New Review Of Big Foot Footage Prooving Once And For All Bigfoot Is Real?

In this highly expertly reviewed work, the expert gives in my opinion the strongest case for its legitimacy, in the hair by its waste-side is visibly missing the exact location it would be if it was worn down over many years brushed by its arms in walking motion.

At the same time to be fair, it could potentially be augured that some how the designer(s) of the suit had actually thought of this in its conceptualization. Which i believe to be more farfetched in of itself as an absurd level of attention to detail then it being faked.

I don't understand the obsession with this video among BFooters. The continued debate over this particular video, in my opinion, weakens the idea of it being real. This is simply by virtue of technology rapidly growing yet the community still has not produced a more definitive clip. I would think this Patterson-Gimlin clip is irrelevant by now.

a reply to: euwhajavb

What kind of a more definitive clip are you expecting exactly?

Why does big foot have white sneakers on ?
If you look in the beginning of this 4k enhanced stabilized thing.. you can see it.

Try and pause at 6:37 in the video

Big foot is a cousin of the Nephlim which still walk on this planet.

Male and female Bigfoot do procreate and have offspring. One reason why their sightings are more frequent----baby Bigfoot grow up.






a reply to: andre18

a reply to: andre18

You meant by how it looks like loose clothes flapping around a man’s leg?





Leg muscle doesn’t move like that. Muscle flexes in place, muscle doesn’t roll around.

I do see something white-ish on the bottom of its feet.I don’t think it’s the bottom of natural feet, they wouldn’t be that white . .. also when he walks his thigh area seems loose . Like it’s A loose pant leg or something … but , ive always thought this was a fake, just a guy in a costume …so maybe I’m being overly critical ….However , I believe there is something to the Bigfoot theory, and American Indian lore . I just don’t think this video is it .

originally posted by: Spacespider
Why does big foot have white sneakers on ?
If you look in the beginning of this 4k enhanced stabilized thing.. you can see it.

Try and pause at 6:37 in the video

Thats valid. Could also be a combination of the 4k over exposure and its feet actually being hairless like every other animal.

a reply to: neutronflux

Good find, can you please time stamp that moment? not sure exactly if we're looking at the same thing.

Is that at 3:14 when the guy says the 'they move and quiver and act like shock absorbers"?

If that is the moment you're referring, it looks like the muscle is moving as he describes it would. But i dont know muscle behavior enough to count out your point.

a reply to: andre18

I'm sorry, but when this "bigfoot" turns to look at the camera, his face is clearly white and looks like he's wearing a furry hood and furry mask around the mouth area. There is no blending of the hairline. There is a distinct border.

a reply to: Deetermined

Yeah i found that's a good reason to discount the footage as well. Only way around that is to entertain bigfoots do in fact wear their fur in that distinct way. But that sounds more like grasping for straws than a logical rebuttal.

Chewbacca is a interdimensional traveler..

a reply to: Deetermined

However, i just came across this sketch example, which may be a great indication of what its face looked like close up. Showing how the distinct border makes sense and why his face is clear.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: andre18

I'm sorry, but when this "bigfoot" turns to look at the camera, his face is clearly white and looks like he's wearing a furry hood and furry mask around the mouth area. There is no blending of the hairline. There is a distinct border.

Sorry, I don't see this.

I did notice the white soles of the feet, and that's odd, but the colors in the video appear to be pretty badly washed out, and the soles of the feet look to be the same color as the rocks he's walking past, so perhaps that could just be dirt or mud sticking to the bottom of the feet.

a reply to: andre18

It’s something I noticed and posted before here on ATS when the film came up before. It might be something pointed out in some other source which will be properly cited. I just remembered the gist of the argument and had the screenshots in my pics storage here at ATS. I’ll see If I can find the other thread…. But it’s a pain to search around ATS if you post a lot.

a reply to: andre18

I wish I could find the thread. I remember more now. Someone posted this stop motion blink comparison. I can’t remember if it was support of, or “debunking”. But it brought to light how the “muscle” was moving to me.


———

I try to stay out of these threads. It’s seems Bigfoot is more of a religion than science to some people….

a reply to: andre18
The original film restoration was done by these people:
play.history.com...

This has a very long analysis and details many little points only visible by the new, stabilized film. The original film was lost over time. But there were copies of it. These folks copied each of the copies and combined them to remove imperfections. Then the video was stabilized and the whole scene was built up. An amazing job.

This one has always been one of my favorites. Play with sound high. PG is whatever it is, but isn't going to change anybody's mind.

The important question is, has he had his booster jab?

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: Deetermined

However, i just came across this sketch example, which may be a great indication of what its face looked like close up. Showing how the distinct border makes sense and why his face is clear.

Notice how in your sketch the hair blends clear down into the eyes? Not so in the video. You can see a clear hairless forehead in the video when he faces the video camera.