Sasquatch Coffee

Latest Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 22nd, 2007

Updated with embedded video from youtube:

Last night I received an email from Doug Thomas with additional information regarding his possible Bigfoot video from Peguis, Manitoba.

Metacafe removed my video from their video search because of the lack of sound. I have since added commentary. If possible could you change your link as follows:

ThanksDoug Thomas

Here is the new video with added commentary from Mr. Thomas.

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

I’m not sure if this is just a ploy to hopefully earn some money from metacafe for number of views that the video receives. The original video is still available on metacafe by going to the direct link, but it is apparently not listed in the search directory.

See the original video here on Cryptomundo at:

New Manitoba Bigfoot Video

and

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.


55 Responses to “Latest Update: Manitoba Bigfoot Video”

  1. monkeyz responds:

    I am seriously going to not watch any bigfoot videos unless they show up on a reputable news site from now on. Sick of fakes.

  2. Beachdaddy03 responds:

    Even in slow motion, I think the arms of this creature “ARE TOO SMALL”. This still seems like a hoax to me.

  3. Beachdaddy03 responds:

    I can’t believe that this guy did not investigate this further. He said that they did not think to film the footprints or even follow them to see if he could get better footage of the creature. This has HOAX written all over it. Good going Doug!!!

  4. Craig Woolheater responds:

    monkeyz,

    So I guess you do not consider Cryptomundo a credible news site?

  5. btgoss responds:

    I’m not going to film foot prints, I AM going to run after it, and I am going to call it a “humanoid” or “hominid”. Do average people refer to anything as “humanoids” or “hominids”? Strange behavior I would think.

    (Who you callin’ a hominid boy?!?!?)

  6. elsanto responds:

    Obviously, Mr. Thomas read the comments made about his video in the original posting, given the changes he’s made to it. Didn’t care for the ambient music, however… There’s not really anything else to say that hasn’t already been said, methinks.

    Just my two cents.

  7. monkeyz responds:

    What I mean is like national news. Something like credible bigfoot footage would be huge. Absolutely huge. I am now sadly realizing chasing these internet videos is pretty pointless.

  8. mooselove responds:

    Mr. Thomas sounds a bit young to be the father of a 13 year old… i’m still leaning more towards a hoax.

  9. mahee-kat responds:

    Spine tingling music!

  10. bill green responds:

    hey craig good evening new update about the possible manitoba bigfoot filmfootage. thanks bill green. very interesting.

  11. Darkstream responds:

    I think it’s a ploy for cash, Craig. You nailed it.

    The drama behind this video is so amusing. It’s delivered to this site as evidence of Bigfoot, beginning with the text MAN OR MYTH, then we get a disclaimer that he’s not claiming this is evidence of Bigfoot. Apparently, the myth he was referring to was something like Johnny Appleseed in need of a haircut. Then he promises to upload an update but then can’t because he wants to comply with his wife and son’s wishes. However, they weren’t opposed to him redoing the production with background music and narration. Not only that, but he sounds like the youngest guy with a 13 year old I’ve ever heard. I want to know his secret to eternal youth! :) Perhaps it’s submitting videos to Metacafe.

  12. fallofrain responds:

    It’s probably too late now, but could the scene be refilmed from the same place with a person walking the same path for scale?

  13. MMTHPOOLGHSTCMPR responds:

    For this kid to reach around the seat and grab the ever so handy video camera and start shooting sooo smoothly, then go in and out of focus is laughable. I am tired of these video hoaxes just as much as Monkeyz is. Sad reality is that 30 yrs ago I went to see a movie about Bigfoot, I was 13 or 14 yrs old. Since that time not much “new hard evidence” of Bigfoot has emerged. I still believe that there is a creature out there, probably many others too, but until they are proven, you will always have these crappy video hoaxes. More so now with U tube.

  14. CHRISDCMC12 responds:

    It looks nothing like a Bigfoot. Looks more like a man or bear.

  15. Uglybob responds:

    I don’t know why you guys are commenting about the guy’s voice. I’m 40 years old and I sound younger than he does. Judging someone’s age by their voice is like judging it by their height. not real accurate. Aside from that, my first impression of this video was hoax but I’m not going to sit here and tell everyone that it’s a fake (like some people would). Its pretty arrogant to sit at your computer and see a pic and proclaim to the world that it’s a fake when you don’t really KNOW it as a fact. In this case the only one that knows whether this is real or not is the “person” in the video. unless you were involve in the faking of it… were you?

  16. MMTHPOOLGHSTCMPR responds:

    This kid grabs the video camera so quickly behind the seat and starts to film so smoothly then for no apparent reason goes in and out of focus. I am sick of these fuzzy erratic video’s. I feel that this is a video hoax. But that’s my “human” opinion based on what I had seen.

  17. mystery_man responds:

    Uglybob- So we should sit at our computers and proclaim everything as real? You are sitting at the computer to make your comment. Just because we have to use the computer to get onto this site and discuss these things doesn’t mean we should all be a bunch of starry eyed true believers that buy everything we see. Is it arrogant to question things one sees, be it behind a computer or in person? I don’t think it is. If that is the case, then there are a lot of other things you could criticize in the world besides the posters on this site. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a skeptical approach to these things, in fact I feel it is mostly good for the field.

  18. mystery_man responds:

    That being said, although I also think it is bad to dismiss things as a hoax out of hand, most of the commenters here have fairly good reasons for thinking this is a hoax.

  19. zpf responds:

    Arms way too short; head carriage with non-inset neck look human. Great scary soundtrack, however; where’d he come up with that?

  20. skeptic responds:

    When the video itself ends with the credit to “mastertrack production” and there is a company with such a name and they produce videos for a living, I get extremely skeptical.

    From their website:

    “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.”

  21. squatchwatcher responds:

    When I first saw this video I didn’t know what to think about it. I kept watching it and started to lean towards that this could possibly be real. So I started to ask questions, just like the rest of you, with no real answers. As I said I was leaning towards thinking this was real but now this guy goes and adds dramatic commentary and some spooky music, it just seems like he’s trying to advertise for a new bigfoot movie coming out. Maybe thats what it is, a clever way of advertising for a movie. Or maybe this guy just works for the company that produced this for him, you just never know.

  22. Beachdaddy03 responds:

    I totally agree with mystery_man when it comes to uglybob and his comments. He himself seems to be pretty arrogant with his comment. Thats all I have to say about uglybob and his very high voice.

  23. Uglybob responds:

    ok, I think you missed my point. I was skeptical of this video too. I’m not saying it’s fake and i’m not saying it’s real. Obviously I have nothing against getting information off the computer or internet. It is just that some people state things as facts when they don’t know the facts. I think you need to be a little skeptical when it comes to these things but you can’t just dismiss them completely and pronounce something as fake (or real) when it is only opinion, not fact.

  24. john5 responds:

    Uglybob I kind of agree with you. It is far too easy for people to sit back in the comfort of their homes on their computers and say why those photographing a sasquatch etc. didn’t do this and that while filming under surprise circumstances or labeling any such footage a fake without justification.

    What does one truly feel when suddenly confronted with the sight of bigfoot in front of their very eyes? How rational can one expect to be under these circumstances, especially with the first encounter?!

    I am also disturbed with the video game companies lately pulling off video/photo wizardry to fool people into believing their fake stories and pictures are real. Bad jokes all of them!

    Without listening to the recent release of this Manitoba sound filled episode I cannot help seeing aspects of their original footage that lend more to it being real than a fake.

    Criticizing the pitch of a mans voice is not justification for calling the footage fake and neither is their reference to the creature being a hominid as that is exactly what the sasquatch is! Shock can sometimes bring the best out of a person! Even where their language is concerned.

    I too might be a little reluctant to directly go into the area immediately after sighting to photograph tracks after seeing the size of one this Hominid and not knowing its immediate temperament. Having sticks or stones thrown at me is not an event that I aspire to. At least that’s what I am thinking now in the comfort of my home. Maybe out there in the field I would respond differently!

    The footage around the 58sec time still shows aspects of this being’s nonchalant gait and movement that would be difficult for a human being to duplicate given the local topography and snow. The relaxed, extended fingers is another feature.

    If this is indeed a video game (or other) hoax then ‘hats off to you people!’.

    Peace

  25. green lantern responds:

    BULLY for Mr.Woolheater

  26. Darkstream responds:

    Uglybob, I’ve met some high voiced men in my life, but none of them have sounded like high school boys like the narrator in question. I bet not even you sound that young, and I can say that safely from behind the authority of my computer screen. Perhaps, Mr. Thomas’ boy is the one doing the narrating? ;)

  27. mystery_man responds:

    See, John 5, I think it is really easy for people to sit in the comfort of one’s home and just believe this as a sasquatch and proclaim it to be real without justification. Personally I am not judging this on the sound of his voice or anything other than what it shows, and what it shows does not lead me to beleive this is something particularly out of the ordinary. There is certainly not enough known here to presume the terrain is unduly difficult or see “loose relaxed fingers” unless you have some way of seriously zooming in there. We cannot see where it is walking or whether the person (if that is what it is) is wearing snowshoes or some such. I don’t feel this thing is flying over the terrain noticeably any better than a person would nor do we know anything that leads us to think this has hige size. Maybe I’m wrong and I admit I can’t say for sure whether it is fake or not, but I don’t see anything that makes me think this is a large, hairy homonid at this point.

  28. DWA responds:

    I’m with elsanto. Nothing to add.

    So allow me.

    fallofrain has a good idea. It would be hard to recreate precisely, but what would a normal size human look like walking that line all the way into the woods? (Dress him all in black. Just when you need Johnny Cash, where is he?) It would be interesting to compare gaits too, but the difference in snow cover between the two shoots would have to be factored in.

    To those who have said bear: You need to see some bears. I’ve seen many. That is no bear.

    As to all the drama: I haven’t even seen the updated video. The drama is irrelevant. I want to know what’s in the video. The guy could be so sure that what he saw ain’t human that he’s doing anything he thinks he needs to do to get attention! Apparently people with genuine experiences have gone on to fake stuff, maybe out of desperation.

    Just pay attention to what’s in the video. Turn the commentary OFF. It’s irrelevant. The only time I pay any attention to that stuff is when I have absolutely no idea what’s in the video. One thing is clear about what’s in this one. Big biped. What kind is what’s at issue, not what the shooter says about it.

  29. mystery_man responds:

    Yes, DWA I agree the commentary doesn’t add much here. As a matter of fact, I think it somehow detracts from the whole thing. As for some of the posters here like Uglybob saying that we shouldn’t make broad assumptions that this is a hoax, I agree. What I have been trying to say is I just think that where some say it is wrong to call it a hoax and state it isn’t a Bigfoot or a man in a parka, I take the opposite veiwpoint and say that it is just as wrong to claim that it IS Bigfoot and NOT a man in a parka. How is believing this at face value any more sensible than thinking it is a hoax? I’ll admit that this clip could be something, I can’t beyond all doubt tell if it is a hoax, there isn’t enough to say for sure. The probability of this being a man in winter clothes out in the snow seems more probable than it being Bigfoot to me from what I see, but who knows? I definately do not think it is a bad thing for these types of clips to be given a critical analysis and in fact think that this is necesary for the credibility of cryptozoology. It shouldn’t put people off as I think that if the video is genuine, it will stand up to any sort of fair evaluation. I agree that these clips should be given an unbiased analysis without being written off but the key is that what is in the video should be looked at, not what we may want to see. In the end, I think this particular video is probably going to be proven to be inconclusive. People who think it is Bigfoot are going to think that and people who think it is not are going to keep thinking that. In my opinion, there is no way to tell who is right or wrong here on this clip, I’m afraid.

  30. dogu4 responds:

    DWA..why do you think it’s a “big” biped? Biped for sure, and I agree that it’s not actin’ like any black bear I’ve ever seen (though I’m used to seeing them surprise me)..but why “big”? Bigger than an a full sized human in a snowmobile suit? There’s nothing definite that I can see by which to judge. How tall are the trees? I know that by the time you get up into central manitoba the willows, poplars and birches are not very tall. And those arms…what’s with that? I know that walking through calf or knee deep snow wearing a snowsuit (or wading through the muck of swamp) you will find yourself involving your upper torso and arms in order to lift ones legs enough to make a step and the arms seem to be doing that.
    I’m fully prepared to accept the videographers contention if someone can return to the original sight and do some comparison shots…if they can’t do that they’re asking us to made a decision on info that’s just too flimsy, one way or the other.

  31. DWA responds:

    dogu4:

    I think “big” because, well, it’s just a gestalt I get. I think I’m a pretty good judge of size, and from the second you see that head I’m thinking big. Look at the road, estimate how high the roofs of two vehicles passing would be at that distance, and go from there. If it’s a guy it’s a big guy.

    And one thing you can tell is that whatever it is covers ground quickly – more so than I think you can expect from a person bundled up (and definitely much faster than one wading through muck bundled up).

  32. DWA responds:

    OK, I just watched the video with the sound turned up.

    That wasn’t so bad. Boy he could have done SO much worse for music. Obviously he’s been reading comments (and I’m sure he’s read the ones here). But he doesn’t seem to overreact to that.

    I think his reason for not going all over the prints is plausible enough. What a sas researcher will do and what a layman will do don’t always match. That’s no killer for me. I’d be happy I’d gotten the critter and didn’t have to settle for prints.

    Oh. If he said he had a 20-year-old son, I wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. That voice is a guy in his 30s, if you ask me. A dad at seventeen – happens all the time – would make him 30 on the nose. I’d guess if you had to pin me down, 35.

    Irrelevant. (But I had to toss it in.) What’s on the video?

  33. dogu4 responds:

    Hmmm.. Good point DWA. I’ve watched it a few more times (as if the first dozen times wasn’t enough) and it is genuinely enigmatic. Listening to the narrator’s voice I have to say that, while I’m no expert in neurolinguistics, he sounds like he believes what he’s saying.
    What’s frustrating is that this is one of those sightings where someone could go back and restage it easily to get realistic measurements.

  34. DWA responds:

    dogu4:

    Exactly.

    That’s what makes it so frustrating. (Note you’ve watched it more than a dozen times, and no you do not want to compare times-viewed with me, brother. How many times do you watch an obvious fake? My average is three: one to be sure, one to be double-sure, and three to get the laughs in.)

    Maybe it’s Canadian vocal software or something, but this guy sounds like somebody who saw something on a road and went holy !!%^%!$!$%, not like a hoaxer. I know I know, stick to what’s on the video. I’ll tell you what’s funny though: apparently he killed the audio on the original because he didn’t want his language to be broadcast to the continent at large. Hearing him, can you imagine that? :-D

    But the vocals add nothing or change nothing for me. I didn’t know what it was then, and I don’t now.

    But your word “enigmatic” captures it for me. I just keep going: what IS that?

  35. mystery_man responds:

    Whenever I watch this, I turn the vocals off or watch the version without them. If the video is genuine, I think it should stand on its own merit and we shouldn’t let any narrative sway us too much. For me, the narrative is actually distracting and has not swayed my opinion on this one in the least. I will admit on further viewing that the figure could be larger than I originally estimated.

  36. mystery_man responds:

    I actually don’t know if it is the repeated veiwings or your comments that are influencing me, but darn if I’m not starting to see that this is quite the mysterious little clip. I still think it could be something more mundane than Bigfoot, but I am not as quick to write it off as I was before.

  37. mystery_man responds:

    Hate to go on like this, but one thing I have noticed that DWA pointed out is how reasonably well this figure navigates the terrain if it is someone with his hood pulled up like that. I know that I couldn’t get around that easily with a hood pulled up around my head. Hmmm, don’t know if that is definate evidence for this not being a man, but it is interesting.

  38. DWA responds:

    Well, mystery_man, some of us get grabbed right away, some of us need more grabbing. I think it will vary not only with the person but with the video. You might see one and say compelling; I’ll see it and say naaaaahhhh…then we’ll swap opinions with the next one.

    And I’m sure the snickerers will go, sure, watch it enough times and you can convince yourself of anything. But that’s not it. You can’t engage BS-detection software adequately with only a couple of viewings – or even a dozen – of something like this. The obvious ones, sure.

    But this one – like P/G – isn’t so obvious.

  39. DWA responds:

    Oh, mystery_man.

    Don’t listen to me. TURN OFF THE SOUNDTRACK. :-D

  40. lastensugle responds:

    What, he just happened to film in that direction AND zoom in on that hilltop just before the guy in yet another foolish monkey costume appeared?!? I didn`t even watch this to the end.

  41. fuzzy responds:

    YAK YAK YAK, 140 times, on 3 threads!

    And what have we learned, boys and girls?

    Well, it’s either a REAL cryptid video, or it ain’t!

    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 chugging along, and then they run away, just in case said camcorder-wielders also wield big guns.

    It’s obviously either a guy in a parka, or a real creature, or neither.
    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’s voice is too high-pitched to be legitimate, but it could be the son, or not. Suspicious.

    And the way he reaches into the backseat and grabs the all-too-available camcorder, and then actually aims it right AT the subject, and there it is! Certainly suspect behavior, don’t you think?

    The camera loses focus at a critical point, but it might have been a bump in the road, or not. Curious.

    This 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 handy measuring device to document their size or step or stride! Unbelieveable!.

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

    Then they 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). OBVIOUS 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 commentary – can you imagine how many comments there’d be then??

  42. DWA responds:

    Actually, lastensugle, it’s obvious from your post that you don’t know any of the backstory – which is right in the audio.

    This one was explained; they saw the animal crossing the road. The son put the camera where he expected the animal to be, and was just starting to pan back to the road when he saw it.

  43. sschaper responds:

    Ever been in a moving car while trying to take a picture, especially on a gravel road? You -will- hit bumps that will do exactly that to the camera.

    If it was set to autofocus that would explain a bit, too.

    I still think it looks more like some guy in a snowmobile suit and or parka, but the narrative, apart from the goofy music, sounds believable, on the face of it.

  44. DWA responds:

    And fuzzy?

    Yer point?

    Look, the world’s obviously leaving this to us. I’ve already said what needs to be done.

    And that sound I hear is you heading for your car?

    DON’T FERGET THE MEASURING TAPE, BUDDY.

  45. arbigfoothunter responds:

    I am getting kind of tired of hearing the phrase “looks like a guy in a parka”. Why does it look like a guy in a parka to some? It doesn’t to me–if it isn’t a bigfoot, then it must be a person in a costume. But like I said a few days ago: It looks huge, the head looks crested to me, and the whole subject looks very ape-like. The arms do look rather long to me, having the swaying motion much like the Patty video. The really strange thing about the whole thing (I think) is the way most of the commentors are arguing about the age and voice of Doug. Everyone is different you know? What does your voice sound like?
    Go DWA, it’s your turn buddy.

  46. mystery_man responds:

    I say it looks like a guy in a parka because that is what it looks like to me. A guy with his hood pulled up in a winter coat which seems pretty normal to me since it is winter in the clip. At that distance with that resolution, I don’t see how people can think it doesn’t at least look reminiscent of a guy in a parka or even entertain that idea. A big hood could look like a big head and crest. Even the arms seem to be arms in a jacket to me as they appear uniform thickness all the way down, although I can’t be sure. This is all my opinion of course, and I can kind of see what some are saying about the movements of the creature and its size. That is why I have softened my stance on this one a bit. But to me, it absolutely looks like it could possibly be a man in a parka I won’t discount that just yet. I don’t think that is a wholly unreasonable theory based on its appearance.

  47. fuzzy responds:

    My point? MY POINT???

    Great Scott! Okay, I’ll spell it out. Much ado about nothing! Tempest in a teapot! Yadda Yadda Yadda!

    Scientifically speaking, there’s precious little to be deduced from this video – since the photographers didn’t follow up with any alternate viewpoints, photographs, track, flora or snow measurements, reshoots with a person of known size, tracking (in either direction), terrain or meteorological data or additional commentary, we are left with an anecdotal blurvid.

    But so what – we can still generate hundreds of comments about it, mostly personal “gut” feelings and knee-jerk or reactionary opinions – but I guess, in lieu of better imaging or documentation, we should be thankful for THAT!

    But what have we learned?

  48. john5 responds:

    One thing to keep in mind is that this video was taken from quite a distance away and detail is obviously blurred and distorted at times. However there are also some instances where there is significant detail that has inspired me to think that not only is this a ‘hairy hominid’ but not a human hominid in costume.

    Here are a few times on the clip to check out for yourselves. To see examples of the conical skull cap check the footage around the 28, 40 and 48 second marks. To view what I have referred to as relaxed, extended fingers view around the 48, 51 and 53 second times.

    It appears that the terrain the hominid is walking through contains uneven ground covered with groups of weeds, thickets of small shrubs and many small saplings before giving way to larger trees well off the beaten track. The hominid does have a nonchalant gait (imho) as it ambles along towards the denser woods pausing to look up into the trees at one point.

    Again if this is a hoax ‘hats off’ to the hoaxers for accounting for many little details. Personally I think this is footage of an unknown Hairy Hominid!

    Peace

    P.S. My background is in zoology and I do not take hoaxes lightly and hold them in high disdain!

  49. DWA responds:

    fuzzy: what have we learned? God has appointed us specially to dice this thing to hell and gone, is what we have learned. As you say, we should enjoy. (So should God. She should be wetting her pants watching us. She’s thinking: I made this. Sheesh.)

    arbigfoothunter: tag team! I love tag team.

    I still can’t get over how this guy insists on giving us a virtual frame by frame to shoot this thing up. Whatever it adds, or doesn’t, to this video, I’m more and more convinced he doesn’t know what this is. I’m thinking a human announces himself by his gait crossing that road. But apparently not.

    And there is a familiarity I feel every time I see a human walking. I don’t feel that with this one.

  50. enjoyment responds:

    In all honesty i can’t really make out anything. Part of it just screamed parka, but others I’m not too sure about the parka or hoodie. There seems to me in certain frames (28; in particular) a sorta bulge or not coming out from what would be the opening in the hoodie.

    As for the proportions on it, hmmmm, that is what’s making me lean towards human, its arms don’t seem to be big. I’ll however agree that without reference to the legs they could appear small.

    Though I guess in the end it doesn’t really matter. If it a Sasquatch then there’s not enough of detail or footage in this film for the scientific community to call it evidence.

  51. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Ok, I’m kind of with fuzzy here- where does this get us?

    To some of us it looks like a guy in a hood, to some it looks like a great big hairy apeman. Most of us are wavering between the two. The fact is, whatever we think about this video it just isn’t good enough to prove anything.

    To me it is not an obvious hoax or case of mistaken identity, but even if it is a real BF it is of no use, because its too indistinct (sagital crest, relaxed fingers..!? Wow, I seriously need to go see my optician) to allow us to confidently identify it (one way or the other).

    Decent video evidence will be of the kind where we all go ‘wow- yes’. Not where we are arguing about a small black blob. If its good video evidence there won’t be this kind of debate.

  52. DWA responds:

    enjoyment: you’re right. If I’m a scientist not already seriously involved in looking for the sasquatch, this doesn’t get a second look. Or maybe it gets 500. But I’m not quittin’ the day job to follow it up.

    But I think it’s worth at least a site examination for somebody doing serious research.

    Of course the history of sightings in the area has to be taken into account too. If there isn’t one, there may not be an animal to look for by now, even if that was a real one.

  53. squatchwatcher responds:

    I agree that having someone go to the site and film a comparison video of a tall human walking that same route might be the only way to really start to understand what it is that we’re dealing with in the video. Than again it might just raise even more questions. By the way, what does the sound of the guys voice have to do with anything?

  54. mystery_man responds:

    John5- My background is in zoology too. And I still do not see anything that leads me to completely discount other more mundane theories in favor of the one that this is a “hairy homonid”. I think very few zoologists, at least ones I have known, looking at this would think along those lines from seeing this particular clip. There is nothing to make me disregard the resemblance to a man in a suit and embrace this as as a Bigfoot, yet it is compelling enough to keep my mind open. Nothing I say is going to change anyone’s mind on this one, it seems, but I just feel that considering the quality of video we are dealing with and the resolution here, we should not close our minds to explanations beyond this being a hairy homonid. In my opinion, with the background I have (for what that is worth in this instance), I see nothing to lead to any concrete conclusions. I certainly do not think it warrants being fully embraced as a genuine clip of a sasquatch at this point.

    As for the point of all these comments, I think these discussions are good whether they end in hard evidence or not. Getting our ideas and opinions out there, examining clips like this from different angles, is important and far from pointless. I feel a lot is learned from these discussions or debates on how to evaluate these videos and other spin off topics such as animal movement and size estimation as well as ideas on what makes a credible witness or videographer. Whether we have gotten to the bottom of this clip or not, I appreciate all of the ideas and opinions that have been presented by everyone regardless of whether I agree or not. This is most definitely a worthwhile discussion in my opinion.

  55. magicman responds:

    What the heck, with everyone’s video on the net , why doesn’t anyone hunt this creature down, i know i would . Wouldn’t u wanna find out the truth.



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.