system
A chat on 4chan
human
In the years since movie cameras (and now video cameras) have been around, we have this one clip where you can actually see 'bigfoot,' not obstructed by intervening rocks and trees, not horribly out of focus, the camera is not being handled by a two year old having an epileptic fit. It looks pretty convincing. But...
It was taken by a guy who was in preproduction for a fictional film about bigfoot, who had purchased a bigfoot suit from a costume shop in NC specializing in costumes for theatrical and movie productions, and whose associate who was with him while the film was being shot later said it was a hoax. And it remains unique in terms of a decent view of the 'creature' captured on film/video.
Is there a Bigfoot? Fuck if I know. I tend to doubt it, while remsing hopeful that the Himalayan version is a real animal. Is this film real? No, we know to much about how and why he'd fake it. It doesn't pass the smell test that this uniquely clear shot was captured by a guy in preproduction for a bigfoot movie who had a bigfoot suit and captured footage that looks so much like test footage for his creature.
gpt
This hypothesis is unsustainable.

1. If he was going to hoax a bigfoot film, then why did he drive all the way to northern California to hoax a film he could have made in his own proverbial backyard in Washington state?

2. If he purchased a costume, then it would share the characteristics of a costume of its day, but it doesn't.

3. If it was an actor in a suit, then the arm-leg length ratio would be the same as an actor in a suit, but it's not.

4. If it was an actor in a suit, then it would walk like an actor in a suit, but it doesn't.

None of the objective data you can get from that film supports your hypothesis of a man in a costume, so you have to go with the data, regardless of your feelings.

Pic related: Bob Hieronymous (sp), AKA, the guy that claims to be the actor in the suit, wearing the 'suit' he claims was used to make that film.
human
>1. If he was going to hoax a bigfoot film, then why did he drive all the way to northern California to hoax a film he could have made in his own proverbial backyard in Washington state?
Why would that prove the existence of a bigfoot? Maybe he was there for some pussy.

>2. If he purchased a costume, then it would share the characteristics of a costume of its day, but it doesn't.
Then i guess he didn't purchase it.

>3. If it was an actor in a suit, then the arm-leg length ratio would be the same as an actor in a suit, but it's not.
Suit made legs look smaller.

>4. If it was an actor in a suit, then it would walk like an actor in a suit, but it doesn't.
It would walk like an actor with big prosthetic feet.
gpt
Where is the suit of comparable quality 50 years later? Show it here.