Watch: Bigfoot Filmed Crossing River in Michigan?

[Guyver]

This footage is less blurry than a traditional bigfoot video, still too blurry to make it out clearly, in my mind.  Looks like either a real bigfoot, or an intentional hoax.  It doesn’t look like any hunter’s cammo that I’ve seen before. 

[Resume]

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

.  It doesn’t look like any hunter’s cammo that I’ve seen before. 

Have you seen them all?

[Resume]

Oh look, another crystal clear, Hi-def footie video.

 

 

[Resume]

3 hours ago, Harte said:

I think I see boobies.

Bigfoot boobies.

Harte

Patty ain't the only voluptuous footie.

[Resume]

10 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I have. Multiple times.

That's a tired old trope.

Elusive?

They are purportedly eight feet tall and weigh roughly 500 - 800 pounds.

They have to eat, sleep, poop, fornicate somewhere.

The amount of evidence a breeding population of such creatures would leave around be staggering.

In these cases an absence of evidence is pretty much evidence of absence.

Per the video in the OP, it looks like a guy in a rubber suit. You can see the folds.

 

No bones, no skulls, no fossils, no footie roadkill, no bigfoot rugs in First Nation/Native American lodges; no nothin' but campfire stories for an alleged breeding population of 6 to 9ft creatures, with alleged continental distribution, cohabiting that continent with human beings for at least 15000 years.  Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence where evidence is necessarily expected. 

 

Edited July 18, 2021 by Resume

[Abramelin]

20 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

This is hunter or fisherman in outdoor gear.

Something like this, but lots fatter?

 

[Resume]

23 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Something like this, but lots fatter?

 

I used to have something similar in a bug/rain suit.  Used it quite a bit fishing and camping in Nunavut/NWT.  Was in a darker camo pattern though; good stuff but I forgot I had it in a storage locker in my boat when I sold it.  

Edited July 18, 2021 by Resume

[Doug1066]

I personally know two people who say they saw bigfoot.  I won't argue with them, but I wonder what they really saw.

I spent 30 years in the woods in the middle of bigfoot country and never saw one - or a track either.  I'd like to think ythere's something out there we haven't discovered yet, but there's no evidence of it.

Doug

[Knob Oddy]

2 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

I personally know two people who say they saw bigfoot.  I won't argue with them, but I wonder what they really saw.

I spent 30 years in the woods in the middle of bigfoot country and never saw one - or a track either.  I'd like to think ythere's something out there we haven't discovered yet, but there's no evidence of it.

Doug

Honest question for a man who spends most of his time in the great outdoors. 

If you saw one, would you tell anyone?

[Doug1066]

1 minute ago, Hugh Mungus said:

Honest question for a man who spends most of his time in the great outdoors. 

If you saw one, would you tell anyone?

Absolutely.

Doug

[Harte]

23 hours ago, Harte said:

I think I see boobies.

Bigfoot boobies.

Harte

Yes, this will be my bigfoot response meme moving forward.

Harte

[Matt221]

looks like a bloke carrying his whimpey dog cause the bugga won't swim ..... idiot dog

[Myles]

On 7/18/2021 at 3:19 AM, onlookerofmayhem said:

I have. Multiple times.

That's a tired old trope.

Elusive?

They are purportedly eight feet tall and weigh roughly 500 - 800 pounds.

They have to eat, sleep, poop, fornicate somewhere.

The amount of evidence a breeding population of such creatures would leave around be staggering.

In these cases an absence of evidence is pretty much evidence of absence.

Per the video in the OP, it looks like a guy in a rubber suit. You can see the folds.

 

I totally agree. 

If this was real, they would have lots of tracks and hair on any bristles when he went in and out of the water.   But...............nothing.

 

To me it looks like a guy with waders on.

[rashore]

Thread cleaned. Folks, keep on topic and the conversation courteous please. 

[Abramelin]

On 7/18/2021 at 4:22 PM, Harte said:

I think I see boobies.

Bigfoot boobies.

Harte

I think I'll have to disappoint you: the boobies you are seeing are something the guy is carrying.

At some point in this ultra-short video, those boobies disappear.

Believe me, I am disappointed.

 

[SecretSanta]

Looks like a man possibly wearing waders walking across the river. 

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I think I'll have to disappoint you: the boobies you are seeing are something the guy is carrying.

At some point in this ultra-short video, those boobies disappear.

Believe me, I am disappointed.

Hey, you live your dream., I'll live mine.

Harte

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

It's a decent one but too far away, and not very clear. Fifty-fifty with maybe  slight edge of fake.

 

[Trelane]

Looks like a person wearing waders or a Gorka suit.

[Golden Duck]

Why would someone be wearing a drysuit in the Cass River?

Quote

To maximize diver safety three factors had to be addressed; water quality, current, and visibility. Bacteria counts in Lower Michigan rivers are often high enough that contact with river water should be avoided. Sediments in river substrates can also contain potentially hazardous substances. Reports of discharges into the river were monitored and no diving occurred downstream from points of discharge for at least a week after the event. Drysuits (D.U.I. ) and full facemasks (Scubapro) were used to minimize direct contact with river water and sediments.

https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/reports/MNFI-Report-2004-22.pdf

[Guyver]

9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Why would someone be wearing a drysuit in the Cass River?

https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/reports/MNFI-Report-2004-22.pdf

That was a good find, and pertinent to the thread.  But, that study was from 2004 and the OP video was shot this year.  It is possible that environmental changes have occurred since then.  

[Guyver]

On 7/18/2021 at 12:47 PM, Doug1066 said:

I personally know two people who say they saw bigfoot.  I won't argue with them, but I wonder what they really saw.

I spent 30 years in the woods in the middle of bigfoot country and never saw one - or a track either.  I'd like to think ythere's something out there we haven't discovered yet, but there's no evidence of it.

Doug

Tracks are actually evidence of it though.  You’ve spent time in the woods, as have I.  Think about some of your most remote treks…you know, the kind that does not involve a campground, water park, recreational lake, etc.  The kind where you have to carry in all your supplies on your back and motor vehicles either don’t have access or terrain prohibits their usage.  In those conditions, discovering “bigfoot” tracks actually would be evidence of the creatures existence, since the whole point of a hoax is to have it discovered.  You know and I know that a person can spends days or weeks in the deep bush and never see another human being at all.  Therefore, under those conditions, it would not be reasonable to consider those types of tracks as intentional hoaxes since the likelihood of them being found is so small.  Especially if the tracks are part of a trackway and not just an individual print. Hoaxing one “bigfoot” track near a campground is one thing, but hoaxing an entire trackway, especially in dangerous terrain far away from human presence is entirely something else. 

[Doug1066]

9 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Tracks are actually evidence of it though.  You’ve spent time in the woods, as have I.  Think about some of your most remote treks…you know, the kind that does not involve a campground, water park, recreational lake, etc.  The kind where you have to carry in all your supplies on your back and motor vehicles either don’t have access or terrain prohibits their usage.  In those conditions, discovering “bigfoot” tracks actually would be evidence of the creatures existence, since the whole point of a hoax is to have it discovered.  You know and I know that a person can spends days or weeks in the deep bush and never see another human being at all.  Therefore, under those conditions, it would not be reasonable to consider those types of tracks as intentional hoaxes since the likelihood of them being found is so small.  Especially if the tracks are part of a trackway and not just an individual print. Hoaxing one “bigfoot” track near a campground is one thing, but hoaxing an entire trackway, especially in dangerous terrain far away from human presence is entirely something else. 

As I said, I have never seen a bigfoot track.  Some pictures I have seen look pretty convincing, but hoaxes or misinterpretations of another phenomenon can't be ruled out.  I want to see either a body or DNA evidence.  In North America, "bigfoot hair" has usually turned out to be a bear, dog or deer.  As of now, I have not seen any solid evidence:  only hints at what might be.

Doug

[Doug1066]

On 7/17/2021 at 2:52 PM, Abramelin said:

Hmmm.....

 

 

 

 

Why can't people take a good. high-quality, in-focus picture of a "bigfoot?"

Doug

[Resume]

39 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Why can't people take a good. high-quality, in-focus picture of a "bigfoot?"

Doug

An actual bigfoot would be necessary for that.