New Bigfoot Video Making the Rounds

[IloveTHIS]

No, I don't.


Another mischaracterization. Kindly kick rocks.

I'm fairly certain you're lying but I'm not going to waste time digging up old posts. Either way, enjoy. Don't let any cryptids eat you or haunt you!

 

[ShadBo]

No, I don't.


Another mischaracterization. You guys see yourselves as so obviously correct about a joke topic, and attacking low hanging fruit, yet can't even be honest while debating. Kindly kick rocks.

Tell me more about the positions you're assigning to me.

 

[BearGrounds]

I'm fairly certain you're lying but I'm not going to waste time digging up old posts. Either way, enjoy. Don't let any cryptids eat you or haunt you!

So you won't prove it, in other words? Thought you people were so adamant about supplying proof?

<puh-lease75>

 

[BearGrounds]

Tell me more about the positions you're assigning to me.

Am I wrong? If I am, by all means, explain.

 

[Oeshon]

funny how its always blurry and covered. why can't we get bigfoot in 4k with some drone shots mixed in? lol

 

[ShadBo]

Am I wrong? If I am, by all means, explain.

I'm open to the idea that an unknown species of ape exists. At this time it seems very unlikely.

This will be my position until something that meets a minimum standard of evidence can be shown to support the actual existence of the creature.

I haven't been arguing about the existence of this creature. I've been arguing about the reasoning that leads people to adopt positions that are either: not evidently true, or evidently not true.

At some points I've got down in the mud, but, I mean, all work and no play and alla that.

 

[BearGrounds]

I'm open to the idea that an unknown species of ape exists. At this time it seems very unlikely.

This will be my position until something that meets a minimum standard of evidence can be shown to support the actual existence of the creature.

I haven't been arguing about the existence of this creature. I've been arguing about the reasoning that leads people to adopt positions that are either: not evidently true, or evidently not true.

At some points I've got down in the mud, but, I mean, all work and no play and alla that.

I don't begrudge nonbelievers and never have. There's reason for doubt, and I've always acknowledged that fact. It's the condescension and constant ridicule of believers that bothers me, and I normally don't bother with said types of skeptics (aside from perhaps trolling a bit) because it's simply a fruitless endeavor. Nobody wants to talk much with assholes when discussing anything, be it Bigfoot, physics, biology, etc.

When talking about evidence, I think it's important to view it in its entirety. This means taking into account all the eyewitness reports (of which there are thousands - The Late John Green compiled a pretty extensive database, I'll link an interview with him below), all of the supposed video and image captures of varying quality, and all of the trackway/print evidence. There's also exists questionable skat and hair samples, but they're classified as unknown animal because you can't cross check them with anything confirmed. It's the sheer amount of soft evidence that makes a compelling case, especially given the ecological and biological grounds for their existence being more than suitable.

They do alter their environments, BTW. They leave sign just like any other animal, you just have to know what to look for. They often mark their territories like deer do. Tree branch twisting is a common example. Another is the breaking over of a sapling at a height of which they can reach, which indicates their presence to others - much like bears that scratch off bark to warn others that they rule the region.

Keep in mind that only one story/track/video/image out of all of them has to be real. Just one.

Still, without the hard evidence (a body or substantial part of one being hand delivered into the proper scientific establishment, which is then made public) the case remains unsolved - and understandably so.

This is often why I urge people to set aside their bias about the potential for conspiracy and see what they come up with if they work backwards from the assumed position that the creatures exist, and if they do, how is it that it's still, to this date, unconfirmed. That, to me, is where this entire thing really gets interesting (But, admittedly, that's perhaps because I've moved on from a position of uncertainty).

John Green



For anyone interested, Bigfoot Eyewitness Radio is a good YT channel for getting into eyewitness reports.

 

[ShadBo]

I don't begrudge nonbelievers and never have. There's reason for doubt, and I've always acknowledged that fact. It's the condescension and constant ridicule of believers that bothers me, and I normally don't bother with said types of skeptics (aside from perhaps trolling a bit) because it's simply a fruitless endeavor. Nobody wants to talk much with assholes when discussing anything, be it Bigfoot, physics, biology, etc.

When talking about evidence, I think it's important to view it in its entirety. This means taking into account all the eyewitness reports (of which there are thousands - The Late John Green compiled a pretty extensive database, I'll link an interview with him below), all of the supposed video and image captures of varying quality, and all of the trackway/print evidence. There's also exists questionable skat and hair samples, but they're classified as unknown animal because you can't cross check them with anything confirmed. It's the sheer amount of soft evidence that makes a compelling case, especially given the ecological and biological grounds for their existence being more than suitable.

They do alter their environments, BTW. They leave sign just like any other animal, you just have to know what to look for. They often mark their territories like deer do. Tree branch twisting is a common example. Another is the breaking over of a sapling at a height of which they can reach, which indicates their presence to others - much like bears that scratch off bark to warn others that they rule the region.

Keep in mind that only one story/track/video/image out of all of them has to be real. Just one.

Still, without the hard evidence (a body or substantial part of one being hand delivered into the proper scientific establishment, which is then made public) the case remains unsolved - and understandably so.

This is often why I urge people to set aside their bias about the potential for conspiracy and see what they come up with if they work backwards from the assumed position that the creatures exist, and if they do, how is it that it's still, to this date, unconfirmed. That, to me, is where this entire thing really gets interesting (But, admittedly, that's perhaps because I've moved on from a position of uncertainty).

John Green



For anyone interested, Bigfoot Eyewitness Radio is a good YT channel for getting into eyewitness reports.

I appreciate the effort you made with this post.

 

[franklinstower]

You think me not offering my own conjecture about unidentified objects is tantamount to lying?

I'll do it for you now:

People have experiences that they cannot explain, and due to the fallibility of the human brain, they quite often come to conclusions that aren't warranted.



You complain when I keep my posts short but refuse to engage when I type out more than a few sentences.

There's just no way to satisfy someone who is determined to hold on to their untenable positions.

If that is your best shot after repeated requests and in your words "extensive research" then I think you are in 6th grade. No kidding man. You are in no position to mock anyone with that foot forward.


Now let me be serious. Its more enjoyable to converse with people (even when they are wrong as you think I am) than try to shame or argue with them. You will get so much more out of it that it could blow your mind man. You are missing something important about life here.

 

[franklinstower]

First off it jumps out at you right off the bat the “creature” and the foreground and background are of a different dynamic range, right off the bat.

I’d need to open it on my pc and open it with one of my photo softwares but I guarantee the pixel densities are different too.

Then there is the fact the creature itself looks fake as fuck too.

Just FYI. That is a still taken from minutes of footage in the woods and the object moves while its being shot. (not saying is legit just FYI)

 

[ShadBo]

If that is your best shot after repeated requests and in your words "extensive research" then I think you are in 6th grade. No kidding man. You are in no position to mock anyone with that foot forward.

You've come to this conclusion because I'm refusing to let you shift the burden of proof.

You want me to offer an explanation for things that are unidentified and unknown. If I did that, I would be you.

Now let me be serious. Its more enjoyable to converse with people (even when they are wrong as you think I am) than try to shame or argue with them. You will get so much more out of it that it could blow your mind man. You are missing something important about life here.

I'm not trying to shame you. I'm trying to point out the errors in your reasoning.

 

[FyrFytr998]

How many times do you think what were thought to be "Bigfoot Sightings" were really just "Hairy men fucking eachother" in "the woods"?????

Yeah man....”Bears” do love themselves a good fuck session.

 

[franklinstower]

You've come to this conclusion because I'm refusing to let you shift the burden of proof.

You want me to offer an explanation for things that are unidentified and unknown. If I did that, I would be you.




I'm not trying to shame you. I'm trying to point out the errors in your reasoning.

That's not what happened.

You claimed to have once been a believer and then did "extensive research" which changed your mind but cannot offer any depth of knowledge on the subject to show other than little quips.

It doesn't matter man. You are doing what you like to do which is try to shame people for holding different views from you. This is immaturity no matter how common it is on the net.

 

[Scrody]

so which one of these experiences are you absolutely certain was a bigfoot, despite literally not seeing any bigfoot or finding a single piece of actual...........proof?

"I heard something run in the woods" omg a bigfoot!

"a rock fell in the river" HOLY SHIT A BIGFOOT IS MESSING WITH US

I guess you had to have been there.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

what was that Hedberg joke?
Perhaps Bigfoot is just blurry, and the fact that there's a large, out of focus monster roaming the countryside is even scarier to me

 

[90 50]

right? I dont want to give the guy too hard of a time but I havent stopped laughing at that post since I read it. the number of possible RATIONAL explanations is endless, but he jumps straight to "Im absolutely certain it was a bigfoot. thats a fact. something doesn't just splash in a river and it NOT be a bigfoot"

Right, I mean fish jump and shit <45>

 

[franklinstower]

Me and my brother have been to one particular spot that we've had two strange experiences at, one that I'm certain was the Foot himself.

The first time that we went out there, we heard a gigantic bipedal creature take off across a bunch of rocks next to a river, as well as blowing through the brush. I remember getting the wiggins because it didn't sound like anything I'd heard before.

The second time, a large rock was hurled into a creek right next to the trail we were on, and we heard repeated knocks on trees around us. We were fairly positive of being alone, as it's a 45 minute drive on a gravel road and then the hike starts. We were on our way out, didn't see anyone after the incident and the trail head was empty except for our vehicle.

How big of a rock are we talking man? Is there any way that rock could have come from a cliff above? Also you said you heard a large bipedal creature running by the river. How big did it sound like to you? Could it have been a really big man or do you think it was way bigger than that.

 

[90 50]

Just FYI. That is a still taken from minutes of footage in the woods and the object moves while its being shot. (not saying is legit just FYI)

None of that explains the differences in the photographic nature of the image in center being of a different form than the rest of the shot.

And the fact that it looks fake as fuck too, especially the eyes.

The “creature” looks unnatural as fuck, and there are technical problems with the photo. It’s bullshit.

 

[franklinstower]

None of that explains the differences in the photographic nature of the image in center being of a different form than the rest of the shot.

And the fact that it looks fake as fuck too, especially the eyes.

The “creature” looks unnatural as fuck, and there are technical problems with the photo. It’s bullshit.

Unfortunately there is no way to pull up the actual footage from YouTube of his documentary. I would love to get your take on that too because its possible the image I posted has been shopped as it is for a fingernail.......

 

[90 50]

Unfortunately there is no way to pull up the actual footage from YouTube of his documentary. I would love to get your take on that too because its possible the image I posted has been shopped as it is for a fingernail.......

Post the vid here, when I get time I’ll download it and rip it in my editing software frame by frame.