BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Here's the 1962 Bigofot footage that predates the Patterson-Gimlin film


On last Sunday's episode of Finding Bigfoot, Matt Moneymaker and his team traveled to the Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado to investigate footage of a possible Bigfoot that predates the famous Patterson-Gimlin film. The 50 year old footage shows a giant animal on two legs crossing a snowfield, jumping from rock to rock. It was inadvertently filmed by Gary Bouvier's father during a Boys scout survival camping trip in 1962-- about 5 years before the PG film.

The footage is said to be the earliest Bigfoot footage ever obtained. Gary was 13 years old at the time, but he can distinctly remember his father telling him that the Bigfoot turned and looked at his father before hoping away. They kept the video in the family for over 50 years and until they finally decided to release the video.

Here is Bobo's recreation:

95 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Look's like with a little research and a topo map and other sattelite maps, somewhat of the exact location and area could be determined. If I had more info on the area I could try to find the area. Take some measurements of the rocks it was on if they could find them in the same spot that is or some other known marker for measurement and then compare it from known measurements. It wion't prove too much, but if it's an adult Bigfoot and it's tall, it will make the film much more credible. Somebody might eventually do all the scientific measurements needed to draw somewhat of a conclusion. Like that done of the Memorial Day Footage.
      On that show, I wish they would go out there quietly and get rid of all those lights! They could be the best beacons to let a Squatch know that they are there and coming and that's why they don't get much for their encounters. These creatures are smart. You can't get close to other animals lit up and noisy. They can't get close to anything at all in the wild. The closest they ever came to anything and made me believe in the wrong conclusion, was a Horse! That's not a wild animal! Until they can practically touch an Elk, Deer, or a Bear for example, they are not going to get close enough for a Bigfoot either. Good luck and it's entertainment for us Bigfooters and the likes. They look all lit up and even if they are infrared lights doesn't help with nocturnal animals. I never get the point of looking at someones face with a camera in a lot of show's. OK, I can see thier face and reaction, but does little or nothing at all to see what they saw to cause them to be startled. Ghost hunting and Bigfoot hunting alike. It's like "Oh, did you see that!" At home I'm like, "Nope, all I saw was your frigging face!" LOL. C'mon, face the camera the other way!

      Delete
    2. But he Is first. He claims nothing else does he?

      Delete
    3. I didn't read the essay above but all you need to know is 3 words: Bigfoot don't exist.

      Delete
    4. Did anyone notice the figure lurking in the background when the girl scouts were screaming around the campfire? I swear it looked just like Robert Lindsay.

      Delete
    5. The reason why they always point the camera at the guys on the show instead of the ghost or Squatch is because they ain't really seeing anything. If they didn't react to something it would be boring to watch and whether you're Zak Baggins or Bobo and you're either in a haunted house or a forest at night that shit is spooky and you're mind plays tricks on you so naturally you're jumpy as hell. It's all contrived and the action's always off camera because most of it is in their heads as for infrared lights I don't think nocturnal animals can see infrared either, certainly humans can't or other apes so doubt Squatch would either.

      Delete
    6. Speaking of nerd humour the clip looks like an outtake from Withnail and I. The 'Bigfoot' even seems to be wearing Richard E Grant's oversized flowing overcoat.

      Tell y'what though it makes you realise why Patterson's film shot only five years later still stands head and shoulders above everything else right up to the present.

      Delete
  2. if Finding Bigfoot were to ever come across something substantial, we would hear about it instantly instead of waiting 6-8 months before it airs on television.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt Moneymaker would never be able to keep his mouth shut for that long. NDA or no NDA

      Delete
    2. very true!! 4 fuckin idiots who hasn't got a fuckin clue on how to locate a bigfoot! idiots still believe bigfoots are modern gigantopithecus..

      Delete
    3. ^^^^^^^ Grow up junior. In all your miserable meaningless life will you NEVER come close to any of these "idiots" accomplishments

      Delete
    4. Anonymous Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 1:07:00 PM PST*****Who the fuck are you to talk? You don't fucking know me cunt! I am famous! I have money and I have power! I am anonymous! Bitch fucking cunt better watch what you are saying!!!!

      Delete
    5. 1:14 is another example of the need to get guns out the the hands of the mentally ill.

      Delete
    6. I took law classes for one year and will sue you in civil court!!

      Delete
    7. If they ever did find anything think it would get to the press quick and they'd quickly edit it to show that instead of the originally scheduled episode and use the press to publicise it like crazy to make sure it's ratings went through the roof

      Delete
    8. I think Matt should find a pair of scissors fast.

      Delete
  3. I was bought up to believe the universe has a plan,we are only human it's not ours to understand

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's "brought" up dumbass!! "BROUGHT" up!!!

      Delete
    2. rumfer - You'd make a great cult member. I think the Scientologists have a few brochures they'd like to send you.

      Delete
    3. I've been a Scientologists for years. No money worries since I joined. They took it all.

      Delete
    4. Keep looking down into the bottle

      There lies YOUR future

      Delete
    5. Great post anonymous. Dum fucks have no opinion of your own or info you want to contribute.
      I am anonymous!
      I will not forgive.
      I will not forget!
      I will remain anonymous!

      Delete
    6. What exactly are you contributing why did your people hack in to soldiers names and passwords to me that's called treason

      Delete
    7. Glad you guys know the proper words,pardon my typo and lets gaze into that bottle

      Delete
  4. The problem with skeptic's claims is that their arguments are based on science = God. Their arguments will always be faulty as long as they cling to that false premise. Anything based on a false premise is false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make about as much sense as this show.

      Delete
    2. Skeptics also base their belief on No Belief at all! God nor science is involved in some skeptics decisions on wether to believe or not.

      Delete
    3. I'm pretty sure the bedrock of science is evidence. The bedrock of bigfoot is bullshit.

      Delete
    4. And God certainly is bullshit

      Delete
    5. The teleological argument is difficult to knock down and not simultaneously throw common sense out the window.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry but intelligent design is based purely on faith in a fairy tale made up by people thousands of years ago trying to explain what they didn't understand, that's common sense.

      Delete
    7. Uh, the teleological argument has nothing to do with any "fairy tale."

      Delete
    8. Where is your missing link to prove evolution talk about fairy tales

      Delete
  5. Bigfoot is a human, it is not a creature.
    Human foot and human hands

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And human inside the suit.

      Delete
    2. anon 12:35 i agree with you 100%..

      Delete
    3. Eight foot, hairy, no language, no fire, but human right?

      Delete
    4. From the thousands of eyewitness accounts dating back to the native americans. There must be a lot of 7 foot or taller guys in bigfoot suits. Someone call the NBA

      Delete
    5. That's why they are called "Mythical Creatures", based in and on legend,folklore with a healthy dose of Sweet Grass and Peyote.

      Delete
    6. How long was Troy considered mythical folklore? Low and behold there's a Troy get a better argument

      Delete
    7. I didn't realise Troy was folklore, human feet and human hands? Well guess we have prints for the feet (if any are real) hands? Where's the evidence? By the way Koala's have fingerprints like ours that make them human too?

      Delete
    8. 1:09 yes or alien. Laugh today shame tomorrow.

      Delete
  6. Wow, the original blobsquatch.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Imo, jumping across rocks seems like a human characteristic...especially from the animation in the video... But for the dad to treat it like he had a special secret....Either he saw something that we didn't (video is shit) or he's a loon that generated this Story for his kids, and friends to feel special about himself... I do like how old it is tho...however, to hope is to risk pain and we all know where that has gotten us my sasquites....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How did the scout leaders manage to view the 8mm film and determine that they had filmed a bigfoot& then decide it was unsafe for the scouts to go very far? 8mm films needs to be developed in a lab...did they back in 1962 go to the nearest lab with the film, wait at least 24 hours.. if they were lucky to get it developed in that short time.. view itand then go back .. etc.. the story is bullshit and makes little logical sense..
      brianbrowers... youtube... bigfoot debunker

      Delete
    2. Why didn't they investigate the 1963 Harlan Ford footage it looks a lot more squatchy than this.

      Delete
  8. The question is:

    Where is Dr. Bryan Sykes?

    He was to be finished and perhaps published by December.

    We need a Sykes update.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meldrum reported last month that Sykes had not started work on the samples.

      MMG

      Delete
  9. Newsflash: A doctor wants to clone a Neanderthal. He is asking for a volunteer woman to give birth to it.

    This is another example of the imaginers and fictionists being decades ahead of science, and perhaps again being proven right.

    Case in point: Planet of the Apes.

    "There's no such thing," say it all you want, now a scientist wants to create a Neanderthal. He believes he has enough DNA to do it.

    If so, our future is not only filled with humanoid robots, but other homo species. Can you envision Neanderthal gangs of thugs? Will homo sapiens conquer again, or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of us have 3 or 4% Neanderthal DNA anyhow so they never really left

      Delete
  10. I heard Bobo is making a movie...Bo Dirt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was just a working title, it's now going to be released under Bo Bo Dancer, Your Mother is Calling

      Delete
    2. Current production title is "Deep Inside Bobo"

      Sequel will be "Are You There God? It's Me Bobo"

      Delete
    3. Matt & Bo Bo's Nice Dreams.

      Delete
  11. I would like Bigfoot to exist but aren't we in the digital age and its been a few years now. We have all this mass technology and we get all these videos of Bigfoot that are blurry and most hoaxes. The Pattersonn film is truly the cream of the crop. If I were these hoaxers or the people who film these creatures with crappy whatever their using, they should be upset that a film from 1967 is still kicking their videos ass. Without a body, I will still be skeptical..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patterson was the only hoaxer with balls enough to shoot a guy in a suit out in the open in broad daylight.

      Delete
    2. Dyer shot the guy who dressed up for Camper Vid. Blasted him in the back of the head. Didn't stand a chance. Dyer trumps Patterson because he carried out this act in his underwear.

      Nothing will stop this man.

      MMG

      Delete
    3. Hoaxers don't dare to film a suit out in the open because their poor suits and gait would give them away, that and the fact bigfoots 99 times out of 100 know you're there anyway and this explains the rest.

      Delete
  12. Hi Rictor, have you noticed the heavy duty knee pads the Jim Lebus guy wears? I wonder what those are used for?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Replies
    1. Good for you retarded girls need love too.

      Delete
  14. On the show Barrackman stated that it must be a BF as it's hands would lift up to aid balance when jumping just as Bobo's did. While he was saying this they were showing a clip of 1962 Bigfoot lifting it's arms to help it balance erm... Just like Bobo's did.

    MMG

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anyone care to discuss the many flubs of Bob Heironimous? There are literally dozens of them.

    I can't bleeve the evil skoftics are so scared of the many blunders of BobH that they would stay away from my thread. And there are literally dozens of them. Blunders, that is, not BobH supporters.

    Pip pip cheerio. I have to get back to the circle jerk now. But feel free to discuss the many gaffes of BobH. There are literally dozens of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob H's existence alone probes bigfoot is real.

      Delete
  16. lol @ "we can't rule out the possibility it's human"

    Because everything on 2 legs is Sasquatch unless proven otherwise right?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whats with greasebag's Broomhilda hairdo? Its very squatchilicious!

    ReplyDelete
  18. ha, looks like the little dutch boy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Video shot in 1962 by scout leader who takes it back to the tent shows it to the other scout leaders and decides its unsafe to let the scouts go off to far... how did they manage to view this film... 8mm has to be devolped in a lab/processed before viewing it...
    Brianbrowers.. youtube bigfoot debunker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't show it to the other scout leaders they just believed him because he was so convincing, not saying it's real but just clearing that up

      Delete
  20. As to the gigantopithecus argument, how do they really know it was an ape and not a large human? We have remains of a larger human in the ancient human fossil record, but with giganto it's only teeth and a mandible. I don't recall seeing they have DNA (not sure about this). I remember them trying to get it out of a tooth some time ago, but they couldn't as it was too degraded. They reconstruct the whole thing based on a gorilla which is an assumption, isn't it? We do have those moundbuilder skeletons that were huge and had double rows of teeth. People say there were no bones ever found, but what if these are from the unknown animal/human/whatever that people are seeing? Just some questions, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Palaeontologists have found a bucketful of giganto teeth and at least three fairly decent mandibles (although none that I know of were completely intact) which was enough to show a close enough morphology to orangutan skulls to enable them to reconstruct the rest of the skull with some degree of certainty. Gigantos were obviously somewhere in the superfamily Hominoidea (apes) but current thinking places them closer to the family Pongidae (orangutans) rather than Homininae (gorillas, chimps and hominids/humans/Bigfoots).

      The question of whether they walked upright or not is currently based on the shape of their mandibles since that's all we've got to work with. A U-shaped jaw (like a human has) would allow room for ther windpipe to fit in the jaw and indicate that the skull probably sat squarely on top of an erect spine, which would suggest that the creature habitually walked upright. V-shaped jaws (like orangutans and gorillas have) would indicate that the skull sits further out in front of the windpipe and suggests that the animal usually spends more time on all fours. Giganto's jaws are somewhere in between U-shaped and V-shaped and are quite wide in the rear so without discovering at least a partial cranium and finding out where the foramen magnum opened on the skull and connected to the spine we can really only speculate. Most palaeontologists these days reconstruct Giganto on all fours.

      Then again most Bigfoot reconstructions show an ape-like nuchal angle (the neck is angled forwards, not fully upright) so the foramen magnum isn't as low as on a human and the mandible wouldn't need to be all that wide at the rear anyway.

      Delete
    2. Thanks so much for an intelligent answer to my questions. I'm guessing the moundbuilder skeletons haven't been tested since there seems to be some denial that they exist, but are supposedly being kept hidden by the Smithsonian. There is one photo floating around though. Most speculation is that they were definitely very large humans. What would the presence of double rows of teeth indicate about them, (if this is actually true)?

      Delete
  21. Moneymaker and Michelle Obama now have similar hairdos.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Moneymakers hair looks... Betarded

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be nice when the man is changing his gender in front of us.

      Delete
    2. LOL, I'm sure he's going through some changes. You're right, I should have been a tad more sensitive to his trials and tribulations! Lol

      Delete
  23. Finding Bigfoot reminds me of Spinal Tap.

    ReplyDelete
  24. i can tell youwhy it took 50years to show it. 'findning bigfot' show and exposue and the hope of making ash as te g/g 2 film. all it shos is a fellow kiker avoiding jumoing into deep snow exactly what we'd all do! move on nothing to see here. the tent footage is the only interesting bf film ive seen[p/g film is a clear hoax by dubious chancer] sadly the tent footage is associated with rick dyer,the renowned hoaxer,so how can u take it as real either.lol,lets face it we can sleep easy as theres no 10ft huge apesin out forest/back yards etc..only in america i guess

    ReplyDelete
  25. Being surrounded by renowned schools including Cedar Primary School,
    Maris Stella High School (Primary), and the St. Andrew's Village suite of Kindergarten to Junior College education. the interlace

    ReplyDelete