Was Bigfoot Captured On IMAX film?

why are the Animals running so fast for ? did they see a monster ?

Originally posted by boondock-saint
my guess would be a hunter, probably Native Indian descent
and the backpack is actually a Bow and Arrow Quiver.

I don't think Bigfoot is actually bold enough to
go to a local store and buy himself a backpack.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by boondock-saint]

No natives up there, only eskimos and they wouldn't be wearing black fur.

Originally posted by AndersonLee
why are the Animals running so fast for ? did they see a monster ?

That's normal migratory behaviour for them.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by leo123]

It's quite obviously a crew member. He's wearing black because that's what every crew member on a film set wears. He's peaks out then ducks because he realizes he's in the shot as the caribou start running. He's definitely either:

1) A camera assistant who is metering the shot for the director of photography
2) A b camera
3) Random crew caught in the wrong place at the wrong time

I mean guys, come ON here. I love a good conspiracy, but seriously, this one? Ever hear the expresion you're only as credible as your weakest theory?

This is just that.

reply to post by sh1fty


sh1fty:

Could be, but I know they exist because I am 99.9% certain I have seen one. I live on Vancouver Island, the big a$$ island here in Canada just north of Seatle. Late one rainy night while driving on a remote road on the northern part of the island I just about hit it with my car. The proverbial deer in the headlights freeze. It scared the hell out of me and I just flored it to get out of there.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by leo123]

reply to post by -Blackout-


The Blu-Ray DVD clearly shows it is a man in a backpack wearing a hat. Kudos should go to the gentlemen who put up the Blu-Ray recording for analyzing.

reply to post by Dogdish


It really does look like a man. I just don't know why he would be wearing a black ski mask. Of course, I can't tell what the temp is, but it doesn't look cold enough for a mask, though it is the "Great North." I'm not comfortable calling it bigfoot, because it actually looks to thin... look at the arms. And with the wave of the arm, it seems like he wants to be noticed by the caribou so they run straight through the water and not away from the camera.

Actually I watched it one last time... its a man. If it was bigfoot, the back of his hand would be black as well and covered with hair, but as he waves his hand, you can definitely see that it is not black.

I'm kinda disappointing at IMAX films for the unprofessional scene.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by six67seven]

What do you mean by unprofessional scene?

I personally realize that actual humans -are- filming this and putting this together. It doesn't ruin it for me by seeing an actual person in a shot. I actually enjoy seeing how they get these things made, it's amazing some of the things they do to get film. I don't think it was unprofessional at all.

Originally posted by Josephus23

The backpack in question could also be a child.

If one was to make the very broad and completely unproven suggestion that this is a "Sasquatch", then the only known thing to compare its behavior to is a African Lowland Gorilla.

Good grief.

Please provide a link to prove that this should be the behavior of a mythical Sasquatch and not an uninformed and irrelevant comparison to an African Gorilla?

And you want to talk about scientific research?

The Bigfoot Research Organization were moving on the assumption that this too COULD be Bigfoot but they knew to let it go when they got the hi-rez video from the Blueray that clearly showed a human with a backpack moving behind or near the herd but you seem dogmatic in maintaining this state of uncertainty.

Originally posted by Josephus23
What I am defending is the integrity of the research process.

No you're not, you are polluting it by disregarding the findings of actual Bigfoot researchers, the hi-rez images from the Blueray show a human with a back pack on, and with silly assumptions about African Gorillas giving their babies a piggyback like a Sasquatch might do in the Arctic wilderness.

Since you just want to refute any evidence and just make wild claims and feed ignorance rather than deny it, I'll keep doing the research for you.

This is the response the the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (they research this stuff by the way) got from the distribution company and a statement from one of the cameramen.

It is as old as some of the other ATS threads posted about this topic months ago and even has the explanation from the company in the first post:

UPDATE !! (12 Noon PST, January 11, 2010):

Moments ago we received the first reply from the president of Big Films Distribution: Mr. Daniel White.

White thinks it is a crew member directing the herd. He spoke with the cameraman (Filipe Teixera) by phone about it. Filipe (who apparently has not seen this web page yet) agrees that it is probably a crew person. White said in certain scenes of the film some crew members were "discreetly positioned" to direct herds where they needed them to go.

*my Bolds



I suppose this is also proof of some bias from the guys that actually were out there filming this and stated that their cameramen used the exact same technique (as claimed by members) of herding the animals and hiding out of sight as this "alleged" Bigfoot does when filmed? Some amazing coincidence?

Maybe the crew are Sasquatch though, because I don't have proof they aren't.

As I am others said the likelihood of this being not only a human but a member of the crew were great after seeing the Blueray.

I am firmly in the camp of I DO NOT KNOW.

I know that for sure.
Don't try and make us all set up our tents there too, buddy.

Nothing is more difficult to open than a closed mind.

No kidding.
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining comes to mind.

Now maybe you should review this think here: confirmation bias.

Cheers!

- Lee

Looks like a gorilla-The movements are similar and the size is about the same.

Originally posted by sh1fty
I mean guys, come ON here. I love a good conspiracy, but seriously, this one? Ever hear the expresion you're only as credible as your weakest theory?

This is just that.

You'd think that.

Still, at least the Distributor got word from the camera crew that they were out there hiding and herding the animals, which is what most of us knew all along after seeing the Blueray.

It was one of them caught on tape. Just a simple gaffe, not evidence of a mythical creature that no one has evidence even exists.

Plus this thread has been posted three times now!!!

Deny Ignorance and search ATS.

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma


You seem to be taking this more personally than you should.

I was merely pointing out that equal possibilities exist between all of the speculations posted concerning this anomaly.

As I have state numerous times, I think that confirming this as anything is completely unfounded; however...

I will not point to your flaws any longer.

Anyone reading, who has a modicum of understanding of how research works, will see through your personal bias.

I have no bias. If you actually read my comment, then you would have seen that I have stated, beyond any doubt, that this is a completely unknown object.

I was attempting to show that the flaws in the reasoning of one OPINION could be equally applied to the flaws in the reasoning of another OPINION.

Cheers. Drink some chamomile tea and relax.

Life is much better when one is relaxed.

I have come to the realization that here on ATS that there is a majority of people of skeptics whom I have named the "Can't Fool Me" crowd who dispute almost anything out of the ordinary.

They try and create logical explanations here. Which they now see, as in a backpack and a human face or hairline ?

The second photo BlueRay which is extremely grainy where people are claiming that it looks like a backpack, is clearly a humped V shaped back, and furthermore simply look at the overall shape of the torso.

That is the shape of a human body builder or a very muscular primate.

It looks identical to that of a gorilla and not that of a human who is considerably thinner and less muscular as well.

I have never been a follower, so I am sorry but I don't buy the Human with backpack explanation so accepted by the status quo here...

Sorry .....

Talk with the Film's director and see how preposterous this hypothesis actually is.

And if I am wrong, then so be it .

I am wrong.

I certainly won't lose any sleep over it !

I think He's on a BMX 'Cause he's moving pretty quick

Originally posted by kidflash2008
The Blu-Ray DVD clearly shows it is a man in a backpack wearing a hat. Kudos should go to the gentlemen who put up the Blu-Ray recording for analyzing.

The Blueray video it turns out was from the same organization I quoted earlier that claimed to have found out this was a man with a backpack and that they spoke with the president of the films distribution company as well as getting information from a cameraman about how they hid and directed the herd. Leading to the rational conclusion that this was indeed one of them.

They didn't of course believe this was a human at first, was open to the possibility of it being a Sasquatch, and went through a research process of determining what exactly the moving object was.

You can see the process here: Bfro.net

We kind of benefited from the end product of their results with the Blueray video and confirmation from the distributor about the camera crews filming techniques.

- Lee

hey, right watch the high quality version and the object is moving quite fast across the screen, so i'm thinking that due to the fact the figure is head to toe in black slightly bobbing up and down just a fraction and is trying to keep out of view, i can conclude this is a guy who probably works for the crew on most probably a bmx trying to get the animals to go in the right direction for the shot they were after, its not like the director coulda got them all back there for a second take eh? lol

Cheers

5 pages of thread over a guy in a film with a back pack who is trying to move on a heard of wild animals for a wild life film. Wow
Nothing to see here...

Move along now.

Originally posted by nh_ee
I have come to the realization that here on ATS that there is a majority of people of skeptics whom I have named the "Can't Fool Me" crowd who dispute almost anything out of the ordinary.

They try and create logical explanations here. Which they now see, as in a backpack and a human face or hairline ?

Which is logical.

You want to believe the illogical with NO evidence to support that.
I could claim it's the creature from the black lagoon too and have just as much evidence and right as you do.

Nothing in the video clearly states this has to be a Bigfoot.

The second photo BlueRay which is extremely grainy where people are claiming that it looks like a backpack, is clearly a humped V shaped back, and furthermore simply look at the overall shape of the torso.

That is the shape of a human body builder or a very muscular primate.

It looks identical to that of a gorilla and not that of a human who is considerably thinner and less muscular as well.

Only it's not and you're incorrect.

There is no evidence Bigfoot exists, you are just saying that "grainy video" must be him.

There are no Gorillas in the wild Arctic(!!), it's the very location of the film if you research it, so don't you see how absurd and uninformed you sound right now?

I have never been a follower, so I am sorry but I don't buy the Human with backpack explanation so accepted by the status quo here...

You follow the other disproved illogical theory then?
Okay, your choice.

Turns out it was a cameraman hiding and directing the herd.
Still you complain even when those who saw this as a human after the blueray were correct?

Wow.

Talk with the Film's director and see how preposterous this hypothesis actually is.

This is the sort of denial and absurdity that make the Bigfoot believers seem kooky, and the proof of Bigfoot less likely to be seriously received. Even when proven wrong they fail to let go of a hoax or misconception, and blame those that were right for being a "follower" of the logical explanation as if this was a bad thing.

If you won't take the word of the cameraman and the film distribution company you have bigger worries than whether or not you consider yourself a follower.

Keep on blindly believing if this is what you think it takes to make your case, but I think the proof is in, and the case was closed like FOUR months ago when it was posted up here then.

I guess it's just time for me to move on if some of you won't.

Good luck with this, and when some group comes around with another frozen Bigfoot please, please, please, check the cooler first...for the sake of your own integrity and the fact that as of today Bigfoot doesn't technically exist.

Peace,

- Lee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by -Blackout-
That is very very interesting and it does look like something is creeping around in the background there in that video and then crouches down - I dunno what it is, but it looks suspicious and it shouldnt be there.

I'm sorry, i was intrigued, but it looks like a bear running on 4 legs.

I dont see how you see running on 4 legs when looking at the video.

At first i thought it could have been a bear or something but after seeing a higher quality video i'm pretty certain it's a crew member,maybe taking shots from a different angle or some thing.
Nice find though