posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008
I believe the Patterson film is the real deal, as the creature had breasts, something they would not have thought of when faking it.
I cant say for sure whether that video is real or not. It is a convincing video but so was the dogman video.
You say that breasts are something they would not have thought of, but thats exactly my point. You are not giving film makers and hoaxers enough
credit. They do think of these small details for exactly the reason of making people think a video is more credible.
What i find the most strange about the PG film, is that in over 50 years of people actively searching for bigfoot, this video is by far the best
evidence out there.
Our technology keeps increasing, there are thousands of trail cams set up in really remote areas and yet we still have no real evidence.
I also find it odd that P&G supposedly set out looking for a big foot and they find one on their first mission out and not one person has ever come
close to having a real video like this.
Were they that lucky? First trip out to find a big foot with a super 8 and they manage to get this amazing footage? Seems a little fishy to me.
If I made a thread on ATS and said, "hey everyone, i'm going out camping tonight to look for bigfoot." and then tomorrow I post a video of a
creature that looks like big foot, I would be destroyed as a hoaxer.
I or anyone else can conclusively prove that the PG film is real or fake. But I find it very suspicious.
I would love for bigfoot to be a real creature and I will not deny that there is some circumstantial evidence that points to something
mysterious(footprints, a few inconclusive hair samples, random videos and lots of eye witness accounts) but this is not proof of anything. The videos
are usually very blurry and shot from a long ways away, proving nothing. And the eye witness accounts only prove that people are easily freaked out
in the woods and can misidentify animals.