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

I am open to the idea of Bigfoot existing for sure. However, the video could be a hoax. I don't see the issue being decided yet. The best thing you can do is get out there on your own and get your own picture/video!

originally posted by: wlee48868
Chewbacca is a interdimensional traveler..

That's what I believe too. That's why no one has been able to "catch" or kill one, just like aliens.

a reply to: andre18

Just what makes a guy that says he a artist a expert in zoology, at best he is a cryptozoologists which is considered a pseudoscienist .

Very few cryptozoologists have degrees in any related science, let alone in zoology or biology. Wayne Dowsent makes no claims to any degrees in any science that I found on his facebook, youtube or his art page pages.

Not saying there no such thing as bigfeet, but until one is caught, found dead and examined by real zoologist,biologist or any related scientific field I'm gonna say unproven.

a reply to: BernnieJGato I think that since no one has approached you with the news information about a definitive Sasquatch sighting, body, etc to your liking then you presume that no one in the world has any compelling or definitive proof…and in my opinion that’s the definition of hubris.
I believe that there are multiple people/ agencies that have a body, have studied it as well as a living specimen. It’s obvious that they do not want you to know about it.
Way too many credible witnesses in law enforcement and military to think otherwise imo.

a reply to: Zrtst

First, the OP said that a guy whose claim to fame is being a artist is a expert who has done a "highly expertly reviewed work".
So what about being a artist makes him a expert on Bigfoot other than studying human and animal anatomy so you can draw, paint, or sculpt them more accurately makes him a expert. I'm a electrician, that doesn't make me a expert on being a cabinet maker even though I worked as a cabinets maker for a few years and have a interest in building them and furniture still. I've also seen some pretty sh@@y cabinetry, and well done work in my opinion, but I 'm no expert it's just my opinion. Same as this, Wayne Dowsent is just some random artist giving his opinion.

Second, Hundreds if not thousands of wannabe cryptologists actively out scouring the forest of North America in the U.S. and Canada looking for Bigfeet. Yet the best evidence to date is some DNA from hair that can't be identified positively or certified as a new species and footprints both in photos and casts, that can't be said for certain that a bigfoot made them.
In the past 50 years with the all advancement in cameras, optics,,infrared, night vision, listening devices, any and all tech that can be used to find one, not one person, group or government agency has gotten a clear shot of one that wasn't blurry or grainy, even when their out in the open not hidden by the trees or brush.

Third, as I said in my post, how come no living or dead ones have ever been captured or found by those hundreds if not thousand of bigfoot hunting cryptologists. Surly they die and for that matter reproduce in the last 50 years or hundreds if you go back on the legends. Not even any bones that would fit the description of one have ever been found to my knowledge. Sure there have been claims but if memory serves all have been identified as some other animal of fake. There is no way that the government is going to be able hide something like that. They weren't able to hide this film, somebody would figure a way around government.

Forth, the original film is lost, and so is the second one that shows Patterson and Gimlin making casts of foot prints. The last time that it was positively seen is in 1972 when Patterson gave it to a film company named American National Enterprises There is speculation on who and where it is now, but the original is not been seen in years. It's said that seven copies were made. Very doubtful that any of the videos seen now are one of those seven. It's fairly safe to say that all now are copies of copies, and copies of video degrade on film then when turned digital it gonna lose some more. I've heard all kinds of explanations of digital copies and how they degrade, and coping vs rendering. Again I'm no expert but with that much copying going on, making claims such as this is laughable.

Lastly, Did you not read the very end of my post, here I'll quote myself,

Not saying there no such thing as bigfeet, but until one is caught, found dead and examined by real zoologist,biologist or any related scientific field I'm gonna say unproven.

What part of that didn't you understand? Did I say that I didn't believe their real?
No, what I said was it is unproven, until real hard evidence is found, not just blurry grainy pictures or film, not DNA from hair that can't be identified positively or certified as a new species or plaster casts, not anyone who says they saw one no matter how much credibility they have it's still unproven. And especially not the work of some random guy that is a artist watching a copy of a copy of how many ever copies.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato

Just what makes a guy that says he a artist a expert in zoology, at best he is a cryptozoologists which is considered a pseudoscienist .

Oh he's definitely not an expert, i should have said that he was an artist who did an expert job at showing this new evidence.
Lol pardon me, sometimes i can over-exaggerate!

originally posted by: Deetermined
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.

Outside of it being a suit, it's reasonable to assume since we dont know how it looks close up, that in fact that's just how it naturally looks. We dont know how bigfoots should look to say it cant look like that. Whether it does look like that or not, just because it looks like it could be a head cover doesnt mean it must be. If you look at google images of gorillas, they have skin covering their face so it makes sense that bigfoots would too.

a reply to: andre18

e his feet are hairless no sneakers i can see clearly

This is the most recent bigfoot video I stumbled across several months ago...

Sasquatch in Henderson County

Personally; I'm a Loch Ness Monster fan.

a reply to: andre18

What gets me... it has a butt crack and boobs.

If it's a suit, someone went out of the box to create it.

originally posted by: wlee48868
Chewbacca is a interdimensional traveler..

That in my eyes is actually dead on target. Im going to provide some info that to many will come right out of left field. Medium channeling spirit from the other side - they interviewed the spirit of a bigfoot from what i can tell, and it's highly highly reveling.

channelingerik.com... 1
channelingerik.com... 2
channelingerik.com... 3
channelingerik.com... 4
channelingerik.com... 5
channelingerik.com... 6
channelingerik.com... 7

originally posted by: andre18
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.

There's no such thing as an expert on Bigfoot, you can't be an expert on something that doesn't exist...

Don't you think we would have found a corpse by now? Or some bones?

Given the human animals coverage of the planet these days, and our exploratory nature, if they did exist i'm sure we would have a better clip of a live one than this obviously "man-in-a suit" clip from years and years ago...

Use you common sense man..

PA

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: andre18

Just what makes a guy that says he a artist a expert in zoology, at best he is a cryptozoologists which is considered a pseudoscienist .

Very few cryptozoologists have degrees in any related science, let alone in zoology or biology. Wayne Dowsent makes no claims to any degrees in any science that I found on his facebook, youtube or his art page pages.

Not saying there no such thing as bigfeet, but until one is caught, found dead and examined by real zoologist,biologist or any related scientific field I'm gonna say unproven.

There are no absolutes in this life. I believe "science" and the hierarchy/food chain associated with it, decide what we hear and see and what we are to accept. I do not for a moment believe that science is an open process of discovery and review. More to the point, like the medical fraternity, those not adhering to the ebb and flow/narrative, are subject to professional assassination and ruin (and possibly worse depending on the discovery and what it threatens to upend).

Personal platform, health and welfare trump far more than rare character and a willingness to standout. From what Ive seen the vast majority of scientists are all too ready to fall in and toe the line.

So relative to the countless Sasquatch sighting reports I've read in books and over the last few decades online, I am highly suspicious of the Patterson-Gimlin gem based on what the footage presents, beyond any grainy details which are at best, often at the mercy of the eye of the beholder.

Time and time again the sighting reports tell us of a very flighty, shy and all to often fleet of foot creature, large in bulk but with the ability to finesse trees and bushes the way a fish does water. The PG film reveals to a large extent, the exact opposite; a lumbering, less-than-fluid humanoid that had every chance to retreat into the foliage but instead opted for the long route across camera, much like a model on the catwalk; wanting to be seen.

Add to all of this the charlatan Patterson was reputed to be.

Many people have set out to film Sasquatch, but Patterson purposefully did the unlikely and the results were astonishing. To me, that's framework that borders on the fantastic.

Though I enjoy the PG film to this day, I remain highly suspicious despite it being what it appears to be simply based on what it demonstrates, and who submitted it. Line it up against the countless historical and ongoing reports of sightings and chance encounters and all things do not seem equal.

Just found this, thought worth sharing. I love how recent discoveries are finally revealing so much!

Spam

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

Or it's a lot of thick skin callouses and the dirt and chalky dust on the ground just looks whitish on it's soles.

"Lets top off this super advanced sasquatch suit (that no special effects company could duplicate at the time), with some bright white high top converse basketball shoes!"

Nah..... I don't think so.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

There is evidence from the last few decades or so that Homo habilis and Homo erectus, though extinct, intermarried with modern humans. www.theatlantic.com...

You're assuming there would have to be a population of bigfeet which was large enough to maintain healthy offspring.

Suppose instead that they live in us and a bigfoot is created when two high-extinct-hominid-dna individuals get together. Once in a generation or so, one of them gets loose somehow. Perhaps their parents don't know what to feed it and it longs for whatever its natural diet is?

Oh, and there are bigfoot experts. They are merely people who are familiar with the evidence, however sketchy. The stabler ones would be the first to tell you they realize there's no proof yet.

If true, it may mean that anyone who finds firm evidence of Bigfoot ought to immediately contact the media. It might save their life. Because, of course, secrets are being kept.

The arguments for this being real is "no one could make that costume back then and it has breasts." Nevermind it it's perfectly framed and they don't follow it into the woods...This was recorded on film? I'm pretty sure you can't just press a button to start recording...

A new theory of mine is Bigfoot is a mass hallucination. This would explain every sighting and why there has never been any real evidence.

a reply to: game over manIf you watch the actual film you will see it's not perfectly framed.

They did not follow it into the woods maybe because it was 7 feet tall.