http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hoaxes/mdf.htm

Very interesting.

Very.

Bobbie Short thought the MIM was a dead Ainu.

Did the green come from surrounding vegetation rather than fabric as Davis suggests is possible? And how does he explain the 8" "growth" at the end?

Let's get Jack.

Maybe the runner was wearing a green camo suit, and MK picked up on some of that too.

The runner is pretty far away in the film to pick that out, and generally appears dark, but it could be.

...Of interest or by comparison, the same technique M.K. used on the Memorial Day subject was also used on Patty, she produces a red color, ....body heat? I don't know....

I'll leave it to you all to figure out why she showed red and the Mem. Day subject showed green, the latter had to be hot or sweating but it didn't show red.

I'll upload those images maybe tomorrow...it's been a long day so I wont load Dreamweaver tonight.

And yes, I STILL think the Minnesota Iceman was one of the ancient Ainu people. A few still exist, and they are in the right region if the story about it being bought from Japanese fisherman is true and I suspect it is, who else would have a block of ice on board? Of further interest, a primate docent in Japan thinks MIM is an Ainu too.....she says there is no doubt.

Never heard of a Sasquatch running? Give me a break. I have read several accounts of a Sasquatch running out of the woods and accross a road in front of cars and for all you brainchilds out there who feel this is a person in a costume. I REPEAT TRY THIS YOURSELF AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET BEFOR YOU FALL LIKE THE MORON ON THE SCI. FI. CHANNEL DID SEVERAL TIMES! TRY IT ON LEVEL GROUND INSTEAD ON THE SIDE OF A HILL THAT WAY YOU WILL LESSON YOUR CHANCES OF INJURING YOURSELF WHEN YOU FALL. :icon_bang:

Never heard of a Sasquatch running? Give me a break. I have read several accounts of a Sasquatch running out of the woods and accross a road in front of cars and for all you brainchilds out there who feel this is a person in a costume. I REPEAT TRY THIS YOURSELF AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET BEFOR YOU FALL LIKE THE MORON ON THE SCI. FI. CHANNEL DID SEVERAL TIMES! TRY IT ON LEVEL GROUND INSTEAD ON THE SIDE OF A HILL THAT WAY YOU WILL LESSON YOUR CHANCES OF INJURING YOURSELF WHEN YOU FALL. :icon_bang:
[/quote]



...read again engine36. The date on the statement was almost ten years ago...probably before your time.

In 1997, there were NO major databases except John Green's, and I went through all those index cards...some 4000 of them and found no confirmed "running" reports.

Still.......I would like to see links to "verified credible" road runner reports you're talking about.....

The sasquatch moves in 50 to 60" strides and in doing so throws its foot forward in such a manner as to leave a straight line of tracks in the dirt (see John Green or Bigfoot Encounters) as opposed to left-right, left-right tracks like you and I do....Read Krantz. Its locomotion is unique, nothing like the Memorial Day subject.

Few reports even mention the awkward gait. Did you ever wonder why the Patterson subject never broke into a run?

Think about it.

I'd like to know more about this.

What about the exceptionally long thumb and the IM index? Roger mentioned an idea it was a modified corpse. That's intriguing too, but let's revive an old MIM thread for the discussion. I've been meaning to do that.............. for months.


How did Davis determine brown-dyed synthetic hair on a fabric base shows green? What tests has he done? He seemed to think his own conclusions were inconclusive.

I'd really like to get DDA's comments on this.

Thanks for the compliment actually I was 33 in 1997. Let me ask you this. Do all dogs run the same? Do all cats run the same ? Do all humans run the same? What makes you think all Sasquatch's run the same, especially one that appears to be carrying something. Why didn't Paddy run? I don't know , why does my neighbor's dog run and hide from strangers when my dog openly welcomes strangers in my yard. Maybe I should check one of them for a zipper. What I'm trying to say is just because it moves differently than Paddy doesn't mean it's a hoax.

Although I respect both Bobbie and M.K. for their work with the subject I have to wonder about this information. It is true that there are very few report descriptions concerning the act of running on the part of the Sasquatch which leads one to the conclusion that we know just about nothing concerning it. There have been track ways found with a change in stride indicating that the pace and mode was altered. There was even one woman who claimed to have been driving in BC and saw a Sasquatch chasing a running horse at about 40-45 mph. What strikes most people in circumstances like this is the speed factor. The little nuances seem lost in the shock of seeing such a transient sight. All to be expected.

As far as a color shift in the subject, more information is needed. Like control tests showing that video tape doesn't impart this characteristic on its own. Maybe this is the difference seen between the P/G film and video subjects. Owen Caddy discussed what color sequence is laid down on film first… has anyone looked at how video does it? A 1 CCD chip that is. Scans from paper copies of the P/G film obviously have to have some attributes bleeding through from Kodak or Fuji... thats one of the reasons why photographers chose different films for different circumstances. People need to look warm so Kodak... nature needs to look green so Fuji... maybe not so much now a day but it was a fact in the past.

I do know one thing though... Peter Byrne was one of the first people to look at the tape and he took it to Rene Dahinden. I worked with Peter for a short while and do respect him as well for some of the things he accomplished... as is true with Rene... but there seems to be some who see that these two could do no wrong and side with their original assessment of the video. I am sorry but I can’t just look the other way here.

Here is a multiple witness, multiple sighting and a video tape backing up the story and neither Rene or Peter went to the site to investigate? But they could claim with all their years of experience that it was a hoax? I don’t buy it. This is the kind of thing they were hoping for. Why didn’t they go there in person? Enter NASI I guess…

From reading the post linked at the beginning of this thread I see several errors right off the bat concerning the event.

"...Almost as if on cue..."? is totally wrong. Doesn't anybody see where the subject is first seen in the video? Almost halfway through the run. The camera doesn’t take that long to turn on.

What was described by R. Stansberry shows just how observant he was when watching the video. The arms do swing during the walk part. There was no ravine that the subject went into out of sight. It was first noticed by one child and a woman and dog playing ball not a group of children. No mention about the second sighting before the video tape was made.

I have never subscribed to the current database structure or content. It is sadly lacking in many features and fields. Most entries are in the form of a narrative better suited to a "Foxfire" type book than any real scientific behavioral observation platform. It should also be of note that this video is atypical for the duration that most people actually claim to have seen such a subject with their own eyes. Once again were are being switched into believing eyewitness testimony over physical evidence contrary.

The statement about advocates of this video are ones in which have no experience in seeing a running Sasquatch, then bringing up Grover's dispatch concerning the P/G film is kind of funny. Grover claims to have never seen one of these animals either... it was only through the P/G film, one that we are all able to view, that he derived his theory about the gate. Sure, he has more knowledge of the subject and I would be more than interested in his comments concerning this video… but I don’t think he ever made any.

I guess we all take to the table a mix of what our education, training, background and experience tell us, --everything I see in the Memorial Day footage is human....... I was hoping you would speak to those elements...
.

I don't understand... elements?

He seems to be asking why we would think a figure that moves like a human would be a Sasquatch ..



Those wo think this is Sas, seem to be going up against the experts in these matters..

How does Meldrum reconcile the way the figure moves with his theories on Bigfoot locomotion ?

Okay multiple witnesses aside, opinions of others aside….talk to me about what YOU saw going on in the MDF before it became a subject of discussion – take me back to that moment … ...I’m all ears.....

More information about what I see in the MD video:

1. The subject appears dark in color with something flowing or loose fitting on the body, like long hair, string or fringe. The dark covering looks skin tight since different dimensions do not appear during different appendage positions, but trailing edges appear fuzzy. Given the same video scale (through alignment with control features such as plants and rocks) the subject appears more massive and a little less tall than Owen. There is some shape movement seen but it doesn’t appear to be shifting like a cheap padded costume would. It looks fitted like football gear but not misshapen (shoulders out of proportion to waist, etc).
2. The subject is running more fluidly than Owen. Its head doesn’t bob up and down as much and it seems to be leaping between the running steps. There is no slipping of the foot seen. The foot appears to be placed with the understanding that it is going to be rock solid. Owen and Derick did not extend the feet in front of them as much during the run, keeping the majority of their body weight below them.
3. There are three places where the sun glints of the shoulders, top of head, back of legs and arms. The sheen looks dull, as if dirty or dusty. It is gray in color. Yet we cannot see any discontinuity in the overall covering of the body, except for the face, hand and feet area. These areas appear less fuzzy. The head seems solid in shape but not round and doesn’t move as much forwards and back during the run.
4. There are four places where the hand can actually be seen when the arm is extended out in front of the body. It is black in color, not fuzzy on the edges and appears to have an opposable thumb in two spots. I know… hard to believe.
5. The width of the lower legs blends seamlessly into the feet, there is no tapering or stovepipe look to them. The feet do not look like they have shoes on them. They are fuzzy on top and flat and sharp on the bottom. They are dark in color with nothing flopping around them.
6. The arms do not swing as much as Owen did in his recreation attempt. In fact it appears that the arm closer to the hill, away from the camera, the left arm, is restricted in movement, yet there are some other things moving on that side of the body. The arms don’t appear to move like Owen’s and Derick’s… for balance, sometimes swinging out wide to change direction or speed.
7. Something large and dark shifts towards the buttocks three times during the run. Other times it is aligned with the body and is not noticeable. It is fuzzy along the edges. At some times it looks like a flopping coat end, dangling behind the runner, at other times it looks like a squarish purse. This dark mass changes shape, position and movement almost independent of the main subject and all but disappears in many spots.
8. Four times there are sharp stick-like protrusions from the abdomen and lower back areas during the run. These move out away from the body and up and down as if shook by the impact with the ground.
9. There appear larger masses on the chest area with a fuzzy outline. These masses move up and down during the run.
10. The head appears low and forward on the shoulders. It looks facing forwards and up, in the direction of the run, not downwards. Vision appears unimpeded.
11. The lower jaw appears large; making the head look like it is elongated. It appears extended down to the chest area more than the runners chin up look. The face area is flat, not rounded.
12. The run appears very natural and sure footed compared to Owen and Derick’s attempt at recreating. Owen slipped as did Derick. Both pumped their arms more during the run. Both leaned back during the run, indicating the control needed and attained for the terrain.
13. Just as it is being obscured from view the shoulders are seen rotating back and forth as if to help pump the legs forward in continuing the run, even though it seems to be slowing down. The subject appears to turn up slope a little here as well. The shoulder width can just be seen a little here but looks substantial in comparison to Owen.
14. The walk out from the table top area shows an arm extended, getting bigger, changing color and moving, then the other arm comes up and the top of the head area changes color and appears taller, then an arm comes down. The arms swing forward during the walk but not backwards. One arm stays up for longer then a step. It doesn’t appear winded from the run yet is only a few seconds past the runs end. Derrick was winded and placed his arms on his hips for balance and to keep his back straight up.
15. Sorry but in my opinion there is no way anyone could tell how the MD subject is placing its feet; in a straight line or to the side of one another, since no tracks were discovered.

OMG....Thanks Rick, this isn't what I asked for, but I appreciate the time you took to respond with a synopsis of the DVD....

I thought this was more what you asked for... not really a synopsis, but what I saw in the video.

What does or doesn't scream at me in the video as being human would be my opinion of those observations.

1. I don't think it is running like a human, at least the two humans that ran the same pathway on video tape.
2. I don't think it looks like a typically dressed human in that environment.
3. I don't think the shoulders or head look human except in gross dimensioning.
4. I don't think the behavior is typical of humans in those conditions.

I don't think the behavior is typical of humans in those conditions.

I don't think this really tells anyone anything since we have no proof that Sasquatch exist and we of course do for humans... the logical thought then would be that this is just a human either:

1. trying to hoax these people down by the lake or
2. a misidentification of some human running across there for a specific purpose other than hoaxing.

No one has come forward yet to claim either.

The operative word in my question was BEFORE....as in BEFORE you became such a diagnostician WHERE THIS FOOTAGE was concerned, ...BEFORE the Sasquatch: Legend Meet Science DVD, ...take me back to your first observations in the 90's....what were your first thoughts? But now of course, we've gone beyond that...

I think sometimes there is this tendency to over analyzed, to freaking pick at details until we lose sight of the picture from afar.

My inclination is that someone someday will step forward or shoot off his mouth and be found out....

In the meantime Rick, videotape runners at the local track meet, the MD runner expresses human locomotion....

Why didn't Krantz add the MDF to his updated Big Footprints edition?

If you mean about this footage... the first time I saw it was at my home when Owen Pate came by to show me it... it wasn't in the 90's. At that time I was impressed by the differences, when using split screen and S-VHS, between Owen and the subject in question. It was obvious that there appeared a massive, untapped energy in the subject compared to Owen. Owen, who was sitting right next to me, gave me the scale to judge what I was looking at. What I saw that day impressed me to no end. The subject was running fast and if it was in a suit, didn't falter one bit, maintaining that speed and agility. I used stop frame and went one by one through it, freezing images selected onto the 58' HD screen. I looked for seams or anything that would indicate a suit... around the feet, the hands, the head, loose padding... there was nothing.

Owen impressed me as an honest hard working guy with a family and obligations. His entire story fit all the facts as they came to light in further investigation. It was his father-in-law who prodded him to try once again and get the tape into the right hands. They gave me the opportunity to show the tape at the Bellingham conference. This pushed me to go even further with it. All the arguments against it being what the Pates thought it was were weak and ill thought out... or down right wrong.

I sent the tape to Doug and asked him to take a look at it. He did and was amazed as well.

I have compared the MD video to runners, as is obvious with just Owen and Dericks involvement. IMHO They are not the same. Take another look at one of those runners, but put a Bigfoot suit on them and have them run on a hill side like that... then tell me this video subject looks human. If you think the run looks human all covered up in something like that... then just what could that covering be to allow such human locomotion to come through so obvious in those conditions? Does it look like a football player? Is it leaning forwards into the run? Never putting the feet out very far from under the body to maintain balance?

This subject locked it's legs on the forward throw... like it didn't need the spring in the leg to cushion. It was sure footed, not worrying about the foot slipping out from under the step... all on a very steep slope, covered with holes and rocks, dips and raises.

I don't know why Krantz said nothing or very little about the video. I never asked him about it either. I found it interesting that Cliff Crook suddenly took up an interest in the video at about the time Doug became interested.

Until someone does come forward and say that it was a hoax and here is the proof, I am leaning away from it being a human in a costume of some sort. It would be pretty easy to prove this not to be a Sasquatch... unlike the P/G film. I remember an argument by some in the past that the P/G film subject wasn't reacting correctly after running into humans... it should have run away... therefore it must be a human in a costume.

I have gotten pretty deep into this video... not like others where there always seams to be some obstacle you can't get around to get to the bottom. Nothing is coming up smelling bad.

I believe it was Krantz who pointed out the similarites between the Sweeten film and the MDF, he detailed human attributes and biomechanics I failed to notice before I engaged my keyboard. If memory serves, Krantz had some strong points of view on both films, which explained why he found no value in mentioning either in his updated book.

Is this documented anywhere that I can read

I don't know off hand...I 'm thinking 1997-8 maybe during the Danny Sweeten flap...ten years back...maybe Moneymaker has it in the archives...Jeff probably is aware of it and it may be that I have it on an old bare bones lap top from that era, which is in storage. I'll have to look...I remember the exchange well and the dressing down I got from Krantz.

Has anyone attempted to run the path at the speed the MDF subject was clocked at?

I only ask this because it seems with the running comparisons, the speed of the subject is more like a quick jog than a sprint. So far it seems the comparisons are being made to humans in full sprint, with Derick being a world class sprinter.

Locomotion differs quite a bit from a jog to a sprint.

DDA wrote:

Thought this line was worth repeating. :icon14:

Thanks for all the additional information/observations Rick...it's much appreciated.

All this talk of human locomotion. Lets not forget this in most sightings people report "HOW HUMANLIKE THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION APPEARED TO BE". Wouldn't it stand to reason that a qeustionable Bigfoot subject could appear to be human at times?

Exactly ... Except when it doesn't appear to be human, as in the PGF ...

In other words ...

The PGF must be a Bigfoot because of the inhuman characteristics of the way that it moves..

However, who's to say that Bigfoots don't sometimes move like humans, as seen in the MDF ..

Yes, to me it was very human. ...shave off all that body hair and what do you see?

In person, I never thought it was anything other than a hulking human oddity. Where is the hulking barrel shoulders in the Memorial Day film?

I didn't know about bigfoot at the time.... but yes very human except for the odd way it walked. That is where I see the difference between human and sasquatch..... Krantz demonstrates in older videos and with a degree of difficulty, an exaggerated example of their gait, actually Patty's gait ….but he couldn’t take the giant steps forward the creature takes…those giant steps seem to be absent in the MDF. The running strides, it would seem, should be far greater in the MDF than is demonstrated.

This life form seems to throw its foot forward placing in down in front of the other foot heel first so as to look awkward to the observer; at no time did it lock its knees like you and I do, which also adds to the odd walk appearance. The arms dangled rather limply from their sockets giving off more awkwardness; at the time I thought the thing was somehow handicapped, old or sick...

By comparison, the Patterson film subject appears younger but Patty demonstrates that same awkward bent knee gait that I have difficulty articulating in a satisfactory manner to others.

There must be something odd about the hip structure that causes that odd gait and the odd foot placement. I've spent enormous amounts of time talking to physicians who specialize in hip placement, had them study the Pat film. They see the strange gait but all tend to be puzzled as to how the skeleton must be structured so as to cause that kind of locomotion. I've tried it and I always, without exception, fall down in that effort.

Well anyway, I'm through here, I don't see any of the characteristics in the MDF that lend itself to what I feel is sasquatch locomotion. But then as Rick so aptly put it, my points of view are weak. I cant worry about it, I am as confident with my assessments as Rick is with his....... we shall have to agree to disagree.

I always like hearing what damndirtyape has to say. For what it's worth, I'd like to share with everyone what happened in my classroom. I teach high school English, and every now and then I use the Sasquatch films on a lesson in "differences of interpretation." I've got the reputation now as the crazy English teacher who believes in Bigfoot, and it might be of interest to the members to know that those who laugh the most at me and yet are least willing to give me a full hearing are the science teachers. They are closed-minded (or narrow-minded), and if I offer them a copy of the Memorial Day Film or the PG film, they look at it like it's radioactive. I've had several people privately approach me and ask me questions, and they have confided that they think there's something to the legend beyond hysteria or a "hoax." But here's the interesting part.
Just this Friday, I showed my Grade 12 students (seniors) the MDF. I told them I wasn't going to say anything about it other than the fact that it is a purported Sasquatch video. Some kids laughed, and they were the first to yell, "Fake" and "It's a guy in a monkey suit." But there were several independent comments from disparate parts of the room which fascinated me. Some kids said, "what's that...a backpack?" Another added, "no...it's moving". There were several such comments. The second time I showed it, a female student said about the mysterious ending, "Oh my God, that's a baby on her shoulder." Many others agreed. I did not prep the students, nor did I lead them to this conclusion. This is the second time in my career as a teacher I've shown this footage, and each time some students have been disturbed by the "backpack" and the thing that "stands up" at the end. I'm writing this in response to Sierra's question of "what did you see? These students were viewing this film through "virgin eyes". I had not prefaced the film except by saying that some people think this shows a Sasquatch. I never indicated that there could be two, and all I asked is that they write down their observations and try to interpret what they saw.
The lesson was valuable in demonstrating how 30 people can experience the same stimuli and come up with many differing (and sometimes antithetical) conclusions. I was amazed how on two separate occasions, female students have seen a baby in the footage. Surprisingly, males do not see this and perhaps that tells us something about how differences in gender affect the way we view the world.

LittleBigfoot wrote:

And I bet nobody said..."hey, he just lifted up a mask!" :wink:

Young minds are open to many possibilities...therefore it's not surprising that many kids would go along with that scenario, and "see" it themselves.

engine36 wrote:

Absolutely...and especially from that great a distance.

Well hey, that's pretty cool, good idea having the students write down what they see!

I wonder what the students would have said if they were not told about the fact that it was a purported sasquatch video?

"For some reason, I have a hankerin' for paintball" ?

Here is an extreme close-up of the subject just as it disappears behind the table top area. Couldn't help myself with the red and green lines... I made it into a moving gif so that a frame of reference is established. Yeap looks like a human paintballer to me...

Checking the limit on file size

Ok, my Quicktime is jacked up...

So here the gray area can be seen on the head and shoulders. Yes it moves. Is it hair? A baby? or part of a costume?

Excellent footage!!

Anyone else notice around the 7 second mark, how the subject glances down right before making a small jump/leap?

RayG

Can hair be resolved in this video ?

A baby ? Certainly the most likely explanation .


Would a poncho be considered a costume ?

DDA wrote:

Great stabilized animation, Rick!

I was watching the gray area, and noticed it seems to come and go at regular intervals.
I also noticed it appears when, what is probably the subject's right arm, is slightly visible....and disappears when the right arm is not visible at all.

It looks to me like it's visible depending on where the right arm is in it's swing, so it may not actually be moving around on the subject's body at all.

SG wrote:

On Halloween it would. :new_medieval:

I disagree. Looks like a Bigfoot to me .. Female, with young'un in tow..

I see the sagital crest, mid-tarsal break and everything...

I see the breast cleavage and the wee one peeking over the shoulder ..







Seriously, are you being serious with that picture and those highlights ?

I hope not ..

P.S.


There is a line that goes across your image, and differences can be seen above and below the
line.

Any idea what the cause of that might be ?

__

Rick, great job on the stabilization.


To me, on the back of the subject, it appears more poncho-like than hair-like since it seems to "flap" quite a bit.


Look very carefully at around two-thirds of the way through. There's a few frames where it really does appear that
a light-colored arm is exposed. Something consistent with the notion that the subject is wearing a poncho and, assuming Sasquaddle don't at shop hunting stores, human.

:new_sleepysmileyanim: :new_sleepysmileyanim: :new_sleepysmileyanim:

That line seams to be an artifact of de-interlacing or compression during the output in Final Cut. The subject is facing away from the camera... that isn't the front chest, but the back and shoulders.

Interpretation depends on your perspective. No one on this board was there that day.

The flopping gray area is interesting. Sometimes it makes you think the subject is passing in back of grass stalks, spider-webs or heat lenses rising from the ground (You can see the distortion bleed over to the surrounding hillside). At other times it looks like it could be longer hair on top of the head swinging back and forth during the run... but I don't see a poncho... I am pretty familiar with those.

As I said... it depends on your perspective. If you have always thought Bigfoot to be a farce... so is this. If you have entertained the possibility that such an animal could exist than you may be able to see other things in this video. You can generally tell the two apart by how quickly they respond.

It is definitely not a bear or other known animal. Logically it could only be a human since nothing else of that shape, movement ability or dimensions exists in North America. Go ahead and close your eyes to it... but there is more to this video to still study. This small video is also 1.9meg versus the 17meg higher res version I've been working with.

And also noticed that when the subject makes that small jump/leap as the left knee lifts up the subject's left arm lifts up and out for balance.

I concur that damndirtyape did an excellent job with the stabilization!

M. Uncle

I'm thinking I'm seeing about the same thing. But I only get the impression of light colored arm, frame by frame I can't see it.

Can you post a link to 'somewhere' so we can view the 17 meg version? Many of us have broadband and would love to see it.

Can anyone repost this as a different type of movie? I can't seem to get quicktime to play on my computer. It says I am up to date on my updates.

Be sure the files Quicktime needs aren't associated with another application. I was getting a big blank box until I fixed that. Now it plays perfectly.

OK- but I don't know how to do that.

I had a box pop up that asked me if I would like to assign them to Quicktime.

I was just able to go clean the refrigerator while waiting to see if I could get DDA's gorilla movie on the Skookum thread now. I can.

Movie files can take a long time to load.

OK-
I did it. And I have watched the video.

And this is where we are all going to differ.

I see a coat or a back pack fall off his back and onto his left arm and flailing there. Right when he leaps, his extended hand drops back down and a jacket or a pack is hanging from it.

I know, you all see a baby.