Swamp Ape/ Bigfoot... Some compelling video taken in Jan 2015.

I've just read article at huffingtonpost, quote:

In addition to sending his video to HuffPost, McKamey also gave it to a website called Bigfoot Evidence. They, in turn, forwarded it to Phil Poling...

Original video appeared first Jan. 25 on Cryptozoologynews and Bigfootevidence. Why huffingtonpost releases this compelling video only today, 7 days later? And why Matth opens his full name only to huffingtonpost?

Another quote from huffingtonpost claimed as Matth's words:

"Where the video cut off is basically where I stopped taping. We wanted to leave and I couldn't do both video and row."

- so he left the place right after taking video?

But in Cryptozoologynews he says that they decided to approach and examine:

We paddled up and didn’t see anything. No sign of it. The water where it disappeared went from about 4 feet deep to about 10. My paddle couldn’t reach bottom with my arm fully extended

Looks like Huffingtonpost didn't see article at Cryptozoology and decided to write story based on Bigfootevidence story which is slightly shorter.

And another interesting quote from Cryptozoology:

On a call to the Lettuce Lake Park staff, a park ranger told Cryptozoology News that they are “not allowed to talk about the park during winter time” and that we “need to understand this.”

originally posted by: lizzard
Another quote from huffingtonpost claimed as Matth's words:

"Where the video cut off is basically where I stopped taping. We wanted to leave and I couldn't do both video and row."

- so he left the place right after taking video?

But in Cryptozoologynews he says that they decided to approach and examine:

We paddled up and didn’t see anything. No sign of it. The water where it disappeared went from about 4 feet deep to about 10. My paddle couldn’t reach bottom with my arm fully extended

Looks like Huffingtonpost didn't see article at Cryptozoology and decided to write story based on Bigfootevidence story which is slightly shorter.

To paddle forward was to paddle in the general direction he went. There is no contradiction.

If it's authentic it's amazing. If it's fake it's amazing. You wouldn't catch me dead walking through that swamp.

a reply to: TheJourney

Contradiction is between "We wanted to leave" and Cryptozoology version where they approached the place wher BF passed and started measuring water depth.


I don't know if it was mentioned. Start watching @1:57, Bigfootevidence version. You can see BF bends over to the left behind the large tree like if he is hiding or examining roots. This moment is hard to spot.

Holy Sh%t I have to quit looking at this video....it amazes me what the power of suggestion can conjure up in a mind. Now when I went back and looked at the video I saw it in an all together different light. I see that what appeared to be the "baby" being set down is just the man's legs extending into the water...followed by him scooching off whatever he was squatting down on into the water and yes it appears that he must have picked up some type of creature with a wagging tail. That's my story and I'm sticking to it and leaving...... I got a good laugh out of myself on this one.

a reply to: thepixelpusher
Well in the other article he clearly says he is not willing to go back. So that about sums it up. I still dont see no baby being droped in the water then scoped up again, I mean something is hitting the water but it looks like his leg. And I think it was obvious from the first that whoever was filming there was another guy in around, you can hear them, there the one who says "lets go" or "lets get out of here" or something like that.

And if it was a trapper, do you think he would be on a log or big tree root out there picking up his trap? No they would likely used a boat, not even a canoe as those things cant hold much. And even if it was a trapper I dont think he would just be walking in the swamp. Generally from what I understand they come there in the motor boats, set traps. Come back in a few hours or the next day and pull it up into boat. Even if for some crazy reason the trapper decided to walk into the swamp to set his traps, whats he going to do. Walk for milles through it pulling whatever he caught back. Not likely.

Which is why I said if this guy gave the location it would answer a lot of things, even if it could have been a guy in a suit out there. If its more closer to land or not that far in. Ya! I suppose somebody could have gone in there, but I dont think most would go past knee deep water or past sight of land into the swamp, even trappers or hunters, not on foot.

Holy smokes, this guy see's a supposed bigfoot and he clams up on details. Supposedly, he's too shook up to talk much about it, sure he is, that's why he's digging the attention from Huffpost. He doesn't say anything more to them and shame on Huffpost for not pursuing the Ranger part of the story. If anyone believes this weak evidence I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you…with a bigfoot somewhere on it.

Ya well take it up with him. I personally dont care but as a passing interest. And to tell the truth. If it was me, and if I actually came up against a Bigfoot in a swamp one day while canoeing, even if I had better footage then this and was dead sure it was a Bigfoot. I dont think I would be sending it in or maybe not even putting it up on YouTube. Its all kind of just a mute point, you know. Besides the last thing I would want to do is argue with random people that its CG or some guy in a suit.

So! You know! Whatever.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I agree with much that you've said but I don't k now how knowing the exact location will prove or disprove anything--unless the exact location is in the middle of an amusement park and there are 500 people there.

The fact that the second person in the boat won't come forward suggests (but doesn't prove) that he doesn't want to be part of a hoax. The fact that the park ranger won't come forward to at least confirm some part of this (ie. "Yes, they were there when they said they were and came back and told me what they had seen") strongly suggests that this is hoax. The fact that the man stopped the camera when the creature was walking away strongly suggests that this is a hoax. Now if the creature was coming toward him, it might make sense.

If you're going to perpetrate a good hoax, you want to give just enough information to make it seem legitimate and not enough to give it away. The longer that "creature" was being videotaped, especially when moving in clear view, the more likely it would reveal something that revealed it as a hoax. I simply don't find it credible that someone videotaping a Bigfoot moving away from him would stop videotaping until the creature was out of sight. If you saw a Bigfoot would you videotape for a few seconds and stop? I think not. If this is a hoax, they probably videotaped a lot and presented only the best, most convincing few seconds.

a reply to: Tangerine

I simply don't find it credible that someone videotaping a Bigfoot moving away from him would stop videotaping until the creature was out of sight. If you saw a Bigfoot would you videotape for a few seconds and stop?

When you're sitting in the bow of a canoe with two people and one tells you to "go, let's go" it means paddle. We now know it wasn't a gopro so stopping the camera to paddle isn't unreasonable. So, there's that.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Tangerine

I simply don't find it credible that someone videotaping a Bigfoot moving away from him would stop videotaping until the creature was out of sight. If you saw a Bigfoot would you videotape for a few seconds and stop?

When you're sitting in the bow of a canoe with two people and one tells you to "go, let's go" it means paddle. We now know it wasn't a gopro so stopping the camera to paddle isn't unreasonable. So, there's that.

Did you hear someone saying, "Go, let's go!" with any sense of urgency on that videotape? I didn't. I've heard women in the tool section of Sears say that to their husbands with more of a sense of urgency. If you were videotaping Bigfoot and someone said, "Let's go" would you stop videotaping unless you felt you were in imminent danger? Also, someone dropped that oar in the boat during the videotaping thus strongly suggesting that it wasn't the person videotaping who was in control of the oars.

a reply to: Tangerine

Did you hear someone saying, "Go, let's go!" with any sense of urgency on that videotape? I didn't.

Yes, earlier in this thread someone did an audio analysis and amplified "Let's go". Subsequent to this, the camera man Mark M. has given a statement regarding the event claiming his friend said "let's go" which verifies the audio analysis. Or visa versa.

Also, someone dropped that oar in the boat during the videotaping thus strongly suggesting that it wasn't the person videotaping who was in control of the oars.

That's a wild assumption. That's a total wild assumption. Typically, when two people are in a canoe, provided their not paddling like idiots on the same side of the boat, it require both to paddle. And how do you know an oar was "dropped"? Did you see it? Maybe a bump on the side but how can you definitely say it was dropped?? Additionally, a moot point. You hear a bang and then that disqualifies the camera guy from paddling? He's not paddling cause he's filming, that's all.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Tangerine

Did you hear someone saying, "Go, let's go!" with any sense of urgency on that videotape? I didn't.

Yes, earlier in this thread someone did an audio analysis and amplified "Let's go". Subsequent to this, the camera man Mark M. has given a statement regarding the event claiming his friend said "let's go" which verifies the audio analysis. Or visa versa.

Also, someone dropped that oar in the boat during the videotaping thus strongly suggesting that it wasn't the person videotaping who was in control of the oars.

That's a wild assumption. That's a total wild assumption. Typically, when two people are in a canoe, provided their not paddling like idiots on the same side of the boat, it require both to paddle. And how do you know an oar was "dropped"? Did you see it? Maybe a bump on the side but how can you definitely say it was dropped?? Additionally, a moot point. You hear a bang and then that disqualifies the camera guy from paddling? He's not paddling cause he's filming, that's all.

I don't think you invested enough time to read my post carefully before responding. I said there was no sense of urgency in any voice that I heard. People in fear generally don't sound like they're asking someone to pass the salt. Perhaps you could provide the enhanced link with the voice and we can all listen to it and decide for ourselves.

I said the oar sound SUGGESTED that the person videotaping wasn't the one controlling the oars. No, I can not definitely say the oar was dropped.

If I saw a Bigfoot coming toward me and I was one of two people in a boat and controlled a set of oars, I would start paddling immediately and not wait for a consensus opinion about leaving. In this case, the "creature" was moving away. I should have thought the time to get the hell out of there would have been when they first saw it not when it was moving away.

Of course this is just my opinion and you have yours but please do post a link to that enhanced voice.

a reply to: Tangerine


Gladly.
drive.google.com...

and I do sense an urgency. Listen to the paddling as soon as he says lets go.

And here's something else I found


Looking at lettuce lake from this perspective just makes it even more unlikely that some guy is going to go tromping through there just to make a hoax. It's just not reasonable.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Tangerine


Gladly.
drive.google.com...

and I do sense an urgency. Listen to the paddling as soon as he says lets go.

And here's something else I found

Looking at lettuce lake from this perspective just makes it even more unlikely that some guy is going to go tromping through there just to make a hoax. It's just not reasonable.

It doesn't seem reasonable that sane people would jump out of a perfectly good airplane but they do. You obviously want to believe that the videotape is of a Bigfoot. Fine with me.

The sound link you provided doesn't match the video. There's rowing sounds throughout that were not present in the video and the boat was clearly stationary in the video. Do you have sound from the start of the video?

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: thepixelpusher
And if it was a trapper, do you think he would be on a log or big tree root out there picking up his trap? No they would likely used a boat, not even a canoe as those things cant hold much. And even if it was a trapper I dont think he would just be walking in the swamp. Generally from what I understand they come there in the motor boats, set traps. Come back in a few hours or the next day and pull it up into boat. Even if for some crazy reason the trapper decided to walk into the swamp to set his traps, whats he going to do. Walk for milles through it pulling whatever he caught back. Not likely.

If it was a trapper he likely had a boat nearby. Maybe the person thought that Matt was a Ranger and hid. When they saw it was not a Ranger they moved back on in their boat or canoe which could easily have been out of sight of Matt. Remember Matt says he went over to look for it (bigfoot) and could not find it. The guy got back in his boat and paddled off. One of the options to explore.

I'm not saying Bigfoot couldn't exist…I'm just saying this video is not proof or even close to clear enough to be proof.

Two possibilities:

Actual sasquatch... highly unlikely.

Man in a monkey suit... much more likely.

The distance from the subject, the size of the subject, and the branches distorting the view of the subject make me lean toward it being a man in a monkey suit. Obviously this would mean that the guy in the canoe was in on the hoax.

It's not CGI and it's not a misidentified animal.

originally posted by: Answer
Two possibilities:

Actual sasquatch... highly unlikely.

Man in a monkey suit... much more likely.

The distance from the subject, the size of the subject, and the branches distorting the view of the subject make me lean toward it being a man in a monkey suit. Obviously this would mean that the guy in the canoe was in on the hoax.

It's not CGI and it's not a misidentified animal.

I tend to agree (except that monkeys have tails and it's not a monkey suit). There is a small possibility that it's an actual Sasquatch, of course, but there's a far greater likelihood that it's a person in a costume. There is absolutely nothing about the video that even makes it unlikely that it's a person in a costume. For example, the "creature" doesn't do anything a human couldn't quite easily do. I'm mystified by the claims that a person can't sit on a branch, dip water with his hand, step into a couple feet of water, and walk for five seconds in a costume. It's not the freaking Colorado river after a torrential rain. Show me a video of that "creature" leaping ten feet at a stride or picking up a sizeable log or hefting a 200 pound hog over his shoulder and wading through the water and I'll say that tilts the likelihood to it being a Sasquatch.

a reply to: Tangerine
Like I said, if bigfoot existed or not it would not matter.

This could be a hoax or not. I really dont care all that much. But really dude, its sort of obvious you have never encountered anything in the wild which would make you pause. Most people get silent when they encounter something they are not quite sure of what it is.

Its actually pretty common. You obviously never encountered something which can mess you up. Basically you dont try and go bananas and make any threatening moves or gestures to it. Which is what they did in the vid, they even thought it was a bear. Or whatever they thought it was. They wanted to get out of there, which they did.

As for people not coming forward. I seriously doubt that park ranger even remember the vid now, and everybody is likely just getting on with there lives doing whatever there doing. Even the guy who sent in the vid said he does not want to go back there and look for whatever it was.

So really. Like I said before, its all a mute point. If your so interested in it. You can always head up to the area and go trudging through the swamp to see if you find it. So, in the end. Hoax or not. Well does it matter, this is the least of anybodys worries. And besides I personally dont care if bigfoot existed or did not exist. And there are far more strange things out there then Bigfoot. Like I said, if I came across a Bigfoot and videotaped it. I would likely put the tape in my closet and forget about it.

a reply to: thepixelpusher
If he had a boat near by you would likely see it, and definitely hear it even as you were paddling away, even if you were miles away still paddling. But nobody mentioned any of that. So who knows.

Remember Matt says he went over to look for it (bigfoot) and could not find it. The guy got back in his boat and paddled off. One of the options to explore.

That's a cross in the story from different sources I think. In one it says they go and look and it disappeared. In the other they say they just paddle out of there and dont go back. I looked at this lettuce lake park on google maps. Its pretty big, but I would not call it a huge range. They even have housings and neighborhoods not far from the park. and other wildland areas not far as well as more neighborhoods. But you cant see much even on google maps from the top as its all mostly tree and foliage covered.

I can see why you always get those stories of big snakes killing kids or there pets some of those places people live are pretty close. Either way its not likely they will leave the safety and mobility of the water to trudge miles into neighborhoods, but I suppose some do like to wonder. As for Bigfoot or skunkape, who knows.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Tangerine
Like I said, if bigfoot existed or not it would not matter.

This could be a hoax or not. I really dont care all that much. But really dude, its sort of obvious you have never encountered anything in the wild which would make you pause. Most people get silent when they encounter something they are not quite sure of what it is.

Its actually pretty common. You obviously never encountered something which can mess you up. Basically you dont try and go bananas and make any threatening moves or gestures to it. Which is what they did in the vid, they even thought it was a bear. Or whatever they thought it was. They wanted to get out of there, which they did.

As for people not coming forward. I seriously doubt that park ranger even remember the vid now, and everybody is likely just getting on with there lives doing whatever there doing. Even the guy who sent in the vid said he does not want to go back there and look for whatever it was.

So really. Like I said before, its all a mute point. If your so interested in it. You can always head up to the area and go trudging through the swamp to see if you find it. So, in the end. Hoax or not. Well does it matter, this is the least of anybodys worries. And besides I personally dont care if bigfoot existed or did not exist. And there are far more strange things out there then Bigfoot. Like I said, if I came across a Bigfoot and videotaped it. I would likely put the tape in my closet and forget about it.

Your assumption that I've never encountered wildlife is incorrect. I've been charged by a bear. I've been watched by a mountain lion. I've spent a considerable amount of time in the woods and on the desert (night hiking) and I have spent some time in a swamp. A park ranger who doesn't remember a video of a supposed sasquatch in his/her park?

I do hope you mean moot.

a reply to: Tangerine
So what did you do when the bear charged you? Or when the mountain lion watched you? And what do you think you will do if you ran into a what looks like a bear but may be a Bigfoot in a swamp while on a canoe. Start making noises and paddle in circles to scare it away? Obviously if it was not a hoax whatever it was, it was not that concerned with it being spoted, maybe because it just did not care. Or maybe because if they came closer it was quite confident of its ability to rip there heads off. Who know eh? If anything its actions point that it was more annoyed it had to leave to another spot now then anything else.

No offense but i am not sure what your trying to say. I would assume that if a bear charged you, you would have shot it. That or run away, and if it did not catch you. That's one lazy bear, probably was not serious about killing you. And mountain cats prowling. Well its what they do, they scope things out first, if you see it or sense it near, its not likely hunting you. But as for running into something in a canoe in a swamp. I dont really know what you expect people to do. Stand up and shout at it or something?

And people forget all kinds of things, park rangers are people. I see no reason why a video which may be a hoax may concern them or anybody else for that matter. For all you know, everybody including the guy who took the vid may have forgotten about it by now.