Was Bigfoot Captured On IMAX film?

page: 3
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Probably an idiot field production intern.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Honestly? Come on. The bluray clip in the middle of the first page of this thread shows that it is obviously a member of the crew, probably a guy they have to spook the wildlife, make them run and create excitement. Whatever the reason might be for a member of the crew to be there it sure wasn't a bigfoot.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by lee anoma
 


The human must have been running a recon mission for MI6. Because he's decked out head to toe in black (ski-mask and all).

Maybe he was protecting her Majesty's caribou? Or at least, trying to figure out the caribou's contact?

I guess it could have been part of the film crew. But, that won't be too hard to figure out, huh? Just ask the people on that shoot, "hey, which one of you is the one that was stalking the caribou when we filmed this segment?"


You're right, it's not a human passerby or a human working on the film.

It's a mythical Gorilla-Man-Skunk-Ape that no one seems to be able to adequately catch in a photo or on film, the ones that have admitted to faking or were revealed as frauds, and science has failed to acknowledge as actually having existed at all.

Yeah that is more reasonable.

My mistake.


Case Solved?
Not yet. Sounds like someone has some footwork before this can be cleared up.


Nah, it's a man and he isn't in a ski-mask just a dark shirt and a backpack that is not out of the norm for someone to wear.

People that don't want to be seen on a film because they aren't supposed to be in the shot, especially those working on it behind the scenes, tend to duck and hide but occasionally get caught on camera. Hence his attempt to avoid being seen.

As far as I know the people that have filmed this haven't released a statement and may not be aware of this blooper (or don't see it as being worth acknowledging) but since you seem to think it is so easy to "just ask them", why don't you give the director a personal call.

Ask him if Bigfoot was on the crew that day.

- Lee



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by -Blackout-
 


The image is entirely too out of focus to make out any type of animal.

I would think that the only possible way to settle this would be to contact the directing team and ask them to enhance the original IMAX footage.

I would like to add that I would not get my hopes up.

Do you think that even if the assumption is correct and this is a "Bigfoot" type creature that the producers of this movie would let some observant person from the outside take the credit for spotting this?

If and when we see the "blown up" and "enhanced" version of the actual figure, my hopes are not high that it will pan out.

Not that I think that it is a black bear, but because I do not believe that TPTB would allow news like this to happen.

The director does not own the rights to the movie.

More than likely a subsidiary of a very, very, very, very large production company, who actually owns the rights, made this movie, and I do not see this as being something that would be of benefit to TPTB.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
It appears to be An all black upright hominid stalking it's next dinner.

A Human with a backpack ?


Lets look at that statement and the possibilities.....

It is a Human with absolutely No discernible human features, a completely black face AND wearing an All Black suit with a matching black backpack ?

What is the probability of that ?

Ok lets' give that hypothesis the benefit of the doubt and....

Lets say that it WAS part of the cast/crew of the film used to divert the herd.....

Anyone here aware of the size of a Caribou ?

They are pretty big at 5-8 ft tall and weigh about 500 pounds.
That's bigger than even an NFL Lineman.....and with 4 hooves.

Would an individual risk being trampled on foot buy running alongside the wild herd ? Without a visible weapon ? Or pistol or even an air horn to divert the herd ?

Why the black suit and not hunter's camo ?

Unfortunately I have my doubts....

For Unless there are African tribesmen living in and amongst the Caribou of Northern Canada trotting around stark naked or with black fur suits and matching backpacks then I tend to doubt this hypothesis.

Personally in looking at the location of the footage, being as remote as it is, we have better odds of it being a Bigfoot.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake
Honestly? Come on. The bluray clip in the middle of the first page of this thread shows that it is obviously a member of the crew, probably a guy they have to spook the wildlife, make them run and create excitement.


That's what I would assume.

I don't claim to know whether Bigfoot really exists or not, and haven't ruled out the possibility but this AIN'T Bigfoot.

It's possibly a passerby (but I doubt that), or more likely a member of the crew.

- Lee



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Ok, after watching the first video in the OP, I was open to the possibility that this was in fact a sasquatch or at least some type of unknown primate.

However, after watching the slowed down and zoomed-in Blue-ray version that someone was kind enough to post, it is clear IMO that this is in fact a human. I don't know if he is a cameraman as I cannot make out a camera, or whether he is part of the film crew or just some random outdoorsman. But, to me at least, it is obviously a human.

He appears to be dressed entirely in black or a similar dark color. You can see that he is wearing a long sleeve shirt/jacket and pants. When he turns his head to the side you can see his white face and distinguish the brim of his dark baseball cap. When he sticks his hand up, possibly to wave, you can see that it is clearly white and you can make out where his dark shirt sleeve ends and his hand begins. He is carrying a large backpack on his back. It almost looks like the kind of backpack that a person who plans on hiking and sleeping out in the wild for a while would wear, as it appears to rise almost to the top of his head. I can't say if he was there to guide the animals or film them from another location or what. To me, his motive for being there is a moot point.

I am disappointed that this appears to be a human. I personally believe that sasquatch/bigfoot/whatever are real and are living in the wilderness of North America, and possibly elsewhere. But this is not footage of bigfoot and any objective person viewing the Blue-ray footage should be able to see that. He is clearly standing up, walking a short distance sideways (sort of like a basketball player playing defense would step side to side), and then squats down to either hide from the animals or not be seen in the shot.

The bottom line is that if you want to see a bigfoot in this video then you are probably going to see one. Most of us here are so determined to find any evidence of this creature's existence that we sometimes put aside our otherwise sound and rational judgement because we have this insatiable appetite to prove to everyone else what we have known ourselves all along- that sasquatch is real. I don't think there is any hoax here or any ill intention. This is just a case of someone seeing something that they believe to be a sasquatch, but which in reality is just a guy.

That's just my two cents, or in this case my two dollars, since I rambled on way more than I intended!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Funny but I don't see a backpack at all.

Sorry, just don't.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Rasputin13
 


It is clearly a human, more so from the full speed video than from the zoomed in slow speed. The movement is 100% human and not ape like at all. Whether the person is decked out all in black is not conclusive. I think it would be quite possible that he was wearing blue or purple or other dark colors and it just appears black due to the distance and number of colors in the shot.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
A Human with a backpack ?


You find this to be more funny than the fact that it is an out of place ape or even Bigfoot??

Okay.


It is a Human with absolutely No discernible human features, a completely black face AND wearing an All Black suit with a matching black backpack ?


Look again.

His face isn't all black, and you can see that AND his white hand here.




You can even see the profile of his hairline and ear.
The backpack isn't even all black.

Maybe it is your computer or maybe you aren't looking at the right copy of the film but pay attention to the Blueray one.

Things become a lot clearer, or at least enough to know its a skinny white guy and not a seven-foot tall Sasquatch or 600lb gorilla.

Where is the fur??

- Lee



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


I've watched a few more times, looking pretty hard at the image. I stand corrected sir!

Its Human.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Looks like a human being to me. On the blue ray version you can see him talk on his walkie-talkie.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Without question, a Human.

Highly probable another camera man moving in for a better shot fr4om a different angle.

Hehe, he seems to have got caught in "camera crossfire".



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


Yes, as I said its harder to see in the OP video (and even I was curious as to what it was) but the Blueray kills all doubt.

This is from BFRO.

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (Founded in 1995 -- The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot/sasquatch mystery).

They claim to be:
"a virtual community of scientists, journalists, and specialists from diverse backgrounds. The researchers who compose the BFRO are engaged in projects, including field and laboratory investigations, designed to address various aspects of the bigfoot phenomenon. As a result of the education and experience of its members and the quality of their efforts, the BFRO is widely considered as the most credible and respected investigative network involved in the study of this subject."


Great North Figure in Blu-Ray (on LED TV) appears to be Human

UPDATE !! (10:45AM PST, January 13, 2010):

Wally Hersom received the Blu-Ray version of the DVD. He played it on his high-end Blu-Ray player, on his enormous state-of-the-art LED extra large screen television. He moved up close to the screen and noticed more details in the figure than he had seen before -- more details than in any of the versions that have been posted so far on YouTube. Of course, this is not IMAX resolution, but it is noticeably different than what others had acheived so far on Hi-Def televisions. Compare the two clips below your yourself. The one on the left is the one Wally videotaped last night, where I am pointing at the figure.

As you can more easily see, in "Blu-Ray+LED," the Great North figure appears more human-like than sasquatch-like. It appears to be an agile human wearing a uniformly dark, form-fitting clothing ensemble, including a dark face covering, and a small, snug, dark-colored backpack (which made the GNF appear larger).
BFRO



That's not Bigfoot it's a man, baby!

- Lee


[edit on 30-4-2010 by lee anoma]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


What you are typing is a stretch and your willingness to attribute a gender to the black blob in question exemplifies your confirmation bias.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


How can anyone say that something appears more "human-like" than "sasquatch-like"?

Could you please post a link that describes, in detail, what exactly is "sasquatch-like"?

Do we have any earthly idea what a sasquatch is?

Please see this link on confirmation bias.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by lee anoma
 


What you are typing is a stretch and your willingness to attribute a gender to the black blob in question exemplifies your confirmation bias.


Sorry but I disagree.
I have nothing to gain from this either way and I did state it was a "human" figure.

I just used the term "guy" "him" or "man" loosely, I could have been more specific and said "it" because I honestly can't tell the gender, but if you want to call it a "female" human I won't stop you.

Just as long as you know it IS a human in the shot and not a Gorilla or a Bigfoot.

It is hardly a stretch too when you view the image in a higher resolution from the Blueray copy.

At first I wasn't sure what the object in the image was because the first video in the thread was pretty crappy and at a distance, but after seeing the Blueray and recognizing it as a human being I'd be a fool to continue to believe otherwise.

As I said above the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization have concluded from the Blueray that this is a human being caught on camera by accident.

You telling me they are also biased or is it possible they (and I) have a point?

- Lee



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


So you think that this is anything but a human because he's not carrying a weapon?


Ever been up there in the wilds with the wildlife? It's a great experience. You should try it.

Sounds like a Foxworthy comment, "You just be a redneck if you think everything in the woods without a rifle in its hands just might be a bigfoot."



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Why is this thread on the front page? It got debunked in a few posts and doesn't deserve anymore attention.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


What I am stating is a basic point of research science.

And that is... point blank...

"do not speculate beyond the data".

I am neither a believer nor a debunker of this story.

Quoting a Bigfoot research team does not give any credence to anything posted, thus my askance for a link to a description of what exactly is "Sasquatch-like".

All too often on ATS, I see people who use very weak evidence for CONFIRMATION and that is not how the research process is intended to work.

I am not here to stand up for the OP.

I do not know what is being discussed in the OP.

I am here to stand up for the integrity of the research process.

Only three possible outcomes can manifest:

Confirmed.

De-bunked.

I DO NOT KNOW.

Edit to add:

I am not debating the OP.

What I am debating are statements like this



Just as long as you know it IS a human in the shot and not a Gorilla or a Bigfoot.


How can one know that something is NOT a bigfoot?

That would mean that one would have to know what a "bigfoot" is.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]





top topics
 
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join