Comments on: New Manitoba Bigfoot Video

By: justaskepticview

justaskepticview — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:08:47 +0000

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.

By: stonelk

stonelk — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:28:58 +0000

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”.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 05:22:24 +0000

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.

By: goochcamper

goochcamper — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:33:14 +0000

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.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:39:34 +0000

WELL, any way you slice it, we haven’t solved the BF dilemma with this one…I echo “Kittenz”

Sigh…

By: squatchwatcher

squatchwatcher — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:51:11 +0000

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.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:41:55 +0000

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.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:40:36 +0000

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.

By: Chris Noel

Chris Noel — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:11:04 +0000

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.

By: Sergio

Sergio — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:07:07 +0000

I think Doug Thomas is full of it.