It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

New BigFoot Video ( 11-14-05 )

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   


hmm.. I wonder why the Bigfoot didn't just eat Mark Nelson's face. A real bigfoot would definetley have doe that!




posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I thought the walk was kind of unconvincing (slouched, bored strut). It was moving fairly slow as well and it would've been easier to follow it and videotape more even though he (Mark) said it moved quickly. In the video, there was no sound of bellowing or anything of that sort. It didn't even seem to notice the people videotaping it. And the story just isn't convincing. The guy claims to be a naturist, but he doesn't even know english properly.


Wig

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paresthesia
The guy claims to be a naturist, but he doesn't even know english properly.


What does that mean? You have to be an professor of English to study nature? Or do you mean because he said "it moved away real fast! It was gone in about 15 seconds." Which of course is accurate but you dispute that?

[edit on 5/12/2005 by Wig]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paresthesia
The guy claims to be a naturist, but he doesn't even know english properly.


This may be the funniest statement made in this thread so far. You just questioned this guy's integrity based on the fact he didn't use english properly but claimed to be a naturist.

lmao

He AND YOU apparently don't realize he misspoke. I think he meant naturalist and I never assumed him to mean professional, but as a hobby. Though being a professional naturalist might put some degree of better use of english on him, being a naturist puts none.

Not as far as I know anyway, because I do have some friends that are, in fact, naturists and they have never spoken about any english proficiency exam that must be passed prior to getting buck-naked.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I thought that was odd, as i thought naturists were people who preferred not to wear clothes.
hehe!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paresthesia
The guy claims to be a naturist, but he doesn't even know english properly.

Look, I know this might upset you but, HE'S NOT GOD. He can make mistakes just like every other person, as you so aptly demonstrated.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paresthesia
The guy claims to be a naturist, but he doesn't even know english properly.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


The irony, as well as the stupidity, of that statement made me wee a little.
'He doesn't even know English properly.' Does that sound grammatically incorrect to anyone else, or just me?
Before you criticise me, I do know English. I studied at AS level and got a C, plus I come from the country that invented it.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
NO! IM GOD! and david icke was my son but then wasnt!!!!!


so whats happening about this footage?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
He was a "Naturist". Just of the Photographer kind.

Maybe he had some kind of premonition when he said what he did. LOL!
I will say that I think the film is legitimate due to how the camera and the filmer act/react.



[edit on 5-12-2005 by Jaychael]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Ok now its 2am and i have spent hours looking at the vid frame by frame.I want to believe....but something is wrong.....the arms are swinging disproprtiante to the length of the stride and seemingly independent of chest and shoulder movement...also the "wild" primate does not react as a curious or frightened animal would.It never really looks at the camera man who it would obviously have seen and heard by this time.No wild creature would completely disregard a human presence while strolling away.Also the length of stride is inconsistent with the arc of arm swing.
Either the guy had already seen the creature and was trying to get it with the camera or he wasnt all that surprised.The shallowness of his sudden intake of oxygen at the surprise of it all was not consistent with the actual start seeing the creature unprepared would bring.Also notice that the creature made no sound while walking yet strode purposefully by in a beeline without slowing down to avoid noisy vegetation....almost as if there were a trail.The one arm also seems to do a double jointed maneuver and flap around as if it had no real wristbone....And the overall thing that doesnt sit right is the "creature" did not display the grace and economy of motion you would expect to see in a wild creature.The arm swings were way too exaggerated to be of any ergonomically functional use to such a large animal.
Also note the relative cleanliness of the sole of the hiking boot....assuming he had to walk for at least a mile or two off trail I think his boot sole would bear conspicuosly more dirt ya know?
All in all I am 85/15 against authenticity.Good job though if it is a fake.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Regarding the arms, does it look like the left arm is longer than the right arm? I get the feeling that he (it) is carrying something in the left hand. The extra floppy joint at the end looks to be 12"-18" long, about the size of a small animal that it has picked up.

I don't see this effect on the first view, when it travels right to left (not that there is much to see in those few frames). Could the creature have attacked a small groundhog-sized animal while it's hidden from view, and is seen carrying it away during the second half of the film? (It's too dark for a rabbit.)



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
What I find most interesting is the second one at the bottom of the slope.

Both that and the main sasquatch move in exactly the same way.

Best vid I've seen so far.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I think it's fake! There is really nothing different from any other so called bigfoot spotting. Perhaps someone is just clowning around.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Looks like a fake too me, it looks like the bigfoot in question is mimicking the movements from the older classic video, but failing miserably, a bit OTT with the arm swinging i think,

Anyway, at least i've decided what to ware at the new years fancy dress party, cheers for that





posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
It's quite interesting that many of you refer to this creature, real or not, as some animal. Furthermore, many seem to doubt its intellegence. Animals react in a certian manner because that is what they have been programed to do, instinct. If this creature has a higher level of intellegence than a mere animal then it will not act in the way that many have proposed it should.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Without actually seeing one it would be hard to say how it should normally act. We do not know enough about these creatures yet to make judgement on thier actions.

Just to let all know I have once again emailed Mark to try to get the latest on this sighting and clip. I even invited him here to see this thread and maybe answer a few questions for us. We will have to wait and see if he replies back to me or maybe shows up here.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Quick initial assessment:

Most likely a costume with sticks held in the hands to make the arms longer. That explains the double jointed arm, as well as the flappy extension at the end of the left arm. It is probably a sleeve hanging off the stick a bit too losely.

The gait is hunched-over (center of gravity forward), even though the creature is heading down a gradient. A biped would tend to shift its center of gravity back while walking downhill, unless... it was purposely trying to look like a "primitive" (not quite bipedal) creature.

The fact that the camera is prepositioned when the creature walks accross the field of view is suspicious.

The combination of elongated arms (to suggest a non-human primate) and hunching over (to suggest primitiveness) leads me to believe that this is a hoax intended to look like the general public's idea of bigfoot.

In fact, an 8 foot bipedal primate would almost certainly not be adapted for canopy but for floor living (so no long floppy arms) and would also be EITHER a habitual knuckle dragger OR a habitual full biped. Not a little bit of both that walks hunched over with arms off the ground and center of gravity forward. That would put too much stress on the lumbars, especially for something of that purported size and mass.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by allisoneisall
It never really looks at the camera man who it would obviously have seen and heard by this time.No wild creature would completely disregard a human presence while strolling away.


The Bigfoot I saw did just that. It was on the side of the road and as I approached it turned and walked into the woods and never ONCE looked directly at me. Maybe they just don't like looking at people or something.

Wupy



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Having looked at Dulcimer's slow-mo version several times without attempting analysis of arm swing, type of grass, how many, and where this was shot, IMHO it looks good.

Could it be out of focus because he feared his own overexposure as he ran naturistic through the grass? Or did he run nudely through it?

I can't burn holes in his story. And can't dismiss what I see. Maybe I should take to naturistic hiking. But where would you store film nude?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
it looks like an animation that was just done after the camera man filmed the area of interest. This might explain why it doesn't look up when the crunching grass is hapening. Its just too fluid .......take another look with that in mind.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join