Sunday, 22 March 2015

IMAX Bigfoot

Usually I focus on the hoaxers and cons of Bigfootland but I have decided to focus on something different for my next few posts.

  The Bigfoot community has a constant influx of new people, and those people usually post videos that have been debunked, or videos that are highly questionable. The goal here is to try to get to the bottom of these videos. I will likely focus on the more popular videos in which the lines have been blurred by guesses and assumptions.

  Part of the problem for new members to the community is that there are breakdowns of videos that are incorrect, in my opinion. Other breakdowns are sensational in nature in order to drive viewers to their channel.

Recently I have seen debate about the IMAX Bigfoot in various Facebook Bigfoot groups, so I'll cover this one today.

I don't know who it was that first suggested this being is a Bigfoot or something other than a human being but I did find a video to use to show how people can jump to conclusions.

The above video appears to be innocent in nature, even though I consider the analysis to be faulty.

The next video comes from a person who I consider to be a detriment to the Bigfoot community. His analyses of videos appear as if he has done his homework but if that was the case, I wouldn't be talking about him. He has over 17,000 subscribers and that is problematic when it comes to sorting out fact from fiction.

   He has a loyal following and many of those folks are people who are new to the community. They get sucked in by fancy illustrations and graphics, and by a confident and believable channel host. If you have the time, watch the following video. This one compares to the highly debated Bigfoot versus Buffalo video. It has becomes obvious to me that Thinker Thunker really doesn't have much of an idea of what he is doing, so I hope this blog post gets passed around to as many eyes as possible.

If Thinker Thunker had really investigated this video at all, he would have come across the next video. That would have rendered his half bake analysis useless, though.

The video below comes from Cliff Barackman's channel. Matt Moneymaker and Wally Hersom discuss the subject in the video. This is probably the best resolution I have seen so far.

My advice to everyone would be to be responsible for what you accept as evidence of Bigfoot. Spend a bit of extra time and dig deeper. Most of the time it's easier than you think. Compare various breakdowns and talk to better informed people before jumping to any conclusions.


  1. its always been a dude on a bike making the animals move. People talking about jumping on to the back and stuff is junk. Dude waves his hand and turns to the left and you see the backpak. SMH ...Another epic fail by ThinkerThunker

  2. Thinker Thunker needs his thinker checked. Good post, Randy!

  3. Thinker Thunker would argue that if it's a person, it would have to be one of the tallest in the world. He doesn't do his measurement skills any favors by saying stupid stuff like that.

  4. You need to rewatch it, The cameraman/producer has given an interview, 9 crew all where the camera is, no bicycles, No quad bikes, they had 2 helicopters, hundreds of miles from any where. No people, no bears, looks nothing like a bear anyway arms too long. So go watch again, have a think and eat some humble pie, maybe apologise.

  5. This is up there with the yellowstone/buffalo stalking bigfoots that were also ordinary everyday people. It's very obviously a person.

    So we have people in the arctic tundra who do use crew members this way, filming wildlife, with no one else around (supposedly) for hundreds of miles. Then when someone doing what would be entirely consistent for a crew member (and that is obviously human) in such a doco inadvertently gets into the shot, the obvious conclusion is that it's a bigfoot? This is why bigfooters get mocked and ridiculed.

    How did bigfoot sneak up across miles of open tundra with no cover, while the crew who were also in helicopters, didn't see it lol?

    This figure is obviously human and is part of the crew, despite the recollections of the assistant director. He also says no one was on the other side of the river, yet the lead up shots seem to be from exactly there. Seems they used it despite the crewman mistake rather than go to the trouble of trying to reshoot it.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.