56 Responses to “New Hampshire Bigfoot Video Footage”

1. Scarfe responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:21 am

   This could be something, but it looks suspiciously like someone in a suit. Yet, if this individual is willing to send the original footage, we should be able to see better soon.

2. Mnynames responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:54 am

   Well, the thing does a pretty good impression of appearing pretty massive. At least it doesn’t really look like a Patty wannabe. I’d definitely like to see more on this, particularly a higher-res version, and the “other” footage in question.

   Good Find…not your typical Youtube fare.

3. jamesrav responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:06 am

   it appears to be still *approaching* the direction of the videographer and yet the badly (how coincidental) pixelated footage suddenly stops - why? He must have kept filming right? - the ‘thing’ would seem to be even closer and easier to see. And wouldn’t the autofocus *eventually* kick in. Too many red flags to be real, in my opinion.

4. sschaper responds: July 19th, 2007 at 2:47 am

   I’d like to see the stabilization when it is available.

   His explanation is certainly believable.

   I’d lke to see enhancement of the second, in focus segment.

5. sschaper responds: July 19th, 2007 at 2:49 am

   Motion in the second part could be a charging display.

   Super-resolution techniques may be able to get more detail on the blobsquatch, deblobbing it some.

6. ShefZ28 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:13 am

   the first part looks fake… why did he stop filming?

   Why is it walking right toward them at a high rate of speed…in the open, which looks like it walking on a trail.

7. elsanto responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:35 am

   Nothing in this footage elicits the slightest iota of willing suspension of subjectivity with respect to this video. To wit, FAKE!

   Next.

8. proriter responds: July 19th, 2007 at 5:28 am

   Yeah. Sure. Right. Uh-huh. Yeah.

9. Darkstream responds: July 19th, 2007 at 5:38 am

   I recently was traveling during sunset through the Capitol Reef Nat’l Park in Utah when I spotted a deer drinking in a roadside stream just as a turned a bend. I pulled over, came to a stop, and grabbed my camcorder.

   The only time my camera work looked as shaky as the above footage was when I turned the camcorder on and ran across and along the highway with the camcorder dangling by my side. I left it running so that it would be ready for me the moment I spotted the deer again.

   I was easily 600+ feet away from the deer when I began filming. Even with a deep zoom in a shaded canyon during sunset I had a more stable image than that joke posted above. I’m sorry guys, but I’ve got to call it as I see it: Fake. Patterson’s film on horseback is easier to view than that mess.

10. Chris Noel responds: July 19th, 2007 at 6:03 am

    Absolutely a person. Short arms.

11. Sasquatchery responds: July 19th, 2007 at 8:05 am

    It’s become obvious that we have another thing to thank the Patterson film for when analyzing any subsequent film. For some reason, hoaxers never seem to realize that there are physiological reasons for the pronounced arm swing Patty demonstrates, so they always seem to engage in what has become the standard giveaway for hoax footage: a wildly exaggerated arm swing for no discernable good reason. The subject in this footage has nowhere near the bulk of Patty and isn’t moving as fast, yet the arms are are being forced to swing all the way up until they’re parallel to the ground. A forced (as opposed to natural) arm swing is usually quickly recognizable, but these hoaxers persist in doing it. The Freeman footage is another good example of it.

12. Chris Noel responds: July 19th, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Excellent points, Darkstream and Sasquatchery. (Patterson wasn’t on horseback while filming.)

13. Darla KnD responds: July 19th, 2007 at 8:55 am

    In the first part, the arms seem over exaggerated and they/it is having trouble getting their feet over the underbrush. I think they might have had too much to drink on the 4th. I also believe this to be a FAKE!

14. mjmurphy responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:16 am

    The second still looks like a guy in a monkey suit peering through branches. I also agree with the comment about unnatural arm-swinging.

    And as to the film itself, is every hoaxer out there trying to rip off the Blair Witch Project?

15. jayman responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:38 am

    Both the optimists and skeptics have posted good points here. I’ll withhold judgment till when and if he follows through with his pledge to forward the file to Rick Noll or other researcher for clarification and study.

16. calash responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:43 am

    The first part looks like someone marching or with instructions to swing your arms. Interesting that in the second part a tree limb appears sawed off right where he wants to look out. Maybe the ”First take” was obscured by branches and had to be corrected with some tree surgery
    Regards

17. tomdee27 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Pul-ease! Obvious fake. Bigfoot looks like he’s marching in a parade. Maybe a local costume shop had a 4th of July sale on monkey suits

18. rlis2706 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am

    I imported the 2nd still frame into Photoshop and adjusted the light and contrast levels and you get a pretty good looks at the face. You can see the thin lips, wide nose and eyes. This still might be a fake but at least the guy who took the footage is willing to turn over the whole tape.

19. old crow responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:52 am

    The beat goes on.

20. cutrer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:56 am

    Bigfoot + Youtube = Waste of time.

21. Digger44 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 10:06 am

    YES!!!! A sighting in NH, my home state. Our legends and history here speak of the “woodsman” of the the White Mountains. Typically he is tall and thin, and blends in with the trees well. He is not a noise maker though and doesn’t stroll like this footage.

    Here are the issues I have with the footage. The email claims he was at the alpine level. Well, in NH there is one type of tree that grows at that level, pine. The flora does not match the alpine (tree) level of the White Mountains. The tree level typically would also be more vertical because the WM are rather rounded and not jagged (except in the notches). Our hiking trails do not look like this at the alpine level.

    Loren, I spend much time in the White Mountains every year. If you can provide the location I will go look on Saturday or Sunday. I would be surprised if it is in a loction that I am not familiar with.

22. raisinsofwrath responds: July 19th, 2007 at 10:20 am

    No comment

23. giantchaser responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am

    Well, it certainly seems massive in the first part, and does appear to be a monkey suit, but the second half, the second still image, is a completely different thing, it is not brown at all. I’m completely convinced that the first part is a hoax, but the second part looks a bit more like a black chimpanzee on all fours. I always thought bigfoot was a biped…

24. Sergio responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Fake.

25. chabuhi responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am

    In that first part I’m waiting for Squatch to “shoot” me with finger-pistols and call out “Hey! How ya doin’, buddy?” with a smarmy wink to cap it all off. Is this Kevin Hall’s audition reel for “Harry & The Hendersons” by chance?

26. Stickabee responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Now, I’m new to the site and the whole cryptozoology scene, but the thing that strikes me there in the still image at the bottom of the page where, I suppose, you’re able to see a face, is that the branch to the lower left seems to be cleanly cut. I don’t know that it means anything necessarily, but it’s interesting that a branch that would otherwise obscure the frame-up of the face was cut cleanly up at a nearly alpine level out in the middle of the woods.

27. mystery_man responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am

    I appreciate the comparisons to Patty being made here, but let’s remember that Patty has not conclusively been proven to be an actual sasquatch and so any attempt to use comparisons to it as any sort of evidence that a video is genuine or not is inherently flawed. If Patty is real, then the thoughts that any video copying it are a hoax may be wrong. If Patty is fake, then it gives us no real insights whatsoever into how a real Bigfoot moves or looks. Bottom line is we don’t know, and until we do (quite probably not anytime soon), we have to assume that it may be a hoax and as such should not be used as some sort of yardstick by which to judge other videos. Until there is definitave footage of a proven flesh and blood Bigfoot, all comparisons to other videos are speculative at best.

28. DARHOP responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Should of took that guy in the suit to a seamstress and had it fitted better… Cuz it sure looks baggy to me… But I do have to say the the second still look’s pretty good… Nice mask…. Hopefully the footage can be enhanced… I’m still leaning towards… NOT!!!!!!!!

29. bill green responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    hey craig & everyone very interesting new nh sasquatch filmfootage but more research study etc needs to be done to it. new hampshire forests has a good histery of sasquatch related activity. please keep me posted ok. thanks bill green

30. gridbug responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    Too many red flags to take this one seriously.

31. wrath of the real responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    OK I am not saying this is real nor am I defending hoax makers. You all make some interesting points here. I would love to see high resolution clip but what ever. I really have to say that it is starting to piss me off that everyone says “why do they stop filming when it gets closer?”….What the hell would you do if a 500 pound 9 ft tall creature was running in you direction? I would take my finger off the record button and run like hell. If a 2 ft tall 75 pound boar was running in my direction I would take my finger off the record button and run. Especially if I had my son with me. I am 6′4″ at 275 pounds so it’s not like I am a wuss. Granted I haven’t seen anything yet from You Tube that has really impressed me, but stopping filming while something very large and unknown is coming in your direction is a pretty reasonable idea and shouldn’t be a tall tale sign of a fake. Just my 2 cents.

32. Guerrierinconnu responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    FAKE !!! It is obvious…

33. shumway10973 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    Well, I looked as closely as possible to the nice picture with the face. It at least wasn’t the normal, cheap mask found in most hoax videos. If this one is a hoax, then they did put some work into it. I will agree that the camera not focusing while “it” walked towards them (directly) is kinda fishy, but I will keep my skepticism under control for now. If the person who took this piece happens on here and reads our comments, please just remember that no one knows for sure how big foot is suppose to look, and we here at cryptomundo have seen way too many really bad hoax videos and some may have become pessimistic. Please keep in contact with Craig and hopefully we can get some better footage.

34. PhotoExpert responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    What? No sound? Why not?

35. sundevit responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    I don’t quite get it: if you already bother to get into a suit and stage the whole thing, why not try a bit harder to give it some believable locomotion? instead, this specimen here walks like it’s a professional sports hiker (nordic walking, anyone?) or something. Absolutely hilarious. I wouldn’t mind a good fake once in a while. You know, just for the chills of it. This just makes me laugh. And eventually gets annoying.

36. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Now he’s admitting it was a fake, a test for a movie.

37. silvereagle responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Checklist for Bigfoot Hoaxers:
    1. shakey camera, check
    2. out of focus subject, check
    3. don’t photograph feet, check
    4. rent costume at “Bigfoot Costumes Are Us”, check
    5. swing arms wildly and for no reason, check
    6. don’t get too close to the subject to deter getting caught at a hoax, check
    7. come up with simple story to explain the circumstances, check
    8. appear sincere and avoid laughing, check
    9. leave hi-def camera at home, check
    10. hire Bob Heironhisass for the shoot, check

    10 for 10 and we have a winna!

38. sschaper responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    Shefz, let’s see, a large monster-like animal is charging straight at you, and primal fears are activated and you run away - just like he said that he did. What is so strange or suspicious about that? I used to think that, for example, in paintball, that I’d practice good amunition discipline, just because I’d read about it. The first time I played, I fired like crazy when charged, just like I knew not to do. I don’t think it is so unreasonable to find yourself running away when charged by something that looks like the boogyman.

    The arm swinging does look unnatural. But I stil think it worth while to try to stabilize, and do some super-resolution work (like they did on Gusev Crater with the Viking Orbiter images a few years ago)

    I wonder if the first part was shot in digital zoom. That would explain the poor quality. Or it could have been set to manual for something else, and in the heat of the moment he forgot to switch it back to autofocus - I’ve made that mistake with my GS 85.

    Photoexpert, I dunno, how long has he had the camera? A friend has had one for several years, and still can’t get sound to transfer.

    Is it a fake? Well, odds favor that, but let’s see what proper processing and the review of the full tape show, before we start accusing people.

39. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    Read his comments about how he feels bad for the crypto people!! What a loser.

40. Sunny responds: July 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Wrath of the Real, you said it before I got here.

    I’m not saying whether this is real or not — I suppose the next good piece of video is just as likely, if not more so, to turn up on YouTube as anywhere else — so I won’t dismiss it out of hand.

    But I’m with Wrath…if I realize something much bigger than me is bearing down on me, I’m leaving the video to somebody apparently much bolder than I am….I will have already crossed three county lines.

41. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Now this guy is going back on his film project story, and saying it was done for a study.

42. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    Now he took all the comments of his admissions off.

43. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    I think I ticked him off. He removed my comments on his YouTube page as well as his admission of a hoax. Ooops! It was funny how when he got caught, he had to go to the glorified film-maker position so he wouldn’t look like just another hack hoaxer.

44. yousawhat! responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    It looks like a combination of a commerical and a trip to the zoo. The first part looks like he filmed the taunting bigfoot off the widescreen tv. The one where the big guy teases the hiker about not having a camera, then the guy takes his picture on a cellphone and show it to him. The second part looks like a zoo exhibit. No widely spaced trees like the first part. May be Little joe escaped from Franklin Park Zoo in Boston again.

45. satarina responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    you know, odds are this is fake, but i’m with mystery_man on the comparisons to Patty. i’ve never understood why so many people are so completely convinced that the P&G footage is real (though it may be, don’t get me wrong), when to my understanding it was filmed when Patterson went out looking for sasquatch after he had written a book about it. if he were to do that today, no one would believe any evidence he came back with, they’d yell ‘publicity’. and yet many people do use Patty, as mystery said, as the yardstick to measure all other bigfoot evidence by.

    if or when rest of this footage can be analyzed, maybe we’ll have a better idea of whether it’s real or not. but i don’t think that it’s similarities, or lack of, to Patty have anything to do with anything.

46. sausage1 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    Interesting that it swings it arms and crosses its legs across its central line when moving. That in itself is quite intriguing.

    The thing is, whenever we have an unobstructed shot of a possible squatch it is always fuzzy and shaky. However when it is so well hidden in the bushes you can hardly see what you are supposed to be looking at (as in the second photo), the picture is so sharp and crystal clear I can see the reflection of my disbelief in every leaf.

    Gosh, I am getting so cynical in my old age, ain’t I?

47. Late Night Visitor responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    There’s an easier way to screen bigfootage. Anything posted of this stature for the first time on the web, oh and it just happens to be on YouTube, is bogus, period.

48. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Amen to that.

49. Former Lee Warmer responds: July 19th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    This guy keeps deleting the comments that I make on his page. It’s pretty sad that he claims he did this as a study for a saquatch film, but when I try to get some legit credit as to him being a film-maker, he can’t provide any and blocks me from commenting on his video. That’s a pretty sad admission of guilt. He has a blank profile page with only that one video. Some film-maker. That pretty much sums up his case. If he is a film-maker, then he just reduced himself to the lower ranks of all the other You Tube hoaxers.

50. Tengu responds: July 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    Oh, and that sasquatch was lousy.

    He should have hired a pro sasquatch model from a top New York agancy.

51. ddh1969 responds: July 19th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Everyone listen to me!

    NOT ENOUGH!!!

    don’t make me film my dog in a blurry fashion and call it ‘Tasmanian devil footage’

52. Craig Woolheater responds: July 19th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Well, after posting the purported Bigfoot video here on Cryptomundo, the truth comes out.

    Read the update here on Cryptomundo.

53. Honest John responds: July 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am

    The ground is not level here, and the camera does not show this very rough terrain.

    Even if it was a person in a suit trying to walk on this un-even ground, your arms would swing for balance.

    The strange arm movement can be from this.

54. grafikman responds: July 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    Ok, the guy already admitted it was a hoax, but something that Wrath of the Real said struck me -he got pissed that people say “Why do they stop filming when they get closer?”.

    Now that might be a valid argument in an *actual* sighting, but in this video, the “creature” is so close it makes you wonder what this guy was doing for the 30 seconds *before* that point in the video? If he was going to run from an approaching squatch it would have been long before this. And then it jumps to the other scene with the guy apparently standing just 10 feet away from the “creature’ in the bushes. That’s a helluva lot closer than when he ran away from it in the other scene. I don’t think the most hardcore bigfoot hunters and believers would stand *that* close to one like it was a gorilla behind thick zoo bars.

    All in all a p*ss-poor attempt. You’d think any hoaxers would pay attention to the squatch boards and forums and make at least a half-hearted try to get it right, like Penn and Teller did. If they didn’t admit responsibility for their hoax, it still might be floating around being debated.

55. YourPTR! responds: July 21st, 2007 at 1:19 am

    I saw this on YouTube earlier. The first part is likely someone in a suit trying to walk like a Bigfoogt. Too blurry to tell really if its fake or not for certain but that’s obviously by far the more likely reality. Quite interesting all the same and certainly less obvious than the usual YouTube fare. I don’t see anything in the 2nd part apart from the bushes. My guess another hoax!

56. Braindead responds: August 27th, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Look what “Jamesowens817″ wrotes on youtube:

    >>This is footage we took for our film “monster in the woods”
    Just a quick little flash in trying to create our own bigfoot sighting video for the film. This is an unused test from the film. <<

    Any questions?

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|