Can't see the baby I see "Patty", I see a slightly bare spot under the arms, and she's got some good sized breasts, her arms and hands are too long to be a person though.
All folks should watch MK Davis slowed footage..not YOUTUBE but on the his site to get see and slow down as they please all aspects of the creature/person...decided for yourself but youtube is too limited to all he did...he does believe it to be real....I do not any longer...but check it out for yourself.
There's clearly something there in front where the breasts would be--you can see it! I think it looks like breasts myself but I've never seen it in any other versions of this video. I've always said this is the real deal. There's a movement and hurrying to get the hell away that's just so real. It wants nothing to do with the men. Also, I've never heard anyone add this but if this was a fake would the man in the suit turn and look at the camera? Of course not.Man's face would be obvious.
if you look at the leg closet to the camra, you can see it flexing muscles, back then they most certainly did not make costumes where the fabric flexed like real muscles, also, this animal has girl parts (heince the name patty), also back then, women costumes weren't made as much for females back then werent as important as males. So do i believe this is bigfoot? yes.
@jmbsol The person holding the camera and his buddy and their two big horses may pose a threat to 'Patty'. I don't believe she is worried too much about the camera unless she possibly thinks it may be a boom-stick, but the threat is definitely there, hence the deliberate walk away from the threat.
Are you people blind? Stop calling it Patty! It's freaking Bob for crying out loud. It's a suit and not that good of one. Now that it's enhanced you can clearly see it's a suit.
It's Bob Heironimus. He was told to look back..it's not real. For years I thought it was but with the enhancements, you can see that the main part of the suit has two parts, a top and a bottom, you can see the middle where they separate. On the right foot, as it steps you can see a ass load of loose fabric flopping around. It walks without putting it's heel first because the feet are like clowns feet. The ass of the "creature" aka Bob, looks deformed. It's full of padding people.
@longtalltexan63 The Bob Heironimus story has been totally debunked. He was some envious neighbor who couldn't stand that Roger Patterson was getting so much attention. He was never able to produce a suit or reproduce the video because the film is REAL. Scientist with a lot more knowledge of bipedal locomotion than you or I have reviewed it, and arrived at this conclusion. Where is your PhD, dude?
@longtalltexan63 Believe what you will. The reason for the 'line' near the hip area is not because of a top and bottom part of a suit. If you pay attention, you'll see an inverted V shaped 'line' at the waist line. This is due to hair (fur) on it's back growing longer in the posterior thoracic region than the lumbosacral region. Have you ever seen a hairy ass dude at a beach with back hair? You'll notice the hair thins at the lumbar area, creating this inverted 'V' shape appearance
And as far as the 'butt padding' - how many Squatch asses have you examined, felt, and measured for blue jeans? Where is the Squatch Buttock Padding protocol book located. In other words, how the hell can you say it's not natural looking when no other video has been so clear?
Years ago someone suggested the infant hanging on the female(mother) BF. I took a still shot and then adjusted the color, fading in and out and enlarging the area and you can see where the babe is pulling the hair/skin and a leg under the arm pit as it sits on the breast. and a little head. so it is there. MK Davis has done a lot and its interesting how BF researchers prefer to fight over the color of hair instead of unite to get something done. Pride... blinds all. And they do have dna on BF.
MK Davis has been smoking something for many years. Bob Gimlin will tell you point blank there were only 2 men down there that day and there was one very real animal. I beleive him.
I was at the zoo last month and there was an orangutan that had a large fatty pouch that hung down simular to breasts.But it was not breasts. It looked VERY simular to what this sasquatch has goin on in this footage. Just one out of many reason i beleive this film could be real .Dr Grover Krantz also mentioned that as a theory when he was alive as well that some apes have this fatty pouch. all i know is i was shocked when i saw this orangutan and immediatly though of this footage.
I'm in no position to assert whether or not Patty is real, or about the validity of Dr. Krantz. I will just say this. Some people hypothesize that *IF* bigfoot is real, it is likely a close relative of the asian orangutans, and/or gigantophithecus, migrating across the Bering Sea at about the same time as the earliest humans.
Too bad nasty, but it's utterly real...just find and read all my trillions of comments stating why that is, like BobH's all too human anatomy vs. that of these Sasquatches, etc.
I hate to tell you this, but the reason there is no baby in this footage, is because her baby had been killed the day before, skinned & buried there, by a taxidermist, now dead, of course. They were able to get her on film this day, because she came back looking for her baby. When she turns and looks back, she is not looking at the camera man, but at a barking tracking dog, that had found her the day before, a white german shepard. This is all true told by someone who was there. Ask MK Davis!
I would speculate that these animals would be highly intelligent, as are all of the higher primates...being so advanced would require a baby with a relatively large head at birth, probably very similar to our own infants and their large noggins......I myself see nothing of the sort clinging to her..
@qawsqnick1 ...the legend is based on males...??.how would they survive as a species...there are, in fact, many sightings in the lore of the ladies...little ones too...!!
The ridges Chilcutt found could not have been faked, and who/why anyway... Found in remote places where people rarely go, no certainty they'd be found, all that trouble for nothing. No, some of these are deffinitely not faked, too technical. Quite frankly, it's a bad excuse by some to think they're all fakes, when they don't question prints of other creatures. Except a yet undiscovered primate.
lets not forget the DNA evidence from snell grove lake that shows an undocumented primate. time to wake up people they are real. just read a little and see for yourself
@komodoman The skeptics tell me that large fake foot stampers are always used...they fail to explain how these static feet create an impact ridge from the toe lift off phase, that only a flexible foot can make when walking...or how toe movement is observed from print to print...
That's right, this is definitely something we need to tell skeptics again and again, when they lament how tracks and dermal prints are sooo easy to fake...
Yes, people conveniently forget human and Bigfoot dermal ridges are the opposite of each other - much like our bodies are. The Bigfoot, while still being a tall creature of course, is taller from the torso up, where humans have our legs as the long(er) body part. Everything is different when you notice the details, another reason fakes are so easy to spot.
You have to be a Complete Idiot Not to Believe that these Creatures Exist! They've been Around for a Very Long Time. It's just that there hasn't been Anybody Brave enough to Venture Deep into their Territory!
Attenborough thinks the Yeti is a good possibility, I think presently he's just not ready or brave enough to come out and say the Bigfoot's real too. But just you wait, the day we have new good footage, there he and many others like him will be and clearly agree it's highly possible they're real. Then I think he'll feel it's safer to take the position, and not risk ridicule, at the moment it's safer and becoming okay to assume the Yeti could (and I'm sure does) live in such remote locations.
NO it wasn't, what they did was show that dermal ridges could be put on a rupper foot, a human foot in fact. And this human foot they put in water, or something, and thus enlarged it. All they 'proved' was that you can enlarge a foot with ridges, big deal, nothing new really important. You'd still need to make sure those ridges would be visible in the fake track you plant in the ground, and that's next to impossible.
Actually I know what video your talking about, where the guy takes a latex cast of his foot and sokes it in paint thinner, to enlarge it.But that video also fails to mention the fact that Dermal Ridges in Primates run in completely different patterns than in humans.The one's found in apparently real BF tracks are similar to the Primates, more so than human Dermal ridges! I thought that this point is very important, as it helps validate it's(Bigfoots) existence!
I don't see a baby, just large breasts. Great video nonetheless! If you look closely, you can see the left breast especially make a nice little bounce as she turns to face the camera. This natural bounce would be hard to fake if this were a costume. And if it were a person in a costume, why would anyone think to make it a female with large breasts? Curious. I think it is real. Possibly ancestors of Homo Erectus or Neanderthals. Thanks for the post!
this video was proved to be fake in a german knowledge magezine called "galileo mystery". maybe try to look it up, dunno if it's been uploaded to youtube yet.
Sorry, in 42 yrs no conclusive evidence has been provided by anyone to prove this footage fake. Not even from the Germans. Thanks for offering your opinion though. 0-)
got your point mate. but i feel like remembering they found a clip of some bbc or nbc or whatever american news clip where this guy told about how he and his mate faked the footage. he might've said that cause he was forced to, but i think it's more likely the truth this guy told. this does NOT mean that i dont believe in bigfoots. i do. call me crazy but i do. but i'm just thinking this footage is fake because the guy who made it said it would be. gotta need one more message ;)
Yeah, I've heard those kinds of claims from 5 different parties, none of which tell the same story. So who's telling the truth, or are they all lying? Regardless of their claims, none of them have been able to offer substantial proof to validate their claims, so it's not proven fake. There's actually more evidence to support it being real when closely analyzed. To each his own though. 0-)
You DO realize that Smiter believes that sasquatches talk to him with telepathy right? He is friends with an entire trrop of them! They even shared some words in Bigfootese with him! They also leave him gifts! Unlike the humans that he has no need for...the Sasquatch friends are good to him! Alas, being as camera shy as they are, there is not a shred of proof to substantiate his story...what a SURPRISE that is!! He is an important man he is!! cookooo coookooo coookooo
there's another theory they made up in the same show. i think its quite good, and its about bigfoot and yeti being the same animal, because:
some backworldsmen and climbing guys in himalaya report about having seen an animal they call yeti while in america people claim to see kind of a "brown version" of the same one, due to the fact that the descriptions match so much, setting the skin color aside. it might be a result of evolution. the habitats and so on.
hehe thery're called by different names around the world and they have different hair color as well. Sasquatfch in N.America, Yowie of Australia, Almasti in Eastern Europe and Russia, Yeti and Yeren of Asia and Tsi Tsi Mite of Central America. They're not that hard to find and they'll come around if you aren't acting a fool.
thanks for being no ignorant prick, dude :D you're the first one i got to talk to not automatically saying "FAKE!!! LOL ROFL FAKE ZOMG" and accepting that there's a senseful explanation for this goddam beast :D
well, you have to understand I've seen them 5 different times in the last 17 months give or take and to me they aren't anymore apes than humans are. Scott Nelson is transcribing recordings people have for the spoken language. You can put his name in blogtalkradio/./com in the search part and listen to his explanations. He's a cryptolinguist btw. Like I say though, they aren't that hard to find.
another point i figured is that there are so many different kinds of NEW animals discovered... usually some guy taking a crap in a bush or whatever discovers some new kind of beetle, and no one cares. but when it comes to bigger animals like big foots/sasquatches/lets say skunk apes, everyone is automatically yelling "FAKE! LOL ROFL ZOMG!"
anyone tell me. WHY THE HELL is that? i don't get it. they might be just kinda shy. that's it. why are you so uncomfortable with that?
well most people have been brainwashed their whole life by the dogmas of science and reliegion..........so it's not unusual for them to rebel against what they've been told is not reall.....it upsets their reality. 0-)
i think thats quite impressive. the point is, why should some some backworldsmen and climbers in nepal make up shit like that. they're not having an advantage from saying that if it'd be a lie. and how much the descriptions match... that can't be fortuity. so big foot can't be a lie aswell. they do exist. at least that's what i think.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They crossed the genes of the people of Atlantis who were very tall with the genes of animals and Bigfoot was one of the results.Bigfoot becomes increasingly restless as the poles of Ea shift back to the position held at the time of Atlantis.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bigfoot is actually a survivor from ancient Ailantis.Bigfoot appeared about 7,000 years ago.Bigfoot resulted from genetic experiments conducted by the people at that time.
actually there IS a baby (or youngster) in this film but shes not carrying it - it is on the ground crouched behind a tree stump thats why the female is strolling away so casually in the opposite direction (to lead patterson and gimlin away) - also it is said that the direction she IS heading to, there is a male standing beyond the trees u can faintly see watching- this footage is zoomed too much to see either
beginning of original film orig zoom its far left of screen soon as you see "Patty" walking the other way its on the left. its trying to take cover behind some dead logs/stumps
Keep your eyes on the light colored spot that appears below her chin as Patty turns toward the camera, that is it's face, it starts out looking towards you, then it looks away just as Patty looks away.
I don't know if 'fused' is the right word, but yea, the breasts are attached naturally whereas the baby is just using it's fingers and toes to attach itself to it's mother, just above her right breast there. In fact, it appears that it is actually using the breast for support, sitting on it or 'riding' it as she hurries away from the intruders.
Looks like a baby to me, especially at the point where, as Patty turns back to the forward direction, you can see the baby turn it's head to it's left, looking away from the cameraman, directing it's attention to what is in front of Patty. Shadows don't do that.
lmfao!! haha Tom Platz. Noway legs like that are duplicated, especially when Bob Heironimus was 185 lbs in '67. Those legs have definition and are HUGE, she's 350lbs+ The more technology I see that studies Patty, the more proof I see that she IS real. Forty years later and no credible theories except that this is real. But how can it be? I don't know but that is no human. Look at the high res stills. You can see teeth! Present day Hollywood couldn't make a better creature, with or without tits!
The major proof the film is real, is the tallness of the whole upper body, if that were a mask the head wouldn't turn when the torso turns. -And you can clearly see the head moves and turns slightly, before the torso. That would not be possible were it a guy wearing some costume, he simply wouldn't be tall enough, so how can the head turn...? Simple, it's a real Bigfoot, not a suit. Damn, this is really so simple, you only need to look and study Patty's body carefully.
i've been doing film fx for the past 15 years in CA, and from my perspective this costume is amazingly well made. the part that is clearly evident in this footage which compels me to say this is the joints below the shoulders. it's very difficult, if not near impossible, to make a costume that will make that area look natural. what happens is that the inner-surface of the costume move independent of the person wearing it. only a very tight, anatomically correct and well sewn costume may work.
Thanks for the expert opinion...many who believe it to be a costume always maintain that it had to be tight fitting to allow for the muscle movements to be seen...if is tight fitting, then the man in the suit has larger thighs and calves than Tom Platz...
i agree, there is an inordinate amount of muscle or padding in the dorsum and gluteus area, as well as others, but getting a tight, form fitting costume in the joint areas where there is lack of axial support from the subjects skin and inner surface of the costume is very difficult and time consuming to accomplish... even today. the way to hide this inherent flaw is to make the fur long.
Look up Wah Chang and his associates. That is where the parts for this costume originated. Roger Patterson went on a "business trip" to L.A. with the $700 dollars he "borrowed" (and refused to pay back) from the Radfords to purchase the costume. Wah Chang did excellent work. But you can clearly see the padding in suit which was typical of those 60's ape costumes.
Hmm I looked up wah chang...and you know what i got..a big fat nothing.If anyone wants to claim they made the suit,..Make another one then.Its been 40 + years it should be pretty damn easy to reproduce.But alas noone wants to actually prove a hoax they just want to parrot the cry.
I know , I looked it up too and your right. there's nothing. all these people claim this and that person made the suit. but i still have'nt really seen anything to convince me either.
It wasn't a movie, In was in a pic , a closeup of Patty's upper chest and head, I will find the pic and outline where you clearly see the baby's face. It is quite amazing! Pherhaps I can e-mail it and you could have a look . I am not sure how I could put just a pic on here.
there is no way this can be a guy in a suit. you can see the legs mucsles flex as it is walking and you can see the but mucsles flex also.bigfoot is real
There's one tantilizing piece of evidence in favor of the existence of bigfoot. I saw Monsterquest, and they discovered many new things about the movements of it, including the way the mouth moves, among numerous ohter minute details. Why in the heck would someone put all of that time and effort into a costume that would be shot from hundreds of yards away? This is very intriguing indeed and really makes you wonder about what is really on the Patterson/Gimlin film...
i dont see anything? i dont think it is on her breast. robert w morgan, one of the best if not the best bigfoot expert analized the film and said that the baby is on the ground sitting like a kid and the female is walking away to go to the male to lead patterson and gimlin away from the baby but they did not follow her. watch a bigfoot shooting and i think it is on either part 8 or 9 when he explains it, but listen to the whole thing anyway cause its really good.
wow never noticed this before,there is deffinitely something going on with her right side. but the baby is so tiny in proportion to the size of its mother.possibly a newborn?
I am not a big fan of the baby theory. I do have to admit, however, that Patty's walking style would provide good speed without any up and down movements that would dislodge a baby. It might also explain why she wasn't running. Food for thought.
Thankfully, there are other authentic videos/footage and photographs that have also documented Bigfoot's existence. And I believe the Chicago Field Museum recently opened their new exhibit: several deceased specimens and near-complete sets of skeletal remains.
Well, some people see a baby sitting on her right breast, holding on to the hair on her neck and right shoulder. the white patch below Patty's jaw seems to be the reflection from it's little face as it looks toward the camera.
You obviously have no clue how apes carry offspring. Plus it doesnt walk like it has and extra 50-100 pounds hanging off its leg. Plus there is nothing on it right leg. There's a bump, but anthropologist think its a herniation of the muscle through the fascial layer. There are no babies on it.
there is a baby on the right thigh and one on her back .
Don't be so dumb and have other tell you what to think heck look for your self this is taken from Mk so go find the real work that has been done you can look at it your self or are you just an other dipstick who does do there homework. This is the last time I am waiting my time on you so don't bother to comment just try to do some work . Kids these days so lazy and big flappers.
The baby that I sometimes see is sitting on her right breast, holding on to the hair on Patty's right shoulder, It looks like a newborn, 10 or 20 pounds(I read that bigfoot newborns are smaller than their human counterparts). I do see something on her right thigh, popular consensus seems to be that it is a laceration of some kind.
I see what you mean on the shoulder, but its not good enough for me to accept it as being for sure. Its too blurry and it looks like it could just be sunlight or different hair patterns. I'll say its possible though.
Actually the bulge in the thigh is a muscle herniation. When the muscle reaches a certain extension it herniates with a visible bulge. So it's not an injury. Body builders with those chiseled muscles......those extra muscle bulges are herniations or extensions of the muscle beyond a certain range. She's probably got 40 inch thighs. Don't call me crazy either. I'm 6'7", and when i was a teen I had 35" thighs from body building and I'm about a foot shorter than this primate.
i seriously think its boobs. I've seen almost every enhancement of this footage and it looks like tits. why is it so hard to believe that there HAS to be female bigfeet in order to procreate and what not.
If you look closely you see him turn right slightly as it passes the second tree. That would make the shadow hit him sooner then the first tree. Plus the mid stride and panning camera thing.
The shadows are normal. He is closer to the second tree he passes, that is why the shadow is closer to the second tree. Also it would be near impossible to cut in mid stride, also the camera is panning left to right to follow him another reason it would be near impossible to edit. I'm studying film, trust me.
If you saw the rest of Patterson's footage (he was trying to make a documentary) You'd see right away how lame of a filmaker he was. Something this clever was far beyond the ability of Roger Patterson
FAKE! Here's PROOF.. See film at 8-11 seconds, the tree he walks behind casts 2 shadows. This is where the re-shot film was edited, they probably shot many takes, and as the day got later, of course the sun moved and the shadow was in different place. FAKE, EDITED, MULTIPLE SHOTS, FILM, but a good splicing job. Of course Patterson was a film maker. Oh, you all forgot this?
I looked and looked and looked some more to see what you were talking about. I found it the subject has two shadows cast on it because it walks behind two trees.
Of course. And in 43 years of experts, scientists etc. scrutenizing and studying this film.....no one has ever even noticed this "2 shadows", of which would have obviously been mentioned (and dismissed). That is, not until YOU discovered it. Because you, are so smart, and special.
Oh, and obviously not a completely brainless assweed.
Can't see the baby I see "Patty", I see a slightly bare spot under the arms, and she's got some good sized breasts, her arms and hands are too long to be a person though.
bigskip2121 2 months ago
All folks should watch MK Davis slowed footage..not YOUTUBE but on the his site to get see and slow down as they please all aspects of the creature/person...decided for yourself but youtube is too limited to all he did...he does believe it to be real....I do not any longer...but check it out for yourself.
1927Norma 2 months ago
This creature does have a sag in the upper right bicept that is evident...all primates in the wild are very stealthed in musculature
1927Norma 2 months ago
There's clearly something there in front where the breasts would be--you can see it! I think it looks like breasts myself but I've never seen it in any other versions of this video. I've always said this is the real deal. There's a movement and hurrying to get the hell away that's just so real. It wants nothing to do with the men. Also, I've never heard anyone add this but if this was a fake would the man in the suit turn and look at the camera? Of course not.Man's face would be obvious.
09jackstraw 4 months ago
I have seen uglier girls in my life then her:)
csakegyvid 7 months ago
i see a ass crack look close!
droppin233 8 months ago 2
PROOF! My father was the man in the bigfoot costume. Search:
Big Foot Frank (uploaded Fe. 26th 2011)
tubengagements 11 months ago
This guy ripped of Rene Dahinden and sold himself as a bigfoot expert to lend creedence to this ridiculous claim.
woodbinedrinker 11 months ago
if you look at the leg closet to the camra, you can see it flexing muscles, back then they most certainly did not make costumes where the fabric flexed like real muscles, also, this animal has girl parts (heince the name patty), also back then, women costumes weren't made as much for females back then werent as important as males. So do i believe this is bigfoot? yes.
Firegirl78912 1 year ago 3
its not a baby its bobies...
LonleyMother 1 year ago 2
@LonleyMother It's both, actually.
PostToastie 1 year ago
@LonleyMother Those look like Carol Burnett's boobs ,when she played Norma Desmond.
twain103 6 months ago
Why does it keep looking right at the camera and then nonchalantly walking on?
jmbsol 1 year ago
@jmbsol The person holding the camera and his buddy and their two big horses may pose a threat to 'Patty'. I don't believe she is worried too much about the camera unless she possibly thinks it may be a boom-stick, but the threat is definitely there, hence the deliberate walk away from the threat.
PostToastie 1 year ago
@PostToastie
Are you people blind? Stop calling it Patty! It's freaking Bob for crying out loud. It's a suit and not that good of one. Now that it's enhanced you can clearly see it's a suit.
longtalltexan63 7 months ago
@longtalltexan63 Oh gosh, look at that, I didn't notice it at first, good catch. Thanks for watching.
PostToastie 7 months ago
@longtalltexan63 NOT.
grejambri 7 months ago
@jmbsol
It's Bob Heironimus. He was told to look back..it's not real. For years I thought it was but with the enhancements, you can see that the main part of the suit has two parts, a top and a bottom, you can see the middle where they separate. On the right foot, as it steps you can see a ass load of loose fabric flopping around. It walks without putting it's heel first because the feet are like clowns feet. The ass of the "creature" aka Bob, looks deformed. It's full of padding people.
longtalltexan63 7 months ago
@longtalltexan63 The Bob Heironimus story has been totally debunked. He was some envious neighbor who couldn't stand that Roger Patterson was getting so much attention. He was never able to produce a suit or reproduce the video because the film is REAL. Scientist with a lot more knowledge of bipedal locomotion than you or I have reviewed it, and arrived at this conclusion. Where is your PhD, dude?
grejambri 7 months ago
@longtalltexan63 Believe what you will. The reason for the 'line' near the hip area is not because of a top and bottom part of a suit. If you pay attention, you'll see an inverted V shaped 'line' at the waist line. This is due to hair (fur) on it's back growing longer in the posterior thoracic region than the lumbosacral region. Have you ever seen a hairy ass dude at a beach with back hair? You'll notice the hair thins at the lumbar area, creating this inverted 'V' shape appearance
rntonp 4 months ago
And as far as the 'butt padding' - how many Squatch asses have you examined, felt, and measured for blue jeans? Where is the Squatch Buttock Padding protocol book located. In other words, how the hell can you say it's not natural looking when no other video has been so clear?
rntonp 4 months ago
Years ago someone suggested the infant hanging on the female(mother) BF. I took a still shot and then adjusted the color, fading in and out and enlarging the area and you can see where the babe is pulling the hair/skin and a leg under the arm pit as it sits on the breast. and a little head. so it is there. MK Davis has done a lot and its interesting how BF researchers prefer to fight over the color of hair instead of unite to get something done. Pride... blinds all. And they do have dna on BF.
kj7sea 1 year ago 8
@kj7sea Great comment, thanks for watching.
PostToastie 1 year ago 5
MK Davis has been smoking something for many years. Bob Gimlin will tell you point blank there were only 2 men down there that day and there was one very real animal. I beleive him.
jlonnon 1 year ago 4
@nastymonsters1 oh spare me the bigfoot debate.
tonyagrestic 1 year ago
looks like a person walking......
gottselig2004 1 year ago
I was at the zoo last month and there was an orangutan that had a large fatty pouch that hung down simular to breasts.But it was not breasts. It looked VERY simular to what this sasquatch has goin on in this footage. Just one out of many reason i beleive this film could be real .Dr Grover Krantz also mentioned that as a theory when he was alive as well that some apes have this fatty pouch. all i know is i was shocked when i saw this orangutan and immediatly though of this footage.
tonyagrestic 1 year ago
@tonyagrestic Re: your orangutan comment
I'm in no position to assert whether or not Patty is real, or about the validity of Dr. Krantz. I will just say this. Some people hypothesize that *IF* bigfoot is real, it is likely a close relative of the asian orangutans, and/or gigantophithecus, migrating across the Bering Sea at about the same time as the earliest humans.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
Too bad nasty, but it's utterly real...just find and read all my trillions of comments stating why that is, like BobH's all too human anatomy vs. that of these Sasquatches, etc.
komodoman 1 year ago
Wow! I've just noticed!
How the hell can you get a human head to see through those eyes with a low forehead like that?
m1aws 1 year ago
I hate to tell you this, but the reason there is no baby in this footage, is because her baby had been killed the day before, skinned & buried there, by a taxidermist, now dead, of course. They were able to get her on film this day, because she came back looking for her baby. When she turns and looks back, she is not looking at the camera man, but at a barking tracking dog, that had found her the day before, a white german shepard. This is all true told by someone who was there. Ask MK Davis!
FinalBellyache 1 year ago
@FinalBellyache Not true.
Chrisdrumz 1 year ago
I would speculate that these animals would be highly intelligent, as are all of the higher primates...being so advanced would require a baby with a relatively large head at birth, probably very similar to our own infants and their large noggins......I myself see nothing of the sort clinging to her..
joeyvader 1 year ago
it not a baby its a mature female with breasts
and if this is fake why would they do that cause the legend is based on a male
qawsqnick1 2 years ago 3
@qawsqnick1 ...the legend is based on males...??.how would they survive as a species...there are, in fact, many sightings in the lore of the ladies...little ones too...!!
joeyvader 1 year ago
The ridges Chilcutt found could not have been faked, and who/why anyway... Found in remote places where people rarely go, no certainty they'd be found, all that trouble for nothing. No, some of these are deffinitely not faked, too technical. Quite frankly, it's a bad excuse by some to think they're all fakes, when they don't question prints of other creatures. Except a yet undiscovered primate.
komodoman 2 years ago 2
lets not forget the DNA evidence from snell grove lake that shows an undocumented primate. time to wake up people they are real. just read a little and see for yourself
MMACHMP 2 years ago 2
@komodoman The skeptics tell me that large fake foot stampers are always used...they fail to explain how these static feet create an impact ridge from the toe lift off phase, that only a flexible foot can make when walking...or how toe movement is observed from print to print...
joeyvader 1 year ago
That's right, this is definitely something we need to tell skeptics again and again, when they lament how tracks and dermal prints are sooo easy to fake...
komodoman 1 year ago
Yes, people conveniently forget human and Bigfoot dermal ridges are the opposite of each other - much like our bodies are. The Bigfoot, while still being a tall creature of course, is taller from the torso up, where humans have our legs as the long(er) body part. Everything is different when you notice the details, another reason fakes are so easy to spot.
komodoman 2 years ago 3
Yes and you can fake the ridges, it's been done. I believe it's real, but not the Patterson one.
longtalltexan63 2 years ago
Female...
Funfisique 2 years ago
You have to be a Complete Idiot Not to Believe that these Creatures Exist! They've been Around for a Very Long Time. It's just that there hasn't been Anybody Brave enough to Venture Deep into their Territory!
MasterofMindSlaves 2 years ago
Attenborough thinks the Yeti is a good possibility, I think presently he's just not ready or brave enough to come out and say the Bigfoot's real too. But just you wait, the day we have new good footage, there he and many others like him will be and clearly agree it's highly possible they're real. Then I think he'll feel it's safer to take the position, and not risk ridicule, at the moment it's safer and becoming okay to assume the Yeti could (and I'm sure does) live in such remote locations.
komodoman 2 years ago 4
Er, meant rubber there, of course. ;-/
komodoman 2 years ago
NO it wasn't, what they did was show that dermal ridges could be put on a rupper foot, a human foot in fact. And this human foot they put in water, or something, and thus enlarged it. All they 'proved' was that you can enlarge a foot with ridges, big deal, nothing new really important. You'd still need to make sure those ridges would be visible in the fake track you plant in the ground, and that's next to impossible.
komodoman 2 years ago
Actually I know what video your talking about, where the guy takes a latex cast of his foot and sokes it in paint thinner, to enlarge it.But that video also fails to mention the fact that Dermal Ridges in Primates run in completely different patterns than in humans.The one's found in apparently real BF tracks are similar to the Primates, more so than human Dermal ridges! I thought that this point is very important, as it helps validate it's(Bigfoots) existence!
mykidsdad36 2 years ago 3
I don't see a baby, just large breasts. Great video nonetheless! If you look closely, you can see the left breast especially make a nice little bounce as she turns to face the camera. This natural bounce would be hard to fake if this were a costume. And if it were a person in a costume, why would anyone think to make it a female with large breasts? Curious. I think it is real. Possibly ancestors of Homo Erectus or Neanderthals. Thanks for the post!
KungFuBlitzKrieg 2 years ago
this video was proved to be fake in a german knowledge magezine called "galileo mystery". maybe try to look it up, dunno if it's been uploaded to youtube yet.
regards
Almlacher 2 years ago
Sorry, in 42 yrs no conclusive evidence has been provided by anyone to prove this footage fake. Not even from the Germans. Thanks for offering your opinion though. 0-)
Smiter151 2 years ago
got your point mate. but i feel like remembering they found a clip of some bbc or nbc or whatever american news clip where this guy told about how he and his mate faked the footage. he might've said that cause he was forced to, but i think it's more likely the truth this guy told. this does NOT mean that i dont believe in bigfoots. i do. call me crazy but i do. but i'm just thinking this footage is fake because the guy who made it said it would be. gotta need one more message ;)
Almlacher 2 years ago
Yeah, I've heard those kinds of claims from 5 different parties, none of which tell the same story. So who's telling the truth, or are they all lying? Regardless of their claims, none of them have been able to offer substantial proof to validate their claims, so it's not proven fake. There's actually more evidence to support it being real when closely analyzed. To each his own though. 0-)
Smiter151 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You DO realize that Smiter believes that sasquatches talk to him with telepathy right? He is friends with an entire trrop of them! They even shared some words in Bigfootese with him! They also leave him gifts! Unlike the humans that he has no need for...the Sasquatch friends are good to him! Alas, being as camera shy as they are, there is not a shred of proof to substantiate his story...what a SURPRISE that is!! He is an important man he is!! cookooo coookooo coookooo
joeyvader 2 years ago
hm. i didn't figure that from his comments, but i think that doesn't matter. he got nice arguments and brain though. :D
regards
Almlacher 2 years ago 4
there's another theory they made up in the same show. i think its quite good, and its about bigfoot and yeti being the same animal, because:
some backworldsmen and climbing guys in himalaya report about having seen an animal they call yeti while in america people claim to see kind of a "brown version" of the same one, due to the fact that the descriptions match so much, setting the skin color aside. it might be a result of evolution. the habitats and so on.
Almlacher 2 years ago
hehe thery're called by different names around the world and they have different hair color as well. Sasquatfch in N.America, Yowie of Australia, Almasti in Eastern Europe and Russia, Yeti and Yeren of Asia and Tsi Tsi Mite of Central America. They're not that hard to find and they'll come around if you aren't acting a fool.
Smiter151 2 years ago 4
thanks for being no ignorant prick, dude :D you're the first one i got to talk to not automatically saying "FAKE!!! LOL ROFL FAKE ZOMG" and accepting that there's a senseful explanation for this goddam beast :D
Almlacher 2 years ago 2
well, you have to understand I've seen them 5 different times in the last 17 months give or take and to me they aren't anymore apes than humans are. Scott Nelson is transcribing recordings people have for the spoken language. You can put his name in blogtalkradio/./com in the search part and listen to his explanations. He's a cryptolinguist btw. Like I say though, they aren't that hard to find.
Smiter151 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If their not that hard to find how come you just don't borrow a digital camera from someone and record it?
endnow1 2 years ago
I have and most people can't see them or ridicule the photographs. So I don't bother with showing them anymore.
Smiter151 2 years ago 3
I'm in the same position as you are.
I have photo's. As a matter of fact, about 13 photo's and 2 video's.
But alot of people don't have the mind-set to piece them together, or to figure out what is in the captures.
I even showed them to a bfro investigator. Now I understand why the BFRO haven't gotten anything.
Most people who can see what's in the photo's, are people who are creative and basically have a mind of their own.
Basically they don't understand the images.
AzBirdDog 2 years ago 6
Yeah most people think you should be able to look at a photo and see them right away and it just doesn't work that way. There is analysis involved.
Smiter151 2 years ago
another point i figured is that there are so many different kinds of NEW animals discovered... usually some guy taking a crap in a bush or whatever discovers some new kind of beetle, and no one cares. but when it comes to bigger animals like big foots/sasquatches/lets say skunk apes, everyone is automatically yelling "FAKE! LOL ROFL ZOMG!"
anyone tell me. WHY THE HELL is that? i don't get it. they might be just kinda shy. that's it. why are you so uncomfortable with that?
Almlacher 2 years ago 3
well most people have been brainwashed their whole life by the dogmas of science and reliegion..........so it's not unusual for them to rebel against what they've been told is not reall.....it upsets their reality. 0-)
Smiter151 2 years ago 5
i think thats quite impressive. the point is, why should some some backworldsmen and climbers in nepal make up shit like that. they're not having an advantage from saying that if it'd be a lie. and how much the descriptions match... that can't be fortuity. so big foot can't be a lie aswell. they do exist. at least that's what i think.
regards
Almlacher 2 years ago
Could be pooper's droop.
doggydimepicker 2 years ago
maybe with bigfoots, the guys have the boobs O_o
911Happened 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
where is it
???
emossuck11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bluff creek, northern california, 1967.
saflsogdsgj 2 years ago
Nope. No baby there. Just a couple of bigfoot funbags. Squatch has got some seriously nice sweater puppies.
akuila 2 years ago
It's just her boobs that you are seeing. So, we know it's a female, but it's still a mystery on this legendary creature.
LeanaHM76 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They crossed the genes of the people of Atlantis who were very tall with the genes of animals and Bigfoot was one of the results.Bigfoot becomes increasingly restless as the poles of Ea shift back to the position held at the time of Atlantis.
Ventaran 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bigfoot is actually a survivor from ancient Ailantis.Bigfoot appeared about 7,000 years ago.Bigfoot resulted from genetic experiments conducted by the people at that time.
Ventaran 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
looks like jim careys costume from the grinch
Th3wh1t3kn1ght 2 years ago
HKLesterol is right. There is a young one in the film. But what you are seeing here, is nothing more than a sagging boob..hehe
catluver1981 2 years ago
Wrong
PostToastie 2 years ago
actually there IS a baby (or youngster) in this film but shes not carrying it - it is on the ground crouched behind a tree stump thats why the female is strolling away so casually in the opposite direction (to lead patterson and gimlin away) - also it is said that the direction she IS heading to, there is a male standing beyond the trees u can faintly see watching- this footage is zoomed too much to see either
HKLesterol 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is it in the begining of the origal film? the young one i mean.
drmassone 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
beginning of original film orig zoom its far left of screen soon as you see "Patty" walking the other way its on the left. its trying to take cover behind some dead logs/stumps
HKLesterol 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are full of fucking shit my man. I may believe in bigfoot, but people like you make me want to punch myself in the throat.
akuila 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what part of the film is it in?
drmassone 2 years ago
beginning of film lower left orignal zoom its crouching/proning behind dead wood stumps
HKLesterol 2 years ago
i watched this in colo and it helps to see it a little better
electricmayhem47 3 years ago
Breasts.
JPRichardson 3 years ago
i still don't see a baby either.. but i'm lookin and lookin...
tonyagrestic 3 years ago
Keep your eyes on the light colored spot that appears below her chin as Patty turns toward the camera, that is it's face, it starts out looking towards you, then it looks away just as Patty looks away.
PostToastie 3 years ago
are you sure ? what are you seein . i must be blind
tonyagrestic 3 years ago
thats pattys breasts,you can see they are fused onto patty,babys DON'T do that.
LunaticBunnyofEvil 3 years ago
I don't know if 'fused' is the right word, but yea, the breasts are attached naturally whereas the baby is just using it's fingers and toes to attach itself to it's mother, just above her right breast there. In fact, it appears that it is actually using the breast for support, sitting on it or 'riding' it as she hurries away from the intruders.
PostToastie 3 years ago
That's a shadow.
captainkeeeta 3 years ago
Looks like a baby to me, especially at the point where, as Patty turns back to the forward direction, you can see the baby turn it's head to it's left, looking away from the cameraman, directing it's attention to what is in front of Patty. Shadows don't do that.
PostToastie 3 years ago
cute baby bigfoot
Kingcobrasaurus 3 years ago
those are breasts, no baby.
stardustL12 3 years ago
lmfao!! haha Tom Platz. Noway legs like that are duplicated, especially when Bob Heironimus was 185 lbs in '67. Those legs have definition and are HUGE, she's 350lbs+ The more technology I see that studies Patty, the more proof I see that she IS real. Forty years later and no credible theories except that this is real. But how can it be? I don't know but that is no human. Look at the high res stills. You can see teeth! Present day Hollywood couldn't make a better creature, with or without tits!
rdeco73 3 years ago 3
I know its incredible the more you go in the more real it looks quite the opposite if was a suit!
gunneil 2 years ago 5
The major proof the film is real, is the tallness of the whole upper body, if that were a mask the head wouldn't turn when the torso turns. -And you can clearly see the head moves and turns slightly, before the torso. That would not be possible were it a guy wearing some costume, he simply wouldn't be tall enough, so how can the head turn...? Simple, it's a real Bigfoot, not a suit. Damn, this is really so simple, you only need to look and study Patty's body carefully.
komodoman 3 years ago
great TOM PLATZ reference
sunshie1152 3 years ago
Thanks!
joeyvader 3 years ago
i've been doing film fx for the past 15 years in CA, and from my perspective this costume is amazingly well made. the part that is clearly evident in this footage which compels me to say this is the joints below the shoulders. it's very difficult, if not near impossible, to make a costume that will make that area look natural. what happens is that the inner-surface of the costume move independent of the person wearing it. only a very tight, anatomically correct and well sewn costume may work.
takezo2001 3 years ago
Thanks for the expert opinion...many who believe it to be a costume always maintain that it had to be tight fitting to allow for the muscle movements to be seen...if is tight fitting, then the man in the suit has larger thighs and calves than Tom Platz...
joeyvader 3 years ago
i agree, there is an inordinate amount of muscle or padding in the dorsum and gluteus area, as well as others, but getting a tight, form fitting costume in the joint areas where there is lack of axial support from the subjects skin and inner surface of the costume is very difficult and time consuming to accomplish... even today. the way to hide this inherent flaw is to make the fur long.
takezo2001 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look up Wah Chang and his associates. That is where the parts for this costume originated. Roger Patterson went on a "business trip" to L.A. with the $700 dollars he "borrowed" (and refused to pay back) from the Radfords to purchase the costume. Wah Chang did excellent work. But you can clearly see the padding in suit which was typical of those 60's ape costumes.
heatherssss 3 years ago
Hmm I looked up wah chang...and you know what i got..a big fat nothing.If anyone wants to claim they made the suit,..Make another one then.Its been 40 + years it should be pretty damn easy to reproduce.But alas noone wants to actually prove a hoax they just want to parrot the cry.
Poe397 3 years ago
I know , I looked it up too and your right. there's nothing. all these people claim this and that person made the suit. but i still have'nt really seen anything to convince me either.
tonyagrestic 3 years ago
it looks like breasts to me. when it turns you can clearly see two breasts.
swbuch 3 years ago 3
No way a suit! I enhnced a pic and you clearly see the baby , eye's and all on Patty's chest!
Filmaker25 3 years ago
Thank you very much! Can you make a Quicktime movie out of it and upload it for us all to see?
PostToastie 3 years ago
It wasn't a movie, In was in a pic , a closeup of Patty's upper chest and head, I will find the pic and outline where you clearly see the baby's face. It is quite amazing! Pherhaps I can e-mail it and you could have a look . I am not sure how I could put just a pic on here.
Filmaker25 3 years ago
mail me that pic to if you dont mind
DiplomatsAllDay187 3 years ago
Monkey suite? Dense minded Morons.
sicuro75 3 years ago
Monkey suite? Is this a special suite in the hotel for monkeys only??
joeyvader 3 years ago 2
on the butt
GVKK 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
That is such a costume.....Where is the buttcrack???
Hedcollecter 3 years ago
It's there......get closer.....a little closer...there..pppppoooooooooooooopppppphhh! Now you see?
kapacon 3 years ago 4
funny shit! lol
VicAzcro 3 years ago
there is no way this can be a guy in a suit. you can see the legs mucsles flex as it is walking and you can see the but mucsles flex also.bigfoot is real
dominicchavez24 3 years ago 4
Comment removed
frignats 3 years ago
There's one tantilizing piece of evidence in favor of the existence of bigfoot. I saw Monsterquest, and they discovered many new things about the movements of it, including the way the mouth moves, among numerous ohter minute details. Why in the heck would someone put all of that time and effort into a costume that would be shot from hundreds of yards away? This is very intriguing indeed and really makes you wonder about what is really on the Patterson/Gimlin film...
retinchet 3 years ago
i know one of the guys whos frequently on that show
battleatbosworth 3 years ago
is that bigfoot??.... looks like a human in a suit
iriisje 3 years ago
i dont see anything? i dont think it is on her breast. robert w morgan, one of the best if not the best bigfoot expert analized the film and said that the baby is on the ground sitting like a kid and the female is walking away to go to the male to lead patterson and gimlin away from the baby but they did not follow her. watch a bigfoot shooting and i think it is on either part 8 or 9 when he explains it, but listen to the whole thing anyway cause its really good.
jayradog 3 years ago
wow never noticed this before,there is deffinitely something going on with her right side. but the baby is so tiny in proportion to the size of its mother.possibly a newborn?
DarkWoods21 3 years ago
Probably a newborn, bigfoot newborns are supposedly smaller than their human counterparts.
PostToastie 3 years ago
Maybe she had just given birth??? Hahaha!
electrocutedsheep 3 years ago
That's generally how newborns come about.
PostToastie 3 years ago
No, what I meant was... oh never mind.
electrocutedsheep 3 years ago
Your crazy hughesth. And one transparent liar to boot!
Exciter1000 3 years ago
I'm 8'3" and as a kid I had 72 inch thighs...
joeyvader 3 years ago
Really, and just what exactly about my statement was a lie?
hughesth 3 years ago
Nice rack!
Would ya?
I would!
hoosky1143 3 years ago
Her husband would rip yor head off...actually people mating with Sasquatches might explain Ron Jeremy!
joeyvader 3 years ago
Heck, she wouldn't need her husband, I think Patty can more than take care of herself. But Ron Jeremy....rofl!
40milesband 3 years ago
I am not a big fan of the baby theory. I do have to admit, however, that Patty's walking style would provide good speed without any up and down movements that would dislodge a baby. It might also explain why she wasn't running. Food for thought.
bigfootnis 3 years ago
I've never been able to see a baby, but she does have a big ass, and a big rack! All indicative of a lactating female....
joeyvader 3 years ago
Thankfully, there are other authentic videos/footage and photographs that have also documented Bigfoot's existence. And I believe the Chicago Field Museum recently opened their new exhibit: several deceased specimens and near-complete sets of skeletal remains.
mbw5 3 years ago
???
joeyvader 3 years ago
excuse me i do study the sasquatch. but I've only recently heard of this baby theory. could someone tell me what this is?
Kylemore77 3 years ago
Well, some people see a baby sitting on her right breast, holding on to the hair on her neck and right shoulder. the white patch below Patty's jaw seems to be the reflection from it's little face as it looks toward the camera.
PostToastie 3 years ago
oh, ok. thanks alot. well i can defianitly see something small about her right shoulder..
Kylemore77 3 years ago
oh, and you should try using punctuation. DIPSTICK!
rockabillebastard 3 years ago
she gots babys on her body yuk, yuk!
kapacon 3 years ago
There is 2 babys one on her back one hanging on her right thigh.
billy240z 4 years ago
you're an idiot
rockabillebastard 3 years ago
coming from an idiot like you who don't do his home work no little child your the idiot
billy240z 3 years ago
You obviously have no clue how apes carry offspring. Plus it doesnt walk like it has and extra 50-100 pounds hanging off its leg. Plus there is nothing on it right leg. There's a bump, but anthropologist think its a herniation of the muscle through the fascial layer. There are no babies on it.
rockabillebastard 3 years ago
there is a baby on the right thigh and one on her back .
Don't be so dumb and have other tell you what to think heck look for your self this is taken from Mk so go find the real work that has been done you can look at it your self or are you just an other dipstick who does do there homework. This is the last time I am waiting my time on you so don't bother to comment just try to do some work . Kids these days so lazy and big flappers.
billy240z 3 years ago
In that case, i respectfully disagree with your interpretation.
rockabillebastard 3 years ago
The baby that I sometimes see is sitting on her right breast, holding on to the hair on Patty's right shoulder, It looks like a newborn, 10 or 20 pounds(I read that bigfoot newborns are smaller than their human counterparts). I do see something on her right thigh, popular consensus seems to be that it is a laceration of some kind.
PostToastie 3 years ago
I see what you mean on the shoulder, but its not good enough for me to accept it as being for sure. Its too blurry and it looks like it could just be sunlight or different hair patterns. I'll say its possible though.
rockabillebastard 3 years ago
Actually the bulge in the thigh is a muscle herniation. When the muscle reaches a certain extension it herniates with a visible bulge. So it's not an injury. Body builders with those chiseled muscles......those extra muscle bulges are herniations or extensions of the muscle beyond a certain range. She's probably got 40 inch thighs. Don't call me crazy either. I'm 6'7", and when i was a teen I had 35" thighs from body building and I'm about a foot shorter than this primate.
hughesth 3 years ago
kapacon is right! bigffoot porn would fly of the shelves like hot sasquatch shaped cakes.
kevbomb 4 years ago
this looks just like my uncle frank
MikeBagack 4 years ago
i am so sick, of people saying its a fake ,are you all blind? its sure looks real to me, and millions of others.
ratscatsangels 4 years ago 3
Yup, and to millions of the rest of us it looks like someone in a monkey-suit. I'm not blind, by the way.
joecushley 3 years ago
i seriously think its boobs. I've seen almost every enhancement of this footage and it looks like tits. why is it so hard to believe that there HAS to be female bigfeet in order to procreate and what not.
sprackles 4 years ago
Bigfoot boobs...
zorakreturns 4 years ago
It is very sad to think that there are those that want to capture them just so they may exploit them for profit in bigfoot porno movies.
kapacon 4 years ago
Yeah, they're definately breasts of a female.
selatik 4 years ago
If you look closely you see him turn right slightly as it passes the second tree. That would make the shadow hit him sooner then the first tree. Plus the mid stride and panning camera thing.
kevbomb 4 years ago
its a girl
kingleosaber13 4 years ago
The shadows are normal. He is closer to the second tree he passes, that is why the shadow is closer to the second tree. Also it would be near impossible to cut in mid stride, also the camera is panning left to right to follow him another reason it would be near impossible to edit. I'm studying film, trust me.
kevbomb 4 years ago
Bigfoot is a very real creature, too real for some obviously, and so is this film.
komodoman 4 years ago
If you saw the rest of Patterson's footage (he was trying to make a documentary) You'd see right away how lame of a filmaker he was. Something this clever was far beyond the ability of Roger Patterson
selatik 4 years ago
Looks like boobs to me.
littlequeen64 4 years ago
FAKE! Here's PROOF.. See film at 8-11 seconds, the tree he walks behind casts 2 shadows. This is where the re-shot film was edited, they probably shot many takes, and as the day got later, of course the sun moved and the shadow was in different place. FAKE, EDITED, MULTIPLE SHOTS, FILM, but a good splicing job. Of course Patterson was a film maker. Oh, you all forgot this?
BigfootMustDie 4 years ago
I looked and looked and looked some more to see what you were talking about. I found it the subject has two shadows cast on it because it walks behind two trees.
TheBean 4 years ago
It wouldnt matter how many trees he walked behind.. the ANGLE of the shadows are different, i wanna believe but this is as real as us having 2 suns..
@BigfootMustDie creds to you for seeing the shadows man
Clyps2 4 years ago
thats alot for one guy back in the 50s to try to do just to hoax a bigfoot but ok
SideBurns2007 4 years ago
1967. When special effects and costumes made a big leap forward.
joecushley 3 years ago
How did splicing help to create the dimensions of the creature? How did this help? I can't wait to hear the "explanation".
joeyvader 4 years ago
Two trees, different distances and angles from the film subject, dude! Do you need to have a diagram drawn for you?
selatik 4 years ago
@BigfootMustDie
Of course. And in 43 years of experts, scientists etc. scrutenizing and studying this film.....no one has ever even noticed this "2 shadows", of which would have obviously been mentioned (and dismissed). That is, not until YOU discovered it. Because you, are so smart, and special.
Oh, and obviously not a completely brainless assweed.
MarkII69 1 year ago
fake
capu653 4 years ago
@capu653
Idiot
MarkII69 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure those are mammaries.
Guernicaman 4 years ago