Ely Video Is Back
Posted by: Loren Coleman on March 25th, 2006
In only a few days this week, the Ely Sasquatch Video has been posted, removed, enhanced, re-posted in “regular” and “closeup” versions, then new footage found that was posted, and finally, yesterday, all of the footage was removed.
After the removal, Richard Sade posted a comment at my Cryptomundo blog, “Ely Footage Removed,” which read simply:
“The world is not ready for what I wanted to show them.”
Then very late last night, Richard Sade re-posted his “closeup” segment.
The footage can now (while it lasts) be viewed here.
Also, Sade placed this note with the late March 24th newly posted video:
A juvenile sasquatch taking its young. The BFRO & Loren Coleman dismiss this as a hoax simply based on a ‘forgotten segment’ they claim to have found. Please make your own judgements.
This is getting either very sad or very funny, because, of course, neither the BFRO nor I have definitely made any statements about this video footage being a hoax.
And, furthermore, the “forgotten segment” was not claimed found by the BFRO or me, but by Sade himself when he posted a new segment showing the “creature” running (please note, without a “baby Bigfoot” toward the road). Footprints seen in that video showed that it was taken after the first footage, the enhanced part of which has been re-posted today, and is said to be “with its young.” Where did the “baby” Bigfoot go in this once forgotten, then found, and now vanished footage?
Has Richard Sade forgotten that he is the one who re-discovered his own forgotten segment?
To see how this melodrama has caused frequently revised updates, check out David Pescovitz’s permalink at Boing Boing about the Cryptomundo alerts.
Things are getting more curious, certainly.
Your thoughts?
If the footage is real, apparently some squatches are drunk and/or clumsy.
As long as the dog keeps allowing this tail to wag it, this tail will keep right on wagging…
The motion of the film subject reminds me a little of the footage Ray Wallace showed me, in which, unless I am bonkers, his brother Shorty Wallace was the one waddling around in the fur suit. This one is far worse in quality, but more realistic. Ray’s Bigfoot had a fur-covered broomstick for a tail!
I guess he still wants to make his claim to fame with a fake bigfoot video
This Sade guy is a moron. If you’re gonna hoax, at least don’t make yourself look like such an idiot doing it!
Although humankind has been walloing in it throughout history, I’m just not ready for more b.s. And that’s what this Ely “bigfoot” video is. Even if the Patterson film is a hoax, the film is, so far, the best footage of this elusive, if real, creature. Every single video (in modern times) of an alleged bigfoot has been the worst, making camcorder technology look like a failure. If this Ely guy was serious, he would employ night light (infrared) and at least get an IMAGE of whatever he thinks is bigfoot. This is equivalent to nighttime footage of UFOs, all you see are lights, proving NOTHING! I wouldn’t want to be in Ely’s shoes and be considered an anal cavity by the public. Only fools are impressed with this video failure.
skepticaled
All of the runaround and confusion about the footage does make it seem suspicious. If he wants to try and salvage any credibility for the footage he’s going to have to take some time out and explain the timeline between the original footage and the “forgotten” piece. And he’s going to have to address some of the more credible critiques of it.
On another note I found this story linked at cryptozoology.com.
“DNA testing on skunk ape hair samples has been inconclusive stating only that it is from an unknown species. From collected skunk ape droppings, scientists at the Miami Metro Zoo have been able to determine that it eats both plants and meats.”
Has anyone else heard of this - a FL DNA sample tested and designated as an “unknown species”. The Nepal sample gets mentioned a lot, but this is the first I have heard of a FL sample. If this is true it should really be written up somewhere on line. The more DNA tests that can be pointed to, the more people will start treating the professional skeptics with more skepticism.
This guy seems to lose credibility by the moment…and then poor Loren Coleman gets the blame for our collective lambasting of his pathetic video. Sorry, Loren, though I suspect the opinion of someone like Sade doesn’t weigh too heavily on your conscience. Keep up the good work!
I’ve never seen Loren Coleman dismiss anything concerning the “ELY” video, all he did was invite discussion It’s probably time to close the door on this guy, why bother when there is bound to be so much better staged footage coming. Has anyone checked this website?
If he can forget that he re-discovered his own forgotten segment, maybe we can assume that he forgot this video is a hoax and actually now thinks he saw a real Bigfoot.
The clip is still up, but the comments about Loren and the BFRO have been removed. It now simply says “A juvenile sasquatch taking its young.”
If biggie is as stumbling and bumbling as this film shows then he wouldn’t be a cryptid.
Loren,
The footage is just not clear enough to make a judgment call. Sadly Mr. Sade’s actions are destroying his credibility. Ultimately he knows the truth and should not push the issue. I know if I had seen a real Squatch and no one believed me, I would let it be. I would know the truth and that would be good enough for me.
Mike Aragona
BFRO Investigator New Jersey
Did anyone get screen caps the so called forgotten footage? if so could you link to it or better yet post it on the big foot forums.
thank you that is all.
Chris
is that bigfoot peeing on that bush?
There is not enough information in the video to eliminate authenticity. Secondly most folks with purported bigfoot footage try to get an angle to make money off of the video. This one is available in the public domain, can’t dismiss it as an attempt to make money.
Todd, I looked at that site. It’s worth it to see how silly a man in a monkey suit looks, and that if the PG film really was a hoax, just how sophisticated a hoax it was.
When arguing about the existence of something unknown to mainstream science, the burden of proof is always on whomever is claiming that it’s real. That alone is reason enough to dismiss this footage: The lack of evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot is itself evidence against it.
And refusing to be critical of video as silly as this doesn’t help the credibility of cryptozoology as a science.
Methinks he doth protest too much!
I consider myself an ‘open-minded skeptic’, but even so, I find it difficult to accept this video as authentic. Upon initial viewing, the first thought that came to mind as the ‘creature’ disappeared into the darkness was that the walking movements very much resembled those of a human wearing a rather awkward apeman costume (such as one might see in an old comedy movie - e.g. Abbot & Costello, etc.) wherein the movements appear exaggerated due to the weight and restrictive nature of the costume.
“The lack of evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot is itself evidence against it.”
ZenBug-
That might follow if the premise that there is a “lack of evidence” were true, but it isn’t. If one removes the atmosphere of ignorance and ridicule created by some of the media and professional skeptics and actually examines the evidence objectively one can easily come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that an unknown species is out there. Some of the more convincing evidence:
- Thousands of plaster casts of large footprints collected for more than five decades from dozens of states and provinces, often in conjunction with eyewitness sightings. Both the lengths and widths of these footprints follow a pronounced Gaussian or bell curve distribution, which would be expected of a population sample of an actual animal. It is highly unlikely that something like this could be hoaxed without discovery for such a long time over such a wide geographic area.
- Hundreds of eyewitness sightings by people from all walks of life, including many who are thought to be more likely to be “credible” - doctors, police, biologists, lawyers, scientists, park rangers, hunters, etc.
- At least one DNA sample, and possibly more, indicating that an unknown species was the source.
- Some footprint casts and other evidence exhibit dermal ridges - like what is shown in fingerprints - and this has been confirmed by at least one law enforcement fingerprint expert.
- Many recordings of vocalizations from remote areas that show marked similarities with vocalization recordings from other areas. These have been analyzed by experts who have stated that the recordings are likely to be authentic - recordings from an unknown species. Also, when these recordings are broadcast in areas with a history of sightings, in many cases more vocalizations are made in answer to the recordings. Eyewitnesses on the scene maintain that the vocalizations made in response to the recordings are unlikely to be made by someone with other electronic recordings.
- Hair evidence analyzed by scientists who maintain that it is not human and most likely from a species of primate.
- Scat evidence.
Etc, etc, etc……
You can attack the evidence, you can attack the eyewitnesses, you can attack the scientists and experts who are convinced by the evidence, but to say that there is a “lack of evidence” is a false statement.
I wasn’t claiming there is a lack of evidence — If I believed that then posting in this forum would be a colossal waste of my time.
What I meant was, this particular video contains a lack of evidence, therefore it must be dismissed as if it never surfaced. So we’re back to the same score as before, and the skeptics are winning, since (sadly!) the prevailing scientific view holds that there is no Sasquatch.
So I was commenting more on the burden of proof than the amount of evidence. Too often, believers will see the mere existence of this footage as some kind of evidence, even if they admit that it shows nothing special.
I say we say it out loud, make SURE everyone hears, that this is a hoax. The more we dismiss the hoaxes as evidence, the more 2 things will happen. 1: The more desparate skeptics will say we are contradicting ourselves, because we “support the myth” of Bigfoot, and yet “deny the only evidence” and 2: Serious skeptics will give CryptoZoo a bit more respect, minus the hoaxers.
Whoever did this, if it is a hoax, knows the body mechanics of how a primate walks, see the tracks in the show the way it moves as it throws its hips and spins its knees out.
I like it.