Possible Bigfoot in IMAX production of Great North

[WGBH]

At the 9:20 mark.


http://bigfootlives.blogspot.com/2010/01/possible-sasquatch-recorded-on-imax.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Must be.. No way it could be a caribou ..:rolleyes:

[William Parcher]

Already covered here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139434&page=5) in post 185.

[HarryHenderson]

What a perfect example to use in trying to decipher (or point and giggle at) WHAT MAKES BIGFOOT BELIEVERS THINK EVERY UNIDENTIFIED HAIRY BEAST IS BIGFOOT. Somebody please show me the error of my ways, but there's not even one hint in that film that the unidentified subject has, was or is anything to do with the notion, idea or caricature of Bigfoot except for the stupid suggestion from some 'Bigfoot rocket scientist' somewhere that it may be such. Whatever it is, it's not 8 feet tall. It's not even 5 feet tall. It's not 'massive'. It's not even bipedal. The fact it's far more, no wait, infinitely more possible that it's a...3...2...1...ta-da...bear/caribou/something known...didn't occur to the initial purveyor of the suggestion?

Would anyone who really thinks it's a Bigfoot, or even simpler, thinks it's possible it's a Bigfoot, please educate me?

[Skeptical Greg]

Already covered here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139434&page=5) in post 185.
A link to the BFRO analysis doesn't exactly cover it ..

[Bitter Monk]

A link to the BFRO analysis doesn't exactly cover it ..

Perhaps "already brought to the attention of the masses" would suffice? :D

ETA - Now I get it. LOL

[WGBH]

Sorry about the double post guys.

[KingMerv00]

"Oooh mommy, I feel like I'm right next to that fuzzy indistinct object!"

[Óðinn]

The vid doesn't stream outside the US, so I can't see it, BUT..

1) If Mat Moneymaker is hedging his bets, then PFFFFT.

2) The ONLY reason there would be no comment from a narrator is because is was evident (to the crew) that it was just another caribou. Any predator would have garnered a comment, let alone a bigfoot.

[WGBH]

No worries, there is something there but as usual its difficult to see.

[Akhenaten]

At the 9:20 mark.





No, there's not. There's no such thing as bigfoot.

I thought everyone knew that.

[William Parcher]

Is a tundra Bigfoot more, or less likely than a wooly rhinoceros?

[Akhenaten]

Who, me?

I'll have a quid straight out on the rhino, please.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/WoollyRhino.jpg

[William Parcher]

From the BFF...


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/2b5194ea.gif

[The Shrike]

I'm going with adult Golden Eagle as my preliminary hypothesis.

[WGBH]

:confused:

[William Parcher]

It looks like the gif is playing at the wrong speed. The herd doesn't move realistically.

[William Parcher]

This shows that they did put crew right up alongside the herd. This is not a long telephoto scene.

[Bitter Monk]

It looks like the gif is playing at the wrong speed. The herd doesn't move realistically.

Per Furious George, who created the gif...

Not all of the frames are there and it's not the right speed but I gave up caring about halfway through.

[William Parcher]

Certainly this crew did not quickly pop in and out of that location. How could a Bigfoot get to and then back out of that little gulley/cut without being fully seen? There are no trees or concealing foliage. As the camera pans, you can see that the concealed area to "hide" is fairly small.

[Bitter Monk]

[face palm] As I predicted, someone has taken my black caribou running out to join the herd as the sasquatch dashing out into the herd to take down a caribou. [/face palm]

[LuvGodzilla]

What I find interesting are the assumptions and speculation as to "very remote" and "they couldn't do this or that". The crew who filmed know what they had out there, what shots they needed and how to get them and how long it would take in the field - they are professionals. Sling loads can carry a lot of gear including motorized vehicles (atv's, motorcycles, bicycles, transport carts etc).

The full film shows the round up and the equipment they used. Amazing those Sami could use all that modern equipment for round up :D Seriously, some folks have a very narrow view. :rolleyes:

There were plenty of black caribou as BitterMonk stated, the figure moves like a caribou in a running herd of hundreds/thousands.

WP, I would have to think that safety precautions were taken to ensure the film crew were not stampeded or over run by being that close so it's easy to consider that there were people present familiar with the caribou and the animals traits to help out. (consultants)

I also don't feel the film crew lugged those heavy cameras and their gear by hand, I'm sure they had some form of transportation other than a heli to move around.

I truly get a kick out of some of the hoax talk. A film crew out filming a documentary on Caribou and the Sami people wanted to hoax a Bigfoot within their film for a whole 3 or 4 seconds so that many years later some astute observer would find their gag :o

[William Parcher]

Here is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PApnjgIjGCU) an enhanced clip that is now on YouTube. For me, it doesn't look like or move like a caribou.

If I was only shown this clip and had no context, I would say bear.

[William Parcher]

These images show crew actually working on this documentary. Dark clothes and also ghillie-style camo suits. Tripod and also a mini crane thing.

[LTC8K6]

Crewmember spooking the herd for the shot?

[Ausmerican]

Crewmember getting into position to film from a different angle?

[mike3]

Here is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PApnjgIjGCU) an enhanced clip that is now on YouTube. For me, it doesn't look like or move like a caribou.

If I was only shown this clip and had no context, I would say bear.

To me though I'm not sure. The thing that bothers me about the bear explanation is that it has that head and shoulders-like shape. How does a bear do that? This video shows a bear standing up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9PE9tEEcdg

but it doesn't give such a distinct head-and-shoulders shape. I'm not saying this thing is Bigfoot, but because of this it doesn't seem like a bear to me. Do you have any photos, etc. of a bear of the right shape on two legs that could yield this appearance?

And as for the caribou explanation, where are the antlers? Is it really young and "spiky" or something? If so, how do you get the head/shoulders shape?

[kitakaze]

Certainly this crew did not quickly pop in and out of that location. How could a Bigfoot get to and then back out of that little gulley/cut without being fully seen? There are no trees or concealing foliage. As the camera pans, you can see that the concealed area to "hide" is fairly small.

There is no way that a Bigfoot is going to sneak into and out of that little dip without the crew seeing it. Also, if that was a Bigfoot sneeking up on a Caribou herd, what was it doing? There was no caribou take down. Forget that. How does a big ape with hair, not fur, no fire, and human-like feet survive on the tundra?

The first thing I thought was grizzly bear, but looking at the shot of the crew WP posted, I agree that it's a crew member.

Matt Moneymaker loves this. Another ambiguous video to flop on people as Bigfoot.

[The Shrike]

I have rejected the eagle hypothesis because I couldn't make sense of the apparent head sticking up. It's too big and at too odd an angle for a bird. Also, a new still posted at the BFF looks decidedly Ursid to me. If actually filmed in Quebec or Labrador, black bear is the only species there (other than occasional polar bear on the northern coast).

[RoboTimbo]

Here is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PApnjgIjGCU) an enhanced clip that is now on YouTube. For me, it doesn't look like or move like a caribou.

If I was only shown this clip and had no context, I would say bear.

That helped a lot. You can see it's the south end of a bear running away from the camera, rather than paralleling the herd.

[William Parcher]

Also, a new still posted at the BFF looks decidedly Ursid to me.


That's this one by wolftrax. He seems to maintain that it's a dark caribou.

This image may be deceiving because it really looks like a perfect bear outline. But the apparent separation between the foreleg and the body may very well be a bit of grass sticking up. IOW, the grass at that instant creates the shape of a bear.

My choices in order of probability:

1. Crewmember moving laterally. Everything below the waist is hidden by the gully. He may be carrying something.

2. Bear.

[The Shrike]

1. Crewmember moving laterally. Everything below the waist is hidden by the gully. He may be carrying something.


He must be carrying a black bear.

Not only does the "crewmember" hypothesis fall short on logic (e.g., no one needs to flush a herd of caribou to move while they're migrating; how would a clip like this - in which one of the crew got in the shot - ever make it off the editing room floor?), it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.

Supporting the bear hypothesis are things like (1) bears occur in Quebec and Labrador, (2) bears do chase migrating herds of caribou, and (3) the subject in the clip you posted is the right color and shape and displays the movements and behavior of a black bear.

[Skeptical Greg]

Has anyone tried to contact the people that made this project ?

[GT/CS]

He must be carrying a black bear.

Not only does the "crewmember" hypothesis fall short on logic (e.g., no one needs to flush a herd of caribou to move while they're migrating; how would a clip like this - in which one of the crew got in the shot - ever make it off the editing room floor?), it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.

Supporting the bear hypothesis are things like (1) bears occur in Quebec and Labrador, (2) bears do chase migrating herds of caribou, and (3) the subject in the clip you posted is the right color and shape and displays the movements and behavior of a black bear.

People in your world never make mistakes?

[William Parcher]

He must be carrying a black bear.

Not only does the "crewmember" hypothesis fall short on logic (e.g., no one needs to flush a herd of caribou to move while they're migrating; how would a clip like this - in which one of the crew got in the shot - ever make it off the editing room floor?), it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.

Supporting the bear hypothesis are things like (1) bears occur in Quebec and Labrador, (2) bears do chase migrating herds of caribou, and (3) the subject in the clip you posted is the right color and shape and displays the movements and behavior of a black bear.


How would 3 seconds of a predatory black bear ever make it off the editing room floor? I can use your logic against you.

"We better chop out those few seconds of bear."

"Why?"

"Because we never got any good footage of the bear chase and it will really frustrate the audience to briefly see the bear and hear nothing said about it."

"Forget it. We're leaving it in. Nobody will notice. And if they do notice and are disappointed... well it's too bad for them."

You see that could work for accidental crewmember too. It's brief and not part of the main action (which is the streaming herd of caribou).

Anyway. the State of Massachusetts has a great webpage on black bears. (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/wildlife/facts/mammals/bear/black_bear_biology_faq.htm)

Predation on adult cervids is usually rare; however, in Labrador and Newfoundland, very large males may prey on adult caribou.

[LuvGodzilla]

He must be carrying a black bear.

Not only does the "crewmember" hypothesis fall short on logic (e.g., no one needs to flush a herd of caribou to move while they're migrating; how would a clip like this - in which one of the crew got in the shot - ever make it off the editing room floor?), it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.

Supporting the bear hypothesis are things like (1) bears occur in Quebec and Labrador, (2) bears do chase migrating herds of caribou, and (3) the subject in the clip you posted is the right color and shape and displays the movements and behavior of a black bear.

I disagree. Your assuming the crew member is on foot and not on an ATV or Motorcycle. Your also assuming that nothing was done to set up the shot such as causing a division in the herd. There is no real explanation to that shot to make an informed decision about what is really going on and when (time of year and purpose).

Why would a crew member be in the film, because it was so insignificant that an edit wasn't necessary, it's seconds, and at long distance. The focus was on the herd in the water on the shoreline.

Black Bears are forest dwellers in general, not tundra, that is the home of the Grizzly and Polar Bear. Black Bears have an instinct to use tree's for escape from danger, to be out in the open with no tree's for miles goes against it's nature. I personally doubt it's a bear, let alone a black bear.

The movement to me says a fairly fast moving human dressed in cold weather gear on a motorized all terrain vehicle. The oops moment is when they realized they came over the top of the bank. It's possible that they themselves are videoing the herd from the moving all terrain vehicle.

What looks like an arm or leg to others looks like a human arm bent over to steer (handle bars), the lumpage on the back looks like a pack and not a "butt" in my observations (opinion).

Check out this bear after these sheep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgPUhWQxkZk

[GT/CS]

I disagree. Your assuming the crew member is on foot and not on an ATV or Motorcycle. Your also assuming that nothing was done to set up the shot such as causing a division in the herd. There is no real explanation to that shot to make an informed decision about what is really going on and when (time of year and purpose).

Why would a crew member be in the film, because it was so insignificant that an edit wasn't necessary, it's seconds, and at long distance. The focus was on the herd in the water on the shoreline.

Black Bears are forest dwellers in general, not tundra, that is the home of the Grizzly and Polar Bear. Black Bears have an instinct to use tree's for escape from danger, to be out in the open with no tree's for miles goes against it's nature. I personally doubt it's a bear, let alone a black bear.

The movement to me says a fairly fast moving human dressed in cold weather gear on a motorized all terrain vehicle. The oops moment is when they realized they came over the top of the bank. It's possible that they themselves are videoing the herd from the moving all terrain vehicle.

What looks like an arm or leg to others looks like a human arm bent over to steer (handle bars), the lumpage on the back looks like a pack and not a "butt" in my observations (opinion).

Check out this bear after these sheep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgPUhWQxkZk

So you're saying the vehicle is hidden by the tall grass and all we see is the top half of the driver?

[William Parcher]

These attachments are from 1080p high-definition from the BFF...

[Skeptical Greg]

A black blob in 1080p still looks like a black blob ..

[Vortigern99]

Looks like a bear, especially in the third pic Parcher posted above.

[William Parcher]

I had converted those crops to jpeg which probably reduced the resolution. Here they are again as png.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/cc60386e.png

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/bac52745.png

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/a45981bc.png

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/df1d27ab.png

[William Parcher]

Another YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJf0pk7hHM), this one in 720p. I think I'm sticking with a crewmember on foot, facing the camera and moving sideways. There is no great speed involved in his movement. He pops up from behind the rise, moves sideways like a crab always facing the camera, and then ducks back down behind the rise.

The herd is not huge or dense. I suspect he is in that camo ghillie and is really not in any great danger of being trampled. There are no caribou anywhere near running him over. If he holds still they may run right past him without being spooked. You can see this in the close scene shown in this clip. The herd is not dangerous at this density. Various crewmembers are probably in constant communication with 2-way radios.

[Gawdzilla]

From the BFF...


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/2b5194ea.gif

Compare shape that to the caribou heads at the bottom of the screen is shape and to the other caribou nearer it for a size guide.

[GT/CS]

WP, I think you're right. Everyone keeps looking at at thinking the object is facing the way it's moving, but it's not. It's facing forward the entire time.

[desertgal]

Another YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJf0pk7hHM), this one in 720p. I think I'm sticking with a crewmember on foot, facing the camera and moving sideways. There is no great speed involved in his movement. He pops up from behind the rise, moves sideways like a crab always facing the camera, and then ducks back down behind the rise.

The herd is not huge or dense. I suspect he is in that camo ghillie and is really not in any great danger of being trampled. There are no caribou anywhere near running him over. If he holds still they may run right past him without being spooked. You can see this in the close scene shown in this clip. The herd is not dangerous at this density. Various crewmembers are probably in constant communication with 2-way radios.

I think you're right.

[LTC8K6]

Cameraman.

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJf0pk7hHM

I'm wondering why, as they run beside the river and start to cross it, they ( most of them ) turn and start running the other way .. All this while a bunch in the distance, never headed toward the river at all ..

[The Shrike]

How would 3 seconds of a predatory black bear ever make it off the editing room floor? I can use your logic against you.


You can try, but I think there's an enormous difference between a fleeting image of a black bear showing up in a film like this and a fleeting image of a tremendous gaffe on the part of the film crew. Apples and oranges.

I don't suppose there's audio with this thing? A tiny bit of narration to the effect of "The herd didn't take much notice of one of our crewmembers on an ATV . . . " or ". . . a black bear briefly gives chase" could clear this right up.

[William Parcher]

I think the guy moves laterally and towards the camera. Here is a crude diagram.

[LTC8K6]

I still think it was an attempt to maneuver the herd.

[GT/CS]

You can try, but I think there's an enormous difference between a fleeting image of a black bear showing up in a film like this and a fleeting image of a tremendous gaffe on the part of the film crew. Apples and oranges.

I don't suppose there's audio with this thing? A tiny bit of narration to the effect of "The herd didn't take much notice of one of our crewmembers on an ATV . . . " or ". . . a black bear briefly gives chase" could clear this right up.

It's not a tremendous gaffe. When it's on a huge screen everyone in the audience is going to be looking at the herd and won't see the guy hiding behind the bushes. Would you have seen the gaffe you weren't told to look for it?

[The Shrike]

It's not a tremendous gaffe. When it's on a huge screen everyone in the audience is going to be looking at the herd and won't see the guy hiding behind the bushes. Would you have seen the gaffe you weren't told to look for it?

I think I would, but I'm a wildlife biologist and perhaps more likely to notice such things than most folks.

I suppose if I had just been awed by some 2-hour IMAX movie on the Arctic I wouldn't leave the theater complaining about that little black blob I saw. Although I've never seen an IMAX movie, so I can't say for sure. I do know that if I paid money to see any kind of movie and in one shot I could see the director's knee or something I'd conclude that the film making was pretty shoddy.

[The Shrike]

I think the guy moves laterally and towards the camera. Here is a crude diagram.

I see what you're talking about. MY first impression was the subject had a weird (and smooth) lateral movement that made me wonder about someone on an ATV - or in fact, a Golden Eagle! But in at least one of these animations it looks to me like a loping black bear moving away.

I suppose I'll go with the herd and concur with the "hunched over dude on ATV" hypothesis until any better information turns up because these more recent higher resolution images do look less bearlike in movement - and not entirely black in color.

[William Parcher]

I don't suppose there's audio with this thing? A tiny bit of narration to the effect of "The herd didn't take much notice of one of our crewmembers on an ATV . . . " or ". . . a black bear briefly gives chase" could clear this right up.


I said the subject is there for 3 seconds, but it's actually only 2 seconds. It takes longer for a narrator to mention a black bear than the thing is on the screen. Do you say it before it appears, during, or after? Do you insert a CGI arrow pointing to where the bear is? How many people do you think will be pissed off because they never saw the bear that was announced?

[desertgal]

I think I would, but I'm a wildlife biologist and perhaps more likely to notice such things than most folks.

I suppose if I had just been awed by some 2-hour IMAX movie on the Arctic I wouldn't leave the theater complaining about that little black blob I saw. Although I've never seen an IMAX movie, so I can't say for sure. I do know that if I paid money to see any kind of movie and in one shot I could see the director's knee or something I'd conclude that the film making was pretty shoddy.

Given the 3-dimensional aspect of an IMAX film, the flaw may not be as noticeable to the audience as it would in the regular film. I know, when I've seen films in IMAX, it was difficult to take in all the action on the screen. You'd have to continually swivel your head left to right and up and down to view it all. Something like this, when your attention is focused on the herd, could easily be overlooked.

[William Parcher]

My guess is that in the 2 seconds we see him, he moves no more than about 10 feet. He may actually be in a crouch (bent at waist) in an attempt to stay out of camera view. There is a sudden dropping down out of sight like he goes to his knees. I do not think this guy is on any kind of vehicle.

[William Parcher]

Minutes ago on BFF...

Looks like a knuckle-walking primate trying to remain unseen...IMO

SWEET!

[JcR]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b4a975e080d6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18667)

Well I certainly rule out a Porcupine...:)

[Edward Lark]

Definitely a cameraman or some other crew member. First thing I thought was "photographer repositioning for a better angle/closer shot."

[The Shrike]

Do you insert a CGI arrow pointing to where the bear is?
YES, d*** it! While we're at it, I'm going to need a few dozen arrows pointing to all the lemmings I can't see very clearly either!

(Point taken.)

[HumanityBlues]

I still think it was an attempt to maneuver the herd.

Good point.

[HumanityBlues]

I don't believe in bigfoot. Regardless, even if bigfoot did exist, it wouldn't look like THAT. This is really digging isn't it?

[Drewbot]

I just think a crewman got in the shot.
It is an editing error, they missed it in the edit, or they probably would have ditched the sequence. Or they thought it would not be noticed.

There may also be hired guides with them. And a tactic often used in african hunting, was to have someone up wind of the game stand in view, and then the hunter down wind, sneak up on the distracted animals. They might have radioed him that they are rolling and he drops out of view. Or they may have been on radio-silence, so when he saw the camera moving with the herd, he just dropped down.

[dafydd]

No, there's not. There's no such thing as bigfoot.

I thought everyone knew that.

Alas no.

[King of the Americas]

From the BFF...


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/2b5194ea.gif

This is the 'best' enhancement we can get off an IMAX reel???

We SHOULD be able to find out the creature's eye color...

[tsig]

This is the 'best' enhancement we can get off an IMAX reel???

We SHOULD be able to find out the creature's eye color...

Let's see, bigfoot shows up and the entire crew ignores it and just goes on shooting the herd thereby missing the biggest story of the century.

[King of the Americas]

Let's see, bigfoot shows up and the entire crew ignores it and just goes on shooting the herd thereby missing the biggest story of the century.

Look, I've seen IMAX films, these are poor quality images.

Let's have the original film, and we'll be able to make out exactly what it is.

[The Shrike]

Let's have the original film, and we'll be able to make out exactly what it is.
Indeed. There's someone at the BFF now claiming that there's a link somewhere related to this film that describes locals on ATVs "herding" caribou. This is the kind of information that, provided upfront, makes these little film snippets a lot easier to figure out.

[William Parcher]

A scene just after 16:00 does show the tribe herding the caribou using "dirt bikes". But I wouldn't then immediately conclude that the subject in question is on a motorcycle. I still prefer crew "on foot" because of the quick pop-up into view and the quick drop-down out of view. I think that crew member knew they were supposed to stay out of the camera shot but misjudged the concealment of the hill when they shifted position. The dirtbikers wear helmets.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/152860e8.png

[HumanityBlues]

Is there anyone here who is actually still considering this is some sort of sasquatch?:jaw-dropp

[HarryHenderson]

Is there anyone here who is actually still considering this is some sort of sasquatch?:jaw-dropp
You'd probably be shocked at how many still hold out such hope. And please, don't speak up if so 'cause you'll be righteously 'pelted with rocks and garbage'.

Actually, ask the OP's author. He's probably not sure what it is, but a thousand smackers says he will not poo-poo the 'it's a possible Bigfoot' absur...errr notion. No wait, ask the world's greatest Bigfoot hunter #2, 'creature seeker', two thousand says he'll swear it's "inconclusive[1]".

[1] inconclusive = it's Bigfoot 'til proven otherwise. :eye-poppi

[LTC8K6]

Is there anyone here who is actually still considering this is some sort of sasquatch?:jaw-dropp

Here? As in JREF members? I wouldn't think so.

Except maybe for the hilarity aspect of it... :D

Foot was right there and they forgot to film it...

[HumanityBlues]

I dunno. Look at the picture Parcher posted. We could easily be witnessing an advanced herd of Squatches who ride motor cycles.

[WGBH]

It is probably a crew member, they have updated it on the BFRO.

[Drewbot]

It is probably a crew member, they have updated it on the BFRO.

Can you quote that? What are they saying?

[GT/CS]

Can you quote that? What are they saying?

This is a post from the BFF quoting the BFRO.

UPDATE !! (12 Noon PST, January 11, 2010): Moments ago we received the first reply from the president of Big Films Distribution: Mr. Daniel White.

White thinks it is a crew member directing the herd. He spoke with the cameraman (Filipe Teixera) by phone about it. Filipe (who apparently has not seen this web page yet) agrees that it is probably a crew person. White said in certain scenes of the film some crew members were "discreetly positioned" to direct herds where they needed them to go.

In reply we have asked to speak directly with the crew person who was caught in this shot. Haven't heard back yet about that.

If and when we speak to the crew person who claims to be the GNF, we'll ask some question we're just dying to ask .... especially if it would be possible for him to put on the same clothing ensemble, and have someone take a photo of him and email it to us. If and when we get that photo and/or statements, we'll post them to this page as an update, to close the mystery as a case of mistaken identity. Until then this page needs to remain accessible, in order to prevent what we were trying to avoid from the beginning -- grapevine confusion about which clip we're talking about, and/or a default assumption (for lack of a better explanation) regarding what the figure may be.

[LTC8K6]

I want a cookie...

[desertgal]

If and when we speak to the crew person who claims to be the GNF, we'll ask some question we're just dying to ask .... especially if it would be possible for him to put on the same clothing ensemble, and have someone take a photo of him and email it to us.

When did this crew person claim to be the 'GNF'? Daniel White said that he believes it is a crew member-it doesn't appear that the crew member has said anything.

So. They want some anonymous, hard working guy, busy with his own life and other projects, to take time out, a year or so later, to go to the studio, dig out one of the ghillie suits and pose for a picture so he can prove that he isn't Bigfoot to a bunch of people he doesn't know?

Yeah, okay. I'm sure he'll get right on it.

For that matter, given the distance in the film, and the fact that his features are indistinguishable, how in the world is a picture going to conclusively prove that it's the same guy?

[Drewbot]

If the director says it is a freaking crew member, then it is a crew member. He is probably thinking "I don't know what frikking guy was over there", and calling the film editor to thank him for getting him involved with a bunch of crazed bigfooters.

[wolftrax]

Daniel White wasn't the director of the film, the directors were Martin J. Dignard and William Reeve. White is the president of "Big Films" who I understand are the distributors of the film.

[GT/CS]

It's requests like those that makes bigfoot look more and more like a myth and the believers more and more like kooks.

[LuvGodzilla]

So. They want some anonymous, hard working guy, busy with his own life and other projects, to take time out, a year or so later, to go to the studio, dig out one of the ghillie suits and pose for a picture so he can prove that he isn't Bigfoot to a bunch of people he doesn't know?


9+ years later I believe :rolleyes:

[HarryHenderson]

Well, it only took little over a week for the year's first Bigfoot NON-STORY to take hold. That's way better than last year I think. Maybe some dubious kudos to all The Bigfoot Machine™ players that made it happen on such short notice? Good work people! When was the last "Oh **** man, that's Bigfoot! Wait, that's a plumber. Nevermind!" anyway?

[desertgal]

9+ years later I believe :rolleyes:

Oops, sorry, thought this was a more recent production. My mistake.

Jeez, nine years? That crew member is going to think the BFRO are a bunch of nuts, contacting him to pose in a ghillie suit nine years later.

And the BFRO has so much credibility going for them already...:D

[William Parcher]

The BFRO has now posted a YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BFROVIDEOS#p/u/0/uuimf0274fs) of the scene from Blu-Ray. They show it close up and slow motion.

It's a crew member for sure.

[LTC8K6]

The BFRO has now posted a YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BFROVIDEOS#p/u/0/uuimf0274fs) of the scene from Blu-Ray. They show it close up and slow motion.

It's a crew member for sure.

I demand a cookie! :p

[kitakaze]

The BFRO has now posted a YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BFROVIDEOS#p/u/0/uuimf0274fs) of the scene from Blu-Ray. They show it close up and slow motion.

It's a crew member for sure.

Hey, look at that. Hand, sleeve, backpack, human. What a shock. You know, because hey, maybe there really was a Bigfoot running around a film crew and a herd of caribou on the open treeless tundra in the Great White North. I love this little bit Moneymaker wrote here...

A few thoughts arose after saw the GNF on Blu-Ray+LED. We were disappointed that it was not a sasquatch, but we were also quite amazed by how different the various enlargements were. The different enlargements created, in effect, different figures -- figures that could be interpretted very differently.

You were disappointed it wasn't a sasquatch. That's nice. How about surprised? Were you surprised it wasn't a sasquatch? You know, because apparently you considered there enough of a possibility that there was a sasquatch running around a film crew and a herd of caribou on a treeless tundra in the sub-arctic to put out an APB on your website.

Apparently for Matt and his club, the need to have something to kick around for a while was more important than excercising any real sort of critical deduction. This is how Bigfoot enthusiasts make themselves look like dolts to people free from fortean addiction. You have a nine year old DVD of caribou on the tundra and you see a little dark thing. Bear? Maybe. Crew? Probably. Bigfoot? Please give yourself a shake and look at the situation. You don't have to think very hard to reasonably rule out tundra apes. Making a stink out of it and dipping it in Bigfoot funk just makes you look silly and desperate.

This is what Moneymaker does, non-events to pass the time and distract from the no Bigfoot situation. If Bigfoots were real, the BFRO would have found them long ago, rather than the 15 years of fail they're sitting on now. Moneymaker is living off the belief in Bigfoot. I highly doubt he retains that belief himself. It's his gig, though, and it requires dropping some nuggets here and there. Tundra-foot? Sure, been a bit dry lately. Let's roll with that...

[King of the Americas]

My initial thought was "bi-pedal movement"...

[HarryHenderson]

The dripping irony of the situation, in this particular instance of overzealous mis-identification, isn't a Bigfoot Anomaly™ at all, but in fact just a more obvious and/or public presentation of the norm. IOW, this IS Bigfoot. This is the type of thing where 'Bigfoot' comes from. And as Kitakaze righteously argues, the BFRO's APB was a feeble attempt at trying to make it so in this case regardless of anything/everything.

Note an initial problem with the vague 'subject' in the film was the duration of its presence. Barely 2-3 seconds, hardly enough time to discern there's something there at all. Which is why it wasn't edited out probably. Is it just coincidence that an oh-so-standard prerequisite for so many present-day 'valid Bigfoot reports' is they are of uber short duration also? It must be some kind of law or something 'cause a VALID 'Bigfoot sighting' isn't allowed to last more than a couple seconds, otherwise the subject becomes clear and Bigfoot is ruled out.

As I mentioned, we hardly ever get to see an obviously regularly-occurring conflict resolved so vividly. No, we mostly get the "I Saw Bigfoot Only Bigfoot And Nothing But Bigfoot So Help Me Gawd" reports from guys who then go into a coma or on a worldwide tour and then can't answer any ques...nevermind. ;)

[jiggeryqua]

Now that we've established that it's a crew member, let's review some skeptical suggestions:


I'm going with adult Golden Eagle as my preliminary hypothesis.

the figure moves like a caribou

If I was only shown this clip and had no context, I would say bear

a new still posted at the BFF looks decidedly Ursid to me.


(Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
1. Crewmember moving laterally. Everything below the waist is hidden by the gully. He may be carrying something.): He must be carrying a black bear.

Not only does the "crewmember" hypothesis fall short on logic (e.g., no one needs to flush a herd of caribou to move while they're migrating; how would a clip like this - in which one of the crew got in the shot - ever make it off the editing room floor?), it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.

Supporting the bear hypothesis are things like (1) bears occur in Quebec and Labrador, (2) bears do chase migrating herds of caribou, and (3) the subject in the clip you posted is the right color and shape and displays the movements and behavior of a black bear.

Looks like a bear, especially in the third pic Parcher posted above.


Phew...at least nobody said 'sasquatch!'

[kitakaze]

Not only does the "crewmember" hypothesis fall short on logic (e.g., no one needs to flush a herd of caribou to move while they're migrating; how would a clip like this - in which one of the crew got in the shot - ever make it off the editing room floor?), it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.

Mmmmmm... Shoe. :footinmou

:D

[WGBH]

So, instead of a crew member riding on a ATV, members here instead saw a golden eagle, a caribou, and a bear. So tell me, was this caused by Pareidolia? Sleep paralysis? A seizure? :p

[wolftrax]

low resolution.

[atpeace]

Apparently for Matt and his club, the need to have something to kick around for a while was more important than excercising any real sort of critical deduction. This is how Bigfoot enthusiasts make themselves look like dolts to people free from fortean addiction. You have a nine year old DVD of caribou on the tundra and you see a little dark thing. Bear? Maybe. Crew? Probably. Bigfoot?
It's his gig, though, and it requires dropping some nuggets here and there. Tundra-foot? Sure, been a bit dry lately. Let's roll with that...

Poor MM, but when you got nothin’ and you’ll never get nothin’ nothin’ is all you got…

“nuggets” is waaaay to kind, Kitakaze

I just hear “Alice’s Restaurant” every time I see a chart or vid or circles or arrows or fingers or toes

ap

[The Shrike]

Mmmmmm... Shoe. :footinmou
:D

I know, I know. I'm taking a fair share of abuse for this one. I guess the lesson is to always respect the Parcher - he nailed it and stuck with it and was RIGHT.

I'm taking solace in having provided a great example of the revisionist quality of science:

Observation: Black blob moves awkwardly in film.
Hypothesis 1: Golden Eagle.
New Data: Zoomed in loop of blob doesn't match eagle - ditch hypothesis. Looks more like bear.
Hypothesis 2: Black Bear.
New Data: High res images inconsistent with bear. Reject hypothesis (reluctantly, 'cause it seemed to make sense, but it's really not a bear).
Hypothesis 3: Dude from the crew, potentially on motorized transport.
New Data: Other dudes on film visible among the caribou, some on motorized transport - consistent with hypothesis.
New Data: Guy who made the film says it was a guy from the crew - consistent with hypothesis.
New Data: Blu-Ray enhancement clearly shows guy from crew - consistent with hypothesis (and no motorized transport evident).

So science wins another one. Yay science!

[kitakaze]

The dripping irony of the situation, in this particular instance of overzealous mis-identification, isn't a Bigfoot Anomaly™ at all, but in fact just a more obvious and/or public presentation of the norm. IOW, this IS Bigfoot. This is the type of thing where 'Bigfoot' comes from. And as Kitakaze righteously argues, the BFRO's APB was a feeble attempt at trying to make it so in this case regardless of anything/everything.

I think Moneymaker is frowning at Wally Hersom's home entertainment system. Stupid Blu-Ray hi-def big screen showing guy's sleeve and backpack, directing caribou traffic. Money could have kept "Great North Figure" front page for months. Now he has to go and write up some foo foo about resolution difference and technological curiosities along with some excuses about why it was reasonable to think it might have been Bigfoot. Vagueness is good. Money likes vagueness. Vagueness is something you can call the "Jacobs Creature" and trot around, hoping for more expedition registrations. Caribou herding images do not increase registrations and may cause people to think things such as Hey, Money, were you really dumb enough to think Bigfoot lives on the sub-arctic tundra and chases around caribou?

Once again, fortean addiction pummels common sense.

[LTC8K6]

Next time I'm going to say I see an Ocelot...

[superbu]

I don't see how anyone could look at the BFRO examination of the Blu-Ray version and not think this is a guy in dark clothing with a backpack and perhaps a dark baseball cap or a ski mask pulled over his eyes.

[William Parcher]

Aye, but another mystery remains from the high north. It's the Prince Edward Island thing (http://www.bigfootforums.com/images/woodsvid/woods.mov). Ahhh for the Love of Christ what is it? (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=51)

[Spektator]

Aye, but another mystery remains from the high north. It's the Prince Edward Island thing (http://www.bigfootforums.com/images/woodsvid/woods.mov). Ahhh for the Love of Christ what is it? (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=51)

That's Anne of Green Gables. She's ornery when people trespass on her lawn.

[HarryHenderson]

I think Moneymaker is frowning at Wally Hersom's home entertainment system. Stupid Blu-Ray hi-def big screen showing guy's sleeve and backpack, directing caribou traffic...<snip for brevity>

Once again, fortean addiction pummels common sense.
:D That's so funny! I too had thought about his decision to watch it with 'witnesses' in (apparently) his first hi-def viewing (i.e. at Wally Hermson's house where there's a Blu-Ray™ player). About 15 seconds into it Moneyfaker's head had to have been spinnin' with echoes of "So Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!" BTW love that word 'pummels'. And it so did.

Aye, but another mystery remains from the high north. It's the Prince Edward Island thing (http://www.bigfootforums.com/images/woodsvid/woods.mov). Ahhh for the Love of Christ what is it? (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=51)
A clever hoax/spoof. I still say (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=51&view=findpost&p=68353) it's a guy in wheelchair. ;)

[FreshHat]

It looks like a crew member in a hooded parka, with a backpack.

[GT/CS]

Looks like a guy with a huge bicep, in a ten-gallon hat, talking into a megaphone.

[The Shrike]

I'm going with ocelot.

[Drewbot]

Looks like the Memorial day footage guy.

[William Parcher]

Cryptomundo folks (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/new-imax-bf/) will show you that you can still have a Bigfoot even after you see it in Blu-Ray.


"This is getting interesting! The movement of the shoulders, plus the crest, makes my imagination shout "gorilla"."

"You can see the sheen off its back much like the sheen off the creature in the Patterson footage. This has an excellent chance of being a bigfoot, because if it was a cameraman, he or she would certainly know where the rest of the group was filming from, and would not risk getting in the picture. This is good stuff."

"That does not look or move like a human."

"Could the 'backpack' be an infant? Didn't the Memorial Day video also suggest a possible infant on the back?"


The real bigfoot appear to be mostly hunkered down on the hill well behind the backpacker. One dark subject appears to be standing upright, with 4 or 5 heads sticking up out of the grass around him. There appears to be movement with the upright subject, and some of the heads pop up, all while the camera is stationary so as not to create artificial movement.

Grandmamoses is Neil Burgstahler (Historian on JREF).

[Drewbot]

Grandmamoses is Neil Burgstahler (Historian on JREF).

Funny, I wish he was still here. I miss the CIA operative threads, and the secret bigfoot studies done at Berkeley conversations. Is there a way to petition reinstatement?

There is such a tiny fragment of the population that looks at that clip and sees Bigfoot. Bigfoot/Crypto forums are a gathering place for that small percentage of people. In that group they have a voice, and their opinion goes from being Whacko-kook in the general population, to being the Majority, or at least a respected minority in the Bigfoot forum.

[LTC8K6]

Cryptomundo folks (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/new-imax-bf/) will show you that you can still have a Bigfoot even after you see it in Blu-Ray.







Grandmamoses is Neil Burgstahler (Historian on JREF).

:bricks:

:bwall

[The Shrike]

I sometimes wonder if a bigfoot can be filmed without a baby on its back.

[The Shrike]

BTW, with all the subtle humor here at the JREF, it can be difficult sometimes to determine what the prevailing skeptical opinion of some phenomenon actually is. To wit, I know of no resolution to the PEI footage. Is there some official debunking of which I remain ignorant?

Ocelots notwithstanding, I don't know what I'm looking at in this clip. Is it thought to be CGI? Blobbear? An actual dude in a gorilla suit?

[LTC8K6]

I don't know what I'm looking at in this clip

You are looking at a crewmember trying to manipulate the herd without getting in the shot, and failing at the second task.

[atpeace]

it also would require an unusually large and agile human to move that fast over that terrain.



Shrike, when I read your opinion of this footage a bell (or maybe it was more of a wood knock) went off. I realized how it reminded me of another piece of footage and the comments made- “a man couldn’t scramble in the bush like that”, etc. It is the one take one or two summers ago by a Bf investigator in Michigan. Granted it was taken at night in deep woods not broad daylight on open tundra, but the movements of the two subjects possess a striking similarity, if I remember the other one accurately. I can’t load anything yet and I can’t remember the Bf guy’s name. My gut reaction isn’t going to win any science awards but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
ap

[William Parcher]

You are looking at a crewmember trying to manipulate the herd without getting in the shot, and failing at the second task.


Shrike is talking about the video I linked in post 99, not about the IMAX film.

[LTC8K6]

Shrike is talking about the video I linked in post 99, not about the IMAX film.

I know.

[kitakaze]

Cryptomundo folks (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/new-imax-bf/) will show you that you can still have a Bigfoot even after you see it in Blu-Ray.

"This is getting interesting! The movement of the shoulders, plus the crest, makes my imagination shout "gorilla"."

"You can see the sheen off its back much like the sheen off the creature in the Patterson footage. This has an excellent chance of being a bigfoot, because if it was a cameraman, he or she would certainly know where the rest of the group was filming from, and would not risk getting in the picture. This is good stuff."

"That does not look or move like a human."

"Could the 'backpack' be an infant? Didn't the Memorial Day video also suggest a possible infant on the back?"

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1310 Abe Vigodalicious.

Grandmamoses is Neil Burgstahler (Historian on JREF).

The Burg! Does Coleman know silvereagle has returned?

[William Parcher]

The Burg! Does Coleman know silvereagle has returned?


Who knows?


grandmaburg thought she was talking to you (http://thechatbox4u.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html) at 11:17.

He is doctorscream on YowieHunters (http://yowiehunters.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1842&p=13182).

[kitakaze]

Who knows?


grandmaburg thought she was talking to you (http://thechatbox4u.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html) at 11:17.

He is doctorscream on YowieHunters (http://yowiehunters.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1842&p=13182).

Your google fu is strong.

You know why The Burg is such a pain in the ass? I do...

11:52 grandmamoses : no but i have hemorroids

Or maybe that's Neil's mom. They share a computer at home and she taught him everything he knows about Bigfoot.

[mike3]

To me though I'm not sure. The thing that bothers me about the bear explanation is that it has that head and shoulders-like shape. How does a bear do that? This video shows a bear standing up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9PE9tEEcdg

but it doesn't give such a distinct head-and-shoulders shape. I'm not saying this thing is Bigfoot, but because of this it doesn't seem like a bear to me. Do you have any photos, etc. of a bear of the right shape on two legs that could yield this appearance?

And as for the caribou explanation, where are the antlers? Is it really young and "spiky" or something? If so, how do you get the head/shoulders shape?

Well it looks now like it appears to be a human, with higher quality footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuimf0274fs

You can even see what looks like some sort of pack or something on his back. Oh well, no evidence for BF here... But the "bear" and "caribou" stuff didn't seem to work either, esp. considering the caribou are not black and there's nothing to shadow the object.

[kitakaze]

You can even see what looks like some sort of pack or something on his back. Oh well, no evidence for BF here... But the "bear" and "caribou" stuff didn't seem to work either, esp. considering the caribou are not black and there's nothing to shadow the object.

I have to remind myself of the varying qualities of vision of people here in this scenario. I can't believe there are people at Cryptomumble and elsewhere still talking about sagittal crests and other nonsense, still seeing Bigfoot. Who are you, Mr. Magoo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5zipU6r7o)? Are you Bubbles with the samsquanch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL_SL73iNFE)?

Not only can you see the guy's backpack, you can see clearly his hand and sleeve as he motions to the caribou as well as discern he has some sort of fabric masking his face ninja style. That these people never stop and think about the lunacy of Bigfoot on the tundra is just wrong.

[JcR]

They can DNA sample this.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b516602421de.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18730)

I can't believe there are people at Cryptomumble and elsewhere still talking about sagittal crests and other nonsense, still seeing Bigfoot.

[kitakaze]

They can DNA sample this.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b516602421de.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18730)

Yes, the extra tongue version Sweety Bear was not the Christmas hit is was hoped to be.

[JcR]

Loren Coleman should be cautiously optimistic.

[WGBH]

Not to blow my own horn, but I was telling footers on other forums that it was a crew member directing the herd of caribou. I said that the first time I saw it. I finally got one right. It was not a case of me knowing what I saw, it was more of a lucky educated guess. The only thing I did know, is that it was not a Bigfoot.

[King of the Americas]

What was 'incorrect' about concluding "unknown bi-pedal movemet"?

[Vortigern99]

How about that humans are known bipedal primates?

[LTC8K6]

What was 'incorrect' about concluding "unknown bi-pedal movemet"?

No half-credits in this class...

[HarryHenderson]

What was 'incorrect' about concluding "unknown bi-pedal movemet"?
For one, your spelling of movement. ;)

[Shadou]

For one, your spelling of movement. ;)

it burns.

[WGBH]

:D

[GT/CS]

Southernyahoo, on BFF, still won't accept the fact that it's a human!!!!!

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28473&pid=577076&st=264&#entry577076

279 & 284

[kitakaze]

Southernyahoo, on BFF, still won't accept the fact that it's a human!!!!!

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28473&pid=577076&st=264&#entry577076

279 & 284

Yahoo, let me help you...

www.lenscrafters.com (http://www.lenscrafters.com/eyeglasses/designer-eyeglass-frames-sunglasses-and-contact-lenses)

[tsig]

Yahoo, let me help you...

www.lenscrafters.com (http://www.lenscrafters.com/eyeglasses/designer-eyeglass-frames-sunglasses-and-contact-lenses)

Sorry Kit but I didn't see any Bigfoot eyeglasses on that site. I've got a rose colored pair but i obviously need something better to see all these animals.

[desertgal]

Sorry Kit but I didn't see any Bigfoot eyeglasses on that site. I've got a rose colored pair but i obviously need something better to see all these animals.

Maybe VfF could ask "Ben Franklin" for a pair of his National Treasure sooper secret 3-D specs for you. :D

[tsig]

Maybe VfF could ask "Ben Franklin" for a pair of his National Treasure sooper secret 3-D specs for you. :D

I'm breathless with anticipation.

[LTC8K6]

Sorry Kit but I didn't see any Bigfoot eyeglasses on that site. I've got a rose colored pair but i obviously need something better to see all these animals.

Creekfreak can tell you where to get a pair of bigfoot glasses...

[GT/CS]

New bigfoot program on tonight. National Geographic's American Paranormal. Let's hope it takes a scientific approach.....and no cast members show up in the wrong places.

[WGBH]

Let me guess, they do not find a Bigfoot in the end? Who cares about anything else?

[William Parcher]

There is a new video being promoted by the BFRO that is similar to this IMAX thing. It's another case where somebody looks at video long after it is shot and "finds" a Bigfoot somewhere in the scene. This time it was taped from a fishing boat on the rough McKenzie River. Very briefly a figure (or something) appears on the bank which seems to have been ignored or unseen by those actually in the boat(s). Later, somebody sees this thing and thinks Bigfoot. That is all the BFRO needs to start the fire.

Some are seeing a Bigfoot. Some are seeing a bush/log/stump. Some are seeing a guy or even two guys on the bank...possibly with a boat or two.


BFRO (http://www.bfro.net/news/mckenzie.asp)

Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/new-bft-footage/)

BFF (http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/184-mckenzie-river-footage/)

[SweatyYeti]

It's definitely not a tree stump...:)...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/McKenzieBigfootAG1.gif



I increased the brightness level of the images....and the "guy" on the shore is darker in color than the guy in the boat.....almost as if it were a Bigfoot.

Here's to HOPE!

[kitakaze]

:dl:

Nobody in the woods would wear dark clothing. :rolleyes:

Yeah, Sweaty thought the IMAX Tundrafoot was really Bigfoot too.

[WGBH]

If you look at the google earth of that area there is a logging road about 100 yards from that part of the river and a nice clear area for campers. Details in the BFF thread.

[exeplis]

I can't believe they're talking so seriously about this footage being a possible bigfoot (or two) it's just pathetic.

[dafydd]

I can't believe they're talking so seriously about this footage being a possible bigfoot (or two) it's just pathetic.

It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ''clutching at straws''.

[catsmate1]

[quote=William Parcher;6298667]There is a new video being promoted by the BFRO that is similar to this IMAX thing. It's another case where somebody looks at video long after it is shot and "finds" a Bigfoot somewhere in the scene. This time it was taped from a fishing boat on the rough McKenzie River. Very briefly a figure (or something) appears on the bank which seems to have been ignored or unseen by those actually in the boat(s). Later, somebody sees this thing and thinks Bigfoot. That is all the BFRO needs to start the fire.

Some are seeing a Bigfoot. Some are seeing a bush/log/stump. Some are seeing a guy or even two guys on the bank...possibly with a boat or two./quote]

Well I see a dark blur.

[Maldon]

The location of the incident, and the physical appearance of the figure, and the behavior of the figure are consistent with a sasquatch. Nothing about the figure, or the incident in general, points to a hoax or a case of mistaken identity.
So for now BFRO thinks it's a Bigfoot?

The behavior of the figure is consistent with a sasquatch. Sasquatches are often spotted near creeks and rivers.
And that can only be said about BF (as we all know;))

[parnassus]

These guys are confusing Jerky commercials with reality.

[xblade]

It's definitely not a tree stump...:)...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/McKenzieBigfootAG1.gif



I increased the brightness level of the images....and the "guy" on the shore is darker in color than the guy in the boat.....

So is the bush. I guess that makes it a bigfoot too.


almost as if it were a Bigfoot.



Or a space alien. Or an undiscovered human-beaver hybrid. Or, against all odds....a person wearing dark clothing.

[learner]

Does this mean that people on shore are allowed to wear darker clothes than people in boats? When did this madness begin?
It will lead to no good. Mark my words.

[parnassus]

by next week, it will be a bigfoot holding a baby.

[marlborough]

It's definitely not a tree stump...:)...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/McKenzieBigfootAG1.gif



I increased the brightness level of the images....and the "guy" on the shore is darker in color than the guy in the boat.....almost as if it were a Bigfoot.

Here's to HOPE!

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/McKenzieBigfootAG1.gif

If you look closely, the mystery figure is humping the air.

http://myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/animations/stormtrooper.gif