1962 Colorado Mystery Film Footage
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 8th, 2013
Finding Bigfoot: “Bigfoot Merit Badge” Videos
Investigating the 1962 Colorado Mystery Footage
The team ventures to Colorado to observe potential evidence of a Bigfoot caught on 8mm footage in 1962, pre-dating the famous Patterson-Gimlin footage.
Colorado Bigfoot Witness
The team meets with a witness who claims to have seen a Bigfoot jogging down the side of a hill in Colorado, and Bobo tries to see if a human could also pull it off in this location.
On the Hunt for Hopping Bigfoot
After reviewing footage of a potential Bigfoot hopping on rocks in Colorado, Bobo comes up with the idea of using Girl Scouts as bait to lure in Bigfoot. So the team brings a troop along on one of their night investigations.
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.
saw the 8mm film. Sorry… how the hell on earth can someone with a straight face say that is a bigfoot?
I mean really?
I WANT to believe, but man… in my opinion, the level of proof thats acceptable is comical.
As somebody who sniggered first time he saw P/G – after decades of looking at stills of it and going, what IS that? – I am going to reserve judgment on that very-human-looking skip the ‘animal’ does to get on that rock.
And there, most ‘bigfoot skeptics’ – very non-skeptical – are done.
But the guy who filmed it (who keep in mind saw it better than his film captured it) said “animal.” Why would he say that about something bipedal, when so far as most knew then and still do now, humans are IT on the mammal front? The ‘suit hoax’ discussion started with P/G; there weren’t any before then.
So…well, I have my reservations but keep an open mind.
The fact that the camera pans left after this guy in winter clothes jumps on some rocks leads me to believe it’s no Bigfoot. If that was Bigfoot, wouldn’t the cameraman keep it in frame? It suggests to me he was filming a fellow camper and quickly lost interest on the subject. Also, the “Bigfoot” doesn’t seem confident when hopping rocks (not very agile). Furthermore, why would he hop rocks rather than just plow through the snow? He eventually has to walk in the snow anyway. Lastly, it’d be interesting to see the full video. We are only seeing a select piece of it. What’s filmed before and after the edited clip?
And then I remember–it’s “Finding Bigfoot” where everyone sees a squatch and “is in the club.”
The lower half of the “subject” is far too large in proportion to the upper half. Making it look like a squatch wearing cowboy chaps. This is, at best, just another blobsquatch. At worst, it’s a dude in winter clothes.
In other words…. yawn.
if it is real no one will believe it because FBF are involved! the show is a joke and entertainment only!
Your intrepid Squatchers go to a remote location to get the down low on a video shot SIXTY YEARS AGO, by being there and talking to an old man. Vibe-ing done here.
Oh my God. It just doesn’t GET any stupider than that. Yet. But give them more time, time in which for more commercials to run. They’ll track that truth down any minute.
I’m agree with DWA on this. The filmer had a better view than what shows on the film-dubbed-to-video. His son says it was a “wilderness survival camp” which would seem to be an area not frequented by many campers (and the area in the film looked pretty rough). Then there was the reaction of the adults. I would like to know how Finding Bigfoot learned of the film.
I don’t know what it really is, but to me it is difficult to toss it out as just another blobsquatch.
EastTexan: It LITERALLY IS a blobsquatch, regardless of whatever it really was. You know that, right?
Blobsquatch–yes. The hop looks human in its movement. At the range, a human could have been mistaken for something else.
However–the guy shooting the film thought it was something more or he wouldn’t have kept it for as long as he did. And yes, he did say “animal.” That means that whatever he filmed also made him think animal not human. That’s odd all by itself.
Yep, we’ll never know for sure. Ever. And there’s enough human characteristics about its movements that it could indeed be human.
However–there’s also enough reasonable doubt because of the other details that it could also be something besides human.
I won’t pull a Finding Bigfoot and say it is Bigfoot, because there’s not enough definitive evidence, but the door is open and I’ll leave it open.
I saw the episode, and from what I saw of the video its just too far away to make a judgement either way. Reminded me of the Memorial Day Bigfoot video from back in 1996.
The son said creature…but the dad said animal–just watched the footage again because it intrigued me.
What also struck me was that the adults were concerned enough that they didn’t want the kids off by themselves. Now if it had just been a person they’d seen, I would guess the adults would have told the kids to stay in groups because of strangers in the area (yep supposition on my part), not told the kids to stay near camp and not to wander off alone.
It did look like a human movement jumping to the rock, but it’s the details of the sighting that leave me wondering.
Goodfoot: Yes it is a blobsquatch, but my statement was “just another blobsquatch” as in “ho-hum, blobsquatch, toss it out” without looking at the whole story. Please re-read DWA’s and springheeledjack’s comments.
And because someone is in their early 60s you are inferring their story isn’t valid? Careful, now. Do you think that about Bob Gimlin, who is well past 60, (but doesn’t look it)? Or that John Green’s experience and knowledge is suspect due to his age? Is age now a qualifier for a sighting? When we start adding qualifiers such as that we reduce our objectivity and being truly open to examining the subject at hand.
If you are younger than 60, and I believe you to be, then don’t forget – we “old guys” were your age once – and you will eventually have the privilege of becoming ours.
Goodfoot: The last line was written with a big grin on my face. Please take it that way.
I don’t know what all this angst is about. No one is claiming it to be incontrovertible evidence. It is just very, very interesting footage. All things considered I would give it a high probability of being a squatch, but I would never claim it to b hard proof. Why are people jumping up and down and tearing their hair out about this? You should be grateful that we have yet another piece of compelling footage.
Not a “blobsquatch.”
Clarifying terms: a blobsquatch is a blob. It could be rock, log, shadow, branches, combination of all the above. This isn’t. It is a bipedal hominoid, the only question being whether the suit is its birthday suit.
Comments and setting make the immediate toss a naive option to anyone familiar with …well, with hiking off trail in the mountains in an ape suit. You do that a lot? How ’bout your friends? How ’bout their friends? Didn’t think so.
Yet, it has, strictly to me now, what I normally consider an immediate-toss feature: human-like proportions and movements.
I wouldn’t say compelling. I honestly don’t know what to think of it. One of the adults, putting one over on the group? Maybe. But none of the kids ever found that out? Sounds fishy to me. “Sure, let’s let this haunt them the rest of their lives.” Yep, typical caring-adult behavior.
Sometimes all one can do is: Who knows?
LOL… there is absolutely NOTHING in that video that says bigfoot. I challenge anyone to prove so.
What’s to prove? 1962? Over and done.
thanks 🙂
EastTexan: Big grin with that, too: I’ll be 65 in a couple weeks (GOD! Where did the TIME go?), and it’s not anyone’s age, of course, but a comment on FBF’s scattershot approach to everything. That old blobsquatch footage can never prove or disprove anything, and, personally, I think it’s fake IN EQUAL MEASURE of my judgement that P/G is 100% authentic.