Bobby Clarke Bigfoot Video - Don't Believe the Hype!? - Comments Page 7

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 276 - JP

  May 10, 2005 at 11:10 am

  Actually the complete opposite is true. If there really is a bigfoot roaming around Norway House, who is putting it in more danger, the knukleheads from ACA trying to hunt it down or me sitting here laughing my ass off?
  
  Actually, that supports my argument. Those ACA guys are up there filming Jackass II because they don't really think it exists. If they did they would send zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists.
  
  Pascals Wager works neither for God nor for Bigfoot.
  
  Actually I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before but it's a great read. Thanks for the reference. I'd like to know more about why you think it doesn't apply but that doesn't fall into the scope of this forum.
  
  PS - I think big part of the problem is the name 'Bigfoot'. It conveys a sense of make-believe, like 'bogeyman' or 'wolf-man'. Perhaps if we used a more scientific term it would be taken more seriously.

• 277 - The Unsilent Majority

  May 10, 2005 at 11:24 am

  There is proof of the existence of sasquatch's in one single book alone: [Big Footprints, by Dr. Grover S. Krantz].
  It states several complete and obvious facts...definitive proof why many different footprints could not have been faked. And no one, can argue those facts with any reasons....without sounding like a totally desperate and grasping incompetent bigmouthed uneducated ass.

• 278 - The Unsilent Majority

  May 10, 2005 at 11:32 am

  JP
  
  Since WHEN do children and morons take anything more seriously if you give them a scientific term instead?

• 279 - gridbug

  May 10, 2005 at 11:52 am

  Actually, I think the usage of a more scientific name is a pretty good idea. If we were talking about a possible Gigantopithicus Blacki sighting in Manitoba, it might be taken seriously. Big words seem to impress smaller minds.
  
  "Gigantowhatnow?"
  
  

• 280 - Doug H

  May 10, 2005 at 1:30 pm

  Actually, that supports my argument. Those ACA guys are up there filming Jackass II because they don't really think it exists. If they did they would send zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists.
  If zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists thought it was worth going up there they would go.
  
  Actually I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before but it's a great read. ...I'd like to know more about why you think it doesn't apply.
  Because the "you have nothing to lose if you believe" part of the argument is false.
  
  The Unsilent Majority wrote:
  And no one, can argue those facts with any reasons....without sounding like a totally desperate and grasping incompetent bigmouthed uneducated ass.
  If the debate on this thread is going to sink to this level I see no reason to continue posting. You do not do your side any favors with your last 2 posts.

• 281 - JP

  May 10, 2005 at 2:05 pm

  Since WHEN do children and morons take anything more seriously if you give them a scientific term instead?
  -Unsilent Majority
  
  Happens all the time. What would you take more seriously? Mad Cow Disease or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy?
  
  Also, I realize you're on the same side of the debate as I am, but I don't agree with your name-calling. There is no reason for it and it really makes you sound less credible, as if you're calling people names because you have nothing logical to argue with.

• 282 - JP

  May 10, 2005 at 2:11 pm

  If zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists thought it was worth going up there they would go.
  -DougH
  
  They don't go because they believe it doesn't exist. I think that too supports my earlier argument.
  
  Because the "you have nothing to lose if you believe" part of the argument is false.
  -DougH
  
  I'd like to hear what you think I'm losing by choosing to sit in the Believers section. (Yes, it's a choice for me because I really don't know either way)

• 283 - Doug H

  May 10, 2005 at 4:54 pm

  They don't go because they believe it doesn't exist. I think that too supports my earlier argument.
  
  I agree with your first sentence. I don't quite understand your second.Are you referring to this:
  I think the safe side to err on is to say that it might be real. The burden of proof should not lie on the believers.
  
  The problem with this position is that you are asking non-believers to do the impossible: Prove a Negative. You cannot PROVE God, Bigfoot, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy DON'T exist. You can be fairly sure, but you can't prove it for certain. This is why the burden of proof MUST always be on the believers.
  
  I'd like to hear what you think I'm losing by choosing to sit in the Believers section. (Yes, it's a choice for me because I really don't know either way)
  Hey! You sound more like a skeptic now. A skeptic is open to either position. Skeptics are like people from Missouri "Show Me". A believer has closed his mind off to the possibility his belief is wrong. A believer has difficulty answering the question: "What would it take for you to change your belief." A skeptic can answer easily.

• 284 - td

  May 11, 2005 at 10:39 am

  I'm not going to argue the T.U.M. I've already pointed out repeatedly why footprints alone, no matter how numerous, are not definitive evidence. One anthropologist may not agree with me, but hundreds of others do. Just because you have a degree doesn't make you immune to mistakes.
  
  
  
  Concerning Pascals Wager, 'what harm does it do to believe?'
  
  As already stated, this approach detracts from the scientific process. Scientists gather evidence, examine it, and then hypothesize what the evidence is. If you approach evidence wih a pre-determined hypothesis you are more likely to close your mind to other possible explanations of the evidence.
  
  For ex: Not everybody who witnesses a bigfoot howl in the night is an anthropologist who can tell the difference between the call of an unknown species and that of an injured bear. If the witnesses go in believing that bigfoot exists in the area, they will probably assume that what they heard was bigfoot, and as such will not report it to state rangers, but rather to someone like the BFRO. If everybody who hears these calls does the same, the state rangers may not become aware of a local hunter who is placing illegal bear traps out in the wild.
  
  The point is, if you don't examine the evidence with an open mind, you can come to false conclusions, and these conclusions may overlook an actual problem that could have been resolved.
  
  Therefore, is it harmful that BF believers are examining forest samples? Well, I think all rape victims that don't report it right away are faking it. Should I reconsider my choice to become a police detective. I mean, what harm does it do to believe?

• 285 - Doug H

  May 11, 2005 at 4:37 pm

  I think Professor Farnswoth put it best:
  
  Sal: Yeah. Have yous ever seens Bigfeet?
  
  Park: Technically no. But I do see him each night in my dreams and each day in the silent faces of hairy children.
  
  [Farnsworth stands up and shakes his fist.]
  
  Farnsworth (shouting): Bunk! Bunk I say! Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot's droppings or shut up!
  
  Park [holding up a bag]: I have the droppings of someone who saw Bigfoot.

• 286 - digger

  May 12, 2005 at 6:34 pm

  I feel sorry for Bobby Clarke. He evidently saw something, filmed it as best he could, can't explain it, and would like some answers. Too bad he didn't retain control over the situation, letting his elders (wiser?)do the negotiating. The choice they made has made an absolute farce out of this entire event. The ACA got involved, and televised that blurry film clip, then announcing the "expedition". What a farce. The one ACA update I've bothered to watch was ludicrous.
  
  But worse, the discussion on this blogsite is dropping to new levels. This is all quickly becoming stale old news. The media coverage of this event has dropped to nil.The only recent bright spot was the interview by the radio station in The Pas, which was a lot more professional and informative than that silly ACA coverage.
  
  All of this leaves me with a sense of sadness about the way the whole thing has transpired, and is becoming a turn-off. I wonder why(!)Can't anyone say or do something constructive? How does Bobby Clarke feel about this? (the real one, that is)
  
  - digger
  
  

• 287 - Annie

  May 12, 2005 at 7:49 pm

  I agree digger. What should be focused on is the sighting itself, rather than the manner it was presented to the public.
  
  The most compelling element of the sighting is the height of the figure. I`ve heard from a few residents of NH who have seen the video, that the figure must have stood between 9-10 feet tall.
  
  The ACA did re-trace the steps of the "bigfoot", using a man in it`s stead. In doing so, they should be able to judge the aprox. height of the figure. I have also been told that a second group, apart from the ACA crew, were planning on doing the same.
  
  Now, say the height does fall into the 10 foot range...How would one go about hoaxing this? Anyone have any reasonable suggestions?
  
  
  
  

• 288 - Doug H

  May 12, 2005 at 8:06 pm

  How does Bobby Clarke feel about this? (the real one, that is)
  He's crying all the way to the bank.
  
  Now, say the height does fall into the 10 foot range...How would one go about hoaxing this?
  I thought about this for a long time and I'm stilt, oops, I mean still stumped. I guess this is the proof we've all been waiting for at last. I mean how can science NOT accept this now as the definitive proof?
  

• 289 - goodstory

  May 12, 2005 at 8:51 pm

  The A Current Affair Bigfoot expedition team will reveal its findings at a noon news conference in Los Angeles tomorrow.
  
  They will also present evidence to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for analysis.
  
  (location of news conference: where else? The Bigfoot Lodge.)
  
  

• 290 - Doug H

  May 12, 2005 at 9:34 pm

  I heard they have a bag full of Bobby Clarke's droppings. Metaphorically at least.

• 291 - JRG

  May 12, 2005 at 10:14 pm

  So DougH, you really believe someone could wade through 4 feet of water along a riverbank which is most likely muddy and debris filled while wearing stilts and a fur covered monkey suit?
  
  Talk about denial! Doug, we all know you are absolutely convinced this is a hoax and Bigfoot can't, doesn't, and never did exist, so why are you hanging around? You just like to stir up trouble I think.

• 292 - Annie

  May 12, 2005 at 10:18 pm

  Thanks goodstory.
  
  Okay, Doug, stilts. How? Say we have a ten foot creature. In the video, you can make out the bend at the knee as it walks. This would mean that even a 7 foot man, would have to be wearing 3 foot stilts strapped to his calves. Add three feet to his own (a rough guess)3.5 foot long calves, and that would add up to 6.5 feet from his knees to his feet. Proportionately, I would think that this would result in an extremely odd looking Bigfoot.
  
  Additionally, this man would have to manage to walk fairly gracefully (from what we can make out from the video)on three foot stilts on sand, and rocks.
  
  Now was it actually on land? According to Sharness Henry, Bobby Clarke`s sister, there is no land along that stretch of the river. The tree line stops at the waters edge, and drops immediately to a 4 foot depth.
  
  If this is the case, our man in stilts would now have to walk in silt. The only way I can imagine this being done without sinking, would be to add some kind of feet, or platforms to the bottom of the stilts. Can you imagine the resistance 4 feet of water would have on these contraptions strapped to his calves? I would think that this would result in an obviously awkward gait,that`s if it`s actually possible.
  

• 293 - Sharness Henry

  May 12, 2005 at 10:41 pm

  i wish i could show the video to people who didnt get enough on the ACA show because they did do a crappy job at the video....... it looks WAY WAY better on my TV :)

• 294 - digger

  May 12, 2005 at 10:49 pm

  Thank you, Annie and goodstory. This type of information/discussion is useful.
  
  - digger

• 295 - Doug H

  May 12, 2005 at 11:43 pm

  The most compelling element of the sighting is the height of the figure.
  The video is so blurry even believers admit it could easily be a large man. The margin of error in determing the creature's height from the video will easily encompass this possibility. Actually I don't believe this was a stilt hoax either - just threw it out as a posible explanation if someone wanted to stage something like this. So I'm betting on the large man explanation.
  One explanation often given for Bigfoot's "non-discovery" to date, is their notorious shyness. Why then was he sauntering along the shoreline in view of a ferry heading towards a road. If the ferryman could see him, I'm sure he could see the much larger ferry even sooner, so why didn't he just skeedaddle?
  
  Talk about denial! Doug, we all know you are absolutely convinced this is a hoax and Bigfoot can't, doesn't, and never did exist, so why are you hanging around? You just like to stir up trouble I think.
  Apart from the occasional lapse into sophomoric humor, which is my weakness, I have tried to make some serious and sincere contributions to this blog. If you want me to go away so you and your fellow believers can wallow in your mutually-reinforcing speculations, so be it. Just be aware that you will still have to answer the same points I raise if you ever want to be taken seriously outside this little enclave.

• 296 - bigfoot

  May 13, 2005 at 3:18 am

  Roooaaaaarrrrrr!
  I bigfoot. I eat allllll!
  Holy Cragstan monkey commands it!

• 297 - DavoMan

  May 13, 2005 at 4:17 am

  Okay for a start - video camera lenses always exadurate distance. Especially when using zoom. The filmer had a MUCH better view of the creature than the camera does.
  
  "All I could see was this figure. I knew it couldn't be a man. It was a little too large to be a man."
  
  In the words of Penn & Teller: BULLSHIT!
  
  Hell. Amagine if the camera was in focus. How freaking clear would it be?? He saw it in focus, and seemingly MUCH closer than we are. Geez.
  
  My statement is neither for or against. I simply state that the filmer has a MUCH better view than we do.
  
  We are looking at an extreme zoom. Our field of vision is very narrow. We cannot judge the surroundings against the size of the figure without some math since it is warped.
  
  Hey I'm only an amature and even I realise this crap. Come on, think about this and stop calling Duggie names.

• 298 - Bigfoot

  May 13, 2005 at 6:20 am

  Bigfoot need food!
  Believers feed bigfoot or eat!
  Will carry out prime doctrine of church of Cragstan until feed!

• 299 - bigfoot

  May 13, 2005 at 2:30 pm

  No feed?
  Now eat believers. Not eat nice skeptics, they leave bigfoot alone, but believers come with cameras and annoy bigfoot, so I eat.
  
  *eats believers*
  
  
  

• 300 - bill green

  May 13, 2005 at 7:00 pm

  hi everyone good evening has there been any tv or radio interviews with bobbi clarke about his sasquatch filmfootage this week. has there been any newer reports in manitoba of sasquatch creatures or its footprints sounds. i wonder if bobbi clarke will write a book about his encounter. thanks bill green

• 301 - digger

  May 14, 2005 at 1:32 pm

  For what its worth - a news item about the infamous Current Affair expedition: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/05/14/1039268-sun.html
  
  -digger
  
  

• 302 - Doug H

  May 14, 2005 at 2:14 pm

  A Bigfoot expedition team assembled by American tabloid news program A Current Affair discovered "physical evidence" such as hair strands, abnormal sized footprints and an alleged Bigfoot feeding ground.
  Bunk! Bunk I say! Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot's droppings or shut up!
  
  

• 303 - bill green

  May 21, 2005 at 5:50 pm

  hi everyone good evening so has bobbi clarke been interviewed by any radio shows etc this weekend. also any new manitoba sasquatch sightings lately. please keep me posted. bill green

• 304 - Kimosabe

  May 22, 2005 at 12:18 am

  also any new manitoba sasquatch sightings lately
  
  May long weekend in Canada here. Heap big drinking in woods. Many sightings likely.

• 305 - bill green

  May 23, 2005 at 7:50 pm

  WOW i see that there is alot updates about the manitoba sasquatch tonight. please keep me posted ok. thanks bill green ct sasquatch researcher

• 306 - digger

  May 24, 2005 at 9:19 pm

  I see this blogsite has petered out. I think I'll move over to http://www.wriversasquatchassoc.net/ to get the goods, instead of this drivel.
  
  Bye.
  
  Digger

• 307 - Sharness Henry

  May 25, 2005 at 1:34 am

  just go to "tracking Manitobas bigfoot" more news there than in here!

• 308 - Gdub

  May 31, 2005 at 3:14 pm

  Well, I've never seen a blog about something local last 308 posts, even though 100+ were not necessary, such as this one. Perhaps this is the last we'll hear about bigfoot in Manitoba??? Not that I WANT it to be, but how long can ACA hold ANY story? It would be a different story if the research was committed by adequate professionals, and not some monday-morning, water-cooler exploitation squad, such as ACA. I hope they get to the bottom of the video, if they don't someone else will have to conduct a re-enactment, or etc. in hopes of validating the video. This feels like ACA is like the government, hiding JFK information. But at least we know there WAS another shooter(s). Hey....could have been biggie...?

• 309 - bill green

  Jun 04, 2005 at 8:15 pm

  hi researchers good evening so has bobby clarke been interviewed by other news or radio networks also he been interviewed about his footage by other sasquatch organizations etc. bill green please keep me posted.

• 310 - DMCC

  Jun 08, 2005 at 2:09 pm

  This video I've seen is more than creepier than other footage that has ever been released, maybe you watch to much Simpsons but in order to believe you have to live it come to the true white north and search yourself maybe you'll find BIGFOOT in your own back yard. Yes there has been many sightings in Northern Manitoba, Just hook up with Dennis Flett he'll show you where he's at he will be your guide.
  
  Thanks
  
  Storm Cloud

• 311 - gdub

  Jun 17, 2005 at 4:46 am

  Is this blog finally dead?

• 312 - Patsy

  Jul 13, 2005 at 3:15 pm

  So how can we watch this BigFoot video? Please tell us where this can be located?
  
  

• 313 - Bill Blake

  Jul 25, 2005 at 6:46 am

  Annie,
  
  Since advanced language skills are supposedly one of the traits that separate humans from animals such as bigfoot, could you please learn the difference between the words its and it's?
  
  Bill

• 314 - DRUNKWAGONBURNER

  Jul 27, 2005 at 10:12 pm

  A little late for the insults, there, Bill. Complaining about how one types is not the way to go about the internet. Did you JUST discover the act of posting in forums, message boards and chat rooms? Don't worry, they have many books out there for people like you, maybe you should read one of them, considering you're quite the grammar buff.
  
  Take care. ITS a crazy world out there. Idiot.....

• 315 - Saz Quatch

  Aug 25, 2005 at 11:16 am

  Hi. I am Bigfoot. I wish everyone here would just leave me and Mrs. Foot alone and let us live in our cave. We don't bother you, except maybe to steal an occasional pudding can from one of your camps. So please let me and my wife and my son Cleetus alone.
  
  Thanks. Oh, and by the way, the Patterson film is a fake. I've seen it. We do not look like that. NO WAY is my butt that big!
  

• 316 - Psycroptic

  Nov 01, 2005 at 12:44 am

  "Hey, Nick. Skeptical Inquirer happens to be one of the best magazines going. - that is of course unless you are a bigfoot/Loch Ness monster/aliens/ghosts...believing moron."
  
  LOL, what a retard!!
  If you don't believe in those thinhs WHY THE F**K WASTE TIME READING ARTICLES DEBUNKING THEM??
  What a total ass;)
  Must be Andy Rooney's son, living just to bitch and gripe.

• 317 - TJ

  Nov 12, 2005 at 1:11 am

  I find it interesting how people are easily deceived. However, being naive is also a bit precocious. I agree we have no scientifically definitive proof. Although, ask yourself this. How many airplanes have went down over the NW United States in the past 50 years? Out of those, how many were not ever found? " Do the research, then ask yourself one more question. If there has been ___ airplanes that have crashed in the mountains of the northwestern United States and were never found, how do you think you could find a bipedal humanoid who lives in the forest. After all, a airplane wont move, hide and certainly would be obvious to the naked eye in trees etc. This is my two cents worth anyway. All I’m saying is too not completely close your mind. Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Decent With Modification and at the time everyone laughed at it. Take a look at the fossil record (takes some time "not just the basics). There’s a approximately 300,000 years with no fossil record then modern day human shows up and with two less chromosomes than prior hominids. Whatever your opinion might be, please do at least some research and then decide for yourself. Until definitive proof is entered into some museum we will never know for sure, or will we?

• 318 - paul garnett

  Jan 17, 2006 at 11:27 am

  For people who do not beleive in Saquatch or other phenomena, i have this to say. Christaians have beleived in God without ever seeing him or touching him. they beleive the Bible holds truth. Well read it again!!! The Bible talks quite frequently about starnge phenomena. To beleive that Humans are the only life in the universe is utterly ridicoulous. Sasquatch is real. He has been here for perhaps as long as 30-40 million years. just as we did, he evolved, he has not reached his evolutionary brink. Why is it so hard for people to accept this? do research as I have and you will discover that almost every year new species of plants and animals are coming to attention. Ever go hunting deer with a helicopter and a few dogs? ever see or find an animal by making lots of noise? Nope didn't think so. Leave an animal carcass in the woods for a few days and then let me know if you find it. Duh stop asking stupid questions and do research stop being afraid of being related to Apes and realize you are!!!!

• 319 - Nate

  Feb 12, 2006 at 1:19 am

  you guys suck

• 320 - charlie

  Nov 21, 2006 at 12:06 pm

  I saw a web site that showed the big foot patterson film frame by frame real clearly. showed his buttcheeks flew while walking. Also showed her knee buckle. If anyone can give me that address again I will be greatful. I was drunk while viewing it and forgot to bookmark.

• 321 - Brady Thesing

  Sep 05, 2007 at 4:31 pm

  When i got home to my logde in British Columbiai saw a big hairy freak with broad shoulders, he was about 10ft tall and he smelled me and he ran away.

• 322 - jim

  Mar 03, 2009 at 11:37 pm

  You people are crazy. Bigfoot got some good pussy.

• 323 - golfstar17

  Sep 08, 2009 at 7:59 pm

  i think sydney is correct... and he apologized for being rude. there is no possible way for a species to erase all evidence of itself - unless it were super intelligent. and if it is so intelligent, would it not have appraoched US by now?

• 324 - golfstar17

  Sep 08, 2009 at 8:03 pm

  all you beleivers have too little faith in our god-given instructions to be rulers of this planet

• 325 - Dave

  Oct 01, 2009 at 11:34 pm

  It wasn't until 4 or 5 years ago that the "rumors" of wolverines in the washington cascades were proven to be true. Same with the Compi, the Panda, and the mountain gorilla, the best evidence that these animals exist is that they are doing a good job of hiding from us, especially people like sydney