Added: 4 years ago
From: 23Eulogy23
Views: 45,204
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (387)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This was an excellent documentary. They covered all the angles and it was a workman-like piece of work. One of the best and most comprehensive looks at the possibility of the existence of Bigfoot. I give it four stars.

  • all these cynical fucking douche bags really piss me off how much they fight trying to say that this species doesnt exist. it just makes me really look forward to when they finally DO discover it and it'll shut all these little debbie downer punk bitches up for good.

    have you idiots even seen the suit they made "proving" the pattersoon footage to be fake? its laughable. the arms are NO WHERE near the length of patty, they even have bushes covering the suits legs so you couldn't compare.

  • Good vid! It's nice to see that at least some scientists are taking an interest in this subject, and that 21st century technology may finally bring this matter to a resolution.

  • very good best one yet

  • I try to keep an open mind. So, why does it have to be fake? Because it's not in a glass case for everyone to see? The wilderness of North America is so vast that if there is a small population of them it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. If they are out there, they're small in number, intelligent, and will avoid human contact like any other wild creature, all the researchers have to go on is secondary evidence. The giant squid was questioned, until they found one.

  • Sash quash? Ancient Aliens did it.

  • @XBattleDude They are probably going extinct like the Neanderthal did that's why there are so few. And they are most likely intelligent enough to stay hidden from us.

  • These guys were all paid off. No independence research done at all here.

  • @silvereagle2061 what would be the point of it? And on national television no less. Most people don't believe and won't be convinced until we capture one and display it at a zoo.

  • Meldrum said the Snow Walker footage was the real thing. He was wrong. Meldrum believes in the memorial Day Footage. Again, another fake.

    Meldrum is always on these shows because they can't find anywhere else who believes in this garbage.

  • @eminboztepe I am not arguing, but I don't know if those things were proven fake. Rumors get started easily and it may be difficult to tell what is fake and what is not. I saw some opinions on the Memorial Day footage and there is some kind of chatter about the people being drunk and wanting to make money in someone's posting of opinion.

  • @rockstarzep

    The Snow Walker footage was made for a tv show. Google it.

    The Memorial Day footage is an obvious fake which this show wisely left out the audio. You can hear the late bigfooter Fred Bradshaw talking in the background. What a coincidence, eh?

  • @3:00 to 3:35 is either evidence or is 100% fabrication by Meldrum. I believe that Meldrum is honest and wants to advance scientific knowledge of our world. It is not an ego thing. He doesn't want to lose his job or credibility from people that fear his goals.

  • More babblin' bullshit that proves nothing.

  • @3:00 to 3:35 is evidence that is very very very very unlikely to be tabulated hoaxes or tabulated significant hoax and real mixed. It is probably a very high percentage of real (95-100%), indicating a natural species.

  • These three posts are all posted as "reply" to Eminboztepe; that doesn't show for some reason, so they may seem nonsequeters. That's another interesting point, that Patterson wanted to make a fiction film on the subject and apparently couldn't get budget. Interestingly similar to what I've read about the making of King Kong, whose director wanted to make a gorilla documentary, but couldn't get travel budget, so he made a fiction film in Louisiana (I think it was?)

  • That is interesting; is there anywhere to see the uneditted film? Perhaps most impressive against the film's believabilty. is that Patterson was some sort of pro photographer (I think?), but then though the film is a bit blurry it is by no means singularly so.

  • @TOMHYLE88

    In short, no. You will never see the original, unedited film negative. No one was ever allowed to, and it has been conveniently "lost".

    Think on that.

  • I suspect it never did (remember?) If one were going to save some part, whether to commemorate one's great work or whatever, I'd think one would save the impressive part; the moving muscles, for instance

  • @TOMHYLE88

    You commit fraud. What's the first thing you do? Get rid of the evidence.

    Even the children who took the Cottingley Fairy photos were smart enough to destroy the cut-outs immediately. The man who made the "alien autopsy" hoax destroyed the dummy immediately. The man who took the "surgeon's photo" of the loch ness monster destroyed the toy sub immediately.

    Common sense.

  • @seymourbbest niether I nor anyone else had said anything about Star Trek. Why dole out the information in little bits? If you have an argument make the whole thing. What evidence is there about the age of this mask? (second time of the asking) What evidence is there it is the same face? The face in the film is not that crisp. Eminbozetepe may need to familiarize himself with some fat people, BTW. I have creases. (second time of the telling)

  • @TOMHYLE88

    Here's some other fun facts for you. You have never seen the original, unedited film negative. No one was ever allowed to see it or know (to this day) where it was developed. All copies you see today have been edited. What was edited and why? Good question. Obviously there was something they didn't want seen. Also, Roger had a history of hoax making and was a con artist. His credit reports and his own family have verified that.

  • @seymourbbest where is the rest of the suposed suit?

  • @TOMHYLE88

    Why do you assume the suit still exists?

  • The mask is a decent match for appearance. I could make one, too though, after the fact, copied, that looks good sitting still, so what's that got to do with anything? What I specifically asked you about was suits that move like the Patterson film. The face is not one of the parts whose movements are so especially convincing in that film. Please show me moving pictures from the 1960s of a man in a fur suit that are as convincing as Patterson's?

  • @TOMHYLE88

    You could make a mask, yes, but that mask was made the year prior to the PGF and was WORN BY A CO-WORKER OF ROGER'S at Corriganville for a Star Trek episode. AND it was made by a business associate of Roger's. That's IMPOSSIBLE to be a coincidence.

    As for your question, I see a man in a suit. You want a film that is similiar? Good luck because NO ONE filmed in Kodachrome film, during the 60's or otherwise. Why? Because of the blurry results you get here. Think on that.

  • @eminboztepe Impossible? Are you certain you understand the meaning of that word? You seem to mean unlikely. Why not tell us more about the confessions/claims of hoaxing/suit making; is there someplace we can read these entire claims must we get them bit by bit. You seem to presume I'm some kind of bigfoot enthusiast that knows what you're talking about; I'm not; I don't

  • @TOMHYLE88

    No, I meant impossible. The odds of that happening would be astronomical: it simply cannot happen. As far as confessions, read up on Al DeAtley. He was Roger's wealthy brother in law and admitted in recent years that the film was a money scam to pull his paving comapny out of the red.

  • @TOMHYLE88

    Another thing. Roger wasn't making a documentary: he was making a movie about him and his buddies tracking down bigfoot to a secret mountain led by a scraggly old miner and an Indian tracker (played by Bob H.). His funds ran out, so Al told showed him how to make some real money: fake a real life encounter and sell that instead. Al DeAtley made millions off it.

  • Comment removed

  • That's not a video, eminbozetepe; it is a series of still shots. The most impactful thing in it is the upside down shoulder claim, mainly because with the lack of detailed explanation I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. The lines you claim as suit joints are the same as creases that appear in the skin of living animals; I have a crease like that at my hip, for instance. Your series of stills and laconic comments accompanying do not address the specific concerns I have raised at all.

  • @TOMHYLE88

    Wrong. There is no animal on earth that has crease going across the thigh, or a slant line going down the neck, or a line around the waist, or a immovable diaper butt that has lines reflecting that, etc. Yet suits during that same era did? I didn't even mention Al DeAtley's confession, or Irene Prohaska's stitch pattern on "Patty's" arm, etc.

    Good luck convincing anyone that it's all a big coincidence, LOL.

  • eminboztepe; Enough of us have a line around our waists that it has a name (muffin top) I have a diagonal line on the side of my neck where the big muscle runs that pulls my head forward. I have a big saggy butt. I am an animal; I live on this planet. I don't have a crease around my neck, but a lot of people do, especially for whatever reason people of Mexican ancestry. So the film is blurry; so what? lots of old fim is blurry or families eating barbecues. Are those hoax barbecues?

  • @TOMHYLE88

    1. You don't have a diagonal line in the very spot that headpieces from suits are fastened into.

    2. Do you have a horizontal thigh muscle? Patty does. And thigh pads do too.

    3. You can see the diaper pad on Patty. In my video I clearly point out the lines to top and bottom of it. Bet you don't have that either. If you do, you are one of a kind.

  • Of course the "debunkers" produce the mask; the part that proves nothing and is never cited for its particular extra convincingness; the part that does little or nothing in the film; let them, however, produce a suit from the 1960s that behaves in the manner shown in the film; they haven't; they won't, because they can't. That's what I'm "babbling' about.

  • A bigfoot could walk right into a skeptic's house, and that skeptic still wouldn't believe,  that's being willingly ignorant.

  • @soulwinnerism

    We could have a picture of Roger Patterson holding the bigfoot suit used in the film but the believers still wouldn't accept it as a hoax. That's willingly ignorant.

  • @eminboztepe I think it should be obvious by now that that Patterson film depicts a real female ape like creature.

  • @eminboztepe How could it provide any evidence vis a vis the suit being the one in the film? What you obviously thought an overwhelming example, if it in fact existed, which it doesn't, wouldn't mean much, certainly wouldn't prove anything. No one doubts there are counterfeit $20 bills; doesn't mean there aren't real ones. The best monster suits from the 60s are laughable; Planet of the Apes won awards for its; laughable; fake or not, the Patterson image is not laughably fakey like that.

  • @TOMHYLE88 That was a reply to soulwinnerism, btw; no idea why it posted as a reply to eminboztepe.

    I have no ax to grind; I don't know what people have been seeing for 1000s of years. The Patterson film is the only one I've seen that is convincing, so I'm hardly the "true believer" you posit. The vast majority of the fakes, those meant to fool and those meant to be silly as well, blatantly move like a human in a suit. The Patterson animal does not. It bears serious study.

  • @TOMHYLE88

    Don't forget also that Al DeAtley, Roger's wealthy brother in law, has confessed in recent years that the film was a money scam. It's in Greg Long's book. He tape recorded all his conversations and interviews.

  • @TOMHYLE88

    I don't understand what you are babbling about. The headpiece to the film has been found. It's on my youtube video. It was made by a business associate of Roger Patterson's and originally worn by a co-worker of his at Corriganville. The odds of that being a coincidence is impossible. Therefore, the film has been proven a hoax.

  • @eminboztepe 1st, your mother should have told you this, but it apparently falls to me: It is neithe polite nor accurate to say someone is babbling because you don't agree with them. Nor is it argumentation of any meaningful kind. The supposed headpiece was not found; it was brought forth, and not by Patterson, but as you say, by others; false confessions are a common phenomenon; people often for instance claim to have faked tracks with fake feet that don't match the tracks.

  • @TOMHYLE88

    Not following you here. There is no false confession, the headpiece was is an exact match: we have pictures of it.

    I said you were babbling because that pretty much what you were saying to me. Looks like you were replying to the wrong person.

  • @eminboztepe Yeah, my laptop is old; it clicks the wrong thing on its own quite a bit; it must have clicked you on the way to the comment I was trying to reply to.

    In what ways in the mask an "exact" match, and in what ways would that be hard to produce, and in what ways has it been proved that the mask in question is from the 1960s? Why the certainty that the confession is not false?

  • @TOMHYLE88

    The mask was made in the late 60's by Wah Ming Chang. There is no "confession" regarding the mask. See my youtube video for details and a picture of it.

  • All this evidence and skeptics still talk...but of course they all believe in god.

  • @cameraguy1968

    Fail.

    I don't believe in bigfoot or magical sky fairies. Incidentally, WHICH "god" are you speaking of? Hmmm?

  • There are no unknown primates living in the Usa and There is NO unexplored land in the USA. Just because people don't live in every square inch doesn't mean bigfoot lives in those places anymore than it means werewolves live there.

  • Comment removed

  • like there were NO unkn own ungulates in Vietnam until the 1990s, when suddenly there were 2? I see. BTW, Vietnam is also a highly populated and densely settled country, in case you think it's all wilderness like in the war movies.

  • There is no scientific evidence for bigfoot. Sightings can be mistakes or lies. Footprints are faked. Other stuff is so generic as to be too silly to be considered--stick piles and beating on trees and rock throwing. Blurry films and photos by the ton but no clear footage tells us they're all fake.

  • You can't ignore these things that are discussed in detail such as in this and many other videos. And again, you step back and look at all the other consistent evidence and the probability of all hoaxes is very very low. I believe in bigfoot beyond a reasonable doubt based on extensive research and analysis. To me it adds up perfectly based on many different sides and angles of support based on the science, physics, and research. BF is hard to believe if one doesn't know the evidence, etc.

  • Rockstar I would love to see and hear bigfoot evidence. That's all I ever ask for on these channels but all I ever get is evasive nonsense or personal attacks. There is no bigfoot evidence for us skeptics to look at--tree knocks and stickpiles are all you got. Those things aren't scientific-theyre silly.

  • What a load of shit. 

  • With some hardcore deniers, there is no patience to even consider or understand the evidence, only arrogance and fear guiding their behavior.

  • "Sasquatch" is a Native American term and their culture abounds with stories of interaction with the creature. Was it all just a hoax for them as well?

    The arrogance of modern "scientific" skeptics is more unbelievable.

  • you can see the "mask" in bigfoot gait analysis video at 2:56 and again at 2:57 and the beginning of the bigfoot sasquatch evidence video.

  • Anyone know about the artist that drew the image from 8:00 to 8:04 ? It's a sketch of the face in one of the frames of the Patterson-Gimlin film.

  • @CO2Junkie

    You want to see a clear picture of the face/ mask? Watch my youtube video. I have a picture of the headpiece they used to make "Patty" in 1967.

  • @eminboztepe - Just watched your vid. You have one of the better arguments against Patterson & Gimlin. Although I notice that other debunkers offer evidence that actually conflicts with yours. So ironically, though you present a good argument, I'm still sitting on the fence about Patty.

  • @CO2Junkie

    Thanks for watching.

  • @eminboztepe - Thanks for the info man ;-) I love this Bigfoot stuff - whether it winds up true or false. It's a great 'mystery'.

  • BF has learned to hide well as a SURVIVAL MECHANISM.We DO have some fossil teeth if he is related to Gigantapithecus.We DO have video-PG (&OTHER videos)= real-you can see the mass and the herniated muscle.A large animal will be designed to not lock the knees as seen in the walk.Scientific evidence of bigfoot includes flexible footprints with dermal ridges, footprint size natural distribution, hair, scat, vocalizations, behavior signatures(broken trees, etc)& video.They're living under our noses!

  • When the figure on the memorial day footage grows, I think it's the person raising the mask. I still believe in sasquatch though.

  • What a waste of fucking time. Searching for something that doesn't fucking exist. These shows will always end the same.

  • Well.. I must admit that the most of the bigfoot tapes seems kindda fake.. But the thing that makes me belive in bigfoot is the hundreds of ppl who claims to have seen the creature.. Not the films.. The only film that i really put my trust into is the one Robert Patterson filmed! :P

  • @PlassValentin

    Too bad the Patterson film has been proven to be a fake too. Even his wealthy brother in law, Al DeAtley, recently confessed the film was fake.

  • @eminboztepe No, bro. The Patterson film to date has never been proven to be fake. You should know that many people have supposedly confessed to be the one wearing the suit in the film. Check the bfro's site for in depth explaination.

  • @ambidexterity1

    Yes, it has. The only ones who believe the film is real are the die-hard fanatics. Al DeAtley, Roger's brother in law, has admitted that the film was a hoax to make money. He financed it, he would know. And the headpiece to the costume was finally found. It's on my youtube video. Click on it and you will see it. It belonged to Hollywood F/X people Roger knew through Corriganville.

  • @eminboztepe

    Actually the PGF has never been proven to be a fake. Patterson swore until his death it was real and Gimlin continues to do so. It has actually been much easier to debunk the supposed 'debunkers' of the film than the actual film.

  • @ember12001

    You haven't done any research on this hoax. I have. Of course Roger never admitted that the film is fake. He told Harvey Anderson the reason he was hoaxing the film was to leave something for his wife. Patricia Patterson has NEVER said that the film is legit. Gimlin refuses to be cross examined or take a polygraph. Al DeAtley financed the film and admits it was a scam. Research, please...

  • @eminboztepe

    Please don't tell me what I have and haven't done. I've met Mr Gimlin, John Bindernagel, Jeff Meldrum and others and questioned them regarding the film. Dr's Meldrum and Bindernagel are convinced by the film. Perhaps YOU should research, I suggest either Dr Grover Krantz's work or Dr Meldrum's. They are anthropologists who have studied the PGF in depth, you are a guy with a monkey mask...

  • @ember12001

    Meldrum doesn't know anything about creature costumes. I do. Both Krantz and Meldrum were fooled by Marx's fake bigfoot tracks. Meldrum initially declared the Snow Walker and the Memorial Day footage as genuine. He was wrong. Krantz became a Yeti devotee after seeing a photo which later turned out to be a rock. Ask Gimlin about Chico. My youtube video proves it's a hoax. Al DeAtley even confessed. Again, do some research ...REAL research.

  • @eminboztepe

    Which of the fakers do you believe? Bob H says Patterson gave him a cowhide costume that he doesn't remember how he did up. Miller said it was an off the shelf gorilla suit with sticks in the arms to make them look longer. Chambers said he had nothing to do with it. How many people have claimed to be in the suit? And actually De Atley said he didn't ask any questions about authenticity because "he didn't want to know". Marx faked films AFTER the cripple foot prints showed up.

  • @ember12001

    See? You don't know what you are talking about. Bob H. said no such thing. He said his brother Howard claimed that ROGER claimed that. Chambers DID admit to making the suit to some, including John Landis. DeAtley admits the film was a scam to make money, which he isn't proud iof. But he needed it to pull his paving company out of the red. Research!!!!!

  • @ember12001

    And I noticed you didn't address the fact that both Meldrum and Krantz were fooled by fakes. Meldrum also believes that there really was a "garden of eden" and that it was located in present-day America. LOL. What a quack. Did you also know that Meldrum drew bones on "Patty," claiming that this proves the "proportions" were inhuman and couldn't be a man in a suit? Can he be any more naive? Draw bones on Barney the Dinosaur and you will get the same results. LOL

  • @eminboztepe

    So you bring his religion into it, well done. When panicked start bringing in the Ad hominems. Go play with James Randi and leave thinking folks alone.

  • @ember12001

    Just pointing out the facts. And "thinking folks?" Ha! Roger Patterson, a well known conman, liar and bigfoot hoaxer who has Hollywood F/X connections, claims to have filmed a bigfoot after failing to receive any more funding for his movie. The original film has been edited and never allowed to be seen or know where it was processed. The time line given by Roger and Bob proves that they lied. Family members admit that the film is bogus. Yeah, "thinking folks". That's rich!

  • @ember12001

    You would be better off trying to prove that Wah Ming Chang was a "psychic" who made a mask to look EXACTLY like a "bigfoot" that a business associate that he not met (Roger Patterson) would film at a later date. Good luck with that. LOL

  • @ember12001

    One last thing before I put you bed...you mentioned James Randi. James Randi is a former Mensa member and won the MacArthur "genius" award in the mid-80's.

    You are just embarassing yourself. Better quit now before you dig that hole any deeper. ;)

  • Memorial day footage is bullshit, fuck you Paits

  • Apparently the memorial day video apparently is a man in a suit

  • @censored1080 every single footage every made is a man in a suit...bigfoot doesnt exist...

  • they dnt exist..and trolls like meldum are making money offf it....no dead body no bigfoot. krantz shortly before he died..

  • @nastymonsters2 Find any evidence of dead Bears or Cougars found in nature. You will be surprised they rarely if ever find an actual amount of any kind of remains. So your "no dead body" has already been proven to be the argument of an uneducated person.

  • @TheBbg83 try researching yourself on average 24 black bears a year are found so stfu you clueless bigfoot geek..they dnt exist fact

  • @nastymonsters2 Were did you find this number? I have looked and I have seen they rarely find any that die of natural causes. So since all you can do is try to insult people it takes away from your argument. People if you cannot discuss things without acting like children and insult others to make yourself feel good all it proves is your ignorant and don't believe your own line of crap.

  • @TheBbg83 maybe you could join he bff and ppl will tell you on there how many cougars coyots bears and every other animal statistic ....you insult yourself as an adult believing in utter tosh that bigfoot is real..no it isnt..face it and get a life.

  • @nastymonsters2 Did I once say bigfoot is real? No I believe anything is possible since we find many unknown species every day. So I refuse to say it doesn't exist. Your comments are full of nothing but your ego and opinions. People like you make it hard to discuss these things with an open mind when your stuck on "Its fake and all hoaxs." You insult yourself as an adult to claim you know anything that is proven to be possible. Your denial is irrational. Foot prints show it is real deny that.

  • @TheBbg83 lmao footprints and case closed on your argument..all faked eery single one..fact it doesnt exist .i hear dragons are making a comeback try them..

  • @nastymonsters2 Already have partner, Dinosaurs are dragons. The word Dinosaur came into existance in 1841...So the legends of dragons are depicted as known dinosaurs yet these people never saw or knew about dinosaurs supposedly so how did they know what they looked like? Oh snap you don't research a wide variety of information do you? LOL Cmon man go do some thurough research or just please go away and live in ignorance and denial.

  • @TheBbg83 research lol ive spent all my adult life working with primates..including over ten years in britains largest zoo..bifgoot isnt real end of..dinosaurs are dragons lol fuck ..off lol..

  • @nastymonsters2 Again you prove my point. The fool thinks himself a wise man....The wise man knows himself a fool. So you think yourself wise yet prove your a fool. your ego gets in your way. You prolly also Thought and claimed the Giant squid didn't exist either. Get over yourself, you don't know if it exists or not. The irrational stance you take on the subject makes it obvious, you are over compensating for your own self image.

  • @TheBbg83 as with all geek footers you talk utter bollocks..show one single fossil or hair sample...get a life..

  • @nastymonsters2 Wow your brain is weak, this is all you could say? HAHAHA you are but a child begone

  • @TheBbg83 you prick all you say oooh foot prints..you have fuck all now try fucking off yourself you delusional troll..its never existed and never will..only sad geeks like you believe in it...millions of years of evolution and all you trolls have is one min of a man in a shitty suit...case closed...

  • @nastymonsters2 Every time you rant and get angry and reply with insults only proves my point. Your small minded and will never be more. Oh how sad it must be to get so angry about what someone else believes. Man get a life. Why do you honestly care? Is it because your daddy didn't hug you enough? You need others to agree with you or you get all butt hurt lol. Your making my day. Grow up dude. I think your beliefs are based on ignorance and a lack of true independent research. Now get angry boy.

  • @TheBbg83 lol again more utter babble and no proof..post one single ounce off it you clueless troll..and who says dude..you stupid snot nosed kid...they dnt exist idiot..not one fossil or hair sample in the PNW yet there is supposed to be thousands of them lol stfu you know nothing you just copy crap other geeks spout on here..explain why patty bob has a saggital crest on a biped..they dnt have them never have..its pattersons botch attempt..showing how clueless he was as well..

  • @nastymonsters2 LMFAO you claim you work with animals and your so smart yet you don't even realize the lack of evidence never is proof of something not existing. You contradict your claims with stupidity. Your one of those ignorant people who claim we know of every animal when 74% of the NW forest's in N.America are unexplored. Unless you claim because we have GPS that means it is explored as people who use your type of rational thinking tend to claim. Your childish antics are now boring me.

  • i think the long haired dude plucked his own hair off the body cast lmao

  • Oh good grief, the geeks in the video keep referring to it as "the creature in the film". It's a boy running across a field, dummies. He's taking off his hood at the end of the video. Simple answer to a dumb question.

  • Comment removed

  • @dragonsidheblader1 Plus the fact that when the people who video taped the Memorial day footage sent the film to an expert, the first question they asked was how much money do you think we could make off this video.

    I still believe in big foot, but this piece of footage is apparently a hoax.

  • @censored1080 And that expert was?

  • @censored1080 is that a rumor? You have to check sources. I am not saying that it's real, but lots of really really smart people analyzed the hell out of it.

  • @dragonsidheblader1 why would he get taller by 8 inches if hes just taking his hood off?

  • @cr33pyGamer

    Why wouldn't he?

  • @eminboztepe okay.... i'm putting a hoodie on right now..... and BOOM! my head didn't shrink 8 inches! i wonder why?!?!? come on, what you were saying doesn't add up. i agree it could be human, but not with the hoodie theory.

  • @cr33pyGamer

    Huh? You are not making any sense. Pull off your mask OVER your head and bingo, your "height" just grew several inches. It's not rocket science.

  • @eminboztepe yeah i did..... you try it moron..... you don't grow 8 inches by putting a freaking hood overe your head.. barely 2 inches

  • @cr33pyGamer

    I'm not going to argue over such a stupid comment made by you. Masks are not two inches tall. Sheesh.

    A "moron" you are, indeed!

  • @eminboztepe you think they're 8 inches tall? are you retarded? do you even understand what i'm saying? YOU DON'T GROW 8 INCHES WHEN YOU TAKE A MASK OFF. WHEN YOU PUT A MASK ON, YOU DON'T MAGICALLY SHRINK. THEREFORE, YOUR ORIGINAL COMMENT MADE NO SENSE.

  • @cr33pyGamer

    Again, you are not making any sense. Masks are several inches in length. When you pull the mask off over your head your height will appear to have grown several inches. Think of it like wearing a hat. Like I said, this is common sense.

    It's true, I guess. Some of the dumbest folks in the world are youtube posters. They will be having to put instructions on toilet paper next for these guys.

  • @eminboztepe several inches is not 8 inches. i KIND of get what you're saying, but it still doesn't add up. and yes, 8 inches not being several inches is pretty common sense.

  • @cr33pyGamer

    You are arguing semantics here. Several can mean "more than one". And I never said eight inches. This is a dumb discussion, arguing about some kid in a suit.

  • @eminboztepe i know you didn't say 8 inches, the experts in the video say that at the end of the video, the figure grows EIGHT inches.

  • @cr33pyGamer

    The "experts" also said that it was a "creature". LOL

  • @eminboztepe you can easily tell in the video that it's not just "several" inches. and by the way, saying "lol"- AND capitalizing it is really cute. that was really awesome

  • @cr33pyGamer

    Umm..."several" means more than one. Regardless, the point is stil valid. He's taking off his mask (not his "hoodie" as you mistakenly said) which makes him appear to grow several inches.

  • @dragonsidheblader1 Why does the researcher say the creature grows taller by 8 inches, if he was taking off his hood wouldn't he appear shorter? not taller? I notice the creature also is a solid color even at a distance you can see the different color variations of the human runner. It seems if it was a human you could make out the color of his clothing. If he was in a fur suit I don't think he could run at that speed. The eyewitness stated that looking through binaculars he could see the hair

  • @invisibledancer01

    You fail.

  • Comment removed

  • @invisibledancer01

    One last thing. You can hear the late bigfoot nerd Fred Bradshaw in the background on the audio ( that the show wisely edited out ). Coincidence?  Hardly.

  • Of course bigfoot exists. Theres more evidence for a bigfoot then there is for the existence of lets say, Jesus Christ. I do believe Jesus existed and I believe Bigfoot exists and, as the scientists and specialists here say, the evidence is conclusive..there is an unknown bipedal primate type creature roaming around our forests. To say otherwise really is to be in denial.

  • @FightingForFreedom23 yep Most Christians go to far and start talking about how god made man and shit like that. People just need to fuck off... I'm a Christian my self and I do believe in god and jesus. I think of it as god likes to make our life exciting by adding conspiracys!

  • @Jaynit Amen

  • @Msjanedoe124 You are a shit who knows nothing & sound like a big fat weirdo to boot! You are a gumijungler!

  • @msjanedoe124 weren't you listening? The fingerprint guy said he believes it, the snookum cast shows it's not deer elk coyote or bear, the anatomy guys don't see how guy in a costume could have all that detail especially when they didn't know as much about anatomy back when it was filmed. The rest were sorta idk maybe, but they agreed it could be possible with better evidence.

  • @Msjanedoe124 i dun wan to base this on simply whats written in the description... but read the description. its them putting the evidence to the test. if they wanted to PROVE bigfoot exists, trust me. the evidence can be much more persuasive. i've seen really convincing videos. and what do u mean its not evidence? as long as it offers further insight, be it to doubt a hypothesis or to assert one, it is evidence.

  • @Msjanedoe124 yeah. i like to do my research before i correct such people. anyway... from "Bigfoot is a hoax!" to, "i simply point out that this movie does NOT prove that Bigfoot exists" ? i sense a change in tune... if ur original stand is that bigfoot doesn't exist thats good and well. just don't use the video to support your stand, because it doesn't. introducing doubt is not saying that something doesn't exist.

  • @Msjanedoe124 DNA sequencing-human like results. Footprint casts-obtaining samples from one person indicates possible biases. Memorial Day Footage-actions much less than human capability. Snookum cast-multiple animals with canine (coyote) footprints-no one suggested animal struggle. Vocalization-can't eliminate human.

    Like you indicated the video apparently weakens the evidence others have cited for the existence. The video reiterates the question of existence-neither proving or disproving.

  • @DumDDumDum this i agree with. the evidence in the video is not conclusive and by introducing doubt, weakens the case bigfoot has. but it doesn't prove or disprove its existence.

    but one thing u failed to note is the Patterson footage. the seemingly innocuous thigh movement actually is very hard, near impossible to replicate in a suit. although hoaxes have been more elaborate than a water-balloon in the thigh of an ape suit, this was the 1960s... they weren't that big on conspiracies then.

  • @Msjanedoe124 lol. from ur comment, i assumed u're one of those fat weirdos who pretend to be girls online while hiding away in their mother's basement for fear of sunlight. if you DO have a vagina, i apologise for mistaking your gender. and i'm not saying bigfoot exists. i'm saying that the video was inconclusive. yet u drew the "conclusion" that big foot doesnt exist? brushing off the stats as "coincidence" becos it goes against ur case? real lot of "brain" work there, Msjanedoe:)

  • @Msjanedoe124 comment guy- no reliability or reason to believe him since he's just a rambling commenter who thinks he can make absolute conclusions for no apparent reason. terrible comment, very shitty. Msjanedoe124 is a shit!

  • It's funny. Everyone only pays attention to the factors that could debunk this is a hoax, conveniently forgetting the factors that point towards its possible existence. It would be one of the biggest and best "I told you so" scenarios if undeniable evidence of Bigfoot were found (like a body). I personally believe that this creature exists, because there's no reason for it not to exist.

  • Its funny how sceptics most simple explenation its always the right one.To me its bullshit! Ppl who didnt even try to search for creature decline all big foot hunters stories.Its easier to sit on your ass and say that this is all a hoax than go out to the forrest and stand face to face with this spooky animal.

  • Great documentary. Very thorough.

    They certainly can't prove this to be an outright hoax.

    The Patterson footage is even more erie when you look at it after it is analyzed.

    There is something out there, something different!

  • Comment removed

  • I am surprised buddy doesn't put his hair in a ponytail while collecting hair evidence. He is sitting there hanging over what he is examining and his hair is practically touching it.

  • @HaligonianType1

    I noticed that too. No wonder the sample was contaminated.

  • @HaligonianType1 Yes, I thought the same. What a fucking twat! He probably spends his time picking out his own hairs & analyzing them! What a dick head!

  • @girlsinnappies Haha... I love your nick BTW.

  • The freaks like eminbozo doesn't understand that we don't give a shit how many scientists believe it's real, the scientists committing time to this study is limited when most are afraid of ridicule. And yet I've never 'met' a more frightened 'man' like eminbozo...all 'he' has is 'confessions'... lol

  • Cont'd from previous comment...

    What a waste of an investigation with all of that equipment hauled in and the time they spent preparing and analyzing evidence from the demo runner. Couldn't they have guesstimated from the footage a little better that the creature might have been running almost 20 mph slower than humans?

  • 3:36 "the memorial day footage suggested that the creature was running at speeds across this rough terrain beyond human capabilities" - This is backed by the guy who went and grabbed his binoculars in the trailer and insisted no man could run that fast.

    4:08 "... the creature is running at a speed of 8.56 mph, contrast this with our demonstration runner who was able to negotiate the same path at 17.1 mph, twice as fast as the creature." cont'd on next comment

  • I think the creature gets 8 inch's taller because it scratches it's head, it 's looks likes it's hand to me, not another bigfoot on it's back, which is what they came up with. I think the most logical conclusion is that bigfoot is real. I suppose I am a 'believer' but the basis of this conclusion is not faith.

  • i believe

  • 1:36 ''oh hello''

  • @theshow2k8 that was comic gold

  • Wow, I mean, if you do your research, how can you argue with it? Sasquatch is totally real, and it's fairly obvious.