Bigfoot. Is it possible they exist?

Today I spotted Gabe in a Bigfoot thread.

That is by far the most conclusive evidence I have ever seen regarding the existence of Bigfoot.
 
I think MK Davis and also Bill Munn make a great case that the Patterson film is legit and yes I know that Patterson was a known conman. MK Davis breaks down things like the musculature while Bill Munn measured the proportions from the original film. Munn being one of the only people alive that has had access to the original.

First here is MK Davis discussing some of the frames.


And here is the Bill Munn analysis
 
Even if it's not possible, which I think it is, it would be truly interesting either way. A large Primate supposedly running around the woods of the Pacific Northwest, which are absolutely enormous (To give you an idea of the PNW's ability to hide things, there have been many small aircraft that have disappeared over it and never been found.) and by chance, just happens to be the location of where the Gigantopithicus, a very real creature who existed a long time ago, would have went after walking across the ice bridge from Asia. Add in the huge amount of sightings by very credible People from all walks of like and over centuries, the footprints with dermal ridges that couldn't have been faked during the 70's and a video that many industry experts have claimed could never have been faked at that time and you have a genuine mystery on your hands.

I definitely think it's possible. But what bothers me is the lack of physical evidence and the fact that there would have to be a population large enough to breed.
 
Scientists and archaeologists have found like 60 "missing links" since the 1800s. Either bigfoot resarchers are extremely bad at their hobby, or it doesn't exist. And since I lived near bigfoot country in BC, I can confidently say its both.
 
MusterX said:
I think MK Davis and also Bill Munn make a great case that the Patterson film is legit and yes I know that Patterson was a known conman. MK Davis breaks down things like the musculature while Bill Munn measured the proportions from the original film. Munn being one of the only people alive that has had access to the original.

First here is MK Davis discussing some of the frames.


And here is the Bill Munn analysis
Click to expand...



I can't believe anybody hasn't seen the story on this where they had the guy who wore the suit. Everybody in the area knew it was him when they saw the film because he has a very distinctive walk.
 
ralphc1 said:
I can't believe anybody hasn't seen the story on this where they had the guy who wore the suit. Everybody in the area knew it was him when they saw the film because he has a very distinctive walk.
Click to expand...

There is nobody on the planet that could have made a suit that detailed in 1967, for that matter, we still can't do it today 48 years later.
 
cmw43 said:
It's definitely possible.

In the last 10 years they discovered a new species of 6ft super Chimps in the Congo that they call 'Lion Killer Chimps'.

That's basically like finding bigfoot to me.

Just look at the guns on this guy.

image9-e1420990132413.jpg


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/jul/14/conservation.internationalnews
Click to expand...

This is really interesting. I had not heard about this.

About 100 years ago a famous explorer posed for a photograph with a giant chimp. Since then people have insisted the famous photograph is fake because they claim it's a perspective trick with the chimp's corpse closer to the camera than the explorer. I wonder if that chimp was one of these chimps.
 
Pick this up at the 1:37 mark. Look at the muscles under the hair in the thighs and calves, upper arms, and breasts. Patti is a female. Now keep in mind this is 1967. If that is a suit its the greatest piece of prop work ever constructed. Modern Hollywood costume specialists have looked at it and said if it was a hoax its the greatest one ever made.

 
Bigfoot is like the opposite of chupacabra (coyote with mange). So it's probably some crazy inbred family with hypertrichosis.
 
MusterX said:
There is nobody on the planet that could have made a suit that detailed in 1967, for that matter, we still can't do it today 48 years later.
Click to expand...

There were and are plenty of people who could make a suit. When the video first came out they had several costume makers pointing out things on it that made it a pretty poor costume. The self proclaimed experts read so much more into the grainy images and scoff at the thought that they could be fooled.

It's like having a scientist study a magic trick instead of having a magician tell you how it's done.

Do you still believe that the picture of the Loch Ness monster is real even though the man who took it admitted it was a hoax?
 
ralphc1 said:
There were and are plenty of people who could make a suit. When the video first came out they had several costume makers pointing out things on it that made it a pretty poor costume. The self proclaimed experts read so much more into the grainy images and scoff at the thought that they could be fooled.

It's like having a scientist study a magic trick instead of having a magician tell you how it's done.

Do you still believe that the picture of the Loch Ness monster is real even though the man who took it admitted it was a hoax?
Click to expand...

Nope, don't believe Loch Ness exists, I do, however, believe the Patterson/Gimlin film is legit. Doesn't matter if we don't agree, its just one of those things. There are people that say its legit, and people that say its a hoax and you just fall on one side or the other. There have been arguments over this film going on 50 years now.
 
The bigfoot in the original video has a big rack of tits if you look close enough.

Also, is more than one bigfoot called bigfeet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,668
Messages
58,310,365
Members
175,997
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top