108 Responses to “New Bigfoot Video”

1. bill green responds: April 25th, 2007 at 4:51 am

   hey craig & everyone wow very interesting possible new sasquatch filmfootage it definetly needs more research done to it etc. i hope the people who videotaped this can be contacted somehow to be interviewed. please keep me posted, good morning bill

2. elkie responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:44 am

   I think it’s pretty obvious that this is another fake. The guys reaction sounds entirely scripted to me, and scripted like it’s a low quality B Movie at that.
   “Let’s get the hell out of here……call the authorities!”

   Who on earth says that kind of thing?

   And the bf seems oblivious to the cameraman’s presence even with all the noise he’s making. Pretty peculiar for a wild animal to be oblivious to what’s going on in its immediate surroundings.

   Finally it looks like the bf has undergone some major skeletal evolution since Patty. Its head’s turning left and right as if it’s on bearings!

3. UKCryptid responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:56 am

   Why on earth would you need to ‘get outta here’? A golden chance presents itself and they back away? No way. It’s like ghost hunt tv shows, they get ready to encounter the unknown then someone does a loud fart and everyone runs like liquid cow poo.

   This in no way cuts it for me, I think if someone was genuinely scared then they also would not run, fear tends to put the freezes on you and only when something feels like its about to happen does the fight or flight instinct kick in. Not particularly good acting/voices either. For example, if someone said to you ‘holy sh*t man that’s not a bear’, wouldn’t you ask what it was in response? Not to mention the amount of noise they made running away like little girls would have scared the animal (of any type) away immediately, certainly not giving the chance for another shot of it in the same pose before leaving.

4. showme responds: April 25th, 2007 at 6:43 am

   No contact information? That alone says it all.

5. swnoel responds: April 25th, 2007 at 6:51 am

   It appears this subject is next to a moving stream, it is quite possible to make noise and not be heard is the stream is noisey.

   What does get my attention is why these individuals are in the woods with a video camera… I would guess to video something.

   Then why is it when they have their opportunity, they choose to run… something smells , maybe garbage but not a wet dog.

6. swnoel responds: April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 am

   Craig thanks for the heads up… you won’t get any criticism from me.

7. elsanto responds: April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 am

   A simple internet search reveals that the Bigfoot Education Academy of the Southern Territories (ummm… Southern Territories… where exactly would they be? Certainly not North America…) to have no presence online. That, of course, doesn’t mean that they exist; but it does make it dubious (though that name, “BEAST”, is pretty darn dubious to begin with).

   Someone with a cam, a zoom, and a chance to take footage of something that’s not a bear reacting that way? Cha. Then there’s the fact that the two off-camera hominids aren’t keeping down their voices by any stretch, which is the opposite of what they’d be doing if they actually spotted what they suspected was a bear.

   Just my two cents.

8. calash responds: April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 am

   Thanks to Craig for posting this. I don’t mind looking at 5000 fakes if that’s what it takes to finally get to see a real one.

   Now the Video. Why are they running? The “ Bigfoot” seems very non threatening. A golden opportunity to really see one up close. Like the Sumatran Rhino.

   Nothing here to indicate anything other then some teens or twenty something’s having a good time on You Tube.

   Regards

9. MBFH responds: April 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am

   Poor focus shot, wobble, wobble, wobble, poor focus shot. To me these attempts at fakery just give the P/G film more weight. Mr Patterson managed to keep a creature in shot on a large camera whilst moving towards it. Why can’t anyone else with small digital cameras?! Still, always worth a look. Cheers Craig.

10. MBFH responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:04 am

    Just to give them a bit of credit though, it looks as if BF is kneeling down, therefore making the arm length against overall height difficult to gauge. Quite imaginative I suppose.

11. jayman responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:06 am

    I’d guess the clumsy name was just contrived to get “BEAST” like some cartoon organization.

    The whole circumstance suggests a hoax, though like most of these, based on the image of the “creature” alone, there’s not enough evidence. The head movement seems natural.

12. treeclaw responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:22 am

    Staged & baked for the gullibles.

13. Who Me responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Hahahaha

    It looks like a gorilla sitting down at a zoo or wildlife preserve with a moron camera operator taking the video.

    Why did he move if he had a clean shot?

    Has to be fake!

14. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:45 am

    My candidate for the worst ”let’s make it look like real video” that I have ever seen.

    I know, for absolute certain, that my six-year-old would have done a far better job. It’s called, keeping the camera on the big ape, honey.

    Now it is a classic of a genre: the let’s-not-let-anyone-see-the-fakery-by-lingering-too-long school. But you barely have time to see the ape - and this is better, or at least covers its weaknesses better, than most ape suits.

    And the name BEAST says it all. As pointed out, it’s one thing if the acronym actually says something.

    UKCryptid: I do have to note that an inordinate number of encounter reports have the witness turning tail and running like hell. I may never understand this reaction until I actually see one myself. But I understand even less having a camera in your hand, the zoological story of the century right in front of you, you have actually managed to remember you have a camera - and running THEN!?!?!?!? With the big guy LOUNGING ON HIS BUTT????

    Man, we TELL them how to run good fakes and they can’t. Maybe we should advertise.

    So, P/G is a fake, huh?

15. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:49 am

    I just remembered where I’ve seen that suit.

    Judy Caseley and her skunk ape! THAT’S the suit!

    Great to recognize an old friend.

16. The_Carrot responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Why does the camera cut away? If I were to encounter Bigfoot I’d keep the darn camera pointing at it for as long as I could…preferably while using the zoom lens.

    I suspect the camera cuts away to prevent the viewer from taking a good long look at the ‘Bigfoot’ in the video…

17. Richard888 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:57 am

    Hopefully the Copernicuses of cryptozoology will not be dissuaded by this kind of flat thinking. Thanks.

    “I know, for absolute certain, that my six-year-old would have done a far better job. It’s called, keeping the camera on the big ape, honey.”

18. joppa responds: April 25th, 2007 at 9:59 am

    It appears to be shot east of the Rockies as per the trees in the video; maybe even east of the Mississippi. I think I saw an Eastern Sycamore and some southern oaks by the bark patterns. I saw no trees that looked like West coast or Northwest species. That said, it also looks like a well maintained trail goes by the beastie. Looks like it was shot in some State Park. So, I’m leaning to fake, before I consider the actual subject and actions of the guys shooting the video.

19. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:00 am

    Hmmmm, Richard888.

    You’re not defending this blatant….oooooooh. YOU SHOT IT.

    Sorry….

20. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am

    joppa: it’s been long determined by serious researchers that no vegetative grouping pronounces a sas video as fake. He’s bad, he’s nationwide. Credible sightings in all 49 continental states and across Canada; and apparent significant population concentrations in the Midwest and East.

21. raisinsofwrath responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:22 am

    Way too many red flags!

    Hoax

22. UKCryptid responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:32 am

    I really just do not understand the running away thing, it never has made any sense to me. The thing is, if it was a bear as suspected by the ‘film crew’ then general common sense tells them how to behave, why would it be any diffeent for any other animal in that region? We don’t have the big predators here but i’ve been one of the lucky ones to travel and i’ve encountered many frightening animals, the fear was amazing but the fascination was even greater and kept me there filming them and taking photos all the time I knew I wasn’t in immediate danger. From the look of this vid, they were at quite a distance and the hairy dude was kneeling down probably for a quick smoke break and yet they still ran away making more noise than you’d ever make if there was a large, potentially dangerous (if u were afraid that may be the case, i dont believe the real ‘bigfoot’ would be a danger though if treated with respect) still happily sitting ignoring you, my feeling is if you were going to retreat then it’d be in a slightly more stealthy motion.

23. Pinkus23 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    There’s one thing that I keep going back to and that is if this footage is indeed hoaxed, the perpetrators sure did an interesting job. I mean, most of the hoaxed footage out there takes it’s lead (inspiration) from the PG footage- that is- a fleeting glimpse of “something”; “something” striding through/within/behind foliage; “something” large and out of focus, moving in the periphery. The fact that this footage abandons this template intrigues and puzzles me at the same time. I mean, I’m not saying it is a sasquatch but whatever it is, it’s just sitting there, acting similar to some sort of primate (or bear) in repose.

    Bottom line, I can’t seem to imagine the hoaxers going, “all right now, what should we do?” then instructing their man in a suit, if it is a man in a suit and not a bear or a unknown primate, “okay- just sit there and enjoy the scenery. We’ll do the rest”.

    And in regards to the guys who filmed the thing and their reactions- they seemed pretty normal to me. If I were just out hiking in the woods (and hikers do sometimes film their hikes) and I came across something like this that’s definitely out of place- I wouldn’t be in the right mind enough to turn on my volume control. I’d probably freak out, run and make a ruckus. On the other hand, If I were a Bigfoot Field Researcher and I stumbled upon this- that would be a different story. I’d most likely steady my hand and keep it down to a quiet whisper as I filmed.

24. CryptoGoji responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:47 am

    Ya know what, it looks pretty good to me. I mean, if you were not out looking for BF and you stumbled on to one, you might just react that way, esp if you are or were up to this point a doubter. The movement of the creature seems a bit stiff, but other than that it looks good. Not some dark floating black blob in the background, but something that has a bit of mass to it.

    At the 13 second mark, it looks like the “something that isn’t a bear” looks right at them as it peaks its head around a tree in the foreground to see them. There is a stream running next to the “something that isn’t a bear” so that might limit the amount of noise getting to the “something that isn’t a bear.”

    In the beginning of the short, at the 34 second mark, it looks like the “something that isn’t a bear” might actually be coming up from the creek/stream whatever.

    It might be fake, but if it is, its one of the better ones in the past few years. Fear is a wonderful motivator, and one never knows how it will affect someone. Where one might freeze in place, another might turn tail and flee. You just don’t know until your in that position what you would do. Planing and preparation is one thing, but once that situation comes up, usually your flight or fight kicks in and only the best (soldiers cops firefighters and the like) can overcoming. Heck, if I just walked upon one out of the blue, I would initially run away until I could compose myself, then return and see what was becoming of the situation, look for physical evidence and the like.

    Just my $.02 worth.

25. DTK responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:49 am

    The environment is characteristic of a New England setting. Also one of the witnesses seems to have a thick New England accent. A hoax probably originating in the North East. JMO

    For “it” not to hear the LOUD crunching on the dead leaves in New England from so small a distance makes it clearly a hoax in my opinion.

26. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 10:50 am

    UKCryptid: yep, I don’t get it either.

    I’ve managed to deceive myself that I wouldn’t be scared if I saw one. Bet that would change if I did. But I’ve had a few similar animal encounters - maybe not as many as you but my share - and I sure don’t remember turning tail much less running.

    One thing might be that most people who see one either didn’t know anything about Bigfoot (other than the Elvis/UFO thing) or they didn’t think there were supposed to be any in the place they happened to be when they saw one. So might be a shock factor involved. But I had such an encounter once, with a cow moose in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming, well after sunset, and she looked upset to see me. The moment I saw her was the first moment the possibility of moose in the Winds ever crossed my mind; I’d seen tracks earlier in the day, in perfect moose habitat, and dismissed them as elk. So I’d sure expect myself to be a lot more unnerved by the close surprise than I was. (I definitely gave her a wide berth; that looked like a really good idea.)

    If you had the presence of mind to raise your cam in the first place, and you can’t keep the lens on something posing for you, you’re shooting a guy in a suit. Or a Photoshop plant. Or something other than a real animal.

27. Ceroill responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Let’s see now….brief shot of subject, then camera wildly swinging round to the right and wandering haphazardly….then back to another brief shot of subject, then camera wildly swinging to left and wandering haphazardly.

    Huh?

    That plus the acronym make me suspect this is more of a spoof than a regular hoax. I think the folk who made this are poking fun at bf films, rather than trying to produce one meant to fool anyone. I can see where from a certain point of view this clip reproduces some of the ‘typical’ aspects of many purported bf films: Calm subject seen at a distance, shaky camera work (wildly exaggerated here for emphasis), sponsor group with acronym.

    Just my opinion, but I see this as being a parody or joke, not a serioius hoax attempt.

28. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Ceroill: And if true, it’s even funnier that this “ape” actually had me thinking, OK, they at least seem to have the ape part half right.

29. Ceroill responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:17 am

    DWA, Yep. I agree! Though I wonder now if maybe the guy in the suit was re-enacting part of the opening of 2001 A Space Odyssey. But then, didn’t someone say that the best humor has some truth in it?

30. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:19 am

    UKCryptid: my God it’s hilarious.

    Just finished two BFRO reports (CA, Humboldt County). Both witnesses ran like scairt rabbits. In one case the sas was scratching its back against a redwood stump, 150 - 200 feet away by the witness’s estimate. In the other, the sas had already RUN AWAY. And this guy - an avid fisherman mind you - left his pole!

    And these are nowhere near alone in a genre. In fact, the witnesses frequently say afterward that they did not feel the sas was making any effort to threaten them!

    Must be pheromones, eh?

31. Robsquatch responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:21 am

    Why is it every time someone purportedly films Bigfoot, they can’t seem to focus the damn camera? I’ll tell you why. It’s because it’s a damn hoax! Anybody who can operate a camera knows this.

32. mystery_man responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Maybe they thought they were shooting a bear and then freaked out when they realized that it wasn’t? Nah. That just does not wash with me. But what bothers me about this video more than the shakey camera is the seemingly total lack of awareness this creature shows to the presence of these cameramen. It does not tense up at all or show any sort of sign that anything is out of the ordinary. This is very odd to me. Some have said that the sound of the water prevented the alleged Bigfoot from hearing them, but I just don’t buy this. That hardly looks like a roaring river to me, rather more like a placid creek. I can hear no din of rapids that could be drowning out all of the leave crunching and talking these two are doing, although I am pretty sure I hear a car going by in the beginning. The cameramen are making not the slightest attempt to be stealthy. It is very strange to me that through all of this, the creature could be so oblivious. I am sure that if one were to try to film any other animal under these circumstances, it would have fled or at least shown some sort of alarm at having its solitude disrupted like this. To me, that is the main problem with this clip.

33. showme responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am

    If you listen to the accents of the voices on the video, they sound Australian. Could the “Southern Territories” in BEAST be referring to the territories of Australia? I know that would be weird, but it could just be some Aussies just having some fun. Listen to it again and decide for yourself.

34. dstageberg responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am

    No beef jerky? This one stinks really bad.

35. Richard888 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Vehicle engine in the background. Possibly staged script with an Australian accent. Large primatoid that moves in ways you wouldn’t expect given the circumstances. None of this proves without a doubt that this is a hoax. I can pick a number of “uncomfortable” features in the Borneo Rhino video and say that it is not the real thing. Better to have an open mind about these.

36. btgoss responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:56 am

    I agree with most comments in that this is a fake. When I first watched this I thought the following.
    1. Wow that bigfoot looks very calm just sitting there…
    2. Wow… the cameraman is making lots of noise, the creature will surely run away.
    3. WOW….the creature still looks very calm…
    4. WTF? The camera man is running away from a creature that appears to be just hanging out…

    So yeah, this is a fake.

37. Alaska-boy responds: April 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    Is it even worth adding my opinion that this is painfully obviously a fake?

    Still–I agree with the comments that say it’s worth watching a million fakes to eventually be able to recognize the real thing.

    Every one of these spoofs/hoaxes/idiots just makes a stronger case in my mind for the authenticity of Patterson-Gimlin.

38. Benjamin Radford responds: April 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Someone HOAXED a Bigfoot video? Say it ain’t so!

39. DWA responds: April 25th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Richard888: I’m keeping a totally open mind about this as I slag it as an extremely poorly done fake. Which in my opinion it is.

    When you’ve seen enough of these, you start to think that maybe engaging the jaded cynic in you might bring some game out of the bush. If there’s anything to it.

    I know two things.

    1. If one took this, and one knows it’s genuine, one will not only be shopping it (if it’s gotten this far), but monitoring reaction to it. And reacting with background info that might make us understand it better.

    2. Or not. In which case: what can we do with it?

    It clearly ain’t the video that’s gonna convince science. Unless some maverick from the mainstream, seeing something I sure don’t, takes it, does his own analysis, then packs up the truck, goes out there, and comes back with the good stuff.

    Until that happens: target practice. Good.

40. rcd5oh responds: April 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Is that a car in the upper right corner of the video? At the first view?

41. Cprahl responds: April 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Why would anyone run from this? He says it’s not a bear, let’s get the hell outta here” WHY! And all the noise their making and the guy in the costume has no ear?

42. captiannemo responds: April 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    I like the part in the play when they panic for no reason, instead of getting perhaps the most valuable piece of video since the P&G film, swinging the camera as if running and running and running then focus on the subject and haven’t moved a foot!

    Ha!Ha!Hoax!

43. Tobar responds: April 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    Worst voice acting…..EVER. =P

44. kokodhem responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    That was exactly what I was going to point out, captiannemo - just more ‘camera jerks’

    Is that seen as a standard now of every bigfoot hoax made? “You must have a section where you run with the camera on, down by your knee, at least 15 feet…”

    I think a legit video would first zoom in with the digital zoom as far as possible before ever so slowly trying to get close while keeping the subject in the frame… I think that’s the first thing they teach you in any video class in high school or college… =1

45. Richard888 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    Dear DWA and other Posters:

    Common sense tells me that each BF video can fit in 1 of 4 rows of the table below where each row is associated with a prediction of viewer behaviour:

    Row Camera man Creature Viewer
    # Behaviour

    1. Acts real Looks real investigate
    2. Acts real Looks fake dismiss
    3. Acts fake Looks real investigate
    4. Acts fake Looks fake dismiss

    The Patterson film is Row 1 and fortunately the behaviour by the BF community has been sensible. Now this video is neither Row 2 nor 4 but 3. So it shouldn’t be dismissed just because no one liked the camera men. The creature not only looked real but also clear. Yet the video was dismissed without any comments about the creature. What was the creature? To me it didn’t look like a gorilla suit nor like a known primate. Yes, the guys were weird. But that doesn’t mean the video was a hoax.

46. Pinkus23 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    kokodhem- You’re making the assumption that these guys went out looking for a bigfoot to film. Like they’re researchers with a vested interest. Like they frequent blogs like this or conduct their own independent research and study. How can you assume that?

    If I was walking down the street, on my way to the store to buy groceries and a big, glowing ufo landed a few yards in front of me in the street, i’m not too sure I would be in the right frame of mind to stop, whip out my cell phone camera and “zoom in with the digital zoom as far as possible before ever so slowly trying to get close while keeping the subject in the frame…”

    There is a chance I might find myself running in the opposite direction. Instinctually.

47. Pinkus23 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    Good points, Richard888.

48. MultipleEncounters responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    To set the record straight on one thing and to broaden thinking otherwise.

    1) Not all sasquatch have no neck or are unable to turn their heads. Personal observation.

    2) Keep in mind that it would be absolutely normal to run for those who have zero knowledge of sasquatch and don’t know what to expect. Most people have never even considered the subject, let alone the ‘what if I ever saw one’ question. His reaction of wanting to attempt to secure additional footage seems normal for those circumstances.

    3) Keep in mind that even sasquatch get old or become ill. Hearing goes bad just like with humans. Could be sick and have a bad stomach ache. Could explain the moaning sound mentioned below it sitting down. If it were an older or ill subject, this could easily explain the behavior.

    Note the low moaning sound in the first sequence that seems somewhat in sync with the head turning. It also appears to be a female.

    Don’t dismiss this one so easily.

    Dave

49. unitedcats responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    Bigfoot Meets the Blair Witch Project! Needs work though.

50. wildmanmarty responds: April 25th, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    Interesting video, But veerrrrrry suspicious. What is with all the camera shaking? Why would you stop filming this thing and then run around like a panicked chicken while still squeezing their trigger on the camera? From all the reports I have read about close encounters (hundreds, if not well over a thousand), how often do witnesses get that close to a biggie without being detected by the creature? These guys start running around, making all kinds of racket and it still doesn’t notice them? Maybe this bigfoot is deaf and blind.

51. shumway10973 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Definitely looks like a bad gorilla suit with a blair witch escape sequence. I can expect people to have shaky footage, I would be excited and a little nervous, but to not focus on the subject at hand and move the camera everywhere but where you are supposed to be filming, that screams fake.

52. MultipleEncounters responds: April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    I did a little more thorough search of ‘Southern Territories’. The major repeating results almost always came up with the work ‘French’ beforehand. ‘French Southern Territories’ seems to be off the SE Coast of Africa and include parts of the island of Madagascar, which is the 4th largest island on earth. The territory also appears to include another island known as the Kerguelen Island which is closer to the Antarctic, but very barren. Madagascar on the other hand as we all know has all sorts of exotic and rare species. We know bf’s can swim and such islands would provide safety from the traditional African predators.

    It doesn’t explain the ‘Jersey-like’ accent though nor does it sound French. But today, people of all accents live everywhere. Whose to say the video is even linked to these same territories except for this BEAST organization claims to have received it. It could have been taken in the French countryside for that matter.

53. Richard888 responds: April 25th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    Dear DWA and other Bloggers:

    I ‘m repeating the previous posting since the rows and columns of the table didn’t turn out right. Here’s an algorithm that can predict the correct behaviour of a BF-video viewer:

    for any BF video:
    1. if (camera man acts real) and (creature looks real/unknown) then investigate;
    2. if (camera man acts real) and (creature looks fake/known) then dismiss;
    3. if (camera man acts fake) and (creature looks real/unknown) then investigate;
    4. if (camera man acts fake) and (creature looks fake/known) then dismiss;

    If we enter the Patterson film into this algorithm it will exit through 1 so the result is ‘investigate’. Since that’s what people have been doing with the PF for the past 40 years then the PF has received sensible treatment. If we enter this video into the algorithm, based on bloggers’ comments, it would exit through 3. Why? Because bloggers’ comments have been critical of the camera men, not the creature. So the correct behaviour should be also ‘investigate’, NOT ‘dismiss’. If you must dismiss at least provide an explanation for why that creature looks known or fake. Is it a guy in a suit? I don’t think so. Is it a gorilla? I don’t think so. Is it an urangutang? I don’t think so. Well then, what is it? To me it looks both real and unknown. Although these guys act weird that doesn’t prove that the video is a hoax. This is not some commercial where if we don’t like the messenger we don’t buy the product. Get my point?

54. joppa responds: April 25th, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    My point about the tree groupings is this: If you can identify the tree grouping by at least 5 - 6 species, a good forestry student can place your location within 300 miles of any location in the United States, maybe narrower. This video eliminates the Western U.S., the most probable Bigfoot territory, particularly historically.

    So, Big Red Flag # 1. Is it conclusive, no. I do not have the computer resolution to definitely I.D. all the trees, but it could easily be done by the bark patterns. It is also in a well traveled park, look at the trail. Very worn, very wide. Red Flag #2

    I could go on, but that’s how you start to analyze these things my dear Watson, then move on to another piece and make your determination.

55. DTK responds: April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    The guy with the accent is definitely from the northeast in my opinion. That’s a Jersey/Bostonian accent, not “Australian.” No doubt in my mind. The tree and leave floor-cover appears very northeastern American (possibly Canadian.) Having grown up in New England and having personally been to 47 states myself, the video appears to me to have been shot in this region. Again, JMO. The “Southern Territories” thing is misleading in itself. The whole video is suspicious in nature. As someone said, there are too many red flags for this video to warrant any serious merit at this point. It’s a hoax originating from somewhere in the Northeastern American continent in my opinion. Probably somewhere in the black “Bea” inhabited regions of New England.

56. YourPTR! responds: April 25th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Probably just another lame hoax. It looks more like a monkey (suit) than a bigfoot, but what sealed it for me was all the unnecessary shaking of the camera for 90% of the video which gives it a very fake feel and screams hoax right out at you.

57. kamoeba responds: April 25th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    One thing I find fascinating about Cryptomundo is the amount of people that will take an obviously fake piece of poop like this and try to rationalize it because they want to believe Bigfoot really exists. I do not know if Bigfoot exists or not, but if he (they) do, it sure wasn’t in this little bit of footage.

58. springheeledjack responds: April 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am

    The biggest problem I have with this (and not the only one), is that the “creature” appears to look directly at them at least twice and makes no reaction…those guys were about as quiet as the proverbial herd of elephants and not that far away…for it to not have heard them or seen them is too far fetched.

59. Atticus responds: April 26th, 2007 at 2:16 am

    This is a little better than a blobsquatch. But to me the Sas looks too calm with all the noise the filmers are making.

    This looks like another fake.

60. maxsideburn responds: April 26th, 2007 at 3:59 am

    Despite what others have said I think that this one is a definite “maybe a hoax”. If it is it is definitely one of the better ones. The cameraman and his accomplice definitely seem to either have crappy acting skills, or are just plain stupid, but the footage of the creature itself is excellent. As for it’s reaction remember that the PG film showed the creature look clearly at the camera and not react that strongly to it. So if it’s a hoax it’s one of the better ones in many years.

    Of all things the BEAST thing is what throws it off for me, but other than that and the crappy “acting’ of the cameraman it seems to be pretty good.

61. DWA responds: April 26th, 2007 at 7:55 am

    Richard888:

    Accepting everything you’ve said (and I myself mentioned that they don’t look like they messed up the ape part of this…if only one could get a better view one might get a better judgment), I still have the question:

    Investigate how?

    At least the P/G film left a clear trail to follow. But this one’s so obscure that I think there are better ways for researchers to spend their time.

    And I do think the activities of the filmers have something to say about the film. It just seems like a damned weird way to act when one had the creature in view and the camera on. When you really run in a panic, you’re out of the woods before you remember you had a camera.

62. Pinkus23 responds: April 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am

    Has anyone attempted to contact “BEAST” directly via youtube to find out more info about their “organization”? You can email video posters through that site I believe.

63. Richard888 responds: April 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am

    DWA:

    But what is the ape please? All everyone talks about is either BEAST, or the accent, or the trees… everything EXCEPT the most important part which is the cryptid itself. Do you think it’s a costume? Do you think it’s a monkey? What is it?

64. mystery_man responds: April 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Well, if the camera had focused on the thing a little better, we’d be able to tell what it is, wouldn’t we? It is not apparent if it is a costume, or a monkey, or whatever. There isn’t enough here to tell and if this footage was to be all that compelling, it would show something that was quite easy to classify as something natural and unknown. To me, it doesn’t. I’m sorry, but I am not all that impressed with the cryptid being shown here and without better footage and resolution, we can all speculate until the cows come home and it is not going to prove a thing as it is quite obviously inconclusive to say the least. If the PG footage didn’t, then this sure won’t.
    Some here are saying not to be so quick to judge this one and whatnot, but I say do not be so quick to believe this footage without more to go on. All I see is an obscure creature obviously sitting next to a noisy road with absolutely no inkling that it is being observed by two very noisy, very unstealthy cameraman. This points to possibilities other than a Bigfoot, to me. Regardless of what I think, if this is a real Bigfoot, I don’t think anyone has to worry because with the lack of caution and awareness this thing shows, it is bound to be filmed or captured sometime in the near future.

65. DWA responds: April 26th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    mystery_man speaks for me.

66. Ceroill responds: April 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Same here. By the way, when I made my comment early on in this thread I had watched the vid w/out sound. Try it and see if that makes any difference in how you see it.

67. mystery_man responds: April 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    I know this is a little off of the topic but a odd thought occured to me. How ironic would it be if someone was filming a hoax and then a real Bigfoot appeared while they were making it? That is something I’d pay to see.

68. mystery_man responds: April 26th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    And Ceroill- Yes, you definately have to watch the video with sound to fully appreciate the circumstances this film was taken under. There are cars roaring by, these two guys crashing around and panicking (or acting like they are panicking). It really needs the sound to be truly examined.

69. Ceroill responds: April 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    mystery_man, yes, I appreciate the difference. I just find it interesting to observe it both ways.

70. mystery_man responds: April 26th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Well, It certainly would have been a lot more believable if the video had no sound.

71. Ceroill responds: April 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    And it was in that condition that it seemed to me that it was at least a bit absurd.

72. mystery_man responds: April 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    There is something I am wondering concerning the sound on videos now that the topic has been brought up. I don’t know anything really about audio or video trickery, but how plausible is it that someone could make a video like this and then put in a different hoaxed audio track? I wonder if it would be possible for someone to have gone back and put in different audio without the noise and the cars going by in the background, and if so how easy would it be to pick up on such a hoax? Has this sort of thing been done before? Just a thought.

73. MultipleEncounters responds: April 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    kamoeba states: “One thing I find fascinating about Cryptomundo is the amount of people that will take an obviously fake piece of poop like this and try to rationalize it because they want to believe Bigfoot really exists.”

    Kamoeba, I’ve stood 22′ from a sasquatch while holding a rifle on him when deer hunting 3 years ago, I don’t need to rationalize my wanting to believe they exist! My very first visual encounter was almost 30 years ago from about the same distance after almost running into a large male while I was driving my pickup.

    That doesn’t appear to be a road she is sitting next to, it appears to be a slow moving stream. I also hear no cars in the background, if you use good headphones, you can hear the modulation of what is probably and sounds like a moan. There is some synchronization between the moaning and the head movements.

    It is too bad there is so much pixilation, lack of location information, and such a short glimps because this could use more analysis, despite those who say otherwise.

    How are so many people who have never actually ’seen’ a sasquatch, able to say this is not what they look like? The fact of the matter is, they are as diverse in their appearance as we humans are. Sasquatch also generally don’t just panic and run off into the brush like some gorilla when they encounter humans. The last one I visually encountered walked up and observed me.

    All those who speculate without having first hand knowledge need to consider the limits of their experience before making judgements. The problem is, sasquatch isn’t going to fit into this square box everyone wants him to fit in. This goes for behavior, appearance, abilities and probably even species.

    Dave

74. Greg(Not that Greg) responds: April 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    elkie responds: April 25th, 2007 at 5:44 am
    ……..

    ” And the bf seems oblivious to the cameraman’s presence even with all the noise he’s making. Pretty peculiar for a wild animal to be oblivious to what’s going on in its immediate surroundings. …… ”

    _______________________________

    Great observation ! Of course there is that one exception when she turns and looks straight at the camera….

    Oh, wait ! Wrong film …

    ( .. Sorry, just couldn’t resist … Carry on .. )

75. kitakaze responds: April 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Since there is no reliable evidence of bigfoot whatsoever, youtube hoaxes continue to help proponents kill time waiting for that which will most likely never come.

76. kitakaze responds: April 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    The youtube bug bites bigfootery in the buttocks again. Such is life in lieu of any manner of reliable evidence.

77. Atticus responds: April 26th, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Elkie has it right.

    Even a bear would at least stop and investigate with as much noise the cameramen are making.

78. DWA responds: April 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    MultipleEncounters: I have to ask.

    How do folks like kitakaze strike you? (Why do folks like kitakaze even bother showing up here?)

    Is it difficult to feel superior, knowing as you do in the face of blatant ignorance? And I am NOT being facetious.

79. DWA responds: April 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    mystery_man: your post above about someone having a real sas intrude on their fakery isn’t really off topic at all.

    It’s what happened to Ray Wallace. And you got to see it for (relatively) free.

    It’s curious how many give Wallace’s assertion that he hoaxed Patterson the time of day without a single question asked. His motivation in making that assertion? Pretty obvious, says me: Patterson came out of the woods with a film of the animal Wallace thought wasn’t real!

80. mystery_man responds: April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Multiple Encounters- I know that is not a road next to it, it is a small stream and obviously not a noisy one that would drown out the noise of the cameramen. The road I speak of is probably nearby off camera. I am suprised you hear no cars because there is a very obvious whine of a car or motorbike towards the beginning of the clip. I do not believe that to be a moan made by the creature, especially since it does not seem to be under any anxiety or duress. And again, if these things are always so brave and fearless when approaching or in the presence of humans, then that leaves a lot of explaining to be done for why better footage is not available. The appearance of this one does not bother me so much as its behavior. Sure, we do not know enough about Bigfoot to say what it would or wouldn’t do, but that goes the other way around too. Whether we have sighted them or not, we don’t know enough to say so why put it into the box of what we want to believe it would or wouldn’t do? The fact of the matter is that pretty much any animals, and that includes humans, would show some sort of reaction, even alarm at the presence of these two noisy cameramen. Can we really make assumptions on how it should act in this situation or why it would show no awareness of this when the overwhelming reaction in this situation would be at least a tensing up of the subject? Personally, I think we should not assume that Bigfoot is above any sort of thing or how we think it should act and perhaps look at how odd that aspect of this film is in relation to what other living creatures would do. Unless Bigfoot is a freak of nature and shows no sort of curiosity or fear whatsoever of humans (which would not be in it’s evolutionary best interests), then we should expect some sort of visible reaction here. To me it is a bit suspect.

81. kamoeba responds: April 26th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Multiple Encounters says: “All those who speculate without having first hand knowledge need to consider the limits of their experience before making judgements.”

    I don’t think there’s a regular visitor to Cryptomundo that doesn’t have loads and loads of experience seeing these P/G clone/wannabe/hoaxes. Bigfoot may very well exist, there is compelling proof and many credible witnesses. I’m saying this film clip is just the latest (but probably not the last) in a neverending series of hoaxes perpetrated for reasons unclear by people who just have no idea how to stage a hoax that can fool a knowledgable crypto fan.

    By the way, if you’re going to shoot Bigfoot, please use a camera, not a gun.

82. MultipleEncounters responds: April 27th, 2007 at 2:04 am

    DWA, I think one of the things holding back the maturation of evidence is that those who have never seen one in the first place, tend to speak authoritatively in open forums, and this hampers a further analyses of videos like this one. Of course there is a learning curve just like anywhere, and this field does have a major handicap, which is the lack of specimen, but making judgments prematurely can be harmful. A good example is the issue of the low sound in the beginning discussed below.

    Even those relying on just one high profile video (PG film) as the model for what sas looks like, can be counter-productive. Not all sasses look like Patty, although I must admit, the first one I seen 30 yrs ago did have very similar facial characteristics. But that one was a male.

    As in any field, some people get very close to the subject and some don’t. I just think that those who have never seen a real live subject, should use some restraint when it comes to making their final judgments. I may be new to the research field, but I’m one who has gotten into the trenches already. Plus before deciding to become a ‘researcher’, I’ve seen 3 and had night time visits from 3 other sasquatch while in the wilds. I realize how out of the norm sounds, and probably even unbelievable to most. But as long as I know, that’s what matters to me. Now I am trying to put whatever this aptness is, to work for me in my field work. There are a handful of others who have ‘figured out’ what is required to get closer to these creatures. Then of course there are the majority who don’t even get out yet alone encounter one, but who assert their prowess. In the end, it is the application of the research method that will resolve the biggest mysteries.

    Mystery_man, re the noise, I use a quality set of headphones and listened to it over and over. I honestly do believe that is moaning, not cars in the beginning. If I listen just using my computer’s stock speakers, yeah, it sounds just like a car or motorcycle. Stock speakers just don’t cut it! What you can pick up or distinguish with quality headphones or equal quality speakers, makes them absolutely essential in this field. Once you cue into the sound using good headphones, then its easier to note the timing in respect to the early head movements. The moaning actually continues to about half way thru, and somewhat faint after the 3/4 mark. This is perhaps a perfect example of how a group of skeptical thinkers can evolve a topic to a point where evidence is not properly considered. Some call it groupthink, which is a natural process one must be aware of. Listen with some quality headphones, its moaning. And that single element adds support to the subsequent possibility of it being ill or otherwise not of clear mind.

    No question ‘her’ behavior is unusual. I say her because of the two lighter objects on her chest that resemble breasts. But there could be a simple explanation for her behavior, we just don’t know what that is. But keeping an ‘open mind’ about possibilities is essential so as to not judge prematurely. For instance, as previously mentioned, she could be ill. Maybe she ate some fermented fruit or even the wrong kind of mushrooms? Like bears, I am sure they too would succumb to such a reaction. Heck, if she ate some hallucinogens, she could have just thought the people were walking trees. LOL My point is that there are circumstances that ‘could’ explain her behavior, and once you cue into the moaning, this becomes more possible. We are just not privy to these answers, but we can’t just close the door simply because we don’t have all the information. And of course, if we absolutely knew that she was fully cognizant, then her behavior would definitely be unusual. But we don’t know, the moaning supports this, and therefore some latitude is needed before final judgment.

    Kamoeba, but that’s it, real experience doesn’t come from seeing a bunch of videos. The true model is the real creatures. Of course not everyone is lucky enough to see a sasquatch, that is just what we have to live with. But recognize there are some who have. Figuring out who is for real and who is not, is the trick for the rest.

    Re guns, I had my rifle on him because he cut me off at dusk, and in order to reach my vehicle, I had to approach him in order to pass. Measure out 22′, you’d be holding a rifle too under the circumstances. I also spoke to him in a calm manner as I passed (no he didn’t answer). I held my rifle on him because I didn’t know what his intentions were as he made tons of noise on his approach to cut me off. It was very unnerving at the time and that’s why the gun, not to mention I was deer hunting. However my rifle felt about 6 inches long at the time, and had he wanted to attack, I would not be here today.

    Today, that individual and at least one more (probably a female), are subjects in my field research.

    Dave

83. MultipleEncounters responds: April 27th, 2007 at 2:16 am

    Hmmm,

    Re the organization hosting the file. At the YouTube site, they provide their contact information in the Comments.

    “BigfootEducationAcad (2 days ago)
    … our contact information is as follows, (BEAST)Bigfoot Education Academy of Southern Territories 1107 Bagby Houston, Texas 77002, USA.”

    So it seems Texas.

84. mystery_man responds: April 27th, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Multiple encounters- Well, I have only listened to it with the standard speakers, so what you said is intriguing to me. I hope to hear it with headphones as soon as I can. Those scenarios for a sick animal I suppose are plausible but so is the theory that this isn’t a real animal at all based on what we can actually see in the video. It is just too hard to make a concrete conclusion on this video and I am trying hard to take in all of these ideas presenting themselves here.

    I myself have never seen a Bigfoot, but I think I have a fair idea of what I am talking about when making my analysis of this clip. I do not think that because a person has not seen Bigfoot, they don’t know what they are talking about or are somehow more unaware of this animal’s behaviors or physiology than those who have seen it. A lot of the “judgments” that have been made on this clip are actually based on pretty rational reasons and I don’t think they carry any less weight because the person making them happens to have never seen one in the wild. At the same time, I do not feel that because a person sees a creature in the wild, then they must somehow know more than anyone else on the subject or be privy to all of the nuances of the animals behavior. That just simply is not true that seeing the animal makes one an expert or gives their theories more plausibility based on that alone. I respect the testimony of those, such as you, who have seen the thing and I can appreciate the insight into the appearance of it based on this testimony. But I think those who have seen them should be careful to try not to play any sort of expert card because of it. that is not the case for known animals and isn’t with Bigfoot as well, I think. I do not believe that seeing Bigfoot is some sort of prerequisite for anyone to be able to give opinions or theories on this creature’s behavior. I would be willing to bet that those who have seen this thing know just as little about the creatures behavior as us lowly folk who have not seen it. Whether anyone has seen it or not, the creature remains largely a mystery to all.

85. skeptik responds: April 27th, 2007 at 10:37 am

    A lot of the critics here seem to presuppose an investigative approach to wildlife. Not everyone has this approach, however. And people are often scared with what they don’t know about.

    What I really, really, really dislike about these flicks - however interesting - is that they’re put up on youtube and the likes which seriously reduce the quality. If we’d had a 640×480 or higher crystal-clear version, it would be a lot harder to dismiss/approve.

    It wouldn’t necessarily have to cost that much either (just put on a watermark and seed it on torrent sites).

    That said, I think this is an interesting shot, hoax or not, because of the resemblance to the BF individual.

86. mystery_man responds: April 27th, 2007 at 10:45 am

    In the end, there can be a whole lot of plausible theories that support this as a real specimen. There can also be some good theories that point to this being a hoax too, people are going to see it the way they want and find reasons to support that. While saying that people should not be skeptical and judge this clip too harshly, I conversely think one should not be too lenient and judge this as being real without further examination. We have to think about the people who want to see this as a clip of a real Bigfoot and evolve the topic to the point that the evidence is not properly considered, much the same as skeptics are accused of doing. Skeptics are not the only ones guilty of this. I do not think Bigfoot doesn’t exist, but people do hoax sasquatch videos, that it very much a fact of life in this field, so regardless of their existence hoaxes and frauds are out there.

    So many point at skeptics and say that they jump to conclusions or “groupthink”, or talk about them shutting doors, but I think that there are others on the opposite end that do the very same same things. Both sides are making judgments that are perhaps not in line with the evidence presented. How many that believe this is real are willing to entertain the plausible reasons why it might be a hoax, yet are willing to accuse skeptics of closing the doors and not looking at all the possibilities? I am sorry, but that seems a bit hypocritical to me. I really do not feel that there is anything in this clip that indisputably points either way on this clip, so the ones crying “hoax” and the ones crying “real” may dig in to their ideas, but how much closer to the truth does that get us?

87. DWA responds: April 27th, 2007 at 11:15 am

    MultipleEncouters/mystery_man: right.

    Yeah, both of you.

    A key feature in sas studies (and if you think it wouldn’t be for scientists, you have no acquaintance with science) is the contentiousness among the searchers. It has so far prevented a joining of forces that might have gotten us a lot of answers by now.

    If you’ve seen one of these, you have data none of us can replicate, both about appearance and behavior. (And maybe more, depending upon what exactly you saw.) But like the blind man with the elephant, you have to watch holding on tightly to that tusk and saying this is the elephant. Look at the variability among humans. The sas appears to have the same great variability in appearance. (And behavior. Most seem very averse to showing themselves; some - at least once they’ve been seen and they know it - have no such compunctions. Like grizzly bears, they’re individuals with personalities.) One could even say, playing devil’s advocate, that we’ve ALL seen a sasquatch (Patty), right?; It ain’t up close and personal, no. But it’s not a bad look.

    A lot of us have seen a lot of these videos. We’ve thought a lot about what the sas might be; what its variations might be across individuals and habitats; and how much individuality might express itself in behavior. We also know one hell of a lot about the proclivities of our own species. We know what known hoaxes look like, and a lot of the earmarks seem to be on this one.

    And we CAN’T get a good enough look at the animal to make Judgment One about what it is.

    We have varied perspectives. I think it’s been said here more than once. You don’t want your brains to fall out. But you do want to keep an open mind.

    That having been said: My perspective is this. Evidence either gives you something to follow, or it suggests a place to go to find more.

    Anybody see either of those characteristics here? (Maybe our TX address above might be a start. But my personal perspective says this ain’t a hold-yer-breath moment.)

88. mystery_man responds: April 27th, 2007 at 11:25 am

    One more thing on a few points that seem to be embraced by those who believe this to be real and are accepted as fact without really considering the skeptic side. Now remember, I think the theories supporting this as real have merit, but the skeptical ones do too.

    1) The sound heard is the moaning of a sasquatch. True, it could be and perhaps my original theory that this was a car is wrong. I have no problem admitting I am wrong at all. But it could also be the moaning of a hoaxter. Can anyone really say for sure without insight into what a sasquatch under duress would do in this situation or without a diagnosis of the alleged creature’s condition? Anyone here a sasquatch veterinarian? I didn’t think so.
    2) The creature is sick and that is why it is not cognizant. Again it COULD be, I won’t discount that at all, it is a good theory. But face it, that could also be because it is a hoax. The behavior is odd and there could be more mundane reasons other than this being an actual specimen.

    3) Sasquatch all look different so no one should say that this doesn’t look like a sasquatch. Well, if that is true and they all look different, how can anyone say that this isn’t a suit? If they are all different, who can say with certainty? It would actually be easier to determine if this is a suit or not if all sasquatch DID look alike. The apparent fact that they all look quite different makes any conclusion on this point speculative at best.

    4) The creature is old or infirm so it is a bit oblivious to the noisy cameramen. Again, see number 2. Same goes for saying it is having a pharmacological reaction to a hallucinogenic plant.

    These are all theories that are worthy of consideration and I am reluctant to make any sort of final conclusion on this video. I admit that the evidence in support of this being a real creature is there. There may come a day when we look back and see this as an obvious clip of a real specimen, but we don’t know enough now to say that considering what is shown here and there are feasible explanations that do not point to this being a real specimen. I just ask those that are embracing this as real to at least consider the theories against it and not close any doors of their own on the matter. I agree that an open mind should be kept and I think that means some of the skeptic ideas should not be thrown out the window just yet.

89. kitakaze responds: April 27th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    DWA: Why do people like me show up? Well that’s what you get when you falsely portray informed bigfoot skepticism. Open dialogue doesn’t bother you does it? People who have spent a long time examining in-depth the bigfoot phenomenon and are of the position that there is no such animal don’t bother you, do they? I’d really love for bigfoot to exist but I’m quite sure that it doesn’t. I’m open to the possibility but I see nothing to support it over mundane causes. You don’t think so? Great, let’s talk about it.

    Bigfootery is a self perpetuating belief system and there are those such as myself who are very familiar with and interested in how it perpetuates itself. Very few proponents feel confident enough in their case to go where informed BF skeptics discuss the issue. When BF skepticism is misportrayed then us coming to where you do so to answer you shouldn’t be so surprising. If the case for bigfoot is so strong then you really have nothing to worry about when that happens, do you? Looking forward to your response if my post is allowed to be put up. Most haven’t.

    MultipleEncounters: I apologize if this offends you but I don’t believe you’ve ever seen a bigfoot and I think it’s too bad you can’t acknowledge an utterly obvious poor hoax with this latest youtube prank. Since in none of your multiple claimed encounters were you able to produce any manner of reliable evidence I wish you the best of luck for your next one.

90. MultipleEncounters responds: April 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    The simple fact alone that none of us here have been privy to view the original video, should be enough to place this one in the ‘needing further investigation’ file. The original would also likely have higher quality sound too.

    Without a detailed look, its too easy to pass a video off as hoax, but maybe this ‘lack of access’, is just something everyone in these forums need to keep in mind. We are not looking at the original, so that alone is reason to keep the door open. Obviously not all videos deserve this consideration. Another good one that deserves more detailed analysis is the one taken a few months ago in the Redwoods where the bf came around the tree behind the guy scrambling towards the camera looking pretty frightened. Again, we don’t have access to the original footage.

    Nobody is an expert on bigfoot that we know of. If there are a few experts out there, then those individuals are keeping completely to themselves, and are probably true scientists who don’t care about what is said in forums. I am only able to simulate some of that in my recent field research.

    Having been close to these creatures does give a person a little something extra that others don’t have. Maybe that will be hard to understand for many, but there is a ‘familiarity’ that one gains. This also proves valuable for me in the field, because it has prepared me to better interact with them. I am just beginning a new season at the feed station. I just hope that if I am successful at securing video, people here and at other sites will not dismiss it as easily as I have seen them do with other videos. Because even I run the risk of the video not being clear. But my goal is to get something close up using a little different technique. Will some close up detailed video in itself be reason to get scoffed? Imagine video so close that you can see the subject’s teeth, nose, individual hairs, grimacing, mouth, etc. That’s my goal, and if I can outsmart them, I may get it. But they do seem to know what cameras are, and that really makes it a challenge.

    One must be skeptical for sure, but there are those who simply poo poo everything that comes along. Yeah, what are those people doing here? This I never understood. If they don’t believe these creatures exist, why become so absorbed in these forums? Maybe they are from the govt, here to always stir things up?

    Anyway, I for one would like the opportunity to view (and listen to) the higher quality version of this video. Maybe BEAST will offer me this opportunity at some time? I suspect that other bits of evidence could be identified with closer examination.

    Just knowing there are possible alternatives to what we see in our version, and that there is likely a better copy, should be enough to not place such submissions in the round file. That would seem to be a reasonable protocol to regularly employ in these forums. It’s good to see that maybe this one has been pulled out of the round file by some. It’s just too early to cast it out as a hoax with what we know.

91. MultipleEncounters responds: April 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    No need to apologize kitakaze, some people are closed minded from day one. I guess if you are that closed minded from the beginning, there is little to gain by trying to convince you otherwise.

    But prepare yourself for one day being proven wrong.

92. mystery_man responds: April 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    Concerning skepticism, I don’t always know the reason why hard core skeptics or scofftics come to this forum but I am glad they do. Personally I come from a background of being a pretty out and out skeptic and this sort of ability to see both sides of the coin is important for everyone in this field to have, I think. I still maintain a healthy dose of skepticism that can perhaps I admit even be unreasonable sometimes. I personally do not want this to become a protected bubble where people all discuss cryptozoology from only one point of view, or hold on to particular beliefs without entertaining opposing ones. I do not want a site where evidence may be ignored simply because it does not fit into the mold that those who want to believe want to put it. On the same token, like Multiple Encounters, I also do not think skeptics should throw out plausible theories or poo poo anything supporting cryptids either.

    I have given my opinions on the merits of skepticism many times before on this site, so I won’t go into it all again just now. But I will say that skepticism is vital to this field and we should not be afraid of open discussion, debate or of skeptical ideas. I feel it is a very positive thing to become acquainted with opposing views on the phenomena presented in this forum and to keep a balanced open mind, which is not possible if no one ever challenges opinions made here and everyone talks about how a certain sighting must be real or a certain video must be real no matter what. This is when things turn into what was mentioned before about ideas “evolving to the point where evidence is ignored.” In all fields of science, research and theories are open for peer review and criticism and this is an essential part of the scientific process. Open dialogue with skeptics should not be feared or avoided but rather embraced if this is to become a more accepted field of study. So I feel it is a dangerous notion to imply that anyone with skeptical ideas should not come here.

    Scofftics on the other hand… well, DWA I’ll let you take it from here. Oh heck, one word. They are not here for open debate or exchanging of ideas but rather to shoot things full of holes, often in spectacularly ignorant and ill informed ways. These people are just as closed minded as they claim true belivers to be and show no interest in getting to the bottom of things. These scofftics are not good for the field but just distract us with circular, drawn out arguments. I think this goes for pretty much any mainstream subject too. I heard a quote that I think of whenever anyone is on this board trying to stir things up for fun

    “Never wrestle with a pig. You’ll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it”. Can’t remember where I heard that, but there you go.

    So skeptics, good. Scofftics, bad. Anything to add, DWA?

93. DWA responds: April 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Nope, mystery_man, you done good.

    I’ve just finished a round of scofftic-savaging on the “old woman Bigfoot” thread. I’m sated, for the moment.

    Except to say [burp]: skeptical discourse, my meat. Scofftics, my punching bag.

    Gloves! Napkin!

    (LOVE wrestling with pigs. Ever seen one smile?)

94. Ceroill responds: April 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    DWA, mystery_man, well put.

95. Neworderedworld responds: April 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    This topic is buzzin’ so I decided to sign up! After reading all the comments and watching the video numerous times, I’ll explain the impression I get:

    I don’t think the people in the video are hardcore bigfoot researchers, I don’t think they were out there to film bigfoot at all. It seems to me that it might just be a recreational trip and it seems they spotted something and assumed it was a bear, so obviously they weren’t gonna hang around to find out. But naturally they were curious and used the camcorder to zoom in and get a better view of the moving man-sized creature sitting down in the distance.

    The first glimpse they got of the cryptid confirmed that it wasn’t a bear! Freaking out they moved away pretty sharpish but what from?! So they decide to get another camcorder shot of the creature (you might as well be recording this!) and in the next shot you see that it definitely isn’t a bear, likened to more of a cross between a gorilla and a human, looking distressed. Moving in a peculiar way, which would freak me out to not hang around any longer!

    Obviously if you were more savvy to the cryptid world you’d stick around trying not to alarm the creature to get a decent look at it and maybe move closer towards it.

96. kitakaze responds: April 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    MultipleEncounters: I’m not sure if you were making a joke or were actually being paranoid but I can assure you I do not work for any government. Again, best of luck in your attempts to produce reliable evidence. I’ll be overjoyed if you do and I’ll have my crow with mayo, thanks.

    DWA: You speak too soon, check the thread. All your base are belong to me. Am I a scoftic? I’d love to hear an explanation. Again I ask if you are the originator of that term as you made no effort to address it in the other thread.

    Mystery_Man: How do you differentiate a skeptic from a scoftic? I’m very much against the refusal to consider evidence of bigfoot with an open mind. Unfortunately everything that’s been offered so far is not reliable.

    A little info. I am an informed BF skeptic. I’ve spent most of my life as an involved ardent BF proponent. I grew up on Vancouver Island with this subject as my passion since childhood and much of my life in supposed BF habitat. Through deep involvement in the subject I have eventually found myself at my current skeptical perspective. If reliable evidence is produced I will gladly renounce that position and do my very best to advocate it to skeptics. So far there is none.

    I am one of the main posters at what I consider to be the foremost venue for discussion of the phenomenon, the JREF. I welcome any proponent who can skillfully make the case for bigfoot to join us in respectful discussion there. If your case is strong then you have nothing to worry about. I personally guarantee that banter with evil denialist skeptics is not what you will find. I suspect that more than a few of you already know that. I admit that I find this blog format here to be rather tedious and not lending itself towards the proper pace and structure of debate.

    Just a thought. If sasquatches are truly out there as people consistently report them from Alaska to Iowa to New York to Florida then surely the people who work in the habitats where they are reported are aware of them. Why has this not led to the creature’s identification? Please remember that sightings reports do not count as identification.

97. MultipleEncounters responds: April 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    “Why has this not led to the creature’s identification?”

    Unfortunately, to sound paranoid, our government and the powerful timber companies, do not want it. If anyone thinks this is not the case, then they have not been exposed to the real world economic powers. Forget the stories of conspiracy on tv, it happens in real life.

    I live in the PNW too. If you thought the Spotted Owl was controversial, solid evidence of a potentially hominid species would be tenfold. To protect the species (including their habitat) is not something they know how to deal with, and they don’t want to.

    I’ve spoken with agencies. Individuals will acknowledge they are aware of their existence. But with the agencies themselves, mum is the official word. Its policy. For now anyhow…

    Kitakaze, I wan’t specifically referring to you, but I do think it is plausible for some infiltration to take place in forums. It would be difficult to claim any one individual was responsible for this however. Just one more consideration as evidence is debated.

98. kitakaze responds: April 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    MultipleEncounters: Exactly how does the government and big timber keep the truth about bigfoot down? Does this apply in Iowa and New Jersey?

99. Craig Woolheater responds: April 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    I would like to remind those participating in this topic, that this is about the video in question.

    There are other places here on Cryptomundo to discuss scofftics and proponents of Bigfoot.

    Let’s keep this one about the video.

100. kamoeba responds: April 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

     Isn’t there a “law” called Occam’s Razor that states the simplest possible answer is usually the right answer? I think it’s safe to say that this questionable film clip by persons unknown with mysterious intentions is probably a fake.

101. MultipleEncounters responds: April 28th, 2007 at 1:49 am

     Kitakaze, it looks like that issue will have to wait for another time.

     Kamoeba, that’s a shallow application of a guideline. Did you even bother to listen to the audio using quality headphones before passing it off as fake?

102. kamoeba responds: April 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm

     I don’t think that even the finest audio sample would save this clip from the trash bin. What you have here is a film clip with a long list of “cons” and perhaps one “pro”…the audio. Ah, that fine YouTube quality audio. And yes, I have listened to this clip wearing headphones and the only thing I can think of when watching it is that the “Bigfoot” is going “number two”. Why else would it just sit there while the buffoon loudly narrating the clip is tromping through leaves that crunch so loudly when stepped upon that it seems he’s loose in a potato chip factory? The filmer seems surprised that what he thought was a bear was not a bear, then he acts like he has to leave immediately, as if Bigfoot are notoriously aggressive and dangerous. It almost seems that he was expecting to film a bear and that was okay with him, as though bears are kind and gentle and like being bothered. He acts as though he would have stuck around if it was a bear, but since it’s a Bigfoot he better get out of there! The sound to this clip only further enhances the obvious fakery, headphones or not.

103. Neworderedworld responds: May 1st, 2007 at 6:44 pm

     This is mostly directed at kamoeba:

     Yeah but you’re assuming they’ve actually done research on bigfoot! rather adventurous… What if they’re the type of people who would write Bigfoot off as a fairy story like most alleged “sane” people? They may have thought it was a big Ape, in which case you would run, considering how young those chaps sound. Imagine having no knowledge on cryptids and even on the wildlife in the surroundings you happen to find yourself in and then seeing that creature… it’s obviously too hairy to be human, my instincts would be on overload.

     The reason they “may” have had the camera on record (if this video turned out to be genuine) would be because they wanted to get something out of it, I would too! I have an ego to defend ya know!!

     Why are you quick to assume it’s taking a “number 2″? It maybe ill? It maybe injured? The key word is “maybe” here, which means no absolutes. One intelligent guy said something like “as humans we’re virtually blind” and it’s true. They weren’t even that close to the creature and you know how stupid this generation is when it comes to stealth.

104. maxsideburn responds: May 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

     Personally I think this is the most convincing vid I’ve seen in years. Mostly look at the way the head moves when the video first starts, if it is a person in a suit they studied ape movement.

105. Robsquatch responds: June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 am

     In the words of Captain Jack Sparrow… “You need to get yourself a girl, mate.”

106. jodzilla responds: July 20th, 2007 at 12:14 am

     Lame. I’m so tired of “The Blair Witch Project” photography I could scream. Fake. Fake. Fake.

107. sixteenstone responds: July 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pm

     Why the heck can John Doe go to his backyard and get great video footage of his 2.3 kids running like banshee’s all over the back yard, but can’t get decent footage of the wildlife a few yards away. You would think by now everyone and their grandma owns a digital camera and or video equipment and has figured out how to use it after spending mega bucks on it. I am so tired of looking at crappy bigfoot video. You wanna share it? Then get some footage I can believe.

108. canuck responds: October 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

     I can’t believe there are 129,672 words written above about didily-squat!
     Give me a footprint cast instead. Blurry video is rubbish! P.S. don’t screw up the cast video, it won’t bite you …you twit! I believe the guy we hear speaking on the film is from Massachusetts. As a Canuck I can pinpoint accents pretty well. Just my Loonie? which is trading at about $1.05 U.S. dollars today.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|