Look at 41 seconds into this YOUTUBE video. Watch as a black spot stands up 3/4 of the way up the screen and from left of center to the left side of screen and then off screen. the camera then focuses on the obvious main biped walking into the woods.

If there are two 'people' on this hill, as I see in this, then the argument that there wasn't a paintball game going on because 'where were the others?' is null and void. It is possible that there is an edit there, but I can't tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46BjxhDh-JA

It is a small tree or bush.
Look right before the camera looks down your see it then when it comes back up the running subject has moved to the other side of it.

No,
You are looking at the wrong time. Look right at 41 seconds, you will see it stand up, and then further to the right the camera follows the second guy.

Look at around 35 to 37 sec or so and line up that tree or bush or what ever it is up with the rocks. Then look again at your 41 sec and line it up again with the same rocks and all you will see it is the very same thing. I would say it might look like it is standing up to you because when the camera comes back up it is auto focusing and the tree comes slowly into focus.
This film has been looked at so many times over the years you think every one would have missed something like that ?
I even know of at least 2 TV shows that have shown it and tried to reproduce it.

And paintballing has never been allowed at Lake Chopaka.

Nice try though.

Like I've said before, the fact that paintballing has never been allowed at Lake Chopaka, has no bearing on whether or not people were playing paintball up on the hill. But we've been through that before. The point of this thread is whether there is a second person up on that hill, and until now, no one has mentioned the figure standing up on the hill while another figure runs out from behind the right side of the hill.

I did see what you are talking about,it seems to pop up and follow. I see it clearly one time than not at all the next could it be a flaw in the video/edit? Or just my tired eyes.

The guy with the hat, everybody is so worried about the guy with the hat. All he was doing was taking a leak. Lori accidently panned that area and he got caught in the trees. He was about 100 feet from the toilet bldg, but still about 200 feet from the fence line. Why wasn't he using the toilet? Probably it was already in use.

The creature on the other hand was uphill from the fence, around another 600 feet. With a camera at that distance you do not see all that much of the creature. In other words, you have to enlarge, this is when the peculiarities stand out. We estimate that Lori was about 900 feet from the creature when she took the film. I should point out that during the exhibition run on that hill, one of the forensic guys thought he saw a pickup parked near the place where the creature was seen at the fence line. When you pulled that terrain in close, all it was, was a clump of grass. the P/U would have been about 3 feet tall.

Who ever made the assessment of Derek is right, he did run faster than the subject, but I want to remind you that Derek had trouble running that path also, so he didn't run all that fast either. Also, keep in mind that the creature had trouble trying to adjust something on its back. You could tell something was going on when you noticed the arm swing. Only one was swinging. This we think was the result of trying to adjust the little guy. It was a mama with her kid. Now before some of you think that it could be humans jacking us around, I want to see your wives or girlfriends climb that heart attack hill just to run 22 seconds across the hill to fool those jerks down below. If you find a lady that can do this, I want to see her. She would have to be one SUPER MAMA.

By the way, let's take a look at the witnesses. In Lori and Owen's group there were 7 people that were witnessing this event. Next to them were a different party of 6. This makes 13 total. Add the guy with the hat, that's 14. The two guys still out on the lake, that makes 16. There probably was over 100 people at the campground with about one-third of them within eye sight of the event. That's a lot of witnesses.

Incidentally about 2 weeks later, Owen went back to the site and ran that same path. He had trouble. First climbing that hill, then running across it. Lori took a video of his run. That ground is uneven terrain. I should also point out that what I call a 'hill' is really a mountainside. Chopaka Mountain has 3 peaks over 7000 feet high. Of course, where the lake is, is much lower, around 1000 feet. If any of you guys would like to test your 'trusting' SUV's I've got the terrain for you. Getting in to Chopaka will grow hair on the bottom of your feet! Go with a full tank of gas and a vehicle strong enough to climb roads upwards of 10 degree inclines for about 3 miles before you reach the pass. That entire road can be seen from across the valley. If you go there be sure to stop on the Loomis side. If you look west it is like looking at a large loaf of bread. You can see this tan line going up from the lower left corner to the upper right corner of the loaf. This is awsome. Trust me, you will never forget it. You actually travel along side of 3 mountains, Rattlesnake, Quartz then Chopaka.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Oh, Lori is my daughter. She's the one that took the film. I don't know whether I can answer all of your inquiries, but I will try. To me this is a phenomenal sighting in that you have to do quite a bit of detective work to put all the pieces together. In a sense this is fun, particularly when you have the details of the sighting, which many of us miss by reading the reports. So, keep up the good work guys, check and recheck, analyze and so on. We need all the help we can get. By the way, for your information, there probably was a third BF on that hill that day. an adult male. We think that this was a family.

I had t watch it five times before I saw it. You're right. Something or someone stands up on the hill, but it's only on screen for a half-second, then the camera moves right.

Thanks for participating here.


Based on what?

Apeman

Hello, thank you for joining in and giving us your take on this sighting.



What gave you that impression? I had heard about another sighting, by a woman and her son (?) in that same area that day, is this what your talking about? Or is there another reason?

Were you there the day this film was taken?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions

Yeah, I see what you're talking about Drew. Good observation. . .No matter how many times I watch this video, I still cannot figure any reason to think that is a B/F. Towards the end, right before the edge of the woods, it just looks like a guy exaggerating his arm swing to me. Just doesn't do it for me.

Looked at the 41 sec mark and all I see is a bush that is also there in the same spot before the camera cut. I think it is a bush and pixel smearing makes it look like it is moving.

To think we had a whole thread on him and nobody thought of that.

Thanks for making my night

Does the comment "the simplest answer is usually the right one" apply here??

what guy in the hat?

Here is a small (157k) lores video of the white hat guy and here's a ridiculously large (15MB) hires video of the guy.

Sure does. I can see why he might not want to come forward and be identified.

In watching it again, I believe just after the 41 second mark, a second figure stands up on the hill.

Can some one zero in on that, and blow it up or anything?

What if I were to tell you that Paintballing is allowed at Lake Chopaka? Would that change your position?

Anyway...
I emailed the Wenatchee field office asking them if I could play paintball there



And the response came back today.


So, I guess I was right after all... It was a couple of paintballers on the hill!

Could it have been a person hiding behind the bush,(camoflaged of course), and when the other figure runs behind the hill, he stands up? If as I believe, these guys had ghillie jackets on, they would be invisible at 300 yards sitting still and in cover.

You're the expert though, if you think it is a pixel smear, I'll leave it at that, but please look at a couple more times and decide.

The guy in the hat looks like the rancher from below the Chopaka grade road. You have to pass through his property down there to get the road up. I met him on my first trip up. He was scouting the mule deer population. Classic western ranch attire.

It is also not uncommon for one government office to give a completely different answer than another office, especially one as far away as Wenatchee or separated by 11 years.

Impossible !! Paintballing Has never been allowed there !

And while we are at it; it's illegal to sell volcanic ash , and there is no volcanic ash in Onion Mountain soil !!


So there !!

Just what does volcanic ash have to do with the MDF? Please stay on topic.

Edited cause I just read something.

Question. Drew why didnt you ask when paintball playing was allowed? The response you received said nothing really about when the game was an approved sport in the park. Just because its allowed now (you posed your question in the present tense) does not mean it was acceptable at that time.

As I've said before, what difference does it make? We've been looking at this crappy footage for over ten years. Either it's real or not, but even if it is real it's not even conclusive evidence. It doesn't help the bigfoot case at all. So far, the PGF is the only footage that could contribute to the arguement.

Sorry sir, forgot my sarcasm emoticon, sir !` ( or whatever emoticon would have identified my comments as
an attempt at levity )
I seem to have a problem when I try to be funny ...

Because as I was reading the Federal Rules, I found no rule outlawing paintball, on Nat'l Forest Lands or on BLM lands, the only rules outlawing paintballing, were specific to National monuments, and were based on specific N. Monuments, to prevent defacing of the monument. I sent the email to see if there was some white paper rule (internal document) circulating that said 'We don't allow paintballing at Chopaka' Since there is no revision to any rule regarding prohibition of paintball on Federall lands then there is no reason to ask about 1996. There has never been an official rule outlawing paintball on Federal lands, unless the group is charging money, then they need to secure a permit.

And if you rememeber LAL's letter which is less than a year old, she was told 'we have never allowed paintball at Chopaka Lake' while it may be what she was told, it is not true.

That was very unfair. I do believe LAL posted the entire email exhange between herself and the person who provided that information - what is the motivation for that person to lie to LAL. What you have is an email stating paintball is allowed today - but it does not say when it was first allowed, because you didnt ask that very important question. You asked for half the necessary information, got what you were looking for, then claimed victory.

The email you posted here in this thread, does not invalidate the email that was sent to LAL and posted here- its just one more opinion which no one has yet verified. How you can now say anything is untrue - is beyond me.


P.S. There is no rule or revision that you are aware of.. There very well could be - and you just have not found it yet. I say that, because there seems to be some discrepency between the email you received and the one LAL received.

It was unfair to use the statement that "paintballing has never been allowed at Lake Chopaka" to try to counter my belief that this video shows a second figure stand up, in the upper left quadrant, just after the 41 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46BjxhDh-JA

How is it unfair for LAL or anyone to relay what they are told? If you are wrong, should we blame you for misinformation?

Because the argument that paintball isn't allowed, has no bearing on whether there was a paintballer up there.
Relaying the information is not unfair, but stating that because it's not allowed, I shouldn't even bother with the idea that their is a paintballer up there.

It has nothing to do with the information in the email itself.

Lake Chopaka is so out of the way and would add hours to any group outing wishing to play such a sport as paintball I would think that if there were participants in the area they are of one of two camps:

1. Locals who live near enough and wished to conceal their tactics to other participants by way of introducing livestock as moving targets or
2. Members of people camping at the lake that day.

I can not believe that some one would go to this location for the express purpose of playing the game. They either lived nearby or were visiting anyway.

Paintball guns require compressed gas for the weapons. They make a repetitious thudding sound when fired. No one during my investigation made note of any such sounds or the use of an air compressor. Unusual sounds such as this most likely would have stampeded the range cattle in the area, I saw a couple when I was there when I started my geny. This is frowned upon by the cattle owners and complaints would be made. Of course spare bottles could have been brought along but now we are talking about systems running a couple of hundred dollars. No one has mentioned anyone playing such a sport at the lake that day except for you. No one has come forward and said that they know anymore about that day or video than what the public has already seen on TV news and the LMS video.

Plane and simple, people are grabbing at straws with this paintball scenario. Cattle owners, DNR and Fish and Game officers regularly visit the site. One member from the BFF even visited the area but failed to make a report of conditions or results from any investigation he may have conducted like asking these kinds of questions of law enforcement officers and land owners.

The hillside is riddled with small rodent holes, creating foot traps that anyone with a little bit of sanity would avoid… kids would be told this by their parents, adults would realize that going to work later would be hampered with a sprained or broken ankle.

I think people are mixing things up in their heads when it comes to Bigfoot. First… a video or film will not prove it exists… but any video or film presented must be of course be the highest of quality… but if too high a quality then it must be a fake… until we have a live or dead specimen all such reports, videos and films must be considered a hoax or misinterpretation… and on and on.

In the future, when and if Bigfoot is proven to exist, this video may be looked at in a new light. Was it a Bigfoot? Its probability most likely would go up. Researchers would say here is some behavior we have on video. What is it telling us? Don’t look at the video as something that has to be laser sharp. Scientists look at videos much worse than this when documenting behavior. They don’t always need to see the eyes, nose, fingers or scrotum to tell that for some reason an animal was doing such and such. Get ahead of the game people. Determine your tolerance of reasonable doubt and reduce events concerning Bigfoot below that and then file away for later puzzle piece fitting.

If it was a proven fact right now that Bigfoot does exist would anybody be looking at this video and be saying - “why that is a paintballer.”?

It is a fact that Humans exist, yet am I the only one who thinks it is a human?
I only think it might be a paintballer, due to this: I think I see a hat or face shield, I think I see a hood, I think I see a gun, paintballers wear ghillie suits(accounts for the sighting of hair), and it is running in a way that paintballers run when involved in a game, and it slows down when it gets either; hit, to cover, or out of bounds.

I personally have never been convinced by this footage, there really isn't enough detail to say anything other than it is definitely some kind of biped running across the hill.

I dont really see what your saying about the gun but that close up of the head does kinda look like a paintball face sheild.

I would agree with that... and I'd go on to ask, "what about the video in the FIRST PLACE makes anyone believe it's a sasquatch in the first place?"

I like to play paintball trivia as much as the next guy, but I cannot comment beyond that because when I click the YouTube link I get...

This video has been removed by the user.

Does anyone know who actually owns the video that Darkwing Put up showing the subject running behind the hill? If so, or if that person is reading this, could you either put up that short 7 second clip that I am referring to. (Where the 2nd subject stands up) or at least post some stills of the bush as the 2nd subject stands up?

Thanks

Drew - could you please reword the question cause I don't think I understand... you are involved with a detailed problem involving a video of a purported non-human primate and you don't know who owns it? Correct?

The video that Darkwing put up was copied from the LMS DVD .. I believe Owen Pate holds the copyright .

Correct about the fact that I don't know who owns it, Incorrect about the part about having a problem, and that the problem is detailed. It was simple, there was a video on youtube, I maintained I saw something, and now the video is gone. Problems usually cause distress, I am not distressed in the least.

Thanks for the info SG, I didn't realize it was straight off the DVD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWLkeLLhYQ

The video is back up.
Look at the 41-42 second mark.
Something appears to stand up to the left side of the screen. Then the camera pans right to the main figure.

You mean this?

Yeah that's the ticket. Is it another guy squatting there just out of the runners view, and then he stands up when the runner gets past the hill?

Inconclusive. The camera is moving so much at this point and is blurry which could cause it to appear to be moving, consider the following frames as the camera is panning away from the area:



and just 2 frames later:



The stretching is definitely due to camera movement.