It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A closer look at the IMAX Bigfoot

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:15 PM
a reply to: TheScale

Nothing against you, but it blows my mind how someone can see something completely different. Like a bike. Can you really see a bike or just the upper portion of something that could be on a bike? I clearly see a little fella hop right up.

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:20 PM

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Do black bears live there?.

I do not wish to accuse you of stating this is a black bear, but IF that is what you were thinking I must say that this is out of the question. It is so obviously not a bear that I highly doubt that was what you meant, but I thought I would mention it just in case. Oh I see. You thought there was a black bear on the bigfoot's back. Got ya. Just kidding of course.

I do not wish for anyone to say I am dismissive of the topic in general, so I will start off by stating that I unequivocally believe in bigfoot, as I have had a sighting myself. Undisputed, no question, it was a large hairy primate on two legs. Having spent enormous amounts of time attempting to gain some understanding of these animals, as well as analyzing evidence and viewing the analyses of others, I think I have gained some understanding of bigfoot.

With that said, I do not think this is a bigfoot. Analyses of size based on relative objects can be tricky, as the narrator astutely points out by giving some of the problems. But the analysis must be based on assumptions, which does not mean it is incorrect, but we cannot know the size for certain. Without taking the specifications of the camera into account one will likely be off in their measurements as well. A good example of an excellent height analysis in a bigfoot video would be Bill Munns' analysis of the Patterson Gimlin footage.

My only point is that we are basing too much on approximations in this instance. If we knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject was 8 feet tall, then we could start to think about bigfoot. But without that, what else is there? The thing on its back could easily be a backpack that is bouncing around due to shifting of the body and running. The drop in speed is due to the runner stopping most likely, although that is not really important.

In this instance the runner, a human, would be attempting to stay out of the shot, or attempting to get their own shot. I do not know where the camera would be, but the video does not show the end of both hands if I remember correctly. This means he could have been carrying a camera and we just didn't see it. It is possible. I know bigfoot is out there, but when another explanation is plausible I will not assume that something has to be bigfoot. It might be, but I just don't think there is enough evidence either way with this particular video.

We KNOW humans were there, first of all. We know behaviors of this nature are exhibited by camera men. Based on those two things alone I must say that this is likely not a bigfoot. Another thing I noticed was what looked like sleeves that ended at the wrist. Sort of like how a coat will bunch up at the wrist. The hair of a bigfoot does not end at the wrist, and would not bunch up around the wrist, if you get what I'm saying. Their palms have no hair, but the backs of their hands do. The creature I saw had hair that was more flat, kind of shaggy, but it was definitely not larger around the wrists. And I would not expect it to be on another bigfoot.

My analysis of sighting reports has led me to believe that bigfoot mothers do not take their babies on hunting trips. If they are out to bag a deer or whatever, they will leave the baby by itself in the woods. These are called "nurseries" in the bigfoot research community. The anecdotal evidence for this behavior does exist, and it just makes sense. You would not want to be encumbered by a baby on your back if you were hunting. And if that is not what the "bigfoot" was doing, what the heck was it doing? It is not impossible that they will come out in the open when there are humans nearby, but usually they don't. Maybe it didn't see anyone, but I highly doubt this considering the terrain. It is possible though. But then why was it apparently hiding or trying to stay out of sight? It just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me based on what I have concluded about these animals.

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:28 PM
a reply to: FlySolo

Honestly it looks like a bear with a cub on its back. I would love for a big foot to be real, but I don't believe it is possible. Everyone who has ever seen one never has a camera, except for the very first footage. That is the only footage that makes be believe it is possible, but it comes from the hoax era when people were likely to believe almost anything.

I'm a skeptic for Bigfoots, and I don't believe UFO's are extraterrestrial either. It makes no sense that an alien race would have the technology to travel here and once they get here turn their lights on.

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:40 PM

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: TheScale

Nothing against you, but it blows my mind how someone can see something completely different. Like a bike. Can you really see a bike or just the upper portion of something that could be on a bike? I clearly see a little fella hop right up.

I have looked at this many times now. I don't see a bike but the movements of the guy are VERY MUCH consistent with a someone on a mountain bike. So I can see where this theory is coming from.


Ok I looked at even even more and ran it through a video editing program and some more looks like some guy who was lying flat, then he jumps up (and possibly shoulders something, gun? backback? bow?), then he runs three or four steps and ducks again.
edit on 7/13/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:41 PM

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Clairaudience

Found the original

That sure is not the "original". JPEG/compression artifacts even worse than in the other one.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 01:40 AM
This really is amazing footage!

At first I was a little skeptical, but watching the description video I changed my mind. I do not believe it to be a camera man, nor a carribou shadow. Is it Bigfoot? I don't know, but all I can say is that clearly something did jump on it's back there is no doubt in my mind.

This is the best video evidence of anything Bigfoot related I have seen thus far.

Thanks for sharing OP!

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 01:41 AM
a reply to: FlySolo

How about we use some common sense here guys.

IF they say it was a cameraman, it was a camera man. They were there, not us..

This thing was out in the open with nowhere to go to hide from the camera, so if it were a bigfoot, the crew would have not only seen it clearly, they would have got more footage.

The fact that the crew was so blase about it all, shows that there was nothing special in the image except for a crew member, rousing the heard for a better shot.

And yeah, he was probably on a trail bike, wearing black trail riding PPE "including helmet", which would explain the height, speed, the smoothness of his movement and the "all black" appearance..

edit on 13-7-2014 by Ironclad2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 03:28 AM
For such a controversial subject this video provides no where near the evidence needed to proclaim this to be a Bigfoot. If you want something bad enough you will rationalize its existence in your enthusiasm to convince others that it`s true.This guy is jumping to extreme conclusions based on next to nothing.
By the way I do believe Bigfoot exists but claiming its existence based on videos like this one only provide ammunition for non believers to lob insult and ridicule.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:14 AM
Wearing "show black" is often a requirement on a film shoot. That, and the third shot in the clip is from a camera on the ground, meaning all this video proves is that some AC boned the Westcam shot.

If that was a Bigfoot on the ground we would have a close up of its big toe. I've been in a chopper with a Westcam Op and pilot while shooting, they don't miss a thing. It's truly impressive how pilot and camera operator work together to pull off these amazing shots. If that was bigfoot, no doubt they would have got it clear as day.

Definitely not bigfoot.

edit on Sun14Sun, 13 Jul 2014 04:14:50 -05003114Sun by DirtyD because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:39 AM

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: seabhac-rua

I tried to watch it with a bike in mind, I can't see it. But I do see something hop up and catch a ride even more than before.

Watch the analysis video from around @5:35

As the figure's shoulders and body move the arms move differently, as if they're fixed to handlebars.

The more I watch it the more I see a guy cycling, he even has a cycling helmet on, and a back pack of course.

I'm probably way off but that's what I see.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 06:01 AM

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:20 AM
I watched the video and noticed there were other black objects in the background. I'm sure most of these would be shadows cast by rock or soil overhanging on the hillside. One in particular though seemed like it might have moved slightly as indicated by the arrow in this pic:

Maybe the creatures work in teams, and this one is hoping to help out if the caribou start running his way. A few months ago, an ATS member posted a fascinating thread about some software developed at a university where it enables video to be analyzed in way such that normally imperceptible movement can be detected. I forgot the details of it but if someone here were interested, it might be useful to analyze this video with that software for additional clues. Wish I had more time to take it up myself. I strongly suspect bigfoot is out there and enjoy reading the related threads about the topic.
edit on 13-7-2014 by ThreadTrekker because: minor wording change

edit on 13-7-2014 by ThreadTrekker because: Fix spelling

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:59 AM

originally posted by: ParanoidAmerican
a reply to: boymonkey74

Never seen a bear move that fast on two legs.


2 legs really
looks like a bear in the shot !

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:04 AM
a reply to: FlySolo

More important things in this world to worry about than bears in the woods.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:11 AM
a reply to: seabhac-rua

No offence but I think you're way off the mark. The following are some Q&A as per


1) Great North was not your average commercial film project, where there might be some motivation, arguably, to include a silly gimmick. This was a very serious nature documentary. Great North was funded by a Canadian-government-owned public utility, Hydro-Quebec, with the support of the prestigious Swedish Museum of Natural History (founded in 1819), and a long list of others who would seriously frown on a hoax in this context.

2) The location is very remote. The spot can probably be reached only by helicopter (and therefore it should be easy to control access -- probably no more than three re-feuling heliports can service this area). The only people in this area at this time, more than likely, were the people who were flown in there by helicopter to get these shots. Experience has taught us that people who obtain footage of a person masquerading as a sasquatch, especially at a remote location ... are always involved in the hoax. So the camera crew, or someone connected with the camera crew, would have to be involved in this, if it was a hoax ... It would not be a "third-party hoax," not at such a remote spot.

3) The film premiered nine (9) years ago. If it was a hoax the figure would have been pointed out closer to the time of release, if the crew had been involved. It would not have been pointed out as a possible sasquatch nine years after the release, and long after the film was no longer being shown in IMAX theaters. The hoaxer crew would have gone to a lot of trouble for no reward.

Could it be a camera man, photographer or hunter?

This possibility is more likely than a hoax, but it is still pretty unlikely, for a few reasons.

The three most likely possibilities in the non-hoaxer human scenario:

1) A cameraman/photographer trying to get to a better position to film/photograph the rushing herd;

2) A crew member, other than the cameraman, stumbled into the shot or was trying to purposely direct the herd in a particular direction;

3) A hunter trying to get into a better position to take down a caribou.

This "cameraman" does not appear to be carrying a camera, especially not a camera on a tripod. The "camerman" must be scrambling over to where a camera is already set up on a tripod. But that doesn't make sense. If a camera was already set up there, why would the cameraman not be waiting behind it ... Isn't that what wildlife photographers do?

Motorcycle, ATV, Bicycle?

In one part of the "behind-the-scenes" video, local herdsmen in Scandinavia are shown herding reindeer using motorcycles and ATV's. Nowhere in the scenes shot in Quebec/Labrador do they show herdsmens, etc., on motorcycles or ATVs. One of the key points of the film is the contrast with Scandinavia, because the natives in Quebec do not herd caribou at all. No one does that, actually. The camera crew in Quebec accessed those migration areas by helicopter.
- Bicycles aren't even mentioned. Further to:

Comments in the interviews indicate other important factors that are relevant to the question of whether it could be another cameraman.

The director emphasized how important it was to remain perfectly still when a caribou herd was nearby, due to their tendency to stampede dangerouly (sic)when spooked. The crew clearly wanted to avoid a situation where a fast-moving herd might run toward them. Whereas, the GNF figure is clearly trying to get closer to the running caribo

Given all of the above information, I find it even more unlikely that a camera man is riding a bicycle in rough terrain where it is against policy of the IMAX crew. The area filmed is so remote it is only accessible by helicopter. Given that there is a camera crew, equipment, and a 100 lb IMAX camera, I aggressively doubt room would be made for a crew member to bring his bike and ride in an area not designated for a camera shoot for liability concerns. To further demonstrate my point...

The clip was shot from a great distance with a telescopic lens. It shows droves of caribou crossing an unnamed body of water (either a river, or a lake arm, or a fjord arm).

Why would a camera man be so far separated from his crew on the other side of a body of water on a bike? It defies common sense.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:12 AM
a reply to: Freenrgy2

Says you. Thanks for dropping by.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: FlySolo

You stay classy. Hope bigfoot steals your food.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:26 AM
a reply to: FlySolo

Thing is no one will ever know what it is, it could be many things no one is going to prove anything BUT the reports made from the crew and the facts other things live there do not suggest to me it is a bigfoot.
Sorry but until they have captured one and done genetic tests they are as real as the loch ness monster.

This picture more or less started it all off but has been proved to be a double print from a polar bear.
The so called hairs found have all been identified as Polar bears and some have been found to be an unknown bear.

So in reality we are looking for a new specie of bear.

57 samples from all over all the same...a new Bear.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:41 AM
a reply to: boymonkey74

No doubt some hair samples are going to be from something mundane, no argument from me. But when the headline of the first link you post says "A geneticist says samples from suspected yetis match an ancient polar bear, but other scientists are urging caution
It only validates what I already know. Some say yes, some say no. It will always be like that until like you say, you've got a body. So in respect to your claim, I can claim the same.

I just want to add an afterthought. Skeptics need a body, but are willing to rely on a hair sample article. I find the duality in that logic most perplexing.
edit on 13-7-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:09 AM
Did the guy doing the analysis visit the location? Because unless he did that, I see no way he can come up with accurate measurements concerning the things size, or even how fast it was moving. He's comparing it to the Caribou that are running at angles, on different terrain, and could differ in size up to several feet.

It's just a poor analysis imo. Another case of someone who want's to see a Bigfoot and that want skews the "investigation". If you can even call this one.

What I see is most likely a hunter wearing dark clothes a backpack and/or with a rifle slung over his shoulder getting up and taking a few quick steps then diving down again.Or another crew member doing the same thing (who knows maybe another camera man from a different crew and not the "IMAX" crew. Or the less likely Black bear (because it does seem to be moving while upright too smoothly for a beare. To jump to "It is definitely 9 foot tall and moves twice as fast as the worlds fastest runner (again no possible way he can gauge those numbers) so therefore it Must be a Bigfoot!" is just silly. This being a Bigfoot would be the very last thing I would come up with after watching this several times.

There's much better video (most likely hoaxed or staged) out there than this. Don't even know why this is getting so much attention

edit on 13-7-2014 by Nola213 because: content

edit on 13-7-2014 by Nola213 because: content

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in