Sasquatch Coffee

Speaking of the Peguis, Manitoba Bigfoot Video Footage…

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 31st, 2013

DWA says:

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.

Here is the video in question, with links to the prior discussions here on Cryptomundo for reference.

New Manitoba Bigfoot Video

Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video

Latest Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video

About Craig Woolheater
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.


44 Responses to “Speaking of the Peguis, Manitoba Bigfoot Video Footage…”

  1. Gareth Cummins via Facebook responds:

    Again. Literally could be anything.

  2. dconstrukt responds:

    lol….. looks just like guy to me…

  3. mandors responds:

    To me this is one of those videos that I find problematic. Admittedly, my criticism is subjective, but I just think this looks like a big guy trying to balance a gorilla mask on his head as he’s walking into the woods. The movement does not look to me natural, like a creature evolved to live in the forest moving in the trees should. Granted, deer can look pretty spasmodic on the edges of the wilderness. But this just reminds me of a little kid trying to walk with his Halloween mask on, only much bigger. The arms also do not look particularly long.

    On the other hand, the figure looks pretty darn large. If you guestimate the diameter of the trees on the small side, say 6 inches, the head looks to be 1-2 feet in diameter. Moreover, if you look at the film/video history of Bigfoot, you see a similar figure over, and over, again. Huge, black, dumpy-looking moving through the trees. The problem is that if it is a guy in a suit, and I will say it again, it’s the same guy, in the same suit over a 60 year time span running around at locations sometimes 2000 or more miles away. For this reason alone, whatever Bigfoot turns out to be, the phenomenon is very interesting and I think worthy of serious discussion and study.

  4. volmar responds:

    Nope! The short arms, the gait and the fact it’s never clearly focused tell me this is either a man wearing a parka or a hoax.

  5. DWA responds:

    Thanks for putting this up.

    I don’t think it deserves the obscurity it looks as if it will share with the video in the post the comments from which my quote comes.

    But there’s not much one can do with it. All the work that turns a video into a hot trail has to be done on the site, as soon as practically possible after the sighting.

  6. William responds:

    A couple of comments here. This does not look like just a guy in a black hooded parka. At first I thought the arms looked too short but once they extend they seem long enough, albeit not as long as “Patty” in the PG film.

    What I think we have here is a staged filming of fairly large man in a decent gorilla costume. The location of this across what looks like a power line opening with the way the thing suddenly appears behind that knoll just seems staged to me. But due to the fact they went to the extent of getting an actual costume, it is definitely better than the average hoax film. I will give them that. It also explains better why there was no follow-up to try to locate and film any tracks.

  7. hoodoorocket responds:

    I dismissed this video when I first saw it on youtube (before I found Cryptomundo). For some reason I remember the video being much lower quality.

    When I first saw it I thought it was a kid wearing a black snowmobile suit with a black helmet, short arms and oversized head.

    I’m liking it a lot better now, seeing it with fresh eyes.

    There are some frames that seem to show an apelike profile with massive trapezius muscles that look very much like Patty.

    What is shown is greatly distorted because of limited lines of resolution of the video tape and the extreme over magnification of the image from the crappy digital zoom and exaggerated camera shake from the same crappy digital zoom. This will cause abberations of color and shape through movement and time as a figure moves across the stacked up lines of resolution.

    Anyway, I’ve changed my opinion from a recording of a human to somewhere between undecided and very intriqued.

    Interpreting what I see- the head seems to be pointed upward and constantly looking about (smelling?). The shortness of the arms that I originally thought pointed to a human child, seems to be a combination of blurry tall grass obscuring the true shape at the bottom portion of the figure, the arms being half raised, and the fact that the subject seems to repeat a stance of putting its hand(s) near its chest when it pauses.

    My one caution is that what looks like an apelike profile and huge trapezius is exactly the kind of thing that can result from crappy video artifacts (lines of resolution giving angular indents to a round outline), but I am very much intrigued watching this with fresh eyes. The more I repeat it the more I see something that COULD be the real deal… or maybe not… I don’t know. I’ll just keep looping it until it’s time to go home…

  8. David-Australia responds:

    DWA,

    Could we have that again please, this time translated into some form of English?

  9. Cryptidcrazy responds:

    Not buying it. Something looks completely off, about this video. I smell a hoax.

  10. hoodoorocket responds:

    Ok, I’m wasting way too much time watching this, but one of my problems with this video has always been the fact that the head seems to change shape and size to unacceptable degrees.

    At first I thought this was because we were seeing a snowmobile helmet from changing angles.

    Then I tried to reconcile it as video abberations, but the change in shape and size was too great to blame on crappy video artifacts.

    So now, after watching this over and over, I think I am seeing the shape and size of the head change because the subject has raised an arm up to his head as if scratching his head. It almost looks like it has put an arm over its head to scratch the other side, like right arm scratching left ear or vice versa.

    Anybody else seeing that?

    Also there is a LOT of arm movement that is both smooth and VERY fast (often a long movement inbetween video frames).

    When you see the whole scene at the begining of the video the very last glimpse is of the subject spreading an arm towards the trees- that is a massive armspan.

    Maybe I’ve just looked at this too many times…

  11. DWA responds:

    Well at least no comments talk about the “deliberate camera shake” or “the kid knew right where to point the camera.”

    I won’t bother saying why those takes are off. Read the commentary on the other threads to see why they don’t wash.

    What makes this one almost as compelling as Patty to me is that it is almost the only other one on which camera effects and backstory suggest that they filmed something spontaneous.

    And where this is…if it’s a hoax it’s only reasonable to presume they were in on it. I much doubt that.

  12. DWA responds:

    David-Australia: nope, this is your final exam to get out of the ESOL course.

  13. hoodoorocket responds:

    Last comment…

    It is weird that the slowed version looks so much different than the normal speed…

    After a gazillion views, the subject does have an arm to its head (the sun is overhead and slightly to its back, but it may be shielding snow glare or keeping brambles out of its eyes). The arm is raised continually until the very first frame showing two distinct arms. That accounts for the changing shape of the head. Walking in this stance may also be the cause of the other arm being half raised.

    After the arm is dropped the head is porpotional to the figure and does not change shape.

    Now I am back to the position this may be a person with a hooded top layer, or it could be sasquatch, but I’m leaning towards human. I don’t know…

    I would still love to see a stabilized version of the blowup, and a blowup of the last bit of it going into the woods. Also the fade to black is unfortunate, and a possible indication that the fframe that would answer this all has been edited out.

  14. DWA responds:

    William:

    “What I think we have here is a staged filming of fairly large man in a decent gorilla costume.”

    Nope, one of a kind. Nothing else like it exists. The size alone. (That is a BIG guy.)

    “The location of this across what looks like a power line opening …”

    No visible evidence substantiates that.

    “…with the way the thing suddenly appears behind that knoll just seems staged to me.”

    Explained in the other blogs referenced here; read them.

    “But due to the fact they went to the extent of getting an actual costume, …”

    Better. Making one. Again, the size alone.

    “…it is definitely better than the average hoax film. I will give them that. It also explains better why there was no follow-up to try to locate and film any tracks.”

    Things that might be the real McCoy have that tendency to look better than hoaxes. As for explanations, I like the one they gave: they were so psyched to have the video they didn’t even consder tracks necessary (and I bet regret it). That’s only happened 65,897 times, approximately, in bigfoot history.

    (OK, I might be understating.)

  15. DWA responds:

    The shooter’s (actually, his son shot the video) take on tracks:

    “We stopped and shouted, “who’s there?” with no response. I remember looking at the tracks but don’t recall anything abnormal about them, it just looked like where someone had walked through the snow. I should have videoed the tracks but didn’t even think of it at the time.”

    Oh, that never happens.

  16. Jayross responds:

    Did they spot something from that distance before they zoomed in and “it” entered the frame?

    Just curious if there was more to this than that shot.

  17. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ Jayross;

    The two were in a car (or truck with a back seat). When they reached the top of one rise they saw something crossing the road on the rise ahead of them. By the time they got the camera going they caught the few seconds we see here. The original statement says the thing was quite a ways off, hence the shaky zoom.

    I don’t smell a hoax here, as some posters are saying, they saw something unknown and filmed it.

    Whether it is a person or a bigfoot will have to remain a matter of opinion. Me, I keep jumping on and off the fence on this one…

    The arm up to the head may be just a guy pulling on his hood, or getting a snow chunk out of his collar… or it’s a sasquatch scratching fleas. I don’t know.

  18. DWA responds:

    Jayross: yes. That explains the pan that “goes right to where it shows up.”

  19. DWA responds:

    hoodoorocket:

    Nothing much we can do but Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm now.

    But what gets me is this frame-by-frame opp he gives you to shoot it apart. That wasn’t FB/FB, Bobo, or anybody else: the shooter supplied that.

    That doesn’t exactly scream fake to me.

  20. cryptokellie responds:

    Main problems here;
    The photographer knows exactly where and when to start filming.
    The audio cuts off after someone says “I can’t see anything…”
    The figure is exaggerating the “Patty” walk or the figure is unsure on shaky ground, unlikely if it is a genuine Bigfoot in it’s habitat.

    The people involved state the tracks left behind “Looked like normal” and didn’t record any images or data…is that really true?

  21. DWA responds:

    The kid is panning where the direction of travel tells him it’s going to be. He thinks he’s been skunked…then finds out he was right. (Backstory tells why shooting started when it did.)

    The father said he wasn’t going to put his language after the cutoff point on the internet. No real reason to doubt him. Nothing else says “they’re in on it” to me. Given that Incredulous Screamed Language is frequently put on hoax videos for effect, what reason other than the one he gave would he have to do that?

    Nobody knows enough about the terrain to know what’s up with the gait. That is one of the biggest members of our species if it’s a human. Look at that hillock at the start of the video; guesstimate what two cars passing each other on that road would look like there; then look where the head is when it steps out. BIG BIG guy. Doubting it.

    Their not getting any other evidence is so standard-issue in this field it’s a so-what to me…except, sheesh, guys, it would have been helpful, you know. (They do.)

  22. Jayross responds:

    Thanks hoodoorocket & DWA for the background on this one.

    I figured there had to be something going on beforehand, or obviously this would have been too convenient. Given that, this is more compelling than most of the videos we see.

  23. dconstrukt responds:

    ROFLMAO…. i cant believe you guys are spending this much time analyzing this garbage.

    Are you THAT desperate to find something that you’ll accept garbage to justify your belief?

    its a dude walking.

    Anyone with an IQ over 50 can see this.

    Even better… go take this “proof” to 100 ppl and see if you can convince them this is bigfoot.

    lol…

  24. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    Sometimes, grasshopper, someone shows how little one knows by trying to show how much one knows.

    Listen to your elders. They surround you. They know the difference between garbage and serious, and they know you are wrong.

    You are too eager, as if you are trying too hard to believe something. You need to slow down and think about things more.

    And trust Dr. DWA. When he is serious, you should be paying attention.

  25. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA, sorry pal…. nice try with the “mind games” but it isn’t working.

    One shows how stupid they are by believing garbage like this grasshopper.

    the arms, the head, the motion, the location… *nothing* says bigfoot… if it does to do, then my friend, YOU are trying to find ANYTHING to justify your belief. (typical for bigfooters).

    Like I said, go show this to 100 ppl and see how many are convinced this is bigfoot… I’d LOVE to see how you pull that off bro.

    Oh, and the “elders” you speak of…. ALL need to get their eyes (and heads) examined… because that video shows nothing more than a dude walking.

    period.

    if you’re so convinced: PROVE IT.

    burden of proof is on you to prove it, not me. :-)

  26. mandors responds:

    A few other points:

    I am unclear on the backstory. Counting the phone poles, that hill is about a quarter of a mile away at least from the vehicle. You can’t see over it, so what made these guys stop that far away and just shoot a hill. There are thick trees on the other side of the road, so it’s unlikely they spotted the figure in there, and they didn’t see through the hill. So again, what makes a father and son just stop on the side of the road and focus a camera a quarter of a mile away on an approximate spot where a Bigfoot just shows up.

    Also, simply because the shooters may not be in on the hoax (if it is one) doesn’t mean it isn’t a hoax.

    Finally, why is Bigfoot capitalized? My spell check keeps telling me to capitalize it, and it’s annoying. You don’t capitalize “aardvark,” so why “Bigfoot?”

  27. Raiderpithicusblaci responds:

    Greetings, brothers. I must say, i am no more impressed with this vid than i was in 2007. I must say, it seems Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder! However, since we are retro-screening some films, Craig, can we please see the footage taken by Native American teenagers on cell phone on some reservation a few years back? I dont remember the specifics, but i do remember being very impressed with the size and bulk of the subject; the conical head, massive shoulders, and huge triceps. Some of us voiced concerns that they did not film the entire creature; perhaps it was fear or shock(who knows?), but please, Craig, i think we sould give this one another look. Thanks.

  28. David-Australia responds:

    mandors:
    ‘Finally, why is Bigfoot capitalized? My spell check keeps telling me to capitalize it, and it’s annoying. You don’t capitalize “aardvark,” so why “Bigfoot?” ‘

    Because an aardvark is a known species, and Bigfoot etc. is merely a popular name given to a yet unknown species? I’m sure someone else could explain it better than me…

  29. PhotoExpert responds:

    DWA–I don’t think this is a deliberate hoax. I believe it is a misidentification video. What viewers think may be a probable Sasquatch, is merely a human being wearing a parka or winter coat with hood, walking through the snow to a clearing.

    The arms look at bit short in different parts of the video which scream human to me. And then the head looks too bulbous in proportion to the body, which screams hooded human to me.

    I don’t think the father and son were hoaxing anyone. They simply videographed something that they thought was a bit out of the norm, and it is what it is.

    Granted, it is an interesting video but this one is more on the blobsquatchy side for me than anything else. There are a couple of other videos I would rank higher than this one on my list.

    But I am glad you had it posted. It is always worth taking another look at something after a bit of time. Unfortunately, for me, I have the same opinion as when I viewed it the first time.

  30. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    It doesn’t matter what one says if one shows no reason why what one says should be taken seriously.

    Which is what I meant. ;-)

  31. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert:

    Agree-to-disagree does happen here.

    I simply see nothing to tell me that this is what a lot of folks seem to think it screams it is.

    mandors:

    They saw it crossing the road; the son dove into the back of the truck to get the camera, and started looking where he expected to see it from its direction of travel when last seen.

    That story scans, and substantiates (as does scale) that what they saw was pretty durn big. A human would barely register at that distance.

  32. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert: a couple things you said deserve elaboration.

    “The arms look at bit short in different parts of the video which scream human to me.”

    A couple of others on here talk about a pretty massive arm span. I simply don’t think there’s enough resolution at the distance to be sure about any particular aspect. To me it’s the absence of clothing/color breaks, the size, and the backstory that make this interesting. I don’t see people that look that uniform in color, at any season, even at the farthest distances I can see them.

    “And then the head looks too bulbous in proportion to the body, which screams hooded human to me.”

    Well, numerous encounter reports focus on the huge head. But others relate a smaller head in proportion to the body. Head/body proportions vary significantly with humans, so I can’t make any claims one way or the other about what that says to me. Again, if it’s an animal, we’re talking about one that isn’t confirmed yet. So conclusions seem premature. Although some general stuff can be said, as it can about humans, reports indicate that sasquatch have a range of physical appearance that seems to echo that of the known hominoids.

  33. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA, LOL…. nice try…but remember my friend, burden of proof is on YOU to prove your case.

    Not on me.

    It’s a dude walking.

    If you take the PG film to be real, this is NOTHING like it in stature, gait, arm length… the way the head is sitting on the shoulders…. NOTHING is the same.

    But like I said, burden of proof is on you since you believe this is real.

    Carl Sagen said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

    Sorry bro, this doesn’t qualify. :-)

  34. DWA responds:

    Dconstrukt:

    Who is talking proof?

    I WILL NEVER GET THIS. (I should be shouting as I type it.)

    What is with the “skeptical” inability to get the difference between “this is one I give a shot; this is one I find intriguing”

    and

    “That’s a sasquatch; there’s your proof”?

    Would anyone like to take a stab at answering that? A coherent answer will be the first such I have heard. (It will actually be the first responsive SYLLABLE I have heard.)

    That ain’t skeptical, gang! It’s not even thoughtful.

  35. Peltboy25 responds:

    If you’re going to don a costume to fake a Bigfoot sighting, try to gather it in at the waist and stuff the chest/shoulders. Bigfoot is NOT the shape of a middle-aged man with a paunch. He/she is always MUCH thicker at the chest/shoulders than the waist. He/she also moves much more deliberately than we see here. This looks exactly like a person encumbered by an ill-fitting suit, picking his way across difficult terrain. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  36. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA,…. i believe theres a possibility bigfoot is real, yes… 100%, however i’m smart enough to know, this doesn’t qualify to me as evidence.

    for all the reasons and then some I’ve stated.

    to me, it’s not intriguing either.

    in fact, it doesn’t even make me go hmmmm…

    does that make me a skeptic? or someone with a brain?

    See the brain is a wonderful thing DWA… when someone believes something is true, the brain works tirelessly to justify it’s belief.

    I’ve seen this happen with ‘bigfooters’ over and over and over.

    Personally speaking, anyone who believes this is legit bigfoot, I’ve lost any respect for and think they’re an idiot.

    This is my own opinion…. but i’m just a dumb american guy from way down south… what do I know :-)

  37. Raiderpithicusblaci responds:

    A brain is a terrible thing to waste….and so is an opportunity to re-review a VERY interesting video from a few years back…Craig, can we please see the Native American reservation footage i requested a few posts (and three days) ago? I truly believe, together, that we should give this footage another look. Thanks.

  38. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt: nope, no burden of proof on me.

    The burden of proof is where the society places it: on the scientific community.

    Don’t believe me? Listen to what will be said when this animal is confirmed. They are in no way coming after me. The mainstream is going to regret their inactivity on this, says the evidence.

    “Personally speaking, anyone who believes this is legit bigfoot, I’ve lost any respect for and think they’re an idiot.”

    One could say the same about somebody who KNOWS it isn’t…but doesn’t give anyone any reason to respect that opinion but simply shifts the burden of proof. Nasty double-edge sword that.

    Never cuts me, though, ’cause I think about this stuff the right way. I’m willing to wait for you.

  39. DWA responds:

    Peltboy25:

    Actually, voluminous sighting reports – and what we know about the known apes – argue against you. There’s a variety of shapes, and no reason to say that this one doesn’t fit one of them. In fact, I’ve read numerous reports where one could pick this one out of the lineup.

    Not directed at you, but a couple others on here….I mean, come ON folks. Anybody knows that to have an intelligent opinion, one must specify why one holds it, or else…well, do I have to finish that sentence, starts-with-d…?

  40. maslo63 responds:

    What is that at 00:13? A posted sign? Like with so many bigfoot sightings I’m sure this is one were the witnesses THINK they saw a bigfoot but in actuality it is another far more probable and far more abundant primate species…us. I see nothing here to suggest that this is anything other than a human. The film is just not good enough to determine anything definitive so I must yield to Occam’s razor on this one.

    “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras”.

    In this case, if you see a bipedal primate, think of humans not sasquatch.

  41. dconstrukt responds:

    heres another reason this is bogus… (IMO)

    if you look at the person. he’s TOTALLY one color.

    if an animal is covered in hair, some of it glistens/shines in sunlight. (look at the patty image on the next page for the finding bigfoot book)

    plus not all the hairs are the same color, so you’ll see some variation.

    this thing is solid 1 color.

    another reason I think its a dude.

    but the freeman video…. DWA…. real? bogus? does anyone know? i’m really curious on that one.

  42. Goodfoot responds:

    PhotoExpert: Would they have stayed longer if they had known it was Buffy St. Marie on the way to a show?

  43. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot–LOL Who knows? I thought it might be Buffy St. Marie on the way to a show but I did not see any folk instruments in tow. Maybe she was just out for a walk? Good to see you posting and good comment!

    DWA–My brother from another mother, this might be the first time we ever disagreed on something here at Cryptomundo. So I am noting the date and the time of this extremely rare occurrence.

    DWA, yes, I said the arms look short. But they also looked much longer in some parts of the video. When you zoom in optically with a lens, you can get some spherical abberation happening. So that might explain the changing arm length. So you do have a point. The problem is, I also have a point because we do not know if this effect is causing the arms to be longer than they really are or vice versa. So we both have a point there and I can not discount your point of view or frame of reference because of that.

    As for the clothing being the same color. I believe you have a point there too. Because I actually took that into consideration before making my post. However, it was a deal breaker for me, because I have seen one piece suits that construction workers wear, electricians wear, etc. And I do believe they come in a variety of colors. But the head, man that bulbous head, it definitely swayed me to the side that it is the hood of one of those one-piece suits. You know, like the snow suits little kids used to wear back in the 60′s and 70′s. Who knows, they probably are still making them and probably in adult sizes. Yes, I agree it is unusual to see clothing all in one color like that, except if they are wearing a one-piece snow suit. I had to ask myself which is more probable given all the evidence, and for me, it was a human in a suit. That would be my choice. Your choice went the other way. I believe your choice holds merit, but probably a little less than mine on the probability scale.

    DWA, I can’t disagree with you on that Sasquatches have been reported to have a big head. And you are also correct, if they exist, they probably do have varying head shapes. It’s just that my first reaction when I saw that video and replayed it several times, I kept seeing the hood that was attached to one of those one-piece snow suits I mentioned. It not only looked similar to that. It looked exactly like that! Could it have been a Sasquatch as you stated? Yes, your answers are just as relevant as mine. However, this is no PG quality film for me. It is more on the blobsquatchy side than PG side, for the reasons we both gave.

    Some people will see a Sasquatch in this film and give good reasons as to why. I and many others see a human in a suit wearing a hood, and for the reasons I pointed out. But the quality of this video is no PG quality and so blobsquatchy, that either side could argue their point and it makes sense. It’s like looking at one of those abstract psychological pictures that show two people kissing to some of those viewing it and to the other people, they see the wine glass which is the space between the two heads. Both are right or could be considered correct in their answers.

    It comes down to a matter of opinion. And since there is no conclusive answer based on the blobsquatchiness of this video. both sides could claim they are correct and I would not say that is untrue.

    There’s just not enough there for me to argue about. To each his own. And for that reason, I also agree that we must disagree on this one. For me, the question is answered as to if it is more probable than not. The evidence based on statistics sways me that way–to it being a human in a one colored, one-piece snow suit and hood up!

    OK brother, that means the next 99 videos we see, we will be in agreement about! LOL

  44. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert: total disagreement is boring. And we know that we were hired and paid our absurdly high Cryptomundo salaries to keep things interesting.

    So let me pull my Bugatti Roadster (thanks, Craig!) over to the shoulder here…there…[screech]…just to say that in terms of high fidelity, well, no film has it on Patty, period. And this one can be little more than an enigma with no other evidence being collected. But for backstory and enigma both, it stands apart to me from all the obvious fakery. I just don’t know what it is, and it looks like we never will.

    Here’s to 99 more slam-dunk agreements! Total agreement, no. But United Front is important.

    dconstrukt – I just honestly don’t know what to think of Freeman. Some aspects of it appear cheesy and made up, but some are I-don’t-know.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Champ Camp Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.