Was Bigfoot Captured On IMAX film?

Originally posted by lee anoma

Well if that were true then the Bigfoot/Ape/Bear should be dead as well, right?

- Lee

Yes, whatever was there appeared like it would have been trampled. I guess my thinking was along the lines of it being a member of the film crew and if it was and he was trampled, it would have been announced somewhere by someone (I would assume). It's really hard to tell because the camera moves as the herd runs through, so the shot could be deceiving, which is why I said "it appears" and not "it was". I don't know, watch the entire scene and make your own call.

I don't know what is supposed to be there or what happened to it after it ducked out of sight. I was watching it on a low-quality video on Hulu, not on DVD or blue ray.

Originally posted by Josephus23
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"?

I didn't say that the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization did.

We all know what a human looks like and I am assuming they are basing this statement around the descriptions of Sasquatch from myth, legends, and alleged eye witness accounts.

If no one has a general idea of what Bigfoot/Sasquatch is claimed to look like then how can anyone assume this MAY be Bigfoot? Why compare this obscured image to Bigfoot if no one has a clue about its alleged appearance?

You do what forum you're in right?

Do we have any earthly idea what a sasquatch is?

Please see this link on confirmation bias.

Again, I never stated I did, nor that I had personally seen one so I can't tell if you are asking me this based on something I said, something you thought I said, or you're just pulling a strawman.

No one knows what a Sasquatch is, since no one has captured one or verified they even exist.

Further proof from you then, that this can't be one right?

Here is a another good wikilink for you:

Bigfoot is described in reports as a large hairy ape-like creature, ranging between 6–10 feet (2–3 m) tall, weighing in excess of 500 pounds (230 kg), and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair.[5][6] Alleged witnesses have described large eyes, a pronounced brow ridge, and a large, low-set forehead; the top of the head has been described as rounded and crested, similar to the sagittal crest of the male gorilla. Bigfoot is commonly reported to have a strong, unpleasant smell by those who claim to have encountered it.[7] The enormous footprints for which it is named have been as large as 24 inches (60 cm) long and 8 inches (20 cm) wide.[5] While most casts have five toes—like all known apes—some casts of alleged Bigfoot tracks have had numbers ranging from two to six.[8]

Some have also contained claw marks, making it likely that a portion came from known animals such as bears, which have five toes and claws.[9][10] Proponents have also claimed that Bigfoot is omnivorous and mainly nocturnal. Wiki[11]

Hope that helps!

- Lee

reply to post by -Blackout-


This image has been out some time and months ago the "experts" in the bigfoot community decided that this was a cameramen who was working to chase the caribou in a specific direction so no further investigation was warranted.

Personally, I found that a knee-jerk response to what is very curious. I, one, don't believe another cameramen would have been this far and this near the heard and cameramen shoot film -- one would not have been herding the caribou; he'd have been shooting them from his angle. Two, that position would have been too dangerous. Three, the subjcet is clearly somewhat uniform head to toe in coloration, and it ain't Columbia Outdoors gear he his wearing. Four, caribou are BIG animals, now look at the size of the more distant humanoid figure relative to caribou in the foreground -- the figure is huge. Five, viewed slowly, you can spot something extremely similar to the figure accidentally filmed in what is called the "Memorial Day footage" that seems to have caught a bigfoot running across a field. In that footage, you can see what to me appears to be a baby bigfoot clinging to the back of the older bigfoot, than climbing up on the shoulders when the figure slows. This is what baby apes do, albeit usually the adult is on all fours. Look carefully at the caribou foortage and you will see something pops up above its head near the end.

At the very least, the entire camera and field crew who shot this documenatry need to be interviewed. It will then be simple to learn if this was a cameramen or not.

reply to post by -Blackout-


If you look at the other video in blue ray that comes up after the clip is done at the bottom, you will see a better view close up of the individual. There is no dispute, it is a bipedal individual. It's either a person with a back pack in dark clothes that was with the crew filming, or its a bigfoot or hominid thats it. I'm split down the line 50/50. The reason why I'm that split is the reason why the Elk all of a sudden (even the ones higher on the hill away from the water) where spooked into running away. To get a good clip of them jumping around and running and splashing in the water they could have sent a guy behind to either yell or get close enough where they would smell him and get spooked. Or it was truly a hominid of some type and it was getting close to either attack (get meat) or to get water and they smelled him or her and ran off. The only way to make sure is to talk to the people who filmed this clip or section of the film. I would love to see a little more of that particular scene.

reply to post by lee anoma


Once again.

I know what forum I am in and I am asking basic questions on research science.

If one is to say that some object is NOT something, then said person would have to know what said object IS.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

As I said, I am not standing up for anything in the OP.

What I am defending is the integrity of the research process.

Your wikipedia reference is an assumption.

Just as you have stated here:

I am assuming (that) they are basing this statement around the descriptions of Sasquatch from myth, legends, and alleged eye witness accounts.

Assumptions and confirmations do not play well together.

Looks like a gorilla to me.

It would be cool if it was Sasquatch, though. But I won't be convinced until they show me a Sasquatch corpse, or a live and caged one.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by David_Reale]

reply to post by lee anoma


Most anyone who does real study of the phenomenon knows this creature exists. We finally even have some more brave mainstream scientists willing to posit it could exist and some have gone further. The best example is acclaimed scientist Jeff Meldrum of Idaho. You also have the state of New York's chief primatologist on board. Even Jane Goodall believes the animal exists.

I have long ago learned the EVERY bigfoot denier actually has very little knowledge of the facts. Primate hair samples with no known specie DNA match exists. Scat exists. Hundreds of footprints with dorsal ridgs that cannot be faked and do not match the pattern of known primates. Eyewitness accounts in the thousands, including biologists, forest rangers, cops and hundreds of hunters who have spent their lives in the woods. Yes, sasquatch is real and is most likely an descendant of australopithecus.

Well this is impressive footage. in my opinion...from what I can see on the blu ray uploaded clip. We can clearly count it out as being a bear, but if its a man, why is the figure completly blacked out. We can see the colours of the foreground and backround, the grass etc, clearly, so it would make sence that we would also clearly see a face and hands, but atleast a face, of some colour. The backpack..im not 100percent convinced that it is a backpack...the patterson footage shows a creature stooped over, possibly if bigfoot exists it may well have some extra growth on its back...Or what may also be possible is that this footage may show a creature carrying a baby on its back. the way the figure appears and crouches down is in keeping with other sightings...so i dunno. Would really need the film makers to confirm if this was a crew member.

looks like a person to me, but the darkness of him is very odd. It looks like he is in full black with a black face mask on. It almost looks like he is on a bicycle also, by the way of his movement, but it doesnt look like he is on one when he stops and crouches down.

There does seem to be something on it's back, probably a backpack.

It would make total sense for it to be a crew member scaring the animals and making them run. The camera is panning right and that person would be perfect to make the animals NOT run to the left or directly away from the camera. The animals are running RIGHT along with the camera. The person appears to block the path of the animal. I can almost guarantee you that a heard of animals would NOT run straight for a human. They know that humans are NOT their friends and ARE probably going to try to kill them. It is almost impossible to sneak up on these kind of animals in large herds. They are not stupid, they are probably one of the most scared animals out there. You don't run at a threat, you run away from a threat. That's how those animals are built. Their eyes are on their side so they can see threats not in front of them but to the side and also behind them.

Hope this helps, i say it's a member of the filming crew being told when to pop out and when to get down by walkie talkie or something else. Cool video though, they should have caught that in the editing and left it out. Maybe they left it in and darked the image to make it appear mysterious.. ever thought about that?

ALso, just watched it again, it does look like he's riding a bike and he could have just leaned over to his right to land on the up sloping hill or he was "standing" on his bike while peddling and when the camera crew noticed him they yelled at him to GET DOWN in which he crouched down and "Hugged" his bike or just simply fell to the right to get out of view.

reply to post by Josephus23


That all fine and good, yet you seem intent on attacking the alleged bias in the claims that this is a human, which is more likely and grounded in science, as opposed to pointing out the bias in the claims that it is the mythological Bigfoot which isn't scientifically accepted (perhaps you are exhibiting your own bias?), but it is fine for you to refute the claims that this is a human being.

The probability of this being a human is infinitely higher than it being a legendary beast or some sort of unusual wild "Arctic Gorilla", nevertheless.

All too often we see claims here on ATS about an obscured or blurred image representing something mythical, fiction, or unverified and yet they are steadfast behind these claims.

This too is fine, but sometimes the commonplace and rational explanation, however boring, is usually correct.

A member of the film crew caught on tape is more believable than some never before seen wild Arctic Gorilla/Chimpanzee or a creature that so far only appears to exist only in myths and alleged encounters.

There really isn't anything more for me to say on the matter.
It's a human, I can see it is a human, but feel free to refute the obvious.

- Lee

I don't even care whether it is a BF or a hunter... it is really cool, and really creepy.
Awesome.

By the way, look at the size of it in comparison to the animals, and the distance away from them. It is BIG.

Originally posted by Dogdish
Nope.
Here it is on BluRay:

Thanks Dogdish for posting that video. It is clear to me from watching the 720p version that this is a human wearing a backpack. While I would like to believe that bigfoot has been captured on an IMAX film, this seems to highlight the importance of film quality when examining any suspected bigfoot claims.

reply to post by lee anoma


I have not taken a side on this issue.

I am merely standing up for the integrity of the research process; however, you seem to want to associate me with a stance as you did here:

That all fine and good, yet you seem intent on attacking the alleged bias in the claims that this is a human, as opposed to pointing out the bias in the claims that it is the mythological Bigfoot which isn't scientifically accepted...

That is simply not true. If it is, then please quote me.

I will state what I have stated all along and that is this...

I do not know what the object in the movie is, either human, "Sasquatch", or some other yet undefined animal.

I will repeat. I DO NOT KNOW.

(perhaps you are exhibiting your own bias?), but it is fine for you to refute the claims that this is a human being.

Once again, please quote me before you mis-characterize my statements.

I have refuted claims that it is confirmed to be ANYTHING.

It's a human, I can see it is a human, but feel free to refute the obvious.

Please see this link on confirmation bias.

Cheers.

[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by lee anoma

 

Most anyone who does real study of the phenomenon knows this creature exists. We finally even have some more brave mainstream scientists willing to posit it could exist and some have gone further. The best example is acclaimed scientist Jeff Meldrum of Idaho. You also have the state of New York's chief primatologist on board. Even Jane Goodall believes the animal exists.

I too believe that Bigfoot possibly exists.
What made you think I didn't?

Because I didn't jump on this and adamantly state that it was beyond a doubt, Bigfoot?

That is irresponsible and would further discredit those who do believe because it shows them to be gullible and biased. We MUST be skeptical and discerning.

Believing something exists isn't proof that it does, and although Jane Goodall believes Bigfoot exists, she knows Gorillas do.

I have long ago learned the EVERY bigfoot denier actually has very little knowledge of the facts. Primate hair samples with no known specie DNA match exists. Scat exists. Hundreds of footprints with dorsal ridgs that cannot be faked and do not match the pattern of known primates. Eyewitness accounts in the thousands, including biologists, forest rangers, cops and hundreds of hunters who have spent their lives in the woods.

Yet all we had here was a video of a blurred humanoid and none of the evidence you mention and that is enough to mean something?

Like I said, after viewing the hi-res it is clear it is a human.

I do believe in the possibility of Bigfoots existence, just like Ms. Goodall, but I don't believe everything I see and won't claim something looks like another thing if I don't believe it.

Hasn't the "Bigfoot-in-a-freezer" fiasco taught this community anything about being skeptical?

Case closed for me.

Good day,

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma


Nothing is more difficult to open than a closed mind.

reply to post by network dude


the closes thing to that is having a Sierra Nevada Bigfoot Ale.

reply to post by MKULTRA


The backpack in question could also be a child.

If one was to make the very broad and completely unproven suggestion that this is a "Sasquatch", then the only known thing to compare its behavior to is a African Lowland Gorilla.

Note to add in an edit:
This is entirely based upon an assumption.
All of the supposed confirmations in this thread are based upon assumption.

And if one was to go to the Zoo and observe the behavior of any FEMALE gorilla, then it would be obvious that if the female has any babies, then when the female walks the babies are CARRIED ON THEIR BODY.
And when they are especially mobile, then the babies are on their BACKS.

Not too dissimilar from a BACKPACK.

This video does not prove nor refute that the object is ANYTHING.

I am firmly in the camp of I DO NOT KNOW.



[edit on 4/30/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Dogdish


I'm pretty sure its a dude with a backpack here. At first it looked like it could have been Bigfoot, but when he turns toward the herd, you can see there's a big lump on his back. Believe me, I really wish it was Bigfoot and I would like to believe that, however in my opinion the guy from youtube was right, it appears to be a guy with a backpack.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by nesta]

Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
My first thoughts were a black bear but if you watch it enough times its starts to look more human like. Great find OP im sure many ATSers will be scratching their heads and arguing about this for some time to come.

Exactly, and I also think it is too far north for a black bear. At that latitude I would expect to see a polar bear and at that time of year it's fur would be white/beige.

Also, in that area there is nobody around for hundreds of miles so it's also unlikely to be some dude out for an afternoon hike.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by leo123]

my guess would be a hunter, probably Native Indian descent
and the backpack is actually a Bow and Arrow Quiver.

I don't think Bigfoot is actually bold enough to
go to a local store and buy himself a backpack.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by boondock-saint]