What do you mean by context-less?

And photographs that realistic are not easily faked.

Guy
in
furry
suit.

That realistic? Dark and grainy means that otherwise blatant giveaways are obscured.

By context-less, I mean without context. Who took these photos? When? What did he have to say? What about these photos should make me believe they're not a guy in a suit with some photoshop to clean up the less convincing bits?

An anonymous complaint to the Sarasota PD about a feral orangutan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_ape#cite_note-Coleman-2 that's what they said. Because most guys are not easily 7 feet tall, and fake eyes don't make red eye.

Also note that they're grainy because they're blown up... The originals are with more detail but smaller.

Look at the exposure of the plants, and think about what an orange paintball would look like if photographed in that light.

How do you know how tall it was? There isn't any exemplar in that photo, and it sounds like a typical monster story embellishment to me. This is completely ignoring the fact that 7 foot tall humans exist.

Light? It's the middle of the night. All the light in these photos is from a camera flash. The plants are roughly that height, I forget the species name, but they are that large.

Yes they do.

Believe in them or not, they're probably the most compelling evidence of Bigfoot yet. Unless you count all the videos. Or footprints. Which you don't.

Yes, what would an orange paintball look like in the light of a camera flash at night?

I have already told you what level of evidence is necessary for me to accept their existence. DNA identification of an unknown primate (from the roots of hair or whatnot), live animal, or corpse.

If you take a picture of ur self in daylight theirs a chance you can come out with "red eyes" ... it happens all the time. Btw anyone ever seen scare tactics? where they got a 7 foot guy and put him in a 20,000$ big foot suit? i guess its easy to find 7 foot sized men easily in hollywood.

It's easier to find a short man than a tall man.
Dwarfism is more common than giantism [although giantism isn't truly a medical term]
Just a thought there for yez.

Monster Quest's episode about Sasquatch recovered DNA evidence of a primate more closely related to humans than chimpanzees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Quest#Episodes

Lolwut?

It's gigantism.

The animal is behind the plant, but we don't have any good way of telling how far behind the plant.

Look, if two photographs is enough to convince you of the existence of anything, you're really somewhat gullible.

If those videos, footprints or whatever truly exist, please present them.

Ignoring the DNA evidence post, of course.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o&feature=related There's your video.

Also answer me this, where are the fossils of gorillas and chimps? Lolwut?

TV shows are not peer-reviewed.

Interesting film. What evidence is there to support the claim that this is not a guy in a furry suit?

I don't know where fossils of gorillas and chimps are. I don't doubt that they exist, because they would be thoroughly uninteresting. You won't see a news report saying "ZOMG GORRILA FOSSILZ!!!11OEN!," because nobody cares. If you care to offer a paper regarding a study that found that there were no such fossils in existence, you may use that as a basis for arguing that they don't exist, and that Bigfoot fossils shouldn't either.
However, until you can prove that they don't exist, not seeing something is not evidence for a lack of existence.

So? There are no peer reviewed scientists looking for bigfoot because they think it's a waste of time.

Oh sure, there's probably some in existence. No one's ever found them though. As for the, it's not a guy in a furry suit, people with modern technology have tried to recreate a suit like that and can't. Trained athletes can't recreate the walk, its eyelids and mouth move in the video, and you can see musculature.

[citation needed]In case you don't get that, it means that I have no reason to believe something just because it came out of your mouth. Tell me where you got this information.

Youtube seems to be more popular for conspiracy theories than debunking videos. I watched a History Channel documentary (before they went sci-fi), and there is a guy who walks almost exactly like that, who claims to have been in the suit. Whether he was is questionable, but he had that walk, and a striking resemblance. I can't show you any evidence for this, but you haven't shown me evidence for your claims anyway. Please do next time.

Except that I have. FOR EVERYTHING. I know the man you're talking about, Ben H. It doesn't help his case that he somehow "lost" the suit, and that Patterson is no longer alive to set the record straight.

Oh, and apparently a chimp fossil was discovered 3 years ago. I had not heard of it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917

Bigfoot, by your theory, lives in North America (migrating between Canada and Florida?). This article holds no relevance.

As for the movie, just because something is not proved to be false, does not mean it is proved to be true. The fact is, there is not much hard evidence either way. You could say that it is actually an undiscovered species that migrates all over the United States and that this is the only evidence, or you could say that Ben H. was telling the truth. Either one works (which one you prefer is up to the individual).
Point is, this video proves nothing on it's own.

It's evidence to the proof, which means you cannot sit here and say LOL THERE'S NO BIGFOOT until all the proof is refuted.

And human fossils are mainly in Africa and Europe. So long as the bigfeet don't live in the desert, they'd get the same chimp treatment.

Ok on the fossils, I'll buy that.

You can't say LOL THERE'S NO BIGFOOT until you index every freaking cubic foot of the world at the exact same instant and check each one for the existence of Bigfoot.
Using this attitude, anything COULD exist.
What we have to ask ourselves is, "Is the evidence for this non-existent, scarce, reasonable, convincing or irrefutable?"
You have one video tape which plausibly could have been faked. Two explanation exist:
1) There is an undiscovered species for which no evidence exists elsewhere.
2) It is not a video of an undiscovered species.

We can never truly know which one of these is true, but we have to make a decision for what we think is most likely. There's this neat little thing called Occam's Razor.
The main application of this is that, given two theories with equal evidence, one should go with the theory that creates the least new entities. In this case, 2) is that theory.
A lot of people think Occam's Razor is a good thing to go by.