Possible Sassy video

Unread post by **Tish** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:08 pm

A supposed video shot in Manitoba shows Bigfoot, still waiting to see any footage .

Massive, hairy figure seen walking along shore of Nelson River the 'real deal'By DAWN WALTON

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Hundreds of people have now streamed through a home in northern Manitoba to view a 2-minute 49-second video that has folks believing: Bigfoot lives.

Missy Flett, a self-described cynic, said she was stunned by the image of a massive hair-covered creature walking upright calf-deep in water along a shore of the Nelson River, about 500 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

"I was kind of skeptical when I went over," Ms. Flett, an outreach worker with the Norway House Community Council, explained yesterday after viewing the video. "But after seeing it, I truly believe it's the real sasquatch [another name for Bigfoot]."

She asked whether she could take a picture of the images on the flat-screen television with her digital camera, but the family screening the video in this remote community of 6,000 nixed her request.

They are talking about copyrights and thinking about turning the Bigfoot video into big bucks if some media outlet were just willing to pay.

And now, the man who shot the video is apparently "too stressed" to deal with the press.

The man behind the camcorder is Bobby Clarke. He's a ferry operator responsible for bringing people and vehicles over the Nelson River at docks located about 40 kilometres north of his home in Norway House.

While at work 6:30 Saturday morning, he noticed a black figure walking along the opposite river's edge about 250 metres away.

He grabbed his camera -- something he is rarely without -- and started shooting.

What he captured, according to his sister, Sharness Henry, is the image of a massive creature that stands eight, nine, maybe 10 feet (three metres) tall, walking along the edge of the water through some bulrushes. Near the end of the video, the creature turns and appears to stare into the camera, but the details of its face are impossible to make out.

"He's really hairy," Ms. Henry said.

That's when her brother appears to drop the camera. The experience has left him shaken and off work for a few days, Ms. Henry said.

Hubert Folster knows the feeling.

He was a ferry operator at the Nelson River crossing about a year ago when he spotted something dark, human-like, but too huge to be human, wandering on the bulrushes locked in the ice along the riverbank.

"It just wasn't right," he recalled yesterday.

For six minutes he watched, but in the poor early morning light, from his distance and without a camera, Mr. Folster can't be sure what he saw and he has never really talked about it.

"You don't want to mention these things," he says now, laughing.

North Americans have reported Bigfoot sightings as far back as the 1830s, but interest in the phenomenon really picked up with sightings, photos and footprints during the second half of the 20th century, according to Skeptical Inquirer magazine, a publication dedicated to unexplained occurrences.

The most famous is the 16-mm Patterson film shot in Bluff Creek, Calif., in 1967, which shows a hairy, human-like creature walking across a clearing.

Many Bigfoot hunters maintain the film is not a hoax, but anthropologists have argued that the size and stride of the creature suggest it could be human.

The shooter, Roger Patterson, has stood behind the film as authentic. Interestingly, a known Bigfoot-track hoaxer has said he told Mr. Patterson where to look for Bigfoot and, subsequently, Mr. Patterson raked in quite a bit of money from the film.

As the Skeptical Inquirer pointed out in a recent roundup of Bigfoot-related evidence, until bones or a body is discovered, there's no real scientific evidence of what Bigfoot enthusiasts purport to study.

Ms. Flett said there's no mistaking the image in the video for a bear or some other kind of wildlife common to the area. Bears have been known to walk on their hind legs, but for short distances. This creature, she said, is walking "gracefully" kind of like a human, but not.

"It's awesome," Ms. Flett said. ". . . It's real. It's the real deal."

link..... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... nal/Canada

more news.......

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 50421.html

http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet ... t-20050421

Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:11 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/prystupa_bigfoot050421.mov

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ry=bigfoot

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegS ... 5-sun.html

http://www.nhcn.ca/aerial_30.html

Unread post by **folcrom** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:52 pm

Is that the same area where a BigFoot was shot back around 1942ish, by a hunter who mistook a BigFoot for a mooses rump?

Cant remember the details, but the guy was scared at the time, he'd be arrested for murder, as the BigFoot looked "too" human.

Regards

Folcrom.

Unread post by **Tish** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:26 am

I don't know folcrom, the stories certainly starting to spread over there.

Unread post by **Tish** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:35 am

The stories are coming out conflicting.

I've mainly heard it was shot at 300ft.

It was first listed as being 2mins 49secs footage, now its just 49secs.

Unread post by **Peta** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:41 pm

The Fox Television program A Currrent Affair has licensed (i.e. not purchased outright) the Manitoba footage for two broadcasts in the US.[/url]

Unread post by **mikka** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:56 pm

Will be shown tomorrow on US tv so im sure some screen shots, If not the video will be online soon.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonS ... 1-sun.html

Unread post by **mikka** » Wed May 04, 2005 1:39 pm

Here are a few digi pics, Taken at a TV screen, Of a add for the show being shown later tonight, Which will show this film.

Now try saying that 3 times really fast

As you can guess they arent that clear

but I will endevour to get some better ones

I just saw a preview of the Current Affair "Bigfoot video" on Fox they showed about 5 seconds of the video as a ad for the May 4 tv show.

Interesting! not very focused thou but you could tell it was walking on two legs dark in color.

From someone who saw the preview

Unread post by **Peta** » Wed May 04, 2005 2:26 pm

hehe, you beat me to it Mikka.
Hopefully there will be some clearer shots from peeps capturing it on their pc's.
Photos of TV's are never all that clear, but we'll have to wait and see.

Unread post by **morphous666** » Wed May 04, 2005 3:04 pm

hello all,
well looking on the net for bigfoot videos i found this and i think you would like to see, so i will post the link http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20020 ... igfoot.asx
do you guys think it looks a little fake, i don't so whats your opinion
Have fun morphous_666

Unread post by **Peta** » Wed May 04, 2005 4:30 pm

Sorry to tell you this Morphous, but it's a hoax

http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2002/05/29/52.asp

Unread post by **mikka** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:43 pm

Preview clip is finaly up on the ACA website.

http://www.acurrentaffair.com/index.php

Unread post by **Buck** » Thu May 05, 2005 12:27 am

Thanks for the link Mikka.

While the footage may be compelling, it may not be as convincing as we hope for especially when ACA tee it up the promo with Ex-wives club.

It's a bit like saying 'See the footage of a real UFO and stay tuned for People who shop a lot - 2.' It doesn't make sense.

Would be interesting to see if anyone had the presence of mind to try for casts as they know where it walked.

Two minutes plus of video would give you up to 4000 frames to study in a NTSC video set-up... but with NTSC there are less lines of resolution (480 vs 575 on PAL) PAL is what we use... but the frame rate is 25fps. We have more detail but less frames, they have more frames but less detail.

The devil is in the detail.

So it's going to be tough to extract detail at the distance the camera seems to be zooming in at. Hope we see more.

Cheers Buck

Unread post by **Tish** » Thu May 05, 2005 10:24 am

Just seen the promo footage, why in this day and age haven't they been able to clean it up a bit?

Unread post by **mikka** » Thu May 05, 2005 11:07 am

Ive got the footage that was shown on TV. Anyone who wants me to email it to them let me know. Its around 4MB so for those on dial up, It will take a while.

Just so you know its not any better than the screan shots, So much for them cleaning it up.

Unread post by **morphous666** » Fri May 06, 2005 3:15 pm

if you get my pm mikka this is my email
[email protected]

Unread post by **mikka** » Fri May 06, 2005 6:37 pm

Email sent morphous666

Unread post by **Buck** » Sat May 07, 2005 10:16 am

Here's a link that goes someway to explaining why the footage wont get much clearer.

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/P ... vsNTSC.asp

Sadly, I don't think there will be any CSI magic make things clearer bullet. If there were the station wouldn't have tacked '' another bigfoot mystery'' voiceover on the end of the promo.

They would have said "Case closed - Bigfoot is real, he's big and hairy, bring him in along with the other usual suspects for questioning."

I haven't seen it cropping up anywhere else. Has it made mainstream media here in print or otherwise?

Cheers Buck

Unread post by **wasmussen** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:17 pm

How anyone can say Bigfoot exists because of this video is beyond me. If seen better blurry still pictures.

It proves nothing.

It's a shame too!

Mon May 09, 2005 9:47 am

The full ACA report

http://www.acurrentaffair.com/bigfoot/index.html

DMH

Unread post by **Alex** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:19 am

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/170651.php

an interview with the mate who shot the bigfoot in action.

Unread post by **wasmussen** » Thu May 12, 2005 2:59 pm

Thanks for the link, Alex.
I would like to point out that it was said that this guy carries a video camera and films many things with it. I know how to use one too and also know how to film things as far away as this guy does and the object/objects I film are not blurry.

It makes me wonder just on that point alone.

:

Unread post by **philt** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:17 pm

wasmussen wrote:Thanks for the link, Alex.
I would like to point out that it was said that this guy carries a video camera and films many things with it. I know how to use one too and also know how to film things as far away as this guy does and the object/objects I film are not blurry.

It makes me wonder just on that point alone. :

Very Unconvincing. It could be a big negro lumberjack staggering home from the pub for all we know. Unless they can clean it up it will be of no use to anyone.
By the way did anyone see the report of the Yowie hunter and his buxom assistant (who is good with a chainsaw) who are going after it.........Hilarious

Unread post by **morphous666** » Fri May 13, 2005 3:37 pm

i agree with philt, how can a person get payed for that blury piece of c**p
thanks
morphous

Unread post by **David** » Fri May 27, 2005 10:01 am

Usual story, blurry film or photo of something in the distance. 49 seconds is a long time, you should be able to get a decent focus in that time.

David