Mississippi Skunk Ape Video Stabilized

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 30th, 2013

Below is the video from yesterday that has now been stabilized.

What do the Cryptomundians think after seeing this?

I think it looks pretty darn good…

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.

36 Responses to “Mississippi Skunk Ape Video Stabilized”

  1. DWA responds:

    As with everything, I will reserve judgment; yeah OK call off Biscardi; and …well, is anybody going to see if there’s more evidence where this came from? Because if that doesn’t happen it’s just another video.

  2. Hapa responds:

    It is a more interesting video now that it is cleared: to me, it looks like the guy has stumbled upon a Out of Place animal, a Gorilla. It is believed by some that chimpanzees and other apes have been let loose in Florida, and could give rise to Skunk Ape sightings (however, the earliest Skunk Ape sightings were less bigfoot-like, more quadrapedal ape-like). The fact that the creature stands up proves nothing: Gorillas, Bonobos, chimps,and Orangutans can stand upright (Gorillas can walk upright for about 25 feet). He might have stumbled upon either a Gorilla that somehow found ts way into the woods, or maybe was born there by apes already residing there. Or, this is a hoax. It certainly does not “look” like a man in a suit, but looks can be deceiving, and the things we can do with film and media these days…

    Plus, the animal seems to not respond or react to the sounds the camera man is making before he skedaddles. A forest animal, being sensitive to its surroundings and skittish, should have at least reacted a little.

    And, let us not forget the biggest weakness of this film: it is a film. We are drowning in these.

    Body, major parts of a body, live specimen, or fossil will do to prove something new, something controversial like Skunk apes exist. If you don’t have it, if you say “But I have footprints and photos and film and even some good old eyewitness testimony!”, Go home.

  3. hoodoorocket responds:

    Between the twigs and leaves, and the tupelo stumps that are the same color as the subject, there is a lot obscuring the true form of the subject.

    Could be a brush ape rooting grubs and ants, could be a trapper laying traps, could be a guy retrieving his pot stash (the road is supposedly nearby).

    Almost looks like a man wearing black clothes and a black backpack when it stands.

    The comments about the white hands don’t sway me one way or another. The resolution of this video is good enough that I would be interested in seeing some blowups of the subject, specifically the frames where the hands are visible. What they are holding would probably be more enlightening than what color they are.

    Playing my odds, I’d bet 75% on human and 25% on brush ape.

  4. Shawn Erwin via Facebook responds:

    Sweet! Looks like a escaped ape but way cool.Say that is far from a hoax and a pet gone wild.

  5. Tony John Plescia via Facebook responds:

    Looks legitimate to me

  6. DWA responds:

    OK, so I read posts and watched the video.

    Who is the commentator? That the figure is ripping off bark and throwing a branch into the water, well, I can do and have done those things, and bet I could in a suit.

    Hapa: I can safely rule out gorilla, I think. Being more exclusively folivorous than monkeys generally or chimps specifically, they’d have a hard time hacking it in the South. The stuff they eat doesn’t grow there, and you’ll be hard put to even find leaves in winter. In fact, if this animal is feeding – and if I’ve ever seen anything that looks like a primate feeding, this does – it’s feeding on stuff gorillas rarely eat. The bodily proportions – legs especially – seem to rule out gorilla as well.

    They don’t rule out guy in suit though.

    hoodoorocket: I go with you on the video not being clear enough. I am not even sure blowups would help. Other kinds of evidence at the site might though.

  7. Caddyfan responds:

    The video does show a lot of promise. However, it has one of the great staples of hoaxed bigfoot videos–just when we could actually tell what the creature is, the camera is taken off it. I knew the video was faked at that minute. Nice try though. A lot better than pretty much everything else.

  8. Ploughboy responds:

    Hapa….as has been noted by others, the sounds that you presume would have been heard by the critter are probably only the result of him brushing his finger on the phone’s microphone….they only appear as amplified many times ambient db on the audio recording and would have been inaudible to anyone nearby, even to the person holding the phone.

    Yes, no f/u=no big deal. Provenance and back story are everything. You can’t just throw a video like this up on the web, disappear and expect to retain credibility. I want to hear an interview with this guy before I can give it any more attention. He isn’t obligated to do that, of course, but neither am I obligated to give it more consideration if he doesn’t.

  9. Randy Vanhoy via Facebook responds:

    Fake. Why the hell does the person filming move around so much when the ‘creature’ stays in one position? Why would he stop filming and run away when it finally stands up and he could have gotten a decent shot of it?

  10. PhotoExpert responds:

    Yes, the stabilization helped a bit. It did not remove any of the previous red flags I talked about in the original post but it did add a bit of clarity. When I say clarity, I do not mean improved overall quality. The subject could be dressed in costume fur, a dark coat, or anything else. We still can not even tell what the subject is wearing as the quality is still that of blobsquatchery.

    But what the stabilization does help with is movement and proportionality. Before I thought it might be a bit to the large size for a human. However, after the stabilization, it looks to be well within human range, from average size human to almost on the tall side. How can I say that?

    Well, here you go future hoaxers–if you are the videographer and are of average size, when you stand up to run away from the supposed Skunk Ape, you would be near your full height minus a couple of inches because the video recording device would be at your eye level as the videographer. In this case, the videographer is already standing at his full height and recording, as is evidenced by the turn and running of the videographer. I estimate the videographer to be of average US male height. So that would put the camera level at about 5’5″-5’8″. This is important! It is important because the when the subject of the video, the alleged Skunk Ape stands, it is eye level with the video recording device. And even more importantly, the terrain is level as is clearly seen in the video clip. It is flat and swampy as we see the subject toss some bark into sitting water. There is no rapid inclination or declination in the terrain. So the proportions would be spot on. If the camera is at eye level, when the subject stands and is not towering over the videographer’s perspective, it is very close to the same height as the videographer. It does not tower above the videographer’s point of view. The way it stands looks like a human going into standing position. And because of the proportionality of the head of the subject to the body of the subject, we can definitely rule out bear. So if bear is ruled out, what most likely could it be. Given the close proximity to the road and civilization, I would have to go with human being. Given all the other red flags and this new stabilization providing further evidence of proportionality and movement, a conclusion can be reached. It is either a very thin and relatively short bipedal primate like creature that is yet undiscovered or it is a human being.

    Folks, with all things being equal, one must opt for the most logical conclusion given the data and lack of secondary data. The data along with the red flags leave me with only one logical conclusion–it is a human being. Now if you can not think for yourself, or you want to close your eyes to the most logical conclusion, then you can put it on the pile or just declare it a skinny, undersized, not yet proven to exist, Skunk Ape. But if you use that rationale, please be sure to include in your illogical thought process that it could be a ghost, or an extraterrestrial biological entity, or a shapeshifter, or a chubacabra, or an interdimensional being. I say that because they are all unproven entities and hold just as much merit as this being a Skunk Ape. What are proven to exist are human beings. And given the red flags, the most logical conclusion deduced by factual data is that is what this is.

    But hey, if you want to go with the illogical and ignore the data, the facts, reality, and want to go with an unproven subject for this video, by all means, go ahead. Since it is Halloween Eve, go for the a more illogical conclusion. I will not stop you. Just ignore the facts and data and enjoy your Halloween. Imagination is a marvelous thing because you can exclude facts and data.

    Happy Halloween!

  11. dconstrukt responds:

    interesting with the stabilization.

    1. bigfoots usually are territorial, right?… so why wasn’t this one doing ANYTHING?

    2. don’t they have a good sense of smell? couldn’t it smell a human nearby?

    3. i heard sounds from the dude making the video, bigfoot didn’t?

    many questions…

  12. chadgatlin responds:

    For whatever it’s worth, this video is more interesting to me than most. The film subject exhibits behavior that is not common to known hoaxes and does seem to posess animal-like qualities.

    I live only a little over an hour from where this was supposedly filmed. I was unaware that there are cypress swamps or bogs that far north in Mississippi. I’m not saying there aren’t. Just that I didn’t know about it. Another thing is that the hunter says he is 9 miles west of Tunica. This would be in the river bottoms, as Tunica is right next to the Mississippi River.

    If there are other Cryptomundians in my area that want to try to pursue a follow up investigation, I’m game.

  13. Matthew Pfeifer via Facebook responds:

    First, Much better when stabilized, and more clear. I think this is it. Of all the lame and crappy footage, this one is amazing! And to answer the question of why did he run away, I would say he was scared. If that thing had turned on him I would guess it could overtake him. And if it is a gorilla, it would kill him. I’d be scared too. And so would everyone else. You never know what you’ll do in those situations.

  14. alan borky responds:

    Craig beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.

    I guess sasquatchery is too.

    Yesterday it looked like a possible semi-starved ape maybe a bonobo or chimp hence the poor muscle deifinition.

    Today though what I’d taken for possible transparency in the fur/hair on the back now looks like a threadbare anorak worn by a hobo livin’ in the woods.

    That’d explain why the guy a supposed hunter ran rather than remaining transfixed and’d certainly explain why unlike others in his situation might’ve he didn’t become so fascinated he started edging closer and closer simply because he was wary of gettin’ raped or shivved by a possible woodland maniac.

    Could still be a skunk ape of course but it’d have to be a fairly puny balding one wearing a greasy threadbare anorak.

  15. Ulalume responds:

    PhotoExpert, you are just trolling us right? That was nonsense… And please everyone, it’s the microphone making the sounds you hear, not his feet, let it go!

    I’ve been in contact with the photographer, he’s going to try to make a trip back out to the location to film a followup. He is sticking to his story and seems very genuine and humble about the experience. I’m hoping that a follow up video will give us some perspective on size and perhaps bring some other evidence to light.

  16. Amado Sagasta via Facebook responds:


  17. BronzeSteel responds:

    This video has my interest.

  18. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ulalume–LOL You never know with me. I might be doing a little bit of trolling or I might be dead serious. It is my persona at Cryptomundo. One member here, hoodoorocket, gets me completely. Hoodoorocket stated that I was a mystery, a little bit of Sherlock Holmes mixed in with a little bit of Andy Kaufman. You just do not know whether to take me seriously or not. And I like it that way! It seems you may get me too but you never know.

    I will say that every statement I made in the preceeding post was true and factual. Are not Skunk Apes undiscovered? Aren’t extraterrestrial biological entities and ghosts unproven? Certainly one can not argue the facts and data about the proportions and movements I mentioned. That is all fact. So if I am trolling a bit, I am doing it with proof and facts and the data at hand. If I am not trolling, then everything I stated is the truth and facts as they exist. I even allowed for the possibility for the subject of the video to be a Skunk Ape. I stated that, although it would be a small specimen of average human height and that is hightly underweight, it could be a Skunk Ape. So I did not diminish the video in any way. I merely pointed out the obvious red flags, the possibilities as well the probability of the most logical conclusion. And that is that the subject of this video is a human being. It is up to readers to use their acquired knowledge about Skunk Apes, their common sense and logic. It is up to each individual reader to proclaim their beliefs or lack there of. For me, I just stick to the facts. I am not a believer and I am not a sceptic. I am and have always been, in the camp of objectivity. That is where I hang my hat–if it can be determined that I am wearing one.

    And if some posters want to proclaim the subject in this video a Skunk Ape, who am I to crush their “beliefs”. If they think it is a chubacabra, so be it. What I am stating is that under analysis of the data, it objectively points to a human being as the subject of this video. Unless someone can argue the facts at hand, the height of the videographer, or a extreme inclination or declination in the terrain, then it is pointless to keep proclaiming it is a Skunk Ape. Simply prove any of my points invalid or untrue, and then you have something to back your argument. If not, one better go back down to the minor leagues and relearn the scientific method and discover the difference between actual evidence and “their beliefs” based on subjectivity.

    I am just glad you read my post, Ulalume! Thanks! And Happy Halloween to you!

  19. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ulalume–One more thing, if I was being serious, you stated: “That was nonsense…”

    Now what would Andy Kaufman do? Hmmm, I think he challenged a pro wrestler once. So let me throw down the gauntlet in a tribute to Andy.

    Ulalume, so tell me, no, in fact I challenge you, to point out and post one sentence in any of my posts that was nonsense. Just one! That is all I am asking. There are none. Every sentence made perfect sense. But please, for the sake of proving me wrong and you correct, point out one nonsensical post, if you can! And if you can’t, that means that it was not nonsense but made perfect sense. Go ahead, I await your reply. At least bend over the like the human being or, ah, Skunk Ape did in that video, and pick up the gauntlet.

    Good luck with that my friend!

  20. sasquatch responds:

    Yo Alan,

    Skinny?, balding? really?-I dare you to go up to that thing.

    The back is slightly lighter colored than the arms which is very consistent with gorillas,but this thing looks very tall…not short and stocky like gorillas.

    The moment it stands up and sits back down very quickly is very ape-like…something I’ve NEVER seen a hoaxer do.

    The light colored”hands” are not hands at all. This thing has a piece of wood!- it’s using as a tool and you can even see it lick the wood-probably scooped some bugs with it…

  21. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ sasquatch:

    Regarding the coloration on the back that you and some others are talking about (someone referred to it as “silverback” coloring), there is a small black tupelo stump (also known as a “bottle-assed” stump) directly in line with the camera’s view of the subjects back.

    This is distorting the impression of the shape, pattern, and color of the subject’s back.

    The rise and fall that you mention could be a brush ape, but any human hunkered down in a squat in standing water would do this too.

    I agree with you that a closeup of what is in the hands would be beneficial.

    The deciding moment for me in this video is when the subject stands. We get an unobstructed view of the back. There hangs a very squarish panel with the corners hung from each shoulder.

    This is what gives Alan an impression of a jacket. It is also what gives me the impression of a backpack, but I could just as easily go with jacket.

    After re-watching the video again this morning, I’m changing my bet to 85% on human and 15% on brush ape.

    In any case I definitely wouldn’t want to go up against the subject whether it was a brush ape or homeless guy living off the land, because both would probably kick my ass. I’ve had enough bizarre encounters with hunters to know that the law ceases to be relevant when strangers meet in the woods.

  22. sasquatch responds:

    Furthermore…stop the video at 1:37-this is either a gorilla or a swamp ape/bigfoot…very wide shoulders, short neck, pointed head. Then watch the movement as it sits back down, lots of animalistic speed and strength is implied here.

    It looks like it has a leaf stuck to it’s fur right around the left shoulder blade to side toward underarm.

    This is one of only a few videos that I’ve seen and watched numerous times that look real; here’s my list:

    Patterson/ Gimlin-obviously real.

    This one-most likely real.

    Tennessee aerial footage- intriguing, may be a real Sasquatch with a baby it carries and sets down to its right side.

    Freeman footage-possibly real. (Freeman dubious character tho’).

    Russian cliff-possibly real.

    Idaho cliff footage by teens-possibly real.

    So, there’s 6 films/videos that are proof or at least decent evidence that these creatures are real and exist in wide ranging habitats and locales on the planet.

  23. chadgatlin responds:

    The more pondering I have done on this video (also on everyones’ analyses) I land on the same conclusion as hoodoorocket, 85/15 human/ape. Maybe even more human. Not only because of the things pointed out by people, but because of how intriguing the video in itself is. With the characteristics shown I don’t think it’s an obscenely large bi-pedal hominid. I think it is either an out of place/escaped ape (maybe gorilla) or a human hoax. Since I live near the purported location and have not heard of any missing great apes, I have to lean human.

  24. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ sasquatch

    I am always interested in knowing people’s “lists”. Thanks for the rundown and your appraisals of them. I will definitely be going back and checking them out.

    I wish there could be a tally somewhere of everyone’s video lists rated exactly as you have done here.

    Also, I appreciate this video rings true with you. I’m going to shut my eyes to it for a couple of days and come back and watch it with fresh eyes.

    Everyone has the quirk that once a conclusion is drawn, the mind stops evaluating any evidence the senses are delivering. I may be insisting this is a human despite what my eyes see. Couple of days and I’ll look at this again with as few preconceptions as I can muster.


  25. Ulalume responds:

    PhotoExpert, I dig your style and also accept your challenge. I found your over all post to be one giant leap of faith, how is the presumed data you collected any different than the presumed observations of those of us who think the subject is less likely to be a human? The terrain does not appear flat to me in the least bit, the figure is standing in water that we have no way of knowing how deep that water is, in addition it appears as thought he photographer is standing on dry land given that I hear his foot shuffle leaves in the first few seconds of the video and we do not hear water splashing when he retreats. We also have no idea how tall the gentleman is, we have no idea how big that stump is, there are countless variables that you’ve taken for granted in your argument.

    In conclusion, I appreciate your opinion and I’m pleased as punch that others share my passion for this stuff but I don’t agree with your post. And to meet your challenge, I’ve selected the following sentence from your post…

    “It is important because the when the subject of the video, the alleged Skunk Ape stands, it is eye level with the video recording device”

    I did not chose this sentence because of the typo, that would have been cheating…

    I chose it because it is literally impossible to judge this without knowing the variables… distance, angle of slope, size of the tree, height of the photographer, height at which he held his camera… we can guess on a lot of them (and you did just that) but the bottom line is we do not know… therefore, this sounds like “nonsense” to me.

    All in good fun!

    Happy Halloween.

  26. mandors responds:

    People can correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the first video posted that depicts a human allegedly sneaking up on a Bigfoot? That is biggest problem I have with this video. It’s just hard to believe that a creature adapted to its environment would allow a human to get that close to it.

    I also think that when the “creature” stands up, its fur coat seams to fall, like clothing. The shoulders don’t look massive, it doesn’t look all that tall, and the arms and everything else seems to be in the human range. Gorillas and apes are not that square, especially when they rear up.

    Finally, yes, it’s that time of the show when I say, if Bigfoot does exist, it is still going to look very much like this–a dumb guy in a suit–only real.

  27. Peltboy25 responds:

    While interesting, there is nothing in this video that could not have been faked. This is why the PG footage is so unique; not only is the video intriguing of it’s own right, but analysis shows that Patty herself is beyond human dimension. So what good is a video, regardless of it’s content, if we can’t rule out a fake?

    I don’t want to dissuade anyone from posting quality evidence even if it cannot be definitively proved. But I see no reason to give this submission any more scrutiny than dozens of others we’ve seen.

  28. Gurpreet responds:

    Looks promising. My best bet would be an out-of-place gorilla. Although I am not a botanist, I am an amateur naturalist – I see palmetto plants, cypress trees, as well as some deciduous tree/shrubs, which would fit with the deep Southeast U.S. Palmetto plants in particular have often been seen in most photos of the Skunk Ape. However, every photo I’ve seen of those creatures show a reddish fur color. There is a famous photograph posted by Loren Coleman on Cryptomundo some years back, which was allegedly taken by a woman in her backyard, and was close-up frontal view of what looked to be a huge orangutan. She apparently complained to the local police that such a potentially dangerous animal was running wild. However, I recall a cryptozoology TV show in which the picture was shown to a primate expert and she made a very good point…if it was truly a wild orangutang, it’s fur wouldn’t have been so straight/clean/un-matted, so she felt it was a hoax. After hearing her point, and looking at pictures of orangutans in the wild, I’m inclined to agree with her.

    Back to this video, however. There is much about it that would be consistent with a gorilla…the dark black fur with silver coloring on the back, the conical shape of the head, the pointy/tapering “butt” and the suggestion of a protuberant, round belly seen from the back, the seemingly out-of-proportion arms/legs (front ones seem much larger, e.g., when it reaches up). The lack of prominent ears makes me rule out a black bear. As to the behavior of the videographer, I don’t blame him for being scared and running when finding a large, unknown and out-of-place creature in the woods. However, I do find it hard to believe that he got that close to a gorilla or bear without it hearing him crashing through the brush, stepping on the deadfall, etc. Addendum – having seen his original post on this site, it appears the creature came to him, he was sitting in place, waiting for hogs to appear. That makes it a bit more legitimate, but he said it was behind him, so he still would have to move and make SOME noise.

  29. Goodfoot responds:

    Ploughboy: As I noted yesterday – that’s one stone-deaf Skunk Ape. Won’t survive long in the wild like that. Any actual cryptid hominid near a road would look over his shoulder once in a while. Especially if he were deaf.

    But mad props to the hoaxers; they got us to watch and comment twice. I’d say they won. Now they just have to sit back and wait for the millions to start rolling in.

  30. Goodfoot responds:

    PhotoExpert: Now you’re pulling a leg’s leg; nicely done! Andy Kaufman did challenge a wrestler – Jerry “The King” Lawler, “King” of the Mid-South wrestling circuit. They had a number of “bouts” – Lawler was in on the prank. The two were fast friends.

    Still, it wasn’t as funny as Andy challenging he’d “whip” any woman in the audience. A lot of them were “rubed” in; they took it for real, and as a major afront. Which made it even more fun. Andy knew what buttons to push, always. I miss him greatly.

    There are even some “rubes” who believe Andy faked his own death – like Elvis and Jim Morrison.

    Wrestlers actually don’t use the term “rube” – that’s a carny term. They call them “kayfabes”, which is derived from… I actually don’t remember what it’s derived from. It’s similar to the term “mark”, aka “sucker”.

    If you get my meaning.

  31. DWA responds:


    People can correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the first video posted that depicts a human allegedly sneaking up on a Bigfoot? That is biggest problem I have with this video. It’s just hard to believe that a creature adapted to its environment would allow a human to get that close to it.

    I once walked up on a red fox, stretched out in the trail, facing away from me, full sprawl, front and rear legs all the way out. If I had not announced my presence, I could have stopped its retreat by stepping on its tail. When it did walk – I mean walk – away, it seemed either diseased or old or both.

    Had a similar experience with a sounder of wild hogs in the Smokies. (Nothing more elusive in the Southern mountains.) Again, I might have been able to pick a porker and staple a “BACON – RESERVED” sign on its back if I had not shuffled VERY loudly – in shin-to-thigh-high leaves – to alert the hogs, including the huge one that was allegedly standing lookout, to my presence. They weren’t sick. NOTHING runs that fast sick.

    Patterson and Gimlin surprised one. I have read more than one report of an extended observation by a person who wasn’t himself observed by the sasquatch.

    Wild animals, those of us who are out there a lot have found, run the gamut of alertness. Predators gotta eat too.

  32. sasquatch responds:

    True that; many reports of sightings have the person either staked out or walked right up behind an unaware Sasquatch…

    There are many reasons this could happen-deafness, other forest noises, the sounds the creature itself is making etc. etc.

    Since we don’t (that I know of) have one to examine, how do we know how well they hear…maybe scent, and sight is their main strength.

    As far as musculature etc and fine detail on this-the resolution of this camera is probably very low and pixels blend together, so all we can go by are general proportions and nuances of movement.

    Those read as real apelike creature to me…but COULD be a real good hoax-90% better than most.

  33. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ulalume–Thanks man! I dig your style too. Even if you are wrong, I still like a good debate or discussion. So you are cool with me.

    With that being said, Ulalume, actually, you can determine the height of a subject relative to the person taking the video. It will not be exact but it will be darn close. I KNOW this because I am a photo expert as my moniker implies. Sorry to ruin your guess or theory or belief, but that is fact. I gave you the details. Still though, I respect your attempt. Even though it was a failed attempt, I respect that. I actually tried to correct the typo but the thing timed out when I got interrupted with a phone call.

    So, thank you brave warrior for accepting the challenge and picking up the gauntlet. Too bad you have it wrong. Just like when a nuclear blast goes off, a scientist can not tell you how much uranium was used but he can give you the estimated megaton of the blast. The point here is that the videographer is roughly the same size as the creature he is videotaping. No doubt about it and I would swear to that in a court of law. Guess what? That would be considered true and expert testimony.

    Now for the water thing you mentioned Ulalume. Good try again but a fail. Even a child could tell you there is no inclination or declination in the terrain between the subject and the videographer. It is self evident. It is a marshy type of soil with leaf debris covering it. How do I know there is no inclination or declination to the terrain. Well, that water you spoke of, is not running, nor is it a stream. nor is it a big pool. It is standing still. Pssst, that means flat terrain. Further proof is that there are portions of terrain which are semi dry coming through the standing water. Remember, if the water is not running, there is no difference in level of the terrain. And if there were a huge difference such as a large pool of water and then dry land, that would mean there is a difference or a declination in the terrain. What we see here is a small standing pool of water with some drier bits poking out. So sorry to burst your bubble and explain the science behind my statements that contradict your “beliefs”.

    Ulalume, you can disagree with truth, the facts, or my opinion but you would be wrong. It is what it is. It is a human being as the subject of that video. But man, I say this sincerely, I do admire and respect your attempt to back up your beliefs, no matter how unscientific that quest may be. And I do respect you for it.

    Happy Halloween my friend!

    Now onto the next poster!

    Goodfoot–Hey buddy! LOL Pulling a leg’s leg. Great sentence there and very funny! Yep, you get me my friend! Oh yes, I remember that when he said he could whip any woman. That was hysterical too. I remembered that as soon as you posted it. Yes, and I read an internet article about someone thinking Andy was still alive and provided a photo of him in a diner or something. I think hoodoorocket turned me on to that.

    Yep Goodfoot, I get your meaning. And your sense of humor too! I have been enjoying your posts old friend! Stay strong!

  34. sasquatch responds:

    Photo “Expert” yo, arrogant or anything?

  35. Ulalume responds:

    I don’t know Photo “Expert”, where I come from water settles in the lowest points of the terrain. It also makes sounds when you run through it. Since I can see and hear (without the aid of a child) that the figure was standing in water and that the young man filming was in fact on dry land I’m going to go ahead and side with my “belief” that you have no idea what you’re talking about. And just to clear it all up, I’ve contacted the gentleman that filmed the video, perhaps he can better explain how one subject can be in several inches of water while the other stands on dry land yet both be at equal levels. Also, how far is it again you say the camera is from the figure? Did you even take into account the type of camera used or the lens size?

    My belief isn’t so much that this there is a bigfoot portrayed in the video, my belief is simply that you have no idea what you are talking about.

  36. sasquatch responds:

    …And even IF the levels where close-Photo”Expert” seems to be implying that all skunk apes must be at least 7 ft. tall if not 8 or 9…it could be a young one, couldn’t it?

    If you claim to be, or aspire to be the smartest man in the room don’t act like a DUMb-a..!

    Furthermore don’t come off all chummy, and condescending at the same time…doesn’t work in my book.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.