ThinkerThunker – Most Impressive Bigfoot Footage Ever?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 9th, 2015

In this clip I use a second shot captured by the game-cam for a size comparison. Whatever it is appears to be about 8′ tall.

The original videographer, Ronald Von Beringe, weighed in commenting on youtube a few days ago:

In my opinion Thinker Thunker has a firm grasp on my video. He is well-versed in common sense, animation and camera technology… definitely more than most. I retrieved the footage from the trail-cam myself and I assure you his entire assessment of my video is accurate. He is correct about the creature’s size, gait and its distance from the camera… and he’s right that the notion of CGI enhancement is absolutely preposterous.

I did not notice the similarity to the creature in the Patterson-Gimlin film until seeing Thinker Thunker’s breakdown. Now I am even more eager to go back to Griffith Park to see this beast with my own eyes — perhaps next week!

Regardless of its proximity to a large city, Griffith Park is a sprawling heavily forested and mountainous area spanning nearly 5000 acres. Deer, Bobcat, and even mountain lion are known to inhabit those woods… is it so hard to believe that the Timber Giant would too?

~ Ronald Von Beringe

Original footage:

See also: Most Impressive Bigfoot Footage Ever?

Check out all of ThinkerThunker’s videos here on Cryptomundo.

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.

10 Responses to “ThinkerThunker – Most Impressive Bigfoot Footage Ever?”

  1. SirWilhelm responds:

    Even an analyst as good as Thinker Thunker, can’t say for sure if it’s a Bigfoot, or not, but he can eliminate the possibility of a hoax, and if it’s not a hoax, what is it?

  2. airforce47 responds:

    Thinker Thunker is correct with his analysis. I saw the original video and didn’t think a lot about it one way or the other. It does appear to be genuine but isn’t necessarily that outstanding. It just supports my belief that more such media will support the existence of the species as technology improves in digital media. My best,

  3. Insanity responds:

    I am certain that Ronald is not who he says he is and his persona and biography is entirely fictional. He is using Robert von Beringe as name-dropping.

  4. thescaly1 responds:

    It is not unreasonable to assume that makers of hoax videos will cast it as well as they can in terms of body dimensions to indicate a realistic size for the subject (bigfoot).

    At Nando’s Chicken last year I was served at the counter by a young man who was seven and a half feet tall. I have no rational thoughts in argument of the seeming muscle movement on this subject’s back.

    All the best

  5. dconstrukt responds:

    lol…. sorry guys, i’m not buying this is real for a second…

    Evidence should be strong enough to stand on it’s own… if you need a self proclaimed “expert” to “analyze” the video that just means the video sucks.

  6. Lyall M responds:

    This is really stinky B.S. there is no overnight camping in Griffith Park. Entry access roads are closed by 10 pm and Park Rangers and LAPD will arrest trespassers. There are couple of organized boys and girls camping sites but nothing for adults. This hoax would have made more sense if they had said it was a child had recorded it.

    Look at the name “Ronald Von Beringe” and look up the history of Gorillas and see what you find.

    I usually find THinkerThunker postings interesting but he seems to have dropped the ball with this. Wasn’t there a CGI guy from down south who had some excellent CGI Bigfoot clips pictures that he had done that had people thinking they were real – specifically he had done a picture from the back that was very Gorilla like.

  7. Peter Von Berg responds:

    I don’t know, to me it looks obviously like a drawn picture. Am I crazy or what.

  8. Goodfoot responds:

    Are we to believe a Bigfoot would walk past the open door of a tent, obvious a human conconction, and not look into the doorway? This strains credulity for me.

    Also, something about the creature seems hinky to me. While what we see of the tent looks 100% real, the creature looks odd to me – almost like a drawing with charcoals. But then, I have little experience with infrared videography.

    What say you, PhotoExpert?

  9. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot–You called? LOL

    Well, what I think depends if you are asking me about StinkerStunker’s analysis. the video itself, or analysis of the subject as a possible BF.

    As for StinkerStunker, it is the same old same old. He is about drawing people to his site to make some cash, as always. But I must admit, that his analysis was decent this time. He did remain objective to a point. I always give credit where credit is due. The problem is that StinkerStunker always finds the subject of the video to be a BF or just falls short of proclaiming it to be a BF. I find his analysis to be almost correct this time, with the exception of extrapolating legs into his diagram. But I do agree with him on partially on the relative height and his deductive process to get there. The problem is his extrapolation. A person on stilts used for drywall installation could accomplish the same height and stride, but would be hidden. If we saw them, we would know it had to be a human on stilts whereas StinkerStunker assumes the bottom half of the body. This is always the problem with StinkerStunker because his analysis is either unscientific, extrapolated while excluding other possibilities, or just plain wrong as with his ratio hypothesis which I disproved here on Cryptomundo. But I will give him a B for effort this time. His analysis was not that bad compared to other videos he has analyzed.

    As for the video itself, I find it interesting. The problem I have, which is a rookie mistake when dealing with infrared photography and videography, is that the focal point was incorrect. The tent is in the focal plane but beyond that, the exposure and focal point is incorrect–rookie mistake. One must make so many corrections that it distorts what really could have been seen. And because the tent takes up so much of the possible dpi, there is a pixelation problem that makes the subject (the supposed BF) look drawn or cartoonish. That does not bother me too much because that is the end result in trying to isolate the subject of the video. But what does not sit well with me, with that being said, is the gait of the subject. Something looks odd about that gait. It does not sit well with me and that sends up a big red flag.

    As for this being a possible BF? Who knows? When analyzing videos we must take into account all possible evidence. Some posters have brought up the fact that there is no overnight camping at the park which does discredit the backstory and therefore any evidence. In a court of law, if a witness has been shown to lie on the stand, we must consider anything coming from the mouth of that witness as a lie. It holds true here too! Other posters have brought up the name of Ronald Von Beringe. We have to consider that as well. And even though StinkerStunker is no expert, objectively speaking, his analysis was not that far off base. Pretty decent this time but he still made a few mistakes. And some of his explanations just do not hold water as there are other more feasible ordinary explanations. He skewed some of the evidence such as what the bottom portion of the subject would look like. But that is easily disproven if a person wore stilts. The cartoonish look is what it is. That is what happens when you try to bring out a subject more clearly with a low pixel dpi count. That does not concern me too much. But that cartoonish gait–huge red flag for me.

    Given all the evidence presented, I could not proclaim this video to be a video of a supposed BF. Given all the evidence, this is simply a hoaxed video. Whether the supplier of this video was in on the hoax is another story. But intentionally or unintentionally, this is a hoaxed video.

  10. Joxman2k responds:

    Something is off about the movement. There is an unnatural gait and fluidity to it. It is stepping hard and is almost strutting. If an animal, or human were in that situation they would not move so cavalierly. It would move in a direction with purpose. It would not walk as tough it were directionless or in a half circle without looking at it’s environment. Nothing screams CGI, but I think that is what it is. Computer games now have excellent third person animations that are not motion captured. If this were motion captured, more imperfections of movement would be apparent. That is how we walk, not perfectly with each step. This feels like an algorithm based animation. Well done for sure. If you watch it several times you can put that movement in a video game of a skyrim type guard walking around a castle on hard floors.

    With all that being said I’m not totally convinced that I’m correct. There is something about the movement that doesn’t fit. I can’t really pinpoint it.


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.