51 Responses to “Newly Released Mt. Tam Bigfoot Video”

1. chrisandclauida2 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 5:17 am

   interesting.

2. chrisandclauida2 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 5:27 am

   this is my ne favorite fake or fictional bigfoot footage.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVx09Jzvhg

3. MountDesertIslander responds: June 27th, 2007 at 7:43 am

   If I am seeing the image on the still correctly it looks like this creature has very fine features. A streamlined nose, thin lips and a sharp chin are not commonly associated with bigfoot. I’m not saying that disqualifies this video as a hoax, it’s just something I noticed right off the bat.

   I wonder how much bigfoot footage has been captured by people in similar circumstances as this but has not been discovered by the videographer yet. In the end, I think it’s going to be a camper or hiker that is going to provide the evidence of a cryptid in our forests that can’t be ignored by the mainstream media.

   Is it possible to post a few more still captures from the video? One of the disadvantages to living in certain rural areas is the lack of access to high speed internet. I have little hope of downloading anything from YouTube at this time.

4. bill green responds: June 27th, 2007 at 8:35 am

   hey loren & researchers here very interesting new possible sasquatch filmfootage here but more research & computer enhandsments etc need to be done to this footage. this forests area in the footage look like great habitat for sasquatch or wildlife. thank you bill green.

5. Chris Noel responds: June 27th, 2007 at 8:48 am

   Very intriguing, Loren.

6. DWA responds: June 27th, 2007 at 9:02 am

   Looks like your standard “see? There’s the Bigfoot!!!!” [red circle] blobbeo to me. I’m not heading out there with a Nightshot and a dart gun anytime soon.

   Once again, the written commentary let me know before i opened the video.

7. mitchigan responds: June 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am

   Why did he have the video camera on? At least it’s not shaking all over. Wonder why the Sas’s didn’t try to flee.

8. harleyb responds: June 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am

   Looks like it could be a hot-spot for bigfoot activity, I wonder if bigfoot likes catfish?

9. calash responds: June 27th, 2007 at 10:21 am

   Interesting but not all that clear. Check out the next Video “ Bigfoot Compilations’
   Lots of stuff to look at. The youtube heading is Entertainment. If these are fakes at least someone put a little effort into them
   Regards

10. Morgoth responds: June 27th, 2007 at 10:37 am

    The lower image of the face is NOT on the youtube video. Where did that come from? Was this in a separate email? Can the emailer post the original digital video?

11. Bob Michaels responds: June 27th, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Another you tube hoax.

12. Morgoth responds: June 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    Whoops, study the lighting on the trees and on the face in the closeup. Which side of the picture is the sun on?

13. raisinsofwrath responds: June 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    I’m sorry but I’m just not seeing all that much. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong spot.

    The picture looks a little CG to me as if the face were added in.

14. mystery_man responds: June 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am

    Why are the Bigfoot in these videos always conveniently halfway hidden behind a tree, peeking around it? Could it be a defense mechanism? Oh yeah, maybe it’s just so that people don’t see that it’s fake. This happens so much, that it is either a common sasquatch behavior or a hoaxer’s trick. I find this aspect of these videos a little suspect. I won’t write it off out of hand, but personally, this video is not impressing me that much. I also don’t see how this clip is at all “full of Bigfoot”. We shouldn’t have to stare at this for a long time trying to discern shadows as Bigfoot.

15. planettom responds: June 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Mt. Tam terrain? My first reaction to the footage was, hey, that doesn’t look like the terrain of Mt. Tam. Now I’m no expert on the Mt. Tam area, but the footage to me looks more like Texas backwoods/forest area. Do a simple Google search of the Mt. Tam and look at the terrain for yourself. It doesn’t jive with me. Just my two cents. I could be wrong.

16. BigfootBiceps responds: June 27th, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Wait… I see… nothing. Really couldn’t make anything out of that video but shadows. Morgoth is right, I don’t believe that the still is from that video. If there is video associated with that still shot, that would be worth looking at.

17. greenmartian2007 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Not impressed.

    We will definitely know when we have a bonafide Sasquatch film/video. Outside of the video footage on the DVD “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science” (where the creature walks in front of the tree, and then later on, it appears it scoops up a small version of itself), I haven’t seen any footage that impresses me.

    None whatsoever. (OUtside of the Patterson footage, which has elements early in the sequence on that, that bothers me, –just a personal comment–which brings up the issue of what do researchers need to have research-friendly substrate in regards to footage–makes me think rather than video, we better get 16 mm film shot on these creatures, so people can do reasonable enhancements. Video just provides “muddiness” when enlarged.)

    Also, in related news, there is an AP news item just today about the upper Michigan peninsula Bigfoot search by the BFRO to happen next month.

    The URL link:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_sc/sasquatch_search;_ylt=AuuAY1ztcJovkaICWePVW2XMWM0F

    BTW, has there been anything further about that recent ebay auction of an alleged Sasquatch video? Or did that disappear into the cyberspace ether?

18. elsanto responds: June 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    “Interesting” (to borrow Mr. Green’s catchphrase) is what’s written all over this.

    Here’s what’s interesting about it:

    1. The videographer’s explanation. Is he saying he went back after he had captured a sasquatch on video, and that the video he’s posted is his return trip featuring sasquatch galore? I would be keen to see his “original footage” as his mesage to Loren suggests more than one… What’s interesting about this also is that the video seems to be more the “I had my cam running without knowing it and it wasn’t a cougar” variety, than the deliberate attempt to capture footage that the videographer is suggesting it to be.

    2. I do agree with DWA about this video, to an extent. It’s reminiscent of Ms. Green’s, Look!-You-can-see-the- head-of-a-sasquatch-there!-blob videos. It’s interesting that the videographer has made no attempt to describe/clarify where the sasquatches are. I see one that MIGHT be connected with that still… but I can’t say that with great conviction. Heck, there’s much more to be discerned from the NY baby footage than from this.

    3. Another interesting thing is the difference between this and the majority of hoaxes we’ve been presented relatively recently. No moving sasquatch. None of this pan about, “OH! Hey… spazzy walking dude… SASQUATCH!” That we have a video of a still figure is unusual… and interesting.

    4. That still. Interesting. If it’s a fake, it’s extremely well done.

    5. That still as it relates to the video. I really can’t see where the part from which the still was taken. Why hasn’t the videographer attempted to clarify this? Interesting, is it not? If he’s going to isolate and blow up a still, why doesn’t he help us see where he’s taken it from?

    If it’s not a fake (and making this suggestion is a big indulgence), there are still too many holes and loose ends for it to have any substance as evidence.

    Just my two cents.

19. Nessie-Chaser responds: June 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    *Sigh*, I was hopeful for a minute there.

    There is nothing to see whether it’s a hoax or not.

    Just one more to add to the pile.

    Next?

20. DARHOP responds: June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

21. Ceroill responds: June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Ok….kinda interesting I guess. Another “where’s sasquatch” vid. Here’s an odd thought, perhaps, in reference to the point mystery_man makes about so many of these videos having the subject apparently mostly hiding behind a tree- It brings to mind the old folktales/tall tales about the mythical ‘Hidebehind’, a creature so shy that it’s always hiding behind something, and you can never get a good look at it, so nobody knows what it looks like.

22. Mr.PassiveAggressive responds: June 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Why is it that when these videos are made, the videographer can’t seem to orient the camera properly as anyone who’s had experience with video cameras does almost automatically. If it’s a hand held model, or a shoulder mounted bigger camera, you have to almost deliberately want the video image tilted to achieve that effect. And, as anyone who’s been to a funhouse knows, when an image is tilted, your mind automatically tries to make sense out of images that its seeing by ‘filling in the blanks’.

    I’m not saying that its a hoax, I’m just saying….

23. Richard888 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    I think the video is potentially extremely interesting. When I saw the figure move behind the tree the phrase that came to mind was, “Day Watchers”! My guess is that most people here don’t have a high opinion of Todd because of his “expert” comments but this is a mistake! I don’t know what to make of the photograph. The profile more closely resembles a clown than a hominid. If the circumstances in which the video was taken point to an authentic video then we can see why these creatures evade detection and what Todd might mean by “day watchers”. Did the still come from the video or was it taken separately?

24. cmgrace responds: June 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Uh what bigfoot? Oh that dark spot. No wait, what bigfoot?

25. DWA responds: June 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    You know, it is amazing to me.

    The Peguis, Manitoba video

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=aS55pkCndMw

    (remember March? weren’t those the good ole days?), the only single piece of sasquatch evidence, other than the P/G film, that significantly raises my eyebrows, hasn’t been touched since March - and here we are wasting bandwidth on another “intriguing” piece of, well, nothing. Which makes how many such, since March?

    We sure are funny. And the sas loves the joke, I’m sure.

26. Digger44 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    From what I can see in the video, I can locate two areas that could be a living “being.” I am not assuming this video is authentic or faked.

    First, it seems that there is a tall dark figure standing fully erect next to the two large trees on the left of the video. The figure seems to show movement. Without fully analyzing the figure in question, it seems to be rather tall.

    Second, another figure appears near the center of the screen. The tall figure is on the far left, or a little off screen, and there is movement near the middle. To see it, locate large tree in the middle (or just left of center) of the screen. A “crouching” figure seems to lean out from behind the tree and then goes back behind the tree.

    The second image is not in the frame at 46-48 seconds. It appears at about 49-51 just left of the center of the screen on the right side of the tree.

    I am not claiming the images are valid, just seems like there is movement in the film. For all those who just can’t see anything, try looking at the video fullscreen on youtube.

27. Digger44 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    As far as the photograh, the sun angle isnt all that off if the photo is from the back of the woods and not the front treeline.

    The first thing I see in the photo is what appears to be a profile. As stated by others the profile stinks if it the centerpoint of the image.

    Just for giggles, I took the photo and played with in on photoshop. If anything, I don’t think the “clown profile” is the centerpoint of the image or a facial profile at all. When the photo is lightened and sharpened, a darker mass appears behind the “profile.”

    Instead of a facial profile, it now looks like a closed fist or hand, with a head facing the camera above where the fist/hand is. A branch is at the top of the photo, and something is in front of the branch. Could it be a head with a brow line?

    I looks like a figure standing there with a fist in front of it chest. No doubt the sun is on part of the fist.

    It could be a bunch of shadows or whatever. I thought I would throw out some fun ideas.

28. showme responds: June 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    The still pic sure doesn’t look like the video BFs. The video could be blurry footage of guys in a couple of wookie costumes, especially the figure on the left. The still photo seems like nothing but light and shadows.

29. cmgrace responds: June 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Ok I watched the video, full screen, on Youtube. I can see something move out from behind the tree on the left, but it is not very clear. I am not comfortable saying it’s bigfoot. I am comfortable saying “what bigfoot.”

30. Digger44 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    If you think you cant see anything in this video, try watching his others. It is very possible the photo came from his other videos.

    Interestingly enough, the photographer says in some of the comments that he will only tell people the location for a few million and only under his terms.

    This one is smelling worse and worse, not to mention the vids were posted 7 months ago on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/billy240z

31. lobo1 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    It’s chewbacca

32. sausage1 responds: June 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    In the still I could see about five different faces, all centered around the same few blobs. The face that MountDesertIslander sees (with the elegant proboscis) only became apparent to me after I had made out two other faces, including a very good gargoyle looking to the picture’s right, sitting on the elegant bigfoot’s lower right cheek.

    And that’s the problem with these sorts of picture. People see different things because they HAVE to try hard to see something.

    All rather unconvincing.

33. aletaaa responds: June 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    The guy that uploaded the video has a website although it is somewhat disorganized it has another video involving a cat, called golden lady bigfoot. I couldn’t see the creature in that video.

    This Stepping Out video is interesting but still ambiguous. I would like to see more. If he’s watching us as close as we’re watching him I say, more please.

    He lists an email addy on his website. I just need him to keep them coming. If he’s legit it will pan out. It seems the creatures would move to another hangout if he keeps bothering them.

34. shadowparks responds: June 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    I saw this video months ago on youtube. I looked at this video a number of times. I spot at least 4 BF’s in it. I thought it looked genuine. You have to really pay attention to it. You can even see a head movement on one of the BF’s, looking to the right.

35. Bobcat responds: June 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Okay. I vote that he is out of his gord. I looked at his other videos and best I can tell he waves or moves the camera around in a dissorienting fashion to obscure the fact that he is changing the viewing angle to reveal naturally appearing branches, stumps, trees etc. with shadow and light playing into it. They aren’t moving into frame..he is moving the camera. According to his youtube profile he has made this his life occupation for a while now which differs from the accidental sighting he claims to Loren. No blatent hoaxing, but possible other issues.

36. kamoeba responds: June 27th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    I think there’s a hoaxter out there who’s probably really disappointed right now because none of us can see all of the Bigfoot costumes he’s got hidden behind the trees. And what’s the deal with the plaintive-looking Oompa-Loompa in the still?

    Thank you, “Bill Evans”, we really appreciate it.

37. sbdance responds: June 28th, 2007 at 2:26 am

    Nice trees, shrubs and weeds- all filmed by a lens held askew. I have been enthralled by the mystery of it all.

38. chrisandclauida2 responds: June 28th, 2007 at 5:01 am

    now that i see his web site i understand. he is a star graduate from the mary green school of seeing 76 bigfoot in any picture of trees or foliage. what a loony.
    at least he hasn’t resorted to red circles around shadows and leaves.

    his film is interesting. he might actually have something. but the chances are as good that he is making up the whole thing. if he found something interesting in one snippet of film and went off the deep end the he is gone forever.

    if he is a hoaxer then he is a stupid one that cant get enough attention. where have we seen this before….oh ya marx biscardi and company used that hideous suit to stuff peggy into and take pictures of her for years.

    generally a hoax of a creature peeking out behind a tree just enough to get your attention might draw a couple folks in. when you go and do it 15 times you loose the effect.

    we will never know.

    NEXT

39. mitchigan responds: June 28th, 2007 at 9:15 am

    I have come to the conclusion that any video where the videographer appears to be on a trampolene or having a stroke where the camera can’t be held still or straight is highly suspect. Is it really that hard to get a straight forward picture if you are not playing a hoax?

40. Benjamin Radford responds: June 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am

    Is this a joke?

41. CryptoGoji responds: June 28th, 2007 at 10:37 am

    At the 21 or 21 second mark on the video, this “thing” turns to face the camera. I don’t know if its hoxed or not, but just casusal looking at the video the first time caught me off gaurd. The way it just turns from behind the treee is creepy to an extent. I don’t know if thats a true hoxe, but its sure one of the steadiest cameras in a long time.

42. chabuhi responds: June 28th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Not defending any of the videos, but just pointing out that a video camera that is zoomed in can give an extremely shaky image, whether you’re filming BF or filming a UFO or filming your kid’s football game.

    Again, that’s not meant as an endorsement of this (or any other) video, but shaky camera work is not, in itself, damning evidence.

43. mantis responds: June 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    %!!*#
    Ahrr! I can’t believe I just stared that long into my monitor before I read the comments!

44. halcyonicWV responds: June 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Hoax. The still in particular. Light on the face is contrary to everything else. Also, placement is absurd, is he inside a stump peeking out? Check out the blurry detail and the flora over which the face and shoulders hover.

    This fake would’ve been better done showing the subject peering from behind a tree, rather than have the torso melt into what appears to be a large stump, or worse, a partially deleted/obscured living tree.

    In the video, I see only 2 possible sasquatch, the obvious “stander” generally near the middle for most of the video, and deeper to the right, movement, apparently head and partial torso. Where are these other two? Bigfoot seemed apparently at ease, just standing there, with very little head movement even. Why were the others hiding if big daddy sensed no problem? Actually, the obvious squatch in the vid looked like a chewbacca costume.

    Anyhow, the pic is definitely fake. The video, let me say I’m 99% sure it’s fake.

45. Rillo777 responds: June 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    So, if I understand correctly, this guy was out with his kid and thought there might be a big cat around, so he turns on his camcorder, holds it quietly in a tilted, artsy sort of way, and TRIES TO CREEP UP ON THE CAT!!? Sorry, don’t buy that. Then he implies he didn’t notice the bigfoot, or rather thought it was a cat? Don’t buy that either.

46. YourPTR! responds: June 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    I cant’ see anything at all. The screen capture underneath is interesting though.

47. Hawkeye responds: June 29th, 2007 at 2:33 am

    This reminds me of an Ohio researcher Dallas Gilbert who posts all kinds of pictures saything there he is can’t you see him.

48. Billy240z responds: June 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Hi I am the one who filmed this footage. on the day i was filming it it was near the end of my day out there and I was very tired I recently had knee surgery and was doing what My Doctor said get some exercise. There is a good 1 1/2 hour on the tape from this day so if there is a real professional out there who would like to go threw this with me be my guest I don’t want to waist my time with wannabees professional .
    As i see we have people who think they are which is a good laugh to me to.
    here is a link to some more of my work with still shots from the films I have done
    http://billy240z.wetpaint.com/page/Home
    I hope it OK to Post my link ? I will soon find out.
    Back to the footage in question as i was saying there is a lot more to it. As any one know ( if you ever have film any Crypt’s that is ) It’s not easy and never perfect.I remember walking this area very well I just wanted to put the camcorder on my back and go home I learn a long time ago never turn off my camcorder so I did not I left it on I stop just briefly because I did feel something in that area look for a few seconds then carry on yes there is more film after this scene . I don.t intend to break it out unless the right person steps up. Have fun and never turn of your camcorders folks you may just get something !

49. theSnark responds: June 29th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Well, it’s not a cat. But why would his first thought be ‘It’s a Sasquach’? I would think ‘it’s either an oddly shaped stump with leaves creating the movement, or some creep was following me(us.)’

    And if it was, as he said, the return film, why is the camera tilted when he is clearly not on a hill?

50. trkspt responds: June 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am

    Ok, I have reviewed the footage and I agree that it does appear to be something in the first clip, but it could still be your eyes playing tricks on you. My issue is with his site as there is nothing there that I can find that even shows something is there. I guess I can just go take some video and then circle a bunch of areas and post it for everyone.

    Would be more reliable if he just stuck to the one video. Most videos that appear to be real show movement, not one just standing like a broken tree stump. Again, interesting footage but the rest of his stuff cast some real doubt.

51. klarsen1 responds: October 25th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    ok my turn…….

    Created an account just to respond to this.

    I live on Mt Tam, have all my 38 years, grew up traipsing all over the mountain and never seen this crap.

    Also, note the frost/snow on the ground. Only happened about 5 times in the last 20 years or so, so the area in question is highly suspect, although the flora looks correct. I even think I know where this may have been shot, which is next to a parking area.

    I gotta say you guys who think this is real need to realize there are a ton of people all over mt tam constantly, especially mtn bikers who go into very remote areas in this range (including me), and noone has ever reported a bigfoot. Believe me, someone would have seen something.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|