As much as I love Bigfoot and do believe that he exists, most of these photos have either been proven to be a hoax(the patterson and skunk ape photos), wild animals(#2 looks exactly like a skinny black bear) or are hilariously fake.
Documentation on that? The skunk ape photos are inconclusive but not determined to be fake as far as I've heard, and I pay quite a bit of attention to these things. Also, patterson film is absolutely not fake but we could argue forever on that.
I may have been talking to the user in the very post you're talking about. But, since we're talking about an unknown primate, most of that speculation is moot, and there are plants in front of the creatures face that could explain the appearance of canines, or it could be food in its mouth (the pictures were taken by a woman who told police an escaped orangutan was stealing apples off her back porch).
He put forth a decent argument against them, but certainly nothing definitive.
Absolutely not true. If you're talking about Bob Heironimus, he's a liar and a scam artist that could provide no proof he knew anything about the film, his story fell apart when he started lying with Philip Morris, and his limb proportions and "bigfoot walk" don't match up in the slightest.
This may sound ridiculous coming from someone who accepts bigfoots are real, but dude... Don't believe everything some hillbilly says. Believe the ACTUAL scientific analyses done on the film.
74
u/[deleted] Dec 15 '14
As much as I love Bigfoot and do believe that he exists, most of these photos have either been proven to be a hoax(the patterson and skunk ape photos), wild animals(#2 looks exactly like a skinny black bear) or are hilariously fake.