New Bigfoot Footage?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 9th, 2018
https://youtu.be/eIth3Bpnu5Y
Is this legit Sasquatch Footage?
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.
It’s too far away to give any kind of definitive answer. And it doesn’t help when the video clip claims that it’s “impressive” and “real footage.” The music doesn’t help either…nor does the bid for donations at the end.
Having said all that…again I wonder why all of these people shooting video pan away after several seconds. If you really saw something out of the norm and you got your camera up and running, you’d tape every second until it was gone because I believe your mind is trying to make sense of what it’s seeing and you’re looking for every possible explanation…which means this is probably a hoax…
A number of red flags here from the blurry, too far away image to inexplicable camera pan-away from the subject. Add the ominous music plus the end of video comments to me means this footage doesn’t add up to much to get excited about.
Is it real? Probably not, for the reasons springheeledjack and cryptokellie mention. If it’s a hoax, though, it’s a better-looking hoax than most. It isn’t darting from one hiding spot to another or looking straight at the camera; it’s minding its own business in a very natural way, the way a coyote might. Of course a creature this disdainful of observers might not be as elusive as Bigfoot is said to be, but if it is a natural animal, it should behave like a natural animal.
At any rate, this is a good video to post, and it’s the right question to ask. Thanks.
I’m not sure how likely it is that someone would instantly recognise that they were seeing something which shouldn’t be there and then pay particular attention to it as a result.
I had my own ABC sighting here in the UK a number of years ago and my mind’s way of dealing with it in the moment was to essentially gloss over it.
A good analogy would be that my mind identified everything it would expect me to see as either a one or a zero. On seeing something that didn’t fit into that binary categorization, in that split second my mind applied the best fit category. Therefore making me think I was seeing either a one or a zero (something that was expected) as the least traumatic way of efficiently processing what I had seen and allowing me to move on from that moment quickly. It was only after the moment had passed and I had safely moved on into a fully expected environment that my mind went back and tried to address what I had seen, attempting to recategorize the binary blip.
To be clear, I absolutely, without shadow of doubt saw a puma sized cat in a field in Bucks England. That is what I saw, without question, but it shouldn’t have been there so in the moment my mind simply couldn’t process it as such. Had I had a camera running and even panned on the subject I don’t doubt that I would have still glossed over it and payed it no particular attention because my mind would still have used the same approach to the situation.
I’m not saying that everyone’s mind works in the same way, just speaking from my own experience but, seeing as we’re all humans, there’s a good chance that a large proportion of people’s mind’s would work in the same way.
I’m also not commenting on the authenticity of the above video, merely rather suggesting that the “if you saw a bigfoot you’d film it properly” statement probably isn’t a good standpoint to judge authenticity from.
Apologies for the long winded post, hope it makes sense. Cheers all
How stupid can these fraudsters get? Don’t they realize that the moment we hear “scary music” we know it’s a fake. And, oh yes, the picture is blurry. In this day and age of technology a video better look like National Geographic or it’s don’t waste my time.
@Iwanttobelieve — It’s also worth noting that we live in a world where people photograph their food and post it to social media. The assumption that people only take photos or videos of things that are really interesting is SO twentieth century! 🙂
An excuse for not lingering on the subject, then, might be that the videographer originally thought it was just some guy tramping through the high grass, and only began to suspect something more after reviewing the footage. This sort of claim has been made for a number of purported cryptozoological and paranormal videos and photos.
‘Iwanttobelieve’–
I get what you’re saying. And maybe that’s my Bf-o-centrism of being somewhat knowledgeable on the lore and history behind Bigfoot. I would definitely film as long as I had something to film.
On the other hand, you are right that the mind doesn’t always realize what’s happening while it’s happening. I had an incident last fall camping. I woke up early in the a.m. to the sound of something yelling. I managed to catch the sounds on my phone, but the minute it quit, I remember laying in my tent thinking, “Huh, that was weird. It wasn’t a dog, a cow, or a coyote,” and then I fell back to sleep. It wasn’t until later I listened to the sounds and got to thinking I should have at least gotten out of my tent and checked out the area.
I just get suspicious when people post videos and then there’s only a few seconds of footage when it’s clear that whatever they were filming did not get beyond camera range.
The sightings of big cats in England has intrigued me–considering there aren’t supposed to be any. I don’t know a lot of the history or lore, but there are enough sightings every year that, like the Big Guy, it seems plausible.
@Fhqwhgads
Yeah, definitely. I’m not one for social media or living an internet based life but most people nowadays are at least into social media and many do essentially live a part of their lives on the web.
From selfies to blogs, many people seem to want to document their every waking (and even sleeping for some) minute online, from the outright bizarre to completely mundane goings on.
It makes sense to me that someone could have a camera rolling in pretty much any situation these days but only realise they were looking at something odd after the event.
I also understand how suspicions are aroused by videos such as the above. But, it is plausible that the above video could have been clipped from the seven hours of grass blowing in the wind filmed as part of someone’s daily life vlog.
I don’t know what’s more unbelievable, the existence of Bigfoot or that someone would vlog their every minute online, no matter how mundane.
It’s a mad mad world out there lol.
@springheeledjack
The mind does work in mysterious ways. I think a lot of the time we’re on autopilot and our minds are just operating within the boundaries they’ve set for any given environment.
Have you ever been driving down a road and there’s a car stopped (or driving at a crawl) in the middle of the road but you don’t realise and have to slam the brakes on or swerve to avoid them?
That should never have happened as you were watching the road ahead and had seen the car in front, your mind just didn’t acknowledge that it wasn’t moving in the way that it should for that given scenario. It was a car in the road therefore it should have been travelling at speed, but it wasn’t so you got caught out by your own mind. I’m sure we’ve all been there at least once, can be a heart stopper!!
ABCs in the UK is a funny one, there have been (and still are) sightings recorded and photos taken by some very credible people but it doesn’t ever seem to get taken seriously within the natural sciences community over here. It gets taken seriously by the police though when sightings are reported near schools and the like!!
There was a documentary made, which followed the travels of a resident UK ABC investigator and a Canadian(?) trapper who had been flown over so that they could investigate old photo’s and recent sightings.
From memory the trapper was in the UK for around six weeks and they found no evidence for the existence of ABCs in the UK, none whatsoever. It was quite funny actually, the ABC investigator had an album full of photo’s of supposed ABC sheep predation but for every photo the trapper reviewed, he determined the attacker to be canine. Dog, dog, dog, the ABC investigator was a little bit crushed by it all lol.
The trapper did leave us with one poignant thought though, he said that someone can live in an area in America/Canada which is relatively heavily populated by big cats and yet, throughout their whole life, they will not see one because the big cats are so masterful at what they do. They can be right next to you and you wouldn’t have a clue, they are that good.
So, if you could live in the midst of a healthy population of big cats and still not see one, what’s the chance of proving the existence of a comparatively tiny population in an area where they are believed to not exist?
I guess the parallel I would draw between UK ABC and American/Canadian Bigfoot sightings is from my own personal experience. No one can tell me that ABCs don’t exist within the UK because I saw one, I don’t think I saw one, it wasn’t mistaken identity, I saw one. There’s plenty of people who would say the same for their Bigfoot sighting, are they lying? I know that I’m not so surely I should afford them the same respect (by believing in their honesty) that I would request were afforded to me?
When someone says, with absolute sincerity, that they have seen something that shouldn’t be there then shouldn’t we all be open minded enough to respect that that person could be telling the truth, or should we all stay safely within the learned boundaries that our minds would have us operate within?
I’m making a conscious effort to not fall into the latter category, if only to try to minimize the risk of another ‘car stopped in road near miss’ lol!
Have a good day
@springheeledjack
The mind does work in mysterious ways. I think a lot of the time we’re on autopilot and our minds are just operating within the boundaries they’ve set for any given environment.
Have you ever been driving down a road and there’s a car stopped (or driving at a crawl) in the middle of the road but you don’t realise and have to slam the brakes on or swerve to avoid them?
That should never have happened as you were watching the road ahead and had seen the car in front, your mind just didn’t acknowledge that it wasn’t moving in the way that it should for that given scenario. It was a car in the road therefore it should have been travelling at speed, but it wasn’t so you got caught out by your own mind. I’m sure we’ve all been there at least once, can be a heart stopper!!
ABCs in the UK is a funny one, there have been (and still are) sightings recorded and photos taken by some very credible people but it doesn’t ever seem to get taken seriously within the natural sciences community over here. It gets taken seriously by the police though when sightings are reported near schools and the like!!
There was a documentary made, which followed the travels of a resident UK ABC investigator and a Canadian(?) trapper who had been flown over so that they could investigate old photo’s and recent sightings.
From memory the trapper was in the UK for around six weeks and they found no evidence for the existence of ABCs in the UK, none whatsoever. It was quite funny actually, the ABC investigator had an album full of photo’s of supposed ABC sheep predation but for every photo the trapper reviewed, he determined the attacker to be canine. Dog, dog, dog, the ABC investigator was a little bit crushed by it all lol.
The trapper did leave us with one poignant thought though, he said that someone can live in an area in America/Canada which is relatively heavily populated by big cats and yet, throughout their whole life, they will not see one because the big cats are so masterful at what they do. They can be right next to you and you wouldn’t have a clue, they are that good.
So, if you could live in the midst of a healthy population of big cats and still not see one, what’s the chance of proving the existence of a comparatively tiny population in an area where they are believed to not exist?
I guess the parallel I would draw between UK ABC and American/Canadian Bigfoot sightings is from my own personal experience. No one can tell me that ABCs don’t exist within the UK because I saw one, I don’t think I saw one, it wasn’t mistaken identity, I saw one. There’s plenty of people who would say the same for their Bigfoot sighting.
There’s a CGI quality to the video, as if someone transposed the walking figure into the blurry field.
I agree with Crytokellie and Springheeledjack that the pan out is a red flag. Why would you turn your camera away from the most incredible thing have or will ever film?
To me, and this is subjective, it is almost like the filmer turns the camera away like “Okay, that’s a wrap!”
Changing subject, I have been disappointed in the lack of photographic and video evidence over the past couple of years. That with all the increased attention, better camera phones, more camera phones, more “expeditions,” there is not more evidence is concerning. I don’t necessarily buy the we have driven them further into the wilderness arguments, but I don’t have an answer either.
Anyway, it is good to see some the old gang. We just need photoexpert and dconstrukt!
Re; Iwanttobelieve…
This doubtful video aside, I believe that out of place Big Cats could be present in England or anywhere else for that matter. Big Cats are not cryptids, they do exist in the world, there is no question of that. That Big cats could have been released and now survive where they shouldn’t is a strong possibility in the UK. Here in the States the Mountain Lion is slowly extending it’s range back into the North East where it once lived. In fact, many animals are returning to their former Eastern habitats including black bears and coyotes.
I want to believe-
Yep. That’s the thing about creatures living in their own environment–they adapt and become very good at blending in. And I am guessing we would be amazed by what is really near us during a walk in the woods, if we had the ability to see everything around us.
I’ve always thought about taking a GoPro style cam and strapping it to my back while hiking to see what might be there…then I get to thinking that if I saw any real weirdness it would creep me out and might ruin future hikes 🙂
Another example is driving down any road with wooded areas along the side of the road. Seriously you can’t focus on more than a few feet within before everything is shaded in black and natural background. Anything could hide in there–people, BF, bear, cats, and unless they moved or did something to stand out, you’d never see them.
I live in Iowa, and we have coyotes in the wilder areas. I’ve heard them on several occasions to the north and west of the town I live in, but in my 51 years, I’ve only seen a coyote twice, and I get into the woods.
Personally, with cryptids including the ABC’s I think another thing working against cryptozoology in general is that a lot of people just aren’t interested, or really don’t want to believe there are odd things in the world and so dismiss stories and reports as imagination. The mind if an interesting place, and a lot of people like things neat and tidy, and the idea that large primates or big cats in places they shouldn’t be is too much of a stretch and those types of things are dismissed out of hand. And even if someone of that mind set saw something, they might ignore it, dismiss it or assume they didn’t see it just because it doesn’t fit with the way they perceive the world.
On the flip, it’s also easy for people to see Bigfoot in every shadow and every figure walking at a distance. That’s the hard part on our end.
However, I too, like to think that our kind (cryptomundians) keep an open mind, and even in videos like this one that are probably mundane or flat out hoaxes, we keep watching and looking with the idea that there are other things out there.
I live in Eastern Pennsylvania, less than 1 hour from Philadelphia. In or regularly, passing through my backyard are; squirrels, flying squirrels, cottontails, woodchucks, raccoons, skunks, red foxes, white tailed deer. Less than 1 mile South of my house there are; otters, minks, weasels, gray foxes, coyotes – more properly coywolves – bobcats and an occasional black bear. Oh and I left out the large aggressive feral cats and wild dogs. We also have bald eagles nesting less than 1 mile from home, they soar overhead at times. Why cite all this? Could an out of place animal be here too, going unnoticed until stumbled across by the unwary? Yes I believe it could. Remember, most of the animals living out of doors are not on display like at the zoo. They are wary of people most of the time.
This doesn’t count the deer which have lost their timidness and come right up to my front door because stupid people feed them…
Put a fedora on that head and we have the gait of none other than Huggy Bear 🙂
-cryptokellie
Exactly. Most people think that animals are low on brain power and can’t help but be seen by us.
I’ve seen trees chewed by beavers in an area near to us, but I have yet to see one aimlessly wandering so as to be seen.
Oh yeah, I forgot about beavers. And bats…3 species. They are nearby my house too. Thanks Springheeledjack. Of course I’m leaving out all the vermin; opossums, muskrats, wood rats, mice, voles, moles and shrews. Do I add the dozens of reptiles and amphibians that pass through my backyard and live in the surrounding area too?
Very few people see the two kinds of venomous snakes that live near me but they are there. And remember, this is less than 45 minutes from center city Philadelphia.
Let’s not get carried away, folks.
I grew up maybe 4 or 5 miles from a place known locally as Panther Swamp in Florida. Supposedly there have not been panthers there in “forever”, but my dad (who is 80) tells of a tense car ride when he was a boy and they had to roll up the windows in spite of the summer heat because SOMETHING was pacing the car alongside the dirt road through the swamp. (He didn’t see it, but he heard it.) Since there are Florida panthers further south, panthers must have been in the area at one time.
I haven’t seen Slender Man, either, but there are surprisingly a number people who report seeing such things.
Bigfoot lies somewhere in between. Even the biggest Bigfoot believer would have to admit that the evidence for panthers in Florida is A WEE BIT better than the evidence for Sasquatch. Even the biggest Bigfoot doubter would have to admit that the evidence for Bigfoot is better than that for Slender Man, in spite of both having “eyewitnesses”. But just where on the spectrum does Sasquatch lie? One way or another, “I haven’t seen coyotes, but coyotes are real; I also haven’t seen Bigfoot, therefore Bigfoot must also be real” is a poor, even pathetic argument.
–Fhqwhgads
You’re not getting the point of our statements. The point is (thanks to Cryptokellie) that there is wildlife all around us that we never see on a daily basis. Even larger things such as panthers, coyotes, even bears.
And the fact is, if the list of animals above can operate within the vicinity of humanity without being seen on a regular basis, then those animals are able to actively hide and live their lives in relative anonymity.
The point is not that BF must be real because other things can hide in close proximity to humanity, but the idea that there are other examples all around us of creatures who can hide and the fact, opening the door for the idea that something even as large as BF could remain in the wilds, undetected. And just because people go into the woods doesn’t mean they’re going to spot a BF if they’re really there. People as a whole, really are not very observant.
We’re simply making a case for the idea that even something as reportedly big as a BF could use its environment to stay hidden from the hiker. hunter, and city-folk who venture into the woods.
My favorite example is 2010 in Thailand they discovered a stingray 10 feet across. It had been living in the rivers without every having been caught or seen before then. The locals knew something was living there, but it was not proved real until 2010. Yes, it was in water which is an altogether different environment, but the point is, something big was living alongside humanity without being seen, filmed or known.
My personal pet peeve has always been the argument that ‘well since we can’t seem to find and capture a Bigfoot then they don’t exist.’ It annoys me because that idea makes the basic assumption that we’re better than everything else at everything, and if we can’t catch, kill or find something, then it can’t exist because humanity is just that good (followed by me rolling my eyes).
This is only one piece of the argument for why Bigfoot may exist. We’re just focusing on it here because of the shady footage above.
And I’m with everyone else—with the advanced camera phones everyone seems to carry, footage like this makes me think hoax because it seems almost intentionally too fuzzy. And short. It kills me that still, today, in the 21st century, the best footage available is the P/G footage–but that’s a whole other thread and debate :).
And mandors pointed out there’s “CGI quality” to the footage. When I watched it there was that blurriness around the figure and at first it made me wonder if someone could mess with footage to make it look just blurry enough (I don’t personally have the skills, but I am ASSuming with the right software you could). But it made me wonder if that’s what we’re seeing up there.
@springheeledjack — “My personal pet peeve has always been the argument that ‘well since we can’t seem to find and capture a Bigfoot then they don’t exist.’” Pet peeve or not, it’s not an argument to dismiss out of hand. But lest peeves and other emotions get in the way, let’s look at analogous arguments for three other things that lack strong experimental evidence.
The first is the possibility of a 16-seed upsetting a 1-seed in the NCAA men’s tournament. Since the tournament was expanded to 64 teams, there have been something like 132 such match-ups, and the 16-seed has NEVER won. Does this mean that the probability of a 16-seed pulling the upset is zero? No, but it’s a pretty good argument for that probability being low. The correct way to calculate the best estimate for the probability is with Bayesian inference, and that result will depend on the prior, but assuming a uniform prior and N failure with no successes, the best estimate for the probability is 1/(N+2).
The second is the magnetic monopole: a theoretical particle that has a north magnetic pole with no corresponding south pole, like an electron is all negative charge and no positive charge.
The third is a transitional animal between bats and rodent-like mammals.
These last two have been sought, of course, but so far unsuccessfully. There are strong arguments in physics that a magnetic monopole should exist in principle, but it may require a huge amount of energy to create and decay almost immediately. There are strong arguments in biology that the proto-bat must have existed, but perhaps we are unlucky and no fossils of it have survived to the present. In both cases the absence of evidence is noteworthy, but not really compelling.
How about the first case? Because the rules do not make it impossible for the 16-seed to pull the upset, its probability should be expected to be low, but certainly not zero. Again, there is a strong theoretical argument that mitigates against the absence of evidence — but the quantitative result in this case demonstrates that the absence of evidence does make a difference. It does in the latter two cases, too: our inability to find or make magnetic monopoles rules out certain possibilities for them, and the absence of proto-bat fossils implies they were probably not very widespread.
What about Bigfoot? Bigfoot lacks the theoretical “necessity” of any of these cases. It might not be impossible for such a creature to evolve, but if it never did, it really would not affect anything we have good reason to feel sure about. Bigfoot is less like the proto-bat and at best like the 16-seed beating the 1-seed. The longer we go with even amateurs looking for him in their spare time without finding anything definitive, the harder it becomes to maintain that Bigfoot is widespread. The problem is, if Bigfoot is really rare, questions about breeding populations become more serious, and it becomes harder to explain “reliable” eyewitness accounts in places like Delaware.
And, of course, there is the issue of how the population of Sasquatch seems to be inversely proportional to the ability of people to collect strong evidence. Back in the 1800’s, when travel and long-distance communication were difficult and cameras were bulky, slow, and expensive, every other town seems to have had trouble with the monster, but the menfolk were able to hunt him down easily enough and capture or kill him. Today everyone has a pretty decent camera in his pocket at all times, but enthusiastic gangs of yahoos no longer find it so easy to capture the beast. At some point this must be taken seriously.
The best answer is one of my favorite quotes: “Never tell me the odds.”
Probabilities are great on paper, but they don’t solidify an answer. There are always circumstances and situations and people/creatures that defy the odds. So forgive me if I don’t buy in.
As to towns running into and capturing or killing the thing, that has all kinds of answers. We have more population covering more and more of the open ground, but I’m guessing even that larger population does not get out into the wilds as much as prior generations. Back then people had to hunt and forage and spent a whole lot more time in the woods. Nowadays, we go to McDonalds if we’re hungry. We don’t venture into the wilderness unless we choose to.
And perhaps capturing and killing a few Bigfoots in ‘olden days’ caused a certain wariness when it came to humanity. It’s all speculation but since we’re playing probabilities, so be it.
And I am guessing the Bigfoot is a population in decline. Like so many other species as humanity spreads and cuts into the wilderness, other creatures are forced further and further into deeper wilderness. And for survival’s sake, I’d guess it would try to keep itself hidden–humanity has a nasty habit of causing mayhem to any other creature that gets in its way.
And now I’m going to throw intelligence into the equation. If Bigfoot is out there and it is any relation to us then it’s got some higher brain power. Even apes and chimpanzees have evolved social systems and higher intelligence. That would give it a huge advantage in the wild and especially in hiding from average people coming into the woods. Even experienced hunters, hikers and Bigfoot hunters. I’m guessing it would know we were present long before we knew anything was near us.
Again, you’re talking in terms of superiority of humanity and technology, and I again roll my eyes. We like to think we’ve got it all figured out, and how could something possibly elude us because we’re smart and so on and so on. I’m guessing it’s that kind of arrogance that allows other creatures to live right alongside us without our even knowing they are there…except for the several hundred reports that come in each and every year (it may well be in the thousands…I haven’t checked the statistics :)).
If Bigfoot were just a myth and there was nothing to it, reports would decline after interest waned, but that is not the case. I can’t say with any certainty what it is tromping around out there, but there’s something. And humanity is far from being omniscient or smart enough to figure it all out.
“Again, you’re talking in terms of superiority of humanity and technology, and I again roll my eyes.” Oh no, not the dreaded eye-roll!
You suggest that even with more primitive technology, maybe hunters could find and kill Bigfoot with no problem. And maybe this has not only made Bigfoot more wary, but has put him into decline. Apparently you DO think that human thundersticks provide a kind of technological edge.
Frankly, if you’re just making up a fairy tale, I see no reason why you shouldn’t make it up any way you want. Don’t see Bigfoot? The woods are too thick. Woods are chopped down, and still no Bigfoot? It’s because he’s too smart. He’s an animal with wild instincts when it fits the story, and a genius building stargates when the story calls for that. The lack of evidence of Godzilla indicates that Godzilla is not real, but the lack of evidence of Bigfoot only shows how danged smart he is.
A story like that can work, but it requires a campfire and marshmallows roasting on the ends of sticks. If you expect it to be taken as more than a campfire story, you’re going to need to do better.
To me, the lack of clear trail and game camera footage of Bigfoot is very disappointing. You can go to YouTube and find all manner of trail-cam footage of animals and people doing the weirdest things and misbehaving in all manner of ways. That a definitive recording of a Bigfoot hasn’t yet turned up is puzzling to say the least.
What might the answers be;
1. Bigfoot never actually come out into the open…possible but highly unlikely 100% of the time.
2. Bigfoot somehow know where trail-cams are and avoid them…how would they know and why would they care? Nothing else in the woods does, including people whom you would think would know better.
3. Bigfoot only occupy the most inaccessible parts of the landscape…possible but then why are they seen by anyone at all?
All of the larger animals in North America including people are captured on trail-cams routinely. Why is there no unarguable Bigfoot footage? Perhaps the occasion simply hasn’t happened yet. Or perhaps…
But I am hopeful that it will happen.
Fhqwhgads,
All I am doing is speculating based on the info I have.
You’re under the false delusion that I need to prove the existence of BF to you.
The information is out there. If you choose to look at it and decide BF is a myth or a campfire tale, that’s your deal. Not mine.
People hold onto this sophomoric idea that everyone has to agree in order for there to be “truth.” It’s like religion and having to convert everyone or else you might not be right. I suppose it’s some twisted version of democracy–the side with the most votes wins (which doesn’t often work out in history–or the world really was flat until the round-earthers got enough votes to change reality).
It’s the same with crypto. There is this constant battle of “unless you can prove it exists it doesn’t” which is a silly argument. Of course definitive proof hasn’t happened. That’s why it falls into the realm of cryptid. But that’s what cryptozoology is all about–looking for things that have yet to be proven positively.
The fact is, BF has been around in the media since the 60’s…and there are accounts much further back. Native American tribes talk of BF and its like, and there are countless stories of a large hairy bipedal critter in multiple cultures. Does that fit mythology? Sure. However, you don’t get hundreds of continuous reports every year about sightings of minotaurs and dragons these days unless I’ve been reading the wrong accounts.
I see more to the BF phenomenon than campfire tales. If you don’t buy in, be my guest. But the more important question is: if you don’t buy in, why are you wasting your time on this instead of pursuing something more satisfying…unless you just like arguing with people. Either way, it’s not my job to convince you of anything. I don’t have a vested interest in what you believe or don’t believe, and I no longer waste time arguing for the existence of BF, trying to bring people into the fold.
You’re free to believe whatever you wish and so am I. I’d rather spend time discussing cryptids and pursuing possible evidence (the above video, such as it may be).
And the above video doesn’t come close to presenting anything beyond the mundane and known.