This footage from Sundance, Utah is probably one of the most intriguing one yet. It was filmed near Provo Canyon and though there are many questions surrounding the capture of the video, one thing that can't be disputed is the height of the creature. In this breakdown by ThinkerThunker, the beast is much taller than the person standing in place of it. It's a must watch, but first, take a look at the original video:
According to the two who captured the video, “We were driving near Sundance, Utah just outside of Provo, Utah in the Pravo Canyon. We saw something in the trees so we turned around as quickly as possible. We captured this footage of what might be a bigfoot or sasquatch.
"While racking up lots of views; this footage has been blasted for being a hoax. But an overlay comparison provides us with some new information." - ThinkerThunker
 |
| Person standing where the creature was |
 |
| The creature is much taller than the person |
Bloke in a suit.
ReplyDelete^ bloke in a straight jacket.
DeleteKEEP UP THE GREAT WORK THINKER THUNKER!!!!!
Joe is a paid troll. Pay him no attention
DeleteKing troll to you, inferior boy. I wish I was paid.
DeleteJoe if your getting paid, I want a piece of it. Preparing to fax shawn my resume, mind if I put you down as a reference?
DeleteThanks Joe, you rock!!! And thanks Shawn - greatest blog ever!!!
DeleteNow, somebody please explain to these guys that the only thing more elusive than a bigfoot, is a bigfoot suit used in hoaxes. We've never seen one surface, ever. And yet, so many continue on, sadly believing in monkey suits that never existed.
Got monkey suit? :)
: )
DeleteWILD BILL gots that thar BIG KNIFE sayin come ans gits U some
Delete8:27 has weird sexual fantasies about Wild Bill and his oh so tight around the crotch jeans. Dude just come out of the closet-stop torturing yourself and slide that hot meat down your throat
DeleteWILD BILL gots tham tight pants sos hes cans gits to that thar BIG KNIFE of his
DeleteThinker Thunker is delusional. Why wouldn't he be, he believes in monsters. He's a lot like Munns the Magnificent, the Man Of Many Moobs. He takes as much liberty with his digital analysis as he wants, as long as it is skewed to whatever hoaxed film/video needs to be established as real. For examples, the shoulder width, why stop drawing them in at the middle of the trees, why not draw them in at the full obscured width of the trees? Since you are drawing things supposedly hidden by trees, why be shy, go for broke. Oh, and forget that the subject is further back than the friend, which as any noob can see would make him look taller. Huh? Yeah, the camera is above the head height of the friend, and the guy in the suit, and so the further back the ape suit is, the taller it will look. Key here, check out where the feet are! Monster feet higher than friend feet, oops! Dream on, Tinker Tanker, you guys just scrounge up whatever crappy video you can, because you aren't going to get anything better than crap. Anything better would be too hard to explain as real.
Deleteor a SHEEPSQUATCH
DeleteI'm sorry... How many liberties can one take when concerned with competitive scale? The process is as simple as it suggests. Your point would be valid if ThinkerThunker was making up for lack of pixelation detail, but it's really not the case as soon as you have what's drastically needed in instances such as this, the comparison shots... And we have the EXACT location in said source. You can clearly, CLEARLY see that the shoulder width even without the suggested width drawn that exceeds the trees, even without this and using the inside width of between the two trees; is far greater than the gentleman's in the comparison shot; it's an angry straw man argument.
DeleteAlso... Uuuuum, no, the friend's placement in the shot is not further forward than the subject, that's quite literally seeing something that isn't there... Rather audacious considering you've tried insinuating that some people do exactly that; seriously audacious. I can't see feet? I can see what looks like a knee cap exactly where the comparison's is??
I think you're an angry twonk that really hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about.
On the contrary, I've watched your posts for a while, and you seem to be the angry little man who is upset that your fantasy world of make believe forest monsters is laughable to balanced, mature, grown up people. You crack me up, and it's funny watching you struggle to grasp intelligent sounding words to use as a defense for your idiotic delusions. You don't even live in the US, isn't that right? Yet you know all about the monsters that live over here. Hmmm, I thought that failure to launch guys, who never really mature and remain stunted, with a 50/50 chance of still living with dear old mum, was an American problem, but I see that it might have reached across the pond to you Brits as well. Funny, funny people who believe in such ridiculous fantasies and waste their time trying to argue it's so REAL! Cracks me up.
DeleteYet you fail to counter any go the points that obliterated you.
DeleteTu*d... Ha ha ha ha!!
Yep cause there's 8 ft tall 4 ft wide gorilla suits in every Walmart and party store in America.
ReplyDeleteHa ha ha!!
DeleteJoe is a paid troll. Pay him no attention
DeleteHe wishes he was paid.
DeleteThey better pay him well
DeleteMMC
I wish! The king of trolls!!
DeleteIn accordance with the terms of the bet that I believe Dan may very well have intended and one that did not prevent me from doing my own After Hours Rictor Reality Show ( my reality of course) to the always great ThinkerThunker post, I proudly unveil drinkerdrunker. Now. First of all let me say it is very dangerous for one Bigfoot to pop out beside the roadway and scare teens, what concerns me is the second Bigfoot who is clearly photobombing his buddy with the "Two fingers over the head while the teenagers tape us" gag. This is an added distraction and an even more present danger, to both the car passengers and his friends' reputation. Secondly, preparedness, if you are going to attempt, after every weekly dinner, to steal back your wine collection 2 bottles in the trash and out the door at a time ....prepare for shocking or unexpected events, like I don't know, kidney stones, and in this fashion you will not be caught with your pants down lying in broken glass. Joe I'm going to be out for a while. As Jackson Browne wrote, "tender is the night. "
DeleteI went back and rewatched this several times, Joe look behind the Subject at the huge black mass that towers above the first. As TT enhances the arm and shoulder movement look specifically for the face and conical head of a much larger Subject remaining well hidden from view. One of my old research partners insisted these things may get as big as 15 feet, true Giants, I laughed and said any such imagery would be akin to a walking monument which could easily be viewed from Space. I wonder what the largest recorded track ever was. Well back to the ice pack and Fahrenbach's chart.
DeleteUsing TTs own size ratios I believe if you could see a bigger hidden Subject in back that it's just over 10 ft. tall and remains present in movement throughout the reveal
DeleteYeah they do make 7 foot tall bigfoot costumes, you can buy it online and have it delivered anywhere.
Deletehttp://www.thehorrordome.com/deluxe-sasquatch-bigfoot-halloween-costume.aspx
Now you need a four foot wide dude to fill it.
DeleteMike!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
I have to admit its not that difficult to make a passable Sasquatch costume. I had a very realistic one with 2 foot stilts and arm extensions. One hand was mechanical and the out fit was padded like a football players shoulder pads. I personally never used it to hoax or pull pranks on people. It was used for the commercial haunted houses I design and run. The costume was stolen however so I have no idea what happened after that. I do believe there is a Sasquatch humanoid that exist, and the above film may show one, but to rule out pranks and hoax on the basis that people wouldn't go to lengths to build a costume is misguided. Unfortunately without direct physical evidence, this will always be a possibility.
DeleteMike Brookreson, I think you are seeing the shadow from the headlights shining on the BF
DeleteJust who is "Bloke" anyway? Why is he always in a suit?
ReplyDeleteTT is great.
ReplyDeleteJoe bought this hook line and sinker like he does all hoaxes. No surprise there.
ReplyDeleteSays Panickin' Skywalker ^
DeleteWow what you are you like 10?
DeleteIt got you didn't it?
DeleteWanna bet?
DeleteYeah!
DeleteJoe, you ignorant slut. That was a major BURN
DeleteNot really, I want a bet????
DeleteI am NO LONGER into Guys!
DeleteI NEVER was into Girls!
MMC
^^^ look who woke out of his crack induced coma
DeleteGet a job boy !!
MMC
^^ WHAT THE !!!!
Delete^^ you heard me boy
DeleteGot monkey?
ReplyDeleteYes thanks, check up top.
DeleteA bloke in a suit? What about an actual physical specimen?
DeleteI'll reference you the Smithsonian studies again if you wish?
DeleteSo where are the physical specimens? Where is the scientific acceptance?
DeleteGone with the immense cover up of archeological studies.
DeleteHow convenient? Probably locked up in area 51 with all the little green men! Hahaha!
DeleteKeep praying.
DeleteFor?
DeleteNothing lacking here.
Your the one that should be praying for when a single piece of verified evidence that can support your claims.
Coming from a rhetorical twonk, that's rich.
DeleteKeep praying no more paper trails surface describing exactly where the imumerable specimens have been taken to. When you have three generations of scientists in a maintained stance, that's your biggest problem.
You don't understand consistent science, you're too dumb as well as rhetorical.
No one is praying for bigfoot not to be found.
DeleteYou don't understand consistent science.
I reference consistent science too regularly to count, I would pray the number of reputable scientists involved stops growing and making yor angle less of a means to wangle.
DeleteBeing a 'bloke in a suit' might be a bit dangerous if the witness decides to bag themselves a 'dead' bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteThe bloke in a suit is a friend of the guy filming. Its planned. It's a hoax. Like the pgf.
DeleteGot money suit? Got bullet brave person to put in monkey suit??
DeleteA suit made of money? Sounds expensive!
DeleteiPhones are a bugger sometimes.
DeleteBuying apple products... Ouch.
DeleteToo expensive???
DeleteJoe is a punter
DeleteJoe is a douchebag. Of course he buys apple products.
DeleteToo expensive... Thought so...
DeleteMy phone costs more than apples flag ship iphone but who cares. I prefer an ecosystem that has freedom and compatibility, not that apple wall gardened ecosystem junk.
Delete^ price exceeds pocket money allowance.
DeleteDon't forget the "suicide nets" that had to be put up around apple factory "dorms".
DeleteI absolutely LOVE Caulk!!!!!
DeleteMMC
^ homer
Delete^ scarred for life.
Deletethat is no bloke in a suit.
ReplyDeleteIt's so massive. If you can find any guy that big to fit into a suit please bring him forward
There's nothing it can be other than a bloke in a suit. No other existing animals fit the profile.
Delete... "Said the sweaty Anon taking off his jacket, climbing on to the therapy couch..."
DeleteWhat other animals fit the profile Joe?
DeleteBoy this is gonna be good.
Let me see... Duuuuuuuh, subject matter?
DeleteWhen you need reminding of the blog content you're on, it's time to take a break bro.
This blog is about something that doesn't exist until proven otherwise.
DeleteYet you seem like you really need to convince people of that??
DeleteFooters such as yourself will never be convinced. You are already way down the rabbit hole. Is just funny giving you a full time job of coming up with excuses to explain all your shortcomings.
DeleteComment of the week;
Delete"AnonymousMonday, July 28, 2014 at 7:34:00 PM PDT
Here's the explanation:
Teacher: What does your daddy do for fun at home when he's not working ?
Kid : He looks up Bigfoot stuff.
Teacher: Oh.
Kid : He posts about it on a bunch of different websites and he also watches Bigfoot shows and has some books about it.
Teacher: So he's a footer ?
Kid : No, he says he's not like those idiots cuz he's a skeptic.
Teacher: LOL"
... You people neither understand what the evidence is, nor have the ba*ls to step out of the closet and admit it's there. You've had all this time to 'end' it, yet more and more scientists end up to the contrary.
Funny that.
The kid in that is calling footers idiots.
DeleteWe're all idiots.
DeleteTRAPPER on tham critters
Deleteans old marine WILD BILL with Trapper on the hunt with that BIG KNIFE
DeletePJ's mistake is calling for people to put an end to this bigfoot nonsense when it's well known you can't prove a negative. Mainstream science says bigfoot doesn't exist because there is no qualified evidence in order to be tested. No evidence to test, no bigfoot on catalogue.
Deletelack tham mexicuns shure do
DeleteSupression of evidence fallacy. There is plenty to test, I have sourced it frequently, and falling on preconceived conclusions that support your agenda does not account for the logical explanations and circumstances that explain that those conclusions are fawlty.
DeleteBy leaning to hearistical ideals, you are in fact suppressing evidence because you have questions still to answer in the process of either verifying or condemning consistent scientific method.
The consistent scientific method that has tested the best evidence given over a 50 year period by the best bigfoot researchers in the world, not just North America and roundly concluded all were extant animals, moss, or non-organic fibers.
DeleteCry about elitism and cover-ups all you want, doesn't change the fact in 50 years not a single legitimate bigfoot sample has ever been accepted by real scientists.
Sounds like you're full of denial.
Nope!
DeleteYou've had a genticist (Sykes) that's merely tested a handful of samples, to which there are plenty of hair samples that cannot be tested due to lack of medulla.
To compare that very few amount of samples to thousands of years of cultural & contemporary references & anecdotes, tracks, recorded language and footage... Is nothing but closure desperation. There is consistent science applied to all said sources outside of testing alleged DNA samples to which you have a rush of blood over... By, I might add, by some of the most excelled scientists in their respected fields.
It is denial to maintain a rhetorical stance and keep avoiding those facts like it's a taboo that burns you vampire in the sunlight style.
Yet you are the one trying to argue existence on an obscure blog to the masses. Funny how that is when, according to you, it's clear to see Sasquatch already has enough evidence to not only step from the tongues of oral tradition to reality but be scientifically catalogued.
DeleteWhat a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive....
Nope, I'm actually drawing attention to evidence of it's existence, I can't prove it's existence at all, though I'm certain of it. You're good at baiting, not much else. You are the one spending your time on an obscure blog trying to change people's minds and that shows a requirment of effort revealing of your anxieties regarding the concept.
DeleteI have never said here is enough there to catalogue, you bait again.
I think you're a free thinking nazi that oppresses progressive scientific concepts that have consistent data to support.
So you don't think science has tested the best samples offered?
DeleteEveryone knows about you're evidence, it's already been investigated before. You are not satisfied with the outcome is all. You have put nothing original on the table.
Science has tested samples, but it's tested a very small number of the samples. You'll always have people collecting samples and testing them from now forward, it's a silly argument and closure desperation to the extreme.
DeleteThe evidence I put forward has been 'investigated' and concluded upon that it's not worth considering because it has examples of being falsified... It stops there. What your 'science' does not account for, is the fact that all sources of evidence even in the court of law are falsifiable, and further to this; it then shuts out the logical explanations, forgetting it's scientifically consistent application that have excelled fields or decades.
No it's not
ReplyDeletethats a biggzie!
ReplyDeleteU mean Benghazi
Deletethen its not Hillary fault !!!!
That's a fella in a costume
ReplyDeleteThat's a chap in a gorilla outfit
ReplyDeleteThat's about 7.5 feet tall.
DeleteStanding on something? Extended head? Inaccurate comparison photos? Can you really not explain it?
DeleteNope! It looks too big sorry.
DeleteOh it "looks"... Ahaha
DeleteThat T Rex on jurrasic park looked too big too.
Comparison scale says "no". Sweaty?
DeleteSweaty yeti? Let's not even go there.
DeleteJoe has OBVIOUSLY never been to America to witness the true mass of our citizens.
Deletehttps://www.gorillasuits.com/Gorilla-5004_Mega-Tall-Gorilla-Costume.html
DeleteOur Mega Tall Gorilla Costume features an extra tall head piece that increases your height by 12 inches. This unique 7 ft. Gorilla Suit is sure to be a hit at your Halloween Party or Event/HOAX
http://www.halloweenstore.com/thestore/prods/fw5709.html
DeletePlus Size Gorilla Costume includes One-piece Body Suit with Attached Chest, Gorilla Gloves, Shoe Covers, and Gorilla Mask. Model is 6'2''/300lbs.
Need more "monkey suits" Joe? I could do this all day.
I would suggest you do, yet to see a monkey suit that accommodates the scale comparison height, ya know!
DeleteJoe adding up 2 + 2 and getting 5 again.
DeleteFacepalm.
Thinkthunker estimates the creature in the video is 7 feet tall. The 'Mega tall gorilla costume' adds a foot to your height.
DeleteNow you need a four foot wide man to fill it.
Delete; )
Yawn^
DeleteAgain Joe, you have OBVIOUSLY never been to America to witness the true mass of our citizens.
DeleteYou've OBVIOUSLY not seen the video analysis up top.
Delete"The film is not convincing to me at all and I think the case Prothero makes for fraud/hoax is quite credible, more so than the film." - Prof. Todd Disotell
ReplyDeleteYet he's on the editorial board to send it to peer review.
Delete; )
What he thinks of the film is right there in that quote.
DeleteWhich is contradicted by his peer review approval.
DeleteAny proof of that?
DeleteYeah, here;
Deletehttp://www.isu.edu/rhi/board.shtml
Where did he approve a paper on patty?
Delete(Sigh)
DeleteIt's alleged as he's in he editorial board. Go and have a look at the relevance of this in Google.
Just more unfounded allegations by Josephine. Correlation does not equate to causation. 6th grade children are taught this in America.
DeleteDeflection does not account for facts... He's on the editorial board, your problem and not mine.
DeleteThe word "honorary" basically means "fake", though with a very positive connotation. An organization gives an honorary title to a person who does not belong to the organization but whom it wishes to honor. My science fiction club in undergrad, for example, made Terry Pratchett an honorary member. He was not a real member like those of us who paid dues, but the club signaled its intention to honor him in this way. That's what "honorary" means! So an honorary degree does not mean a real degree, and nobody should really be confused about it. An honorary degree honors its recipient by making him or her an honorary alumnus or alumna, which may possibly confer some of the benefits of that designation, but the only thing you get with an honorary anything is honor. There's nothing dishonest about it.
DeleteDegrees?
DeleteHonorary board member; George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society. For someone that significant, no better endorsement.
Editorial board; Todd Disotell, PhD, New York University New York, NY. A group of editorial boards recommend and send the journal to peer review.
T'is all.
"Honorary"
DeleteIs the title bestowed upon Disotell, Nakaris, and Co. They have nothing to do with this farce.
Brush up on your journal processes bro and stop making yourself look silly.
DeleteIs meldrum really a Mormon? That's kind of a deal breaker....
ReplyDeletedum dum dum dum dum
DeleteBOBO !!!!!!!!!
DeleteHey joe f. Never seen this one before ! There u have it that's a type one bf why doesn't someone clear this up so everyone can see it's face!
ReplyDeleteTTL hope all is well!
Though it can't be proven, I think it looks good man! I would like to know a bit more about the people who filmed it though.
DeleteGot Suit?
DeleteIsn't that your job?
DeleteHoly Crap! This could be just another bunch of crap fed to the bigfoot community because they eat this crap up!
ReplyDeleteGood job! Your check is in the mail.
DeleteIt's M. K. Davis....again!
ReplyDeleteWild Bill" The PHONY Marine!
ReplyDeleteWhy? With every episode, does "Wild Bill" mention on the average 3-5 times that he is a Marine?
A TRUE Marine, doesn't need to BRAG, that he is a Marine!
maybe he's getting PAID by USMC to advertise for recruitment? I wanted to be as BAD ASS as WILD BILL so I tried to sign up but they said i was too old. :-(
Deleteans hes asayin he a USMC SGT sure is
DeleteNope!
DeleteLiked this when first came out, although not very clear for the obvious reasons and Mr. Thunker explained them. So glad the filming party put a friend in same spot as it is now easy to get a close proximity of the actual size. Also Mr. Thunker was able to capture the standing position of the creature not discernable from the original. What we find is a creature at least 7 foot tall and a weight well above 500 lbs, maybe up to 800 l bs. I suspect it is a female. Mike B. thinks there is another behind it. I will go back and look later, that is taller and maybe the male.
ReplyDeleteNice job indeed Thinker Thunker, really appreciate your efforts.
Chuck
Thinker Thunker breaks videos down better than Phil Poling himself!!! Mexican Bigfoot made it all the way to Utah I see!!!
ReplyDeletepeek a chu!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously massive whatever IT is. Not so sure about the stand ins placement, but it's close. I thought the BF looked further back and the stand in dude to be a bit closer, maybe in front of the tree on the right. Idk but definitely a good break down by Thinker
ReplyDelete