I know that there are several threads that mention the Marble Mt. Footage, but now that several of us have the coverage (thanks Rick) I would like to discuss a few things that I noticed, as well as ask a few questions.

1) Did anyone else notice the orange string right over the entrance to the BF shelter? Any thoughts? A little BF mistletoe over the doorway perhaps? Some BF interior decorating? Careless hoaxer?

2) Is it just me, or were those in the video remarkably calm - although the goofy posing in the beginning of the tape gives me the impression that the video was real - no nervous gesturing that might indicate a hoax - at least from those in front of the camera.

3) What time of the day and were the re-enactments filmed and how long after the fact were they filmed? The same time and month as the sighting? (I ask for the reason of lighting - if several months had passed b/w the two events, the position of the sun could cause significant differences in the lighting/visual perception of the two characters.)

4) Did anyone ever go back to the "shelter" after the fact and see if it was being lived in, or investigate the floor of the structure for physical evidence?

5) Does Bob H. live near Marble Mt? (sorry - couldn't help myself)

6) What is the general impression of those who have seen it? I was skeptical at first, until I saw the re-enactments. That made my initial skepticism waiver a bit - the 2nd person looked like a person - I don't what the first "person" looked like - certainly nothing like the 2nd.

Thanks for the feedback.

C

I noticed the orange string also. On second look I thought it may be bark that had peeled at the site of the break.

The shelter would be something to look at again. I would guess that what ever made it probably will not ever use it again.

I found the story on BFRO about it. But does anyone know where I could watch the film ?
From the screen shots that they have posted it does not look like they zoomed in at all with the video camera. As far as I know even the cheapest ones have always came with zoom of some sort. Anyone while taking a long distance film like that was would have zoomed in. So I would like to see the film to see if they did as you can not tell from the screen shots.

Well looking again maybe they did a little but not much. From the screen shots it looks like a plain fake to me.
But the "Hut" does look really cool.

You guy's know as much as me but my guess is that at some time that string marked something of human importance or was used for a simple tarp tent or clothes line. I don't think it had anything to do with the shelter, but I could be wrong.

Fun huh!

The only way to see this video is by way of the Willow Creek International Bigfoot Sysmposium DVD set, disc 3, from the BFRO. It isn't on the net anywhere.

If I recall correctly, the hut was burned by persons unknown.

Um...yet.

Not that I'll be the one to do it, mind you, but it's just a matter of time before bits and pieces of the entire DVD set are posted somewhere...

My random thoughts as I watch the video (and this is mostly for those without access to it)...

These guys are thinking 'bigfoot' way before they see the figure on the mountain. The filmmaker assumes the structure was built by a creature very early on in the video and when one of their party first sees the image on the mountain, he immediately says, "Bigfoot's walking down right now." I'm not sure what it says about the video's authenticity, but if I, the owner of two (count 'em - TWO) bigfoot-related websites came across that kind of structure next to what appears to be a fire ring, the first thought in my mind would not be bigfoot. I'd be thinking hermit/homeless person or something much more mundane than the big guy.

I've snapped some images from the DVD. I suggest, if you're interested in this video, that you buy the DVD. I'm not sure it's worth it just for Marble Mountain, but it's a nice bonus on top of all the truly great presentations...

First, some images of the structure:







A good shot of the 'string':



The filmmaker and another in his group comment that the trees used to make the shelter do not appear to have been cut. They appear to have been 'snapped like twigs' as if by 'mighty, mighty strength'. [EDIT: Except for the image above this one where the ends appear to be very even cut.] Here's some shots of the timber:





A shot of the 'fire ring':



As you can see from this shot, the figure was a l-o-n-g way away when filmed.



I've tried to collect a group of images of the figure that show the limb ratios. Anyone want to do a little analysis?







Gotta run. Check back later...

I agree bip. I certainly got the impression that he had already decided a BF was involved by his narrative. Maybe it was just some adults trying to scare the kids.

The fire pit description was also weird - I don't think that BF's have mastered fire ...

Thanks for posting the pics - that adds alot to the discussion.

Anyway, I for one am glad that the video is finally being distributed for mass consumption/critique. By the way, great editing DDA.

Thanks

C

Totally! When I first saw it, the film wasn't stabilized. That makes it a whole bunch easier to comprehend. Excellent work, DDA.

As for bf's ability to master fire, according to the filmmaker, the ring had not been used, so maybe the bf was only practicing!

Does anyone know what the surrounding area was like? Was there any logging going on? If so, that would provide a lot of waste branches, etc., that would make a great source of hut building materials.

Maybe I should go back and read the report on BFRO...

The only thing here that hasn't been talked about so far is that the DVD case sleeve has a map of the Marble Mt area on it as well for people to look at.

This whole thing was put together like chapters in a book instead of a video (meaning the DVD set). I am hoping that it sets well on a book shelf along with books rather than just videos. It is suppose to be a research tool and not just entertainment.

Glad everyone is enjoying it so far.

Back to the string.
Now that I think of it. That may have been tied there by one of the hikers. They seemed to have contaminated the whole site quite well.

How long was this thing caught on tape for? How far did it walk? Cause it looks to me that the thing walked from the left side of that rock all the way over to the bunch of trees. Or did the camera man just walk up to those trees in front.

I apologize in advance for the size of some of these GIFs...

OK, so the BFRO did a recreation! That's what I like about the BFRO. They give plenty of stuff for us armchair types to chew over! Anyway, I took a frame from the original video and a frame from the BFRO's first recreation attempt to try to get a size comparison. This is the result of that effort:



A few problems. First, the BFRO recreation seems to have been taken from not exactly the same spot as the original. I chose the location for the frame grab based on the intersection of the two hills hoping to be able to line them up. As you can see, it's not a perfect alignment, but it's close. Second, the BFRO seemed to use a slightly better video camera than the church group. You can make out more detail in the BFRO's video than you can in the original. Therefore, it's hard to line up on exact features.

As you can see, based on this analysis, it's possible that the BFRO investigator (identity and height unknown to me) could have been as tall as the figure. However, our possible bigfoot was kind enough to stand for several seconds in between some trees, so let's take a look at that...



Again, the biggest challenge is the different levels of observable details in the different videos. The branch that would seem to be the best to use in judging scale looks quite a bit bigger in the BFRO video than it does in the original (according to the BFRO, that branch is 8' 3" off the ground). Therefore, I attempted to use the width of the tree and placement of the branch to scale the BFRO video image to the original. Note I do not think the branch is much longer, only that the BFRO camera picked up more of it due to its quality. In any event, the branch might be longer but the tree would not be perceptibly wider.

In doing this, I realized that the tree lined up nicely, but the ground seemed to be in the wrong spot. I have no explanation for this. The BFRO did photograph the area up in the trees and it looks (to me) like it's somewhat washed out as if by a large amount of water. However, I don't know where all the water would come from up there on the ridge. Anyway, I tried a second pass at the image and this time lined up the approximate level of the ground (this is made more difficult since the church group was there in the early spring before the foliage had leafed out and the BFRO was there in the late fall when more foliage was present). Here's that attempt:



Based on this analysis and the fact that there were signs of human handiwork at the site of the hut - and until someone tells me where I've gone horribly wrong in all this (please, let me have it!) - I'd say it's entirely possible that the figure in question was a human. Note I do not think this is a hoax, just a case of mistaken identity. The church group could very well have thought they stumbled upon a bigfoot nest. However, in my opinion, there's nothing in the video that conclusively shows the filmed figure is a sasquatch and there's a bunch of stuff at the hut site that indicates human presence. I don't think a bigfoot would chose the site of a fire ring (obvious previous human presence) as the site of its nest. I also think a real bigfoot would have looked much more...'elegant'...walking down a mountain ridge than the figure in the tape does. In addition, I have a hard time understanding how the normally reclusive and shy sasquatch would walk along that ridge in obvious view of all those humans. Why wouldn't it just hide out up there until they left?

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. What do you think?

Well, From my point of view as a Search and Rescue Tech, the shelter looks like a emergency type shelter to me. That is my opinion. Also, the fire ring area, looks like man-made. Notice the wall, great way to reflect heat outward toward someone near the fire. I think the shelter is man-made. Possible a lone hiker who was out and about and needed a quick shelter due to some weather conditions?

The orange string or whatever it is looks like paracord similar to what I carry in my gear.

I would have to agree the site was contaminated by those there in the video. That is not wise if looking for clues for who or what was there. Would created a 15 foot circle around the shelter and fire ring as a no human here zone. Reminds me of my training how to enter into a aircraft crash site. Always mark your route into the site then use only that route during the investigation. Maybe used a Line Search or Square Search patterns.

Those are my two cents worth....

Yep. It makes every day a holiday!

I think you are right on the money Bip. The narrator was probably familar with the BF lore in the area and - IMO - just assumed at first glance that this is what built the structure. And then when they saw the figure walking the ridge - it must be a BF, right?

Lots of obvious human sign, no obvious BF sign = no BF (probably).

How does that shelter compare with the shelter that Kathy took apart?

What about the "fire pit"? Are there documented cases of BFs making designs with stones that could be mistaken for fire pits?

The shelter burned to the ground? Are we sure? In my mind, that certainly seems to lean towards a hoax (hard to examine evidence once it has been burned).

Do the investigators frequent this board?

Again - thanks DDA - this is like Christmas!

C

Well, if the idea of a transient or other human occupying the structure is true, then it's also possible that this person was using an open flame for light and/or to give them heat inside. Then...you know...dry pine boughs + open flame = end of hut. [EDIT: Should have read the report again before I wrote this. According to the filmmaker, a year after the video was made it appeared as though the hut was burned in the fire ring, not where it was standing.)

As I think about this, there is a problem with it being the home of a person. People have stuff. They tend not to carry all their stuff with them all the time. Even homeless people have places where they keep some of their stuff (at least, the homeless people I see by the train tracks next to where I work do). This hut was bare empty. Not a thing in it.

I kind of found it interesting some of the behavior exhibited by whatever it is, like scratching it's chest or raising it's arms to balance (I think). There is even one point below the tree section that it seems to be trying to fling something off it's hand (as if back up in the trees it was trying to catch a rodent?) then ate it and this is it's answer to handiwipes or something.

Warning: Off topic question.


???

Eh?

Is this the prelude to an announcement of some sort?

Like the launching of the long-awaited BIP?

Of course it could just as easily have been a booger too.

Oops. Time to disappear again! :pinch:

My two cents on the MM footage. I just watched it on the 3rd dvd. One thing no one has mentioned yet is that the 1st creature was tall enough to measure the same height as that branch. Later, during the 2nd recreation, they measured that branch and it was 8'3". During the recreation, the man walked forward and backwards to, I assume, see if the ground were higher or lower in certain areas. No matter where he walked, he was always at least 3 feet shorter than that branch. I went back and watched the original footage after the recreation and noticed the creature is much taller. That is intriguing to me. I don't know whether it is a BF or a person but it sure looks a lot larger and taller than the person in the recreation.

It is a little strange that the cameraman automatically assumes it's a BF, although he says "creature" when describing the nest. I don't hear the word "bigfoot" until the kid says he sees him walking on the ridge. It could be that they knew about BF before this campout. That, in itself, shouldn't automatically discount the sighting. What if I were to be out camping and lucky enough to see one? Because I have read so many books and know what to look for, does that mean my sighting is bunk? Think about it.......

That's what one of my little moving pictures was trying to demonstrate. The level of the ground in the BFRO recreation seems much lower than the ground in the original video. Makes no sense to me...

Just from looking at the posted video stills, I'd say that whoever snapped those branches was incredibly strong, and that the figure on the ridge,in the distance shot, is taller and bigger then Shaquille O'neal, a Lot bigger!.....

Take a look at the distance shot, at the ridge to the right of the ridge that the figure is on...Those trees on it look to be of comparable distance from the camara as the figure...perhaps even a bit closer....Those trees are what, 30 -40 ft tall?????That would seem to make the figure 10-12 ft tall at a minimum......

Cool stuff bipto.
Size and shape seem to dovetail neatly with the human in the BFRO re-creation..
As for now, I am leaning toward the human ID for this figure.

If there was logging going on anywhere near the structure, this is the kind of thing you'd expect to see around the site. There's logging near my cabin and we see large branches and small trees broken like that all the time.

Then again, I have no idea if logging is the answer...just a possibility.

But comparing it to the BFRO investigator (who I assume is not 10-12 feet tall) puts the figure in the normal human range. I'm willing to accept that my comparison has flaws, but even if it's close, the figure in the original video isn't Shaq-sized...

About the logging.......Marble Mountain area is a designated wilderness and logging is not allowed.......And had logging been going on illegally in the area, it would have been very evident as it leaves widespread damage.....and wasn't this location at the end of a trail in a roadless area??? How would logging equipment have gotten in????

Good to know. As I said, logging's only a possible explanation. Note, however, that the log with the 'string' tied around it is not twisted or torn. It appears to have been cut. Not necessarily by the builder of the structure, but by someone. Note the BFRO report says none of the logs were cut. Maybe it's just a very clean break.


True, but the video did not show much more than the surrounding camp site and overlooking hillside. From my experience, a clear cut can be 100 feet away and if you're looking in the wrong direction you'd never know it was there.


From what I've seen, the loggers make their own roads. In this neck of the woods, the cut a temporary road in to the stand they want to harvest, then patch up the opening on the main road they shot off from. They'll do this over several miles to get to a remote stand, if necessary.

OK, so ignore the logging thing for the time being. Let's assume the builder collected the materials without the aid of loggers or tools. There remains some issues with the video. The figure does not appear to be much taller that the BFRO investigator. Also, the movements of the investigator do not appear much different that the original video's figure. Was the investigator trying to mimic the other figure? Dunno. However, they do look somewhat similar.

One correction. Earlier in this thread I said the video was taken in the spring. According to the report, the video was taken in July. I did not remember this point from my original reading of the account and assumed it was the spring based on the snow still present in the video. I guess there still is snow in shadowy pockets at that elevation (about 6,100 feet, according to the report).

Haven't seen this asked yet, but is there a ridgeline hiking trail up there? Alot of hiking trails follow ridglines.



Hard to tell of course and this is just speculation, but the bulkiness on the shoulders/back of one of the stills or two looks like it could be a backpack on a hiker trying to navigate a ridgetop trail?

Again, just asking if there is a trail up there from anyone that knows.

I couldn't see anything moving in your pictures, but it could be that my computer has some settings wrong. All I saw was what looked like a still from the original footage of the creature between the trees.



That makes much more sense to me. One of the kids says during the video that it's 8:30 and that it gets dark around 9pm. That makes much more sense for July than for early spring. It looks like about 8:30 the way the light is.


Yeah, I agree with you there. The two figures do move similiarly. It could be because both are bipedal and have to move that way to navigate the ridge OR because the investigator was trying to imitate the original figure. (or I suppose it could be that the original figure is a human )Those are my impressions, anyway.......

I guess the jury's still out on this one......

Forgot to mention about the fire pit....... it does seem strange for there to be a nest so close to a planned firepit. (didn't it have a grate like you find in a campground?) The only explanation I can think of is maybe it is an abandonded site that hasn't been used for many years. It makes no sense for a BF to make a nest so close to one that would be active.

dammit dammit dammit

if there was ONE thing that could lure me into spending 80 bux for this dvd set, it was talk about the marble mountain footage.

dont get me wrong, i WANT to have the dvd's but i cant afford it right now....i just cant, but i did it anyway. oh boy. my bank will be mad at me

gael (anxiously waiting for mail)

Does anybody know the name of the ridge that the "creature" was filmed on?

GPS coords of the hut? The name of the road?

I would like to find out and then compare to topo maps in that area. The reason would be to establish if there are any "active" trails present in the aforementioned area.


Help The QuatchWatcher :help: :help: :help:

OK, I get it. Here's a side-by-side version of the two images I posted...





It seems clear to me that something changed in relation to the ground's location between the original event and the recreation. Erosion? Mudslide? I plan on looking at the recreation video again when I have a chance because the BFRO did film up there. That might shed some light...

I didn't notice a fire grate. The pit is not like fire pits I'm used to. The rocks are spaced very far apart in a circle and look more like they're meant to be used as seating. If there's a smaller pit where the actual fire goes, I didn't see it in the video. As far as it being deserted goes, that's possible. The report says it hadn't been used, but there does seem to be a pile of something in the stone ring. Could be that it was used so long ago that it looked unused?

I think that the recreation video location was closer to the subject site between those tress, not further away and thus at a lower angle (just look at the video portion from atop the ridgeline). That is why in the recreation there is now vegetation that can be seen that wasn't there before and some trees protrude about the ridgeline. That will have the effect of making the recreationist appear taller if you try and match up the ground levels. I don't believe that the ground level on the ridge changed any between the different videos.

I think of the shelter and the walking subject as two different items. They may be related and then again they may not. Neither reinforces any theory about the other at this point.

I also find it hard to reconcile that a church group would be hoaxing anything like this or letting it go on this long if it were.

I don't know if one camera was of a better grade than the other but the lighting was certainly different and that can add quality as well as being on a tripod.

It doesn't look like a trail up there. To me, the original subject really looks like it is walking as if barefooted. You see no sliding, dust kick-ups, small jumps or other characteristics one should see with the use of shoes, and indeed we can see happening in the recreation.

I guess I'm going to have to dig out the money from somewhere to buy the DVD set, don't know where though.

Looking at Bipto's posted still above from the footage, it just looks like a backpack along the back, baggy shorts down to the knees, and then bare legs from the knee down.

It's just too darn vague to see.

I think you are looking at the recreationist, not the unknown subject.

Well here i am late as always in giving my opinion on any subject(been away for a while).
First of all, did anybody notice that during the beginig of the filming the cam operater turn's to a standing tree and finds claw marks as if to add a little zest? Since when do they have claws?
Second, like everybody said the orange string or wire at the entrance of the hut makes me wonder but okay, maybe these creatures are scavengers and pick-up whathever they can find or steal?
Third,no logging is required to find broken limbs in the forest,wind, heavy snow or freezing rain will do the job naturally and i think enough kids are present in this video to drag them back into the hut area.
Fourth, a fire pit? :blink:Like Bipto wrote it does not look like a fire pit and why would these creatures need one if they can eat raw meat? For warmth during the warm season or to say look im over here? I dont think this hut area can be attributed to this creature, if it was not made by these people a hiker or camper probably did it.
As for the subject in this vid, humm quite skinny,shoulders not very wide although trapeze muscles seem well developed but as it walk's down the ridge it try's to slow down its stride like the human subject in the re-enactement, wich in my mind would indicate not very much strenght in the upper leg area but its still to blurry to make out any good detail.
I wonder if all the people in this video have been separately interviewed,is there a number on the BFRO site for this sighting?

Yes. It is on the front of this sequence on the DVD you must have just watched.

BFRO Report 2928 - http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2928

In looking over the report, particularly the investigation report of Kevin Withers, I am troubled by Mr. Withers inference that the subject is indeed a "Bigfoot."



How about "may be" - "possible" or "alleged"?

The BFRO recreating is troubling because of one amateur mistake. The lady on the video starts to voice a skeptical opinion, and they edited it out (or so it appears). Scientific evidence should be able to stand on it's own feet, it must not be filtered. Filtered data is preaching, not scientific inquiry. Does anyone know what she says in the original video?

(Howdy All, new member, first post, but long time interest in this topic due to incidents around here....Calaveras County, CA)

Howdy, HTH. Welcome aboard.

I'll have to go back and watch it again. I didn't catch the edit you're talking about. DDA would know if the tape was altered in any way...

I noticed the edit too. It's just as the BFRO guy walks under the overhanging limb.

I noticed what sounded like an edit too but the tape that was given to me is supposed to be unedited. Unfortunately there is no way to tell because there is no time code on VHS. There is a story about how the tape finally got to me but I am not sure if that has anything to do with it. I will say though that I am sure that the camera the man was using did not use a VHS tape format, yet that is the tape provided me through Matt M. - Kevin W. and finally from Doug H.

The recreation video was edited by me, cutting out stuff when the guy on the ridge was behind something and nobody was speaking. I did not edit the original except to add music to the end, clean the sound and stop motion on portions needing it.