Update: Canadian Bigfoot Video Footage on eBay
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 6th, 2007
Well, the Canadian Bigfoot video footage auction ended with the winning bid of $2617.00.
Will anyone other than the winning bidder ever see the video?
Or are the following still images all we will ever see?
Will this video end up in a private collection never to see the light of
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
hey craig & loren very interesting possible new canadian sasquatch filmfootage why would someone put this on ebay just wondering there is a possible creature in this filmfootage & worth researching it etc find out who posted this new filmfootage ebay. but im not quite sure it would be safe to bid on it. just my honest opinion. thanks bill green 🙂 please keep me updated on this situation.
2617.00. I would not pay a penny unless I knew it was the real deal. However, some people have too much money to be in the situation where they have to spend wisely. I wonder though, if bought and kept in a private collection is not the purpose killed then? I would find it far more exciting to present evidence for bigfoot’s existence than pulling in a few thou. Can it be an ego trip to sit at home and know something that others don’t know?
And now when I think about it, can it be that a high price on e-Bay for a video that is not even viewed by experts can encourage hoaxers to work hard for the chance of making some bucks? I find it likely to become like that.
The buyer appeared to be a first time ebayer. The NSA perhaps?
I won’t lose sleep over it. If it were really authentic, the guy would sell rights to it to a news organization or scientific organization, who will pay big bucks and he could still own rights to it. Proof enough alone that it’s not worth the time of day.
Didn’t A Current Affair pay something like 100g’s for that other Canadian footage a couple of years ago?
Why pay for footage you don’t even get to see before you buy. RIP OFF
It looks like there is money to be made on Bigfoot after all! Compare these images to the P/G film! Hm. I wonder what it would have gone for on EBay. These new images? I think I will save my shekels for something better.
What kind of idiot would sell the footage instead of getting it authenticated first? I know people worship money, but it’s potentially a new species caught on tape! I’m sure if he waited a lil while longer he’d probably get more than $2617 for discovering it. I find it hard to believe that “the wife’s” only solution to his “what should I do with this video?” problem was to seek answers on e-bay!
Maybe e-bay are getting desperate for customers, some insane marketing ploy. The obvious choice would be to turn to google and search for unknown creatures or something, and you’re likely to come across this site or others that deal with similar fields. But NOooo… it just doesn’t add up as a genuine article is what I’m saying.
$2617 for one video.
I think I’m going to quite my job and buy a gorilla suit.
Wow. You really can fool all of the people some of the time.
Although this might be one of the ones you can fool all of the time.
I’ll pay for the first coffee-table book that comes out after they’re confirmed. Before that, OK, I’ll get Meldrum, and maybe the Yowie book too.
But no blobsquatch will coax a dime out of my wallet.
Am I to actually understand that, other than the stills, the buyer saw NOTHING?
A circle saying “here’s the bigfoot” says something else to me: who cares?
It kinda makes you wonder. I noticed The winning bidder created an account on June 3, 2007. Makes you wonder if the seller bid on his own item with a fake account? Or had a friend bid on it trying to get someone to bid higher? If this is the case, I have several pieces of footage of Bigfoot creatures recorded at night where they are clearest images to date. Maybe I too can raise a few thousand so I can go to the Texas and California conferences this year. Something smells fishy and it isn’t Bigfoot.
Mystery-man and others…
IF YOU HAD THE PERFECT, DAYLIGHT, CRYSTAL-CLEAR, FULL FRONTAL, FULL COLOR, CLOSE UP, STEREO SOUND, HALF-HOUR, FULL MOTION, UNMISTAKEABLE DIGITAL VIDEO (OR STILLS) OF A WHOLE FAMILY OF 8, 6 and 4 FOOT HAIRY UPRIGHT BIPEDAL CRYPTID SOMETHINGS, ENGAGED IN FORAGING FOR EDIBLES, OR WALKING THE BEACH, OR SIMPLY WATCHING YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IT?
WHO YA GONNA CALL??
In the best interests of science, humanity, the cryptid family, yourself and your wallet, what’s the best action to take? An eMail to Loren-Craig-Jeff Meldrum, or the Smithsonian, or CNN-Fox-CBS-NBC-ABC-PBS, your attorney, eBay, the President, the Military… what’s the BEST thing to do?
I know what I would do – how about you?
bigfootboy_2000: “Something smells fishy and it isn’t Bigfoot.”
Otters?
If I had the footage what would I do?
I would E-mail Loren and tell him to check his PO Box.
What are we supposed to see in the still images? Not enough to get me interested.
Fuzzy raises an excellent question — what would we do, if we found ourselves possessed of such evidence? I have to admit that having had only a glimpse of how other groups out there deal with such material, I, too, would be inclined to forward it to Loren, Craig, and to Dr. Meldrum, while requesting anonymity for a time, until it was scientifically verified before bringing it to the attention of any other individual.
(No offense, fellow posters, much as I’d love to break it out here for everyone’s benefit, initial secrecy would just be the smart way to go about it, methinks, and would save everyone’s time from being wasted. Just because I say I saw a sasquatch, or because I claim to have caught one on film, doesn’t mean that I would expect you lot to believe me… far from it. )
Just my two cents.
Yeah, I dare say I’d contact a reputable Cryptozoologist, ask for them to help me authenticate it, and request that we keep a lid on it until the results are in. None of this Johor business, or “buy my Yarwen, please” stuff going on here. And if it did get leaked to the public that I had something important, but was waiting for results, well…chances are I’d give the go-ahead to release it, so that no one thought I was trying to hide anything. If the results came back promising, I also wouldn’t wait for a book deal before I let people see it. If the footage were real, people would be interested in a book about it regardless. And if not, then why would they buy one in the first place?
Besides, if I really had the historic first conclusive footage of North American hairy bipeds, then it really no longer belongs to me, by rights…it belongs to the world.
If I had something like a blogsquatch, I’d e-mail Loren and ask him what he thought it was, before I embarrassed myself with a video of a dog, or shadows in branches or a bear or whatnot.
And then it would probably also go to Meldrum and then if it passed muster with him, primatologists.
This subject needs more work, more ideas, but I think we are on the right track –
What would YOU do?
eBay would likely be the best place to get money for faked footage. The above stills basically show nothing!
Peace
I said it on the other thread, fuzzy. If it was clear, undeniable footage, ulike what these stills show? I would probably run it by Loren or someone else within this field for consultation on how to proceed. This would be a groundbreaking discovery that would shake up the scientific world, so progressing cautiously, among like minded folks would be the way I’d go. Would I auction it off on eBay? Simply, no.
Regarding crystal clear footage, just like any evidence no matter how weak it may appear to the untrained, the most important things would be context and predictability. It could be absolutely impossible to tell it was fake but if the source couldn’t or wouldn’t be identified and there was no physical evidence to back it up, and you couldn’t produce another, it would all but eliminate its value as evidence, reducing it to what we largely have now: curiosities. Conversely, it could be blurry and brief, but if its context were preserved and documented in a reputable way, if we could go back to some habitat and dependably, predictably fitting into a hypotheses, it could serve as good evidence on which to pursue further research.
We really do need to understand the reason BF is not widely accepted is because so much of the evidence is just a bit weak. Not so weak nobody recognizes it but so weak that those who have both purse strings and experience have yet to apply much of either to the problem. With the PGF, it has context but it’s suspicious.
As outsiders looking in we depend on our sometimes skewed perspective to judge what’s goin’ on with the inside of a particular field (in this case “conservation field studies”) and when there’s a difference in perspectives between them and us we presume the guys on the inside, the professionals, the academicians are screwed up and it frustrates us because we’re being told that our point of view doesn’t merit the same weight as the professional.
Well said, Dogu4.
I will say one thing, though. Even if you do work within the field of science, like myself, you can STILL get frustrated with things. When I do any work outside of teaching science, (which is not that often these days, but still), or do any English consultation stuff for Japanese scientific papers, I will often think that a certain scientist’s opinion or approach is “screwed” as you put it. It is not just amatuers to professionals. Even scientists within the same field can get frustrated at each other and have differences in perspective too.
Sorry but I cannot make out the image of the supposed BF.
If I did have great photos/videos of our ol’ friend , I think I’d wanna put it on DVD ‘n sell it fairly cheap so anybody could afford it and have a copy for themselves.I would show the original image then enhanced images.
When it comes to being an authority on BF, I take it that it would be the persons who’ve acually had the experiences and delt with these creatures,multiple times.So who would verify it as authentic? Thats why I would “DVD” it. “You Be The Judge”.
Even if I did sell it on dvd,I don’t expect to make tons o’money at it.Just enough to handle the distribution of it and recoup costs.If I did make a ton o’ money on it ,I would see that the BFRC would get a cut.BF reasearch Ain’t Free. And final-If I didn’t have really good footage , I wouldn’t bother with it.
mystery_man: what you’re saying is one of my chief sources of frustration with the more, er, let’s just say “not currently verifiable” theories I hear about cryptids like the sasquatch. Especially the sasquatch.
Where all this he-can’t-be-killed and he’s-a-shapeshifting-extraterrestrial and he-appears-and-disappears and, ferpetesake, he’s a HE, and not a species (when P/G clearly shows a SHE but that’s neither here nor there…) …now, see what happens when I get wound up? 😀 Where all this out-there stuff comes from is the presumption of credulous people that the sasquatch NEEDS these things, because if it didn’t have them, we would all know by now, because science is omnipotent.
Sorry, but don’t think that Steve Hawking knows anything about this, or that Livermore Labs had lots of problems with invisible sas scaring their secretaries, or that the force field deflects the bullets or that the sas tells the hunters that he’s Not There.
We don’t know about the sasquatch because science is in agreement about one thing: there’s no good evidence. But the individuals who make up “science” have all sorts of understandings of how much there is and what’s “good” evidence. It seems to me that every scientist who has truly come to grips with the evidence is saying either there’s something out there or there’s something enough in evidence to point to further research needed.
And everyone else is too busy bickering about the irons they do have in the fire to agree. Or not.
And meanwhile people keep seeing this animal. But sightings are considered useless.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, more concisely. First Nations are almost unanimous as to the existence of this animal. Europeans primarily consider it a myth. Simple reason: all our other megafauna had European analogues; the sas didn’t. Settlers’ reports were taken at face value for the bear the wolf the wolverine the mink etc., up and down the line, because people were familiar with similar animals from home. But not the big guy.
And here we are, something that couldn’t touch the P/G film if you gave it an infinitely-extensible pole. Over two thousand smackers, apparently just for a looksee of what the stills say is crap.
[sigh]
What would you do with primo bigfoot footage?
Step one, Do not tell anyone. Do not say bigfoot over any cell phone or land telephone line. But you do make as many copies as you can effectively conceal. But do not conceal in a safe deposit box because the government can get into those, any time it wants to. Don’t even think about hiding something in either your attic or your crawlspace, because that is the first place that thieves will look.
If prior to making copies, you foolishly contact the government such as a Native American found out in either North or South Dakota recently, IT WILL BE CONFISCATED! In that case as I recall, the DNR used the flimsy excuse that they needed to make their own copy. Which was the last time that the original with no backup copies, was ever seen.
If you contact an attorney, expect similar treatment. Whatever copies that you give him, will likely be either kept or copied by him for his own use or purposes. The only difference between attorneys and common criminals, is that they are much better at getting around the requirements of the law. You are nobody if you do not have enough cash to have the attorney disbarred, and he now has all your assets.
If you have a close friend that is an attorney, you will likely get better treatment.
You might go to a Bigfoot expert to have it authenticated, but he will want to keep a copy as well. But your property is now effectively worthless. Why? Because he will likely then release it to the public in some fashion, because use of Bigfoot videos for research purposes, whether copyrighted or not, is likely permitted.
Once the researcher releases it, you will have a significant number of either disgruntled believers, disbelievers or anti-bigfooters, that will paint the video as a hoax. There will even be books written about it being a hoax, which is possibly funded by the government out of a secret Federal account.
So that narrows down step two to “quietly obtaining a copyright”.
Step three: Move to Canada. The Feds do not operate there as effectively, and the public is more open minded to Bigfoot than in the United States. You also have a less likely chance that all your email accounts, cell phones and land lines, will now have an illegal wire tap on them.
Then you see about raking in the dinero. Forget about the public good. There is no Bigfoot film that is in the public good, that also scares the heck out of them. Unless of course, the Bigfoot is slamming down brewskies in your living room, with you and him laughing at TV cartoons.
If you stay in the U.S, you can start looking for another job, because you just got fired for scaring the heck out of the public, and had no supporting research to neutralize Bigfoot by humanizing him.
Or you can start looking for another job, because you just got fired for scaring the heck out of the public with a film that has now been painted as a hoax. So you are now a card carrying liar and your dog doesn’t even trust you.
Meanwhile, the lunch money that you got for the video, has been vaporized by frivolous expenditures. Consequently, you are now “living in your van, under the bridge, down by the river”.
Did I fail to mention that the anti-bigfoot attorneys that did not receive the video, have now tied you up in a dozen frivolous lawsuits, each of which will cost you a trailer load of cash, to get out of?
So life is sweet.
DWA- Right. Not every scientist is going to agree on what comprises good enough evidence to warrant further research. I can easily see a scenario with one scientist following up on Bigfoot footage and finding enough to strongly suggest something there worth studying while another scientist, in the same field mind you, cries hogwash.
Even when there is hard evidence presented, there can be no doubt frustrating differences in perspective as can be seen with the debate that sprouted concerning the find of the “Hobbits”. You had some that said it was a new type of early hominid while others disputed that and said it was a regular hominid with a genetic condition or microencephaly. Both sides comprised of professionals, yet frustrated with the others’ viewpoint and percieved lack of evidence for their claims.
Not everybody in the scientific community is patting each other on the back, supporting each others hypothesis, and generally working to get to the bottom of things. There can be rivalry, scathing peer review, and conflicting, jealously defended theories. Even in science, there are sometimes pet theories and closely held ideas that some latch onto and are very unwilling to let go of and will go to great lengths to defend even if that may be at the expense of always doing good research and throwing out other plausible ideas. Thankfully this is not always the case, and of course the truth is often eventually sorted out, but it does happen.
Then again, Maybe we are all just jealous that there are people making money on these kinds of things and we aren’t? Wasnt it P.T. Barnum that said, there is a sucker born every minute? And its not Otters I smell. But I sure do smell something, as I continue to wade through this sort of stuff. I do have a gorilla costume, althoug a poor one. Im gonna see what I can get for blury out of focus distant poorly lit footage of someone wearing it and prancing across the woodline near my home.
Hoo Hah! This is great repartee – let’s keep it up!
What would YOU do?
Fuzzy- I agree! I’m enjoying hearing people’s ideas about the question you posed.
Bear in mind that this conundrum applies to ANY cryptid, and to ANY person making such a discovery. We would have to take into account each cryptid’s history, location, circumstances, vulnerability, “importance” in the biological tree etc, and to make the same allowances for its discoverer’s personal situation.
A young spelunker discovering a new insect genus deep in a local cave might deliver ten live specimens to a local University, have the new creature named after her and receive a full scholarship as a reward, enjoy being Hero for a while, marry the University’s Biology Department Head and live happily ever after.
A middle-aged lorry driver catching a glimpse and a blurry snapshot of a supposedly extinct Thylacine in a New Zealand forest while on Holiday with a verboten someone might think twice about revealing the photo and having to explain his activities to the Press and the world.
A somewhat eccentric Brazilian writer driving by a local lake who happens to grab a minute of shaky video of a questionable blob sliding along just beneath the lake’s choppy surface might find his face and his precious video displayed freely across the Internet, his literary history and motivations and fleeting cryptid images ripped asunder in crude jibes, leaving him a bitter and disappointed former researcher.
And a retired California salesman on a fishing trip to a Sierra Nevada lake who stumbles upon a family of Sasquatch living in a secluded canyon, and gets the kind of Video described in my scenario above, might decide to keep it to himself, to protect the creature’s freedom, with little concern for fame, wealth or society’s alleged “need to know” – or he might continue his secret observations for years, taking careful notes and taping hours of everyday Sasquatch activities, then turn it all into a simultaneously released full color coffee-table book and 3-D HD DVD, making a fortune in the process.
Or, they might not.
It just depends.
Valid and excellent points made by everyone. These would make essential guidelines on “What Do I Do With My Bigfoot Video?” for anyone fortunate enough to have the opportunity to capture this enigmatic of cryptids on video. At least one as close to in clarity as the P-G footage.
I think what you should do with any cryptid footage or photos is to not claim they are crystal clear 100% grade A all-American proof of anything. That’s where a lot of hoaxers go wrong. And go to someone reputable right away for cryin’ out loud. And get a second opinion, too. If I thought I had any real convincing evidence of any cryptid I would have no problem running it past anyone (although I can assure you it wouldn’t make it’s debut on YouTube).
P.S.–I suspect this eBayer won the bid on his own auction.
Something I left out- I would try to secure the site where the footage was taken, or at least try to document tracks and other physical evidence.
I can think of only one reason someone would buy this video. Some one is planning on including it in a TV documentary and needs new, fresh material. That being the case this would not be out of the ordinary but would need to include the photographer to come forward and do an on camera interview about it.
The 100gs for the other Canadian video is a joke. It could not be real yet the ramifications of the farce really hurt the independent film makers out there. Now everyone thinks they can get that kind of money.
The stills from this that I have seen look like from a night shot camera in night shot mode with a light source off camera (like a moon or camp lights up high).