At the risk of a stupid thread I just wanted to see what you peeps thought of this very famous video can't say I give two you know what's about Bigfoot. Can't say I'm a believer. But damn that video is weird AF I consider myself a logical person with ability to formulate valid arguments I appreciate critical thinking. But this video honestly gives me the creeps you really can see vascularity in certain parts. The thigh def shows a hernia indentation. It definitely walks weird with the sole of the feet perpendicular to the ground in some parts. Arms are long AF. It's got titties whatever it is. And that head movement in that frame when she looks back at the camera. You can't do that in a costume especially one made in the 1960s (Film was shot in 1968) just a weird home movie Comment at will It's mostly for fun but I don't know ....
Actually the direct opposite bud. I want to debunk this video so bad. Here's what Hollywood was messing around with in 1968 The two guys who shot the video, Patterson and Gimlin, probably had an IQ of 150 That's combined
I dunno, I don't think it's real, but many experts have analyized it and most think it real. I think it's a dude in a rented suit
I am a cryptozoology fan and I'd say 9/10 videos or photos I've seen of anything, I can immediately call bullshit or mistaken identity. I've always been on the fence with this one. There are definitely moments when you can see muscles rippling and forehead frowning, and those things were simply not easy to get hold back then, in terms of a costume, if at all. See the POTA movies as the prime example of what a 'great ape costume' looked like back then, and see how many of those fuckers could frown in those shitty masks. The back story to the video sounds very iffy though, I can see why anyone would doubt it. Gun to head...... I think it's genuine. There, I said it.
PG is the best Bigfoot evidence to date. No one has conclusively debunked it. The movements from the subjects are beyond what anyone has gotten from their modern fake videos
I've spent a good deal of time researching the Patterson-Gimlin account. I am rather convinced it is authentic, but hesitate to fully commit to believing it's real. The shoulder width and proportions of the arms are convincing, as well as the shin rise and vertical foot when striding. Below is a bio-mechanical expert's analysis (Dmitri Donskoy, used to train Russian Olympians). If it's a hoax, it's extraordinarily well done, especially for it's time - as the suit, if it is one, is above and beyond the day's top cinematic quality. Not only that, but how they established the realistic shoulder width and arm proportions defies understanding, as well as the shin rise. The only characteristic of the subject that seems somewhat off to me, is the region where the ass meets the leg. It's abruptly bulbous and looks somewhat like it could be a suit to me there, where the torso is separate and is pulled up over the leg, or slipped into. But as far as the rear end is concerned, Brown University Biologist Christine Janis did have this to say, "It's not a logical argument to claim that because Bigfoot looks like no known ape that it can't be any type of unknown ape. Should another ape (besides ourselves) have evolved the habitual bipedal walking, then they would also have likely evolved methods of stabilizing the mass of the trunk over the hips, such as enlarging the gluteus maximus muscles as in humans, which is what gives us our larger buttocks. Note that the members of the horse family, which habitually fight by standing on the hind legs, have larger gluteal muscles than other hoofed mammals, and correspondingly larger, more rounded buttocks. A Bigfoot with a big rear end is actually a predictable likelihood rather than an impossibility." Lastly, Heironimus is a fraud as is Phillip Morris. Neither of them has any proof that they played a role in the video, yet skeptics seem to willingly take them at their words on this topic, while scoffing at the reliability of eyewitness accounts, which is ironic.
There's a great podcast by Astinishing Legends that go into depth, like over 5 hours worth. It's amazingly convincing but I'm still not 100% convinced. They say there's gluteus action but I just don't see it. That ass looks like implants to me. And hairy. Like it's going to be a very dirty time every time it poops. If this is meant to be female owing to breasts then I think groinal and ass area would have more indicators due to other apes having these markers of sexuality. And there's a lot of discussion made about the gait and how it kicks up the feet so high you can see its soles. I don't see that as natural, even in an unnatural creature.
I've always been on the fence with it. Reason makes me always lean to guy in a Suit. But dude looks massive and we are talking about the 60s here , pretty elaborate suit for that time.
The gait makes sense when you take into account that the hip structure and legs of a Sasquatch are different from a human's, generating a different degree of shin rise. They're bipedal creatures that navigate forest terrain, and lifting up the foot as such would likely be an evolutionary advantage, as it allows for better clearance, thus reducing the likelihood of tripping over brush, rocks, or other forest floor features. Humans learn to walk on flat surfaces, and our shin rise is much less pronounced. We also straighten the forward leg when striding, whereas the PG subject keeps its knee bent (this is better for absorbing impact, especially if you weigh upwards of 500 lbs). EDIT: I should also add, that you'd expect someone wearing a huge cumbersome suit, with oversized feet, to get worse at walking when they wore it, not better. The motion of the creature is smooth and without any indication of mobile difficulty (the biomechanical breakdown I posted above outlines this in detail).
I think the only way Bigfoot could be real is if it's some sort of interdimensional being. The fact that something so large is so rarely seen and never 100% clearly viewed (other than this video if real). Also never found a skeleton or corpse. We found skeletons millions of years old but never a bigfoot? Seems odd.
It’s crazy that now that everyone has a camera in there pocket no one can catch a video of one but back in the 60s when no one had cameras these two just happened to have one and be filming and caught Bigfoot on tape .
Exactly. How is it in a world where everyone has a camera in their pocket this video for more than 40 years ago is still the only one clearly showing bigfoot? Also, like I said, absolutely zero physical evidence that they exist?
Ive spent a lotta time up in those Redwoods, dealing with the hill people that live there Its more likely that thats a hairy ass 6th generation inbred hillbilly demon baby produced by a granny on grandson four way fuck fest
Wasn't this video filmed in the same day the guy bought a camera with which he wanted to prove Bigfoot existence?
