Hickory Man Spots Bigfoot In His Woods – Takes Video of Creature and Footprints

[NatFoot]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Environmental TV is fake, too. Staged with real animals, but with a propaganda theme and narration. 

 

While I don't necessarily disagree on this particular point, if everything is a conspiracy, it's just as easy to say that nothing is.

1 hour ago, WSA said:

The majority of people interested in this topic hold out hope that some guy, somewhere, is going to capture a photo of video that will be the definitive BF proof, and that is usually the hope (don't bother denying it y'all) with many of our commenters too. So yeah, crushing disappointment turns to cynicism turns to nit-picking. FLASH! That footage already exists, and it is known as the "Patterson/Gimlin Film."  There is nothing that is going to come after that which is predicted to come up to that level, and it didn't get the job done as we all know very well. We. Know. This.   

 

No, videos like this one are plenty good for what they are able to tell us, and that is to add to the cumulative evidence. That doesn't satisfy some, and I get that, but it is the reality going forward.    

 

No. Just no.

 

Another PGF would be great. I'm a believer. I want someone to shoot one so they can be proven to be real (or see if myself to become a knower and then I don't care what everyone else thinks).

 

What was posted was pure BS of something moving in the woods. Ahhhhh, he has more. Ahhhhh, he has a BF festival coming up! Ahhhhh, he has BF shit in his yard.

 

Get out of here with that crap. These people are in it for clicks which lead to money. If he was serious, he'd know he didn't have Jack squat and he'd keep trying until he did.

 

A credible story, is testimony, ala what's been provided here by some of my favorite posters does more for BF than this bologna.

 

/ End rant.

[WSA]

In the post CGI world? Excuse me for being so blunt on this point, but that is delusional. There is not such thing as undeniable photographic/video/film evidence any longer, and history has proven there probably never even was such a thing.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Roger Patterson hit the lottery number way back when on that day in California. It was not enough to convince the larger world. The "man in a costume" rationale that torpedoed any chance of that film making a irrebuttable case  back then has only been enhanced by the "man with software" rationale today. We seem to want that to change, but it certainly will not. In fact, it will only get more certain that recorded visual documentation will be shrugged off, as frustrating as that is to accept.      

[NatFoot]

19 minutes ago, WSA said:

In the post CGI world? Excuse me for being so blunt on this point, but that is delusional. There is not such thing as undeniable photographic/video/film evidence any longer, and history has proven there probably never even was such a thing.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Roger Patterson hit the lottery number way back when on that day in California. It was not enough to convince the larger world. The "man in a costume" rationale that torpedoed any chance of that film making a irrebuttable case  back then has only been enhanced by the "man with software" rationale today. We seem to want that to change, but it certainly will not. In fact, it will only get more certain that recorded visual documentation will be shrugged off, as frustrating as that is to accept.      

 

I never said any type of photo or video is proof. I said I'd love to see another PGF. I also said I want to see one of have someone shoot one to confirm my belief.

 

This video is not worth the bandwidth it took to post or the minutes off our lives that we put into thinking and posting about it.

[Huntster]

50 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

Breaking a whitetail or elks neck would be in my opinion undeniable proof 

 

Or ripping a tree up, waving it around. roaring, then hurling it. Or even just being >8' tall with 5' wide shoulders.

30 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

While I don't necessarily disagree on this particular point, if everything is a conspiracy, it's just as easy to say that nothing is........

 

By not "necessarily" disagreeing, yet appearing to do just that, you pretty much confirm the point; nearly all communication now is propaganda (political, social, commercial, and/or ideological), bullspit, manipulative suggestion, or persuasive urging of one sort or another. It doesn't have to be conspiratorial, because much of it is between individuals. 

 

Sorry if that appears cynical, but I'm about as cynical as one can get, and I've earned every bit of it with my dealings with people of every imaginable variety.

[Catmandoo]

The prescription on my bifocals must have expired because I see nothing but click bait audio visual clutter for YT in low res.

The dog betrays the human.  Why didn't the dog freak out from the 'fresh' scent of the strange animal?

Edited September 5, 2019 by Catmandoo
spelling

[Incorrigible1]

46 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

This video is not worth the bandwidth it took to post or the minutes off our lives that we put into thinking and posting about it.

QFT

[NCBFr]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

In the post CGI world? Excuse me for being so blunt on this point, but that is delusional. There is not such thing as undeniable photographic/video/film evidence any longer, and history has proven there probably never even was such a thing.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Roger Patterson hit the lottery number way back when on that day in California. It was not enough to convince the larger world. The "man in a costume" rationale that torpedoed any chance of that film making a irrebuttable case  back then has only been enhanced by the "man with software" rationale today. We seem to want that to change, but it certainly will not. In fact, it will only get more certain that recorded visual documentation will be shrugged off, as frustrating as that is to accept.      

100% agreed.  If you want to see cool CGI, check out these clips from The Molecule.  https://www.themolecule.com/portfolio/

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

9 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Environmental TV is fake, too. Staged with real animals, but with a propaganda theme and narration. 

Agreed. I would however love to see a real Sasquatch staged or otherwise. 

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Agreed. I would however love to see a real Sasquatch staged or otherwise. 

 

Within a month after discovery every nature show out there will be all over the poor sasquatches.........which us likely yet another reason why government is covering up their existence.

[salubrious]

One thing annoying about this video is he shows where tracks are but can't seem to keep the camera still in the area of the alleged track for even a second. I won't be checking back on this one...

[WA Native son]

I'm pretty skeptical of this kind of thing especially hearing that the guy is supposedly plugged in to a BF research group. It doesn't seem wise to advertise this sort of thing without a lot more research behind it first and even then it really shouldn't end up on a news station. Anyone who has ever been interviewed for a news story knows that you have absolutely zero control over how what you say is portrayed to the public.

The only upside I can see to stories like this are that they spark an interest in kids.

[1980squatch]

On 9/5/2019 at 11:39 AM, NatFoot said:

Get out of here with that crap.

 

Yep.  Did not even look at this one.  Not only is it not evidence of any kind, it drags down everything that is.  That story that rings true?  That trackway?  All of it seems cheaper since it is all associated with the mountain of material such as this video. 

[RedHawk454]

On 9/4/2019 at 7:00 AM, wiiawiwb said:

Based on what I thought I saw I would ask one question. Why would he stop filming when the subject was still visible? I would not move and continue filming if I had to sit and wait it out for hours.

 

 

because its fake

 

theres nothing-and i mean nothing indicative that that black mass is a Sasquatch.  When I first saw the video I couldn't even tell if the Ape was facing the camera or if it was facing away from the camera.  It just this non defined black mass thing.  I mean, what are we even looking at?

Edited September 13, 2019 by RedHawk454