 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplicity
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 499
|
 Posted: January 10th, 2010 12:54 AM |
     |
|
Quote:
Tretiak wrote:
My feeling is, if this was something unknown or different, we would have heard about it thru the media by now. I would agree with those who think it is a cameraman or someone hired to direct the herd with just their presence. Definitely someone the crew is familiar with, otherwise it would be breaking news.
|
Why are you saying this ?? If you would have read all of the information on the BFRO Homepage you would have saw that this particular part of the Documentary was only spotted a few weeks ago by someone..
I believe. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tretiak
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 01:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Simplicity wrote:
Why are you saying this ?? If you would have read all of the information on the BFRO Homepage you would have saw that this particular part of the Documentary was only spotted a few weeks ago by someone..
|
Yes I read the report. What's your point?
"So close,....... yet so far!" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margie BioGirl
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 01:38 AM |
|
|
| I think the point is that this film was released over 9 yeas ago, so if this had been noticed by the film makers (or hoaxed by them) they would have brought it up before now. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tretiak
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 01:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Margie BioGirl wrote:
I think the point is that this film was released over 9 yeas ago, so if this had been noticed by the film makers (or hoaxed by them) they would have brought it up before now.
|
I believe they would have also. That's why I mentioned it must have been crew, otherwise we should have heard something by now if it was something unusual. Could very easily have been a soundman, getting close to the pounding hooves. It seems the herd behind him dart out quickly once he moves within the depression in the ground. A blooper in the distance that most people would miss.
"So close,....... yet so far!" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
garby
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 04:25 AM |
|
|
I agree, sort of moves like a gorilla in that slightly sideways motion and definitely acts like it doesn't want to be seen. If it's a man/cameraman, where's the camera and why would you put yourself in the path of running caribou?
Let's all hope the director/crew can shed some light on this |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
djy100
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 10:44 AM |
|
|
| Is there anyway to determine the speed of the caribou and the moving object in question?? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
horseman
Approved
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 12:17 PM |
|
|
I watched the whole movie , and at the point where the black object appears, {and I already knew there was a spot where a unknown object was to appear,} I was so caught up in watching the herd movement, That I barely noticed the object. It was gone by the time I started to place my attention on it. If I had not known about it previously It would not have initiated a backup and look response. My mind only considered it to be more movement in a sea of movement. I thought the most reasonable thing,.... just another caribou.
Why I don't think it is someone there to direct the herd... Why would you need to direct the herd? They are filming half a million caribou, swimming, flowing , endlessly everywhere . What need is there to direct the herd over sixty more feet. a simple directional adjustment of the camera position would have been all that was needed They had the screen filled with motion. Why take the chance of disrupting what nature was doing so well.
Why not a cameraman.... A photographer would have equipment, I saw none, and when he got into position crouching down out of sight is not what he would have done.. he would have had that lens facing the action.
Why I think it's a predator....There is only one color, as an animal like bigfoot would be. If you were trying to conceal yourself in a green colored environment, why would you camouflage yourself from head to toe in the color black... Nothing about this says clothes. To me it looks like flesh covered with hair.
The mental attitude is one of excitement, trying to remain as inconspicuous as possible while calculating herd movement, adjusting for correct position. Maybe I am reading to much into this part , but the motion of this object says a bunch to me.
The head up while moving is a confident, assessing, prey attitude , man moves clumsily with his head down for concealment. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Boqs
Administrator
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 12:22 PM |
|
|
As with similar developments in the past, I'm not going to let myself get too excited. At least not yet. MM's approach looks to be exactly right: (a) eliminate the obvious possibilities (a film crew member, a hunter, someone just passing thru . . .) and (b) locate and take a long, hard look at the original I-MAX film. Then -- and only then -- will we know if we've got something. That said, this kind of years-after-the-fact sleuthing always gives me a thrill. It offers proof -- if any were needed -- that productive squatching doesn't just take place in the deep woods.
On the internet, no one knows you're a squatch. . . |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tretiak
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
garby wrote:
I agree, sort of moves like a gorilla in that slightly sideways motion and definitely acts like it doesn't want to be seen. If it's a man/cameraman, where's the camera and why would you put yourself in the path of running caribou?
Let's all hope the director/crew can shed some light on this
|
For reality nature shows nowadays, cameramen are willing to do anything. There are numerous examples of them on tv that get a thrill of getting that perfect close up. It can be lions, rhino, elephant, caribou, polar bear, crocs,............the list goes on. The camera could very easily have been one mounted on a tripod at ground level, looking for that "exact" video or picture that the producers want, or it could have been a sound man with a palm size recorder? The person dressed in black, and with a balaclava, would show up as such at that distance.......a blobsquatch. By dressing in black, he becomes just another boulder outcrop in the eyes of the caribou.......at least until he moves. And if he's up against some rocks that we can't see in the depression, then he becomes one visually to the herd.
Entertainment pays big if you have the right product and it seems there are no limits to what people will do to get it right? This seems to me to be the most reasonable and logical explanation, otherwise, like I mentioned earlier, we surely would have heard about it by now.......9 years later.
"So close,....... yet so far!" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitman
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 06:25 PM |
|
|
That is totally a sasquatch.
Totally.
;-) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1864
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 07:12 PM |
|
|
RCM944,
horseman gave his views and stated why and how he came to those conclusions. If you don't like them or agree with them that's perfectly alright. Starting an argument with him is not.
horseman,
There's always an admin close by so let us handle any problems that might come up. Don't let anyone bait you into an argument. It may not go well for either of the people involved.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1864
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 07:17 PM |
|
|
bitman,
There is a section on the forum home page that says "START HERE" and "READ THIS FIRST". Please go there, read the posting guidelines, and post your introduction.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harpoonfisher
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Tretiak wrote:
That's why I mentioned it must have been crew, otherwise we should have heard something by now if it was something unusual. .
|
I doubt it, I was looking for it and missed it twice! It was probably mistaken for a dark member of the herd while editing was done because it was going at their pace. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tretiak
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 10:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Harpoonfisher wrote:
I doubt it, I was looking for it and missed it twice! It was probably mistaken for a dark member of the herd while editing was done because it was going at their pace.
|
But you didn't make the film! If you or I construct or build something, we know exactly where we have made our errors and will let them pass with the hopes no one else notices them. After time and a few observations, those who have looked at our project the most, will soon realize there are some imperfections. As I mentioned earlier, it was probably a blooper in the distance that the producers hoped would not be caught by to many people. The expedition video recently posted (Nor Cal 2009), where a large figure peaks around the bush, is more convincing by far.
(Edited by Tretiak)
"So close,....... yet so far!" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1864
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 10:36 PM |
|
|
Tretiak,
You didn't make the film either so don't tell someone else what they can or can't think about it. If you had bothered to read the entire article on the BFRO web site, instead of just watching the video on HULU, you would have seen that there is far more evidence that the subject is not human than there is that it is human. Those observations were made from watching the entire show on DVD which is far clearer that anything you can watch on the internet.
If you don't agree with Harpoonfisher that's fine. You've made your views known so leave it at that and move on.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tretiak
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
PBYodeler wrote:
Tretiak,
You didn't make the film either so don't tell someone else what they can or can't think about it. If you had bothered to read the entire article on the BFRO web site, instead of just watching the video on HULU, you would have seen that there is far more evidence that the subject is not human than there is that it is human. Those observations were made from watching the entire show on DVD which is far clearer that anything you can watch on the internet.
If you don't agree with Harpoonfisher that's fine. You've made your views known so leave it at that and move on.
|
Read article and watched film. But it's ok for others to disagree and tell me what they think about it, with provocation? You have to admit Yod.........right now it's a blobsquatch.? I will move on, but there is a difference between blobsquatch and the real deal. If I'm wrong, I will be man enough and the first to admit it.
"So close,....... yet so far!" |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 785
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 11:10 PM |
|
|
Something to keep in mind:
Even if this subject was noticed in the footage during post-production, there is every reason to believe it could have been left in, even if it was known to be a crewmember. Why? Because IMAX filming is so incredibly expensive that it may have been financially prohibitive to not use this chunk of film. They were certainly not going back out there to try and reshoot this segment.
Also, no sane person would put themselves that close to a running herd of caribou, of this I am certain. However, wildlife film crews are NOT SANE. These guys regularly put themselves in harms way for a piece of footage or audio. So we can't really use that as supporting evidence...
Based on the info we have (which is basically the video and not much else), the most likely explanation is a crewmember. However, if the crew comes back and says, "no, there was nobody on that side of the river at this particular moment in the filming..." then we are left with something VERY interesting. Like Bill Boqs said, I'm waiting until we get some more info before coming to a conclusion...but I am excited about this footage! Especially because the format (IMAX) has a lot more "room" for being blown up and examined.
I also paid particular attention to the way the subject moves in this video, and to me it looks like a predator. It's hard to get a good view of this online, but a poster from another forum has uploaded an HD clip of it to youtube, and the youtube player actually has two HD options: 720 and 1080. This is the first that I was aware of where youtube has shown a clip in full 1080 HD resolution. The clip can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJf0pk7hHM
This clip should help dispel any notions that the subject is a bear or one of the caribou (especially since there are no black or brown bears in Labrador).
Once all of the impossibilities have been peeled away, we may be left with a single option... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
radiodiggle
Approved
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 11:30 PM |
|
|
I just downloaded this in 1080p off rapidshare (10 gigs,, took a couple of hours) and there is quite a bit of extra detail.
One can see what appears to be a human in dark clothing driving the herd. Although no definable facial details are revealed, a light-colored face and right hand is visible and reaches close to the subject's head as it runs and pumps it's arms in a very human fashion. The figure also appears to be wearing a black hat and a black backpack.
I don't know how to grab a video close-up and post a loop here,,, I've just been grabbing frames in VLC and zooming into them in photoshop,,,, sharpening & messing with the contrast of the image hasn't yielded anything extra for me,, but I'm not an expert.
Maybe someone here has a rapidshare account and can download it ,, here's the link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/300524653/Imax-GN.dlc
The default audio is Spanish,, but there's an English track that you can switch to.
The original IMAX print will have a lot more detail,, but seeing this in HD has dampened the considerable excitement I felt after viewing the hulu version.
(Edited by radiodiggle) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rbirch
Approved
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 218
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2010 11:58 PM |
|
|
Me too. I know the odds are high.. but after watching that 1080p version, looks very much like a human in black with a backpack on.
2009 Alberta Expedition |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remedylane
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 12:29 AM |
|
|
Yes the higher res version certainly gives me doubt that its a biggie.. It looks much more human like. Regardless, no need for us to "fight" about it guys.. At the end of the day it either is or it isnt. All we can do is go off the evidence we have.. Remember, if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is..
Matt |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bf_prop
Approved
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 08:58 AM |
|
|
It looked very compelling at first and I really want it to be a BF, but for me the terrain speaks for itself...I'm not saying endless open terrain cannot support BF, but one would think that Labrador(I do understand the remoteness of the area) would have revealed itself to a colony of BF a long time ago...personally, I just don't think 7'-8' creatures have the ability to conceal themselves in that type of open terrain, which is why the majority of known habitats for BF are wooded, canopied areas.
No doubt about it...it has the earmarkings of what we all suspect...damn if that thing isn't moving lights out if it is a human...but I'll hold off calling it BF til I see better resolution. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
darrinf68
Approved
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 10:31 AM |
|
|
| Yeah, after seeing pictures of the crew in dark, hooded coats, I'm starting to think crew member or cameraman. If it is BF, wouldn't the crew have seen it while setting up for the shot? It didn't just waltz in across the tundra unnoticed until the cameras were rolling. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
Approved
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2398
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 11:15 AM |
|
|
Yep.
I've been running it over and over and over on my computer screen, at full-size, and you can clearly see an arm with elbow...and it looks to be short, like a human's, rather than longish, like a Bigfoot's would be.
I think the figure's head also pops up a second time, too, just a tiny slice of it, over the top of the little rise it's ducked down behind.
I must agree that I would never in a million years have picked this out while just sitting in an audience, watching a movie; I'd have seen it as part of a moving background of multi-colored caribou behind-ends, while focusing my attention on the animals in the foreground.
Whatever it is, it's still a pretty good catch on somebody's part!
[Moviemakers do leave the oddest stuff in sometimes---remember the James Bond car that enters an alley tipped on its left side but comes out the other end tipped on its right? The shot was too expensive to re-do. Nobody noticed.]
seeing is believing |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Noel
Approved
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 482
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harpoonfisher
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Tretiak wrote:
Read article and watched film. But it's ok for others to disagree and tell me what they think about it, with provocation? You have to admit Yod.........right now it's a blobsquatch.? I will move on, but there is a difference between blobsquatch and the real deal. If I'm wrong, I will be man enough and the first to admit it.
|
I don't believe anybody said it was definitely the real deal. I'm just not jumping on the human wagon yet or questioning your manhood. The thing just seems to big, moves to fast and is in pace with the herd like it's attacking. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margie BioGirl
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 05:05 PM |
|
|
| So still no success in contacting the director/producer of the film? Update us please! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1864
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 05:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Margie BioGirl wrote:
So still no success in contacting the director/producer of the film? Update us please!
|
When and if there are any updates or more information it will be added to the story on the BFRO web site. Just keep checking there and and the admins or someone else will post a notice here.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1864
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 05:30 PM |
|
|
Holy cow that was quick. There is an update on the web site.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harpoonfisher
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 05:45 PM |
|
|
| Nice job BFRO, I was unable to get a response when I tried to contact them myself. If it was a crew member it will be interesting to find out why he dresses like Bigfoot and how he moves so quickly in ditches. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
narrowfoot
Approved
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2010 09:53 PM |
|
|
If it is really a crew member on an ATV, which it certainly could be from the looks of it, he seems to be in a dangerous situation for little reason. The action doesn't really change what the caribou are doing very much, and the film quickly switches to another scene. So why was this left in, and why did it happen in the first place, I wonder.
"Technological advances are not limited to human populations." |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
