Your opinion about Bigfoot - Printable Version +- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum) +-- Forum: Frictional Games (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-3.html) +--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-16.html) +--- Thread: Your opinion about Bigfoot (/thread-20711.html) |
RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Adny - 03-12-2013 (03-11-2013, 08:57 PM)ferryadams10 Wrote: How is your thought about this legend? LOL. Thanks for the laugh this thread brought, really needed it today. RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - PutraenusAlivius - 03-12-2013 I think that he doesn't exist. Why? Because this creature is big. Something that big can be seen with the naked eye. EDIT: @ferryadams10 Nice profile pic. I got a new one too. RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Deep One - 03-12-2013 (03-11-2013, 10:50 PM)Wooderson Wrote: Rock Worm left too early... D: ;_________; I wish he would come back, I miss him. RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Hunter of Shadows - 03-12-2013 Doesn't exist, anything that big and not been spotted? Bullshit RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - ferryadams10 - 03-12-2013 (03-11-2013, 11:14 PM)Aldighieri Wrote: From Wikipedia : I don't say I disagree with you, but then there's the thing. extra-ordinary things in the Patterson Gimlin film: #1 Quote:the creature was way to big for a man in a disguise and in that days they didn't had the video editing skills to make a good hoax like that #2 Quote:The muscles in the neck are moving which won't appear in a suit #3 Quote:The hands were moving and the arms of the "suit" were too long for human arms so the man if it was a man must have had huge arms to move the hands in the "suit" #4 Quote:IF it was a suit it was a top quality one with qualities that aren't made yet as we speak #5 Quote:The legs make as the primate walks a 52° angle, it makes a 52° angle in every single video that has been made of the primate. #6 Quote:Hair of the creature has been found and a DNA research on it has been made with negative results on every other animal or human hair #7 Quote:There has been many researches and nobody ever found a suit okay again, this could have been disposed. Please proof me wrong in these 7 things, maybe we can figure something out here (03-12-2013, 12:33 AM)Adny Wrote:(03-11-2013, 08:57 PM)ferryadams10 Wrote: How is your thought about this legend? You're welcome. Always feels good to put a smile on someone's face RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Ghieri - 03-12-2013 It's easier to film a gorilla suit than a creature who otherwise has no fossil, habitual, or otherwise physical evidence to support it. I just reviewed the footage, the ape has a distinct human swagger and it's torso area reflects into the camera. Everything else about the footage is of such poor quality that distinct features are pretty much impossible to confirm. Also, it looked like the Filmer had Parkinson's. The people reviewing the film could have easily imagined those details. RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Macgyverthehero - 03-13-2013 (03-12-2013, 10:02 PM)Aldighieri Wrote: It's easier to film a gorilla suit than a creature who otherwise has no fossil, habitual, or otherwise physical evidence to support it. Swagging was not a thing back then... unlike today which disgusts me. I believe that anything that has been mentioned whether it be hoax or not has existed at some point on earth, including Bigfoot. RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Kman - 03-13-2013 (03-13-2013, 05:16 AM)Macgyverthehero Wrote: Swagging was not a thing back then... unlike today which disgusts me. YES BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T MADE IT CLEAR YOU THOUGHT THAT IN ALMOST EVERY OTHER POST YOU'VE MADE FUCK RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - failedALIAS - 03-13-2013 (03-13-2013, 05:16 AM)Macgyverthehero Wrote: Swagging was not a thing back then... unlike today which disgusts me. Actually, a swagger is the way one. . . You know what? Fuck explaining this shit. Eat some pine needles, you insipid fuck-knuckle. Me is sorry about temper. RE: Your opinion about Bigfoot - Adrianis - 03-13-2013 (03-12-2013, 03:29 PM)ferryadams10 Wrote: #1 Irrelevant, because you are not watching the video back then, you are watching the video now, and we have that technology now. The video can be A. retrospectively edited and B. made to look like it was made a while ago |