How to hunt

[7.62]

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on this new video sent to him?

 

The thing that bugs me about all of these types of videos is why do they cut out at the part where it would be walking . If it's legit just keep filming .

[Twist]

If they kept filming it would expose the hoax.  If the hoax is perpetrated by someone that follows BF then they would know it’s usually limb proportions, shoulders/girth and stride that point to a hoax.  Cut the video when there is just enough to be curious but not display to many telling signs.  🤷

[hiflier]

That sounds about right, Twist. There always seems to be something like this coming along at somewhat regular intervals. And none of it produces more than just another carrot. The consistent pattern of video style, coupled with the obvious lack of critical info, is highly suspect. Why is it always like that? Who are these people? The audience on this Forum isn't stupid by any means and yet these types of do-nothing videos keep constantly showing up, and just in time as the last do-nothing video is disappearing from memory. Always pixelated, always blurry. The phenomenon taken as a whole raises a huge flag regarding just what it is that we are dealing with here.

[norseman]

6 hours ago, 7.62 said:

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on this new video sent to him?

 

The thing that bugs me about all of these types of videos is why do they cut out at the part where it would be walking . If it's legit just keep filming .

Thanks for sharing! We don’t see everyday a Bigfoot submerged in water and then getting up and wading around in the river. The video is pretty far away and not of good quality. I would be curious to know from people like Bill Munns if modern hair stretchy fabric would stand up to this type of abuse. Or if it would take on a bunch of water and turn into a 200 lbs diaper when the hoaxer stood up out of the water.

 

As with all videos it’s inconclusive. But if it’s real? As a pro kill proponent a Bigfoot choosing to go fishing in broad day light on a wide river delta gives me hope….. that would be a chip shot IF a person felt good about not being hoaxed. Cervelo would really really worry about that!😉

[norseman]

From Bill Munns:

 

 

Submerging a fur suit in water is a recipe for disaster. It will soak up water better than a sponge and probably weigh 50 or more pounds heavier than dry. And if you needed to dry it out, it would likely take all day, unless several people blowdry it for hours.

 

When I did the Swamp Thing movie, **** Durock (playing Swamp Thing) went into the water many times and the suit soaked up water galore. My crew of three would spend hours after work trying to dry the suit out. And when waterlogged, the weight of the suit really dragged the stuntman down in any movement. While that was a foam latex suit, a fur suit would do the same, in terms of water retention.

 

All's well with me. Hope the same for you.

 

Bill

 

=============================

 

So? The hoax part of this film looks pretty nil as a suit. At the start of the film I can only see the creatures back line. It is submerged.

 

Could it be CGI? Or is it legit?

 

 

[7.62]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

From Bill Munns:

 

 

Submerging a fur suit in water is a recipe for disaster. It will soak up water better than a sponge and probably weigh 50 or more pounds heavier than dry. And if you needed to dry it out, it would likely take all day, unless several people blowdry it for hours.

 

When I did the Swamp Thing movie, **** Durock (playing Swamp Thing) went into the water many times and the suit soaked up water galore. My crew of three would spend hours after work trying to dry the suit out. And when waterlogged, the weight of the suit really dragged the stuntman down in any movement. While that was a foam latex suit, a fur suit would do the same, in terms of water retention.

 

All's well with me. Hope the same for you.

 

Bill

 

=============================

 

So? The hoax part of this film looks pretty nil as a suit. At the start of the film I can only see the creatures back line. It is submerged.

 

Could it be CGI? Or is it legit?

 

 

Interesting and didn't think about it from that aspect of it . CGI it doesn't seem it  . I wish we had more back ground on the people who sent it in to How To Hunt .

[BobbyO]

Are we thinking that whatever it is, is submerged or just crouching down ?

 

I ask because whatever it was then stood up in water that looks at best knee high if not lower.

 

Looks to me like there could be a drop off in the river too and whatever it is, is the other side of the drop off too which would make sense for it crouching instead of a large part of it being submerged and then standing in virtually the same place in very shallow water.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, BobbyO said:

Are we thinking that whatever it is, is submerged or just crouching down ?

 

I ask because whatever it was then stood up in water that looks at best knee high if not lower.

 

Looks to me like there could be a drop off in the river too and whatever it is, is the other side of the drop off too which would make sense for it crouching instead of a large part of it being submerged and then standing in virtually the same place in very shallow water.

In the beginning from what I see not much of the creature is showing above waterline. It’s face down in the water. It doesn’t necessarily take a lot of water to accomplish this. Once it’s out of the water? yes is knee high at best. Depending on its size probably 2-3 feet of water?

 

The video is of poor quality. So it’s hard to be 100 percent on anything. But per Bill’s statement, frolicking around in a river with a Bigfoot suit on is a really bad idea. 

[Twist]

Is it any worse than frolicking in the woods in a man ape suit?    Never underestimate the stupidity of people looking for internet content.  

[norseman]

36 minutes ago, Twist said:

Is it any worse than frolicking in the woods in a man ape suit?    Never underestimate the stupidity of people looking for internet content.  

I would say the risk of drowning is worse…. Yes. That and you don’t look like Bigfoot anymore. 

[MIB]

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

I would say the risk of drowning is worse….

 

That's one of the pieces of the puzzle that assures me what I saw in 1976 was not a person in a suit. 

[norseman]

37 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

That's one of the pieces of the puzzle that assures me what I saw in 1976 was not a person in a suit. 

It was in a river?

[MIB]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

It was in a river?

 

Yeah.   

 

Initially it was wading.    The current where we first saw it is pretty fast, maybe 12 mph and 3-1/2 feet deep.    Where it passed in front of us, the current slows slightly but gets deeper, then slows and goes over a shallow gravel bar, through / along some ledgy riffle, then drops into deeper water, probably 15 feet or more.    I'm very familiar with that spot since it was more or less in front of our house.   We'd wade / swim our horses there in summer and I fished it from bank and boat including guiding.     The water at the nearest point where it passed by us runs 4-1/2 to a little over 5 feet deep .. river bottoms shift each year.    Typically if I got out that far, it'd knock me over but usually I could bounce along with my feet bumping over rocks and the water hitting just under my chin.    It appeared to be crotch deep at that spot.   Given that they seem to have shorter legs than we do relative to their torso length I think I must have been looking at something exceeding 10 feet by at least a little bit.   

 

The last we saw of it after it'd dropped into deep water, it was going around a bend in the river, heading almost due west into the fading post-sunset reflection.   Water was flat enough to get a pretty clear look.   It was armpit deep swimming, not head down at surface level like a bear or dog, and swam with it's arms under water, not overhead ... so dog paddle or breast stroke but with it's head high.

 

I'm convinced that if it were a suit, it would have been so heavy, so waterlogged there'd have been a drowning.  

 

[norseman]

29 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yeah.   

 

Initially it was wading.    The current where we first saw it is pretty fast, maybe 12 mph and 3-1/2 feet deep.    Where it passed in front of us, the current slows slightly but gets deeper, then slows and goes over a shallow gravel bar, through / along some ledgy riffle, then drops into deeper water, probably 15 feet or more.    I'm very familiar with that spot since it was more or less in front of our house.   We'd wade / swim our horses there in summer and I fished it from bank and boat including guiding.     The water at the nearest point where it passed by us runs 4-1/2 to a little over 5 feet deep .. river bottoms shift each year.    Typically if I got out that far, it'd knock me over but usually I could bounce along with my feet bumping over rocks and the water hitting just under my chin.    It appeared to be crotch deep at that spot.   Given that they seem to have shorter legs than we do relative to their torso length I think I must have been looking at something exceeding 10 feet by at least a little bit.   

 

The last we saw of it after it'd dropped into deep water, it was going around a bend in the river, heading almost due west into the fading post-sunset reflection.   Water was flat enough to get a pretty clear look.   It was armpit deep swimming, not head down at surface level like a bear or dog, and swam with it's arms under water, not overhead ... so dog paddle or breast stroke but with it's head high.

 

I'm convinced that if it were a suit, it would have been so heavy, so waterlogged there'd have been a drowning.  

 

Bill Munns concurs with you. Thanks for retelling it!

[MagniAesir]

No disrespect to Bill, but that was 35 year old technology.

There are plenty of synthetic materials that will not absorb water.

On my tablet that video isn't clear enough to even call it fur, let alone a natural material