Fast Bigfoot Filmed On American Hoggers
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 29th, 2013
All we can say about this latest from taken from American Hoggers is: Wow! We don’t normally like to call something a Bigfoot unless we really think that it’s a Bigfoot, but this is a freaking Bigfoot! This thing is fast! OMG. Holy-mother-of-Jesus man. This is an incredible footage.BigfootEvidence
What do the Cryptomundians think about this one?
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.
Don’t see anything that makes me think that is a sasquatch. All I see is a dark/ bicolored running figure.
could be a hog or a dog..hard to tell
Looks like it’s running on all fours. More likely a large dog.
That -does- look like an ape knuckle-walking. Where was the filming? In a zoo?
Ewok.
Or a dog. Specifically a bull terrier or mastiff, where they run similar to how apes knuckle-walk by placing their front paws first, then pulling their back paws forwards for support to push their front paws forwards again.
Just trying to get ratings for the dumbest show on TV. As someone who hunts hogs, this show is a huge embarrassment
Does whatever it is look like it is knuckle walking…well knuckle running.. like a gorilla? I kind of got that impression when I watched the clip.
One thing’s for sure, it’s definitely NOT a cameraman trying to get out of the shot. That sucker’s real.
Ah yes; I can almost hear those immortal words from the cast of a certain (un)reality TV show – “Thats a squatch!”
We’re getting to the point that a discarded burger wrapper on the side of the road “must be sign of a Bigfoot”…
OK, crap. Might as well salvage this with a little practical education.
Let’s say that’s a bigfoot. (Pretend.) I mean, shoot, could be.
Now would anyone here want to spend a minute of precious time trying to figure that out?
This will take its proper place in the blobsquatch garbage, because there is nothing else but this video.
The practical lesson is for anyone who shoots anything, picture, video, audio recording, what have you, that they think – or even know, from their actual personal experience of it – is a sasquatch.
SCAN THE SITE FOR OTHER EVIDENCE. DON’T SETTLE FOR JUST ONE KIND.
Look for tracks. If it went into the woods, look for the path it left: broken or twisted branches; impacted vegetation; droppings; etc. Take a camera when you go, so you can record this evidence. Plastic bags or a casting kit might be useful too.
Now that may not have been possible in this case, because this was apparently noticed by a TV viewer, and the ship might have sailed on collecting evidence of any other kind. So much unidentifiable stuff is wasting bandwidth out there that I just thought that shoot, who knows, might make a little difference.
From what we are seeing out there, count on this: your recording all by itself won’t move anybody.
another jabroni post.
when you have nothing, you gotta reach… this video is from the corner of garbage blvd. and sucker lane….
funny… they just released camera trap photos of a RARE tiger… these photos were CRYSTAL CLEAR… yet not 1 photo of “bigfoot” is clear.
hmmm…..
just sayin’
Man running while wearing a backpack.
sheep dog
I know we hardly ever agree, but I’m with DWA on this one…
If all you have is a video or a picture, then forget it. It’s always going to either be: bigfoot because that’s what “you” decide, or it’s something else.
If people get shots, either photos or videos, then follow it up with secondary evidence to back it up. A single photo out of focus is only as good as a campfire story trying to outdo your pals.
I’m surprised the crew didn’t spot this when they were on location. Perhaps when the episode is located, they’ll get better resolution footage than vid-off-the-tellie, and it’ll be obvious why the crew ignored it. ;})>
Greetings, one and all. While watching the “footage”, and reading all the posts, this thought occurred to me: if i were to post the clearest, hd footage of a fearsome, hirsute, bipedal monstrosity, i, too, would be picked apart, ridiculed, and stomped into submission by the vast majority of us. Only when we truly ALL have an open mind and are less caustic in our analysis will more of our unknown brethren come forth (perhaps someone with a tooth, or, dare i say, a skull), and perhaps end this debate. Just a thought.
In this case, I would say I think out of the film crew and cast someone would have noticed this had it been anything out of the ordinary. That said, maybe they didn’t and they will do a crossover episode of “Finding Bigfoot”.
Conspiracy Theory Time
For all we know Animal Planet could have planted this themselves as a viral marketing ploy for a future crossover-multi-show-promotion-thing.
Wow! Amazing! Another human being running through a field near the woods. Just incredible! And unlike the show Cops, he had his shirt on! Good thing Matt Moneymaker did not film this or he would be declaring it a Bigfoot, well, with the exception of Renae, the entire cast would be calling this a Squatch.
Raiderpithicusblaci–I kind of agree with you to a certain point. I agree, with–we must come to analyzing footage or evidence with an open mind. But that analysis has to be done with objectivity. For example, if Matt Moneymaker or Bobo were stating that they were going to examine this evidence with an open mind, we know by definition, that would not be so. They have already proclaimed that almost every thing they see is a Bigfoot. They have stated publicly they are believers. So believers will take the evidence at hand and analyze subjectively, so that the evidence fits their beliefs.
The same is true with skeptics. If a proclaimed skeptic were to analyze the same footage, then they would try to make it fit their cynical beliefs. They would take the evidence and apply their religion of disbelief, skepticism, to make sure in no way the outcome would conclude Bigfoot.
I agree with you to that point. After that, I must disagree with you. If the evidence is good enough, of great quality, that could be indisputable. And yes, I am talking about photographic or video evidence. I know this is not a fair comparison, comparing my professional photographic skills to your skill as an amateur photographer, but it will shed light on where I begin to disagree with you. If I were able to get a photograph of a supposed Bigfoot, most would be able to tell if it were real or fake given one parameter. That parameter is that it would have to be more than one photograph.
If I was only able to get one photograph as proof, I could even argue that perhaps the subject of the photograph was a taxidermy mount. This actually happened with photographs of a thylacine that someone was analyzing. The subject of the photo appeared in the same pose, although taken from different angles. That creates controversy. But if the subject was taken is various bodily positions, then it would become clear it was not a taxidermy job.
Just recently, there was debate over a Skunk Ape photo. Of course the skeptics said it was a gorilla from a zoo and not the Skunk Ape. And of course the believers stated it was a Skunk Ape. But one thing remained clear, almost every poster, whether they be skeptic or believer, could tell from the photograph that it was a living creature. Some argued it was a gorilla. Some argued that is was indeed the living Skunk Ape. But no one really argued that it was a man in a suit, a blobsquatch, or a taxidermy mount. And that was from a single photo. The truth is, when given clear quality photographs to analyze, you can reach a conclusion that the subject in question is a live animal or not. The identification of that animal is another matter.
But I propose to you, that if a professional photographer or good amateur photographer, was able to capture some decent photos of a Bigfoot, we could tell if it was a living, breathing creature or not.
We would be able to rule out by the process of deduction that the photo was not digitally manipulated. We would be able to ascertain some sense of scale of the creature by comparing it to the flora around the subject. We would be able to ascertain that it was not a costumed human. We would be able to say with certainty that it was not a moose or bear, but hominid. We can learn a lot of things from simply analyzing clear photos and eliminating the possibilities of what it is not. We then end up with what it could possibly be. We can narrow that down as well from a clear photo. One would get to the point that the photo clearly shows either a human or yet unidentified hominid.
From good quality photographs, we do learn something. Then of course skeptics will say it is simply a hirsute man and believers will state it is certainly a Bigfoot. This is where the secondary evidence comes into play as DWA suggested. In any event, good quality photos are fantastic evidence as recently proven in the Skunk Ape photo debate. Almost all agreed the photo was of a living and breathing apelike creature. Skeptics and believers both stated it was a photo of a living creature. Skeptics and believers agreeing? Wow, it might snow tomorrow! Multiple photographs would have even narrowed down or proven what we were actually looking at. The same applies for any future photos being submitted.
And that is the same thinking that hoaxers and militant skeptics apply to their trade. If the photo is clear, the viewer will know it is a man in a costume. If it is a clear photo, they will see the digital manipulation. If the photo is too clear, they can tell it was just a standard chimpanzee that they took a photo of while in Africa. But if they blur it or make it low quality, we can win the debate no matter which side is debating. Clear photographs prove a lot of things. And one of them may be if BF exists or not!
That is to be determined at a future date. But knowing we could possibly prove their existence through a still photograph and/or videography, along with secondary evidence–well, that should bring a smile to the no-kill Bigfoot camp!
Even this low resolution video shows a human being to me.
At first it struck me as quite similar to a silverback gorilla in its motion, with seemingly short hind legs one would not expect on a sasquatch. But after a few viewings my perception of the legs perceived them to be longer than i first thought. Trick of the mind? Perhaps but might well be a sasquatch after all.
But how could none of them have noticed it as it occurred? Hog hunters? That might explain the onscreen “talent” but it must have been making some noise running like that, much less being a large primate running in the background…but not being from the area i cant really speak of the mindset that wouldnt notice such a thing… “well…we was talkin hog…” maybe?
Come on! This is not a Bigfoot. This is a dog! The guys who see Bigfoot on every video out there need to control their imagination…
I agree with PhotoExpert.
I’m not always kind. (See above.) But I do think that 3.5 million years, give or take, of evolution as a hunter can do much to tell us about the search image in a video or photo.
(The mainstream’s reaction to P/G? Psychotic episode.)
A classic example of what I’m talking about in my (non-Ewok) post is the video taken near Peguis, Manitoba, in March 2007. It’s about the only video I have seen other than Patty that makes me think: that could be a sasquatch. But they got no other evidence; they thought – and said so – that the video would be enough. (Search YouTube on “peguis sasquatch.” That I have to tell you that is your indicator that it wasn’t enough.)
(Editorial note: The video DWA references above can be viewed here on Cryptomundo along with the original discussions)
New Manitoba Bigfoot Video
Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video
Latest Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video
I apply my critical chops to everything I see. Too many demonstrably don’t. I don’t know what this is. But I do know we’re going no farther than this in finding out. Because the movie is in its millionth rerun. Bad video; spate of commentary, mainly negative; done.
Searching that site might turn up some interesting stuff.
Based on just this…are you willing to bet that?
‘Cause that’s the bet you have to take up for this to go any further.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if it turned out to be true?
That looked to me like a some sort of long-haired black sheep dog or maybe a Newfoundland.
If it was indeed something mysterious. why did we not hear the camera person suddenly exclaim “Holy $@$%! What was that?” It would have been plainly visible to the person holding the camera.
Might be a standard poodle but dont know if the”hoggers” hunt with that breed..
Upon further viewing, I agree with others above that this is some breed of dog.