Comments by "Robert Coggeshall" (@robertcoggeshall3071) on "Nature on PBS" channel.

  1.  @frankmacleod2565  the famous bigfoot film. The female caught on film. About trail cameras- it's impossible they're covering much of the forests.
    1
  2. The film is real. Nobody would make a female suit for a guy, and the clown that said it was him was obviously lying. I was born in the 60s, and suits from that era are utter garbage 🗑. They need to be kept in shadows in period movies because they're so bad.
    1
  3. ​​ @frankmacleod2565 I said earlier that there are other films. 2 were thermals, measured at 8 ft, and another was the marble mountain video. Also 8 ft. Pg film female is around 7 ft. No suit is showing so much muscle definition.
    1
  4.  @frankmacleod2565  it stands next to an 8 ft branch. Measured, with nothing to stand on. Got to analyze the evidence, buddy.
    1
  5.  @frankmacleod2565  others have, and just recently on a documentary. In that area. Or fairly close. There's probably not many. Anyway, getting back to marble mountain, there's no illusion- it stands right next to the 8 ft branch, same height. Same with a yowie thermal from Australia. At least 1, possibly 2 right behind an 8ft shrub. In Florida, a thermal with one that had double the stride of a 6'5 man! It reached the next tree in one step, while the man needed 2 very long stretched out steps to get there.
    1
  6.  @frankmacleod2565  these weren't blurry. Again several were measured at the site. You want to be in denial, that's fine.
    1
  7.  @frankmacleod2565  the 2 thermals show the outline pretty clear. Pg film isn't that blurry. Again, all measured taller than normal humans.
    1
  8. ​ @frankmacleod2565 the turn around looking back sequence is pretty clear. There's no way thats a suit.
    1
  9.  @frankmacleod2565  see some enhanced versions.
    1
  10. All suits are on sets, not on location in the backwoods of California.
    1
  11.  @frankmacleod2565  lol, I doubt cameras are covering 1% of the woods. Makes me doubt you work there. Several photos and films exist that may be legit. No way to fake height in thermals.
    1
  12. Not in Australia.
    1
  13. Possibly, but more likely a human relative.
    1
  14. YouTube keeps kicking me off for hours, grrr.
    1
  15. ​ @prismod8509 it was the teeth that made the discoverer think it was hominid.
    1
  16. ​ @JosephCymrank agreed.
    1
  17. Bs. Not at 20,000 feet up.
    1
  18. There have been several jaws and a thousand teeth found.
    1
  19. They took a photo of the best track. Some goat tracks got mixed up with the yeti one for decades.
    1
  20. What myth?
    1
  21. Not that long. The last fossil was the last giganto? Doubtful.
    1
  22. Krantz theory was the jaw would have been positioned under the neck, indicating upright posture. Much wider than a gorilla lower jaws.
    1
  23.  @TheSpillZine  they have the lower jaws, and they spread much wider than a gorillas. No evidence of quadrupedal or bipedal locomotion, so it's a draw.
    1
  24. The famous bigfoot film of a female from northern California.
    1
  25.  @frankmacleod2565  good. Don't need to hear" oh, he altered a gorilla suit and made it a female bigfoot".
    1
  26.  @frankmacleod2565  no, even skeptics acknowledge it has breasts, but erroneously believe Patterson used a female suit. As you point out, though, it's not apparent, so it's nonsensical that Patterson would add breasts you can't notice.
    1
  27. Even skeptics acknowledge the figure has breasts.
    1
  28.  @frankmacleod2565  every analysis ive ever heard, positive or negative.
    1
  29.  @frankmacleod2565  no, they don't leave 18 inch tracks behind.
    1
  30.  @frankmacleod2565  many have been cast. You're just not lucky enough I guess.
    1
  31. I've seen a lot of bf casts, some more than 18 inches.
    1
  32.  @frankmacleod2565  those tracks have never been proved fake, or even a way to imprint them. There was a reward for exactly that for 40 years, and went unclaimed by thousands of hoaxers. Your Easter bunny tracks would be easily exposed.
    1
  33.  @frankmacleod2565  In the US. You're wrong. Your Easter bunny tracks wouldn't fool anyone, and neither would a 60s suit for Patty. She's the real deal.
    1
  34.  @frankmacleod2565  I've never seen bigfoot, but just look at the evidence unbiased. Never seen 1 decent skeptical explanation to either the many tracks or the pg film.
    1
  35.  @frankmacleod2565  so? Guess you're just unlucky.
    1
  36. @frankmacleod2565  several are clear enough. And measured.
    1
  37.  @frankmacleod2565  ok. Clear enough for me to know it's not been faked.
    1
  38.  @frankmacleod2565  it should be clear enough, but a body is needed. I don't live in a bf sighting area, but I admire the people who are out there trying to prove it. Patterson searched for years before getting Patty on film. Your not finding footprints definitely makes me think they may be extinct before they're proven.
    1
  39. It lived for about 6 million years.
    1
  40. Too old.
    1
  41. An e-dna result in Washington came up orang. Could that mean bigfoot is giganto, and the Kentucky one is different?
    1
  42. E-dna from Washington came back as partial orang. And an everest e-dna came back 99% human. That would be what I would expect.
    1
  43. Way too big, and different teeth.
    1
  44. They have no basis for it. It's teeth aren't like Orang teeth.
    1
  45. Been suggested since it was discovered. Thought to be more hominid initially.
    1
  46. Not proven either way, so it's viable. It's got the size down.
    1