Bigfoot? Sasquatch? Has anyone got a Youtube link showing a Sasquatch that is not out of focus or so far away in the distance?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    There were no good videos of a Bili Ape until about 10 years ago.  It is amazing that if bigfoot are real, that they haven't had better evidence.   The Patterson film is the best film to date.  To dismiss it as simply blurry does it a disservice.  It has a lot more going for than a quick glance might tell you.  The funny thing about Bigfoot is that people have an almost religious skepticism of it.  They will believe anything if it helps them tuck it away.  I have studied the evidence so I can't just dismiss things like Choko does. 

    Choko is clueless about the subject.  He is referring to Ray Wallace.  Ray Wallace had a contract to build a road above Bluff Creek.  He was not present when Jerry Crew casted some prints that were disturbing some of the workers.  Wallace was at one of his other projects but was upset because he thought someone was trying to scare his workers and they aren't easy to find there.  Ray Wallace did make some fake feet many years later but they are the not what made the prints on Bluff Creek Road.  Choko is happy to believe the wife and kids who are absolutely clueless about the evidence.  It isn't really that difficult to completely debunk Choko's claim so I will.  I doubt it will convince him though.  He would prefer to believe the random wife and kid of Ray Wallace.  

    http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/wallace_co...

    Someone made it easy for me.  The first print was cast by Jerry Crew and brought to Eureka, California and the paper there coined the name bigfoot from that cast.  The story quickly became national.  Ray Wallace had nothing to do with it but it sparked an interest in him.  He claimed to believe in bigfoot and I think he probably did.  He has faked some tracks in the past and they are easily distinguished from "real" tracks.  Real tracks have toes that show movement in each step.  The foot is flexible and bends around rocks.  The foot bends at the ankle with no arch like humans have.  There are many features of the "real" footprints that are consistent with what a very large hominoid would need.  A bigfoot is much much heavier than a human and the tracks sink deep and a wood track cannot be made to look natural .   Ray Wallace couldn't possibly have set many of the vast number of tracks that have been found since the late 1800s from Alaska to California and east as well.  The footprint evidence from the Patterson film site is among the best and it certainly wasn't made by Ray Wallace's cast as the family suggested.  

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Laverty+track+bigf...

    The Laverty track was one of many cast after the Patterson film.  It shows a print made with a flexible foot, not a wooden cutout.  

    I'm sure Choko will still believe his weird version of the truth but I have totally debunked his answer.  The capacity for some to delude themselves is amazing.  They will believe nonsense coming from the wife and son of a man that actually BELIEVED in bigfoot.   

    My hobby is bird photography. I have one lens that cost 7 thousand dollars because it picks up more light.  I know better than most how difficult photographing things in the woods that don't hang around.  You have to be very quick and have a very good camera; otherwise it is going to end up looking blurry and dark.  Patterson did a remarkable job with a decent camera.  He was lucky.  The Freeman footage may be real as well but the Patterson Film is better.  There are a couple others but a lot of people create hoax footages.  There is money and fame and with those idiotic bigfoot shows on TV, like finding Bigfoot, it probably created a bit of a craze.  

    • ...Show all comments
    • Sandra K
      Lv 6
      2 weeks agoReport

      JimZ mindlessly wants to believe this hoax. He claims    the Patterson film is evidence, but all objective people know it's fake. There's no real evidence to be found for something that doesn't exist. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Megumi
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    No, there are no clear photos or videos of imaginary animals. YouTube is full of fake videos. of course. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Lots of people have uploaded YouTube vids, all claiming to have THE final solid proof that Bigfoot exists.  And all of them are total bull shift, no exceptions.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Bigfoot lore.  The stories, the old First Nations legends, the Patterson Film, I can't get enough of that stuff.  Nothing would make me happier than someone dragging a real live (or dead) Bigfoot body out of the mountains for all the world to finally see and study.

    But as much as I love the legend, I know it's not gonna happen.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • jimmy
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    LOL. No, there are no decent pictures of god or Jesus either.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Bigfoot/Sasquatch was totally discredited about 20 years ago when the widow of one of the two guys who first perpetrated the hoax came forward. When her husband died, she went public and admitted that the entire thing had been a scam, and she subsequently turned over the original bigfoot suit, the plaster cast used to make the bigfoot "footprint", and the original video negatives taken by her husband's friend who helped him carry it out. She apologized and said that the two of them were just having fun and never realized how far people would take it.

  • 1 month ago

    The problem is that Sasquatch IS out of focus.

    That's why you can't take a clear picture of it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    lol no its fake

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.