Since film footage of what is said to be a Bigfoot was first reported on April 19,05, skeptics and believers alike have been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to view the video.
After two weeks of speculation on the video`s validity, those interested will finally be able to judge for themselves. A spokesperson for the syndicated show A Current Affair, has confirmed that they have purchased rights to broadcast the Bigfoot video filmed in Norway House, Manitoba, on two occasions. The first broadcast is set for tomorrow, May 4,05, the second will be a repeat of the same episode.
On April 16,05, ferryman Bobby Clarke noticed a large dark figure on the opposite bank of the Nelson river, where he was working. Grabbing his video camera, which he`d made a habit of bringing with him where ever he went, Mr.Clarke was able to film the figure for almost three minutes. (Other reports claim the video is aprox. 30 seconds long). Original article on the story.
The Bigfoot Field Research Organization director, Matt Moneymaker, has previewed a copy of the original video, and has posted some of his observations on the BFRO website.
"For those of us who have been studying authentic footage and debunking bogus footage for a long time, the full circumstances of this incident point to a credible encounter,"
"The figure in the footage is definitely :
1) Not an illusion created by a play of light and show (i.e. not a "blobsquatch").
2) Not a bear, or any other large, known, native species.
3) Not a composited, fabricated image.
4) A dark, upright, primate figure, with arms and legs somewhat like a human, standing on a riverbank.
5) Either a human or a sasquatch, but among those two candidates it is not clearly one or the other, due to the bluriness of the footage."
1) Not an illusion created by a play of light and show (i.e. not a "blobsquatch").
2) Not a bear, or any other large, known, native species.
3) Not a composited, fabricated image.
4) A dark, upright, primate figure, with arms and legs somewhat like a human, standing on a riverbank.
5) Either a human or a sasquatch, but among those two candidates it is not clearly one or the other, due to the bluriness of the footage."
Moneymaker states that although there are a few seconds at the beginning where the tape is fairly clear, once Mr.Clarke zooms in, the video becomes blurry. The blurriness, he explains, is probably due to the auto-zoom on the video camera focusing in on some branches in the forefront. For more details visit the BFRO- Manitoba Sighting page.
Franklin Ruehl, a Glendale, California based sasquatch researcher was notably impressed after viewing the video.
"It was an exciting moment. I saw an intriguing entity that certainly appeared to be an ape-like human hybrid," ... "I'm most impressed with this tape. It's one more piece of evidence that these entities exist." - The Winnipeg Sun
The story has sparked some interesting, and informative debates on the Bigfoot phenomena.
Unfortunately, because most Canadians don`t have access to the Fox TV channel A Current Affair airs on, those interested in viewing the Clarke video will have to make due with a video clip to be posted on their website the day following the broadcast.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Loren Coleman
As with any initial screening of a video, there may be great anticipation and so folks will be excited, others disappointed when the Bobby Clarke footage is shown. But patience and further analysis is what we lead to more important, long-term data from this event. If two minutes and 49 seconds of this Sasquatch were caught on tape, and only a few seconds are being initially screened, expect more discussion of the rest of the tape, computer enhancements, and refinements. Don't jump to conclusions with this first viewing.
Loren Coleman, author, Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (2003)
2 - Bobbie Short
You can have all the discussion in the world on this film but it will not resolve the issue of 'lack of definition and detail' worth indepth study. The film is not of the quality one would hope for to increase support for the existence of this creature. The best evidence we have is the Patterson film, the Manitoba film falls short in revealing the evidence we have garnered from the Pat Film but it joins a long list of 'might have been and also ran film footage and stills.'
Bobbie Short
Bigfoot Encounters
http://www.bigfootencounters.com
3 - Doug Hannan
If the best evidence for Bigfoot is the Patterson film, then there is very little evidence. The creature in Patterson's films was Bob Heironimus as he has confessed. This has been confirmed by other witnesses.
4 - Michael V
this is all hogwash
5 - Devin Carlson
I agree with Doug H.
The patterson film was nothing more than Bobby dressed up in "The outfit".
So it was reffered to by all those idiots.
Hopefully this new piece of footage is a little more credible,but it won't be.
Until we have a dead or alive one in our possesion,Bigfoot will keep us laughing at the believers for decades to come! Ha-Ha-HA-HAeeeeeeEEEa.
6 - D-Man
RRIIGGHHTT!?
7 - cymbala(a.k.a.Mean Morgan)
Time will tell.Many more witnesses than films or videos.
8 - Kevin
Interesting how footage of 'bigfoot' is always such poor quality that it's impossible to actually draw any real conclusions.. especially when any Tom Dick or Harry can go out and buy a camcorder or digital camera these days that will deliver superior quality images in just about any situation. Almost makes you think that.. hey wait, this IS all a ridiculous joke!
Bunch of charlatans.
9 - Eric Olsen
thanks Annie, really appreciate your staying on top of the story - makes me feel tingly
10 - Sasha Leiter
Actually they've proven that there's no way the guy who confesed to being in the suit could have been the guy in the suit. His body shape and type are all wrong, and if he had been wearing that costume, it would have looked a lot more fake, he wasn't tall enough to have the kind of leg stride that the creature had.
Also about 20 or so people have said it was them in the video, so each ones claims are pretty suspect.
11 - Nigel Pond
It will be interesting to see Fox's editorial approach to this story. Fox is after all the same network that brought you Alien Autopsy and that has provided a soap-box for the moon-landing-was-a-fake nutters..er conspiracy theorists...
12 - Annie
"A Current Affair" has posted a clip of the Manitoba Bigfoot footage.
13 - Eric Olsen
"Also, the ex-wives club, day 3, on A Current Affair!"
14 - Doug Hannan
They paid six figures for that!!!?????
To the video store, to the costume shop, to the woods!
15 - Dave Nalle
That's the video? That guy could be not even wearing a costume. You can't see any details at all. He could be wearing an anorak.
Dave
16 - Eric Olsen
the preview clip looks like a mosaic at the bottom of a swimming pool
17 - Eric Olsen
has it aired yet?
18 - Nancy
I've seen sonograms that looked better than that to me - and I can't read sonograms. What a disappointment. Oh, well...as Doug says, to the woods!
19 - Annie
It airs tonight,Eric.
I don`t know...I find it had to believe that that`s the best they`ve got, especially if the rumors of a six figure deal are true.
Bobby Clarke stated that the figure turned to look at him, which would mean he could see the figure clearly enough to see it turn it`s head, and actually face him. Logic tells me there`s more to see than just a blurry blob in the distance.
Since I don`t get the channel, I`ll have to check in here to get the scoop after it`s aired.
20 - Eric Olsen
aah, thanks, you're probably right - what their showing now is just a shadowy teaser ("sonogram" - great one Nancy!)
21 - Bubbles
I seen a samsquanch like that but bigger over by Lahey's the other night. He was lookin for cheeseburgers, I think, but he ran off when that drunken bastard near ran him down with his car.
22 - Nancy
If I stopped to think about it for 1/2 a sec, I would have realized of COURSE they're not going to put the best shot out in public for everyone to see before they've aired the show! Arg (slap on forehead)! Sorry, all, for stupid comment @ sonogram.
23 - keith
hey its 2005 and reports have been around since begining of time.....where's the beast ...shouldnt it be in a zoo by now??haha hee hee ho
get real already
24 - James
Bigfoot enthusiasts,
Read the letter below by a physician, in response to a Washington man claiming to be the guy in the suit in the 1967 Patterson film..
Dear Editor,
I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was
the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of
my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus;
allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the
film, you are a fool's fool. I have had the opportunity to examine
the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a
suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor
would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and
prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus
is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined
the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area
of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this
is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the
guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?
The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some
primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility
that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the
P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably
in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it
were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to
replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the
film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent
contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human
walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper
leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less
contrive.
Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is
the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected? Ah..
the mystique of it all.
Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist
Submitted by mikeymike
25 - Mike
Still to this day they find previously unknown species of animals, plants, insects. Why not something that our little closed minds couldn't fathom? Each and every person who has ever witnessed one must be seeing things. Crazy attention whores.