Sasquatch Filmed in IMAX?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 9th, 2010
This Great North video was filmed over nine years ago and just recently, an individual said that what could be a Sasquatch is visible at the 9 minute 20 second mark. Do you see it?
(Unfortunately, I now understand that this message is seen by some: “We’re sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States.” Therefore, look below to an enhancement via YouTube that has been created with Cryptomundians in mind.)
The “creature” appears in the film at the “9:20” mark into the footage.
Do you see it?
Is it the back of another caribou?
A rock?
A Sasquatch running along with the herd?
Any screen captures available to highlight this form?
What do you think?
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Given that its IMAX and given that they use multiple cameras to get shots from multiple angles, I think its likely one of the camera people that got caught. Kinda like when you watch TV and see the boom mike in the frame for a second or two.
Given that its IMAX and given that they use multiple cameras to get shots, its likely one of the camera crew. Kinda like when you watch Letterman and catch the boom mike in frame for a second or two,
Honestly, I looked, and I can’t tell with any certainty, except to say that it looks like some kind of human figure pops up and we can see what looks like a their head, shoulders, trunk and maybe their upper legs, but then I’m using a computer screen shot of a captured image from Hulu…so I don’t think I’d be able to say with much certainty that it’s not a cameraman or some other production person who was over there to take additional shots or to fullfill some other function of the producton, which looks very very nice.
According to BFRO the IMAX film is being stored in Japan. I volunteer Mystery Man to use his connections with the Japanese cryptological interests there to see if there’s something worth pursuing.
I do find the idea of BF hunting on open steppe to be an alluring one since it seems to me that BF and any number of other relic humans might that had adapted over the last couple of million years would have faced the fact that steppe was the predominant ecosystem from Eurasia to North America up until the Holocene. The persistent idea of the BF being a forest creature has much more to do with the fact that we humans are more likely to be hiking and camping in forests, and forests prevent BF from being as normally aware of their surroundings as they might be in a more open landscape.
I agree with the others: almost certainly a cameraman. I wouldn’t want his job, though; getting that close to a herd of large, wild animals is dangerous, especially when you’re trying to make sure they don’t see you.
Just because there is an unidentified human-shaped blob on a film doesn’t mean it’s Bigfoot, any more than it means that when Dick Cheney went to “an undisclosed location” he was really running with the caribou in Canada. It is true, though, that this is about the last place al Qaeda would expect him to be.
The fact that the secondary herd is running away from the primary herd indicates that they are, indeed, being persued by ‘something’. Judging from the size, coloration and movement, my guess is that the ‘something’ is either a bear or Dick Cheney on a very misguided quail hunting trip.
Pretty interesting video shot. I did notice on 9:09 the angle being shot of the herd appears to be the other side of the hill of the alleged ‘Sasquatch’ on the 9:20 mark. As stated Ragnar, this segment appears to be shot in multiple angles.
This is only my thought after reviewing the video 😉 I’ve always hoped this is one way the Biggie would be captured on film. We shall see…..or not 😉
~If you look for logic first, you won’t look like an idiot later~
It looks like a bear running to me, on the youtube version when it zooms in the pixels that make up the object get longer and shorter a few times just like an animal running. Bear IMO.
Why the phenomenal leap of logic that the distant blurry black moving object is an imaginary creature? Why not speculate from real creatures such as a bear for example?
It looks like the butt end of a caribou, caught at an odd angle to me. I’d like to think it’s a Sasquatch hunting along the steppes, but I don’t. As far away and blurred as the object is, it could be most anything but it most resembles the back and back legs of a caribou, somewhat obscured by the hills. Not at all convincing. If the blurred object is obviously a Sasquatch, as some will claim, then why did it take nine years for someone to notice it?
Hmmm, very interesting footage. It is difficult to ascertain, what the subject is or is not, from this footage.
This is the type of film footage that will bring about discussion between two camps–the BF Camp and the Skeptic Camp.
If you are in the Skeptic Camp, one would argue it is simply a camera man or bear. If you are in the BF camp, you would argue that the humanoid figure that we see is indeed a BF. So what evidence does each camp hold?
Skeptics would argue, that since this is an IMAX Film and multiple cameras were in place, it is probably part of the crew that got caught on film.
BF believers would agree that multiple crew members were probably on location. However, they would also have a legitimate argument that a probable camera man or audio man, as a professional, would have probably been in camo gear. And they would have a valid point. One would not want to spook the caribou. So why then would we see a dark brown humanoid figure moving about? Good point! A true professional is such a situation would have on camo gear of some kind. Also, they would have their vantage point already set up and they would not be moving about, in an attempt to not spook the moving caribou. They also would not be moving that fast and the camera man would also have the camera mounted on a tripod for stability.
The Skeptic Camp would then argue that it was an audio man or other crew member. BF believers would rebut, any professional crew member would have still been in camo gear.
BF believers would also argue that there have been reported sightings of BF hunting deer in such a manner. Skeptics would rebut that bears, at a distance, standing on two legs and moving, resemble humanoid figures. This point would also be valid.
So what have we learned from this footage or about this footage? That there are two camps, both with valid arguments, that can neither be proven or disproven from this particular footage.
The debate continues…
With this resolution, one can only conclude it is an ‘animate object’, and that’s about it :-/
But we can also conclude that the secondary smaller caribou heard is definitely reacting to its presence.
Really, there’s no reason to make viewing the footage all that hard. It’s not the government. When they put this stuff in storage it’s not like they place it next to the holy grail in a vast warehouse known but to a few. It will be there and available so that the owner can make money with it maybe it will lead to some business where this bit of film gets broadcast or included in some other production with royalties or fees attached…give MysteryMan a jingle and see if he can’t ask politely to have one of the owners’ archivist at least take a look. It’s not that hard. I would bet that the edited master dubs are at least accessible to view in the immediate sense, and the source footage is probably a bit harder to run down and set-up for viewing, but if I were involved with storage and management of this stuff, I’d look forward to doing it, if the people who asked were nice. Until then, it’s pure speculation, and even after that, should it prove to look like a BF, we can speculate on its ramifications and how to take the next step towards intentional documentation, which should be goal, one might think, at any rate.
PhotoExpert: I’m afraid I disagree. Belief in Bigfoot != belief that (this or any other given piece of evidence == Bigfoot). Plenty of people could believe in native North American apes without thinking this is one of ’em.
Another giant leap in logic to say that the blurry blob-like image was standing/running on two feet and even remotely resembles a humanoid-like figure.
I would much rather believe that the figure was the ghost of Nanook, still hunting the caribou.
Oh no!!
A Diurnal Caribou-Hunting Ninja Sasquatch for sure.
A detailed photo analysis by MKD is definitely needed here.
This could get bloody…
I can only see the youtube version and all I can say is the movment reminds me of a gorilla, especially in the close up which appears to show arms still moving as it moves to the left. Not saying it’s Bigfoot, just saying what it reminds me of.
I’ve watched this and think it might be a black bear.
But I haven’t seen it anywhere near what appears maximum possible resolution. And the biggest I’ve seen it, it looks, well, unusual for a bear. But pixels do funny things; and as I said, that wasn’t hi-res.
I don’t think it’s a human. It’s just too unlikely given all the circumstances. It is, with virtual certainty, NOT a cameraman – or any human other than a native, who would simply not be dressed that way. What’s being done there is not only ridiculously dangerous – and there isn’t a shot on the program that gives the slightest indication that any such activity took place at any point and yes I’ve seen it – but nothing in the shot indicates the behavior of a cameraperson (particularly one manning one of the world’s heaviest cameras). It is NOT a cameraperson, of any kind. One simply would not be there. There isn’t a facet of wildlife filming ethics that that doesn’t violate. Regardless, you’d have the shots if one was there; and you don’t. To boot, no one can seriously entertain a notion that a wildlife filming crew would let a goof like that show up in the final. They have more than enough footage. That’s worse than dropping a boom mike into the frame!
And it’s not a caribou. How do I know? Um, look at all the other caribou. That’s not one. When it looks like a duck, quacks etc.
It is, however, behaving EXACTLY as one might expect an ambush predator to behave. I’d expect a bear – black bears prey on caribou in this part of the world – to behave that way. And sasquatch have been anecdotally reported hunting in similar fashion.
This is interesting enough to find the original film and scan it, wherever it is.
Paul78: I’d have to echo your post, on each version I’ve seen.
As I said: that looks unusual for a bear, particularly close up. But it does look the way a gorilla looks making a similar movement. Again, as you note, it’s just an impression. But even though it could be a bear, it doesn’t look the way I’d expect a bear making that movement to look.
I’m just filing this under it-would-be-worth-checking-into. That a nation of viewers missed it is virtually impossible. But how many would notify the network? Almost none, if any, I’d think. Given most people’s naivete about the outdoors, and about wildlife filming, almost no viewer would think the appearance of that figure in the film unusual at all – no matter what they thought it was.
It’s the professionals missing it that astonishes me – and makes me wonder whether they DID miss it. Great North was funded by a Canadian-government-owned public utility, Hydro-Quebec, with big interests in the vast unpeopled lands of the Canadian North and their resource potential. Their reaction to any assertion that a very unusual animal – possibly requiring protection – is in this film wouldn’t be hard for anyone familiar with their activities to imagine.
“That a nation of viewers missed it is virtually impossible. But how many would notify the network? Almost none, if any, I’d think.”
Typically perceptive comment there by me. (Thank you.) I still think I’m right. Let me add to it that the very vast majority of a nation of viewers almost certainly DID miss it.
In more than one subsequent viewing, *I* missed it. Now, knowing where to look, I shouldn’t. But I got distracted – something that happens – for just an instant, more than once, and did miss it. But in analyzing that failing, which probably happened only a few million times during IMAX screenings, I noted something else. The predominant flow of the action – the river of animals in the foreground – automatically draws the eye from the relatively tiny flicker of movement at the top of the screen. It will be a rare viewer indeed that even notices that movement; 999,999 out of a million of them will say, or rather their brains will without consulting them: another caribou. In other words, they won’t really notice it, it will flicker over the retina and be gone.
BFRO has a pretty good page on this at their website. Suffice it to say: this would never have been noticed, much less commented on, in theaters; and were it not for the capability to re-watch it, to confirm what you thought you might have guessed you thought you intuited you saw, we’d never have known about it. That’s why it took so long to come to light, common sense says.
That’s us laypeople I’m talking about. I’m still mystified how the entire IMAX crew missed it (they DID get to review it, over and over and over and over), and can’t help wondering whether maybe they didn’t miss it. I will say this, though: that is tantamount to proof that there was no person there that the IMAX crew knew about, i.e., no cameraman or anyone else associated with the shoot. Because that, quite simply, would not have been in the final. Knowing to look for it, they would have edited it out, period.
My initial thought was that it was a camera man who realizes that he was in the shot and ducked down to get out of the way. The more I watched it though I realized that the “blobsquatch” seems really big to me. I know caribou aren’t especially large animals, but the thing in the background looks huge to me, compared to the reindeer in the foreground. Too big to be a cameraman though? Not sure.
And because I’ve gotten really used to the “true believer” posts from people who don’t read, don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, and wouldn’t know a skeptic if they tripped over one (I am, by my read, one of the most skeptical people on this site), my reservations.
1. What happened after this? If that’s a predator – and it’s not a human, and not a caribou, and the only other known option that big in this area is the black bear, a caribou predator – why didn’t anything else show up? It’s possible, but hard to credit, that this animal didn’t have a go at what it had obviously come to check out. An opportunity might not present itself; but a migrating caribou herd is opportunity on the hoof. If an attack followed this sequence – which if that is a bear I would expect – I would have a hard time believing they didn’t see it, or film it.
2. Nobody involved in the filming saw this, or wondered about it….and if, as I can’t help but betting on, that animal was noticed during film editing, if not on the site, nothing about it saw the light of day, by any means, until now, nine years later?
If I kept thinking, I might come up with a few more. Those aren’t significant enough – nor would any others be, I suspect – to keep me from advocating, at the very least, a thorough effort to review that film. (Which BFRO is attempting.) It being IMAX – which is much more susceptible to enlargement than other formats – there is an excellent chance that we’ll know what that is if the original can be reviewed. Not knowing the status of the other possible caribou predators in that area, this might be a significant piece of footage whatever that is.
I agree with the cameraman theory. It looks like somebody popping into view and, then, likely realizing they could be in the line of camera sight and dropping back down again, or just moving naturally and getting caught on film, not thinking about it.
DWA:
If that is a Bear, that is a MOST unsual Bear, like you said. Agree with you.
I’m sorry, whatever-that-is does not move like any Bear I’ve seen. Same for a Deer.
Could be wrong, of course.
All in all, definitely studying more closely.
Fhqwhgads–You disagree with what?
The title of this post is “Sasquatch filmed in IMAX? Loren posed the title as a question. We could rephrase that question as, “Is this a Sasquatch caught on film in this IMAX video?”
I posted two opposing points of view. So, what are you disagreeing with. I took no stance to disagree with. Just curious.
The smaller less pixelated (original) looks like something with shoulders and a head. The closer and more pixelated versions seem more bear like to me.
I did a bit of research on the net to see if Black Bear prey on caribou in the Labrador area and apparently they do. So therefore, I think it’s a better explanation.
Bears sometimes lift their heads up high when trying to see or smell something…so I think that is what could be going on at the beggining where it looks like shoulders and a head. -It could be a bear sniffing the air while it watches the first caribou group run up the hill, the camera angle and the direction the animal is going could make it look like shoulders when it could just be it’s rump/back…afterall all we see is basically a silhouette…ever play shadow puppets? ” It looks just like an elephant with a trunk” -nope just hands.
new update its not a sasquatch.
Either a cameraman or a bear.
An update on the BFRO site says that the film company thinks it was a crew member. Just off the top of their heads.
How’s that for a yellow flag? Sounds like Franglais for “you’re going to go away now, right?”
I don’t think that the behavior the company says the crew member was engaged in is supported by what’s on the video. That figure is
(1) trying to be inconspicuous; and
(2) trying to get closer to the herd – both behaviors frowned upon, very clearly, by the crew according to the behind-scenes narrative on the DVD.
Rapid movements in proximity to the animals are expressly discouraged for crew members, and that figure made a very rapid – too fast for a human, if you ask me – movement. (Particularly as it seems to me that the figure is on all fours.) And the herd does not even seem to notice the figure; many of the animals move toward it. Keep in mind that the camera perspective on the figure is much better than that of the animals in the river and coming up the bank. Note also the considerable number of animals still in the river past the exit point – who may indeed have seen the figure on their way down the opposite bank, and that’s why they’re not getting out of the water there. That’s a lot of pairs of eyes a predator will have to fool, and very low odds it will evade all of them.
I get the funny feeling that – if that frame sequence gets scanned at all – somebody is going to pay a lot of money for it. That’s business in action; and they use the $ame $ymbol for it in Canada that they do in the U$.