There's a lot of government coverups, many qualify as treason.
But bigfoot is just a hoax.
And a shitty one at that.
Remember how crop circles were all the rage for awhile?
They also disappeared when dashcams and drones became every day items.
Can't risk blowing all your previous hoaxes when little Timmy might catch you out in a field with his $29 camera drone he got for his birthday.
If Bigfoot is real, what does it eat? How does it maintain its massive size? It must drink water, so why not set up trail cameras at water sources in areas that have purportedly had Bigfoot sightings? And is David Paulides full of shit or is he onto something?
I really hate shitty explanations like this. >"You know that animal native to your area that you're familiar with? Yeah, you're totally confusing the bipedal feral humanoid with that. :^)"
Wild men are a global phenomena, and you're just going to explain it away with "actually that's just a local monkey"? Frick off. If Sumatra wants to have a feral humanoid, they get to have it. You might as well say shit like "Norse Giants were just misidentified bears".
The existence of Bigfoot and cultural stories like wild men are two completely separate issues. The idea of wild men serves a social function, representing a barbaric "other" that is either ignorant, hostile, or oblivious to one's own cultural norms. Every culture has this. A bigfoot is not necessary for this, nor is a mistaken identity of a real animal.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Multiple myths can refer to the same event regardless of their social function (inebriated person saw a bear on two legs or hallucinated, crazy hobo, etc).
Mythology is not an indication that something exists. If no conclusive evidence is found and only hilariously bad hoaxes exist in the evidence file, case closed until you find a corpse. No excuses. Kill bigfoot, and bigfoot is real.
No ifs buts or ackshually. No excuses. No swearing you can see the muscles in a low resolution film of a guy in a suit. Go kill bigfoot.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Mythology is not an indication that something exists
I never said it was. What I said was that if Sumatra wants to have its own example of a cultural universal, then we don't need to butt our heads in and say "UMMM YEAH, IT WAS AN ORANGUTAN". They know what those are.
Again, it's like going up to the Norse and saying "UMMM ACTUALLY JORMUNGANDR WAS PROBABLY A WHALE. MYTHOLOGY IS NOT AN INDICATION THAT SOMETHING EXISTS. GIANT SNAKES ARE NOT REAL. :^)"
You sound like an utter moron when you try to "explain" mythologies like that.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>The existence of Bigfoot and cultural stories like wild men are two completely separate issues
please explain in detail how they are different
10 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, consider a Unicorn. We have a description of a unicorn. A horse, with a horn, and a lion's tail. That is "a unicorn". It appears in stories, it appears in heraldry, it appears it art. It's cultural function varies, sometimes it represents innocence, sometimes it represents Christ, sometimes it represents a certain untameability - like the Goddess Artemis did in Greek myth. But it has a cultural function.
Then you have "the explainers". "Unicrons were actually misidentified giraffes!" "Unicorns were actually narwhals!" "Unicorns were actually rhinoceroses!" And so on, and so forth. All of these explanations fail to understand that a unicorn is - as previously defined - "a horse, with a horn, and a lion's tail". People knew what giraffes, rhinos, and narwhals were. Maybe once or twice a scam artist tried to pass a narwhal horn as belonging to a unicorn, but even at the time this could be refuted - and was. It didn't match the full definition of the creature. >Are you saying unicorns exist?
They do. In stories, in heraldry, in art. As a wild animal, no. It doesn't have to be a wild animal in order to exist, it can just be part of the cultural landscape. That's the fun thing about humans, we can create new things inside our heads that are just as real as the things outside our heads because we can force our imaginings to conform to set definitions which we assign names. Things like "unicorn", "griffin", and "manticore" do not have to be real animals, they need only be cultural entities with set properties. Similarity, the Orang Pendek can be an independent creature - fictional or otherwise - WITHOUT being a misidentified known ape. It can just be "a wild bipedal human-like creature with red fur". That's good enough.
10 months ago
Anonymous
And to continue, what the "explainers" misunderstand is how the creation of new cultural entities occurs. They think people can ONLY go out, see something they don't understand, and then go running back to their tribe with wild stories that scientists - far wiser than these simple tribals - can refute with their college degrees and by dragging the misidentified animal out by the hair for all to see. That's not how this actually happens.
Let's go back to the Unicorn. How can we create "a horse, with a horn, and a lion's tail"? Well, horses exist. Horns exist. Lion tails exist. What instead of going out, seeing a rhino and narwhal, and then describing it incorrectly like a moron... we just... combine horse, horn, and tail inside our heads - completely independent of external experience? And in the same way, what we took a human... and covered it with fur to make it seem more feral and less civilized! WOW! We've just created a fun and amazing new way to symbolize savagery! And it doesn't matter if gorillas, chimps, and orangutans exist! Extraordinary!
How am I projecting?
When was the last bigfoot sighting that made it to even some rag like daily mail?
National Enquirer?
Nope.
Nothing.
Because now hikers yell "there's bigfoot, quick record it!!"
Then they look back at their video and say "oh, it was clearly just a bear".
You can get trail cams for 20 bucks.
We literally have drones with infrared cameras that can spot a fricking squirrel from an altitude of 1,000 feet.
And yet nobody has found bigfoot.
Also a reminder that the camera was rented and not returned on time (months) and the owner sued Patterson.
So what was Patterson doing with the camera for 3 months?
I don’t know. What do YOU think he was doing with the camera for three months? This was before photoshop and video editing, so I implore you to tell me what you are hinting at.
>this was before video editing
No, video editing was a thing, but it took a long time
Wtf type of market do you think existed for monkey suits back then?
Circuses were still a thing. Monkey suits that looked real good from a distance were a commodity. And if a suit looks real good from a distance, it'll look great on shitty movie film.
He was recording multiple test shots of his monkey suit.
He possibly had a "good" recording and had to wait for weather to match to present his hoax.
The Ridgeline portion showed the sky.
Can't present a hoax if you recorded it on a day with puffy clouds but the day you claim it happened was cloudless.
No skeptic's will ever be able to refute the Sierra Sounds.
>In the 1970’s some boomers had began camping and hunting in a secret camp ground >Few camping trips later and they start to hear weird shit at night >Grab their buddy and his sound recording equipment >Camp a few nights until they start hearing shit >Record it >Bring it to scientists and vocalists to figure out what was going on >Scientists and vocalists reveal that it would be impossible for a Human to make the sounds due to the vocal range and the frequency >Have to be 8 feet tall to do so
>No skeptics will ever refute the sierra sounds
It was a hoax
Sorry if le crazy hair man on the history channel said otherwise
https://i.imgur.com/m8LtzWf.jpg
Bro this is what ape costumes from the time period looked like. And this is Hollywood budget tier. Ain’t no way three cowpokes are gonna have either the money or the connections to make the suit.
>BUT THE CORNY SCI FI MOVIE...
Wow I didn't know you needed high technology for the most basic art known to man - making clothing. It's an oddly fitted ape suit, most likely with some underlying structure like padding/wire.
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/slides/bigfoot/suits.shtml
I repeat. You do not need high technology to make a monkey suit. It's art. You can do anything from a baggy wearable rug to a padded and sculpted suit with literal stone age tech.
it aint all that hard to run into bigfoot. I avoid him and have run into biggy a couple times, more if you count noises in the woods. Sorta have PTSD as i won't camp in north america any more.
According to Mountain Monsters there's more of these frickers than the six gorillion who died in the holocaust, and most of them are telepathic with other super powers too.
Cope, That suit would have cost so much it's inconceivable to have been thrown away. Not even Hollywood could make something of that high quality at the time. In fact in modern times its still something that would cost a literal fortune to craft.
Primates don't have hair on their breasts.
Patterson had no formal education in zoology so his costume was flawed in many areas. The flat footed casts made from the imprints is another example.
As is the incorrect scaling of the toes.
But we covered all this and everything else that proves it was fake in your last thread.
Once again: >where and when was the film developed?
>Primates don't have hair on their breasts
Gibbons have over 600 hairs per centimeter on their chest as given by Peter J. Wetstein a Primatologist. >Casts
Yeah it was a rocky hard surface not mud you moron. >where and when was the film developed
I'm not you google assistant gay, Look it up yourself Zoomer.
>Look it up yourself
According to Patterson he left the trailhead around 4:40pm on Friday, and he was still over an hour from town.
He showed the movie to the public on Monday afternoon.
He claims he gave the film to his brother in law to have it developed when he got home Friday evening.
When the brother in law was asked where it was developed, his answer was "I don't remember".
There were no photo labs within a 500 mile radius capable of developing that type of film open on the weekend.
So: >The film was not developed over the weekend, it had to be developed at an earlier time.
Which means: >The "encounter" did not happen when Patterson claimed.
Ergo: >We know for a fact that Patterson lied about the encounter.
All of what you listed would be accurate if the evolution hypothesis was accurate, however animal groups show no relation to each other, pointing to individual creation. It's very likely that an undescribed animal would be vastly different from other groups due to creationary differences.
>Patterson had no formal education in zoology so his costume was flawed in many areas. The flat footed casts made from the imprints is another example. >As is the incorrect scaling of the toes.
So then that's not an attribute of big foot. Fitting YOUR expectations means nothing.
You must be a pain to deal with IRL thinking like that
If you were to take every fossil we have of pre-Homosapiens sapiens and our cousins (Neanderthals) it wouldn’t even fill the bed of a pick-up truck. Fossils are rare, and places like the Pacific Northwest is extremely problematic when it comes to fossilization.
This is all of course if you think Bigfoot is from this world and not an inter dimensional predator (missing 411) that can enter our dimension at either will or at random
theres plenty of reasons to disbelieve bigfoot and many cryptids, but "it's not int the fossil record" is a complete non-argument.
Most things are not in the fossil record. We've Identified around 250k species in the fossil record, and there are more than 8 million species alive today. Taking that, plus billions of years of earths history, that leaves a whole hell of a lot unaccounted for.
sadly most things just don't fossilize.There are potentially millions of fascinating and incredible creatures in our planets natural history we will never know about. kinda frickin sucks to think about. There may very well have been a hominid exactly like bigfoot trouncing around someplace millions of years ago, though even if this was the case I doubt here are any alive today.
>Most things are not in the fossil record. We've Identified around 250k species in the fossil record, and there are more than 8 million species alive today. Taking that, plus billions of years of earths history, that leaves a whole hell of a lot unaccounted for.
What do these stats look like if we are just taking into account mammal species and the Plio-Pleistocene period? Rare as they might be, we have a few fossils of forest-dwelling large hominids like Gigantopithecus and Paranthropus, so I find it extremely hard to believe that if Bigfoot really existed there has never been evidence of migration of apes from Southeast Asia to North America, when most of the inbetween route was cold steppe. Just ONE ape tooth from northern Asia, not even America, could be enough to put into serious question the existence of Bigfoot and yeti, but no such thing has been found in two centuries of paleontological research.
This isn't even about fossils.
There should be actual bigfoot corpses found on occasion.
Or hair on a tree.
Hell, if those casts that Patterson made were real then there would be skin cells in them that we could analyze for DNA, like right now.
Bro this is what ape costumes from the time period looked like. And this is Hollywood budget tier. Ain’t no way three cowpokes are gonna have either the money or the connections to make the suit.
bro, that's what costumes meant to represent highly evolved human-like apes looked like, and these exhibit far more detail and lifelikeness than that shitty blurry bigfoot video
if it weren't from a movie, but a shitty home video of a hoax in the woods, you would say >BRO >YOU CAN SEE THE FRICKING WRINKLES ON HIS SKIN >THERE'S NO WAY PEOPLE 50 YEARS AGO COULD MAKE THAT
And meanwhile, people 3000 years ago >made the fricking venus de milo
So let me get this straight, You people claim that two literal nobodies who worked as rodeo clowns somehow played 4d chess on an actor (Claims the suit was 3 piece) and suit designer (Says it was one piece) tricking them out of tens of thousands of dollars worth of material and time to then only record 10 seconds of shaky physical film which they made little to no money off of and suffered their entire lives afterwards for. They never came out, said it was fake or tried to make more footage in hopes of making money. They took this suit up hill on horse back to the middle of butt frick no where a suit which has many moving parts which the technology at the time couldnt create and suffered no damage. Not only that, they decided to give this suit massive bouncing boobs for the hell of it. This suit also had peg legs to give the actor and extra 12+ inches on their height yet they still fawsley moved as if they were a living walking creature. This footage has been deemed as authentic and non edited by dozens of actual credible professionals, zoologists and costume designers who all are paid by these nobodies and are willing to risk their own careers for the sake of this claim.
Or there is a North American Bipedal primate which had a dwindling population due to habitat loss that has had experience with evading human hunting for ten thousand plus years. An animal whose record can be tracked back ten thousand plus years ago from Native Americans to colonizers, policemen, doctors, hunters and housewives. The description of this animal would cause the sudden halt of the lumber industry which makes billions of dollars a year and would need an unimaginable amount of money to track down and research these creatures who either have to be granted a proto citizenship and hyper intelligent hominids or deemed as just animals. Not only that it would change history greatly and need even more money to include in education and more.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Where and when was the film developed
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Parroting the same thing as if it destroys my argument
10 months ago
Anonymous
Answer the question.
One simple question.
It's the actual "evidence" of the entire conversation. >where and when was it developed.
Patterson LITERALLY states what time he left the trailhead.
So he's driving around and is like "hey, it's 4:40 pm and I passed the gate"
But when it comes to when and where thw film was developed it's "lol, idk".
He recounts every moment of the "encounter" during his PAID seminars.
But the film....
Eh. >I don't remember
Is the only answer we've ever gotten.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>bla bla bla its a conspiracy i analyzed the video and i "think" *load of made up bullshit*
I am claiming two little nobody aspiring fraudsters spent about $4k in todays money on a monkey suit, rented a camera, and made some fake footage.
>a suit which has many moving parts which the technology at the time couldnt create and suffered no damage
It is, by all indications, CLOTH, PLASTIC, METAL WIRE, AND FOAM.. Please tell me WHICH TECHNOLOGY THEY DID NOT HAVE WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE A SUIT OUT OF CLOTH, PLASTIC, METAL WIRE, AND FOAM.
Tell me when and where the film was developed
Tell me why people have been incapable of finding bigfoot in a small corner of the US when we were able to find and kill supposed "bili apes"
Tell me
Or I will just call you a moron all over and over again
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Massa told me da monki man cant be reals I musta edcumacate des peeples
10 months ago
Anonymous
In africa, the fabeled "bili ape" (essentially a darker skinned chimp population) was well known by the locals. Seen almost daily. A small team of white scientists combing over an area larger than half the US was able to locate them.
Why can american locals not just go out and shoot bigfoot?
>but le tribes and le...
Holy shit native americans thought men could turn into deer because they saw other indians wearing skins moron. >No way could they have made that suit!
His financial security depended on this hoax and investing about $4k was not below him
10 months ago
Anonymous
>4k
number pulled out of your ass >Muh Billi apes
Eluded science for years we only found them when they came out of hiding to get close and personal rather then stock from afar. If an ape doesn't want you to see them you wont. Same reason you dont see a deer just walking around in the forest or a mountain lion basking on a rock while hiking.
10 months ago
Anonymous
What. I see deer in the woods all the time. My cousin has photos of a cougar he saw in Northern California. You're full of it.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Le magic monke
moron
10 months ago
Anonymous
>you dont see a deer just walking around in the forest
consider visiting a forest
10 months ago
Anonymous
>be me >go to forest >literally minute ONE >see a grizzly and two cubs >be africans >go to forest >see endangered gorillas and bili apes and all sorts of crazy shit daily >Fricking EAT them
Uhhh, bigfoot is hyperintelligent and predicts our every move! That's why my only evidence is a low resolution video of a guy wearing a $4000 monkey suit.
I really doubt they were even riding their horses. Most likely they brought everything up by truck. They filmed it. They developed it. They went on a mock expedition on horses later, and then they made up the story... which is why it could not have been possibly developed that weekend.
10 months ago
Anonymous
According to their story they went back to camp to get the plaster (whew, glad I always carry 200 pounds of plaster when I go camping) and then went back to the sighting location to make the casts of the prints.
It's odd that he was a "professional bigfoot hunter" and charged people to go on "bigfoot safaris" but they never thought to measure the trees the "creature" walked past in the video to verify its height. But anyways...
So they went back to the site multiple times but when other people asked to be shown the location it was "damn, can't remember where it is"....
The full video is interesting.
He was scouting locations for his bigfoot film but instead of recording a clearing or test shots of the actors he recorded a Ridgeline from a distance. Almost as though he was just recording random shit so it wasn't "just" the encounter on the film.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Same reason you dont see a deer just walking around in the forest
You have to look in their natural environment, on the side of the road.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Why can american locals not just go out and shoot bigfoot?
Because it is not from this world dummy (:
10 months ago
Anonymous
Wtf type of market do you think existed for monkey suits back then?
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Child in Halloween gorilla costume circa 1900-1910.
If a bored housewife can slap some fur on their kid for Halloween what do you think an obsessed man facing bankruptcy can do 60 years later?
10 months ago
Anonymous
That suit looks like shit tho
10 months ago
Anonymous
Make the kid wear some padding to give it shape, forget making a monkey face and tape cut up wigs to his face instead, now record it on shitty film while telling the kid to walk like a weird monkey. Don't forget to throw in some real stiff boots.
10 months ago
Anonymous
It was made by a housewife, by hand, 120 years ago.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah and it looks like shit you fricking moron what are you trying to prove?
10 months ago
Anonymous
please don't say the r word
10 months ago
Anonymous
I'll bet that horseshit sasquatch suit looked like shit up close, too. But it was filmed at a long-ass distance on a jumpy, primitive potato camera.
People can but nobody with the skill wants to. As it would be totally useless for hot fursuit sex due to its misaligned, poorly articulated joints and excessive padding denying entry to the anus.
It would definitely be good enough for shitty movie film.
The skill is there. The tech is stone age. The motivation is absent because
How am I projecting?
When was the last bigfoot sighting that made it to even some rag like daily mail?
National Enquirer?
Nope.
Nothing.
Because now hikers yell "there's bigfoot, quick record it!!"
Then they look back at their video and say "oh, it was clearly just a bear".
You can get trail cams for 20 bucks.
We literally have drones with infrared cameras that can spot a fricking squirrel from an altitude of 1,000 feet.
And yet nobody has found bigfoot.
People can but nobody with the skill wants to. As it would be totally useless for hot fursuit sex due to its misaligned, poorly articulated joints and excessive padding denying entry to the anus.
It would definitely be good enough for shitty movie film.
The skill is there. The tech is stone age. The motivation is absent because [...]
Still doesn't look as good as the PG bigfoot. The bigfoot has visible muscle groups that move realistically under the skin. It has a gait that is impossible to replicate by a human. All attempts at replicating the PG film are noticably worse.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>It has a gait that is impossible to replicate by a human
You get BTFO every time you make this thread.
Figured you would have moved on by now.
10 months ago
Anonymous
I'm waiting for someone to replicate the walk.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Those gaits aren't similar which is a ruse to throw glowie off the fact that Trump is secretly the Yeti King
10 months ago
Anonymous
>The bigfoot has visible muscle groups that move realistically under the skin
No, it has a guy wearing a few units of padding under it. >It has a gait that is impossible to replicate by a human.
It has knees and hips that don't line up with the wearers and stiff ankles.
>Not even Hollywood could make something of that high quality at the time
Could they? Yes, especially to the standards of 16mm film. Would they make five dozen of them for a film when hollywood has been so cheap that they put window screen mesh in front of camera lenses to make them look like another lens? No.
Can you please explain the technological limitation that stopped someone from putting shaped padding under an ape suit and making it to pattersons specifications, based on his prior drawings of a theoretical bigfoot?
>that would have cost so much
Apparently it was $500, or 4k in todays money, and not thrown away, but separated from the underlying padding layer and sold with the ape head it came with (which s the hardest part to make, which is why they used wigs stuck to the guys face and a putty nose)
it was a one off costume intended to make the hoaxsters rich
Zero. Just like when you started making these dumbass threads.
Looota glowies in this thread
There's a lot of government coverups, many qualify as treason.
But bigfoot is just a hoax.
And a shitty one at that.
Remember how crop circles were all the rage for awhile?
They also disappeared when dashcams and drones became every day items.
Can't risk blowing all your previous hoaxes when little Timmy might catch you out in a field with his $29 camera drone he got for his birthday.
lotta non-arguments and handwaving in here too
Probably the same as there always were; none.
If Bigfoot is real, what does it eat? How does it maintain its massive size? It must drink water, so why not set up trail cameras at water sources in areas that have purportedly had Bigfoot sightings? And is David Paulides full of shit or is he onto something?
bagfoot[
about tree fiddy
Well the guy in that suit died so...7,500,000,000
People who own bad cameras and gorilla suits? probably thousands.
Bigfoot is fake, but I'll put money on the Orang Pendek being real.
Aren't those most likely to be misidentified orangutans or gibbons?
I really hate shitty explanations like this.
>"You know that animal native to your area that you're familiar with? Yeah, you're totally confusing the bipedal feral humanoid with that. :^)"
Wild men are a global phenomena, and you're just going to explain it away with "actually that's just a local monkey"? Frick off. If Sumatra wants to have a feral humanoid, they get to have it. You might as well say shit like "Norse Giants were just misidentified bears".
>no you can't misidentify a known animal in a dark rainforest because you just can't OK?????
>and you definitely CAN'T just make shit up
Actually, yes, you can tell stories about universal cultural archetypes like "wild men" figures. Way to miss my point.
And you're just projecting.
not an argument
next
The existence of Bigfoot and cultural stories like wild men are two completely separate issues. The idea of wild men serves a social function, representing a barbaric "other" that is either ignorant, hostile, or oblivious to one's own cultural norms. Every culture has this. A bigfoot is not necessary for this, nor is a mistaken identity of a real animal.
Multiple myths can refer to the same event regardless of their social function (inebriated person saw a bear on two legs or hallucinated, crazy hobo, etc).
Mythology is not an indication that something exists. If no conclusive evidence is found and only hilariously bad hoaxes exist in the evidence file, case closed until you find a corpse. No excuses. Kill bigfoot, and bigfoot is real.
No ifs buts or ackshually. No excuses. No swearing you can see the muscles in a low resolution film of a guy in a suit. Go kill bigfoot.
>Mythology is not an indication that something exists
I never said it was. What I said was that if Sumatra wants to have its own example of a cultural universal, then we don't need to butt our heads in and say "UMMM YEAH, IT WAS AN ORANGUTAN". They know what those are.
Again, it's like going up to the Norse and saying "UMMM ACTUALLY JORMUNGANDR WAS PROBABLY A WHALE. MYTHOLOGY IS NOT AN INDICATION THAT SOMETHING EXISTS. GIANT SNAKES ARE NOT REAL. :^)"
You sound like an utter moron when you try to "explain" mythologies like that.
>The existence of Bigfoot and cultural stories like wild men are two completely separate issues
please explain in detail how they are different
Okay, consider a Unicorn. We have a description of a unicorn. A horse, with a horn, and a lion's tail. That is "a unicorn". It appears in stories, it appears in heraldry, it appears it art. It's cultural function varies, sometimes it represents innocence, sometimes it represents Christ, sometimes it represents a certain untameability - like the Goddess Artemis did in Greek myth. But it has a cultural function.
Then you have "the explainers". "Unicrons were actually misidentified giraffes!" "Unicorns were actually narwhals!" "Unicorns were actually rhinoceroses!" And so on, and so forth. All of these explanations fail to understand that a unicorn is - as previously defined - "a horse, with a horn, and a lion's tail". People knew what giraffes, rhinos, and narwhals were. Maybe once or twice a scam artist tried to pass a narwhal horn as belonging to a unicorn, but even at the time this could be refuted - and was. It didn't match the full definition of the creature.
>Are you saying unicorns exist?
They do. In stories, in heraldry, in art. As a wild animal, no. It doesn't have to be a wild animal in order to exist, it can just be part of the cultural landscape. That's the fun thing about humans, we can create new things inside our heads that are just as real as the things outside our heads because we can force our imaginings to conform to set definitions which we assign names. Things like "unicorn", "griffin", and "manticore" do not have to be real animals, they need only be cultural entities with set properties. Similarity, the Orang Pendek can be an independent creature - fictional or otherwise - WITHOUT being a misidentified known ape. It can just be "a wild bipedal human-like creature with red fur". That's good enough.
And to continue, what the "explainers" misunderstand is how the creation of new cultural entities occurs. They think people can ONLY go out, see something they don't understand, and then go running back to their tribe with wild stories that scientists - far wiser than these simple tribals - can refute with their college degrees and by dragging the misidentified animal out by the hair for all to see. That's not how this actually happens.
Let's go back to the Unicorn. How can we create "a horse, with a horn, and a lion's tail"? Well, horses exist. Horns exist. Lion tails exist. What instead of going out, seeing a rhino and narwhal, and then describing it incorrectly like a moron... we just... combine horse, horn, and tail inside our heads - completely independent of external experience? And in the same way, what we took a human... and covered it with fur to make it seem more feral and less civilized! WOW! We've just created a fun and amazing new way to symbolize savagery! And it doesn't matter if gorillas, chimps, and orangutans exist! Extraordinary!
How am I projecting?
When was the last bigfoot sighting that made it to even some rag like daily mail?
National Enquirer?
Nope.
Nothing.
Because now hikers yell "there's bigfoot, quick record it!!"
Then they look back at their video and say "oh, it was clearly just a bear".
You can get trail cams for 20 bucks.
We literally have drones with infrared cameras that can spot a fricking squirrel from an altitude of 1,000 feet.
And yet nobody has found bigfoot.
Notice how those reports completely stopped once every hiker had a camera phone and drones started to litter the skies?
Weird coincidence.....
There is no doubt in my mind that wild men are real
Really people wearing furs, to be exact
This costume absolutely blows the frick out of 2001 and Planet of the Apes. How did some random guys do this in the 60's?
Also a reminder that the camera was rented and not returned on time (months) and the owner sued Patterson.
So what was Patterson doing with the camera for 3 months?
I don’t know. What do YOU think he was doing with the camera for three months? This was before photoshop and video editing, so I implore you to tell me what you are hinting at.
>this was before video editing
No, video editing was a thing, but it took a long time
Circuses were still a thing. Monkey suits that looked real good from a distance were a commodity. And if a suit looks real good from a distance, it'll look great on shitty movie film.
He was recording multiple test shots of his monkey suit.
He possibly had a "good" recording and had to wait for weather to match to present his hoax.
The Ridgeline portion showed the sky.
Can't present a hoax if you recorded it on a day with puffy clouds but the day you claim it happened was cloudless.
that's just a picture of me exiting the shower. Don't worry, I'm fine
Hundreds of millions in DUMBs or in other solar systems if you believe /x/, they're psychic if you believe les stroud
Once again....
>where was the film developed?
>why did Patterson lie about the date of the encounter?
No skeptic's will ever be able to refute the Sierra Sounds.
>In the 1970’s some boomers had began camping and hunting in a secret camp ground
>Few camping trips later and they start to hear weird shit at night
>Grab their buddy and his sound recording equipment
>Camp a few nights until they start hearing shit
>Record it
>Bring it to scientists and vocalists to figure out what was going on
>Scientists and vocalists reveal that it would be impossible for a Human to make the sounds due to the vocal range and the frequency
>Have to be 8 feet tall to do so
Have a listen: https://youtu.be/VGfIIjN-P7o
0:52 to 1:12 gave me chills holy frick
>No skeptics will ever refute the sierra sounds
It was a hoax
Sorry if le crazy hair man on the history channel said otherwise
>BUT THE CORNY SCI FI MOVIE...
Wow I didn't know you needed high technology for the most basic art known to man - making clothing. It's an oddly fitted ape suit, most likely with some underlying structure like padding/wire.
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/slides/bigfoot/suits.shtml
I repeat. You do not need high technology to make a monkey suit. It's art. You can do anything from a baggy wearable rug to a padded and sculpted suit with literal stone age tech.
>It was a hoax
Source?
Experts examined it and found that teenagers shouting in the woods had been recorded over a tape of animal calls.
>Corny
>Won an oscar for costume design
it aint all that hard to run into bigfoot. I avoid him and have run into biggy a couple times, more if you count noises in the woods. Sorta have PTSD as i won't camp in north america any more.
Bout tree fiddy
That's just a photo of a Greek on Holiday. There's plenty left.
They all moved to Brazil
they moved to argentina to chill with hitler
This shit again. Why not just read the old thread and save the time and effort?
Because its not about discussion
Its about ruining the board
According to Mountain Monsters there's more of these frickers than the six gorillion who died in the holocaust, and most of them are telepathic with other super powers too.
the real question is how many giant ground sloths are left in the appalachians
Pretty sure they're in the ozarks, not in appalachia.
I may be stupid, let me check the greentext
The closest thing north america ever had to a bigfoot population was possibly an isolated small tribe of native americans who exclusively wore furs
It has ALWAYS been men in suits
https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~coker2/slides/bigfoot/suits.shtml
It was a one-off costume that was destroyed afterwards to prevent evidence from ruining their gift.
So zero are left.
Cope, That suit would have cost so much it's inconceivable to have been thrown away. Not even Hollywood could make something of that high quality at the time. In fact in modern times its still something that would cost a literal fortune to craft.
Primates don't have hair on their breasts.
Patterson had no formal education in zoology so his costume was flawed in many areas. The flat footed casts made from the imprints is another example.
As is the incorrect scaling of the toes.
But we covered all this and everything else that proves it was fake in your last thread.
Once again:
>where and when was the film developed?
>Primates don't have hair on their breasts
Gibbons have over 600 hairs per centimeter on their chest as given by Peter J. Wetstein a Primatologist.
>Casts
Yeah it was a rocky hard surface not mud you moron.
>where and when was the film developed
I'm not you google assistant gay, Look it up yourself Zoomer.
>Look it up yourself
According to Patterson he left the trailhead around 4:40pm on Friday, and he was still over an hour from town.
He showed the movie to the public on Monday afternoon.
He claims he gave the film to his brother in law to have it developed when he got home Friday evening.
When the brother in law was asked where it was developed, his answer was "I don't remember".
There were no photo labs within a 500 mile radius capable of developing that type of film open on the weekend.
So:
>The film was not developed over the weekend, it had to be developed at an earlier time.
Which means:
>The "encounter" did not happen when Patterson claimed.
Ergo:
>We know for a fact that Patterson lied about the encounter.
>primates dont have hair on their breasts
old greek and italian men would like a word
All of what you listed would be accurate if the evolution hypothesis was accurate, however animal groups show no relation to each other, pointing to individual creation. It's very likely that an undescribed animal would be vastly different from other groups due to creationary differences.
>however animal groups show no relation to each other, pointing to individual creation.
You won't be allowed any more crayons if you keep putting them up your bum anon, stop it. You're going to give yourself brain damage.
>Patterson had no formal education in zoology so his costume was flawed in many areas. The flat footed casts made from the imprints is another example.
>As is the incorrect scaling of the toes.
So then that's not an attribute of big foot. Fitting YOUR expectations means nothing.
You must be a pain to deal with IRL thinking like that
you argue like my ex. she had big breasts being israeli and all but her personality did not benefit.
What is bigfoots evolutionary history? Where are fossils of its ancestors? There were never any apes in north america and no monkeys in a long time.
If you were to take every fossil we have of pre-Homosapiens sapiens and our cousins (Neanderthals) it wouldn’t even fill the bed of a pick-up truck. Fossils are rare, and places like the Pacific Northwest is extremely problematic when it comes to fossilization.
This is all of course if you think Bigfoot is from this world and not an inter dimensional predator (missing 411) that can enter our dimension at either will or at random
Plenty of fossils in Beringia.
theres plenty of reasons to disbelieve bigfoot and many cryptids, but "it's not int the fossil record" is a complete non-argument.
Most things are not in the fossil record. We've Identified around 250k species in the fossil record, and there are more than 8 million species alive today. Taking that, plus billions of years of earths history, that leaves a whole hell of a lot unaccounted for.
sadly most things just don't fossilize.There are potentially millions of fascinating and incredible creatures in our planets natural history we will never know about. kinda frickin sucks to think about. There may very well have been a hominid exactly like bigfoot trouncing around someplace millions of years ago, though even if this was the case I doubt here are any alive today.
>Most things are not in the fossil record. We've Identified around 250k species in the fossil record, and there are more than 8 million species alive today. Taking that, plus billions of years of earths history, that leaves a whole hell of a lot unaccounted for.
What do these stats look like if we are just taking into account mammal species and the Plio-Pleistocene period? Rare as they might be, we have a few fossils of forest-dwelling large hominids like Gigantopithecus and Paranthropus, so I find it extremely hard to believe that if Bigfoot really existed there has never been evidence of migration of apes from Southeast Asia to North America, when most of the inbetween route was cold steppe. Just ONE ape tooth from northern Asia, not even America, could be enough to put into serious question the existence of Bigfoot and yeti, but no such thing has been found in two centuries of paleontological research.
This isn't even about fossils.
There should be actual bigfoot corpses found on occasion.
Or hair on a tree.
Hell, if those casts that Patterson made were real then there would be skin cells in them that we could analyze for DNA, like right now.
you underestimate how far one would go to accomplish their fetishes
This is the single most moronic post ever made
People made better suits. It doesn't take a supercomputer to sew together some fake fur.
Bro this is what ape costumes from the time period looked like. And this is Hollywood budget tier. Ain’t no way three cowpokes are gonna have either the money or the connections to make the suit.
bro, that's what costumes meant to represent highly evolved human-like apes looked like, and these exhibit far more detail and lifelikeness than that shitty blurry bigfoot video
if it weren't from a movie, but a shitty home video of a hoax in the woods, you would say
>BRO
>YOU CAN SEE THE FRICKING WRINKLES ON HIS SKIN
>THERE'S NO WAY PEOPLE 50 YEARS AGO COULD MAKE THAT
And meanwhile, people 3000 years ago
>made the fricking venus de milo
So let me get this straight, You people claim that two literal nobodies who worked as rodeo clowns somehow played 4d chess on an actor (Claims the suit was 3 piece) and suit designer (Says it was one piece) tricking them out of tens of thousands of dollars worth of material and time to then only record 10 seconds of shaky physical film which they made little to no money off of and suffered their entire lives afterwards for. They never came out, said it was fake or tried to make more footage in hopes of making money. They took this suit up hill on horse back to the middle of butt frick no where a suit which has many moving parts which the technology at the time couldnt create and suffered no damage. Not only that, they decided to give this suit massive bouncing boobs for the hell of it. This suit also had peg legs to give the actor and extra 12+ inches on their height yet they still fawsley moved as if they were a living walking creature. This footage has been deemed as authentic and non edited by dozens of actual credible professionals, zoologists and costume designers who all are paid by these nobodies and are willing to risk their own careers for the sake of this claim.
Or there is a North American Bipedal primate which had a dwindling population due to habitat loss that has had experience with evading human hunting for ten thousand plus years. An animal whose record can be tracked back ten thousand plus years ago from Native Americans to colonizers, policemen, doctors, hunters and housewives. The description of this animal would cause the sudden halt of the lumber industry which makes billions of dollars a year and would need an unimaginable amount of money to track down and research these creatures who either have to be granted a proto citizenship and hyper intelligent hominids or deemed as just animals. Not only that it would change history greatly and need even more money to include in education and more.
Where and when was the film developed
>Parroting the same thing as if it destroys my argument
Answer the question.
One simple question.
It's the actual "evidence" of the entire conversation.
>where and when was it developed.
Patterson LITERALLY states what time he left the trailhead.
So he's driving around and is like "hey, it's 4:40 pm and I passed the gate"
But when it comes to when and where thw film was developed it's "lol, idk".
He recounts every moment of the "encounter" during his PAID seminars.
But the film....
Eh.
>I don't remember
Is the only answer we've ever gotten.
>bla bla bla its a conspiracy i analyzed the video and i "think" *load of made up bullshit*
I am claiming two little nobody aspiring fraudsters spent about $4k in todays money on a monkey suit, rented a camera, and made some fake footage.
>a suit which has many moving parts which the technology at the time couldnt create and suffered no damage
It is, by all indications, CLOTH, PLASTIC, METAL WIRE, AND FOAM.. Please tell me WHICH TECHNOLOGY THEY DID NOT HAVE WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE A SUIT OUT OF CLOTH, PLASTIC, METAL WIRE, AND FOAM.
Tell me when and where the film was developed
Tell me why people have been incapable of finding bigfoot in a small corner of the US when we were able to find and kill supposed "bili apes"
Tell me
Or I will just call you a moron all over and over again
>Massa told me da monki man cant be reals I musta edcumacate des peeples
In africa, the fabeled "bili ape" (essentially a darker skinned chimp population) was well known by the locals. Seen almost daily. A small team of white scientists combing over an area larger than half the US was able to locate them.
Why can american locals not just go out and shoot bigfoot?
>but le tribes and le...
Holy shit native americans thought men could turn into deer because they saw other indians wearing skins moron.
>No way could they have made that suit!
His financial security depended on this hoax and investing about $4k was not below him
>4k
number pulled out of your ass
>Muh Billi apes
Eluded science for years we only found them when they came out of hiding to get close and personal rather then stock from afar. If an ape doesn't want you to see them you wont. Same reason you dont see a deer just walking around in the forest or a mountain lion basking on a rock while hiking.
What. I see deer in the woods all the time. My cousin has photos of a cougar he saw in Northern California. You're full of it.
Le magic monke
moron
>you dont see a deer just walking around in the forest
consider visiting a forest
>be me
>go to forest
>literally minute ONE
>see a grizzly and two cubs
>be africans
>go to forest
>see endangered gorillas and bili apes and all sorts of crazy shit daily
>Fricking EAT them
Uhhh, bigfoot is hyperintelligent and predicts our every move! That's why my only evidence is a low resolution video of a guy wearing a $4000 monkey suit.
I really doubt they were even riding their horses. Most likely they brought everything up by truck. They filmed it. They developed it. They went on a mock expedition on horses later, and then they made up the story... which is why it could not have been possibly developed that weekend.
According to their story they went back to camp to get the plaster (whew, glad I always carry 200 pounds of plaster when I go camping) and then went back to the sighting location to make the casts of the prints.
It's odd that he was a "professional bigfoot hunter" and charged people to go on "bigfoot safaris" but they never thought to measure the trees the "creature" walked past in the video to verify its height. But anyways...
So they went back to the site multiple times but when other people asked to be shown the location it was "damn, can't remember where it is"....
The full video is interesting.
He was scouting locations for his bigfoot film but instead of recording a clearing or test shots of the actors he recorded a Ridgeline from a distance. Almost as though he was just recording random shit so it wasn't "just" the encounter on the film.
>Same reason you dont see a deer just walking around in the forest
You have to look in their natural environment, on the side of the road.
>Why can american locals not just go out and shoot bigfoot?
Because it is not from this world dummy (:
Wtf type of market do you think existed for monkey suits back then?
>Child in Halloween gorilla costume circa 1900-1910.
If a bored housewife can slap some fur on their kid for Halloween what do you think an obsessed man facing bankruptcy can do 60 years later?
That suit looks like shit tho
Make the kid wear some padding to give it shape, forget making a monkey face and tape cut up wigs to his face instead, now record it on shitty film while telling the kid to walk like a weird monkey. Don't forget to throw in some real stiff boots.
It was made by a housewife, by hand, 120 years ago.
Yeah and it looks like shit you fricking moron what are you trying to prove?
please don't say the r word
I'll bet that horseshit sasquatch suit looked like shit up close, too. But it was filmed at a long-ass distance on a jumpy, primitive potato camera.
People still can't make a suit that replicates the PG film.
People can but nobody with the skill wants to. As it would be totally useless for hot fursuit sex due to its misaligned, poorly articulated joints and excessive padding denying entry to the anus.
It would definitely be good enough for shitty movie film.
The skill is there. The tech is stone age. The motivation is absent because
>that cant be a human the proportions are wrong
Still doesn't look as good as the PG bigfoot. The bigfoot has visible muscle groups that move realistically under the skin. It has a gait that is impossible to replicate by a human. All attempts at replicating the PG film are noticably worse.
>It has a gait that is impossible to replicate by a human
You get BTFO every time you make this thread.
Figured you would have moved on by now.
I'm waiting for someone to replicate the walk.
Those gaits aren't similar which is a ruse to throw glowie off the fact that Trump is secretly the Yeti King
>The bigfoot has visible muscle groups that move realistically under the skin
No, it has a guy wearing a few units of padding under it.
>It has a gait that is impossible to replicate by a human.
It has knees and hips that don't line up with the wearers and stiff ankles.
This suit existed before Patterson rented the camera.
I'm sure you can tell the quality of the suit from that grainy as frick polaroid photo from nineteen shitty nine.
They hate you because you tell them the truth
>Not even Hollywood could make something of that high quality at the time
Could they? Yes, especially to the standards of 16mm film. Would they make five dozen of them for a film when hollywood has been so cheap that they put window screen mesh in front of camera lenses to make them look like another lens? No.
Can you please explain the technological limitation that stopped someone from putting shaped padding under an ape suit and making it to pattersons specifications, based on his prior drawings of a theoretical bigfoot?
>that would have cost so much
Apparently it was $500, or 4k in todays money, and not thrown away, but separated from the underlying padding layer and sold with the ape head it came with (which s the hardest part to make, which is why they used wigs stuck to the guys face and a putty nose)
it was a one off costume intended to make the hoaxsters rich
>Thick straight long hair with no visible skin or patches
>No movable or bendable joints
>Four legs instead of two
It's a female look at the breasts
Welcome. You've now researched the Patterson film by 1%.
>uhhhh it just doesn't FEEL like it was possible back then okay
our numbers are fine, dont worry about it