Sasquatch Coffee

Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 14th, 2007

Updated with embedded video from youtube:

As I stated in my initial post here on Cryptomundo concerning this new Bigfoot video footage at New Manitoba Bigfoot Video, I would post any additional details from Doug Thomas if he provided any.

Mr. Thomas responded to my initial request on Monday, March 12, stating the following:

Today my son and I returned to the sight. I realize a week has past and people have a lot of questions but this next video may help answer a few questions.

Doug Thomas
Peguis Manitoba

P.S.
I just started uploading todays video please give it about an hour.Doug Thomas

He then sent me the following later that evening:

I’m having some problems uploading ill try again. Doug Thomas

I received the following from Mr. Thomas last night, March 13.

I regret to inform you that I will not be posting the follow up video or respond to comments for questions, in respect to my wife and sons wishes.

Thanks
Doug Thomas Doug Thomas

I don’t know if the comments here at Cryptomundo made Mr. Thomas change his mind, or if the notoriety of having publicly posted a supposed Bigfoot video did it.

Here is the video again to refresh your memory.

Here is the link to the video on metacafe for those that aren’t able to view the video here on Cryptomundo.

View latest update on video with commentary by Doug Thomas here on Cryptomundo at:

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.


67 Responses to “Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video”

  1. joppa responds:

    I think mom and son got a call from “A Current Affair.”

    Nevertheless, that is one tall son of a gun. I would have hoped the second upload could have given more of a complete story.

  2. swnoel responds:

    Certainly is an incredible video of something.

    Only problem is, you can’t tell what that something is.

    I’ll keep waiting.

  3. kittenz responds:

    > sigh. again.

  4. john5 responds:

    The frame at the 58 second mark is very convincing to me that this is not any kind of human in costume. The extension of the arms, tilt of the head and profile of the torso all appear to be too unusual of a construct to be pretend or staged.

    The extension of the arms also remind me strongly of frames of the Patterson-Gimlin footage. The fluid, nonchalant motion over the apparent rough terrain coupled with the way this being is looking up into the trees and straight ahead while it is striding along rather than at the ground reveals a high comfort level of the subject with being in its own skin and in a familiar environment.

    Well done Thomas family for acting quickly, and at a distance, to capture this great footage. Thank you for sharing it with the viewers at Cryptomundo. Hopefully you can ignore all the doubtful ones out there who are too frightened by the thought of the presence of Sasquatch to admit that these beings truly exist. People once scoffed at the idea of gorillas too!

    Thanks for the post Craig.

    Peace

  5. squatchwatcher responds:

    I was just watching the video again and was wondering why the sound is shut off. Is this part of the process of posting it on the net? Also, if you watch close at about the 71 second mark the body around the waist area moves in a peculiar way. Is this just part of the video or is something moving that shouldn’t? Just food for thought. I’m not saying anything negative about the video, I’m just asking why is that happening.

  6. silvereagle responds:

    This one is similar color and size to the Biscardi snapshots from Florida, I believe.

  7. springheeledjack responds:

    Once again we are back to blobdom…and I don’t think I buy the no comments thing…maybe I’m getting too suspicious in my old age, but they have gone this far, if there are facts let’s hear them…if not…well then that’s a perfect way to disconnect…am I being too cynical???

  8. mooselove responds:

    I’m usually pretty open-minded about sightings, but I feel this one is a pretty much a text-book hoax, IMHO.

    For one, the way the cameraman knows to focus on the hill and then the sound cuts out. For all we know they have a walkie talkie telling the other to “move slower” or “swing your arms more”.

    Secondly, as it’s probably been said twice over, the ever so popular camera going out of focus right before it gets the perfect shot.

    Lastly, the current situation. First note that the video has that fancy text at the end and at the beginning, and has been edited to slow down for a better example. This shows at least basic video editing skills so he shouldn’t have had any problems in that respect. I guess I could understand his wife and son not wanting to be put in the spotlight, but his sudden response from “it’s not uploading” to “I need to respect my wife and son’s wishes” seems a bit sketchy to me.

  9. Carlfoot responds:

    Blobsquach

  10. butcho responds:

    Well there is a little strange funny thing i found … not much but still interessting and funny. Doug Thomas posted a video on youtube where we can see his community leader give a speach. A user from the same community commented that this guys nickname is Sasquatch because “he is rarely seen on the reserve.”

    Funny coincidence! You can look at this video on youtube … just search the user “douglasrthomas”.

    Disclaimer: Maybe the youtube user – douglasrthomas – that posted the video is not the same Doug Thomas… but theyre both from (or live in) Peguis Manitoba Canada (7200 soul) , so i assumed he is the same person.

  11. DWA responds:

    Those who think this is hoaxed:

    HOW CAN YOU SEE IT WELL ENOUGH TO TELL?

    I admit there’s weird smells-of-overripe-salmon circumstances. But other than the Patterson film, this is one of only two Bigfoot visuals I’ve gone so far with as to bookmark it so I can take repeated looks. (The other was the Oregon game camera hair shot, which I made my desktop background for awhile because a cyberbuddy said he’d done it and the novelty struck me. I have no idea whatthehell it is.)

    It gets, um, cold in Manitoba in the winter. I don’t think this is that easy, or fun, to set up. And it looks to me like the kind of thing video in a moving car can do to you, particularly when you’ve seen something and are in a godawful hurry. He “knows to focus on the hill” because they’d seen something briefly before this. That’s how it looks to me.

    My advice, however, stands. If nobody could have any doubt that it’s a sas, put it up. Stuff like this = nice souvenir, that no one can do anything with.

    It’s like a footprint that way. ;-)

  12. DWA responds:

    I need to add this:

    How many people who call the Patterson film “fuzzy” have either

    1) seen it or

    2) seen it compared to everything else out there?

    Hats off, Roger. Great job. 1967, people.

    Ponder.

  13. butcho responds:

    Not convincing at all! But that is still something to analyze.

  14. crypto-steve responds:

    It seems like the camera zooms in on the spot where the creature is before it has emerged from behind the hill. How did they know it was going to walk in that location? I’m not screaming hoax, but I am pretty skeptical.

  15. DWA responds:

    crypto-steve: actually the story surrouding the clip, as little as there is, seems to explain everything pretty well. Which rarely – make that never – happens.

    1. The camera is focused on the knoll (Hey! Squatchery now has its own “grassy knoll!” Although this might be better known as “the brushy knoll, eh?” :-D ) because the animal was intially seen crossing the road; the son went into the back for the camcorder as the critter went behind the brushy knoll, eh?; and they focused on the far side of the brushy knoll, eh? on the reasonable presumption they might see the critter emerging on that side. (The one phrase I hear from the vehicle’s occupants: the son saying he can’t see it. Right before the zoom hits the far side of the brushy knoll, eh?)

    2. The father (who was driving) says the video shows more than he could see. Borne out by the video; the brushy knoll, eh? is a long way from the car as the run starts – lending credence to one thing distinguishing the critter being its sheer size. (That does look, to me, considerably bigger than any human. Except maybe – and maybe not – the now-recognized world’s tallest man. And I’m not even sure about him; and I’m pretty sure he wasn’t hired for this.)

    3. The father says he didn’t shoot the tracks because he didn’t think they looked that remarkable. I can believe somebody thinking the tracks weren’t worth it, given the other stuff he got on video. Hey, he isn’t a sas researcher. I bet he still wasn’t totally right in the head over what he’d seen, either. No surprise there. Remember: the track casts pulled from Patty’s passage before Patterson and Gimlin didn’t help convince the public, despite a much better view. I’m not gonna give him a hard time on that; one fallacy of video debunking is introducing too much stuff other than what is on that video. Remember, seeing a sas isn’t seeing a deer. It’s a whole ‘nuther drink. I suspect I’d go for a truly good close-up video even if the guy says it’s a sturgeon he caught on Lake Superior.

    That road does not look paved. One other person here says that super-zoom on a digital videocam can go haywire if the camera gets jostled. I’m not a videocam expert, and not trying to get too pixelated here, but at the start of that run I can see a considerable dip right about where I’d expect the truck to be when the view went nutty. (And he did get refocused on the critter; I think that the hoax thing is that they do that, and no more sas afterward.)

    This is picking from an extremely short list. But in terms of sas vids I’m aware of (I’ve never seen a decent photo, other than stills from P/G), this is top five. As someone else here said, if it’s a hoax, it’s one of the better-done hoaxes. I’d go further. If it’s a hoax, it is the best one ever, unless P/G is, or unless every sighting report is of a guy in an ape suit.

    It ain’t proof. But I’m still intrigued, and think that experts should look at this one.

  16. arbigfoothunter responds:

    Like I commented on Metacafe, I feel this video is very worthwhile. I don’t know what the reasons are behind Mr. Thomas not wanting to go any further with this, but what he and his son video taped on the 4th of March is very interesting. In certain frames, it does appear to have a crested head, certainly is ape-like in appearance, and appears to be quite bulky. The arms seem to be quite long and have that natural swing. If this turns out to be a hoax, then it suckered me in right from the beginning. I would be willing to bet, though, that this video is of something not human, and if so, what else could it be–but a sasquatch. To my knowledge, no one has reported any runaway apes in the recent past.

  17. DWA responds:

    arbigfoothunter: obviously (see above) I agree.

    The not wanting to go forward and other so-called hoax earmarks merely add to the stink of what already looks a clear fake. We get so used to evaluating backstory that we keep doing it even when what’s right there on the video looks interesting. This family might be buying into that too; I can hear them asking each other: is this really worth the time and trouble it’s going to cost? Can anyone really tell what that is?

    I like to focus on the sas, not on the human circus that surrounds it.

    WHAT IS ON THAT VIDEO?

  18. DWA responds:

    Oh. And I said this: “My advice, however, stands. If nobody could have any doubt that it’s a sas, put it up. Stuff like this = nice souvenir, that no one can do anything with.”

    I’m obviously re-evaluating that little nugget. Eh?

    You can go to those trees, measure their height, and find out – pretty easily – what kind of size we’re looking at here.

    My sneakin’ sas-picion: NOT human.

  19. DWA responds:

    I keep thinking of stuff to add. Here’s another.

    When the vid goes haywire, so far as I can tell, it’s not concealing anything. That is NOT something a hoaxer would have wanted to have happen. I just don’t see any telltales of a hoax showing up between where the vid weirds out and where it cuts back in on the animal, just before it disappears.

    At the moment – not saying this is a sas – everything I thought was fishy about this…I no longer do.

    Convince me otherwise. Somebody.

  20. mystery_man responds:

    I will not outright say it is fake, but neither will I say it could be real. To me this video is inconclusive. It could be a lot of mundane things other than a sasquatch and I just don’t think there is anything to base that presumption upon other than a dark shape walking across the landscape. A hooded parka could give the impression of a crest as well as bulk. Also, do we really know how tall this thing is from the video? To me, the other suspect elements make me tilt towards the hoax theory. The camera tilts away wildly just as it is starting to show the creature, then gets squarely back to where the cameraman wants it to be just as it is dissappearing. This is very suspect to me. Sure there are reasons why this could have happened, but at that exact moment, when the camera is more or less smooth before and after? Then look at other alleged films of cryptids and notice the same technique. Am I the only one who finds this a tad fishy? Even if some hoaxers would not show the thing at all after the camera jump, well if this is a hoax it has been effective in making it seem realer, eh? I feel there is a possibility that they just didn’t want us to get too good a look at it and realize it is not what is claimed. Then we have this sudden unwillingness to come forward. I think if someone had footage that they were confident of and had nothing to hide, why back away? I also still feel that if I have to watch a video over and over again just to convince myself it is not a guy in a parka, then it is substandard footage no matter how genuine it may be. Sorry to be so hard on this here, but I think this video is really not going to do much to change anyone’s mind on Bigfoot. I am skeptical of this one.

  21. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: everything you say is totally reasonable.

    I do think there’s a way to estimate size – the trees – and the estimate I’m hunching would make this not human. Besides which that thing gets from knoll (eh?) to treeline very smoothly and quickly. I just wouldn’t expect a human to do that distance like that, GIVEN (and I don’t know this for sure but it’s surely verifiable) that that area has no trail, is not a road intersect (sure don’t look like one!) and is covered with snow of significant depth (was it? Search me.)

    The thing is: we have all the data. The date; the macro appearance of the site, including pretty much its exact location; yardsticks – literally – against which to measure the critter; and a video the circumstances of which just don’t smell so bad to me anymore.

    Somebody needs to go there and do some measuring; then let’s talk more, I say.

    Remember, now. Manitoba, winter. I don’t think I go there just to make it “look better.” (Hey. We even have the hi/lo temps for the date that’s right on the video.)

  22. DWA responds:

    Oh, and mystery_man: I think (and say so above) that the sudden cold feet could be a case of de-bunk-itis, coming pretty precisely from a sudden attack (bolstered possibly by Early Returns) of lack of confidence about what the heck that is.

    It may look “convenient.” But I find it most reasonable. Given what happens when stuff like this hits the piranha tank of crypto. Who, me, eh? ;-)

  23. mystery_man responds:

    I am being brutally honest here in saying that I feel we are going to have to start being a little more critical of these types of videos if we are going to gain credibility as a science. Watching the video many times in slo mode mode, I get more and more of the feeling that this is very likely a guy in a parka with the hood pulled up. The dimensions, proportions, and movement just do not make me think otherwise, and I am someone who has an open mind about these things. Try showing this to someone who does not know about cryptozoology and I think that no one’s first guess is going to be “it’s a large hairy biped”. That is how I see this video. No matter what it really is, in my opinion we have to look at what it shows and ask hard questions to ourselves about what we are seeing versus what we want to see.

  24. mystery_man responds:

    DWA, I think you are totally right in that someone needs to go to that site and see what there is to see, just to be sure.

  25. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: can’t argue with you.

    It’s just my gut here. I’m jaded to hell and gone with saspic; I almost did not bother to even look at this one. (In fact, I totally ignored the first post on it. I can still feel my eyes rolling.)

    But it grabbed me; and only P/G has done that the way this did.

    It’s a gut worth a tape measure, eh?

  26. mystery_man responds:

    I respect your gut reaction to this one DWA. You vouching for this one has actually made me go back and look at it, since I value your opinion here. But I have to say, I am not impressed by this footage. For me, the PG footage is absolutely amazing. Anyone watching it can instantly see what it is and be impressed by how naturally it moves and how well the camera manages to stay on it. Not to mention the body dimensions and sheer size of it. Anybody who sees it is going to be intrigued by it and think “what the heck is that?!”. I can not rank this one as anywhere near that level. I just can’t shake the feeling that this one is a guy in a parka, and it is at the very least inconclusive. Maybe I am a bit jaded to, but looking at this from an unbiased eye, it really is substandard to me. That being said, I feel it would be irresponsible to ignore this completely without at least a little more follow up.

  27. btgoss responds:

    I think mystery_man is correct here. The dimensions are all wrong. That head is HUGE. Far too large for a real animal (and being an Irish member of the large cranium society I should know.)

    This is a fake. Some guy in a parka or Mardi Gras mask, not a real animal.

  28. DWA responds:

    Nowhere near as good as P/G.

    Nowhere near tossing without somebody at least measuring those trees.

    If that thing is as big as my gut says it is we now have:

    1) clearly bipedal.
    2) clearly not a bear.
    3) and that kind of effort, to hoax something that big…and give no one a better look at it than that?

  29. DWA responds:

    btgoss: this is the only one I’ve seen other than P/G where the dimensions fit so well they have me wondering.

    I’d disagree with you. Many sas sighting reports – really good ones, close range, no question what the witness saw if the witness isn’t flat lying – describe something that would fit. Including a HUGE head (frequently reported).

  30. UKCryptid responds:

    I won’t come in and say it’s definitely a hoax, but it’s certainly something that could have easily been made either deliberately or maybe even the witnesses with the camera were hoaxed, I have a black jacket with a hood that would make me look identical to that. I hope it’s our cousin bigfoot in that vid, my heart says ‘well, maybe’ but my brain is saying ‘you know you’ve seen stuff like this before and how easy it is to make it’. Here’s hoping it’s genuine and that the video creator will post the rest backing up this claim, though I still can’t understand what would make someone not want to post the second when the first is already there and hasn’t been taken down.

  31. mystery_man responds:

    A couple of things I am looking at as far as dimensions go.

    First of all, the arms seem to be well within the human range for length. Although we do not know much about Bigfoot arm length, the PG footage gives us an idea. Even if some have shorter arms, the ones in this video could be those of a human.

    Secondly, Bigfoot is reported to have a large head, but a head appearing large does not mean this is a Bigfoot to me. A hood of a parka or even a “Mardi Gras mask” as btgoss amusingly put it could also create the illusion of a large head.

    Thirdly, I cannot be accurate about the size, but this creature just does not seem to me to have the girth and mass that I feel we would see with Bigfoot and indeed I feel the figure seems within human proportions. Size is one thing that I think needs to be determined here. If it turns out that this is something 8 feet tall, then I will eat crow about everything I’ve said against this footage.

    Terrain is also an issue, but it does not appear to me to be anything that a human could not navigate and I personally don’t get an impression that this thing is covering it with any supreme effortlessness. However, terrain is another factor that needs more investigation before I cry “hoax”.

    But my overall thought is we have here a figure that seems to have arms within human range, with a head that can seem to look larger by human means, with a mass that seems to be within human range as well.

    In my opinion, and I am not slighting anyone who thinks otherwise, this all adds up to point to a distinct possibility that this is a human being. And I don’t mean the stick holding type. :)

  32. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: again, can’t argue with it a bit.

    Except that (again my gut, not my experience as a Biomechanical Fellow of the Cambridge Institute of How People Oughtta Walk or whatever) the motion of this thing seems to me even less human than Patty’s.

    Yes. That’s pretty gut there.

    To me, the essential tool for Step 2 is a tape measure for those trees. Because my gut still tells me that’s bigger than a human, proportions or no.

    Keep in mind that it being winter in Manitoba not only decreases the probability of a hoax (how far is this from the nearest house, by the way?); it also means slim pickins for the local fauna and less girth on yer typical sas. Which yep, can make that head look, well, sorta big.

    Sez my gut.

    Can’t believe I’m going on like this about a sas video. Somebody smack me with a compliant gate hee hee. Or something.

  33. btgoss responds:

    I don’t think the head is just too large for a natural creature, it just doesn’t seem to be attached the right way, at least in this video. It appears to wobble a bit much, which I suppose could be an artifact of this bad video, but it just adds to the feeling I am getting that I am NOT looking at a wild creature.

  34. ShefZ28 responds:

    To the Point:

    You cannot tell if it is real, or not. I do not clearly see something that is an unknown species, and I do not see a zipper.

  35. DWA responds:

    btgoss: one thing that hurts any analysis of this is that it’s, well, a bad video.

    The only thing I find compelling about it is the apparent size of the figure, with a human being the only other possibility and suddenly an extrmely remote one if this is as big as it looks. The other stuff comes from that – although this is one of the better fakes I’ve seen if it is one.

    I’d be really interested in knowing how easy it would be for a human to get there (to address the possibility that the filmers were being had by hoaxers), and why if this were a hoax they’d be happy with that video being the best thing they got for their effort.

  36. btgoss responds:

    DWA, it actually looks pretty easy to get too… I mean there is that big road right at the start of the video, with all of those power lines running down the side of it. So while this area may be more rural then urban, I don’t get the feeling that this place is “isolated.”

  37. DWA responds:

    btgoss: yep, which would tell us (if the nearest dwelling is as near as it looks it is), yep, maybe somebody gets a BIG costume there. Which explains ONE of the many facets that need to come together for a hoax.

    I also gotta admit that the upper-body movement looks a bit stilted. HINT: STILTed. As in…oh sheesh, now the coffee’s wearing off.

    In the end, you do wind up saying: if they didn’t believe P/G, well, they won’t believe this one. If that horse gets upset…well, maybe the public’s ready for the truth.

    Now all somebody has to do is pony up to get it.

    I can’t help but wonder what sas researchers – and Schaller and Goodall – would think of this video.

  38. jayman responds:

    I guess this says a lot about why people are reluctant to step forward with evidence on subjects of this kind. This video, and others like it, are simply inconclusive… too distant and lacking in detail to prove anything. But even on supposedly sympathetic forums like this one, most people just assume it’s a hoax. Why would anybody want to be publicly called a liar?

  39. DWA responds:

    jayman: just hit on something I wanted to say.

    Mystery_man says – and he’s right – that cryptos need to “start being a little more critical of these types of videos if we are going to gain credibility as a science.”

    Or maybe not.

    We ARE, I think, VERY critical of stuff like that here. When, maybe not sympathetic, but open-minded, is what we need to be. What we need to do is walk the balance beam between not being so open-minded that our brains fall out, on the one hand, and not being so critical that we leave the field with no evidence to search with.

    As I’ve said: I don’t care if the man who shot this video says, sorry to bother you, that’s a sturgeon I caught last week. What grabs me is not him – I don’t even know who he is – but WHAT’S ON THE VIDEO.

    As bad as it is, well, I’ve said what I have to say. One of Patty’s fatal flaws – thanks for nuthin’ there, Patty! – is that it is conceivable, to many people, really most people, that Patty’s human. The package of total dimensions and gait and ease of movement under duress is almost inconceivable for a human; but that gets lost in the argument that each element of that highly improbable package IS conceivable for a human. So I guess the whole package winds up being, if highly improbable, conceivable. Patty could be a seven-foot-four guy with arms and legs and torso at the limits of the human spectrum.

    With breasts. Anyway, I digress.

    If this thing is as big as it looks….as bad as the video is, might not one or more mainstream scientists with money to spend and time on their hands want to know what it might be?

    Inconclusive, oh yeah. But maybe it’s a lead. They’re always inconclusive. But following them leads to conclusions, which is why they’re called leads.

  40. DWA responds:

    Went to another site I contribute to. A hiker/backpacker/trailcrew site. Gave ‘em this link.

    One of ‘em, a lawyer in Alabama, got back to me. BTW, this guy is very much into the tangible reality thing. He’s got substantial BS detection software. His take:

    ————————————–

    O.K., here’s what I can’t get around.

    The gait. You look at the Patterson film and you see the same smooth locomotion, especially the arms. They swing pendulum style, from the shoulders. The rhythm of the gait, just the same. The carriage in general (no other way to describe this): Regal. No head bobbing, no dodging side to side. Look at the way it eats up the ground. I mean it is like it is floating, and I don’t mean just because you can’t see it from the waist down. What is that pace? My guess would be at least 5mph.

    Is this Bigfoot? I’ll just say that if the Patterson film is Bigfoot, this is.

    ———————————

    That floating thing? I see it too, and I didn’t realize I saw it until he said the word. And that’s a frequent feature of eyewitness reports.

    Is this cool? The plot thickening with an alleged cryptid video? How often does this happen here? (NEVER.) Rejoice while it lasts, ya know?

    Again. Brain not falling out here.

    I just want to get past the bad BAD photo job – in part I think because of the difficulty of the task, hey, if I’m in the passenger seat don’t ask me to do ANYTHING – and SEE WHAT IS IN THE VIDEO.

    Somebody go there and tell me how tall that thing is. Pretty please.

  41. springheeledjack responds:

    IS ANYONE in the area to measure the trees? I think DWA is going to blow if we don’t get it done folks:) (no offense DWA, just no one stepping forward to help with your pleas…) I’m in the midwest–sorry

    I was having trouble with the camera focus until I heard about seeing it cross the road..but that is explained…as for the camera jumping…anytime I have had a zoom on for any camera, the closer in you go, the smaller the movements necessary to cause a lot of camera shaking…

    I cannot get enough from the dark shape in the frames to tell me that it is definitely something larger than human. There are too many unknowns.

    You guys were talking about being critical of videos and photos and my two cents here is: unfortunately with the advance of technology and the availability of it to almost anyone, our work is only going to get more difficult sifting out the hoaxes from the real stuff…it has never been easy, and ALSO unfortunately once footage gets a “hoax” label to it, it is hard to shift it around back into the real-column even if later information comes to light that could vindicate it

    There have always been plenty of “Surgeon’s photos” out there with BF and other cryptos, giving the debunkers ammo and again making our jobs all the harder.

    I am not sure what the answers are…you are correct (DWA) that we can’t toss everything off and be toooooo critical to the point that we overlook real evidence…just paraphrased you…

    I know in recent times I have come to be more critical because I have unconsciously known the debunkers are out there waiting for the next “Surgeon’s photo” to surface and then hammer everyone who said it was real once it comes out the evidence is false…I will be pi**ed if I ever get suckered in that way…not only because I got suckered, but because it just gives the debunkers more ammunition…but that’s my personal thing…so I tend to look very critically.

    However, as DWA also said, we look at these things as leads to look into areas that are getting sightings, do some research of our own and see if we can find some conclusions.

    Alright, it is time to start getting some teams together and go hunt these things down for ourselves.

    See, you have inspired me.

    SHJ

  42. DWA responds:

    SHJ –

    Note that I have given myself plausible deniability if this one comes back negative.

    But I need to hear how it was done. Most of them it’s obvious; Joe got in the suit. Patty, that ain’t obvious at all. This one: Joe needs a job in the NBA leading a team to an undefeated season.

    Or, it’s not Joe at all.

    A blobsquatch, you can’t tell what it is. Almost every fake is Joe. This is third category. It’s bipedal – or it’s the world’s tallest and most top-heavy centaur. Rule out the latter and two species are in the running, and one of ‘em isn’t a species yet, and it’s one of the largest recorded specimens of the other.

    I haven’t heard anybody tell me how it got Photoshopped or Vidshopped or whatever you have to do to pixelate something in there.

    I just have this hunch a proud hoaxer ain’t stepping forward any time soon.

    You think the Patty guy’s doing a 40th-anniversary encore?

  43. joppa responds:

    This is mo’ better than ol’ Kentucky pancake head. The thing is soooooo tall that I’m intrigued of how it could be hoaxed. Nevertheless, I guess we will have to wait for the commercial release of the video and follow up to ask more questions.

  44. skeptic responds:

    You guys want BF to be a reality sooo bad, that you are blinded by your own wishful thinking.

    I’m not saying this is a hoax, but talking about the size of the head , the fluid swing of the arms, the graceful gait, etc is just silly with this video. The detail just isn’t there and your mind is seeing what you want it to see.

    Inconclusive blobsquatch, but slightly interesting.

  45. sasquatch responds:

    Well, I wish I could watch the video, when I go to Metacafe and try to watch it all I get is a blank screen. ? I’m no computer genius but it sure seems confusing how to watch this, am I missing something?

  46. skeptic responds:

    Upon further review, I think this is a hoax or a marketing ploy.

    Notice at the end of the video it says “mastertrack production”, well I googled it and it’s a company, their website produces films.

    From their home page:

    “Video Services: Our professional video production staff will help you script, film and produce just about any type of multi-media project from training videos, to commercials and promos, to streaming video for your web site.”

  47. skeptic responds:

    sasquatch: go to adobe.com and install the free “flash player” on your computer.

  48. sasquatch responds:

    Thanks Skeptic, It didn’t work tho’…?

  49. skeptic responds:

    I don’t want to turn this into a tech support thread… use the Firefox browser, it works much better.

  50. DWA responds:

    Skeptic says: “You guys want BF to be a reality sooo bad, that you are blinded by your own wishful thinking.”

    Some people want to shout HOAX! so bad they don’t see what’s there.

    I take the prize – don’t even try to elbow in front of me – for the person on this site most exasperated with “Photoshop debunking.” I’ve seen a Certified Photoshop Debunker Certified Photoshop Debunk a photo that I had already independently verified as real. Just see what’s there, and ask questions.

    If this is a hoax, I haven’t seen one better. This is the only piece of sas evidence I’ve seen that gives me the OK-what-is-that feeling I get with the Patterson film. When you turn your cynic beams on, your skeptic beams go off.

    Skepticism is questioning, not debunking. Questioning is demanding a thorough explanation; debunking is that’s Joe wearing a hood. The latter doesn’t help the reputation of squatchery, for sure.

    If this is indeed a film company, they’ll come out with a detailed explanation of how they put this together. Soon. Of course they will. What other motivation could they have for doing it other than to run an ad for the prowess of Mastertrack? (Oh. You really think that’s a crack outfit? I think “Blair Witch Project” spent many more millions.)

    When I’m told, exactly, what that is, I’ll be happy.

    And if it’s a hoax: GREAT JOB!

    You know what I really hope?

    That an uncommonly well-done hoax brings researchers into the field to finally find the thing. Wouldn’t that be schweet.

  51. DWA responds:

    I should have added here: the evidence seems to indicate that the joke may be on the hoaxers.

    If of course they’re hoaxing something they don’t think exists.

    In the Photoshop example above, the “debunker” presumed fake a totally plausible, if rather exciting, natural occurrence, something the motivation for faking which would be hard for me to figure out. (Red fox and golden eagle, in Finland, fighting over a carcass. That happens, and the fox doesn’t always win. He didn’t here.)

    If a hoaxer – or a debunker – is acting in ignorance of the evidence…who’s the ignoramus?

  52. skeptic responds:

    I’m not a “debunker” DWA. I just figure it makes sense to start with the most obvious objections first so as to not waste our time.

    Are you proposing we ignore everything else except for the part it shows the BF?

  53. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I don’t really want to shout HOAX. I would not do that without all the facts, which are lacking here so far. In fact, I am waiting for good video as much as anyone else. But I am trying to look at this video from an unbiased viewpoint of what it really shows and to me, what it really shows to even a casual observer and it doesn’t show much that I can’t honestly say is not a man. I personally am not trying to willfully debunk this video, and I don’t think I am being cynical to question what I think is quite probably not what it is claimed to be from the evidence I see so far. To me, this is not cynicism and anyone who has read my posts knows I am not a “scofftic”. I will support anything I see as compelling. But darn it I am looking at what is there, and this video to me does not show anything particularly out of the ordinary that cannot be explained as something more mundane. I am just not seeing the incredible size or agility that is being seen by some.

    I do want a thorough investigation and I want it before I proclaim this to be anything other than what it appears to me to be, which is something that is maybe not a spectacular discovery at this point in time and quite possibly a man with a hood or parka. I really don’t think this is debunking or scoffing. This is what it in all honestly appears to be and I cannot find anything out of human norms to lead me to believe otherwise. In fact, i don’t think I should have to watch it over and over trying to will myself to think it is Bigfoot. I think true believer-cals can be just as bad as cyn-icals here in these cases. Maybe some more evidence will come back and it will turn out to be as huge as people claim and I will be happy to have been wrong about it. I have no problem with being wrong here, I just want to get to the bottom of these things.

    I am being skeptical in that I am questioning what people are claiming about this video and I think my reasons for thinking this way are not unreasonable. To me, questioning it in this manner IS true skepticism and I think cryptozoology needs this. DWA, I respect your opinions quite a lot, and I see where you are coming from on this video, but I just can’t agree with you on this one. There is nothing wrong at all with you going with your gut here, but I can’t see this as a Bigfoot just yet without something that will put it beyond the realm of possibility for being a human. I just had my skep-tical prescription renewed :) and I am not buying this peice of evidence without more investigation done.

  54. DWA responds:

    No, skeptic. At least not quite. (Didn’t say you were a debunker. You don’t appear to be just that.)

    But swnoel says it more succinctly than I have, so let’s go to him.

    “Certainly is an incredible video of something.

    Only problem is, you can’t tell what that something is.

    I’ll keep waiting.”

    That thing looks, just, WEIRD, when you sort out the noise and focus on it. Weirder than guys in hooded sweaties (a common “looked like” in sighting reports, before they realize what it is) or ape suits tend to look, to me.

    I want to see EVERYTHING. And then sort. I haven’t sorted this one fully, yet. But I know what looks different. And I’ve already allowed it could be hoaxed. But what looks different says that if it was, these guys are for sure paying attention.

    Now the noise needs to be dealt with. Others will have to do that, and I await what they say.

    We just tend to jump to judgment. Which is different from, as you note, posting your reservations. Now we have to see those reservations dealt with. I just don’t want the noise to drown out the signal, if signal it is.

    A good example of what I mean is that thread here on the new clouded leopard. The scientific findings I read on news clips had me rolling my eyes and thinking, what, a few coat differences and it’s a new species?

    Then I saw the photo when the blog went up on this site. That’s a different animal. Skull: different. Coat, yep, different. Tail, different too. Build: different.

    DIFFERENT animal. Yet no one saw it, for a century, and even the articles in the news didn’t note the most prominent differences, differences that kittenz and I picked up in about four seconds.

    You have to look, account for everything, and sort. Not – as apparently happened with the two leopards – just seeing what you want to see. Kittenz and I saw it so quick because, for one thing, we’ve seen lots of pics of the mainland clouded leopard and second, we weren’t in that “specialist” box that often screens new data TOO effectively. That’s one of the strengths crypto – and sites like this – can bring to the zoological table. If you’re here, you tend not to be in a scientific box.

    We’re seeing different stuff with this video, for sure. I’ve heard people say short arms? Really? I instantly thought: those arms are LONG. And I still think so. The proportions and interactions don’t look, to me, human, or artificially acted out. If this is a guy, GREAT costume (many sighters would say “that’s what I saw”) and he was coached well and is an excellent, natural actor. (And he’s either one tall dude or someone did a great paste-in job.)

    If Mastertrack faked this, and I’m a bigshot producer, I wouldn’t care. I’d bring ‘em to Hollywood and say, here’s the big leagues. Do this for me and you’ll be rich!

    If they did this….they’re not smart enough to shop it where it should be shopped? They sure look smart enough. Maybe this is the pilot. :-D

  55. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: just saw yours. And I hope you don’t think I was lumping you in with HOAX! shouters. I know you better than that, and I know that like everyone who looks at this, you’re evaluating what you see.

    There’s a lot of noise here, and what may be a signal. The noise makes the signal – or whether there is one – damned hard to evaluate.

    You said it, I think: “I am not buying this peice of evidence without more investigation done.”

    Me neither. (Why do you think I’m yelling for a measuring tape? :-D)

  56. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I didn’t think you were lumping me in with the HOAX shouters or scofftics, at least I hoped not! Now where is that darn measuring tape? :)

  57. sasquatch responds:

    O.K. I finally got to see it; I’d say it’s maybe 60-40 real. The odd angles that the line of site from the camera create make the arms look short at first but later in the video you get a better profile shot with the arm down and slightly swung back and it looks quite long. It looks big, the neck maybe a little longer than Patty’s, but then again the up angle doesn’t help here. There are similarity’s in the camera bump at just the same place in the Patterson film, odd I’d say, but then again maybe we have a tendency to re-adjust when we think we have something extraordinary in view. I don’t know, but not an obvious hoax. Nowhere near the quality of Patterson’s film though, so you can’t study as in depth. Patterson’s has stood the test of time, science etc. This film is just a head scratcher and inconclusive, but I’d mount a search in the area if I had the resources and was close by…I’d definitely take a big gun and some friends with same.

  58. squatchwatcher responds:

    Hey, I have a question. Has this video and story been on any local news broadcasts? Don’t you think that a reporter would have brought a little attention to this piece of evidence(even if alot of people don’t believe in the squatch). I just thought that if a local news team went out there they would have maybe got some better shots of the local area. Or is Mr. Thomas not talking to them? Somebody please clue me in on this.

  59. DWA responds:

    Craig: somebody needs to encourage this guy, particularly if he’s reacting to perceived scorn.

    If he isn’t hoaxing, and I still doubt that, he has something here. If he could at least point some serious researchers to the site to measure that would be cool.

    Keep us updated.

  60. jchip responds:

    I’m not going to say that I think its a hoax, but the thing I find most troubling is in the very beginning, before the camera zooms in to catch the figure on the other side of the knoll. They had to have spotted this figure and thought it was something highly unusual from a very long distance off, if as was reported, the son had to climb in the back to grab the video camera. That strikes me as suspect.

  61. DWA responds:

    jchip: don’t be troubled at all.

    That’s what (they say) happened; they saw it crossing the road. When the son got the camera, after first checking the whole field to make sure, he zoomed to the place they expected the animal to be. You can see (he imagines) an instant of hesitation, around the moment the son says he can’t see it, when he seems to be panning back toward the road, then, there it is.

    The camera movement is one of the pluses for me; things happen on camera the way they say they happened in their heads.

    If the father saw this thing crossing and thought it was that unusual, that starts to rule out, for me, the idea that these were two innocents getting hoaxed. (In fact, panning straight where they did makes it almost impossible that they were hoaxed, unless they were telepaths. :-D ) Either they were the hoaxers, or that thing is as unusual as it looks to me.

    We aren’t going to know until we hear more. And I have to admit the sneaking feeling that when we hear more I’ll roll my eyes.

    But if we don’t….hey, anybody want to run an expedition to Manitoba? OK, you can bring your sas hunt gear…but I’m talking about finding this guy and making him talk!

  62. DWA responds:

    Hi. I’m DWA, and I’m hoping for a job in cryptozoology.

    My question: will becoming known as “The Manitoba Video Obsessive” be sufficient qualification?

    Whoops, this isn’t the CZ FAQ thread, is it…?

    Just thought of another thing.

    (No, that isn’t Patty.)

    After the video runs real time, they stick in a slowdown to virtual frame-by-frame speed.

    Does that look more like:

    1) Somebody who wants, really, to know what this thing is?

    2) Somebody who is confident – at least at the time he did that – that what is on here isn’t human?

    or

    3) Somebody who hoaxed it, and wants to give you the maximum opportunity to spot it? And is utterly confident there is no way you will?

    I know, I know. Hoaxers work in mysterious ways.

    Mysterious things show up on videos, too.

  63. treeclaw responds:

    Hello, I am new to cryptomundo and this is my first post here. Before posting a comment on this thread I’d like to present my position regarding the Sas. I believe they are real creatures from the prehistoric age before humans existed.

    As for this Manitoba film clip it’s apparent the creature covers a great deal of ground in a very short time. We can see it travels on two feet. It has swinging arms and human like head. It does not surprise me there was as much camera shake given the level of surprise we experience when experiencing a bigfoot event. However it deeply troubles me that it never occurred to these people to look down at the tracks this creature has left behind. After all just about 99% of the evidence on this science is based on foot tracks. But these people claim it never occurred to them look down.

    Like I said I have trouble accepting this so called oversight. I give this material only 25% chance of validity.

  64. tmr3513 responds:

    I have looked at this video a couple of times fellows and it still looks like a guy in a parka with the hood up, maybe wearing cross country skies, out for some exercise on some deep hard pack snow.Probably has snowmobile bibs on under the parka and a full face ski mask.What was the temperature out side?

    I just think these two guys saw somebody where they didn’t expect to and let their minds play games. Watch when He reaches up to knock a branch away. Probably some guy out checking his trap line. Didn’t even seem bothered by the approach of the vehicle.

    I know we all want to see a real Bigfoot, but fellows, I just think that is what this guys drinking buddies call him.

  65. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- That is one thing that is very odd, isn’t it? If this was a planned hoax, why bother to give a frame by frame version of the video in slow motion and thereby risk debunking? It wouldn’t make any sense to include that if you were a hoaxer. At first I was thinking maybe they weren’t in on the hoax and they were essentially hoaxed themselves, but then why would they mistake a guy walking through the snow in a parka(something probably pretty common around those parts) for something so fantastic that they had to get the video camera out? I’ll admit, these are two things that are hard to explain. My stance on this video hasn’t changed, but it is curious.

  66. wisewindigo responds:

    I know this area and ridge popular trees are not very tall, this would make this “creature” only 5-6 feet. One thing to add, the “Interlake spectator” (local newspaper), recently did a report about a film crew heading out into the area to document sightings in the interlake area. Therefore one would conclude that the “muffin topped” stature of this creature would be more of an opportunity than a reality. Of course this is only my opinion.

  67. fuzzy responds:

    YAK YAK YAK, 66 times!

    And what have we learned, boys and girls?

    Well, apparently, mischievous folks in Manitoba (which is well-known for its mischief-makers) like to put on strange costumes and wait around on snowy hilltops in the cold for someone with a camcorder to come along, and then they run away, in case said camcorder-wielders also wield big guns.

    So, it’s either a REAL cryptid video, or it isn’t.
    It’s either a guy in a parka, or a real creature, or neither.
    The camera loses focus at a critical point, but it might have been a bump in the road, or not.
    The figure is either too big or too small to be a Bigfoot.
    Its head is too big (but it could be a guy in a parka).
    Its arms are too short, or too long, to be human.
    It walks really fast and smoothly, or maybe not.
    The snow is light and fluffy, and waist deep.
    Or maybe wet and heavy, and ankle deep.
    To a guy in a parka, that is.
    But not to a seven foot basketball player.
    It looks ape-like, but it’s too far away to tell.

    The cameraman looks where he thought the figure might show up, and there it is! Suspicious.

    The inexperienced, non-professional father and son team, flustered, excited and maybe even a little scared, “didn’t even think” to video the footprints, or whip out a measuring device to document their size or step or stride! Suspicious.

    This team also didn’t think to run into the woods after the beast to try to get better video. VERY Suspicious!

    They then took the video to a professional group to process it, including slo-mo and labeling! HOAX!!

    Then they posted it on MetaCafe, a money-making site, instead of YouTube, which isn’t (yet). HOAX!! FRAUD!! MONEY SCHEME!!

    Or, maybe not?

    Good thing the video wasn’t closer, more focused, better lit, longer, from a different angle, with stereo sound (including a grunt or two), with original commentaries – can you imagine how many comments there’d be then??



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


Creatureplica 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.