Recent Videos Showing Bigfoots Ripping Trees From The Frozen Ground

I'm "on the fence", whether to accept the notion, that there are large, hairy man beasts roaming the forests in America and in some other parts of the world. Most of the videos I've seen on YouTube are either hoaxes or misidentified bears. The famous Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot film was exposed as a hoax in 2016 (see below), which questions the veracity of all those supposed Bigfoot footprint casts.

Finally putting the nearly 50-year hoax to rest, renowned Bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi presents testimony from those involved in staging the film, providing decisive evidence that the footage was not of some unexplained and mysterious natural being, but of a man in a suit. This landmark radio program will irrefutably prove that the Patterson/Gimlin film was perpetrated upon the public as a hoax for monetary benefit.

While the authenticity of the Patterson/Gimlin footage has been debated before, and most believe in its validity, the following guests from HOAX OF THE CENTURY will make this radio program irrefutable in exposing the truth:
..Tom Biscardi the producer of "Hoax of the Century" will host this media event.
..Bob Heironimus that wore the suit.
..Philip Morris, the man that sold the suit to Patterson
..Author Greg Long, who through his book "The Making of Bigfoot" exposed the hoax for what is was and will on live radio present the truth
..Author Michael Greene who wrote the book "Sasquatch for Sale" that describes the real players in the industry who continue to exploit this film
..Investigator Leroy Blevins,the man who deciphered and researched the Patterson footage and exploited the hoax will also give his verdict of the Patterson Footage

www.prnewswire.com...

Even though there's a lot of evidence proving that Bigfoot may be a myth, I still can't explain the many Bigfoot sightings by Native Americans. Native American tribes, "have more than sixty different names for Sasquatch." You would think that Native Americans from the past were able to discern an upright walking bear from a large humanoid creature, right? Could the Native American folklore stories about Bigfoot be true? This is why I'm still "on the fence," when it comes to believing that Bigfoot is an actual creature...that still exists today.

In total, the Native American tribes of North America have more than sixty different names for Sasquatch. The word 'Bigfoot' was coined in the late 1950s by the media when a man discovered large footprints in the mud near Bluff Creek in northern California. While the prints were disclosed to be a hoax in the early 21st century, the term stuck, and gave rise to the modern belief, interpretation and quest for Bigfoot.

Traditionally, Native tribes in the Rockies and north western United States view Bigfoot as a physical being, no different than a human or another animal. However, their respect for animals as wise elder brothers, gives them an overwhelming respect for Bigfoot as well, seeing the creature not as a conquest, or something to fear, but as a guide, or teacher, and even an extension of themselves.

www.arcgis.com...

This all leads to the video clips that I posted below. I've seen clips from ThinkerThunker before. He's a believer in the Bigfoot phenomenon and IMO, 95% of his video clips can be explained as misidentified bears or humans. The following two, are by far, the most interesting clips he ever posted. Some skeptics have said that the footage is nothing more than lumbar harvesting machines pulling the trees from the ground. I'm a skeptic too, but IMO, whatever pulled those trees from the ground, wasn't done by a machine. It's not clear whether the footage was filmed in Russia or Quebec, but it is quite astonishing. Both clips are just under 12 minutes long. Take a look and tell me what you think.

Clip #1 posted on March 8, 2019:


Clip #2 posted on March 15, 2019, proving that it was NOT lumber harvesting machines being filmed:

The Bigfoot conspiracy remains as one of those fun reads but has no real bearing on the modern world. It's always interesting, especially considering other mythological beasts that once roamed the earth. But how it is still a debate to be proven or disproven?

Human DNA comes from a base prototype millions of years old. If there's anything truly special about sapiens its that we are able to adapt to any environment we're exposed to. And eventually evolve to survive the most necessary characteristics of such. The idea that some base-form sapiens evolved in a completely different manner than Homo sapiens isn't far fetched at all. Plus it isn't even exclusive to the Americas of forestry, the Abominable Snowman for example. As to why some theorists still question the concept is lost on me. -----There's been much crazier things to exist.

New evidence is always fun to go through though! Appreciate the post.

Even though there's a lot of evidence proving that Bigfoot may be a myth

Theres no "evidence" proving bigfoots a myth.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

What we do have though is evidence that some footage is a hoax

The video linked, cant say much either way, its too grainy.
It looks like "something" ripped up a tree but we may as well say it was Santa or Loch ness from the footage

Well, it does like it is a man like figure, but remember, that cabin could just be a small chicken coup and the tree could actually just be a small twelve foot tree. The cabin size is what is the clue. The cabin is in the forfront and would appear bigger, my bunny coup is six foot times eight foot, but it has a 12 12 pitch, some chicken coups are not that big, and it could just be a big doghouse too. The tree could actually be only a small tree, five inch diameter at the base. I have trees like that here and maybe it was cut almost all the way off, then rocked to break it off and then carried off by a regular size person.

That is one possible scenario. In the movie it appears that you can visualize a twelve to foot creature carrying it off. I doubt if a bigfoot would be twelve feet tall, so visual perspective would need to be considered.

Also, a tree harvester could be on the bottom of a hill sort of like on the side we are looking at and reaching up and grabbing it then swinging it over standing up before taking it down to lay in a pile. In that case, the tree still is not that tall, maybe thirty feet, maybe the poles are to be used for making plywood or fence posts or treated landscape timbers or something.

I can't say what is going on in that video, lots of variables to look at. I have cut and carried trees twenty feet high standing upright to move them so they would not get hung up on other trees to get them where they needed to be, cutting it with a chainsaw and holding it at the same time, then putting down the saw. In the right setting, it could be possible I looked larger and the tree looked larger. I am a big guy though, I was strong, but did over abuse my back all the time. Just because you can lift a lot and carry heavy things does not mean it is safe to do.

S & F for posting something non political.

It’s really tuff to decipher the size of anything in that video.

I wonder what this looked like in person.

Anyone speak Russian here to translate the audio? I’m interested to hear what their reaction was.

We know about main stream media. They are sensationalistic. They find any and every bit of dreck they can get their hands on to titilate their viewership.

They find us pigs drawing PIcasso's to watch
THey find us one legged men dancing to watch
They find us cute little kittens playing with yarn to watch
They find us the obscure and fanciful stuff to watch.

That all being true then if there were any credible videos or proof of a big foot would they not jump on the chance to be the first or second or third to broadcast it? Or do we suspect that there is some kind of conspiracy to keep the vital proof of big foot from the public making us rely upon small ad driven outlets who have the proof to sell us.

Also, that tree could be on the other side of the bluff and it could actually be a hundred fifty feet tall, with the harvester being down behind the bluff, if you have ever seen a harvestor work, they grab the tree, go up the tree and trim some lower branches, swing the tree to a clearing area, then they flip it and start working cutting it up. I know someone who has two or three harvesters, they are expensive machines. His are nothing compared to the big machines they use up in Canada for the big trees. I guess what I thought was a cabin might just be a rock with snow on top of it which has the same shape as a roof.

The guy narrating this probably has never seen a harvester at work. It is cool to see one of these things with their half million dollar cutter heads.

a reply to: rickymouse

They are amazing machines to watch. But I dont think they have these machines in the middle of Siberia. Also you would hear the sound they make. It is a racket!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

no bigfoot here. its called excavator.

No way an animal could put that much force on a tree to make it move like that. Not even an elephant could do that.
Its also clear in the video that this tree is behind some other trees, making it likely that this tree is much larger than we actually see of it.

Most likely man&machine or a rock/snow slide.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I gotta stop you right there. No one has ever debunked the patterson gimlin footage. They have shown no evidence that what they claim was true and they made much more money claiming to have hoaxedit than Patterson and gimlin made off of the film.

And secondly that film is much too low a quality and there's no additional data, size of the tree etc for comparison data to come to any reasonable conclusion.

Jaden

This could be a very easy, simple hoax to do.

Notice when he zooms out on the video at parts, the camera was really far away.

So what if I have a tall friend. I'm 6'2'' but say closer to 7ft, he put on a big dark colored suit, and pulls a plastic, hollow tree out of a hole we made and stuck it in before the shoot? His claim that the branches of leaves swaying meant that it had to be real but of course he'd make it seem more believable in his analysis to thrill simple viewers and get more return views for ads. I say from that distance, you can't see # for details and a fake plastic tree with decent fake leaves made out of anything would look like a real one.

He said he only gets $0.003 per view to make you feel sympathetic and turn off ad blocker. That x 49,000 views is $147.00. Not bad for one video, that's quite a day work. I'm going to work for 5 hours tonight and I'll make $40 from being on my feet doing physical labor and skilled tasks. I need to start making youtube videos again and really pursue it. 4 of those videos in a 7 day week would net me more than a part-time, 40-60hr 2 week paycheck.

a reply to: r0xor

$40 in 5 hours?? You need to get a new job bro. Ouch

This is no pun on you, I’m sure you’re worth more.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Thought that cameraman, suitmaker, and actor all have recently admitted the Patterson film was fake.

The interesting fact shown in the video, which could be made by shady Russians and fake, shows the animal grabbing the tree with one arm and one arm open, tugging and pulling until finally the tree came loose and the root ball emerged in a snap. It does not seem the root ball came out easily. Viewing the machine it appears the trunk is severed not pulled out.

Look for the video of the Alberta Bigfoot throwing a tree.

I used to push trees down all over our property when I lived in the country...almost every single standing dead tree for acres was pushed over my me...it was instinctual.....it was fun.....over the years I toppled hundreds ….and I learned about root balls....because when you try to push over big trees or not quite rotted trees you need to work your way to your goal building momentum usong the trees weight against it.….you have to use the top of the tree to upend the rootball an this means swaying it back and forth till it geets to top heavy and rips the rootball out....but be carefull and watch your feet because you never know how much rootball is coming up and when she goes she really goes.

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
a reply to: Masterjaden

Thought that cameraman, suitmaker, and actor all have recently admitted the Patterson film was fake.

The interesting fact shown in the video, which could be made by shady Russians and fake, shows the animal grabbing the tree with one arm and one arm open, tugging and pulling until finally the tree came loose and the root ball emerged in a snap. It does not seem the root ball came out easily. Viewing the machine it appears the trunk is severed not pulled out.

Just because people said it's actually fake, doesn't make it fake. They make a ton of money off saying stuff like that. If it was a fake, have the suitmaker or the guy wearing it come forward with the suit. If it's gone missing, just have the suitmaker make another one to prove it.

I should say that yes, I am 100% convinced that sasquatch exists (seeing one kinda does that to you), but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of evidence. There are a few things about the situation around the film that are questionable, but, I'd love to see a suit made with the tech from that time period that is able to show muscle moving under the suit, as you can see muscle moving under the fur in the PG film.
If someone can come forward and completely replicate that suit, only using tech from the 60s, then I'll believe that it's a hoax.

Why hasn't anyone done that yet? That's the question.

www.youtube.com...

They like to scare people away with shows of force.

a reply to narrator.

It seems the Patterson film might be of a
real Bigfoot. No proof had been offered
by the principals they faked it.
Thinker Thunker points out it is
anatomically not of human
proportions. No hoaxer has ever
come forth with proof like a
monkey suit with non-human
proportions and serious
muscle padding.

He never said Bigfoot exists but
some evidence is very compelling.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

can anyone explain [ in the context of : bigfoot ripping up a tree ]

1b - the lack of any vertical motion [ of the tree ]

2 - the excess horizontal motion [ at the local horizon ] of the tree

thanks -