Minnesota Bigfoot Video Shot on iPhone
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on September 1st, 2011
The second Bigfoot video purported to have been shot with an iPhone surfaces…
What was the first you say?
It was the Spokane River Bigfoot Video from May, 2011.
A video purporting to show an auburn-haired Sasquatch tromping through the woods north of Stillwater is causing a buzz among those fascinated by the ever-elusive Elvis of the wildlife world.
Like every video claiming to be that of the giant woodland creature also known as Bigfoot, the clip is brief, jiggly and out-of-focus. It was shot, according to the YouTube posting, by an anonymous farmer with his newfangled iPhone while on his usual evening walk with his wife. According to the farmer, the couple thought they’d scared a deer until they heard some “low, odd-sounding grunting” and fired up the gizmo.
The narrator, also anonymous, said the farmer posted the video, but didn’t want to pursue it any further when “he realized this was serious.” In the narrator’s analysis, he says the film shows “a wonderful example of how adept Sasquatch are at hiding and moving through thick brush.”Jim Anderson
StarTribune
Read the rest of the story here.
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.
Interesting video. It looks to move pretty quick but this is another one of those videos where it’s subjective and it could be a guy in a suit or an actual Bigfoot.
Another result from the video is the usage of the word “nutbar”. I’ve never heard anyone called that before so I thought it was pretty funny.
Another blobsquatch video. BTW there is no such thing as a “.306” There is a “.308” caliber, and a “.30-06” caliber.
Wow. Where to start.
Some really anomalous thought constructs in here.
“Auburn Sasquatch runs smooth crouch then ducks effortlessly in Minnesota” means, what? That this was no more effortless than a human doing the same thing?
(Hint: if the figure has human proportions it probably is a human, in a suit.)
“…we saw it with just 7 views”? I saw it with just one.
It looks more like “a wonderful example of how adept cell phones are at not getting particularly clear images.”
What does “answered a few questions realized this was serious and wisely [?] chose not to pursue it” mean? From context, it clearly means that if you video a sasquatch, delete that video before your life is altered to God knows what. Or at least, turn it over to us before we ask you too many questions.
And now for the “Confirms on”s:
“All-over auburn hair”? I’ve also read reports (lots) of black ones; a number of gray ones; and some of white ones.
“High shoulders”? We need to get a better description of what that means. I see lots of humans with them.
“Gray on hand”? Again, I’ve read lots of reports of black hands, and a few of other colors.
“Tree hiding”? Lots of animals do that; we’re one of them.
“Slowed and zoomed” and “stabilized with only the Sasquatch part(?)” look like the exact same clip.
OK, you get the drift. It actually gets worse. (Red Ape/Hylobate?)
And let’s not say anything about the “analysis” of video ephemera.
There’s nothing here that should excite anybody any more than any sighting report. Because it would have been so easy to fake, it could well be one.
And with “analysis” like this, an authentic video might not get a second look.
I love FB/FB but I don’t find this video compelling. I watched it a time or two when they posted it a month or so ago, and moved on. I’m not saying it isn’t real, just that it isn’t interesting to analyze. Obviously there is a figure there, but the video is set in a way where there is ambiguity if it were a person or Bigfoot. That’s why I don’t care. I have nothing to work with.
I think I’m better at critical analysis of what is and isn’t a Bigfoot than they are. There have been several instances where they have “authenticated” a video when it became obvious it was not the real thing or was proven to be anything but authentic. That said, when they do get it right, which is more often than not, they are dead on and bring out more detail than anyone else would see or pick up on.
Oh there are all kinds of “red flags.”
The footage is iffy at best–no real details to substantiate that it’s a real Bigfoot and not a person in a suit–there’s enough tree cover to mask a human in a suit.
Anytime, and I mean anytime somebody starts talking about how “serious” a piece of footage is or how definitive it is, I’m seriously starting to doubt it.
Anonymous–minor red flag here, but red, nevertheless…yeah I know people don’t want to be ridiculed, BUT in the past, it’s that close encounter with something out of a person’s experience that usually makes them speak up in the first place. Going against that fear of ridicule and coming forward anyway, is what gives some credence.
Clear footage–yep, anything that’s less than perfect is only going into the anecdotal sighting bin…
And, I don’t like the blow by blow description either…the footage is too blobby to make enough of real details and smacks too much of someone seeing what they think they see and not what was really shown on the vid.
Other than that, it could be real, but it could just as easily be a hoaxer…video =ing proof is not valid. In fact, I’d say a video goes under more scrutiny because you have to dissect it to rule out the hoaxers–just because there seem to be too many people with too much time on their hands and too much photo-shopping equipment at their disposal these days.
As for me, personally, I don’t buy it–too many red flags.
I am calling total BS on this video!
DWA, I agree completely with you totally, again! This guy has taken video analysis to a new low. He has equated grainy and blurry footage as proof of Sasquatch in the past. He has declared certain videos to be proof of Sasquatch or BF and those same videos later turned out to be confirmed hoaxes. This narrator has zero credibility. He interprets almost every video as a possible BF or declares it is a BF. Sound familiar?
This narrator also takes certain reported evidence and runs with it as fact. BF have auburn or red hair. Deep sea creatures are colored red to hide themselves in darker waters. He connects the dots as fact but he throws out all logic in doing so.
He claims in this video that it is not a suit and you can see the gray demarkation of the hand. From that blurred video, I couldn’t tell you if it was a guy in a suit or a custume. Can anybody else make the claim that this narrator is claiming, just by looking at that video? No, not unless you are a believer, regardless of the evidence presented. This narrator is a joke!
With that being said, I am not calling this video clip a fake based on the narrator’s opinion. I am calling it fake based on common sense and the evidence presented. Sometimes it is not what is said by a narrator or evidence observed in a video. Sometimes you just have to use common sense and see if the facts check out before even getting to the evidence. The preamble to this narrator’s monologue is all I needed to cry foul!
First of all, we are to believe a farmer is on a evening walk with his wife. OK, I’m buying the story at this point. He sees a reddish figure that is different than a deer and it grunts unlike a deer. It is so different than a deer, he takes out his new iPhone and decides to record what he sees. OK, maybe he is better than most farmers in figuring out in low light how a newfangled iPhone works. Then he records this most unusual event on his iPhone.
This event was so different and unique that the witness had to record it but he takes three or more days to actually look at it? Are you kidding me? Human nature being what it is, what human being would not want to run home and view that footage? Afterall, it was such an important and memorable event that he just had to record it and then waits several days to see what it is? LOL Sure buddy!
Just for argument sake, let’s just say that this farmer for whatever reason, did not look at the video until a couple of days later. Let’s make that a given. Can someone please explain to me how the farmer realized there was red or auburn hair after seeing the video but did not see red or auburn hair while filming the event? Another piece of this story that makes no sense whatsoever. Your eyes at dusk would definitely see more color than a video lens would see. Our pupils dilate and contract almost instantly to changing light conditions. They do this more efficiently than most preset camera aperatures. But his iPhone camera lens was more efficient than a reactive human pupil? Really?
I can tell you just by looking at the video that the color saturation is less on the video than what a human eye would have seen.
Another thing is that this was posted anonymously. That is always a red flag! Also, the farmer had trouble figuring out his newfangled iPhone. The technology was a little above his head and he was a bit slow on the learning curve. However, he instantly became a “techie” a few days later. Why, what a remarkably intelligent and adept farmer. He figured out how to download the video to his computer and upload that footage to YouTube. And he did that without any help! Amazing! Sure he did! LOL
Great, we now have another blobsquatched video hoax put up by some kid with his new iPhone hoping to get a few high-fives from his friends. And just like clockwork, we have this joke of a narrator coming in analyzing the the blobsquatch video and proclaiming it to be a BF! Great! This is helping the field of cryptozoology? He does more damage than good with his flawed logic.
Based on this narrator’s past failures or performance, and adding in the numerous common sense contradictions, I am calling this a huge fake!
After analyzing the video, I am also calling it a huge fake. Any human being in a costume could perform those crouching moves. I am just not as naive as the narrator to call this a BF video. I am discerning enough to call it a fake, though!
YouTube teenage hoaxers at it again! LOL
Very interesting.
Supposedly the Farmer & His wife were walking and startled the supposed “Squatch” which made it run away. In reaction the farmer took out his I-Phone and video captured it running.
Now look at the video after a couple of seconds of walking not seeing a thing the supposed “Squatch” starts off from a crouched stationary position and “runs”. Jumping any animal then reacting and pulling out a device to film it takes time. The video contradicts the story.
Then it is mentioned how “fast” this “creature” is. Take another look at the way the thing “runs”. It’s like watching Roddy McDowell get around in a Planet of the Apes movie. The “Planet of the Apes” sway it has is so obvious that it is just scampering along very a bolt to get away!
I’m calling it…………………..HOAX!!
Not that Bigfoot really exists anyway! 😉
Is the FBFB guy the most credulous person you’ve ever seen or what? Every video, no matter how poorly produced, no matter how obviously faked, no matter how blurry, is automatically proof positive of bigfoot.
Look, I want to believe too, but I don’t buy every video I see. And breathlessly “analyzing” every one of them like its the real thing isn’t adding to anyone’s credibility.
As for this video, it looks like a guy in a suit. What proportions we can see look all too human. Next.
I live in the area where this film was taken (about 50 miles west). The Taylor’s falls area were this was taken is indeed beautiful with lots of woodland area as well as a good deal of farmland. It is the home to deer, wolves and other wildlife. Cougars have been spotted in the area as well (you will hear more about cougars from locals than from the DNR). This is the first I have heard about Sasquatch in the area…. as much as I’d love to believe it, I am a bit skeptical about it. The film IS interesting… it looks good. It is too easy to say it was a farmer who filmed it and didn’t realize it was there until later… really. First, I do not know ANY farmer in the area with an Iphone. Second, what would a farmer be doing shooting film in a dark part of the woods? Where is the rest of the film? From what we know about the film and the situation surrounding the image capture of this even, I have to say it is a hoax. Until we know more about the circumstances surrounding the event, it just does not add up. Does anyone have more info about this film, the filmer or circumstances?
@ PhotoExpert
While I agree this bit of video is worthless when it comes to proving anything I have to point out a few things in your post. You seem to be confusing what the FB/BF analyzer is saying with what the Farmer reported. And also, the stereotype of farmers as backwater rednecks is both insulting and inaccurate. You also seem to assume that the farmer is a old man who barely functions above a luddite level. Granted that article using terms like ‘newfanggled’ doesn’t help but that’s cheap journalism in my eyes.
I consider myself a farmer/homesteader. I have multiple degrees, use technology on a daily basis; not only to run my consulting business but to keep track of expenses, stay in contact with family and friends, track how well different strains of tomatoes, peas, beans, melons are performing (heirloom seeds), lineage of my animals, banking/bill paying and of course to surf the web. I and every member of my family (including my parents & Grans) has and uses cell phones on a daily basis. In fact if you live outside of a city I think you are MORE likely to know how to do these things for the sake of saving time/money/fuel.
Perhaps if the couple were in their 70’s or older I could agree with your views but most farmers in their 70’s aren’t actively farming, at least not without a lot of physical help.
@ everyone
FB/BF serves a purpose, and they do a lot of grunt work when it comes to analyzing clips and such, but I feel they do tend to accept a few things as given when we have no proof at all. I put it down to enthusiasm, but it’s something we need to be aware of. The analyst seems to be seeing things that are merely artifacts in the video clip, or at least could be merely artifacts. I will be the first to admit that this is not my forte. Also, it doesn’t seem to be moving ‘that’ quickly, I’ve seen my 14yo move faster than that while chasing an animal through underbrush. Granted, he could have passed for an animal himself when he got back to the yard, but if you’re in good physical shape and determined/focused, the speed shown on this video does not come close to exceptional.
The commentaries are a bit comical. Almost like the commentaries on FINDING BIGFOOT where EVERYTHING is 100% proof. When the “evidence’ never really proves anything except usually something furry is moving. They try to sound very scientific when in fact it is very biased and slanted with no real concrete data backing up what they say.
I have a friend who joins a local group of “Ghosthunters” here in Maine. They post videos on Facebook. They fall into this same type of scrutiny where they act like they are doing real science but no one has any training. No controls are used. Their opinions are biased/slanted. They have their own lingo. They stay up all night catching some far off noise. Instead of proof they come across very comically. It’s kind of like Mall Security guards acting like cops. They talk the lingo but in the end they are just Mall Guards with no real training. And we laugh at them in the food court when they chase the 15 year old kid who stole the PS3 game from Gamestop. They are hyped up on adrenaline, over excited. They turn over the kid to the real cops. They exchange lingo laced small talk. But instead of using the word “Squatch” or in the Ghost world “Geist” they use the word “Perp”. The real cops leave while joking with one another about the Mall Guards being wannabes!
It is strange how all of those worlds are very similar. But all are fun to watch! 😉
@ flame821–You need to relax and lighten up a bit flame. In case you did not notice the first time you read my post, I was taking shots at the narrator and not the farmer. I eat food, so I like farmers. Don’t internalize public posts as a direct insult to farmers or you!
By the way, I grow my own herbs, vegetables, etc. So taking a shot at a farmer would be taking a shot at myself. Also, just remember when reading posts, you have to look for the central theme, which is the narrator is a joke. What he says is a joke. I was taking shots at what he said and what he said about the farmer. Read a little more carefully next time.
In addition, where did I imply that the farmer were backwater rednecks? I never used that term and certainly did not imply that thought. Where did you come up with that notion? You seem a little too defensive. I say that because when anyone has to predicate their post by describing what degrees they have, that’s a red flag for an inferiority complex. I probably have the same degrees you possess and maybe more. However, you don’t see me posting that information to make my post sound more important than it is.
Anyway, glad you agree with me on the narrator. Please don’t take generalized public posts to heart. And if you read more into my post that was meant, I am sorry for you doing that and becoming subsequently offended. My post was not intended to offend you. Maybe try reading it again before being so defensive and accusatory.
On a side note, I am a redneck and proud of it. I’m got some Skoal Cherry in my lip right now as I am typing. I am going to the State Fair tomorrow after picking some tomatoes off the vine and some fresh basil growing in my garden. I am going fishing next week! Being a backwater redneck is not a bad thing. I am proud of it. And notice, I am not offended by you posting about my fellow rednecks. I guess an implied insult to some is a complement to others.
See you around Cryptomundo!
I trust nothing from this guy. I have no idea how he determined that the “fur” was auburn, nor do I trust his interpretation of a hand and fingers.
The video that he is analyzing seems interesting, but his voice overlayment is distracting and the viewer just tends to see what he is describing, instead of seeing what is actually there on the video.
What he has done is created an active memory bias, where you will interpret what you see through his interpretation, it will not be based on the actual recorded event.
To be unbiased he should have let the video run through once, without interpretation, then he could have added his viewpoints.
This is not the first time, nor likely the last time, that he will make up context that is different from content.
Yeah and if someone really cares, why don’t they find this farmer, talk to him, and get him to take them to the exact spot. That way you can measure the trees around it. That way you could determine the height. Not that I think this IS a bigfoot. It’s so blurry you can’t tell. News For Bigfoot Witnesses: Next time you see a bigfoot, get a real camera, not some crappy phone cam. But this is probably a person in an ape costume.
Has this facebook Bigfoot idiot ever discredited a video. Hoax, Hoax, Hoax, arghhhhhh.