Sierras Evidence Initiative Thermal Footage
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 28th, 2013
Most people that have seen my Sierras thermal footage from last August (2012) have seen the wonderful breakdown done by skeptic/researcher Phil Poling (below) but missed the raw uncut video/audio (I ran on my head the whole time) as it’s 51 minutes but you will feel like you’re there with Sanh and I when this happened. Also included is the audio from the campfire conversation as we circled back to camp and I break it to Ro Sahebi and Todd Hale that I’ve been filming the bipedal subjects they had been curiously watching in silhouette spying on them from the immediate vantage treeline just above them. So crazy as the quiet summer we had at the site this year just reinforces how lucky we were that night and how hard it is to visually document these stealth animals as if I did one thing different I literally completely miss them altogether (they did nothing to initiate investigation). I couldn’t get any other angle on them as with a distance of 100+ yards and strict light discipline outside of camp, we technically shouldn’t be able to see them…..without a thermal of course.Bart Cutino
Uncut Bart Cutino’s Sierras Thermal Footage Video/Audio sync. Includes re-creation at 42:30. Total run time: 52 minutes (produced by: Phil Poling)Sierra SiteProject
Phil Poling Breakdown of footage (17 minutes) is back online.Bart Cutino
I breakdown the thermal footage recorded by Bart Cutino with the Sierra Evidence Initiative in 2012. This is the first appearance on YouTube of this footage.ParaBreakdown
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.
So, there were three people back in camp, roughly in the same direction as where the guy with the flir was filming, and he happens to film three Bigfoots. Hmmmm, what a coincidence.
The YouTube channel.
Ok, fairly objective review, I suppose, but what gets me is that the FLIR recorder had “problems yet to be resolved” from the factory. What does that mean? What specific problems and why would the company allow such a defective item to leave the manufacturing floor? And once it did why wouldn’t Bart immediately take it back for a functioning model? Isn’t there even a focus ring/function on a FLIR?
Also, 320×240 resolution? That’s worthless, like an old 1980’s CGA card. Why even bother using resolution like that for something that demands as much definitive proof as Sasquatch footage? Not trying to bash, but these are legitimate points of concern.
My system disabled the videos, but what I saw of them was a big so what…Minus the jittery audio commentary, you wouldn’t think anything unusual was happening anyway., just people in the woods at night.
There are other questions here as well:
1) After much discussion, back at camp, about going back in the morning and recreating the scene, the FLIR from that is dated a month later…
2)They returned to camp because of low batteries, and yet…they made audio recordings, which I must assume is with the same camera, as its called, “Uncut”.
3) I’m grabbing at straws here, but there’s a possible case where a gap, close to the camera, exposes an object farther away and makes the object look like it’s moving when the camera sways.
I’m not calling anyone out, but Bigfoot evidence must avoid creating any confusion, even if it doesn’t pertain to the animal. Sasquatch is NOT gonna get taken seriously until SOLID proof is brought forward. This is close, another anecdote to put in the book, but it’s not the proof, and could be fodder for more skepticism.
What I’m not seeing is any questioning of the more substantial points made in the skeptical discussion of the video.
mandors: circumstances of the filming seem to rule out any of the humans known to be on the site.
grafikman: the gear isn’t cheap, and amateurs with less than part time to do this live with financial, time, and sundry other limitations. Not sure the problems with the camera are major; no FLIR is going to prove anything. Intriguing, good FLIR or no.
Mik: same thing, I guess. I try not to slam people who are only doing this because mainstream science has failed the society on this issue. The professionals are ignorant or asleep, take your pick. I’d rather what folks are doing than the nothing that would be done otherwise.
And I will say one thing about that skeptic: that’s what a true skeptic should sound like.
And I wanted to add something about this:
“I’m not calling anyone out, but Bigfoot evidence must avoid creating any confusion, even if it doesn’t pertain to the animal.”
Well, that’s calling them out. I didn’t find anything confusing. I found the team’s work just the way Phil Poling found it: complete, concise and persuasive.
“Sasquatch is NOT gonna get taken seriously until SOLID proof is brought forward. This is close, another anecdote to put in the book, but it’s not the proof, and could be fodder for more skepticism.”
Too many people have been spoiled by The Age of Nature Film, and don’t have a good idea how much time and work goes into those films. That is MONEY paying for FULL-TIME work. Again: FLIR won’t prove anything, and it won’t even move the needle for those who don’t understand how to sift and evaluate.
And I personally have no time for anyone who won’t take this seriously until they get proof.
Do they think the proof will be obtained by goofing around?
Good video. It looks like it might have pacing because it was aggravated and was wanting to come that way, maybe. It couldn’t because the guys were there. Again, the deer slowly came through. It was probably hunting the deer or whatever was coming along the game trail. Fun to look at.
6-7 Nev mule deer herds converged on that meadow that night Bryan, and the guys told me three came into camp and just quietly hung while I was a above filming the squatches. This is a seasonal area and the herds are usually in like this for a few weeks every Aug though we couldnt get it right this yr as everything was off from the Sierras drought, fires and even range cattle coming into site twice and eating all deer forage. Now we must wait until next July/Aug at this location unfortunately as it was quiet this yr except for a few knocks and one rock thrown towards at 2am a mile away
Some great questions guys and I think you’ll find the answers to every single question in detail in All PDF Analysis reports (4) loaded with photos here.
In addition here’s the link to 11 re-creation vids as although the footage is not sexy by any means at 100 yds thermal, and this material admittedly tedious, the investigation is critical as it really was the most objective (like a mini peer review) and detailed as this field as ever seen and I thank everybody brought in independently for all their work (a major collaboration of researchers and time)…especially longtime field partner and the extremely skeptical Ranger Robert Leiterman who led investigation. If nothing else I hope our work will raise the standard of expectations for video documentation moving forward in a field that desperately needs it.
@DWA No, TESTIMONY “of the filming seem(s) to rule out any of the humans known to be on the site.”
The filmer moves 3 or 4 feet to his right, or forgets that’s where he was, and he’s in a direct line with his camp. Again, 3 and 3 too much of coincidence for me.
Oh, and who was “sleeping” in the truck?
mandors: the account in the video says those three objects – all taller than any of the participants in camp – arent any of the people known to be present.
I don’t presume them to be lying unless there’s evidence they are.
Mandors is absolutely incorrect as I was never in direct line with the guys below and he’d know that if he would read the PDF reports and look at the 11 re-creation videos we provided which entailed hundreds of hours of work and contributions from over a dozen researchers. If he takes the time to do so he’ll concede that the investigation premise was to try destroy the footage and nothing” is based merely on testimony but on actual physical re-creations and testing.
DWA is correct as two people (one at fire) and one in a truck were asleep the whole time (please listen to all the audio as well) and the shortest subject documented with a minimal wrror of margin is at minimum, 6-8 inches taller then anyone in my party and significantly bigger.
The re-creation model is 6’3″ Kipp Morrill and he was not present on night I got this footage.
Please do the due diligence before making false assumptions as for once (that’s the point, to raise the standard) you dont even have to “research” yourself just look at what’s been provided for you.
Thank you
Too many guys doing comfy chair investigations. Too few guys sleeping on the ground.(Well, or on cots) Nice work fellas.
Folks:
Watch the second video above and read this for two of the better analyses of purported cryptid evidence you will ever find.
Ploughboy: Not only too many people not sleeping on the ground (and thinking a lot about those experiences), but also too many people thinking hip-shoot cynicism is skepticism. It’s not.
I’m going to be bringing up Degnostik’s classic quote a lot, I fear:
[M]y first thoughts are still that people are honest and know what they are doing and talking about, and wait untill I’m proven wrong, not the other way around. Believe me, it’s faster – foul things get obvious quickly, while the other way keeps you in the dark. History of science is full of examples of manipulation and stolen credits, so you might miss the right thing if your perception and thinking operate in a negative mode. Dealing with frequent disappointments is worth it. As Dr Ian Stevenson once said (not an exact quote): it’s much better to be 51% sure in something important, than 99% sure in something trivial.
I have never seen a more searingly correct analysis relevant to this topic. To assert you know is virtual proof you don’t. But at least you’ll be correct if you’re proven right, which will be the first instant in which you have known anything.
Much better to know what’s going on, every minute of the way. Then, even if you’re wrong, you were right all along.