New Ontario, Canada Bigfoot Video
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 30th, 2011
Thanks to FB/FB for this, and of course Timbergiantbigfoot.
Timbergiant films Sasquatch flanking him November 21st 2011 Ontario, Canada. This is the third video by TMBGT to make the list. Confirms on Coned head, Bent legs, tree hiding, high shoulders, consistent coloring. This shows just how strategic Sasquatch are. We include some clips of Jim and how the video came to be.
Jim goes deep and goes solo. Sasquatch is on film for 28 seconds.SasquatchWatcher
I think the video looks very interesting!
What do the Cryptomundians think?
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.
Jim needs a telephoto lens.
On the positive side the narrator is articulate and confident. However, the video images speak for themselves.
I’d rather hear more about the orang pendek than this silliness.
It’s an interesting few seconds and it merits further study, but not much further. When all is said and done, it’s still a blobsquatch.
*Sung to the tune of “Macho Man” by the Village people . . .
“Blobsquatch, Blobsquatch Mannnnnnnnn . . I want to be a Blobsquatch Man!
Blobsquatch, Blobsquatch Ma-ha-ha-han . . I want to be a Blobsquatch . . . MAN!”
Not much to go on here. At 100 yards, not much detail to be seen.
Closer, where details could normally be seen, what we get is a blobsquatch.
In both cases the view has to be filtered through lots of trees.
If the closer scene could show the resolution of the 100 yard scene, maybe we would have something here.
As it is, pretty unconvincing.
Well, there haven’t been many new videos lately but honestly, this video is disappointing. Its only interesting depending on the context in which you view it. Now if I had been alone in the woods with my camcorder, and had I captured those images knowing I was the only one up there, I would be ecstatic. On that note, I’m not calling this TimberGiant fella a liar. However, anyone else viewing this is viewing under a different context. We have no way of knowing what that is, where it was, when it was or anything else for that matter. It could be ANYTHING/ANYBODY. It could so very easily be a hoax. In a way, I would encourage people to keep these types of videos to themselves as, to the public eye, they only further cast doubt and ridicule onto an amazingly interesting subject.
For an indistinct image, the analysis is absurdly detailed and certain, especially the assertions of sasquatch intent.
I’m gonna leave it to someone who actually saw something to let me know what they saw.
Those woods are in Ontario? Looks like MD to me.
Can’t trust an adult who chooses to wear a necklace like that. Facebook Finding Bigfoot (everywhere they look) has authenticated it, so it’s a done deal. No need investigating it any further.
Bigfoot is centered in the frame? Check.
Film is unbelievably blurry? Check.
Bigfoot is in a habitat that could not sustain a mammal? Check.
This could be the real thing, but we will never know because it was filmed with a Bigfoot Blur camera. All Bigfoot hunters use them, I know, but the result is we are left to take the word of the photographer, instead of seeing the proof.
How could a forest not sustain a mammal? We are the most widely dispersed variety of fauna you know. I’m guessing you mean a large mammal and I hate when skeptics use that argument because its just plain wrong. The funny thing is that most places these experts say could not sustain a large primate are crawling with bears , which would not be as smart and could not exploit as many food resources as an intelligent primate. Not to mention a bigfoot’s territory would most likely be HUGE.
Not too impressed by the video. It’s way too far away, blurry and honestly, that could be a suit. I’m not convinced.
At the end of the video when he stated his theory on Patty, that was probably the best part.
Once again, who knows if it’s real or not?
I’m surprised no one here seems duped by the video. Usually, if one presents outrageous information articulately, confidently and as a forgone conclusion at least 20% will be open to it. This is encouraging.
I gotta feeling somebody if going to ask Santa for an HD Camera with a Zoom Lens this Christmas! Why do Bigfoot hunters have the crappiest photography? This is the biggest mystery in cryptozoology I think!
I am more mesmerized by the guy’s 70’s bear claw necklace than I am by his video! š
Unfortunately, the video is not proof of anything except a blobsquatch.
There are a couple of encouraging points to this video. First of all, the guy seems honest and sincere. Secondly, he is out in the field trying to get some evidence rather than sitting at home and playing Bigfoot quarterback. Thirdly and lastly, he did mention that he used a “monopod”. Monopods are easy to carry or at least easier than taking a tripod. Monopods do help stabilize a video. So kudos to him there. Unfortunately, a zoom or telephoto lens would have proved more helpful and a more useful piece of equipment than his monopod.
I wish this man the best in his pursuit of Bigfoot!
On a side note: Even as a Bigfoot enthusiast with above average camera skills, nothing beats having a professional videographer or professional photographer in the field with you. In fact, the video footage a professional videographer with limited or no Bigfoot experience would trump an expert Bigfoot researcher with above average camera skills. My gut feeling is this is the reason we always get blobsquatches!
If this man has limited financial resources, he doesn’t have to invest in a telephoto lens. There are simple screw on attachments that shorten or increase the focal length of the given lens on his video camera. Just a thought and some encouragement to this particular Bigfoot enthusiast.
Notice how the dog had a nervous excitement when filmed at ~8:11. Although it turned around briefly at the camera, while giving a high pitched whimper/whine, the dog quickly looked back out into the bush in front of them. That was not a pretend behaviour. Something out there was definitely putting the dog on alerted interest.
This guy could have gotten more than a close enough look at some point prior to or later than this video to convince him that this was a bigfoot.
For all the video shows, it might be.
But you canāt go to anybody with this and say āhereās a bigfootā based on the video alone. Report the sighting to a local research organization or the BFRO? OK. Maybe even send them the video? OK.
But to just present this and say, done, look at that, proof? Nah.
I’m getting pretty sick of the half-witted nihilists that frequent this site. A “blobsquatch” is not in motion, and it does not have two legs and swinging arms. If you’re going to hang here, learn the terminology. In terms of the orang pendak, there is far, far more evidence of Sasquatch. For some reason, people feel compelled to believe the 3 or 4 eyewitness accounts of sub-poverty line 3rd worlders and yet dismiss thousands of sightings by their educated neighbors.
This is great footage.
It’s a blob. If someone didn’t tell me it was Bigfoot, I’d think it was just a guy in a fur coat.
The problem with video’s today is that it’s video, and no longer film. The more the blow it up, the more pixelated it becomes and harder to see.
I need something of the quality of the PG film, or at least the Freeman film to take it seriously. Anything like this that takes explaination I usually just throw out.
mandors:
There is much more evidence for the orang pendek than you may think.
At least two Westerners with serious scientific cred claim to have seen one. The World Wildlife Fund sent a wildlife artist to Sumatra to listen to the descriptions of many native sighters, who came from a variety of locales and were not allowed to meet with one another beforehand, and draw the animal they were describing. He drew the same animal, over and over.
And I agree with you that there is so much evidence for sasquatch that, unless something absolutely unprecedented in human history is going on, scientific confirmation doesn’t amount to much more than a formality, albeit an important one. In fact at least one scientist has gone on record that the sasquatch is all but confirmed.
But I would never go so far as to call this great footage. There is something dark that is apparently moving at some point. But I would never vouch personally for it being anything in particular. You can’t even get an approximate idea how big it is.
Why do they waste our time? Come up with something better and closer. As far as showing proof of a coned head, arched back and everything else…WHERE? I see a blur in the distance. If “zoomed in” it becomes a bigger blur.
Although the video is blurry, I get the feeling this guy saw something that spooked him. Whether or not it was a Sasquatch is another thing.
Move along Cryptos nothing to be seen here…
There is good reason why there is no zoomed footage; my guess is because zoomed footage would reveal Sasquatch is actually Bob, Linda or whomever. This video shows nothing more than someone walking through the woods wearing a hood and thatās it. It could just as well be the GEICO Gecko for all we know. More of the same old crap.
What’s interesting about this video? It’s brutal. If timbergiant is seeing and filming all of these bigfoots, a team of field researchers really need to go out to this area of Ontario and capture this thing once and for all. I’m skeptical of timbergiant.
I for one just can’t seem to understand how no one is willing to call it what it is? I would think that if I had a $2400 dollar HD camcorder I would at least post it in HD! You would also think that people would notice the small stuff, like the date of the posted video. It says the 21st but on the video it says the 20th, you would also think people would catch little mistakes.”I never saw it clearly” was one and you would think people would know it’s a bear claw not a boars tusk. Are we so eager to see evidence that we are willing to accept anything? All one has to do is google the name and you will see hundreds of ads appear, everything from Viagra to Dating services. It’s just a guy that has figured out how to make money off of people using Youtube and that’s all. In my honest opinion, I think the real credible researchers are those who travel across the country and investigate sightings and encounters, those who put forth the effort to find the truth, not make it up as they go along. Ever wondered what happened to the trail cam someone sent him and why there are NO more pictures? Or what happened to his son and why is he not in the picture anymore, just use some common sense and stop sending your hard earned dollars to Canada.
The black Lab is the clincher for me. I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money on the fact that the Dog is āonā . (but I donāt bet…LOL) Not only does the dog know something out there (he knows exactly where)ābut he also knows heās not sure if he wants to mess with it. The labs wrinkled brow, eyes and tongue to nose= (the last indicating ID uncertainty) @ 8:10:44 shows a very concerned dog. Might I remind those who may not know Labs that they are not easily intimidated by other animals. Also: this dog is definitely scared. Believe it! Also; the reporter is undoubtedly uneasy if not downright scared.
Agreed; although I believe the reporter is sincere, IMO; I donāt understand how all of his many āencountersā could all be sasquatch? Maybe though…perhaps onto a very hot area?
@choppedlow
I don’t get it, about the bear-claw necklace. I have one I acquired the hard way. Its a full 4-1/4″ long. I inlayed it around the claw base with Lambina crystal opal and I’m proud to wear it anytime, anyplace. Must be some kind of joke …but I still don’t get it.