Yowiehunters Forum

Just found this footage of a supposed Bigfoot while browsing the net

Looks not to dissimilar to the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Tell me what you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMq_3Gwx ... =1&index=9

Hey Chewy

Interesting bit of footage, head appears to have a sagital crest, very prominent orbital ridges and the obvious large ball shaped shoulder joint muscles...the gait with the swinging arms and the fur seems to have grown wildly ( nice and shiny though...wonder if he uses pantene?mmm)
All in all seem to be some footage worthy of note...the head gets me, very typcally yowie/bigfoot...classic
PS: changed my avatar back to the mythical flying horsie thingy

cheers

I don't like it. The hair is too thick to see muscle definition and flexing. Also there is no pattern to the hair that would tend to convince me that it is anything other than a suit. The stride did not appear to be that impressive as well. The Pennsylvania bear with mange, has been I.D. by several people that I know who have seen more than 3 or 4 Bigfoot, as a Bigfoot. That subject has relatively thin hair, and not something that approaches the look of fur with both outer and inner layers. This youtube subject appears to be sporting fur.

There are similarities to "Patty" from the Patterson-Gimlin film but there is a lot more hair! This has me thinking its not as convincing as the aforementioned Bluff Creek creature filmed in 1967.

Hi Chewy,

Nice bit of footage...

I agree with TopEnder about the pantene shine but on the other hand, I've seen footage of Gorillas in the wild with nice shiny fur as well so that does not prove it to be fake.

Taken as shown, the whole sequence looks and sounds (to me) like a setup piece (not a hoax) as a 'taster' to be presented to a producer or funding provider for a prospective project.

I also don't agree with his statement that "science is an attitude." Yes you can have an attitude in science but I believe that science is a process. As boring as that sounds.

I always thought that this was one of the 'better' bigfoot videos out there. It seems pretty real, but I would like to know how far away the video was shot. Any up close video just doesn't seem to be real in my eyes..... well, not ones where the bigfoot doesn't seem to notice the cameraman 10 feet away. Trev

Hi all, new user here ... while I believe there is the possibility of the existence of the big hairy man out there ( I've had 2 occasions that have made me believe this although I never actually saw the beasty or beasties in question, but nevertheless I dont doubt it) I dont think this clip is of the real thing. And its all down to camera angles and behaviour of the "creature".

I dont like the fact that the 2 different sections of the clip appear to be in different stands of trees but the big man is moving in roughly the same direction. This would mean that the person filming would have to run further on roughly parallel to the subject to film the second portion of the clip and yet the subject is not in the slightest bit aware or concerned of the proximity of a camera wielding human who would in no doubt had to have made a lot of noise to follow on or move to the next filming position. Every animal will at least acknowledge with a few glances or watchful eye any other large , in this case human, animal that strays into or crosses its path. We see no signs of that, just total ignorance.

Also when people tend to see something and follow where it has gone they will proceed to the area they last saw it not move parrallel to it to catch up for a second shot at filming or whatever.

Do I believe they exist? Yes. But I dont think this is it

Hey Rastus, great post, welcome to the forums.

My gut feeling on this one is that it may not be the real deal.

If I had a BF on film, I would certainly have followed it with the camera, not kept filming and then only get one second of actual 'BF' and the rest of a tree, and then the film stops (one would imagine BF emerged out from behind the interfering tree and kept walking) so why did the film stop there? It just looks like so many other hoax films out there - just enought footage to get you interested, but then disappointingly little after that first second or so.

The coat is very black, very long, and though it does look as if there is a shoulder there, the rest of the body beneath/inside is pretty indistinct to me. Again, there is so little time to see! You can't really make out body size as there is nothing relative to compare it to, and stride length seems ordinary and man-comparable. Sorry, but I'd be right there behind it, scared to death, but still would be wanting to capture as much footage as possible! I wouldn't have stopped filming after it conveniently walked behind a tree!

There could be more film he isn't producing for our benefit, but this just doesn't seem as fair dinkum to me as the PG footage. It's as if the BF is totally unaware of the filmer... which seems odd to me at such a close range, too.

Just my .02, but thanks for posting it, Chewy, I'd not seen this before.

Shazz

dont ya just hate these snippets of bigfoots, id love to see one that goes for at least a minute.
this footage has been around for a while and talked about a lot on another site, one thing that literally stuck out from normal bigfoot descriptions was what seems to be quite large pointy ears, which seemed to lean it more toward the fake side.