Cryptomundo » New Manitoba Bigfoot Video

New Manitoba Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 12th, 2007

As we rapidly approach the two year anniversary of the Manitoba Bigfoot Video shot by Bobby Clarke on April 16, 2005, there is news of a new alleged Bigfoot video from Manitoba.

The footage is hosted on metacafe. I have not seen any news of this footage in the media, so perhaps it is suspect.

Following is the text that Doug Thomas, the gentleman who claims to have shot the footage along with his son, has posted with the alleged Bigfoot video on metacafe.

This footage was captured in Peguis Manitoba Canada. My son and I were going out to cut some wood as we came over the ridge we could see something crossing the road by time my boy got the camera out it this is what we captured.Doug Thomas

I have contacted Mr. Thomas and requested additional details regarding his alleged Bigfoot video.

Following is the reply I received.

I guess I should make this clear first I’m not claiming that its “Bigfoot or Sasquatch,” I just don’t know?

There really isn’t much more that I can say about the footage, my boy and I were heading out to the gravel pits to cut some firewood. On the way over a ridge we could see something crossing the road on the next ridge probably about 400 yards away.

I slowed down and told my boy to grab my camcorder from the back seat. By the time he had it going what ever we saw had already walked across the road behind a mound of rocks.

What you see in the video is clearer then what I actually saw because we were so far away. The “creature” quickly disappeared into the woods and what we seen the video is the last we saw of it.

We stopped and shouted, “who’s there?” with no response. I remember looking at the tracks but don’t recall anything abnormal about them, it just looked like where someone had walked through the snow. I should have videoed the tracks but didn’t even think of it at the time. Doug Thomas

Here is the link to the video on metacafe for those that aren’t able to view the video here on Cryptomundo.

Update on this possible Bigfoot video here on Cryptomundo at:

Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video

View latest update on video with commentary by Doug Thomas here on Cryptomundo at:

Latest Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video

This entry was posted on Monday, March 12th, 2007 at 12:03 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Bigfoot Report, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Sasquatch, Videos. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

37 Responses to “New Manitoba Bigfoot Video”

SEBigfoot2007 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Interesting, Hopefully Mr Thomas measured or filmed the tracks.
bill green responds: March 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
hey craig & everyone i just watched that new possible manitoba sasquatch filmfootage it looks very interesting indeed. more study & research needs to be done to it. thanks bill
Darkstream responds: March 12th, 2007 at 1:41 am
It’s arms seem short compared to the Patterson film. That was my first impression.

My second impression was “Why the heck do all these revelatory videos go wiggedy whenever the cameraman zooms in for the kill?” At this point, there is no surer indication of a forgery than this old chestnut.

I have been shooting videos for 18 years and have never been so bad with a camera. Even my honeymoon video is easier to watch than this thing. 15 years of my life was spent filming children. They don’t sit still for the camera, let me tell you. Many of those videos have been from the back of the auditorium while filming my girls frolicking about the stage. I center the kids just fine. And my mother who has Post Polio Syndrome and couldn’t hold a camera still to save her life has easier to watch videos than this thing.

Man or Myth…Man and Hoax is more like it.

Hmm, that sounds grumpy even to me. At least the video was good for a laugh. Glad to see that the videographer isn’t trying to claim it’s Bigfoot. At lease he’s not adding insult to injury.
mystery_man responds: March 12th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Darkstream- Exactly. I thought the same thing. Often these videos zoom in for a clear shot just to give the viewer a taste, then inexplicably the camera flies all over the place and when it gets back into focus, the alleged creature is just disappearing. The tendency for these films to do this is so prevalent, that I think it goes beyond just coincidence. It seems pretty fishy to me.
shovethenos responds: March 12th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Pretty suspicious. The arm swing looks exaggerated. Not much detail. Likely a hoax.
boxerpitzeus responds: March 12th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Hi all, I just want to say great site. This my first post. First off, great job to Loren Coleman.

Is it me, or did the camera guy say can you see him and laughed or was I watching some other hoax?
elsanto responds: March 12th, 2007 at 6:18 am
If they are hoaxers, they’ve been clever about one thing… the angle of the body. The subject in the film isn’t walking directly across the field of vision, as with the Patterson-Gimlin film… it’s turning to the right, walking into the brush with its back to the camera. Given the distance, lighting, etc., this could appear to foreshorten the arms, leaving room to claim that it is a sasquatch but that the angle of the body and the walk are such that you can’t really see the arm length for what it is.

There are, interestingly, a couple points in the slow-mo where one can conceivably speculate an arm length that would be “correct” for an actual sasquatch: the section 56-58 seconds into the video, as well as the “freeze” at 68-71 seconds in. What’s interestingly convenient, however, is that in putting together the montage that he has, Thomas doesn’t bother to continue the slow-mo all the way through to the end — he has conveniently left it at what might be the most “compelling” point.

That aside, there’s the camerawork. Unlike most hoaxers who pan and happen to “find” their subject, their approach is consistent with the backstory… they had seen where the subject had gone and was heading, and were concentrating on finding it in that area once they had got the camera out. That’s a plus. Then there’s the huge minus. Allow me to preface by saying: “Patterson was on a HORSE, for crying out loud! and look at the footage he got!” You’re telling me a guy in a car can’t shoot steady? SHEESH! As Darkstream and mystery_man have pointed out, that does make the entire thing really quite dodgy.

What are we to make of the witness’ comment that the tracks didn’t strike him as anything special — that it just looked like someone walking through snow? Are we to infer from this that if it is indeed a sasquatch, it’s a juvenile? One would think that had he been looking at enormous tracks, he would have been struck by their size and might have brought the camera out. The fact that he says they didn’t seem to be out of the ordinary gives one pause. (He does suggest on the website that it might have been a juvenile.) Then again, giving them the benefit of the doubt, allowing for the shock that a witness would inevitably feel at having seen something unsettlingly strange (something was supposedly strange enough, after all, to compel them to get the camera out at film, if we are to believe their story), capturing the prints on film might well have not entered their minds.

Perhaps it’s just footage of a dude in a parka after all.

Laying reason (which is as much a tool as anything else) aside, my intuition (as useful a tool when properly composed and channeled) doesn’t scream “Hoax!” Perhaps it is because of the fluidity with which the subject moves in those first few seconds. Having grown up in snow-bound Canada, I can say that people don’t move anywhere near that fluidly through snow. Perhaps my intuition has also seized on something else about the video that I haven’t yet brought to full awareness to be able to verbalize.

Hard experience has taught me never to ignore my intuition, but this is nowhere near as convincing as even the NY Baby footage (which convinced a friend who really didn’t believe in the possibility of sasquatch) — I honestly can’t judge it one way or the other, suffice it to say that once again, we have footage that, if a hoax, is one of the better-done hoaxes; and if genuine, is simply not good enough to constitute decent evidence.

Just my two cents.
kittenz responds: March 12th, 2007 at 6:19 am
>sigh
BigfootBeliever71 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 6:27 am
“I should have videoed the tracks but didn’t even think of it at the time.”

You’re kidding me, right? He thought to record this “thing” 400 yards away, but he didn’t think to record the foot prints from one side of the road to the next after he stopped to investigate?!? And with all that snow on the ground, he could have easily tracked this thing.

“I remember looking at the tracks but don’t recall anything abnormal about them…”

What? Other than their enormous length and width?

Looks interesting to me, but my “spidey-sense” is tingling on this one.
joppa responds: March 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Well. Could of, would of, should of.
MBFH responds: March 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
The last appearance of the ‘creature’ looks as if it’s waving goodbye! Inconclusive for anything really.

Elsanto - I think Patterson was off his horse but was running and did fall which makes it even more impressive!
YourPTR! responds: March 12th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Looks fake.
Fred Facker responds: March 12th, 2007 at 9:08 am
From that distance it could just as easily be a man in a hooded parka. Not enough detail to tell.
monkeyz responds: March 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
It’s got the fake wiggles.
Darkwing2006 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The head is entirely too large, looks like a pull over ape mask IMHO
PhotoExpert responds: March 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Interesting and inconclusive video footage. The arms do look a bit short. At times the subject looks like a man in a parka. At other times it looks like a bear. And at one point, it looks like it could be a Sasquatch. So the footage is definitely inconclusive. It does not prove or disprove anything.

I think this might be a case of an honest person being hoaxed by hoaxers. I say this because it does not appear that Mr. Thomas tried to “set up” the video. His story is consistent with the way the footage was shot.

He is also not making claims that it could be a BigFoot. He says rather objectively he and his son saw something, some animal. So that seems very objective to me.

It caught his interest enough to go and investigate further. He did mention seeing tracks but they were normal or nothing out of the ordinary. Did he mean they looked like normal bear tracks? Did he mean they looked like normal footprints a human wearing shoes would have made? The subject itself was interesting enough to try and capture on video but the footprints were ordinary enough as not to shoot on video. This would be my reaction if the footprints were ordinary. Why shoot that on video? So he was not compelled to do so because they looked ordinary. That is why he did not shoot the tracks and that would be a natural reaction.

The only thing that seems a bit odd is that Mr. Thomas posts the video and at the end has scripted in, “Man or Myth?” That is curious. He did not say Man or Bear? Or what is this? He is asking the question, “Is it a Man?” He is also asking the question, “Is it a Myth?” What myth? I believe he is implying the Sasquatch myth because that is the only myth I can think of in that area of the country that is well known. So why imply it was a Sasquatch?

It could be that he just being honest, wanted to post the video and although the video evidence might lead him to believe it was possibly a BigFoot, that the footprints lead him to believe it was not.

The question for me is about the footprints. Did they appear to be footprints of someone or something without shoes. Or did the footprints look like someone who was wearing shoes? Because of the time of day, I would say that hoaxers might try to hoax someone so that the subject of the hoax could clearly see the event from a distance. An open road to draw them in and then far enough away to hide themselves easily in brush.

Overall, I feel as if the footage was not an intentional hoax on the part of the Mr. Thomas. But I do feel Mr. Thomas was drawn in unintentionally to being part of a hoax.

That is just my gut feeling based on the observations, objectivity and common sense.
alanborky responds: March 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Forget Bigfoot!

Forget Global Warming!

Open your eyes, people, this film show’s the real threat to Earth!

A race of giant black jellybabies walks amongst us and anyone who doesn’t wake up to this fact before it’s too late is go’n'o come to a seriously
sticky end!

And the proof of just how powerful these gelatine and sugar-forged monsters are is the way this one mind-controlled Mr. Thomas into failing to notice the tracks left behind weren’t made by shod or even bare feet, but virtually shapeless giant jellybaby feet!

All of which is a roundabout way of saying, whenever I see film of a supposed Bigfoot doing that exaggerated military-style marching with excessively rigid ’swinging’ arms, I’m immediately reminded of the effortless grace and sheer physical power with which Patterson’s Patty similarly conducts herself, making me think, in turn, is this ‘Bigfoot’ REALLY so obviously trying TOO hard simply because it’s a Patty wannabe?

…especially when the arms of the ‘Bigfoot’ in question look too short to pluck the fluff out its bellybutton, never mind scratch its own nether regions and regions beyond!
dogu4 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
If that’s not a person in a snowmobile suit, all I can say is that is sure looks a lot like it…the relatively short arms, moving in an exaggerated fashion while walking through calf deep snow and short willow…of course, there will be a trackway to see, right? If it turns out it’s not the guy in the bunny suit I think it is because the prints show some kind of BF track, or somebody else has taken some other video or pics of the same figure which don’t look like a guy who’s in a snowmobile suit, even other witnesses who say they saw a bigfoot…something other than this…I’ll be pretty darn excited.
Captain Avatar responds: March 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Bothers to get a camcorder, but does not think of filming foot prints? Hmmmm……
gridbug responds: March 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Your arms to short to box with Squatch. ;p

Gut feeling says “maybe” but logic center insists “probably not”.

Good post though!
kokodhem responds: March 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
My second impression was “Why the heck do all these revelatory videos go wiggedy whenever the cameraman zooms in for the kill?” At this point, there is no surer indication of a forgery than this old chestnut.

I agree 100% … this immediately screams “HOAX” when I see the camera jiggle out like this.

Most cameras these days have motion correction, so you can even film in a moving vehicle.
kittenz responds: March 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
It actually looks like it could be a black bear, but I don’t know what would make a bear want to stay upright for so long, and over such a distance. So I’m not gonna scream “fake”, but I’d bet my boots that it isn’t a Sasquatch.
joppa responds: March 12th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
After further review, I am convinced it could be a blobsquatch.
robzilla responds: March 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Well, elsanto says ”patterson was on a horse for cryin out loud! and look at the footage he got!” He didn’t start filming until he got off the horse. He was running at the creature while he was shooting the film. Just thought I would let you know. But this video doesn’t look very good to me either.
wolfman7367 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Congratulations to the author. You did the famous shaky camera bit perfectly. Roger Patterson would be proud. Can’t we prosecute hoaxers like other criminals?
dougall3 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
It’s impossible to tell for sure, but it sure seems to be massive–compared to the trees he walks into–very massive. Great clip. If I saw something that big walk into the woods, I don’t think I’d be in a rush to follow it
President06 responds: March 12th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Looks fake to me. The head is way too big and the movements are exaggerated.
Sergio responds: March 13th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I think Doug Thomas is full of it.
Chris Noel responds: March 13th, 2007 at 9:11 am
elsanto,

Roger Patterson was off his horse and up from his stumble by the time he got the best sequence of footage.

I’ll say this for the new footage: this figure and the figure in the Memorial Day Footage–as it approaches the tree line–swing their arms very similarly, with great fluidity.
sschaper responds: March 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
My initial impression is that the photographer is innocent. But that does mostly look like a guy in a parka, even with maybe a seed corn cap under the hood.

But the distance is so great that the figure morphs from frame to frame - was he using digital zoom?

Lower end camcorders still do not have image stabilization, and even those that do, won’t correct for a car hitting a rut at speed.
sschaper responds: March 13th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Since the guy seems honest, maybe Loren could take the better questions here and frame them to him in a non-accusatory way. We might learn something, and we might get the unedited footage, as well.
squatchwatcher responds: March 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
After watching the video I just have to wonder why didn’t the guy drive closer to the object while his son held onto the camera? I mean if his son is old enough to help chop wood, isn’t he old enough to run a camera? Just a little suspicious to me. But like other posts here, maybe the guy is innocent and he just got duped, after all he does mention that he isn’t saying it’s a sasquatch just something. But it raises more questions than it answers. Just another out of focus and shaky video. Also, he mentions that the footprints didn’t look like anything out of the ordinary, maybe the tracks did look like someone wearing boots made them and he just wanted feedback so as to be sure. But why didn’t he film the tracks? Like I said, more questions than answers.
springheeledjack responds: March 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
WELL, any way you slice it, we haven’t solved the BF dilemma with this one…I echo “Kittenz”

Sigh…
goochcamper responds: March 14th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Just wanted to give a response to the video being shaky. When an operator of a digital camcorder zooms past the max of the actual zoom lens the amera has built in on it, the camera continues on zooming in a digital mode. That’s why in a lot of digital cameras you see a little “carrot” or dot at some point in the zoom meter, signifying you are going into digital zoom.

Once in this mode, and all digital cameras have it, the zoom becomes much more pixellated and much harder to keep steady due to the shear distance its achieving.

If anyone has ever tried to film in a car zoomed in on something, when you hit a bump the image flies all over the place.

It’s my opinion that the kid zoomed way in on the thing, they hit a bump and the camera went wily, they slowed down and he reframed his shot. Hoax or not that looks like what’s happening.

As for the audio cutting out, I’d guess this guy’s kid starts shouting some four letter words and he didn’t want that posted on the internet in case his preacher or grandparents heard it.

Just my opinion. He did seem to zoom right to the right spot awful quickly.
DWA responds: March 15th, 2007 at 12:22 am
From kittenz:

“It actually looks like it could be a black bear, but I don’t know what would make a bear want to stay upright for so long, and over such a distance. So I’m not gonna scream “fake”, but I’d bet my boots that it isn’t a Sasquatch.”

Kittenz: don’t bet a pair of boots you want to keep.

I usually hit the kill switch on anything Bigfoot I see after the first second or two. I’ve been going back and back on this one. There is fishy stuff going on, but one thing that is NOT is a black bear. Three reasons:

1) No bear could cover ground like that on two legs, particularly off road and trail in snow;

2) The arm swing is utterly uncharacteristic of a bear under any circumstances;

3) That thing is bigger than a black bear.

I don’t know what it is. But the more I look the less I think “human.”

Know what else I think? This shooting is waaaaay too bad to be hoaxed. And that radio being on? When you’re concentrating on getting the hoax right, I don’t think you have a lot of background noise to get in the way. (They could have been hoaxed themsleves…but that guy picked a damn weird time to cross the road if so. Not to mention a damn weird time to be running a hoax. Winter in Manitoba is serious. And I don’t think ape suits are either that big or that warm.)

Keep your skepticals on. But this one is intriguing.
stonelk responds: March 15th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Interesting. I was watching the head very closely. there are a couple of times especially in profile where it looks like a gorilla. Maybe I’m just seeing what I want.

On the foot prints. could be the snow was deep and powdery and the prints filled in as they were made.

I don’t have a video camera but if I did and I saw Sasquatch I would be so excited I wouldn’t be able to hold the darn thing still and all the experts that check this site would cry “FAKE”.
justaskepticview responds: March 16th, 2007 at 12:08 am
If these creatures are real and have successfully lived close to civilization without revealing themselves; I only assume they are extremely shy, have extremely sensitive hearing and generally avoid roadways because they know “humans” use them. The guy in the costume, er I mean bigfoot, didn’t seem to hear or react to the oncoming car, suspicious. Why don’t believers of bigfoots and ufos etc spend money collectively and set up “steady” cameras 24/7 where sightings “take place frequently” and spare everyone the “‘wobbly” videos? By the way, a nice nod to the classic bigfoot reel we all know (the wide striding arms as he’s walking), classic.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

37 Responses to “New Manitoba Bigfoot Video”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

oem software bundle

"Buy cheap PhotoShop CS 2"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

oem software bundle

software oem cd line business;

inkjet definition oem software

adobe cs2 photo shop total training

"locate software oem files"

iCorrect EditLab Pro 4.52,

adobe any cs2 from photo photo shop shop upgrade version

"how to activate reget deluxe"

microsoft office 2003 oem,

"locate software oem files"

software discount oem?

adobe cs2 photo shop total training