What's your take on the Patterson–Gimlin film? Do you think that it was a suit or the real deal?

>Nooo, it's reaal, a guy who worked on planet on the apes saiid soo

The evidence in the op? Are you stupid? It’s not my job to soonfeed you. Like I’m saying we don’t know if that’s Bigfoot or a suit, but it certainly raises questions that we should look further into.

This, here's an example. Note the thigh.

Attached: Thigh Jiggle.gif (640x640, 2.13M)

Attached: 1641590099589.png (652x1158, 1.48M)

>supposedly you can see muscle movement under the fur
what people claim is "muscle movement" in the stabilized version is just blurring from the camera being yanked around randomly by the retard filming.

reminder that
>original film has 'disappeared' meaning there's no way to prove when it was developed or check it for 'alternative takes' etc or the footage taken leading up to and after the sighting
>rented a film camera with the intention of capturing bigfoot and somehow did the next day
>the money he used to rent the camera was given to him by a production company that was paying him to make a fake psudo-documentary about bigfoot
>original timeline of events was proven to be impossible so they changed it
>some of the photos of them on a bigfoot hunt were discovered to be taken in Patterson's back yard which included Gimlin dressed up as a native american guide
>company has proof they made a gorilla suit for him and he even asked for extra fur to make the arms longer
>high school football player who lived down the street was promised payment if he wore a gorilla suit and pretended to be bigfoot so they could take pictures for the fake psudo-documentary
>same guy drove down to visit them at their camp, and the day after he did that the footage of bigfoot was captured by coincidence

Attached: 1493417211354.png (860x652, 159.77K)

damn he lookin like trump

>if I put it in a green text people will believe me
Fuck off shill

That's not evidence.

What if it was made with the intention to simulate muscle?

>What evidence?
The visual appearance of the subject itself is inconsistent with that of fur costumes of it's day, or even today. Muscular separation at the thigh, the recess of the knees being visible, and the way the light shines off of the high spots of muscle demonstrate that the fur contours around the fat and muscle. Fur costumes drape over and conceal muscle.

The length of the arms compared with the length of the legs is far longer than that of a human, and yet the elbow joint is located exactly where it should be which demonstrates that no arm extensions were being used.

Finally there's the walking gait, which is inconsistent with that of a human due to the fact that the angles of the feet and lower legs are far too severe and can't be replicated by human anatomy during a walking gait.

Occams razor suggests that if it was a costume, than it would share the same characteristics and appearnace of a costume, but it doesn't, it would have the same arm length as a man in a costume, but it doesn't, and it would walk like a man in a costume, but it doesn't. None of the visible evidence supports the costume hypothesis, and yet it should, and would, if it was a man in a suit.

>walking that hard
>barefoot
Nah, what kinda boots does bigfoot wear?