Update: White Bigfoot Caught at Night

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on September 22nd, 2014

ThinkerThunker takes a look at some interesting footage from Pennsylvania of a purported white Bigfoot.

In Part 1, I cover how the white guy on the left is either non-human, or has one of the rarest faces in the world.

See also:

White Bigfoot Caught at Night
White Bigfoot Filmed in Pennsylvania

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.


5 Responses to “Update: White Bigfoot Caught at Night”

  1. dconstrukt responds:

    lol… when you have to make a video to explain why your garbage is legit… you’ve already lost. (obviously just my opinion)

    curious… do these jabronie’s think people are THAT stupid to believe this garbage?

    (well you’d probably say yes after visiting wall mart, but anywhoo…)

    if you’re a jabronie who makes these garbage videos… please comment… i am REALLY genuinely curious if you’re mentally ill? on mind altering drugs? delusional? escaped from the state hospital, posting these videos from the state hospital…

    inquiring minds want to know.

    oh and if you have better video, please post them too. 🙂

  2. cryptokellie responds:

    As there are no real discernible scale markers in this video, this blurry image could be just about anything from a mask to a paper mache mock-up.
    Thinker Thunker is laying a clunker on this one.

  3. PhotoExpert responds:

    dconstrukt–LOL Yes, I know what you mean. But worse than the people that produce these videos are the people that make videos explaining why we are looking at a living and breathing Sasquatch. Those people at are a whole new level.

    Remember the guy that would take a video and try to point out why this video shows a real BF each and every time? He even pointed out on known hoaxed videos why the subject is a living, breathing, genuine Sasquatch. That guy kills me. Or at least he tries to kill me by laughter.

    There is an old saying that “a little knowledge” will get you into trouble. And this is usually the case for each of these people trying to explain why the subjects are real BFs. So is the case of this video with ThinkerThunker. He tries to explain a blink as not being a mask. And if what we are viewing is truly a blink, ThinkerThunker would have some credibility. The real problem is that ThinkerThunker does not have enough expertise to distinguish a blink from artifact phenomena attributed to movement on a video where there is a slow shutter speed to allow for proper lighting. The problem is not the video, it is his explanation. He has some knowledge but not enough to distinguish naturally occurring digital artifacts from a “blink” Therein lies the problem. And therein lies the ensuing comedy because his explanation is almost humorous.

    Both “sceptics” and “believers” twist and misconstrue events to fall into their belief system or nonbelief system of analysis. Objective people remain objective to uncover the truth. I am not going to comment into which camp ThinkerThunker falls in to by his analysis. I do not know him. But what I do know is that ThinkerThunker is taking facts of what appears to be a blink, but is not, and running with it. There is where his lack of expertise and knowledge get him into trouble.

    What we see here is a slightly blurry video when there is movement by the camera or by the subject. This is optical physics at work. The video cameras are designed in such a way on automatic setting or manual settings, to open up the aperture of the lens in low light or dark conditions. When this happens, the depth of field is affected and also allows for a blurred affect. In still photography, I can make people moving look like ghosts or car headlights at night look like a defined solid streak. It is just the nature of the beast and what objective people who are experts, know as optical physics.

    What ThinkerThunker is describing as a blink is not. If you notice, the point and frame of the video where the blink occurs, is when the subject moves abruptly. The camera tries to compensate for this by blending frame 10 with frame 11. What the viewer sees is the eyes appear to close a bit or for the amature video analyst, a blink. For the expert analyst or optical physics expert, we see a rather static subject, mask, or nonchanging face, appear to change shape by the video camera creating a digital artifact due to the movement. Notice the subject’s eyes never close completely as you would see in a typical blink of any known animal on earth. What appears as a partial blink is simply due to the camera trying to compensate for movement. It is nothing more or nothing less.

    I applaud ThinkerThunker for trying to look into the matter of whether this is a real BF or an animatronic head. My gut feeling is that he wants to believe this is a real BF because he only gives us two alternatives–a highly prices animatronic head or a real BF. It is not that black or white I am sorry to inform ThinkerThunker. Their are latex masks today that range from several hundred dollars to a couple of thousand dollars (affordable) which even allow for the person wearing the mask to blink and move their lips. For me, ThinkThunker did not have enough expertise to know about these moderately priced masks or did not have enough expertise to include that possibility in his analysis. Also, he did not have enough expertise for the simplest and correct answer, this is not a blink to begin with.

    So when someone does not have enough expertise(knowledge)to distinguish a common occurrence with a video cam and the resulting video, and a blink–that is a red flag. When the analysis excludes other more common and rational probabilities and tries to pigeonhole the viewer into two choices( BF or it is an expensive animatronic head), that is another red flag. These red flags are all signs for a skeptic and/or a believer.

    Through the process of deduction, I conclude that ThinkerThunker falls into the camp of “believers”. Either intentionally or unintentionally, ThinkerThunker wants to prove from his belief, that BF exists. And no matter what rational explanation or expertise or facts are presented to him, he belief system will exclude the obvious and he will believe this is a genuine video of a BF. Forget the evidence! Forget the expert explanations! Forget the facts! Forget the more rational explanations! ThinkerThunker is going to hold this video as genuine evidence of a BF and to hell with the truth.

    ThinkThunker’s belief is going to win the day, no matter how wrong his analysis is. And getting others to believe what he believes, is an attempt to add to his credibility. Luckily for those in the camp of objectivity, there are people who will offer more plausible explanations that are scientifically based.

    And ThinkerThunker, I am not criticizing a believer for the sake of criticism. I also criticize skeptics for the same reasons. I do not know if BF exists or not. I would like to believe that there is some undiscovered primate living in NA. I think that is a possibility and even a probability. But I take a good dose of skepticism with that unproven possibility. I am objective like that. But what I will not do is misconstrue the facts, ignore optical physics, exclude more logical probabilities, use a little knowledge outside my area of expertise to prove my “hypothesis”. You have done just this, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And that is the problem!

    Anyway, I have just updated your update.

  4. BunniesLair responds:

    I am not an animal biologist or expert. I am your average person that observes things, that I would hope, are obvious to everyone. What all these hoaxers fail to grasp… is the eye/mouth ratio on great apes. Their mouth is the same distance across as their eyes.

    And as blurry as that video is… you can tell the mouth is NOT as wide as the set of the eyes.

  5. PhotoExpert responds:

    BunniesLair — Indeed, that is an astute observation. You just proved one does not need to be an animal biologist or expert to render an opinion. And your opinion is based on fact.

    What a hoaxer will argue is that Bigfoot is not a great ape and that we do not know what species it is. Because Bigfoot has not been proven, hoaxers will argue the unproven to try continue their hoax. You make a valid observation about the great apes. They will argue Bigfoot may not be a great ape. They will not say what Bigfoot is but they will argue any point to keep their hoax alive. Sad but true!

    Nonetheless, great observation!




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|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.