well the video they took is the best evidence that bigfoot exists that i've heard of, and to me it just looks fake.
How does it "just look fake"?
and the circumstances behind he video, these two guys go out with a video camera that they rented with the sole purpose of catching bigfoot on film and they so happen to stumble across one, the odds of that just dont seem that high.
That is not sound reasoning. Patterson and Gimlin went to where sightings of the creature most frequently occurred and found the creature. That isn't very extraordinary considering the reports.
and it seems to me that if you wouldn't rent a video camera unless you knew you were gonna get something on tape.
The camera Patterson rented was extremely expensive. Since he was going through so much trouble already (what with the amazing fur suit and all which could not have been cheap) wouldn't he have at least shot something more impressive if it was truly staged?
and also the guy that told them the where to go to look for bigfoot was a well-known bigfoot hoaxer.
Patterson relied on more than one source.
Still, I refuse to believe that "Hollywood's most skilled special effects experts"(Taken from a video trying to defend the Patterson vid) have not been able to reproduce the suit. My guess is they took one look at it, and decided it wasn't worth the trouble.
Look at what BBC and Discovery produced. Their suits were absolutely pathetic - and this is the 21st century! Folds in suit material have appeared in every film in which there was human costumed as an ape up until Gorillas in the Mist (1988), and they can be identified as such either in close-up or at a distance. If it was a suit, it was truly phenomenal.
strike that last post of mine, i was wrong. however i still have doubts about it being real.
Why?
I watched the video five minutes ago on youtube. It looks like a guy in a suit to me, and I know of no other primate than humans who swing their arms like that when they walk.
The arm movement is actually what most stumps the skeptics. No one has ever been able to satisfactorily replicate it. The "experts" on Discovery admit that it is inhuman.
1. it just looks like it could easily be someone in a suit, i dont think it looks real
2. they went to a sight recommended by a well known bigfoot hoax artist
3. the fact that he rented an extremely expensive camera i think helps my case, why would you spend lots of money to
rent a camera if you weren't sure you were gonna get something on film. and what would be more impressive?
should he have walked up and shook the thing's hand?
4. i'll give you the fact that the suit looked good for being that long ago, but gimlin was friends with special effects
people so they had access to people who could possibly make a suit for them. i dont know what suits you're
referring to when you mention the BBC and Discovery.
5. i can swing my arms like that, its not natural but i can do it.