Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The best Bigfoot video for a quick overview.


QuintusUnited

Recommended Posts

I was watching the old Macgyver series and there was particular episode called "Ghost Ship" and the episode ends in a way that peaks interest into Bigfoot. I had little interest in the subject before. I wasn't sure where to turn. I tried to some websites that went into the subject but they were too lengthy. I then found some videos and the same problem. I finally found a quick video that hits on the history, evidence and even common reasons against finding Bigfoot used by the naysayers. This fellow makes some points that seem hard to dismiss. This is by far the best Bigfoot video I have came across. If anyone knows of any additional Bigfoot videos that are high in detail, not overly long and are not produced by profiteers then please share the link.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This Youtube channel has the most amazing Bigfoot evidence caught on video. Of course naysayers will say it's guys in suits, but the grunts, and screams do not sound human to me.

https://m.youtube.com/user/BUTCHYKID624

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, QuintusUnited said:

I was watching the old Macgyver series and there was particular episode called "Ghost Ship" and the episode ends in a way that peaks interest into Bigfoot. I had little interest in the subject before. I wasn't sure where to turn. I tried to some websites that went into the subject but they were too lengthy. I then found some videos and the same problem. I finally found a quick video that hits on the history, evidence and even common reasons against finding Bigfoot used by the naysayers. This fellow makes some points that seem hard to dismiss. This is by far the best Bigfoot video I have came across. If anyone knows of any additional Bigfoot videos that are high in detail, not overly long and are not produced by profiteers then please share the link.    

 

That was very hard to watch.  No, you won't find anything better than the relatively poorly done Patterson film and it was made under quite suspicious circumstances including the original film strangely missing.   Patterson was a well known con-man, BTW, whose health was failing when he made the film.  He died shortly after making the film. 

The fact that many, many millions now walk around with HD cameras in their pockets and yet we have zero photographic evidence of BF since the Patterson film should tell you something.  Combine that factoid with the problem of zero physical evidence after nearly 60 years of Post Patterson searching and you can see why it is hard to believe BF is real. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say this, while I find the idea of bigfoot to be a non starter, I'm not sure that the lack of mobile phone films is particularly persuasive as a point in itself.

A few years ago, someone was regularly buzzing my village with a drone. I pulled in once and there it was flying over the castle, a couple of hundred yards to my left, and heading in a direction which took it roughly past me. I decided to try and film it as a joke. 

It was winter, I was wearing an overcoat, covert type with three hip pockets, and jeans. It took me time to work out which pocket the phone was in. Then it took me a while to swipe it and find the camera. Then I took a photo of the curb. I then realised I was on normal camera not video. That took time to change. Once it was set to video it took a bit of fumbling to zoom and focus. By which time the thing had gone out to sea and the video showed nothing. Even though I could still see the lights on it. 

And I was perfectly calm, not startled or excited. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, oldrover said:

I have to say this, while I find the idea of bigfoot to be a non starter, I'm not sure that the lack of mobile phone films is particularly persuasive as a point in itself.

A few years ago, someone was regularly buzzing my village with a drone. I pulled in once and there it was flying over the castle, a couple of hundred yards to my left, and heading in a direction which took it roughly past me. I decided to try and film it as a joke. 

It was winter, I was wearing an overcoat, covert type with three hip pockets, and jeans. It took me time to work out which pocket the phone was in. Then it took me a while to swipe it and find the camera. Then I took a photo of the curb. I then realised I was on normal camera not video. That took time to change. Once it was set to video it took a bit of fumbling to zoom and focus. By which time the thing had gone out to sea and the video showed nothing. Even though I could still see the lights on it. 

And I was perfectly calm, not startled or excited. 

That is you though, oldrover, a lot of young folks, and older now, have their cameras set up to film on demand.   I know my wife can pull and shoot that thing like Wyatt Earp in a gunfight as she uses it a LOT.  Me, not so much.   Multiply the folks who are "good" at pulling and using the camera by hundreds of millions, maybe a billion and it is hard to believe that, given the supposed numbers, we don't have at least one movie or very good photo.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oldrover said:

I have to say this, while I find the idea of bigfoot to be a non starter, I'm not sure that the lack of mobile phone films is particularly persuasive as a point in itself.

A few years ago, someone was regularly buzzing my village with a drone. I pulled in once and there it was flying over the castle, a couple of hundred yards to my left, and heading in a direction which took it roughly past me. I decided to try and film it as a joke. 

It was winter, I was wearing an overcoat, covert type with three hip pockets, and jeans. It took me time to work out which pocket the phone was in. Then it took me a while to swipe it and find the camera. Then I took a photo of the curb. I then realised I was on normal camera not video. That took time to change. Once it was set to video it took a bit of fumbling to zoom and focus. By which time the thing had gone out to sea and the video showed nothing. Even though I could still see the lights on it. 

And I was perfectly calm, not startled or excited. 

This is a common reason given for why there's so little video or photographic evidence of the paranormal - UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, etc.  But it's not really a good reason at all.  I don't expect everyone to get crystal clear photos or video of UFOs or bigfoot or ghosts if they happen to see it, but I expect that someone, somewhere, will do so.

Why is it that wildlife photographers can get professional video footage and photographs of rare species who live in extremely remote locations, yet no-one can get anything better than dubious looking blurry photos and videos of bigfoot?  It's not like there's a shortage of people out in the woods of North America looking for him.

Yours is a reasonable explanation for why you wouldn't expect the average person who happened to glimpse bigfoot might not be expected to get a decent photo of it.  But no-one has been lucky with their smartphone?  None of the bigfoot hunters wandering around the woods of North America with camera equipment setup to get footage can get anything?

Why can I do a Google image search and find professional quality photos of Siberian tigers in the remote wilderness in the middle of nowhere but I can't find the equivalent of bigfoot?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Merc14 said:

That is you though, oldrover, a lot of young folks, and older now, have their cameras set up to film on demand.   I know my wife can pull and shoot that thing like Wyatt Earp in a gunfight as she uses it a LOT.  Me, not so much.   Multiply the folks who are "good" at pulling and using the camera by hundreds of millions, maybe a billion and it is hard to believe that, given the supposed numbers, we don't have at least one movie or very good photo.

Yeah, I can't argue with either of those points. Firstly, I am inept with any sort of camera or phone, second so can my Mrs. The Wyatt Earp comment made me laugh. 

I concede the point. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JesseCuster said:

This is a common reason given for why there's so little video or photographic evidence of the paranormal - UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, etc.  But it's not really a good reason at all.  I don't expect everyone to get crystal clear photos or video of UFOs or bigfoot or ghosts if they happen to see it, but I expect that someone, somewhere, will do so.

Why is it that wildlife photographers can get professional video footage and photographs of rare species who live in extremely remote locations, yet no-one can get anything better than dubious looking blurry photos and videos of bigfoot?  It's not like there's a shortage of people out in the woods of North America looking for him.

Yours is a reasonable explanation for why you wouldn't expect the average person who happened to glimpse bigfoot might not be expected to get a decent photo of it.  But no-one has been lucky with their smartphone?  None of the bigfoot hunters wandering around the woods of North America with camera equipment setup to get footage can get anything?

Why can I do a Google image search and find professional quality photos of Siberian tigers in the remote wilderness in the middle of nowhere but I can't find the equivalent of bigfoot?

Just to make it clear though. I'm not in anyway arguing that my, I now realise skewed idea of how easy it is to use a camera phone, is any sort of positive evidence for bigfoot. Bigfoot is an idea that I totally reject.

Other than that I agree completely with the point you've made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 28/9/2016 at 6:31 PM, JesseCuster said:

Why is it that wildlife photographers can get professional video footage and photographs of rare species who live in extremely remote locations, yet no-one can get anything better than dubious looking blurry photos and videos of bigfoot?  It's not like there's a shortage of people out in the woods of North America looking for him.

Yours is a reasonable explanation for why you wouldn't expect the average person who happened to glimpse bigfoot might not be expected to get a decent photo of it.  But no-one has been lucky with their smartphone?  None of the bigfoot hunters wandering around the woods of North America with camera equipment setup to get footage can get anything?

Why can I do a Google image search and find professional quality photos of Siberian tigers in the remote wilderness in the middle of nowhere but I can't find the equivalent of bigfoot?

When a professional photographer wants to take photos of rare species, he chooses one kind of animal then he goes in the location and he is very heavy equipped: he has at least 2 pairs of lenses, a tripod, a microphone, a declaser, extra batteries, filters (CPL) and many more... and stays in one spot for weeks until he takes some good photos. That is IF he takes any good photos. And he is a pro.

I'm not saying it's logical not to have photos of bf. It's not. Just wondering, do bf hunters do all that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kyuubi said:

When a professional photographer wants to take photos of rare species, he chooses one kind of animal then he goes in the location and he is very heavy equipped: he has at least 2 pairs of lenses, a tripod, a microphone, a declaser, extra batteries, filters (CPL) and many more... and stays in one spot for weeks until he takes some good photos. That is IF he takes any good photos. And he is a pro.

I'm not saying it's logical not to have photos of bf. It's not. Just wondering, do bf hunters do all that?

They seem to do a lot more than all that:

  • Copy of the Bigfoot Survival Guide
  • Camera, video and still capable
  • Motion camera with flash
  • Audio recording device
  • GPS (map location of tracks, broken tree limbs, sightings)
  • Deer Urine (for attraction)
  • Deer (doe) call
  • Camouflaged/dark clothing
  • Flashlight
  • Cell phone (satellite capable preferred)
  • Bait/Food, preferably meat (rotting = ok)
  • Bear mace
  • Knife (self defense only)
  • Rope/cord
  • Flare gun
  • Lighter
  • Range Finder
  • Pad/Paper for note taking
  • Tree stands
  • Blinds (camo tents, etc)
  • First-Aid kit
  • Watch
  • Water Purification System
  • Insect Repellent
  • Fishing Poles (Fresh bait is useful)
  • Stun gun
  • Net gun
  • Night vision goggles

https://bigfootfinder.com/resources/the-bigfoot-hunters-essential-shopping-checklist/

Edited by freetoroam
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kyuubi said:

When a professional photographer wants to take photos of rare species, he chooses one kind of animal then he goes in the location and he is very heavy equipped: he has at least 2 pairs of lenses, a tripod, a microphone, a declaser, extra batteries, filters (CPL) and many more... and stays in one spot for weeks until he takes some good photos. That is IF he takes any good photos. And he is a pro.

I'm not saying it's logical not to have photos of bf. It's not. Just wondering, do bf hunters do all that?

If they don't do that then the question is why not?  Are there not enough serious bigfoot hunters to go properly prepared and equipped to find him or is it just the weekend hobby it appears to be, like some sort of real life role playing game where people go into the woods pretending to hunt for bigfoot?

If they do do that then the question is why can't the return with the kind of hardcore evidence that people accumulate from photographing and documenting other rare species in remote wilderness?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

They seem to do a lot more than all that:

  • Copy of the Bigfoot Survival Guide
  • Camera, video and still capable
  • Motion camera with flash
  • Audio recording device
  • GPS (map location of tracks, broken tree limbs, sightings)
  • Deer Urine (for attraction)
  • Deer (doe) call
  • Camouflaged/dark clothing
  • Flashlight
  • Cell phone (satellite capable preferred)
  • Bait/Food, preferably meat (rotting = ok)
  • Bear mace
  • Knife (self defense only)
  • Rope/cord
  • Flare gun
  • Lighter
  • Range Finder
  • Pad/Paper for note taking
  • Tree stands
  • Blinds (camo tents, etc)
  • First-Aid kit
  • Watch
  • Water Purification System
  • Insect Repellent
  • Fishing Poles (Fresh bait is useful)
  • Stun gun
  • Net gun
  • Night vision goggles

Photographers also have these. I only said stuff needed for taking a photo. 

If they do all that, then there is the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, JesseCuster said:

If they don't do that then the question is why not?  Are there not enough serious bigfoot hunters to go properly prepared and equipped to find him or is it just the weekend hobby it appears to be, like some sort of real life role playing game where people go into the woods pretending to hunt for bigfoot?

If they do do that then the question is why can't the return with the kind of hardcore evidence that people accumulate from photographing and documenting other rare species in remote wilderness?

One of the foundations of Bigfootery is "They are always finding new species that no one knew existed so why not BF?"  It isn't actually a defense, as they think it is, it is a condemnation of their beliefs because the simple response is " A person can march into the uncharted jungle and find a new kind of insect crawling through the underbrush yet thousands hiking through the Pacific Northwest can't find evidence of a 7 foot, 600LB hominid?  Yes, wed od find new creatures in the jungles and the bottom of the oceans but after 60 years of looking not one photo of BF.  Why?"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kyuubi said:

Photographers also have these. I only said stuff needed for taking a photo. 

If they do all that, then there is the answer. 

The answer is there are some hard core big foot hunters out there...there are also some hard core pranksters...what there is not...is a hard core big foot.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2016 at 1:31 AM, oldrover said:

I have to say this, while I find the idea of bigfoot to be a non starter, I'm not sure that the lack of mobile phone films is particularly persuasive as a point in itself.

A few years ago, someone was regularly buzzing my village with a drone. I pulled in once and there it was flying over the castle, a couple of hundred yards to my left, and heading in a direction which took it roughly past me. I decided to try and film it as a joke. 

It was winter, I was wearing an overcoat, covert type with three hip pockets, and jeans. It took me time to work out which pocket the phone was in. Then it took me a while to swipe it and find the camera. Then I took a photo of the curb. I then realised I was on normal camera not video. That took time to change. Once it was set to video it took a bit of fumbling to zoom and focus. By which time the thing had gone out to sea and the video showed nothing. Even though I could still see the lights on it. 

And I was perfectly calm, not startled or excited. 

On 9/28/2016 at 11:34 AM, oldrover said:

Yeah, I can't argue with either of those points. Firstly, I am inept with any sort of camera or phone, second so can my Mrs. The Wyatt Earp comment made me laugh. 

I concede the point. 

You shouldn't concede the point. Most people who are working in the forests, and driving along roads are statistically going to be older. Kids work in fast food and service jobs at the mall. 

I've many times tried to match this expected feat of taking clear pics from a car at a spontaneous moment, and so far, after half a hundred attempts, I'd failed almost every single time. Especially with the phone. Sure, the phone comes out quick, but unless you can zoom that thing and hold it with the same hand, you're not going to be zooming. You try to take a picture of a deer, and all you get is bushes on the side of the road. You try to take a pic of a little quail 6 feet away, and all you get is a blurry mess. 

It's not as easy as it sounds. 

Heck, I took like 15 pics (on my phone) the other day for a birthday party my kids went to, and I had to delete 10 of them because they were so blurry you couldn't tell which kid was which. (Samsung Galaxy S6)

Using my digital camera isn't any better then using the phone... when trying to use it while driving in the car. Or when you stop suddenly and try to take a pic. Whatever you aim at is usually long gone. Even when I keep it in my lap, I've failed to take good pics. Still prone to blurriness. True, not a "Professional" camera, but come on... Who has a professional camera and keeps in on their lap while driving around? Not many, I think.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My God. Can the admins just make the Patterson film a sticky so we don't have to wade through the hundreds of opinions on said Patterson film threads.

Yes we've seen it. It's fake. Quit reminding us. There is nothing new about bigfoot other than that guy who claims it's Andre the Giants sister. Nothing!

So please admins make a single bigfoot thread that all may converse in. Get answers from and quit the rehashing of old stories. Damn aliens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kurzweil said:

There is nothing new about bigfoot other than that guy who claims it's Andre the Giants sister. Nothing!

Image result for laughing bear

Edited by Habitat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You shouldn't concede the point. Most people who are working in the forests, and driving along roads are statistically going to be older. Kids work in fast food and service jobs at the mall. 

I've many times tried to match this expected feat of taking clear pics from a car at a spontaneous moment, and so far, after half a hundred attempts, I'd failed almost every single time. Especially with the phone. Sure, the phone comes out quick, but unless you can zoom that thing and hold it with the same hand, you're not going to be zooming. You try to take a picture of a deer, and all you get is bushes on the side of the road. You try to take a pic of a little quail 6 feet away, and all you get is a blurry mess. 

It's not as easy as it sounds. 

Heck, I took like 15 pics (on my phone) the other day for a birthday party my kids went to, and I had to delete 10 of them because they were so blurry you couldn't tell which kid was which. (Samsung Galaxy S6)

Using my digital camera isn't any better then using the phone... when trying to use it while driving in the car. Or when you stop suddenly and try to take a pic. Whatever you aim at is usually long gone. Even when I keep it in my lap, I've failed to take good pics. Still prone to blurriness. True, not a "Professional" camera, but come on... Who has a professional camera and keeps in on their lap while driving around? Not many, I think.

 

I do know what you mean, I'm the same. I've given up trying to photograph anything now. 

But the point made is fair, some people really can be very fast on the draw and deadly accurate with those things. Seriously, every time I fall off something by the time I hit the floor the Mrs has captured it for posterity. 

 I use a Samsung as well as it happens, she uses an I-Phone, maybe there's something in that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oldrover said:

I do know what you mean, I'm the same. I've given up trying to photograph anything now. 

But the point made is fair, some people really can be very fast on the draw and deadly accurate with those things. Seriously, every time I fall off something by the time I hit the floor the Mrs has captured it for posterity. 

 I use a Samsung as well as it happens, she uses an I-Phone, maybe there's something in that?

Maybe. My wife also uses an I-Phone. :tu: Maybe some experiments are in order??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2016 at 11:13 AM, DieChecker said:

Using my digital camera isn't any better then using the phone... when trying to use it while driving in the car. Or when you stop suddenly and try to take a pic. Whatever you aim at is usually long gone. Even when I keep it in my lap, I've failed to take good pics. Still prone to blurriness. True, not a "Professional" camera, but come on... Who has a professional camera and keeps in on their lap while driving around? Not many, I think.

I don't understand.  Are you under the impression that bigfoot is only or nearly always seen while people are driving cars?  Or that bigfoot hunters are looking for him while driving cars?

What about the hikers, hunters, wildlife photographers, etc. who aren't driving on roads through forests but are actually on foot walking through the forests where bigfoot lives?  What about the people who are supposedly out in the forests where bigfoot lives, actively looking for him?

The fact that someone driving through the forests would find it difficult to stop, get out there camera and catch a decent photograph of bigfoot if they spotted is in no way an explanation for why absolutely no-one can.  

The fact that something is difficult for someone does not equate to it being impossible for everyone.   No, not everyone has a professional camera on their lap while driving around.  But that would only mean something if you think bigfoot photographs are necessarily going to come from people driving through forests and casually spot him while driving.  Which seems an odd idea to say the least.

Edited by JesseCuster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JesseCuster said:

I don't understand.  Are you under the impression that bigfoot is only or nearly always seen while people are driving cars?  Or that bigfoot hunters are looking for him while driving cars?

What about the hikers, hunters, wildlife photographers, etc. who aren't driving on roads through forests but are actually on foot walking through the forests where bigfoot lives?  What about the people who are supposedly out in the forests where bigfoot lives, actively looking for him?

The fact that someone driving through the forests would find it difficult to stop, get out there camera and catch a decent photograph of bigfoot if they spotted is in no way an explanation for why absolutely no-one can.  

The fact that something is difficult for someone does not equate to it being impossible for everyone.   No, not everyone has a professional camera on their lap while driving around.  But that would only mean something if you think bigfoot photographs are necessarily going to come from people driving through forests and casually spot him while driving.  Which seems an odd idea to say the least.

Well Jesse,

I think you are taking what I wrote and going to the next level, and projecting how what I wrote might be used to explain away many things. But, that is not what I posted. I simply posted that a cell phone does not always take good pics, especially of moving people or things. Also that the same applies to the cheaper digital cameras. 

My comment wasn't about hikers, or nature photographers, or bigfoot hunters, but mainly about Cell Phone cameras. 

Based on what I wrote, can you really disagree with what I wrote? Where did I use the word "impossible"? I didn't you did.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard video to watch.   Is this kid 14?     He says he started believing in bigfoot when he was young.  

"Bigfoot cannot sneeze"?     Ha ha.   Some pretty good studies have been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.