Sasfooty Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I've seen several face to face & no two looked much alike. Maybe Matilda is one of the dog people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I'm not necessarily refering to faces, as much as I am the dental aspect. If NOW we're to believe there's highly divergent base structure to what makes a BF a BF, then now we're really facing an up-hill battle, because we can't even prove *any* creatures exist out there in the first place. Part of this whole fiasco has been that these are nearly human. Well, THAT sure doesn't look "near human" to me in any characteristic. At this point, we might as well be looking for man-bear-pig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) Chimpanzees don't look very human either, but we share an amazing amount of DNA with them. Judging from the first ones I was around, I thought they were some kind of humans, but later I've seen some that are very different. There are different kinds & this video could be real....or not. Just because it doesn't "look right" to people who have never even seen one doesn't make it a hoax. Edited October 6, 2013 by Sasfooty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Chimpanzees don't look very human either, but we share an amazing amount of DNA with them. Judging from the first ones I was around, I thought they were some kind of humans, but later I've seen some that are very different. There are different kinds & this video could be real....or not. Just because it doesn't "look right" to people who have never even seen one doesn't make it a hoax. Chimps aren't nearly human though. Those few differences in DNA are significant. For me personally, the problem is not that it doesn't match what I think a Bigfoot should look like. The problem is that it looks completely fake to my eyes. And by fake I mean a man made creation. It just doesn't look like its an actual animal. There have been many times in my life that I've seen a totally new and exotic animal on a nature show or something and not once did I have the overwhelming feeling it was fraudulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Chimpanzees don't look very human either, but we share an amazing amount of DNA with them. Just because it doesn't "look right" to people who have never even seen one doesn't make it a hoax. And yet it doesn't look right to many (myself included) who HAVE seen one. And again, there's the teeth problem. That's not a human set of teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 That's probably because it isn't a human. If it isn't a hoax, it isn't your run of the mill bigfoot, either. There are a lot things out there that aren't bigfoot, but are "presumed to be" from a distance. Your comment about "At this point, we might as well be looking for man-bear-pig." could be more accurate than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Here's the reaction the footage is getting in the media. Can you blame them? http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.html#pbid=55ce3a06495346ddb20768902d1e991c&ec=9xOWdjZjo-2AlUQmOkkUekv8IbsVcqLL&docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnation%2Fnationnow%2Fla-na-nn-bigfoot-proof-20131003%2C0%2C1603987.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I can't really look at it and say there's any chance of it being real. On its own it looked very suspicious (purple hair and lifeless look), but with Bill's side by side comparison it's pretty clear what head mask was used to put together the costume. Whoever it was that used it probably didn't watch Star Wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 It looks like the Myakka skunk ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 New Rules... If you deem the Erickson Matilda photo a hoaxed costume then you must deem the PGF a costume as well. Then again until Munns comes out with a study of the Matilda photo that is as in depth as his study of the PGF I think we should all assume the PGF is a costume and a hoax. Your move Bigfoot community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Old rule.....prove your points! PGF has never proven to be a costume or hoax! And you're here for what reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) New Rules... If you deem the Erickson Matilda photo a hoaxed costume then you must deem the PGF a costume as well. Then again until Munns comes out with a study of the Matilda photo that is as in depth as his study of the PGF I think we should all assume the PGF is a costume and a hoax. Your move Bigfoot community. I don't think "the community" will bite at your telling them how to do things. But that's just me. Edited October 7, 2013 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) New Rules... If you deem the Erickson Matilda photo a hoaxed costume then you must deem the PGF a costume as well. Then again until Munns comes out with a study of the Matilda photo that is as in depth as his study of the PGF I think we should all assume the PGF is a costume and a hoax. Your move Bigfoot community. But the PGF and the Matilda footage are different videos, why would the same thing have to apply to both? It's way easier to prove a fake video is fake than a real video is real. Edited October 7, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 New Rules... If you deem the Erickson Matilda photo a hoaxed costume then you must deem the PGF a costume as well. Then again until Munns comes out with a study of the Matilda photo that is as in depth as his study of the PGF I think we should all assume the PGF is a costume and a hoax. Your move Bigfoot community. Your logic is sound. I think I'll go have a stroke now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts