Every good lie has a kernel of truth. ------------------------------------------------------ When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. http://i.imgur.com/RfgzAXn.jpg?1 This account does not necessarily reflect my personal views. Times hit by downvote script: 14 ...and counting.
well done. But to pretend it's an "obvious" fake is ignorant.
a shaky camera can be high enough quality to never be officially declared a hoax almost 50 years later, at the very least it's incredibly
1 People don't seem to understand. I don't think it's real, but it's not about what people think. If a video from 1967 taken on
You think Stanford physicists are as petty as you are stupid? They're not. If it weren't legitimate academic intrigue, the wouldn't do it.
What bullshit? Acknowledging studies that have happened? I never even claimed the video was "real"
But that's because your brother's an idiot. It took Stanford physicists to replicate the gait.
It is when it's 1967 and people still struggle / fail to replicate the costume.
You can find just as many articles trying to prove it's fake as you can trying to prove it's real.
And the costume was incredible for the time, when the best other costumes were the Planet of the Apes movie.
But you can't. When people actually try to do it, they can't. It's a massive human walking a very difficult to recreate gait.
If nothing else it's pretty damn cool
Nobody has been able to prove how it was done, and it's not even easy to prove that someone *can* do it let alone in 1967.
No. That it's so good of a hoax that it's incredible, specifically given that it came from 1967.
There's plenty of studies trying to prove it's a fake. But it's never been proven to be anything. Which in itself is impressive from 67.
No. Not more likely. But that's not the point.
No, they'r not. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm
I never said it wasn't a human gait. But it wasn't a natural one, and if nothing else it's impressive.
Downvote as you wish. But it took a team of scientists from Stanford to even conclude it was *possible* for it to be a human.
More pointed, from Munn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs
Nat GEO Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5eV9nIEjk
Source: http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%20INTEGRITY%20OF%20THE%20PATTERSON-GIMLIN%20FILM%20IMAGE_final.pdf
5 a torn muscle in its right thigh (even more impressive if it was a suit). I'm not saying it's real. I'm saying it's amazing if it's not.
4 remotely close, being from the Planet of the Apes. The figure has breasts - beyond a bizarre detail to include - and can be seen to have
3 The size is estimated (IIRC) at 6+ ft. and 250+ lbs. The "suit" was more advanced than any special FX at it's time - closest, and only
2 able to aptly explain it. It's definitely not a doctored film. The gait took modern technology and professional actors to replicate.
1 Either way it's an unexplained video. There has been myriad, legitimate, scholarly analyses done on this (see above) and nobody has been
It's been definitively proven that it's *possible* for this to be a human, but also that it's extremely impressive it is.
That's... actually completely wrong: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm
Possible. But enough people have failed to recreate it for it to merit legitimate dispute to this day.
I wasn't saying that founders being CEOs is a bad thing. I was saying women should start more companies if they want to be CEOs.