Hi guys new footage pointed out by Craig on Cryptomundo.

New Hampshire Footage

Morgoth we'll need your help on this that's for sure.





A more detailed look at the 'face' picture shows something with massive shoulders and a chin below its shoulder line.

Very suspect one.

Cons:
Creature:
It seems that in the first part a Jacket is visible (line over the feet and straight down the side). The subject bends its elbows sometimes.

Gait:
The gait in the first part looks very faky to my. It seems that the subject turns it´s shoulders to swing the arms. Also the feet looks "funny" like a soldiers march. It doesn´t realy looks natural to me.

Face:
The hard reflections of the sunlight on the black "skin" isn´t usual. It looks like a plastic mask. Also the proportions looks western pointy nose, small mouth etc.

The situation:
It´s hard to believe that they filmed until the subject seems to nearly reach out for them in the first part. No sound? Why did the camera not focus in the first part? Were does the fotos come from, the picture shown here doesn´t look like to be out of the video, as a still wouldn´t be that sharp with such camera movement as seen in the video, also the colors etc. are pointing to fotocamera. Suspcet.


Pros:
Creature:
Seems to have a short neck. The subject also seems to be quite fast and bulky.

Gait:
We don´t know how a BF "runs" (fast moving), so it could be this way.

The situation:
The second part alone looks more credible. Nearly crisp sharp. Maybe it was an advanced cameraman who not used the autofocus. In this case he just wasn´t mentaly stable enough to get the subject into focus in the first part as it was near and other things were on his mind. In the second part with some distance he was able to get it into focus.

My conclusion = Fake
The face looks like a black mask with european caracteristics, no pointed head nothing.

Does anybody know how to get the youtube stuff on my computer?

CU

I was gonna say it looked interesting. That is until I watched the video and noticed it's a man in a suit with the camera purposely out of focus.

After a little bit of photoshop, I´am no more so sure if it´s a cheap fake. In the attached pic it seems we even can see the right eye, but with a pupil it seems. Strange. Also the whole appearence of the face changed for me. At least a advanced fake if it is! Is someone making a BF movie? (manual focus ect.)

CU

Regarding the first part of the footage - does a digital camera/camcorder do that sort of thing (blocking/pixellation) if at a very low quality setting (if it does, why have the setting since it's useless)? It looks more to me like the footage was taken from the camera/camcorder, downloaded to a computer, and purposely encoded at such a low bitrate that the quality would be horrible. Very suspect.

Regarding the second part of the footage - how would the person know (in the heat of the moment) that the first part of the footage was terrible and changed to a higher quality setting to capture the rest? I guess he could have played it back to inspect it, but would he have had time? Interesting that there was never a clear shot of the subject during the higher quality recording...

I´am nearly going crazy wright now. The unrealistic reflections aren´t reflections but foliage!! Who would take a faky looking pic and send it online? A viral marketing crew!! Or is it realy real??

CU (maybe in just some seconds ;-)

Usually Camcorders don´t have the abbility to generate low (-er) quality data. The problem seems to be youtube. If the codec don´t find sharp edges he change to lower quality as it would be useless to have a blury "high" quality stream. Interessting is the apple TV system. A friend of mine told me that they are using a much more sofisticated codec for the content downloaded over this system. Got to the apple.com website and look what is possible with a good codec. All there presentations and Ads are basically in the same bandwith like youtube, but they are bigger and also quite fast, but crisp sharp!!

CU

Data,

I might agree with you, but why then is the second part of the footage so clear? I don't think it's a youtube thing, I think the first part of the footage was purposely encoded at a very low bitrate so it would be basically indiscernable. I'm sorry, but that looks like a much lower bitrate than what would be necessary for a youtube video.

Someone might have a better explanation - I'm all ears. But for now, this is my guess.

Well, well, well. I didn't see this part of the description: "Might share the rest of the footage with the right individual as well as the details, but do not want to cause any kind of frenzy."

Makes the whole thing a tad bit more suspect to me. Why would you show this part and not the rest?? Makes no sense, unless someone is looking for an easy pay day from some sucker.

Your wright,

that is just a possibility I mentioned. My point is that the codecs aren´t made to encode blury footage. I think that the ultrabluryness of the footage guided the codec into this unusual bad quality. What´s also interessting is the focus itself. As I mentioned earlier. What I got to know is that it seems the focus is never changed, either in the first or second part. This leads to the conclusion that it was filmed with manual focus. Why the cameraman didn´t have to find the focus in the second part, but wright away was wright is suspect. Has he already done a training shot?? I should mention that if you zoom in you have a bigger resolution and therefore a better posibility to focus. If you want to make a professional zoom in you usualy first zoom in and get the subject in focus, than zoom out and start the recording. If you not do this you will probably (without a rangefinder) have to adjust the focus if you zoom in, that doesn´t realy look professional. I also noted a blowup effect in the first part (things look thiner or bigger due to light effects), that is due to the out of focus situation, and i never heard a low resolution makes this.

The camerwork reminds me of the faked BF video, of a BF walking in high gras, up and down a hill, some time ago. It was made by a filmteam for some sort of anti crypto show, If i remember corectly. There were simular professional aspects to the camermans work.

Also the combination of a stereotype (hoax) first part and quite good second part, seems to point to a trap. Also my further Photoshop work shows suspect blue color in the eye (but also somewhere else). And still the photo itself is suspect as it don´t seem to be a still of the footage (dynamic, color, shutter, etc.). I think it could be a trap know, they want us to oversee the blury part and make us justify all with the second clear part (inlcuding the photo), I think.

Further investigation of the original footage will be interessting.

CU

This was from Craig on Cryptomundo

"Rick Noll has agreed to look at the original footage and the person who uploaded it to youtube has agreed to send the original footage on to Rick."

So let's see if Rick receives the original and I would think he would pass it along to Morgoth for enhancement if he feels the video is worth taking a closer look at.

Good comments Data, Tiger and Colston.

When someone films a real BF, it seems natural the film is going to be fuzzy due to the stress level of the video maker. Imagine a BF running towards you. The film maker was brave to just stand there.

The posts are so technical it's hard to follow. Is the first part fuzzy, since the auto focus picked up the trees in the fore ground making the background where the BF is out of focus? On the other hand, the low quality of the video makes a faked video more real. I'm a sucker for vidoes like this. I want to believe.

The nose of the BF look wider and pointed and not what I expected. Patty in the Patterson film has a blunt nose. I suppose there can be a wide variety of BF faces. This face look scary.

very interesting possible new hampshire bigfoot filmfootage. but more research etc needs to be done to this film. new hampshire forests does a good histery of sasquatch related activity over the years. please keep me posted ok. thanks bill green

The pixelation and blockiness at the beginning of the video is what happens when the camcorder is set at a high zoom and that video is then converted to the format, .flv (Flash Video) that YouTube uses.

Please hold the camera steady as the bigfoot runs directly at you. Please, I'm begging.

There is something wrong with this video. The version I grabbed has been edited from the original. The frame rate changes towards the end. Not necessarilly a sign of hoaxing, but...

Click to view attachment

(CLICK TO ANIMATE)

Click to view attachment

I like the flowing white facial hair in the animation.

Here is the face, maybe the same creature as the film... I can't tell if this picture is a capture from the video, or separate.

It really looks separate, like a digital camera still, but it has no metadata...

Click to view attachment

Yeah, DIGITAL ZOOM!

Morgoth, wich tools you use to get and edit this youtube stuff?

May I use your work for further investigation and postings on BFF.

Best Regards

Data

Yes, everyone, you can have anything I enhanced or created, and do what you want with it here.

If you use it somewhere else, attribution is appreciated but not required.

Everything is not copyright, public domain, created under fair use.

Again, I might tend to agree, except from what I see in the video itself. In the second part, it goes into a high zoom as well, and although the video does get blocky and pixelated, it never gets as bad as in the first part. Also, the video quality in the second part only gets really bad when the camcorder is shaking quite a lot. As soon as it stabilizes even a bit, the quality recovers rather quickly (as I would expect from a good encoder at a decent bitrate... as soon as the motion compensation is given half a chance).

I would say that the zoom in that second part is at least to the degree that it was in the first part (if not more). I would also say that there is not near enough motion (from the camcorder shaking) in the first part to conclude that the combination of the two (zoom/motion) resulted in the poorer quality recording. Now, focus might be the issue. That much I might agree with.

All this being said, I'm no expert. So, if I'm really missing something, please let me know.

Good point.. EXCEPT many camcorders today come with the automatic stabilization feature which pretty much eliminates great majority of the shakiness of days gone by when using high magnification zoom. Most cameras also have auto-focus and are pretty quick on focusing on the subject in the shot or at least some portion of the shot being captured. Nothing is in focus in that shot in the first part of the video and it seems the effect is overall the same, which still suggests the zoom factor to me. Due to the blockiness and pixelation I still don't feel it's a focus issue.

The first part of the video ruins the rest of it for me. The arm swing and the shoulder rotation just makes it look like a cheap suit. However, the last part of the video is interesting. I hope someone can do some further work with it and I hope the original is much better.

You musta been reading my mind cause you just crystallized my thoughts J. They woulda been much better off just showing the picture of the 'face' and leaving it at that. Of course then we wouldn't have known it was a fake then, lol.

And the Answer IS,

Fake.

he admitted to faking it as part of a movie test shoot. He's now refusing to answer any further questions from the curious cryptozoologists over at Cryptomundo (read the thread).

The give away is the obvious (and quite horrible) walking gait in the first part. It screams 'man in suit attempting to walk like sasquatch'. The arm swing is far too exaggerated, and has that hip and happenin' kewl look only we hunams can throw into it

hey bc cryptid welcome to the bigfoot forum thanks for that great above update regarding this film. thanks bill

Thanks for the welcome, Bill!

Good to be with some enthusiastic monster hunters.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick and tired of this type of crap. Apparently we've got a whole bunch of hoaxers following our boards these days just trying to "get it right" and pull off the ultimate hoax.

I hope that this will show why some of us question the many, MANY things that are brought to the board and posted as being the 'real thing'. It really is sad to realize that when we point out the obvious flaws in this type of hoax, the assholes who are doing these 'tests' just take our comments and input and use them to try and create a better hoax.

I just hope that someday, somewhere, these jerks will have a bigfoot step out and roar right in their face. I'd love to see them shit their drawers. Take a video of that and post it on YouTube ya prick.

BTW, good catch Craig.

hey jayleed i have a realy big feeling that this film situation is not over yet i think cryptomundo & youtube should launch a investigation to see what is realy going on with this film. please keep us posted ok. thanks bill green

Actually that would probably never show up on YouTube. Some of the garbage I've seen being released as videos and movies over the last few years would probably earn something like that an Academy Nomination.

What J said...

I hope they use a better camera for the movie.

I feel your frustration Jaylee but this is exactly what I would do if I were making a low budget bigfoot movie. Why hire primatologists and anatomists when a day on Youtube gets you a bigger audience, likely viewers, and most of the supposed bigfoot experts that are hardly identifiable otherwise? For free.

What's encouraging is that we generally see these as the crap that theyare right away, and don't waste much more than a day looking at them. This one was so laughable it didn't even warrant a post in my book- though it initially piqued my interest having grown up in the White Mountains.

Moving on....

Apeman

I'm not tired of it at all.

Bring it on.

Let's see any of them beat Patterson's "obvious" hoax.

This does nothing but strengthen the 1967 PG film.

Keep it up, shitheads. I'm loving it............

I didnt even bother to click replay with this one. It makes me wonder though. Is time running out for someone (us) to get decent footage of a real one. I think if it's not done soon, with all the bored graphic artists and informed hoaxters out there, then NO piece of video will ever even be considered to be real.

I think we've all been wondering and worrying about that. But my take is it will depend on who shoots it and how it's handled. For example, if Rick Noll shoots it and contacts someone he knows and that trusts him at National Geographic first, that might be a little better than Biscardi shooting and selling it to the weekly World News or the anonymous idiot showing it on Youtube before doing anything else.

I guess the point is that anyone that comes across potentially good evidence by any means needs to be really careful about who they contact and how they handle it.

Apeman

I´am also not tired of such stuff.

I like to enhance and research such stuff. As I myself looking forward to maybe someday getting the possibility to realise my own BF movie It´s even more interessting. What I don´t understand is why B (C, D, E, F,)-movie people think a BF movie is easy to make? If you are realy into BF you get to know that a realistic BF is a masterpeace to make! Althoug a 3d-specialist friend of mine meant that patty could be modeled and textured (hair) in three weeks by a singel person (HD qualitiy), it is even more difficult to get the movements wright.

If the BF looks to human, it looks like a joke. So you have to make the diferences between BF and human obvious, and that´s also very difficult, think alone of the sice (ex. is patty big, for the first time viewer?).

CU

I've stopped being as excited when I hear about new footage, lately.

Exactly Kucta-qa. That is where most of my frustration lies.

A very likely senario is that someone who doesn't understand all these issues will be the one who takes a real video, posts it wherever, and then a copy ends up on youtube that day. This is the reality of the global Internet, I see it in the business world all the time. The guy with the fastest T1 line will be the one who sees the first bigfoot.

So like it or not we have to be diligent, and take these things as they come in. There is a very likely senario developing where they put 'em up and then we take 'em down. We end up with a viral cat and mouse game with players at both ends accelerating the traffic.

What is the time lag between when a real video is available and when it ends up on youtube? Five minutes. Same as a fake one...

Morgoth, I completely agree with you.

Despite a number of dedicated field people out there, the first "real" video is likely to come from a innocent bystander with no SOP for how to release it to qualified researchers or the public. Numbers alone suggest that.

We've been busy honing our s**t detectors (maybe mixing metaphors there; are s**t detectors sharp?) with all of these videos, and that is a good thing at least. It's encouraging to see the posts on this thread were largely negative before the hoax outing. I was intrigued by the stills but hadn't seen the video yet.

And, in any case, if a "real" video of a Sasquatch isn't very distinguishable from a hoax or mis-i.d., it's not of much worth at this point, sadly, anyway.

Hmmm, I watched this footage a week ago and though it was a load of crap and told the guy what I thought (I'm Ricky540i on youtube) I thought it was such a bad hoax that I didn't even think to post about it (and get laughed at)

The so called BF face was puzzling me, then I began to see the edges of the mask reflecting light. The eyes looked wrong since the plastic holes make the eyes too dark. It a relief it is a fake since that BF is really ugly with a weird nose and a mouth that is too low and big.

Its a good thing to hone video analysis skills since we should be able to identify the real thing like the Patterson video when it comes along. As skills are sharpened, hoaxers fail sooner. It would help if we could research the video photographer's character.

There are going to be some videos that will be impossible to determine unless the creator can be researched. Researchers will also need to find the location right-away to verify evidence. Intensly realistic films will be rare due to the funds required to make a fake outfit. The problem is these outfits are more available than in Patterson's day. The motive for making such an expensive movie is what?

If there ever was a crucible to weed out the digital chaff from the wheat, this place would be it.
Keep it up folks, love this forum.
Meantime, I'll keep waiting for that fortunate soul to record the Irrefutable One.

FAKE!!! Too jumpy,its coming right toward him at the beginning,pretty close,yet the filmer doesnt get strtled.TOO MANY HOAXERS HERE!

never piss off a woman from the quachita river bottoms

I am with Bill on this one, lets get the Youtube investigative team out there and see what they can turn up.

uhm, yall notice this thread is almost a year dead?

hey everyone so any new research investigations enhandsments on this filmfootage, wow above replys look very interesting. thanks bill

Too true Hunster..

Sheesh, one would think that living here in NH, such a video would have generated some local news and story time. Not so at all, I've never heard of this until just now. I find this fact to be strange. Also, note all the cut trees seen in the video. If you walk up into White Mountain National Forest, you're probably not going to see fresh chainsaw cuts like this, apparently 6 feet off the ground like that. If they cut at all, they hire a pro who will cut the entire tree down. Whoever used the chainsaw in other words wasn't a professional logger, and one doesn't just carry a chainsaw in a backpack a mile or 4 up some mountain trail (there are no roads). Get caught cutting trees up there and you be in doodoo. Far more likely video is faked at someone's summer cabin or such. The chainsaw cuts are very out of place IMO. Lastly, the statement about being up near the alpine level....well, up in an alpine meadow, there are few trees, and the ones that manage to grow do so parallel along the ground in general, stunted by the heavy constant winds. Some of the trees up there are a century old and only an inch or so in diameter in the main trunk, because of the ceaseless high winds. As you rise in elevation and get near the tree line (the term the hoaxer intended to use) the trees are all stunted, and wind sheared, and the deciduous trees pretty much vanish, with the sub tree line levels being inhabited almost solely by the various conifers that grow here. The deciduous trees we see tell me he is lying about how high up this video came from, and I know exactly what I am talking about on this topic as I have spent a lot of time up there near and above the tree line.

Read what "Jamesowens817" wrote to the video on Youtube:

"This is footage we took for our film "monster in the woods"
Just a quick little flash in trying to create our own bigfoot sighting video for the film. This is an unused test from the film."

Seems like he never claimed it's real.

Psy

PS: sry for my english ^^