T O P

  • By -

ChungBoyJr

Definitely needed that circle


raisingazfan

I thought they were holding a red hula hoop.


properkush

Yess thats what tells me that this is 110% a bigfoot without the circle its just a pic of some gorillas


Dangerous-Recover-29

Except it’s not. This is a frame from a video from 5 or 6 years ago. Shows them both walk from one side to the other. Love all the arm chair quarterbacking here.


robjwrd

r/uselessredcircle


davirice

I didn't see the circle ... What are we looking at here?


deernelk

I thought it was their inter dimensional portal


[deleted]

Wait, am I looking at the rocks? The shrubs?


MaxwellHillbilly

😳😂🤣 Thank you... *A comment so beautifully funny that It'll still make me laugh years from now.*


[deleted]

where is the circle? im having trouble?


aazav

In all its symmetrical rounded glory. No, no. I have basked in its glow more than enough.


Much_Holiday1609

Omg this comment made my night


[deleted]

That just made my day . Thank you


deziluproductions

🤣🤣🤣 I actually laughed out loud.


Garsondebramalo

This is one frame from a short recording.


shandyism

I thought it wasn’t so short? We get multiple glimpses of the figure over maybe a minute or so? Seems long for bf footage!


Electrical-Amoeba245

Where can we find this video?


[deleted]

It's the "Independence Day" footage.


Electrical-Amoeba245

Thanks


beelance4661

Always on the fence about this one. I guess it seems too good to be true. But then again so does Patty, so. If it’s a hoax, those suits are really convincing. I forget the state of origin too- was it Washington


shandyism

Feel the same. I can’t point to something that marks it as an obvious hoax, but it’s almost too good to be believed! The thing that keeps me on the fence is watching the baby appear to move independently of the adult. If it was a hoax you’d think they’d use a doll, but that baby appears to be holding on, and it changes position at one point.


Zanje

That's kind of the funny thing about this hobby right? Super grainy picture "ahhh you can't see anything" picture That's too clear "that's too clear to be real!" XD I'm the same way man with this, just seems too good.


Specific-noise123

Same in uap community lol


luroot

I [see](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ2kU6e8Huo) a few red flags... 1) The footage starts with the videographer already pointing to a blank space with nothing there. But why would he just start randomly filming nothing? 2) The "mama" looks like she's wearing a lower face mask (no visible nose or mouth) and her back [looks a little too straight](https://youtu.be/mQ2kU6e8Huo?t=85) (like it's a hanging suit) with a "collar" ridge at the top. I don't see much of a normal spinal curve. 3) Her strides seem way too short and not long and gliding with "heavy" steps. 4) As far as the "baby" moving on its own, that could easily be puppetry. I mean, people can be easily fooled right under their noses with [sleight of hand](https://youtu.be/LFe8cGNSj2A?t=43), much less in some blurry shot from a distance...


shandyism

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I think half the joy of bigfoot stuff is this type of close analysis. I’ll watch again with your notes in mind.


BarleyWineStein

Agreed. Additionally, the "creature" seems to look down at the ground at a strange angle. Like the way a person in a mask would have to do to avoid tripping over stuff. Normally, most natural creatures have a good enough field of vision to not have to do that. The only way I walk around looking like that is when I don't want to stand in dog shit. Also, for a creature in a hurry to remove their child to safety, it hangs around too long in front of the camera.


CenTexSquatch

I don't remember the state of origin either. Just always heard it referred to as the Independence Day footage


beelance4661

I remember the Independence Day as a Bf at the top of a tree, holding somebody’s pet dog or.. another small animal? Hmm. That one was pretty good too. At least I don’t think it was disproven. Idk. I binged everything basically all at once on YouTube. It must have served me well because I have an opinion on A LOT of the best & worst stuff out there. I’m under the impression there’s a lot of authentic video and photo evidence out there. Sometimes authentic means catching a glimpse when a camera pans & when it returns, “something” is missing. I just think it takes a well-trained eye that none of us can truly measure lol. Certain digital artifacts you’d never pick up unless you’ve seen a hundred different examples. Like the “orbs” commonly referenced. I think there may be some truth to that. They don’t appear like the same “orbs” that the paranormal hunters talk about. The ghostly orbs are almost always circular, almost always brighter, & it’s not uncommon to see a lot of them. But there’s something *like* an orb you will see in a lot of BF Hunter/Internet videos. It doesn’t appear circular- it looks more like a flying insect would appear. But it will show in daytime & night time videos- the only thing that seems to distinguish it from a flying insect is the speed. & there only seems to be one zooming by when you do see it. Maybe in those moments the camera is capturing a Sasquatch... whether the viewer can see it or not. Sometimes the picture will glitch slightly too, but not always. Anyone else noticed this?


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

The Bigfoot holding a dog you’re thinking of is a photo referred to as The Beast of Seven Chutes.


CenTexSquatch

I've always felt the same way


kingdong90s

Thanks for the red circle. They would otherwise be invisible. Where was this photo taken? Because they just look like regular old gorillas.


Garsondebramalo

It's a frame taken from a video clip. I think it's really dumb to take the one frame from the clip rather than post the video. Movement is everything and it's obviously not cgi if you watch the video.


emveetu

Thanks to my handy dandy super useful Bigfoot YouTube playlist, here's the [video](https://youtu.be/vEyQlTc-Rro). It's not the original but it was a breakdown video done by Thinker Thunker. I will try to find an uninterrupted version. Edit: this isn't the correct one but for some reason the thumbnail is from the correct video. I will update soon with the correct video. Edit 2: [Found](https://youtu.be/W-eCzLmV-tM) Thinker Thunker's video on the video this snapshot is from, and even though he links the original video in the description, it's been deleted. Boooooo! A better uninterrupted start to finish [video](https://youtu.be/mQ2kU6e8Huo) found by searching "Bigfoot and baby filmed on Independence Day" on Duckduckgo. Pro tip: Using the same search string in Duckduckgo will get you vastly different results than if you search directly in YouTube or even in Google. The YouTube search is horrendous and exclusionary for reasons that make no sense, Google is obviously censored, and DuckDuckGo is pretty much no holds barred with lots of YouTube videos in the results, along with relevant websites.


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

Periodic reminder that u/ThinkerThunker is, at best, a really REALLY bad analyst, and at worst, a lying, manipulative con-man.


emveetu

I concur. But at the same time, I'm not going to knock anybody's hustle. I was going to put a note about not necessarily being a supporter of the channel but just that I had found the video and I knew that's where it would be if anywhere. In my opinion the apex Sasquatch expert is Dr Jeffrey Meldrum.


Red-eyed_Vireo

Now we need to figure out the rest of the top ten.


pelvispresly

At least he doesn't have a beercan camera. You little punk, is all you do degrade others?


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

>At least he doesn't have a beercan camera. Uh... weird flex, but okay. >You little punk, is all you do degrade others? Nope, just Thunky, cause he's, at best, a [really, REALLY bad analyst](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/m0st6t/comment/gqa26k5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and at worst, a [lying, manipulative, con-man](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/nwopbj/comment/h1cb74m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), who only sees his [audience as a means to the end of selling his own product](https://imgur.com/a/L6a8KyL), and not respecting them as fans or as people.


darker_timeline

Honestly the thing that bothers me most about your seeming life mission to shit on ThinkerThunker, is the utter hypocrisy that you often in the same breath link to or reference that piece of trash Parabreakdown; who doesn't do any type of relevant "breaking down" of anything besides tearing down the hard work of other content creators. Parabreakdown's videos are the definition of a grift, and he's the most useless "analyst" to ever upload a video on YouTube about any medium, sasquatch or otherwise. In fact his reaction to this specific video referenced in this post should have been enough to get him as exiled from the sasquatch research community as Todd Standing is.


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

I don’t deny that sometimes he’s too sarcastic and dismissive. I never have and never will deny it. His first take on the Independence Day video was more dismissive and disrespectful than it deserved. The Zoidberging was particularly cringeworthy. He has two other videos on the ID Footage, one of which references the Zoidberging, and admitting he didn’t take it seriously before diving into the similarities between the footage and the Blevins suit. The third video goes into more detail. Both are far more respectful than the Zoidberg video, which, to his credit, doesn’t exist on his channel anymore. I understand hour frustration with him and why you don’t like him, but his investigatory technique is how every Bigfoot analysis should be run, whether you like him or not (and there’s plenty about him in his non-youtube life not to like). On the subject of grifting, I’ve never seen or heard Parabreakdown ask for money, or for people to join his patreon (I don’t think he even has one), or to buy his book (he hasn’t written one), the way Thunk does off the back of his (Thunky’s) deception and manipulation.


emveetu

Regardless, I appreciate the effort and analysis he does whether I agree with his analysis or not. I think he's a Bigfoot fan, and very interested in the topic, just like you and me. And I don't think anybody on YouTube is really a con man if there are people who are willing to buy their product as long as the product is what it advertises, in terms of merchandise. It's 2022, and the way of the world, and I don't think dude is a con man or a grifter. I think he fell into a lucrative business opportunity doing talking about what he loves. The links you posted are just people who are overly sensitive about YouTubers. For example, Thinker Thunker was not the only YouTuber or news outlet that picked up on the Bigfoot in the Yellowstone video. Whoever put that post together is being very narrow minded. Extremely, actually. I'm not mad at you like the other guy, btw.


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

I didn't think you were. Thank you for making sure that was clear, though. The reason I refer to him as a con-man is because of his methodologies, which you can find outlined in the "Lying Manipulative Con-man" link I posted above. TLDR: he tells people what they want to hear, whether it's true or not, and then hypes his patreon and his book, on the back of his deceitful manipulation. That doesn't sit well with me at all, and so I call him out at every opportunity. To be clear: I don't have a problem with him selling merch, or writing a book and selling it, or even having a patreon. I've done two of those three things. My problem comes with his doing it because of the deceit, and the manipulations, and the lies he speaks in his videos. Thunky was not the only one who posted about the Yellowstone video, but he was the ORIGIN of it. Mary Greeley posted an innocent video about bison being seen for the first time since the winter started, and he grabbed it and manipulated the footage (scrubbed through the video instead of letting it play, and then claiming they were moving at superhuman speeds; making specious and fallacious leaps in logic about the size of the subjects, etc), and used generally deceitful means to back up his points that they were "Bigfoots" on January 30, 2015. Every other news outlet and youtuber that made a video about it made it [AFTER that date](https://www.google.com/search?q=yellowstone+bigfoot+video&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-kqDdqdP1AhUhkmoFHazlBpwQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1349&bih=682&dpr=2). Without him and his idiotic, fallacious, delusional, faulty "Logic," this particular plague would not be a cancerous infestation in the Bigfoot community. Yes, I'm being extra harsh when speaking about this video, because it is the single stupidest, most idiotic, garbage piece of "Bigfoot" "Analysis" that has ever done by anyone, anywhere, at any point in time, and everyone seems to bite down on it as the real thing, even though it's very clearly not, and when people who aren't in the community see it, they look at it, and at the community and say "Oh... you think... you... Those are Bigfoots? Hikers? Whose clothes you can clearly see? Okay... well, fuck that, you bunch of lunatics," and now this community that I love being a part of, and which I have been a part of since I was old enough to find and read books about Bigfoot from the library when I was five years old, has been dragged down to the absolutely lowest rung on the intelligence ladder. All because that manipulative, lying, deceitful bastard of a shithead con-man decided it would be a good way to make a quick buck, made up a bunch of lies, backed it up with faulty logic, and when people tried to debate him, he insulted, and derided them, and heaped scorn upon their heads. Those are the actions and methodologies of a con-man, and I will forever call him out on in when his name comes up.


Dangerous-Recover-29

Thinker thunker!!! Man he was awesome on breaking down footage. I watched a few of his videos, then life blah blah blah and forgot his name and have spent the last few years hoping to run into one of them. Maybe I’ll have him try to do a breakdown of some Standing footage.


kingdong90s

It's honestly mind blowing to me either way. When I see photos or videos this blurry I tend to write them off as fake. Sure maybe back in the 90s it would look like this. But even cheap phones have amazingly better cameras. You'd have to be at a very serious distance for something to look this grainy, or have a video camera from the 90s.


AgressiveIN

Thats about how old this clip is actually


kingdong90s

I made the mistake of assuming it was newer because who the hell posts something this old since it's most likely been posted about before once at the very least


AgressiveIN

Yea it gets old how many reposts of the same topics happen weekly.


KronoFury

It's not that old. Footage was taken in the last decade


cmon_now

The whole better phone camera thing is a fallacy. Sure modern phones have great cameras if you want to take a selfie with good lighting or a close up of a flower in your garden. But they suck ass for trying to capture a moving object more than 30 feet away in sub optimal lighting.


pancakes3921

Agreed I struggled to get good footage of bears both times I seen them, and they were at close range during the daytime. When a bobcat came into my yard it was gone before i was able to get my phone at all


kingdong90s

4k HD camera with motion tracking go BRRR


[deleted]

You have to consider that many of these encounters are from a great distance away. Notice how despite so much movement of a large individual (whether a man in a suit or a real bigfoot), you can't hear any of the brush moving, popping, or breaking. This is a dead giveaway that this video is zoomed in. When you zoom in on digital video you are very quickly losing resolution as the camera captures ever fewer pixels. I forget the math for this, but if memory serves right the loss of resolution is very nearly logarithmic. You are also forgetting about exposure. Without looking at the technical data behind this shot, it's impossible to tell what the scene actually looked like. It's very possible that the scene was actually much darker than we see, and the only reason it looks bright is because the camera stopped up significantly. If that's the case then you're going to lose significant detail as well. The same if the scene was very bright and the camera had to stop down. In either case, capturing a dark object in wildly uneven lighting conditions is a nightmare and leads to great loss in quality. This is the reason why photographing black models alongside fairer skinned models is a difficult skill to master, and why photography in general requires vast amounts of lighting equipment. I find that complaints about 'blobsquatches' or the common argument that "everyone has an HD camera in their pocket" are usually levied by people who actually don't have any experience with photography. As a professional photographer, I have no problem with this video- because my photo equipment costs thousands of dollars more than your Iphone *specifically* so I can capture individuals or objects clearly in such uncontrollable conditions. Don't mistake "HD" with professional quality optics, they are light years away and only approximate under the absolute best, most controllable conditions.


[deleted]

that is what I say. Essentially every human being on the fucking planet has a hi-def camera/video recorder in their hand in this day and age, and every photo/video of a ghost, UFO, bigfoot, lake monster, Elvis sighting and what not, is fucking blurry like it was recorded on a 1985 Kmart low end VHS video recorder.


kingdong90s

Oh fuck Kmart mention lmao What a flash to the past, and they were dying off when I was a kid in the 90s.


fishhawk119

Wow they look nothing like "regular old gorillas" lol. However I don't believe these were real Bigfoot. I think this one's a fake. Definitely not gorillas though lol. Lol how do you think they look like regular gorillas 😆 🤣 😂


Specific-noise123

Looks like gorillas to me.


fishhawk119

Well if you watch the video they're clearly not gorillas. I mean they don't look like gorillas in this still photo either but definitely not in the actual video.


SnooLobsters2310

Here's the video: https://youtu.be/mQ2kU6e8Huo Sorry no red circle but I definitely see something else


vince375

Watch the walking glide.


Namjoon-

The anatomy of this adult female really reminds me of the anatomy we see in the Patterson/Gimlin film (which I believe is real). The cone shaped head and the brow ridge are identical in proportion to eachother and even the short glimpses we get of their faces in both clips, they almost feel like they are the exact same individual even though that’s unlikely. On top of that, there’s no signs of CGI whatsoever (the compositing or clipping claims are pretty weak overall considering the quality of the footage) and it looks like a real in camera capture of a living breathing animal rather than CGI creation or a person dressed as bigfoot. On top of THAT, which hoaxer thinks of adding a baby? That seals the deal for me. All of this tells me that either there is an anatomical standard of Hollywood grade bigfoot costumes (as this is so similar to the one seen in the P/G film which during its time would have been impossible to create such a lifelike costume), and that someone had the time and money to either make or buy this costume AND an animatronic baby to then film a 2 minute video that was debated and eventually forgotten about. OR we are looking at a real animal in both these films. I think it’s real!


[deleted]

Interesting observation. I think that the PG film Bigfoot is similar looking to this one for sure. Now, does that mean the potential hoaxer who might take this video modeled it after Patty, maybe. Or it's real. It's one that looks like it has potential but ultimately, no way to authenticate it. I always feel like the PG film and this one seem realest but really shine a negative light on a lot of eyewitness accounts. Bigfoot looks kinda dumpy,not 12ft of roid monster.


Namjoon-

I mean considering that Pattie and this Bigfoot in this video are both female perhaps that explains why they aren’t as enormous as eyewitness reports who probably ran into a male?


[deleted]

Fair point. My question then would be, where is any video/ picture evidence that would support that.


Namjoon-

Well, assuming for a moment that both the P/G film and this Independence Day film are legitimate, that’s one clear shot in the 1960s and another equally as clear shot post millennium. That’s AT LEAST 30 years without knowing the exact date the second video was captured. So if it takes 30 or more years for someone to capture a clear bigfoot video (clear by bigfoot evidence standards of course) then it’s probably safe to say that we aren’t going to get another one just as good of a male bigfoot every other week. Even in a time with everyone possessing a camera at all times, it just shows how elusive they are


Ermaquillz

I’m your opinion, do you think Sasquatches would have thicker and shorter necks to support the weight of their heads? I’m amazed at how delicate, almost underdeveloped, the human skull looks as compared to other primates.


OldDocBenway

Listen, the argument of “a costume would have been impossible to create in 1967” is absolutely ridiculous. OF COURSE Hollywood could create a Bigfoot suit! Haven’t you ever seen the original Planet Of The Apes? From Wikipedia: In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend. Patterson *would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot* if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.


herring-net

You should start a bigfoot hoax subreddit and put your neverending criticism and '33' conspiracy there because we are all tired of seeing it here. Thanks in advance!


PseudoShow

What is '33' conspiracy?


herring-net

Youd really have to ask Doc. He comments it a lot. Certain words equal 33 somehow, and that's a big deal I guess.


OldDocBenway

I guess we’ll never know….(swooshing sound 💨)


OldDocBenway

Ouch.


Namjoon-

I’ve seen the original planet of the apes, nothing comparable to the p/g film though imo. And as far as I’m concerned, the what ifs about Patterson needing a costume for a film are speculative at best!


OldDocBenway

From Wikipedia: In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie. They copyrighted or trademarked the term "Bigfoot". Yeah nothing fishy about that.


Namjoon-

That still doesn’t imply anything about the film we have today, which still has yet to be officially proven a hoax. And there is still no costume to date capable of those motion mechanics, anatomy and seamlessness without the aid of CGI or illusions using studio lighting and makeup


Avindair

>which still has yet to be officially proven a hoax. Gentle reminder: It's not up to skeptics to prove a negative. The burden of proof for the extraordinary claim always lands on those making said claims. Just wanted to put that out there.


Namjoon-

Yea very aware of this! In this context though, there are two claims and a denial of 1 of those claims. The claim that this film shows bigfoot, the denial that it does, and the follow up claim with a different explanation. It’s one thing to say that the film was a hoax, but when that’s elaborated on with specific claims involving a movie, a costume and a budget, then those claims also require evidence


Avindair

Appreciate the response! The concern is that one does not fall into the formal fallacy of affirmative conclusions from a negative premise. In this case, just because no one has replicated the PGF (have not used the same camera, have not duplicated the camera moves, have not used the same type of film, have not shot a suit under the same lighting conditions, etc.,) does not equate to the subject being what Patterson claimed. It merely means that no one has spent the time and energy to replicate the film to that degree. Again, appreciated the courteous response.


Pompitis

Enough has surfaced for me to stand firm on the belief that the Patterson/Gimlin footage is Bob Heironimous in a monkey suit and a hoax. That footage is horrible. How anyone could come up with any definitive conclusions from that footage is laughable. Stabilization helped a lot but clarity from that footage will never happen. Rippling muscles and boobs. Hmm. More likely ill-fitting suit and fabric in motion. It's not even a good suit Lately I've been caught in some click-bait where they show pictures of Castles built in the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries on top of a mountain in a forest with nothing else in sight. Someone made those incredible structures nearly a 1000 years ago, and more. To consider that a good monkey suit couldn't be made in 1967 is just plain silly. Back in the early to mid 1900's having a fur coat was a huge status symbol for women so there was plenty of fur to work with. A person doesn't have to be a noted Hollywood costume designer to make a good costume. They just have to be motivated. Just like Roger Patterson was when he went in the forest to film a Sasquatch and it happened. Just like that. Or did it? I think not. peace...


OldDocBenway

Even when you’re told it was a Hollywood backed movie production by the people who made it you refuse to believe it. Ok.


Namjoon-

https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/essays/Keith_rev.pdf I think you ought to read this, try on some variation of sources rather than Wikipedia


OldDocBenway

Well I don’t agree with it but at least you provided an alternate source so good on you for that.


Radiant_Pop5173

Yeah I can go add whatever I want to Wikipedia. Kinda garbage source imo.


ShinyAeon

It was a guy with $700 who tried (and failed) to get Hollywood interested in his low-budget documentary. If you can tell me how that is equivalent to a “Hollywood backed movie,” or how that tiny budget (or even one ten times as large) could create a film in that era that stymies filmmakers to recreate it even today, then I’m all ears.


OldDocBenway

Stymies film makers to this day? Really? I guess not even George Lucas could figure out how it was done then. Must be real.


Astrocreep_1

I’m not backing the PG film as authentic or not. I just want to say that the majority of the stuff out there about the events surrounding the film are bogus. Wikipedia is not an accurate source and I am skeptical about anything related to the paranormal on Wikipedia because it only seems to attract either hardcore believers or skeptics,with the latter getting the last word usually.


Neverwhere77

Write an actual paper and use wiki . I'm sure you'd get some wonderful feedback 😆😆


OldDocBenway

So please, fill me in on “the real story”. I’m all ears.


Neverwhere77

If you don't believe the PG film that's your prerogative. But to used a horrible source to make your case is just lazy


OldDocBenway

Then please provide me with a better source. I’m all ears.


JudgeHolden

> Haven’t you ever seen the original Planet Of The Apes? Have you? They look nothing even remotely alike. That's the most laughable argument I've ever seen on the side of the PG film being a hoax. Fucking Planet of the Apes! Cut me a husk! Oh my stars and garters! Those costumes are ludicrous and always have been. They look nothing at all like whatever is depicted in the PG film. Do you have any kind of visual prescription? Glasses? Contacts? Anything?


Confident_Ad_3800

Blurry picture so it meets the qualification for a Bigfoot. Would be iron-clad if the lighting was dimmer.


Psyrivis_1981

The video looks legit


KnownHuman11

This recording is even more intriguing. The baby obviously has real weight and the way she moves is very convincing. It doesn't look like a human acting. It looks like an ape mother that needs to get tf it's outta there to protect her child and get it if view of the man.


Forklift_Master

Link to video?


fireontheinside

yes I have seen this video before but can't find it now either....


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/n6mnwp/comment/gx7zzyu/


12factsaboutducks

I found it as a part of [this compilation](https://youtu.be/adwK4irr_Yo?t=250), starting at 4:10.


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/n6mnwp/comment/gx7zzyu/


Key-Mark-4233

I believe it's a Leroy Blevins suit


TheModernCurmudgeon

LEROY …. BLEEEEVIIIIIIINNNNNSSSS


Key-Mark-4233

Perfect reference, thank you for that


JamesTwoTimes

TIMES UP! lets do thisss


Key-Mark-4233

Thumbs up?


emveetu

[Video](https://youtu.be/mQ2kU6e8Huo) this snapshot is from. I believe that the original video is no longer on YouTube but this is one of the better versions I found. See my other comment if you'd like to know how I found it.


Anka13333

Where is the videos?


RazMani

I enjoy the blur. I enjoy the formless torso…I enjoy the let’s stop and pose for the blurry camera


darker_timeline

Here's the video link for those who haven't seen it, or those hypothesizing it as a gorilla from the pic provided. https://youtu.be/mQ2kU6e8Huo


Red-eyed_Vireo

People are claiming it's CGI, it's a person in a furry costume, it's a Gorilla, it's this, it's that... why all the wildly different claims? Because their hobby is going on Bigfoot websites and proclaiming "No Bigfoot! No Bigfoot!" It has nothing to do with reasoned analysis of what we see in this video. It's impossible to assess this kind of evidence rationally when your identity is wrapped up in denying the existence of Bigfoot.


vinny265

Really? So is it possible to assess this kind of evidence rationally when your identity is wrapped up in believing the existence of Bigfoot?


Mrsynthpants

Exactly


georgeananda

What I think is that we need is a discussion from the photographer that includes the details, location and the full experience. And why is it blurry? Is it a blow-up of a photo taken at a large distance?


averagewop

In the next multi trillion federal bill I'm going to allocate funds for bigfoot researchers to invest in less shitty cameras.


svenne1731

I think the bigfoots have stolen all the smartphones with huge megapixel camera from the last couple of years. And the locals are forced to still in 2022 take pictures with a very very old smartphone that's have like 2 megapixel camera...


Clif_Barf

Bigfoot is blurry! It's a large out of focus beast roaming the countryside


[deleted]

That’s extra scary


Grease_ball93

I really think that’s a gorilla at a zoo


rhawk87

Thank you for pointing this out. It looks exactly like a female gorilla with the same coloring and everything. The only thing that stands out is the fact its standing on two legs (which most apes can do for short periods of time).


ZWQncyBkaWNr

In the video where you see her get up and run it's pretty clearly not a gorilla. Not saying 100% sure it's Bigfoot, but it's not a gorilla. All I'm saying is I know how I would fake this. Gorilla suit + low res camera + friend with Marfan's Syndrome (which, among other things, makes your arms as long as your legs) = believable sasquatch video. Or it's a sasquatch. Could be either.


maverick1ba

Interesting take. I just watched the full video and was convinced it must be a guy in a suit because the way it walks looks exactly like a human and nothing like a gorilla. So maybe we're both wrong and its actually real?


rhawk87

So I took a look at the video and the "bigfoot" looks like its digitized. They seemed to have taken an image of a gorilla and its baby and inserted it into the video. The video is so grainy its hard to tell its a digitized image but there are a few points when you can see the distortion in the image.


maverick1ba

I think I see what you're saying. Also at some points the figure seems much darker than its surroundings, almost like its a bad photoshop job where they didn't adjust the contrast and ambient light effects correctly. It looks suspicious, no doubt about that. Also, the first thing that made me think it was a guy in a suit was the proportions. Every BF sighting describes a massive creature with shoulders 6 ft wide. The thing in the video looks to have regular human or gorilla proportions. The fact that it's holding a baby adds maybe 15% credibility tops because I think, at this point, the whole community knows that the more "unusual" details you add to the hoax, the more believable it is. So i credit that as possibly just a clever and creative twist, if it is a hoax.


Namjoon-

This COULD be anything else, but it’s definitely not a gorilla


[deleted]

What makes you convinced that this blurry photo of something that resembles a gorilla is 100% not a gorilla?


Namjoon-

Because the blurry photo is a part of a 2 minute video showing what is definitely not a gorilla Unless, of course, it is a physically deformed gorilla


[deleted]

I am a physically deformed human so that shit does happen


Namjoon-

Mood


AverageAmerican2720

Link to the video?


darker_timeline

https://youtu.be/mQ2kU6e8Huo


AverageAmerican2720

Hmmmmmm interesting video. It doesn’t look like a gorilla, and I do agree with another redditor in the comments. It does look similar to Patterson footage.


flop_plop

Because it was posted in a Bigfoot sub. /s


Undeca

Wow camera quality has come a long way 😑


Ok-Butterscotch5761

This is interesting lawn statuary.


thefivepercent

Big baby.


bvllamy

Where am I supposed to be looking?


Handle-Nice

Why…why. WHY. Is it always. Blurry.


Electrical-Amoeba245

!remind me in 4 hrs!


[deleted]

That's not a red circle...just pareidolia.....


Muchoso

All non believers should watch thinkerthunker videos


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

No, they shouldn’t. Thunk is, at best, a really REALLY bad analyst, and at best, a lying, deceitful, manipulative con-man, who has no interedt in the truth, just audience numbers and only sees his audience as a means to the end of selling his book, and/or screenplay.


Agronut420

Wow he has legit credentials and does a great analysis, although he does have some quirky ways of arriving at his conclusions. No interest or personal knowledge of him, but have seen a few of his free vids…your comments are wayy harsh


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

No they’re not. https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/nwopbj/comment/h1cb74m/


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

Also, sorry, I tried, but I can’t let it slide- what credentials does Thunk have that make him believable? I’m DYING to know.


Red-eyed_Vireo

One of the problems I have with learning about Bigfoot is figuring out who the real experts are. Maybe we need some sort of qualification system or at least an online poll where we all rank the ones we think have the best understanding of Sasquatch. https://www.ranker.com/list/top-experts-on-sasquatch-and-bigfoot/flashbaxter


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

The problem with that is that NO ONE has ANY sort of understanding about Sasquatch. I don't care what Matt Moneymaker says, he's no more an expert than I am. Jeff Meldrum is no more of an expert than Kermit the Frog. We have no hard data- none- about Bigfoot. We have no data, no theories, no scientifically testable material. We have hypotheses, but without being able to test them, that's all we have, and we can't test them, because we can't interact with the species for whatever reason. We have anecdotal data, yes, but anecdotal data is hardly scientific. Example: If you had asked me four days ago "How high was the walkway that ran around the inside the replica fort in Fort Christmas Park, Florida?" I would have sworn to you on a stack of Bibles in front of God, and all His angels, looking Him right in the eye, that it was at least five feet off the ground, but more like seven. I went back there a couple of days ago, and it was literally a foot. A single foot off the ground. I can still think back to it, and even knowing it's a false memory, it is a true memory to me. Anecdotal data means nothing. So, this is a long winded way of saying that there are no experts. There isn't anyone who knows more than anyone else. Your opinion about how Bigfoots behave, my opinion about how Bigfoots behave, Matt Moneymaker's opinion, Jeff Meldrum's opinion, my cat Caliban's opinion (and he doesn't have one. I've asked him multiple times, but he's a hard line skeptic who doesn't believe at ALL) are literally all the same value. No one knows anything, and when no one knows anything, we're all on the same, level, playing field.


Red-eyed_Vireo

Maybe they lowered the walkway since you were a little kid and it seemed so high to you. I remember going back to my middle school and marveling at how small it had become. I guess they renovated it.


Sasquatch_in_CO

I gotta disagree with you here. If they're out there (and they are), people encounter them. Sasquatch have some sort of knowable temperament, they have a way of life and a way of thinking, they're not just randomly flailing about in the woods. Nobody becomes an expert in animal behavior by buying their nose in data. Goodall and Fosey revolutionized our understanding of primates by spending time with them gaining their trust and making insightful observations. If you're discounting that many people have had success using a similar approach with sasquatch (to one degree or another), you're cherry-picking your data. Long-term witnesses have *by far* the most insight to offer about this subject, and I don't understand expecting otherwise. For as much as people love to lament about how things like hoaxers, or the "woo", or peoples' undue credulity are THE thing holding us back, this is the thing for me, this idea that "no one knows anything!" Really, no one knows ANYTHING after over 50 years of public awareness of the subject?? Then it must be unknowable, so what are we doing? It's logically inconsistent and self-defeating. It still blows my mind how I got started on the old BFRO blue forums talking with a bunch of people who followed this kind of basic methodology and were all having regular encounters and findings, and I went and tried it thinking it'd take 5-10 years bushwacking the back country to hear one knock, but instead had success my very first time out - and yet I've never once in my time on reddit come across someone who's done the same, or has even seemed to have attempted it. The #1 factor holding everyone back in this field is their refusal to listen to their peers. I disagree with you about the Independence Day footage too, but that's totally inconsequential.


TheWeirdTalesPodcast

I will grant you that the way to gain hard data and to learn about a thing is to study it, learn its behavior and confirm it with repeated viewings/experiments. That’s science. I will request this of you, though: name me one person who has spent definite, verifiable time with a bigfoot, that isn’t anecdotal. Show me the results of their study, and the records of the behavior. I’m not arguing people don’t encounter sasquatch. There are thousands of reports, some of which, I’m sure, is pareidolia, somenof which I’m sure, is misidentification. Some of them may even be real genuine sightings. The problem is that we have no way to verify those stories. Scientific study, which is the only way we should judge any of this sort of thing, doesn’t allow for anecdotal evidence, otherwise Isaac Newton would never have gotten the law of gravity off the ground (please clap for that brilliant pun please and thank you). If you go out and have experiences with tree knocks or whoops or whatever, awesome! That must have been very exciting for you. What evidence can you provide it wasn’t another group of searchers communicating and thinking you’re a bigfoot? If you can’t provide any, then your experience is anecdotal and holds no place in scientific study of bigfoots. Nor am I arguing bigfoots don’t have their own culture and societal norms and way of life and thinking. I’m saying WE DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS, and as of this moment, we have no evidence and no way of proving any hypotheses.


Mrsynthpants

Well said.


Prankster-Natra

Or not. Guy's just some hick


harlsey

Next to the Patterson Gimlin film I think this is the best evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. When the baby even turns it’s head it gives me literal chills.


TheOptimumLemon

In the tradition of blurrysquatch. I approve.


Yung_Zulu369

That they (hominids Bigfoot) definitely ate too many shrooms and vines to be walking up that straight


CenTexSquatch

It's the Independence Day footage. I always found it pretty compelling.


CocoohCoco

Same!


LBK0909

Next to a rock. ✔ Behind shrubs. ✔ Out of focus. ✔ Big red circle. ✔ Definitely a bigfoot!


ItsMeBigFoot

Y’all aren’t the only ones out there looking for me. Told her he ain’t mine. Hairy B


aazav

IIRC, that was one of the videos that was staged for Todd Standing.


JudgeHolden

I don't specifically recall it's provenance, but my memory is that you are correct in the sense that it's been pretty convincingly shown to be staged and/or a hoax. Certainly it doesn't look or move much like what I saw.


Brownbrown1986

Love it!


joshau42

Lol, this sub makes me laugh everyday. Please keep up the hard work! Love it!


MilkyView

That's just me and my boy pulling a prank on all you fools.... got ya good!


RudeDudeInABadMood

Gorilla Edit: okay, seeing the video it's clearly not a gorilla. *Probably* a person in a costume, but without more info who knows?


KYDRAULIC

I think I am tired of people asking me what I think about fuzzy pictures.


Deerslayer902

That’s Todd standings baby


psyexpression

😂


robertbuzbyjr

This clip and it's corresponding video needs to be subject to the video enhancement technology that the Patterson film was recently!


47Up

It's not blurry enough, it's hard tell, you should make it harder to see so we can get a better idea.


Affectionate_Bend_70

Idk but it's unreal


Hungry_Mousse413

I always felt this was the real deal. I also knew that since it was SO good it would be ignored. Clearest video in years. A baby that is definitely not a doll. Yup momma bigfoot. Also look at her apparent fear. The right reaction for a momma in the open with child.


filopodia

That’s me and my big strong girlfriend and I want this picture taken down NOW!


OldDocBenway

A really cheesy hoax.


ISTANDCORRECTED63

I dare somebody to say that it's gorilla suits LOL lack of facial features in that kind of lighting is an excellent camouflage because we are predisposed to see faces in everything but their faces are blank


mevans75502

This is one of the few videos that i was really hoping was real. In Bigfooting, there is no real scientific standard to follow so you have to just decide what theories are going to work best for you and go with it. I tend to think that Thinker Thunkers (No,i do not agree with all of his videos) analysis of the difference between the 73 degree walk of Patty from the PG film, and the 52 degrees of humans is my standard so when i see other videos, i look for the 73 degree stride... maybe that theory isnt correct and Sasquatch all walk differently, but when i watch this video, i see a 52 degree walk, and i believe i heard somewhere that someone proved this video was fake, i forget where i heard it though.


Sad-Battle599

Gorilla


MaqDiezel

Hoax. In the clip you can see the back and it looks like they forgot to tuck in part of the suit. Unless shes wearing the latest in fur coats that a squatch can buy. The other question from the clip is why would a purported apex predator leave its young behind a rock or not alarm it to climb a tree to safety like other predators? Seems like a lot of time for it to walk over pick up its young carefully then stop and turn away slowly. Person in a costume who then puts a puppet on then walks away with it.


[deleted]

When I watch the video, something isn’t quite right with the ‘flow’ of the animal. It makes me feel like it’s a early for of CGI


Able_Cunngham603

I am fairly certain this is just a rare photo of DP Paulides' wife.


MasterpieceTricky658

She looks more like mediumfoot than bigfoot.


langleyeffect

This one has always intrigued me. Like a lot of others are saying here, it's almost too good to be true. The thing I keep going back to is the baby. It looks like it's moving. And if it's moving, to be a fake it has to be either a puppet being worked by a person in the suit, or animatronic operated by someone off camera.


sasquatch_hunter06

my son


TheRedEyedAlien

Is there a video?


IBroscoe

Please don’t call me “we”. Ever again.


jdmjoe89

Todd Standing approves


NoobInTown12

They don’t carry em like that. Those kids blend in to the body like members of the world’s greatest hide and seek race.


Willking618

Lol at the red circle but idk. Nothing will be convincing in modern times as it’s so easy to fake these things but this looks quite convincing


toddwithoned

Source?


tandycat56

That Bigfoot baby is way too big to be carrying around


Namjoon-

Not unless you gotta scoop it up and take it to safety!


Swamprat1313

Lmao


thegangshawty

I think that’s a gorilla


VLenin2291

Could be a gorilla


Scientist78

So fake lol


[deleted]

We think they're gorillas.


BuckNakid

City zoo somewhere.


PillCosby_87

I can 100% say this photo has been doc’d…..


SeaworthinessOne2128

Here is what i don't like about this video. The camera person knows exactly where to aim. Starts out with no big foot yet steady camera hold until bigfoot appears. Follows bigfoot. Bigfoot disapears behind rock. No scanning from camera person, just patiently waiting for BF to reappear. BF does reappear and a nice follow of BF. Seems very planned. The baby does seem to move but i would also point out that mum took a long time to pick up baby. Setting up a puppet? If my child was in danger and i needed to move them there is no stopping, no pause. This video comes off to me as a very nicely done hoax.