BigTreeWalker Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Interesting interview of Mr. William Reeve who filmed the Imax bigfoot video. His whole interview starts at 12:05. I find it very interesting about what he has to say specifically about the subjects in the video at 22:55.
clubbedfoot Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 interesting IMO... wish there was some way to determine the speed the URO (unidentified running object) was traversing over rough terrain...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) interesting IMO... wish there was some way to determine the speed the URO (unidentified running object) was traversing over rough terrain... about as quick as running caribou, or even quicker. You choices become large cat, bear, bigfoot, in about that order. Doubt a bear moves that fast, unless a polar bear,but wrong color. Perhaps some short faced bears survived? Edited June 23, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
BigTreeWalker Posted June 23, 2016 Author Posted June 23, 2016 CM I have to wonder if you actually listened to Mr Reeves statements. Remember too it was Imax not some blurry YouTube video. What Mr Reeves was describing would have had Imax detail.
Guest Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 I wish that he was actually interviewed. Having him read the questions and then give his answers, in the same tone of voice was a bit of a drag. Hopefully one of the better podcasters gets him on and interviews him properly.
cattown Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 You can find a number of reviews, commentary on this film. I had watched a good number of them myself. Thinker has done a couple, or more, and did a study to come up with possible speed, relative distance, height. But, In time I had strong leanings to the "guy on a moped" idea put forth, and put it on the back burner. At the time, it seemed to me, that Thunker was losing his credibility with a number of his video analysis. So I easily lost interest with this. Now I don't know quite what to think. I would like to see more look into this as well. Another aspect, this copy of the video is of much lower quality, and not in the true IMAX format, pointed out in early reviews, would be fantastic to see in the best resolution possible.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 CM I have to wonder if you actually listened to Mr Reeves statements. Remember too it was Imax not some blurry YouTube video. What Mr Reeves was describing would have had Imax detail. But he didn't notice it for fifteen years so perhaps all he saw were what we saw. There was not much in the interview so listening to it won't help you much.
1980squatch Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 ... Thunker was losing his credibility with a number of his video analysis. So I easily lost interest with this. Agree, I stopped looking at his work some time ago, I no longer think they offer anything of value.
norseman Posted June 23, 2016 Admin Posted June 23, 2016 Thats because photos and video offer nothing of value
BigTreeWalker Posted June 23, 2016 Author Posted June 23, 2016 I didn't post this for Thinker Thunker's review. Regardless of what you think of him. I posted for the insight from Mr Reeve who was there. I'm sorry some might not like the format of the interview, I think it's good because the interviewer wasn't constantly interrupting and changing track. Since he covers the issues and "theories" of most of the armchair critics, I find it funny that these things are still being parroted back here. This wasn't about Thinker Thunker or his critique of the movie, it was about listening to a person that was there and his take on the matter. CM, he discusses the fauna in the area. Since being there he is more qualified to talk of it than you are. Cattown, he also mentions the four wheeler (moped) idea that he found funny, as do I. (Make that hilarious!) It's been awhile since I have watched any critiques of this film. But, I found it interesting that Mr Reeves pointed out two other individuals that were in the area. Thats because photos and video offer nothing of value Only as far as proof goes. If and when bigfoot is proven to exist; it has the same value as a documentary about caribou and other animals in this area does. It addresses range, habitat, behavior in front of a stampede. I will offer here that they may have been simply foraging in the area and were interrupted by the caribou. If someone is interested in doing a good critique of this by not using bad YouTube footage; a Blu-ray of the Imax film is available here for about $12. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/dvd-great-north-martin-j-dignard/5900563/2673945737201?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Media_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP6857&k_clickid=3x6857 2
norseman Posted June 23, 2016 Admin Posted June 23, 2016 Not proof yes. It does poke holes in skeptical claims that we have no good footage of Bigfoot. And having the cameraman vet the film adds to the credibility of the film. 1
BigTreeWalker Posted June 23, 2016 Author Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) Just curious Rockape if that is supposed to hold more weight because of who did it? Or less? And really, with all the technology at our disposal we get a video of a TV screen. Edited June 23, 2016 by BigTreeWalker
Rockape Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 If even Matt Moneymaker doesn't think it's a Squatch, it isn't a Squatch. 2
Recommended Posts