Rod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Too bad the guy was unaware of the general consensus that sasquatches do not have claws and cannot operate a saw. I discovered that cancer took this videographer's life. Out of respect, I retract this sentence. BTW, here is some background on the video from Norcallogger ("Norcal" I presume): The nest thing is not related to the BF. You would have had to know the videographer, Bob (not his real name), to understand just how normal it is for him to talk like this. He's just entertaining the kids. And himself. And anyone else who might happen to see his film. He's spent his whole life working with kids and knows how to make just about anything exciting. I should back up a bit. This film was shot on the same day that they packed in to Paradise Lake in the Marble Mountains Wilderness Area. None of the kids on this trip were "special needs" kids. After reaching their camp, Bob took off his pack and went for a little walk by himself. After hiking all day with a 50 lb. pack on, it feels good to take a walk without the pack. This was when he found the hut. Between the time at the hut by himself and walking back to camp he probably came up with his story for the kids. He got his camera and the gang and went back to the hut where he started making his movie about the creature with "mighty, mighty strength" (I love that part. Makes me laugh every time I see it. That was just so him.) that built the hut. He knew better. I guarantee it. In all the hundreds of camping, backpacking, motorcycling, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting, hiking, etc. trips that I have been on with him, he never once mentioned BF but this was his chance with this one group of kids. But he knew better. It was pure coincidence that his son spotted the being up on the ridge. The creature walking down the ridge is the only part of the film that matters. And yes, it was a long ways away. The next day some of the people hiked up onto the ridge to look for footprints but it's just too rocky up there so they found nothing. Bob kept the film at home and showed it to some of the kids in his Campus Life group but never made a big deal about it and never did anything with it. It was through one of the kids in a round about way that the BFRO found out about it and they contacted him. It wasn't the other way around. This is where it gets kind of interesting. Through the BFRO a guy named Doug Devine got a copy of the film. Doug is probably the worlds foremost expert on doing difficult and unusual measurements. He and his crews work all over the world for leading scientific organizations. Doug hired a couple of helicopters and flew one of his crews up into the MM to take measurements based off of the film. I don't remember all the measurements but I do remember the 56" chest and 54" waist. The other measurements didn't exactly fit within the norms for human measurements either. Especially way out there in the middle of nowhere where it would be hard for an obese guy to get to. Many years after the film was made Bob's 2 sons decided that they wanted to race the Baja 1000 on a 5 man motorcycle team. Bob's brother (my brother in law) headed up the organizational part of the race effort and asked one of his old college buddies up in Oregon if he would like to get in on it. He did and then said that he knew a guy with a helicopter that might be interested in flying air support for the team. So they're all down in Baja and the subject of BF comes up. The helicopter guy says, "You bet I believe in BF. In fact, I flew this research team up into the MM to do some work on this BF movie that some guy shot up there." Bob's brother asks the pilot if he would like to meet the guy that shot the film and then says, "You're sitting next to him." That was the first time that Bob had heard that anyone had done any research on his little movie. Bob was just not into the whole BF thing. Even after finding out that someone had done research on his film he still was not interested. Bob was interested in kids, especially hurting kids. As I (and probably others) have concurred, the videographer's comments were a set up for his BF story (to entertain the kids, who did not have special needs). I remain skeptical that the subject on the ridge was a sasquatch. Probably nothing more than a hiker, IMHO. Source: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2464-marble-mountain-footage/ Edited July 5, 2011 by Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I discovered that cancer took this videographer's life. Out of respect, I retract this sentence. BTW, here is some background on the video from Norcallogger ("Norcal" I presume): As I (and probably others) have concurred, the videographer's comments were a set up for his BF story (to entertain the kids, who did not have special needs). I remain skeptical that the subject on the ridge was a sasquatch. Probably nothing more than a hiker, IMHO. Source: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2464-marble-mountain-footage/ Good find and conclusions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It amazes me how some people over analyze things and miss the obvious... The guy and these kids found this shelter and began filming it. None of them were BF specialists and probably didn't really believe in the thing. However they used what they found for their short film, not knowing that it was in deed the REAL thing. The camera guy made notice of claw marks, further showing he had no real interest in this little film. You have to ignore that part and realize that by accident, this group came upon the REAL DEAL! They were unaware of this fact. If they really thought this was a BF camp, and if they really believed in the thing...I suspect the mood would not have been as "light" as it were. You have to examine the clip in the same light as the old shows or cartoons where the character is perhaps being told there's a lion on the loose, and they see the fake lion but THEN later they come across the real lion and they're doing things like pulling on its mane and saying how fake its teeth look when it actually is the REAL lion and it roars at them. This is what happened in this film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It amazes me how some people over analyze things and miss the obvious... The guy and these kids found this shelter and began filming it. None of them were BF specialists and probably didn't really believe in the thing. However they used what they found for their short film, not knowing that it was in deed the REAL thing. The camera guy made notice of claw marks, further showing he had no real interest in this little film. You have to ignore that part and realize that by accident, this group came upon the REAL DEAL! They were unaware of this fact. If they really thought this was a BF camp, and if they really believed in the thing...I suspect the mood would not have been as "light" as it were. You have to examine the clip in the same light as the old shows or cartoons where the character is perhaps being told there's a lion on the loose, and they see the fake lion but THEN later they come across the real lion and they're doing things like pulling on its mane and saying how fake its teeth look when it actually is the REAL lion and it roars at them. This is what happened in this film. I agree, if a person hammers on something long enough I am sure they can shape it into whatever they want. It is what it is, so don't look for the zipper and miss the Sasquatch. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I watched the video with the sound off, as I often do, to merely examine the visual images without accompanying content, for the merit of only the images presented. My conclusion (MHO) is that the subject in the footage resembles many a day hiker whom I have observed attempting to navigate rough terrain, looking very uncoordinated (flailing arms, taking small steps to avoid rocks, grabbing at vegetation, etc). I see no sasquatch, and to me the discussion of the motives of the cameraperson or group is quite moot when only the visuals are examined. Hoax or not, good intentions or not, I just don't see more than a hiker, possibly with a backpack, attempting to pick their way across the ridgetop. That said I have never been there, and don't know the difficulty of the terrain. Even recreating the aspects of the video, I argue that it may be nearly impossible/very difficult to get an accurate height estimate from the distance involved. Just MHO. I would hope that a real sas would look more at home in the terrain than the subject of the video. The subject just doesn't look comfortable navigating the terrain, which for me clenches that it ain't a sasquatch, despite the oddball arguments at the beginning of the video that the subject is squatchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I just don't see more than a hiker, possibly with a backpack, attempting to pick their way across the ridgetop... I would hope that a real sas would look more at home in the terrain than the subject of the video. The subject just doesn't look comfortable navigating the terrain, which for me clenches that it ain't a sasquatch, despite the oddball arguments at the beginning of the video that the subject is squatchy... Spot On Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So the questions in the sub-title of this thread - "Are you ready to Believe? Ready to see a real Bf ?" Yes, I'm ready still to believe. Yes, I'm still ready to see a real BF. Unfortunately I cannot seem to find one in the videos in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So the questions in the sub-title of this thread - "Are you ready to Believe? Ready to see a real Bf ?" Yes, I'm ready still to believe. Yes, I'm still ready to see a real BF. Unfortunately I cannot seem to find one in the videos in this thread. That's the way it goes, you either see it or you don't. Check out my on the hunt thread(field) maybe there's something there you will like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I found the thread. Can you recommend a post number or page of the best stuff? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I found the thread. Can you recommend a post number or page of the best stuff? Thanks. It's all interesting, just have a look around, That thread is only 10 % of the stuff I've seen and done. Just remember this forum is very open public for somethings to be said or shown. Tip of the iceberg WTB1. Tip of the iceberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 That's the way it goes, you either see it or you don't. Sort of like blobsquatches..., eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Sort of like blobsquatches..., eh? Hey more like blobsquaters Rod. The buggers can blend better than a trained shooter in a ghillie. Most searchers/hikers have probably walked right past some Bf's. They hide really well behind bushes or high in trees as people walk & talk loudly to each other hoping to see a Sasq some day? kinda funny eh?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It really is time to put this one to bed. Not saying this began as a hoax, but like others out there, it shouldn't continue being thought of as even possible authentic bigfoot footage. Exhibit 1A) Original Footage. Note the 'alley' is clear of vegetation and only a very short solid object is in front of the subject. Exhibit 1B) This is the BFRO recreation image capture. Note the two sapling trees in the alley and a large solid rock or bush that stand two feet higher then the investigator. Objects not in the original footage. This difference demonstrates that the recreation was not taken at the same height angle as the original. While the photos were taken 18 months apart, the ORIGINAL footage occurred first and there were no saplings visible in that footage. The average growth rate for a young fir or pine tree is about 1 foot per year in lush climates. In rocky sub-alpine terrain it is significantly less. The non existence of these young saplings in the original, as well as the large solid rock or bush to the right being missing, demonstrates that the angle the comparison recreation was made at was not the same as the original footage. Therefore the assumed 9'-10' height of the alleged bigfoot, is not supported by any comparison evidence. There would need to be some object in both the original and the recreation in order to establish scale and only when things line up, then can one make an honest height assessment. Because the investigator used a different location, such objects are not even identifiable. Bottom line is, there is no evidence in the recreation footage that supports a 9'-10' bigfoot. Exhibit 2A) This is BFRO's comparison shots that I cropped at their existing size and pasted onto the original footage within the same video sequence. Obviously the investigator looks very small compared to the alleged bigfoot. But note the rock outcrop (at original image size) at the left is also smaller then in the original. This demonstrates that the height comparison for the two was not matched. Also note there is no bush revealed in the skyline along the saddle in the original, which again demonstrates the location of the recreation footage was not the same as during the original footage. Exhibit 2B) Here is the Recreation footage, this time with crops of the Original Footage subject & rock outcrop pasted in, but using the scale of the rock outcrop as a guide. Both the Subject and the Rock were simultaneously reduced 70%. The result is that the 6' tall Investigator ends up just about the same height as the alleged bigfoot. In fact the investigator is hunched over and he is slightly taller then the alleged bigfoot. Also note that the large bush in the recreation photo isn't visible in the original above. Exhibit C) Finally, and this should settle matters completely if the above hasn't. I was able to slow down the footage enough to catch a few frames before it moves to a different scene. In this captured image you can see several items of importance that stand out because of improved lighting and focus. Namely you can see what appears to be a two color jersey. You can see that the subject is wearing shorts. You can also see he is wearing what appears to be boots. You will also note that there is nothing extraordinary about the length of his arms. Earlier in this thread I felt that the subject human must have been wearing sandals as the reason he was flailing his arms like he does. While that is normal for a person to do with sandals, I now do not believe that was the case here. I can now see he was probably wearing light to medium boots. That being the case, I suspect he was actually dealing with some extremely loose rocky terrain instead. I mean constant uneven jaggy rocks that are very unstable. I have been in the same situation, such as during a climb of the Middle Sister in Oregon (with boots on) on a face where there is no trail. In that case it was all loose volcanic rock and we were doing the same acrobats quite often. When all you are walking on is uneven moving sharp rocks of different sizes, you can't help but use your arms to try and balance yourself. No doubt there are bigfoot in the region, but this footage is not of one. Unfortunately the suggestion that bigfoot are often seen in areas probably helps in creating hype anywhere and that causes footage like this to be seen as more then it really is. The BFRO Investigator and organization would have had access to better quality footage then we have here, but still enough holes can be raised to demonstrate this isn't supportive of a bigfoot at all. I'm sorry Tracker and Ace, but the alleged subject is not 9-10' tall! He is under 6' tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Interesting, but not remotely enough detail & clarity to get my attention. If a narrator/filmer has to tell otherswatcher later present what they are seeing, then the video or picture is discounted IMO. Doubly so if the first person hears sounds that are not picked up & easily heard, or details such as subtle movements. About all I can say for this is like all such pieces of information (I have a hard time using the words "evidence" & "research" in regard to this subject) it is interesting at best. But don't take it personal, I haven't seen a compelling video or televised footage since the PGF and lots of folks think that is hoaxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Excellent analysis, PT. Especially Exhibit C. Tracker- It's been confirmed (by a friend of) the gentleman behind the camera that he concocted the BF story in order to entertain the kids. PT has thoroughly shown the subject on the ridge to be a hiker. Are you going to acknowledge this as a hoax and misidentification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts