The Maine Bigfoot Footage Clearly Shows a Bipedal Creature
Holy... We were blown away when we first caught glimpse of what was on the teenager's cellphone screen, but to see the actual creature (or whatever the heck it is) walking in clear daylight is just mind-blowing. The witness sounds sincere and this is no doubt one of the best footage we've seen in a long time. Amazing.
Here's Bill Brock's Bigfoot investigation footage if you haven't watched it. Bill was also blown away:
Peace!
ReplyDeleteOh the irony.
Delete"Boo-hoo... Boo-hoo"
DeleteThese guys seem credible, I would like to know the more on the circumstances of the footage right up top, how the guy managed to just have his camera their (maybe I missed something?)
Joe and Eva got together on New years eve. It was a real mudslide.
DeleteIs that a type of cocktail?
DeleteIf these guys are so credible, and this footage is legit, then why are we only seeing a video of a video on a phone?
DeleteMy sentiment exactly, my comment up top would concur with that. I just think they come across credible. There's a whole more information required before anyone can claim the subjects filmed are legitimate.
DeleteYou're kidding right?! That is a kid walking across the path with his head down. Has a human gate, a human neck... and looks like he's wearing pants. Play the image full screen to see what I'm on about.
DeleteYou are spot on 5 34. This is human walk 51 degrees gingerly stepping over obstructions. It is not a non compliant gate that would have been easily identifiable in this short film. I do not know if it is a kid or not, but it seems like one to me also. They can also easily measure the height with known markers.
DeleteChuck
5:34... Kidding you? No... Just did, I can't see a human neck, the subject looks stooped, I can't see any indication of pants (looks uniform), and the subject merely appears to step over a log or something. Although that's what I see, I can't make any relevant detail to say either way... And though you would love to put words in my mouth, I'll reiterate again that way it's been filmed is suspect.
Delete... And they still seem credible to me.
DeleteJoe, stop trying so hard. Not everything needs you to act like a chicken with it's head cut off.
DeleteIf the evidence gathered can stand on it's own, then it will, not everything needs you to go to level 20 sub basement.
I don't buy this hoopla for one second, I agree with Chuck and Anon about this clearly being human.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteLike I said... Words in people's mouths kiddo, and you think I'm trying too hard?
(Pffft)
If that's my opinion, I really, REALLY don't care who that offends, especially you Danny boy.
DeleteHey JOE. You can not see the neck because it has a hoodie pulled over the head. That is also clearly a human walk IMO. I said yesterday after watching the entire interview I think these folks sound credible and have been having bigfoot activity, but even in the interview they questioned themselves about it being human, maybe a hunter, I think it is just a walker.
Delete5 34 is seeing same thing I am. Now him/her being Anon I know not who he is, but seems to know his/her stuff about these forest giants.
Now if Bill put out a comparison video, which would be easy to do in this location and the subject makes the walker look like a midget, I will gladly eat crow medium well preferred.
Chuck
Chuck, I don't see a hoody sorry, but I'm not saying it's a Sasquatch.
DeleteThe only thing I've commented on is that the people seem credible (they could be good at deceitful) and I find the manner it which the subject has been filmed suspect. Take what you will from that, I think I've been quite sceptical there.
Watch it in a big screen, not your iPhone.
DeleteDefault is like this,
Nothing about that subject, location, filming events can reasonably take you beyond that being another human.
Something's can but this like Chuck and others have noted is a human, nothing about it indicates Sasquatch.
If it's a Sasquatch then you will know immediately, you don't need to go to 13 levels of deduction and speculation to make conversation about it.
"I would like to know the more on the circumstances of the footage right up top, how the guy managed to just have his camera their (maybe I missed something?)"
Delete"And though you would love to put words in my mouth, I'll reiterate again that way it's been filmed is suspect."
"The only thing I've commented on is that the people seem credible (they could be good at deceitful) and I find the manner it which the subject has been filmed suspect."
Stop "trying so hard" Danny, and take the time to read my comments for once and not get the first rush of blood you've had in weeks. Sasquatch are not born ten feet in height with huge muscles, in fact there are innumerable reports of them being very slender and to the average height of normal humans... Saying that, I'm not saying this is a Sasquatch, and if you can read between the lines of my comments, for the lack of detail rendering me unable to make a call either, I don't see how that warrants anyone else to make any other call.
In short... I'm calling it "not enough detail" or a hoax, you prized prat.
How about you cull the need for people to "read between the lines" and just bloody come right out and say what you mean and mean what you say?
DeleteNot everything is necessary of a 10 stage breakdown. Have you seen this footage on a large screen?
Sasquatch have a number of distinct features and characteristics despite their height or size.
Everything about this shouts human, nothing abnormal is present to indicate a Sasquatch.
I agree with Chuck, and others in maintaining this is human and nothing about it speaks of the wild man.
Danny, I've posted you three extracts from my comments that couldn't be more revealing of what my thoughts are on the subject, I shouldn't have to expect anyone to read between the lines, especially someone as clever as you. I'm also not shooting for a breakdown of any sort, I'm stating that there's not enough detail to make any claim and yes, I've watched it on a big desktop screen. Sasquatch have distinct features, yes... But they're also humans. I've seen plenty of video sources that don't adhere to the widely accepted attitude towards Sasquatch gait and felt that they are Sasquatch.
DeleteCommitment failures. Footage begins as human until otherwise indicated by something abnormal being present.
DeleteThere isn't a single thing that shouts Sasquatch but plenty that show human.
Chuck nailed it on the head, looks like carhart coveralls.
Nothing to see here folks. The 'Ninja of the forest' must have been having an off day when this was filmed.
DeleteNot sure how Bill managed to come away without an AVI of the footage.
More scrutiny. Less blah.
MMG
f*cking hell joe is dumb
DeleteDanny... I'm sorry, but someone with such a seemingly 'up and down' takes on the existence of this subject, really shouldn't be advising on others' manner of deduction. There is no doubt in my mind this subject is legitmate, and there's no doubt in my mind that many of the pieces of footage that have been thrown out are in fact legitimate sources. There isn't a single thing that shouts Sasquatch in this footage, but humorously, I don't see half the things that are supposed to indicate the subject's texture is inorganic... Putting words in my mouth on what that entails is an oversite in recognising someone trying to be objective, audaciously when the antithesis of that sentiment is totally subjective.
DeleteYou have fun with all of that...
DeleteAs much as your rediscovered enthusiasm, yes.
DeleteWell it looks human because bigfoot are human.
DeleteDERP!
it tha ratios thay make tha proof in ratios
DeleteTell Daniel about Occam's razor Joe an all your other go to blah blahs when you're losing!
DeleteWhy don't you have a bash? Considering you're BFE's prime loser and heavily tutored on the matters?
Deletethanks joefitz we all appreciate you are a simple minded lonely mn. im sure ,with companionship and direction you would be a useful member of society and contributor on net boards
ReplyDeletecould you not even divide your time between other boards so the burden is shared ,so to speak
writing peace,followed by dumb comments then rounded of by 4 war n peace sized comments is annoying
as for this. its just another man in a suit! nothing interesting or 'credible' here. the site has shown nothing of interest for months
Ooooooooooooooh, come on boyo! You can do better than that, surely? I don't expect someone so seemingly lacking a sense of humour, to have the ability to differentiate between a comment that mocks you and a signature when so angry, really.
DeleteUnfortunately, you don't have any more of a claim to the the truth regarding this source than me, and though your opinion can be expressed, I don't find you remotely qualified enough to sway mine.
Peace!!
WARNING: Meltdown sequence initiated.
DeleteZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
DeleteGo through every bit of online video you can find featuring Bill Brock and if you can locate anything seriously useful as evidence for the existence of bigfoot THEN I may reconsider this one. Nothing against Bill - he's obviously a nice guy and can be entertaining, but apart from that it's all show no go.
ReplyDeleteNot the sharpest tool in the shed.
DeleteA tool, yes, but sharp, definitely not.
DeleteIt's a dude in coveralls.DOH.Bigfoot w/boots.
ReplyDeleteCarhardt or Schmidt coveralls with hood pulled over and boots on is what I may be seeing on this vid also, and the way it steps over something on or in the ground in final frames sure is reminiscent of the way I walk with boots on.
DeleteChuck
Evolution is a fact
ReplyDeleteIf you mean The Theory of Evolution, no, a theory isn't a proven fact.
DeleteA theory has a favourite meaning sceptics just adore accusing others of indulging in: speculation.
A theory is an idea formed by speculation.
A theory is hypothetical.
It's a scintific principal based on facts, to explain phenomena. But the theory itself is speculative; not fact.
Theory = speculation
Theory = hypothetical
Theory = idea formed by speculation
Theory = scientific principal based on observed fact, created in order to explain (and sometimes explain away) phenomena
In all of these, there is guesswork, speculation. It's interesting to keep in mind that scientists speculate, and that the Theory of Evolution involves speculation. Scientist don't only deal in facts; sceptics wrongly claim scientists, in practicing science, base all they do on facts proven by science. It will be a bit of a shock to some sceptics that scientists use speculation and guesswork in their endeavours also.
Since you can't demonstrate evolution in process, you can never prove it is a fact, in this world at any rate. You will have to be content with that. It's a belief, on your part. You will have to live with that.
Theory is not fact.
Not to butt in here but I am curious. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and I have no problem with that but what is your explanation if you do not consider evolution factual? The way I see it, those who do not follow the evolution explanation turn to the religious argument or intelligent design (which I personally consider one and the same) as the answer. I suppose there are a few out there who could use the "seeded by aliens" argument as well.
DeleteNo wish to get into a huge debate but was just wondering.
"Evolution is a fact"? How...Cryptic.
ReplyDeleteAnything involving Bill Brock is a hoax.
ReplyDeleteAnything involving bigfoot is a hoax you mean
DeleteEvery thing on that underground monster show was a hoax . Shame on those who film or support those type of shows . If you believe that you find that amount of evidence from each episode then I got some property down town with plenty of monster sightings !
DeleteTodd Disotel is not convinced there is an undiscovered ape in North America, so why should I listen to the likes of Joe over an accomplished scientist who even has an interest in bigfoot and has tested many claimed bigfoot samples?
ReplyDeleteI think I will stick with Todds opinion.... no offence joe...
Don't take my word for it son, listen to the best primatologists in the world.
Delete: p
Yea... I listened to Todd Disotel, he said bigfoot is extremely unlikely. Cool.
DeleteGreat! Now listen to Jane Goodall, Ian Redmond, Anna Nekaris, Esteban Sarmiento... Shall I go on? Disotell makes a good living off Bigfoot, and he's also on Meldrum's RHI editorial board...
DeleteJane Goodall essentially said she wants them to exist not that she thinks they actually do. Of those other names ive only heard of one and I think they were a guest on Ancient Aliens, so that's out the window.
DeleteDisotell is on the board yet still isn't convinced bigfoot is even a possibility. Wow that smokes that pseudoscientific bigfoot magazine out the water.
In early November, 2003, Richard Noll interviewed Dr. Jane Goodall. The full interview is to be included in the DVD of the Willow Creek Bigfoot Symposium.
DeleteIn the interview Dr. Goodall explains why she is convinced that bigfoot/sasquatches do exist, and the importance for science and academia to appreciate the best existing evidence and the need to obtain more. She states that a body will not be necessary to prove their existance if there is good enough photographic/video evidence.
You can download a brief clip of the interview by clicking on the image of her, to the right.
This .mov clip may take a while to download. If you're not sure whether it's downloading to your computer, then right click the image and select "Save Target As ..." from the pop up menu. Then save the .mov file to a folder on your computer, and view the file with Quicktime Movie Player (Download free Quicktime player).
http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp
(Cringe) no, you won't find any of those names on Ancient Aliens, and like all impartial and open scientific arenas, it's important to have opposing theories to a process that evaluate the process of peer review.
And despite that, Todd Disotell, an actual practicing scientist, says he is almost certain bigfoot don't exist. Still pwned.
DeleteYeah... So are those I listed, and they say otherwise. It's great being certain, it's showing the evidence for the unknown primate doesn't exist that counts. Let me know when he gets around to doing that.
DeleteThanks for playing.
I have come to believe that Disotell is a paid hack by the shadow government to never find any evidence in what he analyses. I think he is employed by the discovery/history channels as they channel all potential evidence to him as did the Jim Viera of the Giant show and Spike TV had him also. He always shows up except for the bfro. However I do not think these channels know he is paid in cash by the shadow folks to find nothing. I could be wrong and just an opinion.
DeleteChuck
Must disagree Chuck. I know how I view things, how those outside of this kookery perceive it, and how those with experiences view it and I must disagree.
DeleteTodd can only analyze the samples provided. The samples provided do not meet required standards, or have been misidentified...so far.
There is no reason for Todd to feel otherwise. He's had extreme footers coming at him for over a decade and every time they have fallen short.
Give him something to talk about and I'm sure his tune will change.
Disotell could easily be 'finding' what he's directed to find, or not finding what he's warned to not find. There's no reason to trust him or God forbid, any TV network or production company. It's naive to bleeve that this TV scientist is truthful.
DeleteAlright, if we dismiss Disotell because he's been on TV, I guess we can ignore Bindernagel, Swindler, Krantz, Meldrum and Sarmiento too.
DeleteThe PGF has been debunked by people who have looked into the faked tracks, poor costume, impossible timeline, and numerous conflicting stories by Patterson and Gimlin.
ReplyDeleteThe PGF is a non-starter for anyone with a shred of intelligence.
Got faked tracks? Got reasons to not consider timeline? Got the impartiality to agknowledge contradictions and holes in Long's rubbish? Got monkey suit?
DeleteDidn't think so.
Its a non starter... I think you missed the point.. it means all of those hoops you are trying to jump through are irrelevant from the outset.
DeleteAnd no circular agument goes anywhere near supporting any of your dribbles, clever cloggs.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
If you want a monkey suit so bad go buy one... jeez...
DeleteIt's not my claim, so not my problem.
DeleteThe world has plenty of real monsters - bears, crocodiles, giant anacondas, great white sharks, etc. and there are species yet to be catalogued all over the world. You can mount serious, exciting expeditions in many places - especially today given that we're so wealthy.
ReplyDeleteIt's people that are too lazy and cowardly to do something of any significance that do fake monster "hunting". They know there isn't anything that will harm them and they can pretend to see bigfoot from their car on the way to their mommy's house.
^ says all this from the safety of being anonymous from behind his desktop, in his warm house, of course. When you have physical and biological evidence to support reports, it relegates the wider imagination to conjuring up the excuses for it.
Deletehow many times have you been in the field joe?
DeleteThere is biological evidence of a mudslide in Joe's britches.
DeleteNone... But I have the pleasure of knowing people with decades on you, 7:59.
DeleteSays the pseudoscientist in chief.
DeleteWhen the pseudosceptic calls pseudoscience, it always makes me laugh.
DeleteWhat was everyones favourite blunder of footery in 2014?
ReplyDeleteMine was the gator leg that was presented as a bigfoot arm. Brilliant.
No doubt Stacy jumped the gun on this one. Lesson's certainly learned there.
DeleteExpect a swift return to the approach which made his father's thermal footage worthy of your attention.
MMG
Mine was when Rick Dyer got raped by that trucker in Louisiana after he passed out in the bigfoot van and everybody peed and wiped hyena scat on his face.
Deleteclearly a person, not even close to a BF, small and skinny! more bad evidence!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen Dogmen or Bigfoots are terrorizing a family in their own home a good investigator will never ask to talk to other family members - only speak to the one making the claim.
ReplyDeleteSweetSusieQ (who Dogman Lady refers to as Linda for some reason) has called the Lady umpteen times but has never talked to the husband.
Hi there Mr. Dogman Lady, I understand that your family is under attack by Dogmen.
We are what?
I agree. One can attain great insight by merely talking to relatives, neighbors and an acquaintance. I think this should be a standard practice for anyone truly interested in getting to the truth of a story. Factoring in character and reputation may make the difference between continuing an investigation or letting it pass although many who are passionate about the subject may omit these details if it does not serve their purpose.
DeleteGive me a darn break,that's a Sasquatch, right, and I'm a extraterrestrial from another planet, another blurry,out of focus and far away video of a supposedly Bigfoot. Well folk's, It's ANOTHER video for the circular file cabinet.........
ReplyDeleteWell hello there mr ET, do you like reeses feces too?
DeleteTwo morons filming a guy walking through the woods shows just how desperate and pathetic the bigfoot world is.
ReplyDeleteWait I just found out some humans are bipedal. I heard it's allowed for them to marry in some states even. But this couldn't be one of them I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteNow where were we, back to bigfooting.
Too much lemonade😂
ReplyDeletehow come all first encounter witness claim it takes 3 steps and it is across the road and out of sight. this bloke in a suit takes 5 or 6 steps and he is still in same vacinity. good gosh. as if there were really first encounters...
ReplyDelete