Jump to content
Sasfooty

Bigfoot Chases Car In Colorado

Recommended Posts

JiggyPotamus

The first thing I did was look for characteristics of a costume or suit. As I always say, unless a suit is tailored to the hoaxer, or just coincidentally happens to fit them well, there are going to be areas that hang in an unnatural manner. This is most noticeable in the legs and the arms. Where the legs are concerned an unfitted suit will tend to have no muscle definition, and the legs themselves will actually look like hairy pants- hanging in a pants-like manner. Where the arms are concerned, and this is unnoticeable in the majority of hoax videos, when these extremities are raised the fabric hangs down instead of muscular definition being present. The reason this is not usually visible in hoaxed videos is the fact that rarely do you see the fake bigfoot raise his or her arms.

 

These two simple aspects are the best identifiers of a suit in my opinion, and thus should be one of the first things analyzed in videos of this nature. Despite the very limited data present in the video we do have lots of motion, which at least slightly makes up for the brevity. Obviously the longer a video, the more data that we have to analyze. From what I can tell, when the creature raises its arms, the presence of a suit becomes apparent. On the lower portion of the arms gravity seems to expose what is either lots of loose skin or a suit that does not fit very well. I also noticed a similar lack of anatomical correctness in the legs.

 

However, I must point out something very important. When going frame by frame and viewing them as still images it is more difficult to pinpoint what I am describing. The way to really see what I have pointed out is to make an attempt to focus on these specific areas in real-time. I know the video is short and thus it is difficult to really see anything, but the unnatural portions really stick out because we humans are good at detecting and analyzing motion.

 

I suppose that others might disagree with my conclusion, which is that this video is a hoax. The other aspects that to me suggest a hoax are as follows: the "bigfoot" is flailing its arms around like one of those inflatable crazy things with the streamers for hands. It is certainly possible that a bigfoot might attempt to make itself look larger by raising its arms, or perhaps it thinks this increases its intimidation factor. Now, when I saw a sasquatch I can attest to the fluidity of motion that others have mentioned. These animals are graceful at the very least when they walk. The video that depicted the young sasquatch who was running and alternating between bipedal and quadrupedal locomotion, a video which I believe is authentic, also suggests that these animals are very graceful when they run. So if they are graceful in walking and running, I would imagine that they would be more graceful when flailing their arms around. It is quite obvious that the subject in this video is far from graceful, and I would think hoax from that fact alone. I am sure that others will analyze the video in much greater depth, and draw conclusions which are a bit more supportable, but I think my preliminary analysis, as simple as it is, at the very least contains some moderately strong points.

Edited by JiggyPotamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Here is the Parabreakdown:

 

 

This provides the distance reference needed to better analyze this video. As evidenced in the first still from the video below, this system has an extremely wide angle field of view so as to show children or objects immediately behind the vehicle. Note how the shadow of the vehicle with the camera seems to extend a great distance, as if the sun were at an extremely low angle, yet the light is bright and white as at mid-day. Observing the shadows of vehicles parked on either side of the driving lane it is obvious it is close to mid-day with the shadows extending only slightly beyond the bodies. The camera view begins almost directly beneath the bumper of the vehicle and where the shadow ends part way into the green line can't be more than two to three feet behind it. It is the distortion of the lens that makes it appear as if the driver is backing into the parking space at an extreme angle.

 

post-22377-0-06899100-1445557413_thumb.j

 

The inherent distortion of the system is again visible in the next photo where perspective makes the the driveway appear quite long and the street looks more like a multi-lane freeway when the opposite curb is likely no more than thirty feet away.

 

post-22377-0-44925000-1445557424_thumb.j

 

In the third photo, the bike is actually wider than the backup guide lines. I count eight paver lengths between the red lines and a quick check of Home Depot's website shows the pavers at eight inches. That works out to sixty-four inches or just over five feet between the guide lines. As closely as I can determine by enlarging the image in my photo editor and counting the courses of pavers beginning at the bottom of the center of the camera's view and counting outward, there are twenty-five courses to the end of the green guide lines. This works out to sixteen and a half feet from the rear of the vehicle. The subject in the video appears to be just beyond that point when the vehicle's passengers "panic" and we lose the view. If it were an actual Sasquatch within twenty feet, two more strides or a long jump and it would be ripping the driver's door off. It is simply the perspective distortion of the wide angle lens that makes it appear the subject is running at terrific speed from quite some distance away when actually the distance covered is no more than thirty or forty feet. Even in a suit, it doesn't take a great athlete to cover that distance in the few seconds the subject is visible in the video. Heck, on a good day I could give it a run for the money on my crutches if first fortified with 16 ounces of Rockstar recovery. I'm calling hoax in a driveway on this one, but I'll give 'em a "C" for Creativity!

post-22377-0-74493400-1445557441_thumb.j

Edited by Airdale
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

Airdale, Redbone, great technical work on the stills, measuring, and comparables!  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Immediately thought... 'Ugh.. whats the big deal about the night time Butchie Kid video?"

Just another lark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

As closely as I can determine by enlarging the image in my photo editor and counting the courses of pavers beginning at the bottom of the center of the camera's view and counting outward, there are twenty-five courses to the end of the green guide lines. This works out to sixteen and a half feet from the rear of the vehicle. The subject in the video appears to be just beyond that point when the vehicle's passengers "panic" and we lose the view. If it were an actual Sasquatch within twenty feet, two more strides or a long jump and it would be ripping the driver's door off. It is simply the perspective distortion of the wide angle lens that makes it appear the subject is running at terrific speed from quite some distance away when actually the distance covered is no more than thirty or forty feet. Even in a suit, it doesn't take a great athlete to cover that distance in the few seconds the subject is visible in the video. 

 

 

Great calculations, Airdale. I'm not sure they show what you think they do, however. 

 

You say that "if it were an actual Sasquatch within 20 feet, two or more strides or a long jump and it would be ripping the driver's door off". That implies that a "typical" Sasquatch stride is about 10 feet (2 strides times 10 feet = 20 feet). But my recollection, from things that I've read, is that the "typical" stride of a Sasquatch (not that there really is such a thing) is closer to 5 or 6 feet. So 20 feet could be equivalent to 4 strides, not 2. And I guess 16.5 feet (which you say is the actual distance between the rear of the vehicle and the possible BF at the moment the car takes off) would be covered in about 3 strides.  

 

It would be interesting to figure out how many strides the individual in the video actually takes, and then figure out how great a distance he's really traveling with each stride (if we feel confident enough that we have something close to an accurate measurement of the distance he traveled). 

 

You say that "the [total?] distance covered is no more than 30 or 40 feet". 

 

Can anyone -- with better eyes than I have, and more time to figure this out -- figure out how many strides the individual in the video takes in 30 or 40 feet? And then divide 30 or 40 by the number of strides, so we can find out the approximate length of the stride?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

Counting from the first time we see his right hand in the air (the hand on the left, from the viewer's perspective), it seems he takes 5 steps/strides. It looks like there's movement before that, but I can't tell if the movement is him rising to his feet from a crouching position, or if he takes one or more steps before the 5 we can see clearly. But beginning with the first raised right hand, his motion is clearly in a forward direction, because his size increases with every step.

 

So that would be somewhere between a 6-foot stride (if he's 30 feet away -- 30 divided by 5) and an 8-foot stride (if he's 40 feet away when he starts running -- 40 divided by 5).

 

And that's a looooooong stride............

Edited by LeafTalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sixxgunner

This is a interesting video for sure. I like the feedback on this forum from all perspectives. It helps to learn things that others point out. Thanks!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Counting from the first time we see his right hand in the air (the hand on the left, from the viewer's perspective), it seems he takes 5 steps/strides. It looks like there's movement before that, but I can't tell if the movement is him rising to his feet from a crouching position, or if he takes one or more steps before the 5 we can see clearly. But beginning with the first raised right hand, his motion is clearly in a forward direction, because his size increases with every step.

 

So that would be somewhere between a 6-foot stride (if he's 30 feet away -- 30 divided by 5) and an 8-foot stride (if he's 40 feet away when he starts running -- 40 divided by 5).

 

And that's a looooooong stride............

 

 

From Livestrong.com

 

Shorter distance races call for longer strides. In the 1984 Olympics, women demonstrated stride lengths averaging 4 feet 10 inches during the marathon and longer stride lengths averaging 6 feet 8 inches during the 800 meters. Men also had a longer average stride during shorter distances, covering an average of 7 feet 9 inches with each stride in the 800 meters and an average of 6 feet 8 inches in the 10k.

 

I should have clarified that the 30 to 40 foot estimate was the farthest distance from the vehicle, not how far the subject ran. The video ended with the subject at about the end of the green reference lines, or about 16 feet from the rear of the vehicle. Thus the subject would have covered only about 14 to 24 feet. If you figure it was a man in a suit (women are generally smarter than that) and only moderately athletic, I don't think it a stretch to estimate a 5 foot stride, which would be roughly 3 to 5 for the distance covered. I think this article is conflating strides with steps as my average walking step (from heel of one foot to heel of the next) is about 2 feet and in my younger, taller, pre arthritis days it was longer. My step when running was considerably longer. With the wide angle lens, everything we see in the video is foreshortened so much that, as in the jeep mirror in the original Jurassic Park, "objects are closer than they appear". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

 I like the feedback on this forum from all perspectives. It helps to learn things that others point out. Thanks!

 

exactly.....a moderate  application of skepticism ( not scofftic-ism ) in examining facts helps keep it real around here..... good example below from airdale 

 

 

 

I should have clarified that the 30 to 40 foot estimate was the farthest distance from the vehicle, not how far the subject ran. The video ended with the subject at about the end of the green reference lines, or about 16 feet from the rear of the vehicle. Thus the subject would have covered only about 14 to 24 feet. 

 

works out nicely, to debunk the bunk is just as important as providing the evidence........problem is there is usually a lot more bunk .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

Thanks for the new information, Airdale. 

 

So it looks like we have a stride length that could have been achieved either by an Olympic athlete, or a Sasquatch person who had just been hit by a car. 

 

I was interested to see whether the numbers would rule out human, but it looks like they don't rule out anything. Both possibilities are still there (from a numbers standpoint).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

Why do I see white skin, green shirt, and brown pants getting up from the middle of the road?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

I don't think you're going to get faithful, accurate color reproduction in a cell phone video of a car's in-dash display screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

to be fair we don't exactly get faithful accurate ( as in non blurry )  representation in much of  anything BF related , at least what's publicly shared anyways.

 

but at least with this its an in the ball park view........

 

on a side note.......  funny how threads such as this tend to bring forth the best of "it's always BF" or  the "it's never BF"  camp discussion and efforts of justification either way. 

 

please, rock on my friends. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HamrFoot

watching the flailing arms reminds me of Justin Smeja's claims that the b'foot he shot was advancing toward him with its arms above its head waving back and forth. just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...