Claim: 'Bigfoot' filmed in West Virginia

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
From - http://cryptozoologynews.com/man-captures-bigfoot-on-camera-in-west-virginia-mountain/


W.Va. — A West Virginia man on Saturday captured on video an unknown creature he says he is certain to be Bigfoot.

David Watts, a multiple online store owner dedicated to selling artistic accessories, says he was out in the “middle of nowhere” when he captured the images.

“That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. You always think it’s a hoax until you actually see it with your own eyes yourself,” Watts said about the encounter.

The 1-minute-long video shows what appears to be a bipedal being walking down a wooded area of an unspecified mountain. The quality of the film is only 240p and difficult to make out a clear shape of the alleged beast.

“There was a very very large man-like bear creature walking around up on the ridge. I was looking right at him, it was just kind of hanging out. The weirdest thing I have ever seen in my life. I was near a road, so of course Bigfoot being notoriously shy, so he is not gonna come down here.”
.
Content from External Source

Not much to say on this one, the video is very low resolution, and the alleged creature does not seam to be 'walking around', in fact it doesn't seam to move at all in relation to the green tree above it in the shot. Zooming in is no help as the video is as such low quality all you get is a mess of pixels.

So is it bigfoot? I suspect not, and think its a tree stump or other static non cryptozoological artifact.
 

Auldy

Senior Member.
For someone who knows enough about Bigfoot and hoaxes he's is pretty good at missing out key information:

- location, what road are you on, which county etc
- date, time of day
- "oh my gosh it's bigfoot, I know, I'll only film for 60secs then go on my way..."
- what direction are you facing, North, South etc

I'm with you in doubting that this is Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Americanised Yeti.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
its hard to tell what Is the 'big foot' and according to his comments it disappears after 10 minutes. The dark area seems to appear on google maps and google earth... but not sure i'm looking at the right thing? my dark spot certainly wouldn't disappear.


earth.PNG

sasquatch.PNG

blob.PNG
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Well when he;s stating you can see him moving around up there, and it is clearly only the camera moving around a bit as it is not on a tripod, what more is there really to say. If he didn't actually film it disappear, do we need to take this at all seriously?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
oh wait. even though I don't see matching trees in his spot, his coordinates he estimates are here.... looking for his

golf ball? ;)
loh.PNG
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
Not much to say on this one, the video is very low resolution
I think Bigfoot IS blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here.
Content from External Source
- Mitch Hedberg
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
its hard to tell what Is the 'big foot' and according to his comments it disappears after 10 minutes. The dark area seems to appear on google maps and google earth... but not sure i'm looking at the right thing? my dark spot certainly wouldn't disappear.


earth.PNG

sasquatch.PNG

blob.PNG

Seems you're looking at a spot below the two trees, but he's indicating a spot above them.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Okay, first suspicious thing is the 240p.
Obviously if you were trying to obfuscate and disguise a bad fake, super low resolution is the best plan.
But if you look at David Watts' other (recent!) posted vids, they too are in 240p, :eek:
so he didn't just conveniently drop to mud resolution to (deliberately badly) film Bigfoot.

Second, as Mick pointed out, the object isn't really moving, which both means it's even easier to stage,
and lessens Watts' credibility, since he claims to see it walking around.

Third, this other short vid uses similar easy, no budget deception to create a silly
illusion...Dad jokes at their lame best



Actually, I think that Watts' horrible "Bigfoot" video is proof of something much more remarkable than a legit Bigfoot sighting: Someone in America is still shooting 240p videos in spring of 2015 to post on the internet!!
 

LREKing

New Member
I watched this without sound (because I'm at work) and saw absolutely nothing but 69 seconds of fuzzy landscape. I wonder whether I would have reacted differently if the sound had been on.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Okay, first suspicious thing is the 240p.
Obviously if you were trying to obfuscate and disguise a bad fake, super low resolution is the best plan.
But if you look at David Watts' other (recent!) posted vids, they too are in 240p, :eek:
so he didn't just conveniently drop to mud resolution to (deliberately badly) film Bigfoot.

Second, as Mick pointed out, the object isn't really moving, which both means it's even easier to stage,
and lessens Watts' credibility, since he claims to see it walking around.

Third, this other short vid uses similar easy, no budget deception to create a silly
illusion...Dad jokes at their lame best



Actually, I think that Watts' horrible "Bigfoot" video is proof of something much more remarkable than a legit Bigfoot sighting: Someone in America is still shooting 240p videos in spring of 2015 to post on the internet!!


I dont think he's recording at 240p but rather he's uploading it at 240 and the youtube compression is just making it worse. Im not sure what software YT uses to render videos you upload, but there's always serious degradation.. even when you look at video at 1080p and 60 frames its pixelated to hell and back..

Im with you guys, its a fake but I dont know if its intentional fakery by uploading at such low res, the guy just has no idea what he's doing or just doesnt want to spend 14 hours uploading hi-rez video.
 

LREKing

New Member
What I had in mind was the possible effect an excited narrator could have on a suggestible viewer (not me, I hope).
 
Top