actually live in their territory long enough for them to investigate you, and grow comfortable with your presence. Other than that, you're going to have a hard time simply finding one by just walking around in the woods, as they seem to have a good sense of smell, and good vision, and can evade us with little difficulty.
>>17904833
I agree, not the person you're replying to by the way, but the whole "there is no evidence" schtick is retarded zealotry that certain people seem to think makes them sound scientific or skeptical. Being a scientific skeptic requires some amount of decorum and dismissing evidence out of hand is not scientific.
>>17904574
>Maybe he doesn't much care if you believe him or not.
Well that's good because if someone claims they made the Patterson suit and they do nothing to prove it, I'm not going to believe them.
As for the limb ratios the argument ends at the point they examine the knee placement. From the knees on up, it's impossible that it's a human in a suit. Humans don't have femurs as long as the Patterson bigfoot, so they can't possibly fake bending their knee and moving their hips at those measurements. The limb ratios belong to an ape, not a human or a human in a costume.
Proving that it's a person in a suit is really this simple: put another human in a similar suit. 40 years later and nobody has accomplished it. Instead we get fabricated arguments and conjecture from the skeptics that time and again doesn't stand up to actual expert analysis.
>>17900181
Why did they go out of their way to pick a different colored monkey suit?
>>17905042
They did it here too. >>17903643 Most likely because they knew they couldn't replicate the oily sheen of black hair that Patterson and Gimlin recorded so they figured they would just avoid it altogether and use a brighter fur. This costume attempted black hair and failed to recreate the sheen as well. >>17904402
>>17904439
I believe the head professor of anatomy at Harvard said that its physiologically impossible for it to be a man in a suit. I wouldn't consider him a 'retard'
>>17903947
the people from the siege at honobia, have made the claim that the bigfoot are ambush predators, that hunt in packs, and ninja up on scarred deer that are ran down a gametrail.
>>17904833
they could catch a live one, but it would be a royal motherfucker to take alive.it would take enough ketamine to fuel the 1990's to slow that big motherfucker down.
i know the shit i have seen in the woods isnt any bear, bears dont move like that, and not that fast for that long. humans that big get tired quick, this thing moved like a 9 foot tall sprinter through some rough ass terrain, and jumping over stuff that was 5 and 6 foot high like it was a parkour video.
i saw one in June 1998 near Wagram NC next to the lumber river on 401, another near Cameron NC in summer 2000 near county line road, and 3 in between Shannon and red springs NC in April 2003.
>>17903408
>6'0
>tall
you wish
>>17905254
>>17903791
Details on these sightings? Ever report it to the BFRO?
bfro.net/gdb
>>17905292
i spoke with the one woman in 2003, and she was so goddamn smug and condescending, i just said never mind and hung up. they never report half the sightings in NC and SC, and are crackpot as fuck.
they treated the old man out in Montgomery county by the Uhwarrie forest like he was an idiot and had never seen a tree before, when he was a fucking retired forest ranger.
>>17905355
Dang, sounds like they are suffering from Organization-itis. I still consult the database there from time to time but actually noticed a number of sightings disappear without explanation which was not cool.
Anyway have you shared your sightings on /x/ or /out/ before?
>>17905254
We did a gig in N.C. in the late 90's on Mackall airfield and had a cougar walk behind our position at night, which was one of the last things I ever expected to see through my nods. One of my dudes saw a dead one while he was in S.E.R.E. school near there as well.
Nobody ever thought cougars even existed in that area.
There's plenty of critters out there capable of hiding from people.
>>17905375
yeah, i have a few times. i posted this too >>17905254
I grew up in the middle of nowhere, and spent a lot of time in the woods. I know how animals move and stalk.
>>17905390
shit i lived by there about 10 years ago. people have been sighting the cougars since 97 from Robeson county to Montgomery county. it was killing peoples pets and livestock in 05 and 06.
What gets me is how long big foot/Sasquatch has been in existence. The Indians even believed in him
>>17905028
>Humans don't have femurs as long as the Patterson bigfoot,
If the person was lower in the suit then the femur would seem longer relative to the lower leg (because the hip seems to be placed higher than it is) and the torso would seem longer (because the shoulders seem to be placed higher than they are).
>>17906167
Look at the angles you've created by making those adjustments.
You've got the shoulder where the top of the bicep is, which isn't consistent with the film as the bicep area moves freely, and naturally, back and forth while the critter walks.
You've also created a hip to knee angle that is inconsistent with the walking gait of a human, and would only be possible when running, or taking exaggerated steps. This, again, is inconsistent with the what we see on the film, as the creature seems to leisurely stroll away.
>>17906654
It looks to me like the arm could be swinging from the point I labelled, if you bulk up the back of the arm so that the wearer's arm is at the front of the sleeve then the movement should look like what we see in the video (as I see it anyway).
>or taking exaggerated steps. This, again, is inconsistent with what we see on the film
well, I tried it out and I'm able to take exaggerated steps while staying at a leisurely pace. If Munns' analysis can be explained away by altered position in the suit and altered walking patterns then it isn't anatomically impossible - unlikely maybe, but not impossible.
Let's talk about buttplates
>>17905069
I mean its just wierd, its like "Hey lets recreate this video! First step, is to fail one of the largest aspects on the recreation on purpose!"
I feel like these people who set out to recreate the footage purposely fucked it up and made it look cheap so they could be like lol we tried.
>>17906750
>well, I tried it out and I'm able to take exaggerated steps while staying at a leisurely pace.
No, you can't.
It's a mechanical design issue, anon.
Our legs are only capable of achieving certain angles doing certain things, and walking leisurely is not going to allow for the achievement of the hip to knee angle you have in your photo.
Pic related: your hip/knee placement compared to sprinter and walkers
To achieve the hip to knee angle you created, the individual in the suit would have to be either running, or taking an unnaturally exaggerated step, and this is not consistent with what is shown on film, as the creature seems to be simply walking leisurely.
>>17906865
The angles in that picture are drawn disingenuously and I'm sure you just parrot some bigfoot docu and know shit abaout biomechanics
>>17906865
hip to knee angle and stride angle are mathematically linked so all you need to reduce hip to knee angle is to take longer strides. If you want to say achieving that hip to knee angle is impossible without running it seems like you'll end up saying it's impossible to walk with long strides. I've tried taking the longest steps I'm able to take and the angle looks about the same to me.
>or taking an unnaturally exaggerated step
exactly, and I'm suggesting that would have the same appearance we see in the video. It isn't an exaggerated step if you assume the skeleton is in line with the suit - I'm saying maybe the skeleton isn't in line with the suit (which alters the mechanics in question).
>>17906954
The gait of the creature in the film is leisurely and natural, which is not consistent with your theory.
>>17906930
The angles drawn don't matter, as they simply serve to highlight the hip to knee angles you can see for yourself, without the drawings.
>>17907126
>you can see for yourself
doesnt look impossible to me (or to most people)
>>17906865
ha ha ha . oh fuck.
like those cartoon scribbles. purporting to represent precise angles and exact proportional relationships of anatomical structure and motion
(which were scaled and interpolated off of some grainy out of focus image of a furry thing partially obscured and moving away from the camera at an odd angle of view mind you) intended to prove gimli film authenticity.
what pathetic joke
>>17904451
I'm a shiny diamond and you the rough ashlar, bow down before my brilliance or be blinded in your feeble ignorance and lack of inner luminosity
>>17903440
You don't get peer reviewed science from people put in the field until something is found. The point is that you're disregarding some things that are actual science, hell some guys get convicted for murder based on less accurate science. Just because something isn't peer reviewed doesn't make it not science. This is coming from a social scientist by the way, where everything I do isn't peer reviewed until my project is complete
As a scientist myself, it actually fucking hurts to read everyone here saying "muh science says it isn't here" you need people searching to discover new things, if no one is trying then nothing will be discovered. There are many scientists who believe in the possibility of a large primate in the Pacific Northwest and I have spoken to biologists and ecologists who say it could sustain a population. No one comes forward because there are skeptics who know nothing of science but claims science disproves things. You people are the reason why we can't have nice things.
>>17907826
All the scientists I meet are nice, humble people. All the science fans I meet are ignorant, trivia spewing faggots. Would you say trying to force science to have a hard "this is science, this is not" boundary is cancer?
>>17907936
I would 100% agree, like many think scientists have no belief system beyond what can be proven. Many scientists I know are religious because the universe and nature is so ordered and beautiful that they believe it could only be designed by a higher intelligence.
Do you remember the episode of Futurama where the professor is trying to explain to Qubert that nothing is impossible as long as you can imagine it, and that is what being a scientist is all about? That is how many scientists I know approach what they do, you can be a skeptic or a believer, but as a scientist you must always have an open mind, if yours is closed then you'll never appreciate anything, your research will stagnate and you'll be unsuccessful
>>17907936
>>17907957
In addition, you have to remember that all science was looked at as ridiculous by others who weren't inclined to do any research. 90% of research is disregarded as garbage, it is just the nature of the system, but just because it is a failure doesn't mean it isn't fruitful
>>17907957
>Many scientists I know are religious because the universe and nature is so ordered and beautiful that they believe it could only be designed by a higher intelligence.
> it could only be designed by a higher intelligence.
thus proving even scientists can be complete blind idiots
>>17907974
Nonexistence is never an obvious implication.
>>17907974
It is belief, and belief is subjective. Some subjective beliefs are completely idiotic, but believing in something because everything in creation appears to be designed doesn't mean idiocy. What is idiotic and stupid is saying people with Ph. D's are more idiotic than a guy crying about the nonexistence of Bigfoot on 4chan. But hey that's just my subjective opinion
>>17907957
>but as a scientist you must always have an open mind
Too bad so many "scientists" forget that fact...
>>17908141
>people with Ph. D's are more idiotic than a guy crying about the nonexistence of Bigfoot on 4chan.
Specialty and accreditation in one field doesn't mean you can't be a fucking idiot in other fields.
>>17908165
Well I do subscribe to Kuhn's theory that we all exist in our own paradigms of belief, and if you invest your whole life in a theory I can see how it would turn your entire life upside down to accept that belief. But like Bigfoot? Does that really change your whole life? No it doesn't. Some people just don't like to be wrong at all, and I think it is because instinctually being wrong usually meant death in terms of survival
>>17908168
I'm talking about biologists and chemists who reach the same beliefs because of an ordered universe. Yes there can be people who are idiotic and hold special degrees, but you know people are still going to trust them over you
If anyone wants to disprove the Patterson footage, they should create a fake that passes muster for at least a year before they admit it's faked.
When you present it as a recreation of a fake, you don't get a fair reading.
>>17908168
But you know what, I know I won't be able to convince you of anything else because of your belief that you know more than anyone else. I can pretty much tell which posts are yours through this thread and I know you believe you are right about what is considered scientists, and how beliefs make idiots. And I concede that some beliefs are truly idiotic, but yours do make you some incredibly ignorant and close minded
>>17908197
God the typos are killing me, on my phone lol. About who are considered scientists* and make you sound*
>>17908180
>you know people are still going to trust them over you
That depends on the subject.
>>17908197
You can certainly change my opinion on any given subject by simply offering evidence on said subject.
The problem with the Sasquatch issue is that people simply discount any, an all, evidence of the creature, regardless is its warranted or not.
Sure, there's a lot of hoaxers out there, but there are also people that are sincere, and some valid examples of physical evidence.
>>17899901
Try to take a picture of any wild animal that catches you off guard. It's not as easy as you think. Plus if you think your life may be in danger you're not thinking about taking a picture.
>>17904402
If History Channel and Discovery proved it was fake they would be out of 1/4 of their programming. Of course they said it couldn't be a suit.
>>17908234
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Now there have been some evidence, and inconclusive or unidentified to me isn't a failure, but a chance that it is something new
>>17908197
>can pretty much tell which posts are yours
Daily reminder that this is not a special ability and it isn't the same as samefagging or namefagging.
>>17907826
>>17907922
Thank you for being here today. Seriously.
>>17908325
No problem, it needs to be said, real scientists aren't all like that dude made us out to be
>>17908314
Not acting like I was special for doing so
>>17899885
The human ego, baka. WE ARE NOT THE ONLY HOMMINOIDS ON THIS BIOSPHERE, wake up ppl holy shit.
>>17908234
>That depends on the subject.
You're arguing with people on 4chan. Literally nobody should (or would, if they know you) trust your opinion.
>>17906167
I think the issue is leverage. Human knees at that distance from hips wouldn't work unless we had femurs that are considerably longer than the tibia which we don't.
But apes do have considerably longer femurs than tibia as does the Patterson subject. The Patterson subject is also noted to have a longer torso than any human, which means the shoulders and hips are supposedly impossibly placed for a suit that a human could wear.
>>17904574
Fucking this. I want to believe in Bigfoot like everyone else, but the Patterson-Gimlin footage does not pass muster. The anatomical discrepancies are easily explained by a bulky suit with several modifications made to it.
I'd recommend y'all read this article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/
>>17903401
A clear picture.
A body.
A fossil.
>>17908891
>A fossil.
>what is gigantopithecus
>>17908932
>A ten foot tall ponoid
>From Southern Asia
>That was an obligate herbivore feeding on bamboo alone
>Existing prior to human competition
>And was likely incapable of bipedal locomotion
>Is a fossil of an anthropoid 7 ft tall Anorth American creature that has no source of food comparable to bamboo walking on two feet and existing in the midst of the most advanced nation on earth
>All with no fossil evidence in North China, Siberia or the Americas
Fucking Oreopithecus or Australopithecus makes a better match then Gigantopithecus. I'm convinced the only reason Bigfooters latch on to it is because it's the "kewlest"
>>17908968
I didn't say anything about it existing in North America. Nice work shifting the goalposts, shill.
>>17909228
So you just brought up something unrelated to bigfoot? Cool, nice evidence
>>17909231
OP never said anything about bigfoot
>>17909237
Yes. yes he did. Whats the point in lying, when everybody can read the thread.
This thread is indeed about good 'ol Squatch
>>17908171
>More personally, Grieve notes that his "subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Patterson-Gimlin_film#D.W._Grieve
It might be just about being wrong, but I think there's also a social stigma associated with it - if you believe in Bigfoot you become an outcast; on top of that certain ideas (esp. paranormal/conspiracy ones) are labelled as inherently irrational no matter the evidence (even though that doesn't make sense) which might lead to someone being unable to accept evidence like Grieve describes, so in that sense it would be like defending themselves against a type of insanity.
>>17901117
I've always been interested in Bigfoot but nothing about this video seems like it couldn't be somebody in a suit. The lowset hips that seem disproportionate to most humans is the only thing that looks off by the gif. I'm sure some autistic anon will post a six paragraph response analyzing his gait or arm swing or some shit, but watching that gif looks exactly like a dude out for a stroll.
I want to believe but besides this and some footage of a mountainside from 1,000 yards away nothing really exists.
>>17908497
As Munns says, the position of the knee can't be faked - but you need knee and hip to work out the femur length. Maybe there's some obvious way to work out the hip location that I'm not seeing. The same thing works for measuring the length of the torso, you need to know where the shoulders and hips are in terms of skeleton. If we assume we're looking at an animal then measurements from the outside show them to be in non-human locations, however if we assume we're looking at a suit then I'm not so sure the same methods are accurate. So while the outside skin of an animal will match the skeleton according to efficiency, a suit doesn't have to match the skeleton of its wearer.
or whoever staged it found a human with one in a million body-shape, which isn't out of the question.
>>17909228
I didn't ask for a fossil of a big ape retard. I asked for a fossil of Bigfoot.
>>17909737
fossil of ur mum lmao
>>17909530
>certain ideas.... are labelled as inherently irrational no matter the evidence
Funny how that works, isn't it?
You could have a hair sample, foot print, palm print, blood sample, film, and yet there are still people that wouldn't accept that as proof of the existence of one of these things. They would argue that all of those could be faked, first, and then they would discredit any "expert" as a quack that vouched for their authenticity, second.
Even with a body, unless a state or federal agency was willing to make a public statement confirming the authenticity of the body, people wouldn't believe it, and they'd claim that it was a chimp or gorilla, or a model.
People are weird...
>>17909579
>or whoever staged it found a human with one in a million body-shape, which isn't out of the question.
It seems more reasonable to me that they actually captured footage of a creature, than it does to assume that:
1- They somehow managed to find a "one in a million body-shape" model to wear a suit.
2- They somehow managed to produce a form fitting suit that surpassed the quality and realism of any other contemporary suit ever created.
3-Nobody has ever been able to replicate the suit.
4-Nobody has ever been able to produce the original suit.
I really do adore this issue more than anything else you see discussed among the /x/-types and in paranormal circles. Conversely, I tend to avoid most of the discussions about it because they're usually held between the same two sides each time:
One side is so convinced that Bigfoot is real that they've moved on from the evidence which is actually worth considering and into analyzing what amounts to nonsense. Such as random footage posted on YouTube in which there is a vaguely discernible figure filmed in the distance, typically in the woods, and they note the "consistencies" they perceive between this figure and the dozens or hundreds of other poor videos they've viewed like "peeking" around trees. This sort of thing could maybe be interesting or useful once a creature has been discovered to exist, but at the moment it just seems like a gigantic waste of time.
The other side typically finds the idea of Bigfoot so laughable that they consider any and all of the purported evidence to be faked or, at best, a mis-identification. Unfortunately, these guys are right more often than not as, to my eyes, the bulk of the available footage seem to be faked with all the effort of a 2nd grade science project. Even some of the casts I've seen used as evidence give the appearance of having been modeled after a child's drawing of a large footprint. Tom Biscardi is one of the guys who tends to use this sort of evidence, but I would assume that most people are aware that he is a conman.
The Pattersen-Gimlin Tape is fascinating and still seems like the best evidence we have for the idea that when the footage was taken, there was a large, unidentified creature fitting the description of "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot" or whatever, roaming through that area. What it is not evidence of is the idea of that creature or a population of them living in North America today.
What is ridiculous is most people thing dead bodies or fossils are easy to come by, when in reality these things are incredibly difficult to find
this is the "one in a million" skeleton Munns hypothesises you'd need to wear the suit, note the length of the femurs.
here's the subject next to a walking human.
>>17910055
>Bigfoot aficionados have long held that--according to special effects experts--the creature in the Patterson film could not have been a man in a suit. On the contrary-many special makeup effects artists believe that the Patterson film depicts a costumed person.
>I have interviewed a number of the top makeup people in Hollywood, many of whom are quoted herein.
>"One guy wrote to me and said, "You know, Disney people looked at it and they said that it couldn't be duplicated." Well, Disney was never known for doing prosthetic effects. I'll tell you as a makeup artist looking at it, it's a guy in a suit. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a guy in a suit." - John Vulich
http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
>>17901582
>i mean Bigfoot hunters have discovered new species while on the hunt to find it.
name one you fucking liar
>>17903423
fuck off joe
>>17903434
fuck off DWA you fucking loon
It's the Yakam, beast-men from the ancient times. Their ancestors the Gruks slaughtered ours, and so the Yakam were cursed to walk with a stooped posture and bent knees.
>>17910697
Humans don't walk like that unless they're stepping over something.
>>17910715
Stan Winston is one of the dudes that made this claim, and yet his suits were easily distinguishable as suits in every film he's worked for as a designer. See pic in: >>17903558
The problem with this claim is that there isn't any obvious bunching of material, or stovepipping around the joints, as is common with contemporary suits.
>>17908141
no. it substantially demonstrates that the person with such a blind belief based on illogical thought processes leading to fantastic and totally subjective conclusions is lacking or defective mentally in some way. thus any of their actual science or theories they present professionally are highly dubious.
Looking at the nature and the universe and having some religious euphoria taker over your mind and force you to believe there must be some divine intelligent designer behind it all is completely ridiculous.
it is no different than blind faith in the belief of the religious idea of God and the Christian bible or any other religions story and deity
>>17908141
and i never, ever said "bigfoot doesn't or cant exist"
never, ever did i say that in any of my posts here.
I have said multiple times that i do believe in the possibility of a bigfoot and i am quite interested in the subject.
but i completely refute the idea of the gimli film being any kind of acceptable evidence
>>17910697
Shoulders aren't aligned (his shoulder is much lower), elbows aren't aligned (his elbow is much higher), no effort to even match the knees because they obviously aren't aligned.
Just more of the same.
>>17910715
Real cool how they talk all this shit and yet have never recreated the suit.
I guess we're supposed to take makeup artists at their word and ignore all the other technicians from the film industry who don't believe it's a costume.
>>17911108
Wow you're still upset after this time huh? Well it isn't illogical to them, it is a process and many believe that nature couldn't be as ordered as it is without intervention. But based on your logic scientists are not credible if they have beliefs different from yours? That is utter bullshit.
It is different from blindly believing, as some of who I've spoken too weren't religious, until they began their studies and saw an ordered universe where even though things want to revert to entropy, there is still order in life. It is based on observation and study in their minds, while many who blindly follow are indoctrinated from youth.
>>17911118
It was an example not directly about you, but it has been over 24 hours and you still are crying about Bigfoot on 4chan. So my point still stands
>>17911118
And I'll say just one more thing, you being an asshole won't make anyone ever believe your point. Why do you think scientists have people write their papers for them, assholes don't succeed in academia, because you have to be able to use rhetoric to get people to support you.
Science is all about persuasion with evidence, but insulting others, others who have more knowledge than you do won't ever win over anyone. Which is probably why you're on 4chan in the middle of the day crying about Bigfoot while I'm vacation between projects.
>>17904799
Yep, this right here is what always gives me pause along with Gimlin's continued denial that it was a hoax despite not really having any financial reasons to maintain a lie.
>>17905069
The sheen on the fur in the PG film is something I've always thought added a lot of credibility to it being a real creature.
it *could* be sampsquantch, but it also *could* be a guy in a suit or a magical unicorn
let's logically analyze that a second
There is conclusive evidence that humans can put on gorilla outfits and shit outside this tape while there is no evidence of sasquachoobacca or magical unicorns. So it is different
>>17908497
oh shit hi MothDan
>>17911601
>There is conclusive evidence that humans can put on gorilla outfits...
Agree.
However, nobody ever points out WHY they think it's a suit. You can't see stove-pipping, fabric bunching up, or any of the tell tale signs of a fur suit in the P-G film the way you can with all the suits created to "show how it was done".
>>17899901
He did confess it to being bullshit. Bigfooters dont wanna hear it so they pretend it didnt happen. Yeah why is that? all this modern technology, yet nothing. Hmmmm, what does that tell you?
Trailcams are even a thing now. Nothing.
>>17911803
Because the notion of a non human anthropoid ape surviving well into modern times in North America is one of the most bio geographically impossible statements ever made.
>>17903467
>>17903485
Why don't these people get banned?
Do janitors even actually exist. People stomp around shitting all over threads all the time it kind of kills the vibe. Why even be on /x/ if you don't feel like talking this kind of stuff
>>17911891
So you're just going to outright ignore any offered evidence because of that belief?
That's not reasonable, anon.
Have you not heard about fish being caught that were once thought extinct?
>The coelacanth, which is related to lungfishes and tetrapods, was believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period.
You exemplify the people referred to here: >>>17910032
>>17911933
Don't forget the "African unicorn."
>>17911891
It actually isn't impossible, most of the Pacific Northwest is actually unmapped as the woods are too thick and unsafe for man to go into. I'm talking parts of Canada mainly, but it is possible to support a large ape population without notice, and these projections are based on gorillas probably the closest animal they can relate Bigfoot too.
>>17912178
Naw, we know of several pre-humans that more closely resemble Bigfoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE
>>17911820
When did this supposed confession happen? Where did you yourself actually read it?
>>17911578
Here's a story about John Chambers, who is rumoured to have made the suit, making a fake Bigfoot carcass (the "Burbank Bigfoot"):
>The plaster body was meticulously painted by Chambers and then covered in three pounds of human hair, the hair alone requiring a week of work. "Body hairs were placed on the figure a few at a time, and blended with various colors to match the patterns found on gorillas, monkeys, and humans. After the hair was set in place, Chambers and his men cut and trimmed it carefully, to give the entire hair covering an even natural look," according to an article in Hollywood Studio Magazine ("'Bigfoot' Born in Burbank?," June, 1970).
from this link:
http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
>>17911803
I wouldn't be surprised if John Chambers was much more talented and dedicated than whoever is making the recreations.
> Some makeup artists have opined that Chambers was the only one in Hollywood with the technical expertise to make the Patterson suit in 1967. I interviewed longtime Chambers associate Mike McCracken, Sr. (Communion, Island of Dr. Moreau), who worked with him from 1972 to 1982, the year Chambers retired. McCracken holds this opinion: "People now look at the [Patterson] film and say, 'this is how it could have been made'," but at the time it was made in the late '60s, John was one of a few people who could have made something that looked that good. John was the creator of modern effects makeup."
>If anyone could pull off the Patterson suit it was Chambers, who was a great technician. He was a constant innovator, developing a number of special makeup products and processes. Chambers was the first and only makeup artist to win both an Oscar® and an Emmy® (1980), was president of the Society of Makeup Artists and was the first motion picture makeup artist with a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame.
http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
>>17910055
I found this image saying it's "one in a thousand" for the leg length.
>>17911906
what a mattter? cant handle a real discussion that challenges your blind beliefs?
>>17912859
I'm calling bullshit on this. No fucking way Patterson had the kind of money to pay for something like that.
>>17912189
That's true, but we didn't know their dietary habits in terms of how much they actually ate, what the exactly ate, etc. so I think their projections are based upon something they have real concrete knowledge of
>>17912993
No, it is just you're being dismissive just to be dismissive, you ask for something, people provide it, then you dismiss it as not being evidence based one what you deem as evidence.
>>17912981
>guy's hand is attached to his severed elbow
>Proportionally, Patty has exceedingly long arms in comparison
>>17912897
The makers of the costume Heironomos wore obviously didn't know what the fuck they were doing, and the BBC "recreation" suit is damn near just as bad. A realistic suit is going to cost an assload of money today, just as it would back then, and it's going to take a long time to build.
When you look at the suits designed and used in T.V. and film during that time period, you can clearly see evidence of the suit itself, based on the material limitations they had to work with. The material wasn't form fitted very well, and that means it had a tendency to bunch up around the joints, or simply stove-pipe and drape over the joints the way a pair of pants would. Any musculature had to be designed into the suit itself, and exaggerated, and you couldn't really see musculature underneath fur suits during that time.
Pic related: some contemporary examples
The P-G film creature doesn't share any of those characteristics, and is more consistent with real anatomy than it is with a suit from any era, and when you watch loops of the film that have been stabilized and enhanced, you can see movement details that are far more consistent with anatomy than a suit / costume.
>>17912981
>I found this image saying it's "one in a thousand" for the leg length.
Yes, you did.
You also found an image claiming that only 1 in 52.5 million would have the calculated arm length, and that it would be virtually impossible for a human to have both, the calculated arm AND leg length.
>>17911933
I would certainly accept evidence for Bigfoot if some came out. However, a blurry video isn't great evidence. Occam's Razor means I will wait till you produce actual evidence- a fossil, a body, etc.
The example of the coelocanth is totally unrelated to Bigfoot, and crypto really need to stop championing it. Firstly, there is nothing outrageous about a normal sized fosh living in the ocean.cits a really big fucking place, with a lot of food, and not a lot of people. It's also not a novelty; coelocanth shave existed in the ocean before. Nothing even remotely close to Bigfoot has existed anywhere near North America, save humans and Denisovans probably.
Find better evidence. After all, they found a coelocanth.
>>17912088
Again, nothing outwardly bizarre or bio geographically improbable. And, more salient lay, they exist in the Congo- one of the most isolated regions from civilized man on the planet. Second only to the Amazon. Cascadia doesn't even rank in the top 10 on that list.
>>17912178
It's possible to support a large ape population unnoticed in the Congo or the jungles of Indonesia. The Pacific Northwest is no where near as isolated, and doesn't have food sources remotely similar to those that allow Orangs and Gorillas to grow massive. And gorillas are a rather poor model, considering their social quadrapeds.
>>17913666
Actually the Pacific Northwest is very isolated and much more massive than people think. Gorilla may be a poor substitute but I do think it is most likely the closest model they can use. You have to think that 60% of Canada is uninhabited and thick forests are plentiful. Many think we have explored all of North America cause we have been here so long, but actually some of the forests are so unsafe no one has mapped them but the perimeters
>>17913684
I believe you on Canada, but not the Pacific Norwest
This may be a fringe theory, but it may help. Scroll down a bit to see what I'm talking about.
http://www.studyofoahspe.com/id43.html
>>17913701
>it feels less believable because it's on this side of the fence
This is how idiots actually avoid fear.
>>17913701
Oregon and Washington are more likely than Northern California. But Pacific Northwest extends from Northern California up through Canada. Most people assume America is completely discovered but it isn't true at all
>>17903483
Holy shit I hope this is bait
>>17913780
Rest assured anon.
>>17903459
Lol that is basically how mainstream science is deemed credible so... Yes actually?
>>17913684
The west, in general, is very isolated.
Most urbanites have no fucking clue how difficult it is to travel in the western mountain ranges, and exactly how remote it is.
Pic related: center circle is approximately where the P-G film was shot.
There are ZERO major population centers in the area to this day, because the terrain is so mountainous, and aside from a few state roads, the only roads running through most of the area are logging roads...which are little more than trails in some cases. It's still isolated as fuck, and these areas of isolation extend east to the desert, and all the way north through British Columbia and into Alaska.
Note that the large circle represents a total of about 225 square miles of territory, and brown bears are believed to have territories as small as 34 sq mi in Alaska, to 123 sq mi in British Columbia, and up to 337 sq mi in Yellowstone National Park.
The bottom line is that the western mountain territories still provide ample room for creatures as large as a brown bear to not only survive, but also to remain elusive to people.
>>17903459
>wearing lab coats
Couldn't hurt
>>17899885
>Why has there never been any extensive efforts to recreate it in this day and age
Because it's a waste of time and money to recreate it.
>>17901709
>It was never debunked and there's no fucking way it's an orangutan.
It was debunked, but idiots like you refuse to accept the truth.
>>17911906
>Anyone who disagrees with me should be banned
You are the cancer killing /x/. This isn't your circle jerk hugbox. This is a place to DISCUSS the paranormal. If you can't handle discussions and people not believing the bullshit you believe, then fuck off.
>>17913816
I'm aware dude, many people in this country think we have people living in every nook and cranny, but that just isn't true, the mountains are just too treacherous for people to live, like all those survivor shows where they get dumped in the Pacific Northwest, it is hard out there to even survive, no one around for miles in America. I think everyone assumes it is like camping, but those are the safer forests to go into
>>17913894
I understand his point though, many people aren't having discussions but just saying "nope isn't real," or "nope that doesn't count," that isn't having a discussion, that is being dismissive
>>17900181
All these attempts to recreate the suit are bullshit. They don't even try to get the colour right.
>>17909237
>OP never said anything about bigfoot
>I can't understand why belief in bigfoot
>the Patterson-Gimli footage
>Picture of bigfoot
You're an idiot.
>>17911906
1. Janitors don't ban. They clean up shit.
2. Because not having a Devil's advocate kills any and all discussion about the Devil.
Maybe it was a big fat guy with a fucked up condition where he grows hair on his body? And he goes into the woods instead of getting looks from everyone in society?
But then he discovered Nair and laser removal and is happily married and retired in Winnipeg
>>17899885
what if Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin are time traveling Pokemon Go players and Bigfoot is a pokemon?
>mindblown.html
>>17914128
I know a guy in Winnipeg who matches that description.
>>17904833
I'm still waiting for proof Osama Bin Laden is dead dude.
Bouncing boobies confirm it's not a costume:
Start at 19:57 for titty comparisons....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0
>>17910864
Yeah, but they walk like that if they are pretending to be a monster
>>17914164
According to that video the three materials available in 1967 are slip rubber, polyurethane foam and natural foam latex. Here is a statement about what was used at the time from Bob Burns, ape impersonator:
> We projected it over and over and our honest opinion, from having worked in gorilla suits, was that it was a guy in a suit. The way it moved, it obviously looked like it had what we call a waterbag in the stomach area which is an old trick that Charlie Gemora, the greatest apeman ever, I think, devised for his suit back in the '30s. That's the sort of liquid stomach thing to make it look like real flesh when you wiggle around. Of course John would have known about the waterbag because he knew Charlie Gemora.
http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
>the sort of liquid stomach thing to make it look like real flesh when you wiggle around.
maybe that would have the "fluidity" mentioned in the video
here's another source for Gemora's "waterbag" technique:
>Gemora’s costumes often made use of muscle padding and his “water bag” invention, which created the illusion of rippling stomach muscles
http://www.gravediggerslocal.com/2010/05/gemora-greatness/
and another:
>The suit was revolutionary, in the fact that Gemora incorporated bags of water under the skin to give realistic sway and heft to the gorilla as he moved.
http://www.hollywoodgorillamen.com/2013/10/hairy-horrorthon-halloween-countdown-3.html
>>17914205
Really compelling. Thanks!
>>17913305
>Vulich has an opinion as to how Patterson could have afforded to have put his hoax together without the funds to have a suit fabricated:
>"Patterson could not have afforded to have it scratch built. I can't imagine that someone like Patterson would have whatever a suit like that would have cost back then-I'm sure it would have been at least in the tens of thousands. He could have rented it, though. He probably called Chambers to rent a suit. I get calls from people all the time who want to rent something from me. I can see someone like Chambers renting it to someone for a grand or something and maybe redoing it some and taking the head off another thing. That was my guess just seeing it."
http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
>>17914164
Dude, her left tiddy jiggles like crazy. Never noticed before. That'd a good one to point out. Also the guys test of the rubber tits that don't move at all when moved was interesting. Neat.
>>17913305
>No fucking way Patterson
actually he was pretty well financed by borrowing money form sponsors. This is something invested his entire full time life to for years.
Though by the time they were ending their "expedition" that produced the film. he was almost out of money and was desperate to have a way to pay back his investors and continue on his shenanigans. It was all to convenient they just happened to film a creature that looked exactly like his hand drawn fictional caricatures (with tits and everything) that he made years earlier to go along with his fictional writings of bigfoot.
"believers" are too blind to take any notice of all this of course
In the years leading up to the film, he wrote fictional stories of bigfoot and drew bigfoot caricatures which coincidentally looked exactly like the alleged creature caught on his film.
honest biographies of his life paint him as a sort of flim-flam man that was always on some odd-ball sort of cooked up scheme to make money.
Also, he and his friends were quite avid horsemen, outdoorsmen and hunters. he probably owned or had access to many animal furs and hides like elk, moose and bear from his years of hunting. any of this material could have easily been used to produce a costume.
Hell, chances are he had a buddy who was a taxidermist that probably could have easily made the suit or modified it from some ready made costume using real furs from black bears.
>>17914205
I can see how "experts" could be convinced that the P-G film was a costume back in the day, because they didn't have access to an enlarged and stabilized version like we do today. However, I don't think that hypothesis can be supported anymore, simply due to the fact that the footage lacks all the characteristics of a fur costume, and is more consistent with natural anatomical features.
When you examine the costumes from the "gorilla men" back in the day, you'll find them to be exactly as you would expect them to be, with fabric bunching, stove-pipping, and no musculature visible under the fur suits.
Pic related: Gemora working with Laurel and Hardy
>>17914287
>In the years leading up to the film, he wrote fictional stories of bigfoot and drew bigfoot caricatures which coincidentally looked exactly like the alleged creature caught on his film.
Show us....
>>17914234
Not much different than pic related.
>>17914287
>It was all to convenient they just happened to film a creature that they were literally tracking to that area by following other recent sightings
Character assassination is not an argument, friend.
You see no stovepiping in the Patterson-Gimli footage because, even after being stabilized, It's low-res and long-distance. You're not going to see as much detail there as you would in the monkey scenes in Kubrick's 2001.
And I also want to say that a real bigfoot would have butt cheeks just like any other ape.
This one does not, because it is a costume.
>>17914338
The difference is that is a crisp clear shot, and the PG film is a grainy blurry mess compared to that.
>>17914287
Pic related: image of a female sasquatch a girl supposedly saw in 1955, 12 years before the P-G film.
Seems pretty consistent with other descriptions given by natives.
>>17903467
You're right film isn't proof, and i'm tired of people saying it is. The moon landing was faked and any of those believers who say it wasn't are just stupid.
>>17910864
>Humans don't walk like that unless they're stepping over something
Or pretending they are bigfoot...
>>17914404
The P-G critter has a lot of ass.
>>17914424
Not the enhanced and stabilized version.
You can see anatomy and fat deposits exactly where they should be in the arms, legs, torso, and back.
>>17914429
Here's the pic....
>>17911608
Sup!
>>17914473
This reminds me of an old story I once heard.
>>17914287
>actually he was pretty well financed by borrowing money form sponsors.
Then why did the check he wrote to rent the camera bounce?
Funny how "skeptics" can never get their story straight.
>"believers" are too blind to take any notice of all this of course
I think "believers" are open to considering everything, including the possibility that it's not a man in a suit. Something which has been determined more than a possibility but a fact by logical examination by people who are considered authorities in their fields.
>>17914287
>he probably owned or had access to many animal furs and hides like elk, moose and bear from his years of hunting. any of this material could have easily been used to produce a costume.
Wow it's too bad that all these people who claim they can recreate the suit can't get their hands on magical animal furs too.
>>17914499
They'd have had a hell of a career in Hollywood, since even they couldn't produce a decent fur suit.
