Latest Update: Camper Films Sasquatch with iPhone
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 5th, 2012
Filmed in an unknown location on Sept. 6th 2012. FBFB obtained the original files of the videos shot by the camper in 720p. With the addition an additional clip that shows a Sasquatch treepeeking. Clip number two looks to have been just a picture that turned into a movie. The higher resolution clips show the tendons and muscles moving under the Auburn hair. We have waited a very long time for a clear picture of a Sasquatch face. Fantastic! This replaces the woodpile thermal as the #2 video of all time behind the 1967 patterson gimlin film which shows a female Sasquatch with year round pendulous breasts. We have waited a long time for a video that is close enough and clear enough to show that Sasquatch have a hooded nose with downward facing nostrils, just like all modern humans.
FBFB has no connection with the making of this video.Jack Barnes Jeff Andersen
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.
this is just goofy. IF IT’S REAL, why send incremental releases of the video to a FBFB, who seem to see ol’ squatchy in every tree branch, stump, pile of leaves, and human with a hoodie?
if i filmed the big guy, i’s send the full-res video to every single news organization, academic institution, and self-proclaimed bigfoot hunter in the universe. i’d want a flood of people descending on the area where it was filmed to flush him out.
if you have it and you think it is real, let’s end this now and turn the world loose on finding the big guy.
as for this thing the trickle of information and “unknown location” is just idiotic. there’s nothing real about this.
FAKE!!! Way too much forehead. The subject of the P/G film clearly has a gorilla-like head, sloping back sharply right above the brow ridge to the sagital crest
Seems it’s strange that the minute the Bigfoot looks at the camera. The filmer ducks. Yes ok he could be scared, but he also could have not wanted to much filming of the “Bigfoot” too. It just seems that if I were in his situation I would do something stupid and step out of the tent. In all the sightings you don’t hear much of a Bigfoot attacking anyone.
My Guess,
This is something from the film “Exists”. Anyone know if they are filming that yet?
This is exactly what they did to promote The Blair Witch Project, Same Director.
I just had to address the elephant in the room. This guy thinks everything is a Sasquatch. Thus, he compares this unknown footage to other unknown footage and probable fakes, as the real thing. He assumes all these other videos are of real Bigfoots. Pssst, you can’t do that! Well, he can and does. He always does this. I guess since he declares every video as a real Bigfoot, that is the basis for his argument that all other videos are real too.
First of all, closer and higher resolution does not always make better evidence. Declaring it does is just foolish. It is closer, yet shot through tent screening which diminishes the resolution to a lower grade than some older videos. Try using a star filter on a standard digital camera and take a photo. Remove the star filter and take a second photo. I guarantee you, the star filter degrades the first photo, almost mimicking a soft lens. In fact, star filters and soft lenses are sometimes manufactured screen filters. This narrator declares it is the closest and highest dpi footage of a Bigfoot ever taken. Maybe that’s true but it does make it better footage or even the best footage ever taken of a supposed Bigfoot. This narrator declares this as if it is fact.
Enough of that already. The other thing we notice, is that in this video, the supposed Bigfoot, turns his head. We learned from the PG footage that when a supposed Bigfoot turns its head, its shoulder and body turn with the head, simultaneously. We see that in the PG footage and was explained by primatoloigists that great apes do this. Well, in this video, just the head turns. There is no accompanying shoulder or body turn as in the PG footage.
Also, this guy does not know much about video manipulation or CG. Just because it is shot through the screening on the tent, does not rule out CG or other forms of video manipulation. Skilled amatures and professionals could pull this off with just a little effort. There are ways to do this. Some ways require certain software and other ways just involve a bit of ingenuity. I don’t want to give out to many secrets here. I would rather discourage hoaxers from producing videos. Telling them how to do it here, is not what I think is good for the Bigfoot community. Just because this narrator lacks the knowledge or skill of how this could be done, does not make this video of a real Bigfoot.
Plus, taking into account all the other red flags, I do not see how anyone, except for this narrator, can declare this to be footage of an actual Bigfoot. It boggles the mind.
I love watching videos like this and enjoyed this one. However, the narrator’s commentary drives me crazy! It is so unscientific and illogical, yet he tries to make it sound scientifically sound. A big fail for me!
Add my posting here to the astute observations of the previous poster, “slappy”, and you can see where this video stands with me.
Intriguing, but one part of the analysis is missing….why so short? This animal is seldom described as being under 7′ tall. Here it is apparently at eye level with what might be a packpacker tent (probably at about 5′ max). Even if it is a stand-up-inside room tent, it would be maybe 6′ high. Of course, it could be squatting or kneeling, but why is that point not discussed? As well, the overall mass of the head and shoulders seems more human proportioned than what I would expect. Yeah, I know FB didn’t film this (or at least they claim they didn’t), but they seem to have cut right to the conclusion without discussing the obvious reasons why it might not be authentic.
Also, did anyone else catch the quick glimpse of the stock of a rifle laying on the floor of the tent? Now, how likely is it that someone confronted with that situation would reach for a cell phone instead of that gun? Even a .22 would feel pretty darn comorting, I’m guessing. You’ve got icewater for blood if you could resist.
Apparently too, Squatches have male pattern baldness issues. Who knew?
This doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.
It looks like a man with a mask or a facepainting. Plus, the behavior isn’t sasquatch-like.
This/these FBFB chaps have got something up their sleeve, I smell a rat and about a hundred more folk sayings for spoofsters. I AM grateful to them for finally erasing all doubt. I’m moving on; feel free to linger.
Given that DWA is away having much more fun than us, in the red rock desert of the American SW, and seeing as I often play him on the internet (although I lack his flare for sentence fragments), I thought I would weigh in again….
Provenance:The #1 crippler of young adults. Bring it, or be gone.
@ PhotoExpert,
I have seen videos of FBFB exposing Hoaxes. I am not going to say the Video is real or not. I can just say its really cool. But lets not say that FBFB says every video is a real Sass. that my friend is not cool. It sounds like a hateR move. Most of the time I look at it as just entertainment. As far as proving the existence of these Napes. We are a lot closer then we have ever been.
People elsewhere have pointed out that not only is the tent a match for one in noted hoaxer Rick Dyer’s videos from a couple years back, but the gun in this video is the same one as in those videos!
Sure, it looks pretty good, but not good enough to rule out a hoax. What is very suspicious is that you don’t see anything but the head, which could be part of a costume or even an elaborate puppet.
What is interesting is that the face is a dead-on match for the “white bigfoot” video – so either the same creature, or the same suit.
And the whole Bigfoot=Home erectus thing is pretty much ridiculous. If we accept Patty as the definitive video evidence, then it can’t be H. erectus, which had essentially the same body form as modern humans from the neck down.
It would be nice if the null hypothesis was ever considered by this guy.
I thought this video was already proven to be a fake. It was posted on a Youtube account owned by Rick Dyer one of the Georgia Bigfoot Hoaxers.
And anyone who compares this to the Patterson film to verify that this video is real is using flawed science as the Patterson Film has never been proven to be “real”. Anyway this video can easily be faked. I say it is CGI if I were to bet money. An HD screen/monitor/TV could be setup behind the tree that is how the depth is faked. The HD clarity is obscured by both the cellphone quality and the mesh on the tent.
If I was had enough nerve to film the creature with my cellphone, I would make damn sure I got the whole damn thing and going right up to the “window” of the tent.
This is a hoax all the way!
head looks like costumes you can get…the “pattern baldness in some of the models available nowadays seem to have this feature;
There’s a couple that have the same facial structure, a bald forehead AND “auburn” hair. Just Google Bigfoot masks and you’ll see what I did.
This looks like a slowed-down clip from the 1955 Toho fantasy film “Jujin Yuki Otoko” or “Half Human” in the US release and digitally inserted into the tent window.
Google “Half Human” and take a look at the monster’s head. He is also balding.
The narration on this tent video is ludicrous…injecting many aspects and conclusions that aren’t apparent in the clip. I don’t really see any muscular movement. Who has upward facing nostrils anyway? As for a scientfic name, I suggest…Homotoho iocus…
Oh, and the forehead appears to go straight up (like a person in a mask looks) instead of angling back sharply as seen in the PG film, AND even in some of the other films this guy sites to verify other aspects. I’m feeling very negative about this.
The most likely theory that people have proposed is that this is the work of Rick Dyer, as his tent apparently matches the lining of the inside of the tent in the video.
I still stand by this being a hoax.
The trickled out release of information and newer higher quality videos, none of that adds up to an authentic find.
The FBFB guys, have videos of trees and shrubs with no movement going on at all and they pause it and say “SEE, THERE’S THE SASQUATCH FACE!!11” But there’s nothing there. Its like looking at clouds for them, if you try to see something, you will. So they are no where near what I would consider a good source to do a video breakdown like this.
The bigfoots face seems framed by that flap a little deliberately too.
On top of the suspicious slow reveal of information, I would like to bring up other points that have been brought up since the beginning. Why is the camera guy in the tent during the day? Why does the bigfoot seem so short? Why does he not go for the rifle? Where is ANY story to set up the scene here? Who filmed it?
The release of information and lack of information are this stories biggest weaknesses. The loops of the video can seem convincing to me, but at the same time, I’ve seen special effect student make up work before. And nothing about that head, neck and shoulder, couldn’t have have been faked. It could very easily be fake. FBFB saying 2 minutes into their video “There you go a real breathing bigfoot, 100% proof” in their poorly narrated barely interest voice, doesn’t help.
Embellishment upon embellishment on top of other embellishments. Clearly, the author does not want us to arrive at our own conclusions. This just gets more absurd every day. Can someone tell me what “nocturnal eyes” and “spinous processes” are?
Loren, isn’t it time to pull the plug on this claptrap?
Oh yeah, the rifle! Glad somebody else caught that! “Hey Buzz, make sure they see a shot of the bolt-action rifle! That always gets ’em!”
@ shownuff
Sorry friend, I did not mean to get your panties in a bunch by my commentary here. So let me rephrase a few things, just for you.
First of all, I am not a “hateR”, as you put it. I am a realist. The reality is, almost every video that I have watched, in which this narrator is present, declares the subject to be a BF. I have not seen one here in which the narrator calls out the subject to be a hoax. Maybe I should have stated:… ALMOST every video…
I do not go to the FBFB site and watch every one of their videos there. Maybe you do, but I do not. That site is not scientific enough for me and from the videos of obvious hoaxes, that they declare as authentic, I think they are extremely biased in their analysis. My nature is to be objective and not a “believer”. The amature nature of just one of the videos I watched here was enough to turn me off from every wanting to visit that site and get more commentary from the unscientific narrator.
However, as a member of Cryptomundo, I do watch every FBFB video that they post here at this site. Now for the rephrase, every FBFB video I have seen here, the narrator declares that the subject in question is a BF. Some of the videos this narrator has commented upon are known or proven hoaxes, although he declares them to be genuine footage of a real BF. If that makes me a hateR in your eyes, so be it. I am cool with my objectivity, unbiased and scientific approach. I just can not believe in some faked footage because I want to believe BF to be true. I have to rely upon the evidence or lack thereof. But if you want to be a “believer” and defend the incorrect, unscientific nature of this narrator, by all means do so. You are still cool with me. And I will not call you a hateR, just because you do not agree with objectivity. I am nice like that!
Are we cool now?
“Authentication”. Well, guess we can scratch THAT word off our list once and for all. Because it obviously doesn’t mean what it used to.