This Bigfoot Video Has Never Been Solved
This is a zoomed and slowed version of a video known as the Pennsylvania ATV Bigfoot video from 2012. It's one of those that had arguments both for and against, but was never really solved. What do you think? Does it show a bigfoot, or is it just a guy in a hoodie?
fake
ReplyDelete
DeleteLike the Patterson video this has never been disproved,
Bloke in a suit/hoody.
Deletearm ratio is wrong. I believe that there are several videos of REAL BF out there, but this is NOT one of them.
Deletehttp://www.pnas.org/content/108/25/10087.full
DeleteLike the Patterson video this has never been disproved,
This video hasn't a long line of reputable scientists endorsing it, and in turn there is little consorted effort to prove it to be real, therefore a very poor comparison in my opinion. The premise put forward that the PGF subject is organic, is at least in the scientific driving seat; as the years go by and the scoffing underqualified fail so badly to support their ideas with little but circular logic and the lies of people hoaxing a hoax.
DeleteDoctor Andy White's statement as to why combatting fringe ideas in archaeology is important:
DeleteIf you think archaeology is a science that is important and relevant, you should be concerned about how public perception of what we do and how we do it articulates with the growing momentum of “anti-science” in this country. There is increasing disdain for and/or ignorance about what science is and how it works. It is our job to make our own argument about what we do, why it is relevant, and why all ideas about the past are not equally credible or plausible. We should not let proponents of pseudo-scientific “fringe” ideas educate the public about the past. They will make their case, not ours.
DeleteLike the Patterson video this has never been disproved,
.... but it isn`t exactly the same is it ?
DeleteNo...the nearest comparison is that the two contain moving images...that`s about it.
11:05... I wonder how pseudo-scientific science journals from the anthropological authority bar none are? Always amazes me people can openly contradict themselves by leaning upon scientific institutions one minute... Suggest they are pseudoscientific or fringe the next.
DeleteThe other two... Got monkey suit?
Got monkey? That is the real question.
Deletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002UZNGCM?ie=UTF8&at=&force-full-site=1&ref_=aw_bottom_links
Delete... Plenty of monkeys sweetheart, give that DVD a whirl as opposed to Call of Duty.
Iktomi is an admirer of Nazi propaganda techniques, especially that of Goebbels.
ReplyDeleteWhat specifically are you texting about?
DeleteI thought his latest posts were quite reasonable and without rancour...yours are the complete opposite.
DeleteSure has a distinct separation between head/neck/torso-
ReplyDeleteI say guy in a hoodie.
correct
DeleteLOL" never been solved"! . The title is stated as if all the other BF films have been!
ReplyDeletethe one held as the best[P/G] can easily be a man in a suit,as this is
when we see an 8/10ft muscle bound monster[as eye witnesses say] on a film. It will always just be a man in a suit
The P/G film was human sized with nothing to suggest it was a monster. You hear the rise fall, arm/leg ratio stuff! its grasping at straws
eye witness accounts from credible peple is interesting.
these films are always nonsense and make you cringe when the posters claim them as bigfoots
"PG can easily be a man in a suit..."
DeleteSo "easy" that not once has anyone shown how... Telling. The subject's anatomy in the PGF is not collectively within known/modern human limb ratios, and comparative photos of people in the 6.5 feet tall range (McClarin), push the subject in the height range of 7 feet tall. We have plenty of modern humans that tall, but considering all factors, I think someone needs to find a magic monkey suit that subtracts, elongates and steroid-ifies the average human to the extent as what someone impartial sees in the PGF.
@red army, regardless, until amateur researchers learn that some animals are keen and sensitive to electronics and sounds we cant hear (like a dog whistle to a dog) electronics in the field, IMO, is like mosquito repellant to a mosquito- http://www.lifeenergyshields.com/store/what-are-emf-emissions-dangerous/
DeleteAnd come on, you really don't see muscles protruding from the BF in the P/G film? what about the hairy taataas ? and besides, i dont see any duct tape being used on that suit- also, no one has found 'the suit'
thanks for replies. decent points made
Deleteof course I understand the limb ratio in the P/G film. its just not enough for me to say that's a creature known as BF!
The conditions at the time gave hoaxers an advantage. The poor cameras/ distance and jumpiness all helped
The 7ft tall claim is not proven! that's wishfull thinking
if this was proven to be 7ft tall id say that was interesting and adds credibility
Any doc ive watched says the creature was 6.5-6'7 tall[ie Bob height who was there friendand own gait looked like creature]
the biggest believer must be frustrated at the lack of evidence in film, a body etc...We have people taken film of the most incredible things and take great footage
the twin towers etc...all show people can stay calm and focused to film unbelievable scenarios
there is just enough in the P/G film to suggest it couldn't as easily have been a man in a suit.
Obviously I hope Im wrong and BF does exist.we all want that
eye witness accounts from credible people will keep me looking into this from time to time but its now a 1% chance for me
The height has not been Proven, noPatty left a 14 inch track, and most think she was in the height range of 6.5 to 7 feet tall. Also, in the McClarin size comparison for example, McClarin is not only walking away in a different direction to Patty, making him look taller, but he's also 6.5... If he was walking the same route as Patty, she may have been several inches taller than him (in the region of 7 foot). Just to drop this in; Bob H is 6 foot. All these are very decent indicators of average height.
DeleteApe costumes of the day always were shit in dimmed lighting so as to hide suit anomalies. Considering the subject in the footage is shot in direct sunlight, we don't see any suit anomalies. Here is he best Hollywood could devise a couple of years after the PGF was shot;
http://www.dvdverdict.com/images/reviewpics/bionicwoman202.jpg
Good to talk.
Hoax, something wrong with the swing in the arms which seems badly controlled.
ReplyDeleteI believe in Bigfoot 100%, but that's a kid in a gorilla suit man.
ReplyDeleteYep,this does not have the body shape or gait of the Patterson film BF,neck too thin, walk is all wrong,fake.Like I have said before,Bigfoot has become a multi-million dollar "industry"and this another couple of jackasses trying to cash in.
DeleteThere is in fact evidence to support the existence of guys in hoodies. You're learning darling.
ReplyDeleteYou however... Are clearly not.
DeleteOh no. Meltdown in progress. You ok Joe?
DeleteI'm fine darling, more wishful thinking?
DeleteIf your going to try and fake a BF video,don't be so cheap,at least rent a monkey suit and not have your buddy out there in a hoodie.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides,if this creature is so elusive,I doubt one would be standing in the open with a loud as hell ATV approaching.
ReplyDeleteThis creature is so elusive that there is zero proof of it's existence.
DeleteYet there is a buttload of crappy evidence. Doesn't compute.
The creature is not so elusive that we don't have evidence. This "crappy evidence" is in fact forensic in nature that stops short of classification. A lack of proof does not consitute a lack of evidence, and just because you can't explain it away, does not render it "crappy"... It is in fact your biggest obstacle. If things exist in physical reality they are measured by their physical sign.
DeleteCompute that.
A lot of words to say there is no real evidence, Joe.
Delete