BFRO / What's New - America and Canada / Archives / 06-19-2008 / New Track Videos

Topie: New Track Videos Page: 1 2
March 21st, 2008 06:38 PM
LouBob I found two interesting videos on YouTube today and thought I'd post them just for discussion's sake.


March 21st, 2008 06:52 PM
Bryan #2 has a malformed Url.

March 21st, 2008 07:19 PM
Bossburg Try this:

March 21st, 2008 07:20 PM
Kolker8 First video=pretty cool.
second video=as bryan said....
March 21st, 2008 09:58 PM
LouBob Bossburg's link works - I don't know why mine doesn't.
March 22nd, 2008 01:11 AM
herbmaven The Edmonton one is pretty hard to tell. If you click on the link below it...response to...maybe that's the other one. Now THAT one sure is interesting.
March 22nd, 2008 01:11 AM
realitychex Very interesting! S
March 22nd, 2008 04:36 AM
Roboron I found the 2nd one more credible because they had a measuring tape the first one could of been a print of a child as far as we can tell.
March 22nd, 2008 09:41 AM
Mercury I woudn't say less credible Roboron. Maybe a better term could be unsubstantiated...

Just listening to the guy's voice inflection, you could hear the awe and wonder in it. He didn't make up any fanciful stories and elaborate explanations. He simply showed what he found. How many people know how to take a measurement? We don't know if the guy was on his back yard...etc.

If you dont have a tape measure, a dollar bill would work great because it is a uniform size. Even a pack of smokes. Unless the guy is used to thinking like an investigator, or a "cop", he might not have known what to do otherwise!!

Take the fact that something took a long walk in rugged, rough ground (lets compare to ...lets say someone's grassy backyard) in bare feet. That much is evident. The guy was good enough to show not just ONE big print..but even pointed out slip spots and heel marks that were further into the print then the back of the print itself. I like the snapped off branch though. Anything that could show a relationship to a BF is huge. Everyone always looks for snapped trees and what not. Here you have BF prints (possible) ALONG with another possible BF trait of breaking branches. It is always awesome to get more than one type of evidence in a single sighting or source....

Would have been great to have visual proof of length, you might be able to take the guys word that they were not a child's. He estimated 15 inches. He might be off 2-3 inches, but even my mom (who is completely clueless with measurements) can get close to guessing atleast a foot.

March 22nd, 2008 10:26 AM
rjgorny Here's one to chew on--

I'll weigh in after others do...
March 22nd, 2008 10:48 AM
DMargaretW it says it is not available.
Btw, how are your classes going? Did enough people register? I know that lots of times I had registered for a class and it was canceled due to lack of registration. I sure wanted to go to your class but couldn't because of work. Maybe in the future if you have more.
March 22nd, 2008 10:51 AM
Eric Squatcher I finally watched both vids. In reverse order.
The second one posted by LouBob seems credible enough to me. Although not much in the way of any detail.

The first one I have my doubts about. But mainly about what is being described by the audio. The visual appears real enough, but on a much smaller scale. I took the liberty to make a cutout of the image where Big John indicates with his left hand to show the toe and heel imprint. I held my own hand in front of the screen and guestimated the length and the width using a ruler up against the screen. In my opinion the print is no bigger than 10 or 11 inches at best, and only about 3 inches at the ball of the foot. (Tiny) The length of the apparent stride also appears short to me. Here's the photo:

rjgorny - Here is what I got when I went to watch:
"The video you have requested is not available"

Nothing to chew yet. ;)
March 22nd, 2008 11:40 AM
rjgorny Hmmm... the poster is FCastle6969 and it's called "New Bigfoot trailcam video"... it sure isn't a skinny mangy bear!

DMargaretW... my class is going well... a lot more squatch-educated students than I expected, though they'll be good contacts for me to do more field work in the area... I've got 14 students, and some of them happen to frequent the area that I do, so I'll be setting up some excursions this spring, summer and fall with them. It's always fun to work with new people and get their perspectives on things...
March 22nd, 2008 12:27 PM
Eric Squatcher Here's the link:

Looks fake to me. ;)
March 22nd, 2008 12:43 PM
Eric Squatcher Here's why. In the first place the teeth are too white. The mouth never closes, and the eyes never blink. Secondly the ears look out of place. ;)

rjgorny - I'm happy to hear your class is going well. Will you be allowing anyone else but students to join you on these excursions? :D
March 22nd, 2008 01:21 PM
Bill Boqs Eric: I concur; the complete absence of any facial movement strongly suggests a monkey suit. Something like the talking "800 lb. Gorilla" on the current axa commercials would actually be an improvement. But what do I know?

Both of the earlier videos probably merit further inquiry. The Canadian offering, if true, may be proof of what we've already hypothesised: that squatches aren't averse to leaving the deep woods in favor of "greener" suburban pastures.
March 22nd, 2008 01:38 PM
rjgorny Eric-- I'm going to keep the excursions small if I can... 4-6 people max... if you can get yourself to western PA/eastern Ohio in mid April, you're more than welcome to join us...

My take is that the subject (whatever or whomever it is) looks a lot like an old chimp... the open mouth was something I thought was odd, along with the stare and lack of facial movement, but at one point I swear I could see the mouth move a bit... the subject reminds me of that famous bipedal chimp Oliver which I believe is still alive somewhere, but it seems a bit bulkier/hairier than a chimp would be... perhaps an old chimp head or mask on someone wearing a fur suit? If not that, then there is a sliver of a chance that it could genuine, but I doubt it...
March 22nd, 2008 02:10 PM
moonfire197 rj that is oliver the chimp it is an old video of him I saw it on a show on history ch I believe.
March 22nd, 2008 02:18 PM
streetmedic Its a chimp named Oliver. Go to you tube and type in" Oliver the Chimp" its a 6 part documentery. The footage is from this film, DNA test ting showed he is 100% chimp with 48 chromosones, humans have 46.
March 22nd, 2008 04:06 PM
Mercury Besides with a face shot like that, all those people who had face to face encounters would be SCREAMING right now, "thats him thats him!!".

I thought fake for the same reason. No movement of mouth, eyes, tongue, etc. IF IT IS the chimp, aka a live animal, goes to show how wrong we were. (as in a costume)
March 22nd, 2008 04:08 PM
Eric Squatcher rjgorny - That might be doable. I'll email you. ;)
March 22nd, 2008 06:16 PM
Armydude I've seen some pretty good ones lately too.
March 22nd, 2008 09:18 PM
dksac I don't know too many children who walk around in the snow out in the wild barefoot.
March 22nd, 2008 09:19 PM
Eric Squatcher wrote:
Here's why. In the first place the teeth are too white. The mouth never closes, and the eyes never blink. Secondly the ears look out of place. ;)

rjgorny - I'm happy to hear your class is going well. Will you be allowing anyone else but students to join you on these excursions? :D

there is a chimp that has been taught to walk on two legs, this looks like it or one similar, just footage taken from its pen. also could be a man in a suit because there is no facial movement. just a blank stare. but def. not a sasquatch
March 22nd, 2008 09:34 PM
Mercury I located a thread elsewhere that stated this WAS indeed Oliver and that the exact same footage was in the TV show that was aired either on History or Animal Planet.

I actually found a youtube address. Apparently there are six parts to it.
March 22nd, 2008 10:07 PM
Bossburg Kevin - Moonfire and streetmedic have already identified that it was Oliver.
See their posts from earlier today in this thread.

March 23rd, 2008 12:24 AM
Mercury Yep....Just wanted to include the video since some were still posting they thought it was man in a monkey suit.
March 23rd, 2008 12:44 AM
tacomajoe I thought that Oliver had 47 chromasones and chimps have 48 humans 46 pairs.
March 23rd, 2008 01:54 AM
Wild1 Oliver was proven to be 100% chimp, and yes, the video is Oliver. No fake, no man in a monkey suit, that's just good old, mouth hanging open, Oliver! Of course, naming the video "New bigfoot Trail Cam Video" was indeed, fake.

Admittedly, Oliver was one odd looking chimp and the fact that he was trained to walk upright gave one an almost 'uncomfortable feeling' when observing him.
March 23rd, 2008 04:26 PM
tacomajoe wrote:
I thought that Oliver had 47 chromasones and chimps have 48 humans 46 pairs.

If you go to you tube and watch part 6 of the film, it gives the DNA results. ie Oliver with 48 chromasones.
Page: 1 2