>I hope I make it to page 10 before anyone sees me...
>>3872333Freeze nigger, put the trips on the ground and walk back with your hands up
keep walking tiddies nigger
This board is for animals not guys in suits
>>3872333Sir, I think you may want to walk over to >>>/x/
i enjoy bob gymlan's videos, but come the fuck on, one of them would have died of a heart attack while in a populated area and been found by now.
>>3872518Unless they avoid populated areas, like most dying animals do
>>3872424I think its easier to believe there may just be ONE thing out there we haven't verified yet as opposed to two dudes having costume technology 20 years ahead of anything else, when they really could have been making the big bucks in hollywood if that were the case instead of wasting their time and talents on this crap.
>>387268020 years? It still can't be replicated today.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRi1VLBxtZc
>>3872333They must jave seen you by now
>>3872680>wasting their time>50 years later some people still think its realThat whole costume shit is so old. If you really want to make something look real and got tons of time on your hand its no problem. >b-but le planet of the apes??Those costumes look like garbage. I could easily make something more realistic. Also, check out the monkeys in 2001 and tell me they look fake
>>3872680If bigfoot is real where are the bomes?
>>3872333I've never actually seen the cleaned up versions of this video. If it were a suit, the person in it would have absolutely fucking bizarre proportions even if the arms are extended with fake hands. Not that I've never seem some literal fucking apes in a human skin before, but one like that would have to be one in a hundred million, possibly with deformity from some genetic disorder.
>>3874408Wtf are you talking aboutHis thumbs line up with his ass.Read about the event. It was staged.The guy was an actual Bigfoot hunter who took campers out to to look for Bigfoots but after recording what was suppose to be proof it existed he couldn't remember where exactly they were to return and inspect the area for more proof.His business was failing and this was a publicity stunt. This wasn't some camper who just happened to be recording at the time.He couldn't even "remember" where he took the film to be developed.It's 100% a scam.
>>3874688What the hell are you even talking about lmfao
>>3874688In normal human body proportions the tip of the fingers reach near the mid thigh with full extension. In the video its arms are bent at an angle and still reach farther than that. They'd be down to the knees fully extended, which isn't possible to do without somekind of fake hand glove to make the arms appear longer, in line with ape proportions. That is the only thing about the proportions that could be easily faked with a suit. I'm at a loss to explain the rest, is my point. If you imagine what its skeletal structure looks like based on the points of articulation, it would have to be a deformed and extraordinarily ugly human in that suit.
Ahhh sweet a schizo thread
>>3874890You really should read about the "encounter" and the conman.>he founded ... the Northwest Research Foundation. Through it he solicited funds . ... The response was encouraging and enabled him to lead several expeditions. ... In 1966 he published a paperback book at his own expense. ... He added the income from its sales and his lectures to the search fund. As each wilderness jaunt failed to see or capture the monster, one by one the thrill-seekers dropped out.>A more serious objection concerns the film's "timeline". This is important because Kodachrome II movie film, as far as is known, could only be developed by a lab containing a $60,000+ machine, and the few West Coast labs known to possess one did not do developing over weekends. Patterson's brother-in-law Al DeAtley claims not to remember where he took the film for development or where he picked it up>In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend. Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.
>>3874945Are you high or just stupid?His elbow is only slightly bent during most of the film and at one point it's completely extended.
Habe fun at your furry convention
>>3875223I'm not a bigfoot/sasquatch nut or anything, but even though there are definite gaps on the story where there shouldn't be, one concern about the film really stands out to me.The creature captured on the film in question. The argument of 'this is a man in a costume' just doesn't add up if you pay really close attention to it. Mind you this was shot in 1967, and though the filming equipment was known to be wonky in the film community, analysis reveals some truths to Patterson's claim, but demands further scrutiny in others. Anywho, back to my point. If this is a man in a costume, this is a VERY VERY well made costume. During watching you can see no bunching of material, sagging, etc. Also, the subject in the original film is a good distance away from the camera it seems, but still appears as quite tall and large.To me this suggests two possibilities. Either these guys went and found an obscenely tall and built individual in 1967, made a suit that a major film production studio fully staffed with skilled tailors and designers would have had trouble making for the time period at their own expense for the sole purpose of perpetrating a ridiculous hoax, or this is a damn sasquatch. It's a shame the original film up and disappeared circa 1980, so all we have left is the copies. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/research-papers/ANALYSIS-INTEGRITY-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiN2aS-lf7xAhWLAZ0JHU_1BcUQFjAEegQIDRAC&usg=AOvVaw3EIE8zDUqxsBEpfB7roPWCMy reference material, Idaho State University inquiry in to the Patterson-Gimlin film. It's a bit of a read, but intriguing.
>>3875236The arm has the elbow angled towards the camera and only rotates. Its never extended full at any point. Not that it matters at all, as you'd know if you weren't a belligerent retard desperate to deboonk what amounts to a thirty year old tourism meme for some reason. Absolutely no one in this universe cares about whether it was a scam or not.
>>3875279Your arguing with an autist, quit while you're ahead, he'll argue all day if need be to prove he's somehow right.
>>3875255The costume is shit.It only appears well made because it's filmed at 75 yards through a camera that has the resolution of Mr magoo.And planet of the apes was released in 1968.
>>3875288So if the subject is at 75 yards dude's pushing well over seven foot tall eh? Gotta say, that's a doosie to find even today, man.
>>3875279>elbow is angled toward the camera.>OP's still frame shows the chest of the costume.You're a special kind of retard.
>>3875292Why stop there?Since there's no reference point just say it's 9 feet tall.
>>3875305This is why it's bad. The camera is definitely zoomed in, making the true reference point unknowable since, as I stated earlier, the original film vanished circa 1980. Without that, you have no reference point. What we're all discussing is pure speculation based off of hearsay with ONE COPIED SEGMENT of a lost film reel to analyze.
Let's look at some facts that surround this film:Where is the filming site?>Patterson: I don't know, can't find the location again.Where did you have the film developed?>Patterson: I don't know.Did you take any measurements of the tree shown in the film directly after the spotting for reference?>Patterson: Nope.Now remember that this guy has written books already on Bigfoot. He takes paying customers on hikes to look for Bigfoot. He charges people for speaking engagements about Bigfoot. All of this BEFORE the film.And yet the simplest questions about this "encounter", that would have proved him right and put him down in history as discoverer of one of the greatest finds since king tuts tomb were answered with "lol, don't know".
>>3875282Yeah but I was bored.>>3875312Just start your own grift and make a documentary about it.
>>3875312The camera he used was RENTED.He was in the middle of filming a docu-drama about bigfoot, complete with costumes.What an amazing coincidence that he just happened to have the rental camera with him on the day he finally saw a bigfoot after hunting it for a decade. Also amazing that the camera was in his saddle bag and not safely back at camp. Because, you know, I always just go for random rides with expensive equipment that I don't plan on using.
>>3872430>>3872478I unironically think cryptids are cooler and more interesting when you remove the supernatural from the equation
Were they really that much better than Hollywood?