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.


New BigFoot Video ( 11-14-05 )

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:12 AM
animation? wow someone should call george lucas on this guy because he's damn good if thats the case, getting something to fit in BEHIND the grass and all.

come on people.

no disrespect and all but....jeeeees.

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:18 AM
george lucas is not the only person wth the ability to do this....there are a lot of talented eople who could have pulled it off. You really think its BIGFOOT?


posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:17 PM
Honestly, animation is time consuming difficult and CPU intensive and I really just can't see someone creating a fake bigfoot for like less then 5 seconds of footage to post on a website to be picked apart by conspiracy people, I meen as far as we know this person hasn't made any money off of this film and animation just doesn't seem like the way this is a hoax, assuming it is. I meen, you could say anything is animation now adays!

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:56 PM
there are some valid points that might be made towards this being a hoax, but the possibility of it being "animated" i would bet my left one against it, and i'm rather partial to that one. you look at even the big studios when faced with the option of cgi/real, in a situation like this footage they will always go with real. # 1- there is not enough detail to bother taking the excrutiatingly painstaking task of putting a lifelike moving object behind thousands of blades of grass, when you can spend one millionth the amount of money and throw a fat dude in a spandex suit with hair weaved into it, and get him to walk around. I'm not dumb enough to be certain either way on this one, I guess like i've said before we all have to wait and see.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by tasteslikethunder]

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:36 PM
Another update on this film.

This I found quoted from Hairy Man being one of many researchers talking to Mark about this incident.

John has worked this report pretty extensively, I've been more on the sidelines. Both of us talked with Mark Nelson by phone, with John talking to him several times. Where Mark told me the event happened wasn't consistent with where he told John it happened. John wanted to see more of the video; one minute before and one minute after the "sighting" to see what the video showed; Mark refused to show it to John, and later ignored my verbal request. John offered to meet with Mark in person because John was near him last weekend; Mark refused. Mark complained to both of us that he was inundated with phone calls, and although both John and I counseled him to take his number off the website, Mark hasn't done so.

When I talked with Mark, he seemed very interested in the press and radio. When John talked with him, Mark asked the same questions and wondered how much the video was worth.

Mark, although he claims to be an amateur naturist and had been in this area before, was very unsure of the location of the video. I had to ask very specific questions to finally illicit a road name, side of the road, and terrain features. He was very unsure of the large mountain in the background, although it is the largest peak in the area.

Mark says he is 26, but he sounds very young. He stated that he lives with his girlfriend who, although present during the video, is now jealous of all the time Mark is spending with the video and phone calls.

None of this, of course, means that the video is a hoax. Neither John (who is a expert interrogator) nor I got him to confess or say anything that hinted at a hoax. Mostly, we have both felt he has been very uncooperative and certainly inconsistent with some basic facts of the report.

John is still trying to get more information and I'm sure will be here to update you soon.

To be honest if I was Mark and had this film I would be wanting to know what it was worth too. As far as giving the location information to the researchers lets hope this has been given by now to someone. As time goes by evidence will dissapear no doubt. If I find more I will let you know.


posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:10 AM
I won't believe it until someone independant has analysed the whole of the original tape.

Reluctant to meet John and show him the tape does not bode well.

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 04:49 PM
BFRO thinks this video is real. They just added this to thier site and thier researchers are looking into this. It has been said that Mark wants a meeting with media and researchers to show the entire clip.

Bigfoot Field Researchers Org. Story

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 01:34 PM
I'll be watching this one until it's over....which will probably be never. Bigfoot is the reason I am obsessed with Crypto stuff and I hope to see one before I die.

The video looks real to me. It's not CGI. It would take a personal computer forever to render something like unless this guy works at Pixar it's not CGI. From watching it over and over I think there are at least 2 of them in this video. One going from the right to the left, then the second going from the left to the right.....

Thanks for keeping us informed Harry!

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:01 PM
Over on the Bigfoot Encounters website, it seems they have pretty much ruled this as a hoax. The shooter of the video is VERY suspect. Kinda raises concerns in the BFRO because they think its real.

posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Harry55
BFRO thinks this video is real. They just added this to thier site and thier researchers are looking into this. It has been said that Mark wants a meeting with media and researchers to show the entire clip.

Bigfoot Field Researchers Org. Story

The BFRO is one man, Matt Moneymaker. It is not a scientific organization, it's just one guy, Moneymaker. He thinks the Sonoma footage and the New York .avi are real, which should reveal how little he knows about the biomechanics of bigfoot. He is, however, not a man to admit an error in judgment, he never admits errors, his tendency is to degrade or malign those that know more than he does. His crecibilty is at an all time low.

posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:05 PM
I'm sorry, but after following Bigfoot sightings for all of 20+ years, this is one of the bigger pieces of cheese I've seen laid in the trap. I think it was either a hoax on his part, or he got pranked by someone else.

And by the way, I do believe!

posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:14 PM
1. Looks real to me, it is walking one way, then turns and 'evades' a human. I mean, if you were one of last of a race, wouldn't you run?

2. The size, and the length of the arms seems ok top me, it was slightly bent forward, arm swinging, and it looks just like the other only 'real' movie we have of a bigfoot, looking over his shoulder, and that is what i saw this one do. Kinda of a look of, "well, i hope that guys is scared #less, but I better make sure that he doesn't have a gun with a quick peek.

3. I don't think there was enough time for the person filming to comprehend and comment on what he saw, There have been times I have seen things in the air, watch them, and then realized I sholud have filmed it...Imagine coming upon a creature like that

4. THe man has nothing to gain but ridicule from the world.

just my 3 cents.....

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:40 PM

On this site John Freitas states that the footage was NOT filmed where Mark Nelson claimed it was. I can state unequivically that Freitas is flat out wrong. I hunt the Skaggs Springs Road area west of Lake Sonoma several times a year, I live only about 40 minutes away in Santa Rosa, and I travel through that area at least once a month. The peak shown in the video is visible from the roadway of Skaggs Springs Road. I am not sure what (or even if) it is named on the map, but it is a very prominent feature and I will post a picture of it next time I drive out that way.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by iron buffalo]

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:44 PM
iron buffalo thanks for the info you provided. Please indeed take a picture of the mountain peak in question and share it with us here. I have not given up on this one yet. Will be waitng for your post and thanks for the help.

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 07:24 PM
Harry, I think the problem that everyone is having identifying this peak is because they are looking for a large mountain. This isn't a large mountain at all. The road up there prbably averages 1000 ft. in elevation, to maybe 1500 ft. This is a small peak on a ridgeline and it maybe goes to 2000 ft. max. He isn't very far away from it when he films that video. Couple of miles at the outside. Over on the BFF I saw some posts with pictures saying it was this mountain or that , but they showed images of a couple of very large mountains (Sonoma Mountain and Mt. St. Helens) both of which are in this county. Niether one is the peak in the video. If the weather improves next week I will take a drive up there and get a pic. It is raining heavily right now and that road is likely to be hazardous at best and completely impassible at worst during heavy rains. I will update as soon as I can get out that way.

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I say fake because the quality is crappy and it looks like it is 200 years old. How is it that nobody can film decent quality video in this country?

I totally agree, EVERYTIME its the same kind of shot...never anything that would shake up the world. This is not proof nor has their ever been any proof the the exsistance of Bigfoot. Its just a hoax thats gotten out of hand at least until someone gets some REAL proof that doesn't involved grainy video or pics...or man made "tracks".

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 04:45 AM

" I think the problem that everyone is having identifying this peak "

the problem is , IMHO the guy who shot the vid has so far failed to suppy any accurate navigation data

as several people have asked - and a on site survey of the alledged siting site for dander , spoor or tracks would be very usefull

then the fact he has not -- strikes me as suspicious

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 08:56 AM
Ape, it is indeed suspicious that the vid shooter has chosen to be evasive. I don't know if the vid is real or not. But I can state that at least the location posted on BFRO is accurate. because that peak is visible from Skaggs Springs Road. I am very familiar with that area.

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
This looks good to me, does the creature turn its head to the camera at frames 408 - 412?

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:15 PM
what ever happened to this?

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in