Bigfoot photos, video, and eyewitness accounts!

Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
Survivorman Les Stroud's Bigfoot encounter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2gK8tZHzw


Various video and photos of Bigfoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl5OTd7cAjI


Group of people spot a Bigfoot in the trees:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7HCI0NYtlA

Elk hunters capture Bigfoot on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELTuOd4wrYI


Offroaders capture Bigfoot on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVDcQh9scY


Provo Canyon footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss_Gm_N5C48


Yellowtop Colorado footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9vvwRlyq3A


Police dash cam video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmr-cDD0Hdk

9 extraordinary frames from hunter's stealth cam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOVhQCoR2AI


The Paul Freeman footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibmgaGnRl_8


Snowwalker footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HScOt_qryZU

Rafters on McKenzie River in Oregon capture 2 Bigfoots (Bigfeet?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNfvMEfr5Y

North Carolina deer hunters capture Bigfoot on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNj2J6l76lo

Hikers capture Bigfoot in the distance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1554cn6Hgjw

Memorial Day footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWLkeLLhYQ

Sequoia National Forest CA video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIgGtpcG94
 
Last edited:
Mr. Magical Realist, again , a sterling example of your hard work.
It was every thing I antici........................................................(whew!)...................................................pated it would be.
 
History of Bigfoot/Sasquatch:


http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_history.html


big-foot-Petroglyph3.jpg



wildman2.JPG



The_Fight_in_the_Forest,+Hans_Burgkmair,+early+1500s.jpg
 
Last edited:
Things on YouTube CAN BE faked, and therefore anything on YouTube is inherently unreliable.

How do you still not understand this?
 
Daecon said:
Things on YouTube CAN BE faked, and therefore anything on YouTube is inherently unreliable.

How do you still not understand this?
Click to expand...

Any video or photo can be faked. But it doesn't make videos and photos unreliable. That's why we rely on them heavily as evidence. Because they ARE videos and photos.
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Photos, videos, and anecdotes are the exact opposite of extraordinary.
 
Daecon said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Photos, videos, and anecdotes are the exact opposite of extraordinary.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Photo and video evidence of extraordinary things IS extraordinary evidence. Unless someone can prove they were faked.
 
Prove that they're real.

We're not going to take your word for it just because you say so, because nobody trusts you, and with good reason.
 
The videos are there for all to examine. If you have some evidence they are fake, then let's see it. You can start with the news videos I just posted.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
As you are quite well aware, the burden of proof is always on you. We don't need to prove they are faked, but you need to prove they are not faked.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I have only to provide the evidence. If you claim it is faked, it is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Just like a prosecuter doesn't have to prove his evidence isn't faked. The burden is on the defense to prove it is faked if they claim it is.
 
6 ads in a 12 minute video. This uploader sure as hell ain't in it for the YouTube moneys...

Sorry, MR, bur Russ is right. The burden of proof is on you.
 
Magical Realist said:
No I don't. I have only to provide the evidence. If you claim it is faked, it is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Just like a prosecuter doesn't have to prove his evidence isn't faked. The burden is on the defense to prove it is faked if they claim it is.
Click to expand...
Lol, no. The defense needs only to raise "reasonable doubt". They can throw out pretty much any outlandish theory they want and as long as one has even a hint of plausibility, that creates the "reasonable doubt".

You of course know all of that and you work hard (and have gotten quite good at) burden of proof shifting, but this is a reality you can't escape.
 
Magical Realist said:
No I don't. I have only to provide the evidence. If you claim it is faked, it is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Just like a prosecuter doesn't have to prove his evidence isn't faked. The burden is on the defense to prove it is faked if they claim it is.
Click to expand...
As the old adage goes, extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. In the case of the these claims part of their extraordinariness within the claim is that the videos and photos are genuine. You thus need to support that claim.
You are claiming them to be genuine, right?
If you had merely claimed: "these are videos and photos purporting to be of Bigfoot" then that is not in itself an extraordinary claim, and the photos and videos would be sufficient taken as-is to support that claim of yours... the videos and photos are indeed purporting to be of Bigfoot, and thus your claim that that is what the videos are doing (purporting to be of Bigfoot) would be accepted without any/much issue.

But you don't claim that these videos are merely purporting to be of Bigfoot: you are claiming that they are genuinely of Bigfoot, or at least are likely to be of Bigfoot, i.e. that we should treat their content as genuine.

This is an extraordinary claim on your part that requires you, as part of the burden of proof, to support the notion that the videos are genuine and not merely faked in some way.

That's the way things work with regard extraordinary claims.
 
Magical Realist said:
Just like a prosecuter doesn't have to prove his evidence isn't faked. The burden is on the defense to prove it is faked if they claim it is.
Click to expand...
I responded to the second half, but not the first: yes, he does, if he wants his prosecution to go well. What he hopes he has is high credibility, expert witnesses, with verifiable evidence. Just because he sometimes presents crap, that doesn't mean that's optimal, it just means it's the best he could do. But just like you, if all they present is crap, they tend to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top