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 -

Hunter captures alleged Bigfoot on camera during trip to birch forest


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

Is this a Bigfoot, a person wearing a costume, or something else ?

A bigfoot in a bigfoot costume? :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DreadLordAvatar said:

Great footage. It looks legit.

If it's legit it's the best 'bigfoot' footage since Patterson-Gimlin film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The creature walks looking down at the ground, as if it were somebody in a gorilla suit carefully watching each step so as not trip.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The creature's gait, look down at the ground and creature's thickness reminds me of Paul Freeman's bigfoot hoax.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to go with hoax the suit looks even worse than my 60 buck gorilla costume from the halloween store, it doesnt act like a wild creature but it does act like a  dolt in a fur suit.

These hoaxes are iladvised as some rube might just shoot you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

As I said it's a quite similar in a posture to the Paul Freeman's 'bigfoot' footage.

 

I really do think these guys buy cheap suits and have a blast seeing who is silly enough to fall for it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eerie music lets you know it's real.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be easy enough to go to where he filmed it and go to the trees the figure walked past and measure them, since they had definitive marks. If it is 7 or 8 foot that would bolster his video.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez these guys and the cheap monkey suit videos get old.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MGB said:

It would be easy enough to go to where he filmed it and go to the trees the figure walked past and measure them, since they had definitive marks. If it is 7 or 8 foot that would bolster his video.

Since they dont exist lets pretend for a moment this is a real bigfoot, where its walking there would be at least a chance it left tracks but more important if it was a real creature 100% no question it did leave DNA did the camera person go find samples? No, of course not.

Some true believers who no not understand DNA will bray about alleged bigfoot DNA that is "human but not human" no, it doesnt work like that.

DNA is at the point that it will prove Bigfoot doesnt exist because of a total lack of proof otherwise.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Since they dont exist lets pretend for a moment this is a real bigfoot, where its walking there would be at least a chance it left tracks but more important if it was a real creature 100% no question it did leave DNA did the camera person go find samples? No, of course not.

Some true believers who no not understand DNA will bray about alleged bigfoot DNA that is "human but not human" no, it doesnt work like that.

DNA is at the point that it will prove Bigfoot doesnt exist because of a total lack of proof otherwise.

 

True. You cannot say the DNA belongs to bigfoot when there Isn't one to compare it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MGB said:

True. You cannot say the DNA belongs to bigfoot when there Isn't one to compare it to.

You can determine if the DNA is from a primate, a monkey, a lesser ape, a great ape, a hominid.

DNA contains codings and those codings can be matched up to various forms of life. If BF exists and that DNA is found then we could place that DNA into its clade. We could see the evolutionary origin of BF and how long ago it branched off from other creatures similar to it.

A good example of this was finding the finger bone of a Denisovan. It was shown to be its own species. No extant Denisovan was needed to determine that it was Denisovan.

In fact, that work as earned a Nobel prize this year

https://www.snexplores.org/article/nobel-prize-physiology-medicine-2022-svante-paabo-human-evolution-neandertal-genetics

Quote

Pääbo is a geneticist who works at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. In 2006, he worked out how to extract and analyze DNA from ancient bones. That led to uncovering small genetic differences between humans and their extinct human relatives. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2022 at 11:32 AM, stereologist said:

You can determine if the DNA is from a primate, a monkey, a lesser ape, a great ape, a hominid.

DNA contains codings and those codings can be matched up to various forms of life. If BF exists and that DNA is found then we could place that DNA into its clade. We could see the evolutionary origin of BF and how long ago it branched off from other creatures similar to it.

A good example of this was finding the finger bone of a Denisovan. It was shown to be its own species. No extant Denisovan was needed to determine that it was Denisovan.

In fact, that work as earned a Nobel prize this year

https://www.snexplores.org/article/nobel-prize-physiology-medicine-2022-svante-paabo-human-evolution-neandertal-genetics

 

This is why its so riduculous when some true believer who doesnt grasp DNA brays they found DNA that is 99% human so it proved bigfoot exists.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2022 at 2:02 AM, the13bats said:

Since they dont exist lets pretend for a moment this is a real bigfoot, where its walking there would be at least a chance it left tracks but more important if it was a real creature 100% no question it did leave DNA did the camera person go find samples? No, of course not.

Some true believers who no not understand DNA will bray about alleged bigfoot DNA that is "human but not human" no, it doesnt work like that.

DNA is at the point that it will prove Bigfoot doesnt exist because of a total lack of proof otherwise.

 

Yep, another case of the person knowing exactly where a big hairy animal trudged through the woods and them not getting a hair.  thistles are abundant in the woods and hairs would easily be found.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, Myles said:

Yep, another case of the person knowing exactly where a big hairy animal trudged through the woods and them not getting a hair.  thistles are abundant in the woods and hairs would easily be found.

Its actually a case of the cameraman knew it was his buddy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing anything about anyone returning to the area to look for hair, prints, scat or anything to corroborate the alleged sighting. Not surprised at all.

Throw this in the bin with all the other garbage that gets rolled out as "proof".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has all the hallmarks of a hoax. The creature shows up Directly In Front of the guy. Like it was waiting and and the camera guy knew where to go. He hides behind a tiny tree, like that would help. and holds the camera so it is partially blocked by close by branches. Couldn't lift it up a couple feet for a clear view eh? And the creature moves almost in an arc across the outside edge of the field, to get a view, but to also be partly hidden. AND, IMHO, the most damning. The creature is all one color. Like he just took a bath, or wearing clean clothes. A creature that lives outside would have shades of color, where some dirt got on it, or it rubbed a tree, or wiped a hand. Yet it is completely clean. 

Id like to see the camera person put the camera on the tree and then walk to the point of where the creature was and see how tall it really was. Also, knowing these kinds of trees, and how big they get, I can't image this thing is tremendously big, or tall. I'd guess just under six feet tall. Also, having made videos in the woods, the apparent depth can be deceptive. This thing may have only been 100 feet away, and EASILY would have heard this guy approaching in the brush/dry grass.

Just saying...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2022 at 3:53 PM, DieChecker said:

This has all the hallmarks of a hoax. The creature shows up Directly In Front of the guy. Like it was waiting and and the camera guy knew where to go. He hides behind a tiny tree, like that would help. and holds the camera so it is partially blocked by close by branches. Couldn't lift it up a couple feet for a clear view eh? And the creature moves almost in an arc across the outside edge of the field, to get a view, but to also be partly hidden. AND, IMHO, the most damning. The creature is all one color. Like he just took a bath, or wearing clean clothes. A creature that lives outside would have shades of color, where some dirt got on it, or it rubbed a tree, or wiped a hand. Yet it is completely clean. 

Id like to see the camera person put the camera on the tree and then walk to the point of where the creature was and see how tall it really was. Also, knowing these kinds of trees, and how big they get, I can't image this thing is tremendously big, or tall. I'd guess just under six feet tall. Also, having made videos in the woods, the apparent depth can be deceptive. This thing may have only been 100 feet away, and EASILY would have heard this guy approaching in the brush/dry grass.

Just saying...

We each take what is presented to us and make up our own minds based on evidence or lack thereof, of course this is a hoax.

And sure after over 40 years of interest and research in the bigfoot phenomenon im a bit jaded and cynical afterall all we have are stories just because a person seems sincere doesnt make it so most con artists are very sincere.

The typical "story" is a person claims to have seen "something" and they dont know what it really is so they make an unsupported leap from unknown to it must be xxxxx ( paranormal whatever ) thats a huge issue because we cant real an absolute conclusion from "unknown" its just guessing based on nothing many times these folks will say if we saw what they saw we would be believers too, how very arrogant to assume others are as credulous as they are. it would seem some folks cant admit they didnt know.

They seldom almost never follow up as in look for tracks or hair etc. At this point i just apply commen sense, with all the stories and no supporting evidence there is no bigfoot, all the money and time spent by not just hobbyists but teevee shows too and no bigfoot.

People ask for proof and there never is any but the skeptic is always the bad guy.

 

 

  • Like 1
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.