The last thread a few weeks ago about bigfoot devolved to nothing but shitposting, so I'll start another. In short, people were debating about the validity of the Patterson footage. Specifically if they had access to a Hollywood-quality suit, or if a suit of that caliber was even possible for the time. This thread is just a continuation of that: was the infamous pic related a suit or a real animal?
>>17243610
It's not possible for it to be a suit. You see how they make full body suits like that now (look at lord of the rings orcs in the movies for instance) and they take up to 11 hours of application for all of it. A whole host of make up artists, plaster suit makers, concept artists and like I said before, movement experts, would have to be involved.
P&G weren't rich and didn't leave a paper trail involving all of these other people to make this thing. So either they were masters of makeup and just decided to use a shitty camera for 11 seconds of footage for all the work, which doesnt make sense, or it's a real animal.
It certainly isn't a suit, you can tell by how the muscles move.
>>17243610
A nice little breakdown of the Bigfoot myth that I found. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence
I still can't get over the fact that Patterson jut so happen to catch the thing he was looking for and depicted beforehand.
He certainly is "notorious."
>>17244591
Says the parrot.
Bigfoot is secondary to my dogman interest now
>>17243610
One hell of a monkey suit. Even has tits.
I wanna belive but probably hoax and a good one at that.
>Page 10 already
I thought /x/ was a paranormal board, not some new-age hippie spiritual shit
