Bigfoot on video? Memorial Day 1996

[Astrophotographer]

Astro wrote:

The "mask theory" is dead, Astro.
The stills, and logic, finished it off a long time ago....I'm happy to report.

Problems with the mask theory are as follows...

1) A mask would be too small to account for the apparant size of the lifted object.

2) The object first lifts up, then down, and then quickly up again. Why??

3) The object lifts up without the use of any hands. How??

4) The object can be seen, in a few stills, to be slightly behind the subject's head. (Exactly where an infant would be seen, if it were sitting on the subject's shoulders...btw.)

5) The subject's head/face never changes color, even after the supposed mask is taken off.

Lastly...an upcoming problem for the mask theory...a re-creation video will show that a simple mask, at that distance and low-res, would, in fact, be barely visible. It will not match the overall mass of the object seen in the video.

Is that enough for you, Astro?

No, it is not. In such a blurry image, how can you be sure?

1) the apparent size of the "lift" is suppoed to be only 8-inches from what I read. I asked for numbers. You refused. To me 8" is not very big and within the reasonable expectation of a mask. If you can show it is larger than 8" feel free.

2) I am not sure but it could have something to do with the ground beneath the individual since we can not see it. Do you have a topographical of the area we can look at?

3) How do you know there aren't any hands? Can you identify BOTH hands in the images. Feel free to do so.

4) So....How does that mean it would be an infant? How do you know where a bigfoot would put an infant? Considering the blurriness of the image, it could be just about anything.

5) The subjects head is extremely small. Resolution of features is almost impossible at that point. There could be makeup, a beard, or maybe the head is turned away and you are seeing the back of the head.

Feel free to post your recreation video. I can hardly wait....Tick..Tock...The world wonders.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I don't have the time...nor the interest (on this board)...in going over all the other pieces of evidence which are part of the eyewitness testimonies from that day.

Oh...pretty please with sugar on top?

To me that translates into, "I really have nothing but this is a good copout so I don't have to demonstrate that I really have no evidence whatsover for my "bigfoot with an infant" theory."

You started this nonsense about the video. Why not finish it if the evidence is so darn convincing? However, if you are going to provide evidence I suggest you give it to the forum in full and not edited down. Either that or present a source so we can fact check you because right now it appears to be a lot of hot air.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

To me that translates into, "I really have nothing but this is a good copout so I don't have to demonstrate that I really have no evidence whatsover for my "bigfoot with an infant" theory."

I've posted quite a bit about the MD Video on the BFF, under the username "Coolfoot"....and I've posted some more about it at the Mid-America Bigfoot Forum. I'll continue to analyse it, as much as possible, over there. You're welcome to join that board, and I'll discuss it all you want, there.
It just ain't a-happenin' here!

Why not finish it if the evidence is so darn convincing?

Why not? Simple...because of comments like this, from you....

All I keep seeing is your ridiculous animated gifs of blobs.

Like I said earlier...this video is too easy for rabid skeptics to spit on.
You provided an excellent example of that, Astro.


Blackdog wrote:

The only place you would possibly discuss it is in a place where no one disagrees with you. That's called being an intellectual coward Sweaty.

That's not true, Blackdog. I discussed it in the past with 'anyone and everyone' over at the BFF....and I'll discuss it with any member of the Mid-America Board.

I just won't continue to waste a lot of my time discussing it here, where the only response I get is "it's a blob...it could be anything".

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

To me 8" is not very big and within the reasonable expectation of a mask. If you can show it is larger than 8" feel free.

I'm quite sure that a re-creation video, with someone lifting up a mask...shot at the same distance, with the same dark-colored subject, using the same type (and model) camcorder...will show a distinct difference in the apparant size of the mask.

It's one more bit of analysis that can be done to this video....and will be done, someday......though it could be a while.

 

[Blackdog]

Astro wrote:
That's not true, Blackdog. I discussed it in the past with 'anyone and everyone' over at the BFF....and I'll discuss it with any member of the Mid-America Board.

I just won't continue to waste a lot of my time discussing it here, where the only response I get is "it's a blob...it could be anything".

That's the same answer you got at BFF.

Like I said, you are a coward.
At Mid-America you have people that won't challenge you because they believe just about anything. You are the one that brought it up here and now you're afraid to back up your claims.

Your position on this video is toast and you know it, that's why you won't discuss it here or anywhere else.
When was your last post about this on MABRC?

How about Lori's dad? Simple question.
Noll never even gave me a straight answer so I guess I shouldn't expect one from you.

 

[Drewbot]

It's a paintballer.

Morgoth's enhancement showed the guy taking off a mask.

 

[William Parcher]

Watch the "pants". The leggings look baggy all the way to the feet.

 

[Correa Neto]

Astro's posts have a line which summarizes my opinion on all this "the lift" stuff.

This"the lift" sequence may have been created by the film's subject raising his/hers arm. How can this possibility be excluded given the film's extremely poor resolution? Simple, it can not, it was not.

All this "the lift" discussion, all the arguments created to defend the "climbing bigfoot baby theory" seem to be quite silly IMHO... Actually, the whole MDF film is silly…

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm quite sure that a re-creation video, with someone lifting up a mask...shot at the same distance, with the same dark-colored subject, using the same type (and model) camcorder...will show a distinct difference in the apparant size of the mask.

It's one more bit of analysis that can be done to this video....and will be done, someday......though it could be a while.

What??? I was under the impression that you meant a recreation had been done. That tells me:

1) You have not done any real analysis since you can not refute the 8" value being provided by others.

2) That all you have to go on is your gut feel on what you believe the video shows. There is nothing else.

You were the one who came into this forum proclaiming the most likely/best/probable solution to the MD footage was a bigfoot with an infant and your efforts to show any evidence that is convincing is lacking. If you want to run away to the BFF feel free. I just thought that if the evidence was a lot better you could provide a more sound argument. I guess this is why some BF proponents consider this a hoax. At least they are not as gullible as some.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I've posted quite a bit about the MD Video on the BFF, under the username "Coolfoot"....and I've posted some more about it at the Mid-America Bigfoot Forum. I'll continue to analyse it, as much as possible, over there. You're welcome to join that board, and I'll discuss it all you want, there.
It just ain't a-happenin' here!

In other words, you have nothing other than these animated gifs just as I suspected. Your "analysis" and refusal to answer my questions/requests for more evidence demonstrates you have nothing or practically nothing. I will ask again:

1) Topographical map of area/geographic location - I am sure you can provide that if you really are analyzing this event.

2) Lists of eyewitnesses and their testimonies that confirm your theory that it is a bigfoot with a baby. It is never mentioned as the images are being videotaped.

3) Actual analysis that shows where the arms are located, height, distance covered, gait, landspeed. I know these have been calculated before but if you were doing a real analysis, you would want to confirm it with your own math.

I am not going to waste my time wandering about on other forums trying to locate all this information. We are right here waiting for you to make your case. The problem is, you have no case.

 

[William Parcher]

If you want to run away to the BFF feel free.

He can't. He was banned from that forum. The screen name was Coolfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

He can't. He was banned from that forum. The screen name was Coolfoot.

Hey, I can always run away to the Mid-America board....

 

[William Parcher]

Sweaty, this clip halts at the maximum "lift" of something. What happens to that something next (after the clip halt)?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hey, I can always run away to the Mid-America board....

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you are staying, then I say tick..tock... Still waiting for responses to my many requests. You demand I answer questions but dodge mine like the plague. Go figure.

 

[Biscuit]

Honestly all that looks like is some pixilation caused by the subjects head turning. Using my digital camera I have often noticed that objects that are far away will sometimes seem to momentarily grow larger when they move. I think I have some footage of bald eagles near the San Juan islands that demonstrates this that I will look for.

 

[remirol]

How can this possibility be excluded given the film's extremely poor resolution?

Given the resolution of the film, I can't exclude the possibility that this is actually the land-based cousin of the Loch Ness Monster.

It's a black blob with things that could be arms and things that could be legs moving from left to right across the landscape. Everything else is an attempt to see what simply isn't present -- because the detail in the film simply isn't present.

Actually, the whole MDF film is silly…

You misspelled "Blurry" up there. Blobs != Bigfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, this clip halts at the maximum "lift" of something. What happens to that something next (after the clip halt)?

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/CompleteLift1AB.gif

After that point, the subject/lifted object continues to look basically the same, for several more steps as it disappears into the trees.

Here is another short animated-gif, which shows the object bending forward, as the subject's arm is swinging. The clip is 4 frames....it first runs forward, and then in reverse....

The first frame...

Here it is enlarged, darkened, and outlined...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you are staying, then I say tick..tock... Still waiting for responses to my many requests. You demand I answer questions but dodge mine like the plague. Go figure.

I was only joking about "running away", Astro. But, I have a very limited amount of time to post here. I'll try to respond to more of your comments and questions....but you'll have to patient.

 

[SweatyYeti]

What??? I was under the impression that you meant a recreation had been done. That tells me:

1) You have not done any real analysis since you can not refute the 8" value being provided by others.

I sure have done some analysis, Astro. I've yet to see anything in the way of counter-analysis from you, though.

I'm not refuting that 8" figure....I think it's a good approximation of the lift height.

2) That all you have to go on is your gut feel on what you believe the video shows. There is nothing else.

No....I've based my assessment of the 'most likely' scenario on many pieces of evidence surrounding this video/sighting. I won't go over it all again, right now.....but I will respond to specific questions about my analysis, when I have the time to do so.

 

[Drewbot]

Just to clarify Sweaty's position-

1. 95 People on that hill didn't see bigfoot
2. The thing was slower than a human
3. You can see a jacket flopping behind it
4. You can see it remove a mask

And you think the 'Most Likely' explanation is that it is an Unclassified, Hairy, Bipedal, Adolescent, Babysitting, ELUSIVE, primate, running across an open hillside, in broad daylight?