KungPaoChic wrote:

I divorced his ass. He was way too hairy.

Finally, proof of Big Foot in Florida. You must be happy, Jerry. And how did you feel about Big Foot Jerry? Would you marry one?

LA StarShooter wrote:
Finally, proof of Big Foot in Florida. You must be happy, Jerry. And how did you feel about Big Foot Jerry? Would you marry one?

oh! oh! oh! Mr. Kotter

Only if she has been in Playboy!

LA StarShooter wrote:

Finally, proof of Big Foot in Florida. You must be happy, Jerry. And how did you feel about Big Foot Jerry? Would you marry one?

I haven't even seen one yet.

KungPaoChic wrote:


oh! oh! oh! Mr. Kotter

Only if she has been in Playboy!

Off topic and hijacking.

WisconsinArt wrote:
Bigfoot is real. I know because I've seen it. I was just about to cspture a photo of it but Elvis stepped in front of my shot when I snapped the picture.

Not the first sighting of the 2 together.

rare capture of Bigfoot and Elvis with Nessie (although this Bigfoot doesn't quite look like the one seen locally)

SAND DIAL wrote:
Go Bigfoot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPKfQhjK978

If I experienced this I would be scared myself.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
1. Sighting and legends all over the world lend credence;

are you sure?

Or are these "sightings and legends" simply local explanations for things that the observers cant otherwise explain?

Folks said the earth was flat. They saw mermaids and sea monsters in the oceans. The Gods hurled lightning bolts when angered.
The sound barrier was a solid wall that couldnt be penetrated.
Ultimately, science provided the factual answers.

When BillyBob and his cousin Goober were out drinkin' in the swamp they saw something, but it made a much better story for their buddies if it was Sasquatch...

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
A brief but very credible account of a Himalayan Yeti is given in THE LONG WALK, an astounding book which was later made into a mediocre movie.

Like a Siamese Twin, I'm of two minds:

1. Sighting and legends all over the world lend credence; BUT...
2. No one has bagged one.

It is smart enough to stay away from humans.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
It is smart enough to stay away from humans.

that's what people say, even tho no one has ever gotten to give bigfoot an IQ test.
How smart could it be if it's always yelling in the woods and throwing rocks at us and wandering in front of cameras that people just happen to have in the wilderness? ...except no one can prove it.

*rollseyes*

there's no fucking way it exists!!!!
although its fun to pretend. I'm glad it doesn't exist tho. scary as all hell if there was a big giant monkey man in the woods. A creature like that would walk right into a camp ground and wreck shop. Like bears going through trash.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I was certain that Jerry would have told us he shot a female big foot.😄

Lol +100

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
It is smart enough to stay away from humans.

I'd imagine that's because it's probably a hominid of some kind, rather than an ape...

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
that's what people say, even tho no one has ever gotten to give bigfoot an IQ test.
How smart could it be if it's always yelling in the woods and throwing rocks at us and wandering in front of cameras that people just happen to have in the wilderness? ...except no one can prove it.

*rollseyes*

there's no fucking way it exists!!!!

You don't know that, because we can't prove negatives.

although its fun to pretend. I'm glad it doesn't exist tho. scary as all hell if there was a big giant monkey man in the woods. A creature like that would walk right into a camp ground and wreck shop. Like bears going through trash.

You ought to take a look at ThinkerThunker's videos on Youtube.  He goes over the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film and does some mathematical analysis.  Basically, he concludes that it can't be a guy in a suit because the biomechanics of the creature's gate is non-human, and the arms are almost as long as its legs.  It doesn't have human proportions and doesn't move like a human, and you can't fake this with a suit... He explains it better than I do, though, and the mathematics here is the real clincher.  It's not a suit, end of story.  Oh, and even if it is, then why does it have tits? That creature in the film is a female...



I think this is pretty powerful evidence.  There are two videos that go over this, in addition to his examinations of other videos...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRi1VLB … p;index=41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EicVEO … 9r5jPZ5zJu

highStrangeness wrote:
You ought to take a look at ThinkerThunker's videos on Youtube.  He goes over the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film and does some mathematical analysis.  Basically, he concludes that it can't be a guy in a suit because the biomechanics of the creature's gate is non-human, and the arms are almost as long as its legs.  It doesn't have human proportions and doesn't move like a human, and you can't fake this with a suit... He explains it better than I do, though, and the mathematics here is the real clincher.  It's not a suit, end of story.  Oh, and even if it is, then why does it have tits? That creature in the film is a female...

You're absolutely right, theres no way you could extend arms or add 'tits' to a suit.......no wait, what. Oh my god what about BBQ aprons with rubber breasts.
Dude, I'm open to anything really, but I do need more proof than its arms are too long, it has breasts, and a couple of youtube videos.

Justin Matthews wrote:
You're absolutely right, theres no way you could extend arms or add 'tits' to a suit.......no wait, what. Oh my god what about BBQ aprons with rubber breasts.
Dude, I'm open to anything really, but I do need more proof than its arms are too long, it has breasts, and a couple of youtube videos.

Did you even watch the 2nd video?

Jay2G Photography wrote:
I like the facts that non believers make. " there is no evidence" well there is a video that many experts think is legit. Not good enough.  " why hasn't anyone found a dead one?"  All my time I have never found a dead bear, wolf, cougar, elk, moose, coyote or any other common animals in all my years in the woods. But they have to die somewhere. How is it I cannot name one person I know who has ever stumbled across any of these animals in the middle of the woods dead?  " why do they scream and throw rocks at people if they are so smart"  Maybe some areas are becoming so active with people it's becoming more difficult to stay hidden and they are trying to scare us off.

   I'm very open to the possibility. But like many of you I require more definitive proof.  Like clear footage of one, or seeing one for myself.  But I am not going to call BS because I just don't know.

These people have never been in the woods. They don't have a clue!  I haven't come across dead animals myself.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

These people have never been in the woods. They don't have a clue!  I haven't come across dead animals myself.

Oh I know Jerry. Trust me, I cannot believe how many people I have worked with that had never even been to northern Michigan let alone the U.P.    Some people who live in Michigan I know had no idea there was even two parts of Michigan lol   Granted they were not born there, but still. Have you ever looked at a map?
     Now, living in Indiana.  I have employees who have never been to Michigan, and know absolutely nothing about it. I could understand if its on the other side of the country. But I have fielded questions like " Is it humid in Michigan? Is there  a lot of water? "   Another one was " is there very many woods in Michigan? Or is it pretty open and flat like it is here?"   Oh and the newest one. " is the water really as bad as they say it is on TV?"

   I have been watching videos on the Patterson video, and they are truly remarkable to watch.  Using the one guys method of measuring arms and legs. Im thinking the eagle cam video  is a guy in a suit. Arms looked much shorter than his legs. I called fake the first time I seen it. It just looks like a man to me. Personally I hope nobody ever finds one. Can you imagine the public response if they had one in a cage going wild? They'd call for blood and kill em all, and who knows what science would do to the poor thing.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
You guys realize that there were no "Bigfoot" sightings or tracks or anything before 1958 right?

In 1958 some guy named Wallace faked some footprints for fun but didnt admit to it until decades later in 2002:
http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/how … t_his_name

Those Patterson and Gimlin guys come around in the 1960s and they like the idea of Bigfoot and planned to make a movie about Bigfoot! Another guy named Morris who is a costume maker for movies sold them a gorilla suit.

They met the Wallace guy who hoaxed the footprints in 1958 (but hasn't admitted to it at that time).
They go to the same area that the "bigfoot" prints were found.

They film their buddy named Bob walking in gorilla suit pretending to be bigfoot.
In 2005 Bob passed a lie detector test when he admitted to being the guy in the gorilla suit.
...but anyways the film became very popular!
I'm sure the guys made some good money from it.

Bigfoot isn't real.
A creature like that doesnt fit in the food chain, doesnt have the population to survive and theres never been any remains or evidence it exists or existed at one time and its a great thing to hoax because so many idiots want to believe. It always creates a stir.

If female bigfoot had breasts, they wouldnt be covered in fur, they'd be bare like a gorillas so the baby could breast feed. I guess boobs were easier to stuff than sticking a bigfoot dick and balls on the front of the suit ...and it wouldnt have a line on the middle of its thigh. Bob said this was from the wader type boots he was wearing under the suit. He also had to turn the way he did because of football pads under the suit.



Also the bottom of its foot wouldnt look like a clean slipper.


Stabilized, its clear to see its just a dude in a suit. i like the little bit of cowboy bounce he has in his step:
https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress. … d-walk.gif

If that thing was real, it wouldnt just casually walk away and glance back, it would stop and hide to avoid be seen, or flee if it felt in danger.

Hmmmmm so Native Americans jumped on the bandwagon in 1958 and created their stories and names about what we today call Bigfoot?   How about doing a tad bit more digging. The earliest RECORDED/DOCUMENTED claim of a sighting dates back to 1792. The Patterson video has been gone over by many people and just about all say that the thing is that video is NOT some guy in a suit. There are videos that do a cross comparison between the guy who claimed to be in the suit and the actual video. His frame, walk ( with the exception of the swaying of his arms) etc does not come close to matching the strides and walk of the thing in the Patterson video.  Experts say that even by todays standards, the so called suit would have been state of the art ( and they had nothing close to the technology needed to replicate muscle movement in 1967) and would cost upward to $100,000 to create today.  Thats one hell of a hoax.

   Also, how could anyone predict how something like this would react? If it's real it's an animal and like other animals their behavior is not always predictable.  You sure seem to know an awful lot about something that does not exist.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
You guys realize that there were no "Bigfoot" sightings or tracks or anything before 1958 right?

In 1958 some guy named Wallace faked some footprints for fun but didnt admit to it until decades later in 2002:
http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/how … t_his_name

Alright, I'm getting sick of this nonsense.

For fuck's sake, Paolo, will you do some damn research before you make statements like this? This is utterly false.  As I have told you in email, reports of Bigfoot (though, not by the name Bigfoot, that's a recent name) go back hundreds of years.  There are reports of encounters with "Wild men" in the 19th century, and even earlier.  If you'd Google "1800s Bigfoot encounters" or something similar, you'd find them.  There's a lot of them.

You need to stop this shit, you make ill-informed posts in here that reveal nothing but willful ignorance on your part.  I'm not making a point about whether or not Sasquatch actually exists here, I'm trying to make a point about your blatantly false statements, like claiming Bigfoot reports only go back 60 or so years.

And the claim that Ray Wallace is responsible for all footprints, ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA, is ludicrous, also.  The idea that all supposed Bigfoot prints must be faked is absurd, too.  Some of these prints are over 18" in width and have a stride length greater than 4 feet, sometimes upwards of 5 feet.  Tracks of this sort would be very difficult to fake.

Those Patterson and Gimlin guys come around in the 1960s and they like the idea of Bigfoot and planned to make a movie about Bigfoot! Another guy named Morris who is a costume maker for movies sold them a gorilla suit.

They met the Wallace guy who hoaxed the footprints in 1958 (but hasn't admitted to it at that time).
They go to the same area that the "bigfoot" prints were found.

They film their buddy named Bob walking in gorilla suit pretending to be bigfoot.
In 2005 Bob passed a lie detector test when he admitted to being the guy in the gorilla suit.
...but anyways the film became very popular!
I'm sure the guys made some good money from it.

Bob Heironimus is one of 7 people, at least, who have claimed to be the "man-in-the-suit".  I don't know how Bob passed a lie detector test, but who cares, he's full of shit, because the biomechanics of that creature don't match up his movements.  There are some serious problems with claiming it's a man in a suit, and quite frankly you're just unaware of them.  Further, most everyone who knows Patterson has denied that Heironimus was there the day Patterson and Gimlin were there at Bluff Creek.  Indeed, his wife vehemently denies it, as well. And, if really was a hoax, it's an absolutely brilliant one, and I think the idea that two country boys could have pulled something like this off is unlikely, because it's a very good suit. 

Also, to the best of my knowledge, neither men ever made any much, if any money off of it. 

Bigfoot isn't real.
A creature like that doesnt fit in the food chain, doesnt have the population to survive and theres never been any remains or evidence it exists or existed at one time and its a great thing to hoax because so many idiots want to believe. It always creates a stir.

If female bigfoot had breasts, they wouldnt be covered in fur, they'd be bare like a gorillas so the baby could breast feed. I guess boobs were easier to stuff than sticking a bigfoot dick and balls on the front of the suit ...and it wouldnt have a line on the middle of its thigh. Bob said this was from the wader type boots he was wearing under the suit. He also had to turn the way he did because of football pads under the suit.

I don't think you know enough about our forests to to say that, Paolo.  Some believe there's enough food in the Pacific Northwest forests to support these kinds of creatures. 

And just how the hell do you know female Bigfoot's breasts would not be covered in fur? That's just pure speculation.

Are all of your arguments based what Bob Heironimus has said? That guy has no credibility.

Bottom line here, despite what you think, the Patterson-Gimlin film has never been conclusively debunked because the scientific community is split on opinions over it.  Of those who have actually examined and analyzed the film, about half have taken the view that it shows a real unknown bipedal primate.  Notable among those were the late anthropologist Grover Krantz, and Jeffery Meldrum, who is professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State University.  Meldrum is also an expert in primate foot morphology.  Interestingly enough though, Bernard Heuvelmans, who's considered the "father of cryptozoology" did not give it a favorable review. 

You know, honestly, from my discussions with you both here in and in email, I can only conclude you suffer from pathological skepticism.

edit:

Stabilized, its clear to see its just a dude in a suit. i like the little bit of cowboy bounce he has in his step:
https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress. … d-walk.gif

That's not a cowboy bounce, that's called a compliant gait, and is not the way humans walk.  Just by casually looking at the stride of the creature, it's hard to tell it's unusual, but if you analyze it carefully, it doesn't match our kind of stride.  ThinkerThunker on Youtube did a good breakdown, I linked it above in another post on this page.  It's worth viewing.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
If anyone can watch this video below and not be left open to the possibility that this creature may exist. Then you're an idiot.  Then look at the 2nd video and see the scientific proof that new species are still being discovered all the time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs 
http://www.discoverwildlife.com/animals … ars-part-1

Good videos.  I've already watched the one about Bill Munns' analysis, and he makes some powerful arguments.  Also, ThinkerThunkers analysis of the biomechanics (angles, stride) of the creature is worth watching as well.  I posted it earlier, but in case anyone missed it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EicVEOtm1A

Jay2G Photography wrote:
Hmmmmm so Native Americans jumped on the bandwagon in 1958 and created their stories and names about what we today call Bigfoot?   How about doing a tad bit more digging. The earliest RECORDED/DOCUMENTED claim of a sighting dates back to 1792.

I've done plenty of digging. Native americans have a legend about a monster that lived in the woods.
If anything to stop their kids from wandering off. Depending on the tribe it was an evil creature or a good creature and usually a protector of the forest. Often it was said this beast could turn into a tree or turn invisible.
All cultures have tales about supernatural beings and monsters.

There was no sighting in 1792, thats just when some guy named Jose first heard the legend about a hairy monster from a native american tribe and wrote it in his journal.

There was nothing called "bigfoot" before 1958 when Wallace made those fake foot prints.

Jay2G Photography wrote:
Experts say that even by todays standards, the so called suit would have been state of the art ( and they had nothing close to the technology needed to replicate muscle movement in 1967) and would cost upward to $100,000 to create today.  Thats one hell of a hoax.

"Experts" are idiots.
Be realistic, the suit cost Patterson $435 back in the day. It would probably be equivalent to about $1000 today.
Patterson also rented the camera he filmed it with because he was making a movie!
People were not carrying cameras loaded with film around back then while riding their horses in the woods.
I can't imagine the camera rental was too much back in 1967, so he probably had about a $500 budget for his project.
Or in todays dollars, what Patterson spent was about the same as a kid spends nowadays on a DSLR so they can make videos and put them on youtube in hopes of going viral. Patterson's film went viral before going viral was a thing. What a pioneer! It brought him fame and money.

There were better costumes in Wizard of Oz which was filmed about 30 years before Patterson filmed "bigfoot"
Planet of the Apes came out in 1968 and both those look better and are solid even by todays standards.
So thats fucking retarded to say they didnt have good looking gorilla suits in 1967.
They had flying monkeys in 1939!



Heres the guy that made the original big foot costume in the patterson film, with the guy that was in the costume:
you get to see the costume too near the end of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY3knhilmKk

Jay2G Photography wrote:
Also, how could anyone predict how something like this would react? If it's real it's an animal and like other animals their behavior is not always predictable.  You sure seem to know an awful lot about something that does not exist.

I know a lot about animals. Almost every animal reacts the same. From a human to a house cat. So actually it is pretty predictable what it would do.
I would assume a large hairy man ape would behave the same as every other creature. Especially one of similar type and size, like a bear or gorilla.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
There was nothing called "bigfoot" before 1958 when Wallace made those fake foot prints.

More or less correct, considering that somewhere during all the media attention over it, the term Bigfoot was coined (appropriately enough).  But you're simply dead wrong in insisting that the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon is limited to the 20th century.  Again, you're not reading what I said -- there are plenty of reports of encounters with giant "wild men" or "ape men" in the 19th century.  Some are quite bizarre.  I'm not arguing on the validity of said reports, just that they exist, and match the description of Bigfoot.

"Experts" are idiots.
Be realistic, the suit cost Patterson $435 back in the day. It would probably be equivalent to about $1000 today.
Patterson also rented the camera he filmed it with because he was making a movie!
People were not carrying cameras loaded with film around back then while riding their horses in the woods.
I can't imagine the camera rental was too much back in 1967, so he probably had about a $500 budget for his project.
Or in todays dollars, what Patterson spent was about the same as a kid spends nowadays on a DSLR so they can make videos and put them on youtube in hopes of going viral. Patterson's film went viral before going viral was a thing. What a pioneer! It brought him fame and money.

Yeah, I figured I'd see a response like this.  Calling Krantz and Meldrum, and other scientists idiots? Get a grip Paolo...

None of what you said addresses the fact that the biomechanics of the that so-called "suit" don't match human movements.  It doesn't address how the muscles move either.  You're just dismissing things out of hand because it doesn't fit your denialist narrative. The only thing you've actually proved is that arguing with dogmatic skeptics like yourself is a waste of time.

Talk about stubborn, it's like there's nothing that make you even consider the possibility that Bigfoot might be real.

I know a lot about animals. Almost every animal reacts the same. From a human to a house cat. So actually it is pretty predictable what it would do.
I would assume a large hairy man ape would behave the same as every other creature. Especially one of similar type and size, like a bear or gorilla.

I dispute this.  I want to see evidence that "almost every animal reacts the same".  Also, even if that's true, it doesn't mean that much in the context of an unknown, undescribed animal, that MIGHT behave that way, or might not.  You're theorizing on unknowns. 

How are we supposed to know just how (assuming it does exist, for the sake of the argument) Bigfoot always behaves? With the lack of hard data, any statement like yours is suspect.

highStrangeness wrote:

Did you even watch the 2nd video?

The classic ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.  The other "expert", Bill Munns, has had his credibility trashed.  He apparently greatly exaggerates his experience in film making.  When you get into the murky Youtube world of conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience crafted by some guy who owns a video camera, it can be a bottomless pit of misinformation. 

BTW, I also like the "I've never seen a dead deer" testimony as proof that Bigfoot could exist.  The existence of deer, bears, raccoons or wild pigs doesn't depend on your personal witness.  Other people have seen and documented them.  Some of these other people are legitimate scientists and they have been documenting animal species for hundreds of years.  You would think that someone would have come across evidence of a 3 or 400 pound primate in Michigan by now.

MN Photography wrote:
The classic ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.  The other "expert", Bill Munns, has had his credibility trashed.  He apparently greatly exaggerates his experience in film making.  When you get into the murky Youtube world of conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience crafted by some guy who owns a video camera, it can be a bottomless pit of misinformation. 

BTW, I also like the "I've never seen a dead deer" testimony as proof that Bigfoot could exist.  The existence of deer, bears, raccoons or wild pigs doesn't depend on your personal witness.  Other people have seen and documented them.  Some of these other people are legitimate scientists and they have been documenting animal species for hundreds of years.  You would think that someone would have come across evidence of a 3 or 400 pound primate in Michigan by now.

Calling him a conspiracy theorist doesn't seem necessary, and is nothing more than a baseless ad hominem attack.  Examining the Patterson film doesn't translate to him being a conspiracy theorist, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.  The argument is straightforward and easy to understand.  If you cast aside and label him a conspiracy theorist for simply doing some anatomical comparisons and math, then you're really dense.  You're just using a typical bullshit pseudoskeptical tactic -- if you don't like the argument someone makes, attack their character.

I don't know anything about Munns' reputation either, but his work backs up ThinkerThunker's claims.   
 
According to TT's bio on Youtube, he has a degree in computer science and experience with 3D modeling and rigging.  Also, he happens to be a professional photographer, which is interesting.  He's a special effects guy, so I think his opinion on the Patterson film carries some weight. 

Besides, as I stated, the argument seems pretty solid and easy to see. .

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkerThunker/about

highStrangeness wrote:
I don't know anything about Munns' reputation, but others have come to the same conclusion, including ThinkerThunker.  TT did the math, measured the arm-to-leg ratio, and studied the stride.  It doesn't add up.   
According to TT's bio on Youtube, he has a degree in computer science and experience with 3D modeling and rigging.  Also, he happens to be a professional photographer, which is interesting.  He's a special effects guy, so I think his opinion on the Patterson film carries some weight.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkerThunker/about

I haven't seen his resume.  Does he have an actual name?  That might help his credibility. 

A computer science degree and a glorified hobby making 3D modeling doesn't make someone any kind of expert at all on animal physiology.  He sounds exactly like the sort of Youtube experts who come up with proof that the 9/11 terror attack could not have been accomplished with airplanes.  Just because someone has an audience on Youtube, it doesn't make them an expert.

The bottom line on bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and elves and fairies is that people hallucinate.  Hallucinations can be caused by something as simple as a bladder infection or as complex as paranoid schizophrenia.  These hallucinations are very real to the person having them and because hallucinations are the by product of a biological function, the hallucinations can be very similar across cultures and geographic areas.  This is why most societies around the world have their little people myths as well as the various bigfoot/yeti stories.

MN Photography wrote:
I haven't seen his resume.  Does he have an actual name?  That might help his credibility.

I don't know his real name.  I think it would be better to pay attention to the weight of his arguments, than worry about who he is.  The question remains, is the argument sound or not?

The bottom line on bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and elves and fairies is that people hallucinate.  Hallucinations can be caused by something as simple as a bladder infection or as complex as paranoid schizophrenia.  These hallucinations are very real to the person having them and because hallucinations are the by product of a biological function, the hallucinations can be very similar across cultures and geographic areas.  This is why most societies around the world have their little people myths as well as the varies bigfoot/yeti stories.

Hallucinations don't leave footprints, and they don't stink (other people can smell it) and they aren't experienced by multiple people at one time. 

Try again, this is not a good argument against Bigfoot.

highStrangeness wrote:

I don't know his real name.  I think it would be better to pay attention to the weight of his arguments, than worry about who he is.  The question remains, is the argument sound or not?

Yeah, no.  He is just another anonymous crank on Youtube.  I enjoy the videos with the guys who think they can declare themselves sovereign citizens and then drive without a drivers license more than the bigfoot conspiracy guys.

MN Photography wrote:
Yeah, no.  He is just another anonymous crank on Youtube.  I enjoy the videos with the guys who think they can declare themselves sovereign citizens and then drive without a drivers license more than the bigfoot conspiracy guys.

That's what I thought, it's easier to dismiss his argument than consider it, so you don't have to think about it and challenge your (dis)beliefs.  And by the way, his analysis seems pretty sound to me.  It's not like it's extremely hard to do, either.

Analyzing Bigfoot videos doesn't mean he's a conspiracy theorist.

highStrangeness wrote:

Hallucinations don't leave footprints, and they don't stink (other people can smell it) and they aren't experienced by multiple people at one time. 

Try again, this is not a good argument against Bigfoot.

Hallucinations can be perceived as smells and there are situations where multiple people have the same or similar reactions to information that turns out to be something else entirely.

MN Photography wrote:

Hallucinations can be perceived as smells and there are situations where multiple people have the same or similar reactions to information that turns out to be something else entirely.

Wouldn't explain the unknown recordings made in the Sierras and elsewhere, of bizarre screams and calls that can't be matched to any known animal.  You're reaching again, hallucinations aren't likely to be a major factor in Bigfoot sightings.  Something else is going on.

highStrangeness wrote:

That's what I thought, it's easier to dismiss his argument than consider it, so you don't have to think about it and challenge your (dis)beliefs.  And by the way, his analysis seems pretty sound to me.  It's not like it's extremely hard to do, either.

Analyzing Bigfoot videos doesn't mean he's a conspiracy theorist.

If I was planning to be an attorney, I wouldn't waste time watching one of the hundreds of Youtube videos with people giving their complex and inaccurate explanations of the various legal myths that circulate. 

I do watch them for entertainment sometimes.  Which is all the bigfoot theories are good for.