New Bigfoot Video Footage

Posted by: Bill Brock on October 6th, 2015

So i was sent a weird video today.. I don’t know for sure what it is.. But I feel like this is just a person in the woods.. The guy who filmed it says “It is real” so here is the footage I was sent.. Please comment let me know what you think. #TeamRogue

Bill Brock About Bill Brock
Bill Brock is the host of Discovery Channel's Monsters Underground, where he and his team are hell-bent on proving the existence of monsters living beneath the earth's surface. During their underground investigations, one wrong move could turn the cave into their tomb. But the most dangerous threat of all is the pitch-black darkness and the risk of coming face to face with a cave creature - such as the shape-shifting Aswang or the bat-like Olitiau - and not seeing it until it's too late! Brock's Team in Maine are known as “Team Rogue”, they travel the Northeast in search of Cryptids and the Paranormal. Team Rogue investigated the Turner Bigfoot sighting where a young man filmed what some say is the best Video since the Patterson/Gimlin Footage! The team has investigated multiple sightings in Maine and New England.


9 Responses to “New Bigfoot Video Footage”

  1. johnp3907 responds:

    Does Bigfoot wear Wranglers or Levis?

  2. dconstrukt responds:

    looks real to me.

    NOT!

  3. SirWilhelm responds:

    All Bigfoot videos should be analyzed forensically. It’s the only way to have a chance of knowing, with any certainty, if there is a hoax involved, or not. Opinions are meaningless.

  4. David-Australia responds:

    A big festering pile of smelly manure. Why do people waste their time promoting such obviously fake crap?

  5. Goodfoot responds:

    SirWilhelm
    That’s gonna be a mighty big, mighty busy forensic team. The more videos they study, the more they’ll be sent. In the end, all we have is opinions. That bothers some people, and it bothers some people a lot.

    Me, I’m okay with the opinions.

    Oh, and that looked like my mailman, taking his usual short cut. But I’ve never seen him move that fast before.

  6. mandors responds:

    I think it’s useful to examine the scene and circumstances, before we even comment on the subject. Here, we have a camera filming on a straight path to a clearing, where magically something crosses directly in front of it. What are the chances of that?

    On to the figure…

    Not a terribly graceful creature at one with its environment. I love how it winds up its arms before it leaps across that treacherously flat and open path, kind of like a little kid jumping into a pool. Then, it scrunches itself up before entering the tree line on the other side.

    Come on Hoaxers, can you at least do some research before you start filming?

  7. SirWilhelm responds:

    @ Goodfoot “That’s gonna be a mighty big, mighty busy forensic team.” That’s a strange thing to say, in MY opinion. What difference does it make how big the forensic team is, or how busy they are? In fact, I would think a big, busy, forensic team would be a good thing, since it would mean there’s a lot of video evidence coming in. Yes, there’s bound to be some hoaxes among them, but, that’s what forensics are for, to weed out hoaxes, among other things.

    Yeah, everyone has assholes, too, I bet you’re OK with with them too. I bet you have one too, and I bet it’s full of your opinions.

    .

  8. Goodfoot responds:

    Speaking of strange, it’s kind of strange to take such offense at what I said. Did you perceive it as some sort of personal attack on you?

    What I was saying was that you’d never get enough forensic experts to sign on to a “Bigfoot Film Fest” to make it worthwhile. Too much peer ridicule and flushed tenure.

    Or I should have said, “fear of peer ridicule.”

  9. SirWilhelm responds:

    @ Goodfoot. The whole tone of your post was condescending, especially concerning opinions, as if you know it all, or know better than anyone else.

    As for “peer ridicule” and “flushed tenure”, it’s what’s wrong with main stream science, today, and with politics. Too much fear of ridicule, and too much fear of losing “tenure”, or power through time in office. The purpose of peer review used to be to confirm discoveries, and advance science. Now peer review is used, as you said, to ridicule those with new ideas so the status quo can be maintained. The OPINION of a “reputable” scientist is worth more than any new scientific evidence produced, if it contradicts what is already “known”.




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.