Thinker Thunker William Reeve Interview

[LeafTalker]

Yes, that's right, Norseman.

 

ThinkerThunker lives in the U.S., and William Reeve, the cinematographer who shot the footage in question, lives in Canada; so ThinkerThunker sent William Reeve some questions and asked Reeve to answer the written questions on camera.

 

As you know, ThinkerThunker presented the interview in two ways: 1) interspersed with his own commentary, and 2) uninterrupted, as it was originally recorded by Mr. Reeve.

 

This is a transcript from the beginning of the full version of Mr. Reeve’s remarks, which begin at 12:08 in the video.

 

“Hi everyone. I’m William Reeve, and I’m here to answer the questions from Thinker Thunker about the iMAX Great North Bigfoot scene. I’m going to try and make this 10 minutes, so I’m going to race through this by reciting my notes. Okay. Here we go. ThinkerThunker asks, ‘Tell us a little bit about you and your cinematography career – any projects coming up we should watch for – and also tell us about the Great North shoot – what was it like filming in those remote locations.’ Well, my career’s been really fantastic. I’ve been everywhere on planet earth…â€

 

So as you can see, William Reeve had prepared some notes for himself so that he could meet a 10-minute time limit for his remarks.

Edited June 26, 2016 by LeafTalker

[SWWASAS]

 

As of today I know of three BF pictures that have never been published, one of them being my own.     If I know of that many, how many are really out there?    Just that flies in the face of the skeptic claim that all photos are fake.    A hoaxer does not sit on a film for 15 years or have a BF picture creation they never show to the public.  I would be willing to bet there are pictures in boxes or dresser drawers that the photographer is unwilling to release for fear of ridicule.      Ask Bob Gimlin about ridicule!.  

Sorry but this secret squirrel stuff has gotten a tad bit tired.  Stand and deliver or say nothing.

 

Are you resident sensor now?    I have presented more original material to this forum in the form of pictures than most.     Probably too much.       If you ever see my BF photo it will because you bought the book not because you demanded it.     

Edited June 26, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

Looks like a cameraman who knew he was in danger of being caught on film.

If he is lying? That would make sense.

I guess the million dollar question for cinematographers? He claims they never knew about the anomoly. You just shot a nature film for Imax, a film that won a film festival. Obviously it was edited. Is it possibly to miss something like that in the editing room?

Edited June 26, 2016 by norseman

[Incorrigible1]

 

 

As of today I know of three BF pictures that have never been published, one of them being my own.     If I know of that many, how many are really out there?    Just that flies in the face of the skeptic claim that all photos are fake.    A hoaxer does not sit on a film for 15 years or have a BF picture creation they never show to the public.  I would be willing to bet there are pictures in boxes or dresser drawers that the photographer is unwilling to release for fear of ridicule.      Ask Bob Gimlin about ridicule!.  

Sorry but this secret squirrel stuff has gotten a tad bit tired.  Stand and deliver or say nothing.

 

Are you resident sensor now?    I have presented more original material to this forum in the form of pictures than most.     Probably too much.       If you ever see my BF photo it will because you bought the book not because you demanded it.     

 

I agree that mentioning evidence known only to a few serves to diminish such claims.  I ain't demanding to see your photograph, but am not willing to accept it as evidence, either.

[norseman]

I promise you that your photograph is just going to be mocked......Crows arguement that there is a photo out there that will just change his mind in a heart beat is a pink unicorn, it dont exist.

And if it does exist? You dont want his opinion anyhow. Anyone that can vascilate back and forth over existence based on pictures is useless.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^Great evidence, outstanding video and photo will not Be mocked.  However the usual tripe that makes the rounds will get what it deserves.  

[LeafTalker]

Here is more information about the shooting and editing process for “Great North.†All this information is available either in the video itself, or in the comments section for the video.

 

Transcript of the YouTube interview, starting at 19:03 --

 

[Mr. Reeve reads ThinkerThunker’s question:] “Why did you not stop the shot when a bear or bigfoot or whatever ran through the shot, or would you have noticed looking through the viewfinder? or not noticed? or are you generally just too busy on shots like this?†So here’s my answer: The viewfinder image is adequate but low-quality compared to most of today’s digital cameras. The iMAX film negative, however, is 10 times the volume of information than [sic] conventional cinema. We look at low-resolution video images to check shots. Seeing this event could have been missed right through the editing process and never shown up on a release until it was viewed in an iMAX theater. If anyone did see it in a pre-release – did see a bigfoot or anything anomaly [sic] like that – they would have just had to let it go into the distribution, because there would be no way of redoing that shot; it’s a documentary science movie, and not a science fiction action film.

 

A comment Mr. Reeve made on ThinkerThunker’s YouTube video:

 

I think the reason no-one of crew saw this on the day was that the image is "swimming" with powerful action in the theater "Sweet Spot". If the audience is looking  at three story high screen and watching a dark object in upper mid ground when there is so much amazing foreground action, then they are not watching the movie as we often say in the Imax theater world Further, we were always laying low and not moving around or looking in the direction of the animals so not to spook them. We were often scrambling to get to another camera position one second after cutting the 40 lbs. camera and running like hell. No looking at the creature in the eyes or looking back in that world.

[JKH]

Thanks, LT for further information. They got lucky in a unique situation, how cool is that. The public is fickle, so hard to say, but I predict some measure of fame for Mr. Reeve. Hopefully it's as respectful as he deserves.

 

I also predict that this will blow a lot of footers' minds. Like some of us have been saying, they're not endangered, and they exist in nearly every biome.

[LeafTalker]

It was a pretty amazing situation, I agree. And I hope the attention Mr. Reeve receives is respectful, too. Fingers are tightly crossed.   

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

^Great evidence, outstanding video and photo will not Be mocked.  However the usual tripe that makes the rounds will get what it deserves.  

So it's not a guy on a mountain bike?

Could be herding the caribou to make a better shot, because if they run away all you get is butt. If you steer them right they will run a long a river and you get the money shot.

The camera crew might not admit they manipulate the herd to get the shots they are looking for (cause then they couldn't say it was natural behavior of a wild herd).

Same reason the have aborigines change out of clothes and run about in loincloths for aboriginal documentaries.

Takes you back to a time when people didn't have cameras and clothes but is not totally honest.

[LeafTalker]

[Deleted]

Edited June 27, 2016 by LeafTalker

[LeafTalker]

That's quite correct. It is NOT a guy on a mountain bike driving the herd. Mr. Reeves said very clearly that two helicopters were employed to help guide the herd in the right direction for the camera.

You're not doing your homework, and you're making assumptions that are not only ridiculous in face of the facts, but malicious, calling (wrongly) someone you don't even know a liar.

Nice job.

[norseman]

^Great evidence, outstanding video and photo will not Be mocked.  However the usual tripe that makes the rounds will get what it deserves.

So it's not a guy on a mountain bike?

Could be herding the caribou to make a better shot, because if they run away all you get is butt. If you steer them right they will run a long a river and you get the money shot.

The camera crew might not admit they manipulate the herd to get the shots they are looking for (cause then they couldn't say it was natural behavior of a wild herd).

Same reason the have aborigines change out of clothes and run about in loincloths for aboriginal documentaries.

Takes you back to a time when people didn't have cameras and clothes but is not totally honest.

Ever hear of a tussock mound?

[Guest]

As bumpy as that terrain looks, anyone on a wheeled vehicle would have a pretty rough ridge going at that speed.  That is a pretty darn smooth gait that thing has.

 

I have to say it.  The stabilize version is some of the best video evidence I have seen.  Having Mr Reeves' validation of the video is even better.  

[Celtic Raider]

Very, very frustrating that the figure isn't just a little more detailed!

 

The back story seems to be ligitimate and everything else adds up - professional film crew, remote, very hard to access location, witness on the scene who is knowledgeable of wildlife and the area and very unlikely to be perpetrating a hoax. If this was shot just a little closer and at better detail it could be very convincing indeed. As it is, unfortunately it goes in the pile of interesting but ultimately still unknown...........

Professional film crew is not a sure thing.  There is an equally poor video of a supposed bigfoot crossing a road at night and the video was made by a professional film crew.  Junk is junk no matter who filmed it.

Certainly it's no 'sure thing' but we should be dealing in terms of likelihood rather than absolutes, and in this case the likelihood of a hoax to me is very small. Could a camera man have been caught in the film inadvertantly? Possible but also unlikely as the witness recalls contrary and would have to be lying which also seems unlikely to me in this instance. Could it be another, as yet undetected human? This is possible, and that is why clearer, nearer footage could have made a big difference unfortunately.