The only Authentic genuine Yeti (Abominable Snowman) footage

By | July 4, 2008

The 2The 2

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.622478&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

more about “The only Authentic genuine Yeti (Abom…”, posted with vodpod

8 thoughts on “The only Authentic genuine Yeti (Abominable Snowman) footage

  1. Luke

    i dont know if i am alone in this, because i dont have the paranoid eyes of a ‘believer’, but all i see is a bear or a gorilla in the snow.

  2. dogsounds

    It’s obviously an alien. One of those extremely intellingent ones that only makes itself visible to someone with a really, really crap camera. That films in slow-motion for some reason.

    I call utter nonsense, guy in a fur coat or fur suit, and wonder why in this day of high quality recording equipment even on mobile phones, no one ever seems to get a decent looking image of anything they film.

  3. Xeno Post author

    The arms look too long to be a guy in a costume, and also too long to be any type of bear I’ve ever seen. Are there gorilla’s in the snow? That explanation might work.

  4. Bruce Anderson

    I’ve got long arms. They’re easily as long as my legs. If I put on some heavy cold weather gear and crouched down, it’d look like my arms were even longer. In the end, all we have here is a dark blob moving on a field of white. It’s not even remotely in focus. This is probably two guys having some fun in their back yard.

  5. rob

    whats funny is that for some reason there are many more non believers posting than believers,,,,therefore,,,why are they even on here reserching if they don’t believe?? this world is way big enough for such creatures to exist. humans live on the surface of this planet and dont realize there is alot more earth underneath it. im not saying bigfoot or whatever you call it is real but it is a possibility. think about this,,,if u were camping or whatever,,,and you saw a bear,mountain lion, gorilla ,whatever. and had a video camera, can you say that you would chase that animal into the woods to get the best video you could?????? i wouldn’t,, i’d be scared of being attacked an eaten. now imagine an eight foot tall five foot wide “thing”. no way!!! so some of the crappy videos are understandable. i have seen some totally rediculos videos and i have seen some really good ones that make you wonder.

  6. Bruce Anderson

    “this world is way big enough for such creatures to exist.”

    Which does not in itself mean they DO. If tomorrow someone announced he’d captured a live sasquatch and had independent verification I’d be right there to applaud him. I love the idea of cryptids, but I’m a skeptic. That means you have to do more than show me a blurry, shaky video to convince me.

    “why are they even on here reserching if they don’t believe”

    Are you going to tell me I can’t talk about yetis if I don’t “believe” in them? Just because I don’t believe in yeti or bigfoot or mokele mbembe or aliens doesn’t mean I don’t find them interesting. If I comment out of skepticism it’s only because I’m making a contribution to the conversation (such as it is). I’m trying to get you to actually think critically. Criticism isn’t a dirty word. USE your brain. It’s become even easier for hoaxers to ply their trade in this day of YouTube and Photoshop and that makes it even more important for people to be on their guard against the hoaxers.

    I don’t want to tell you what to believe. I just want you to think about it critically, as I do about my own beliefs.

  7. dogsounds

    I second Bruce Anderson’s comments.

    I would not say that I don’t believe in such creatures. It would be extremely arrogant of man to say that he knows of every organism living on this planet. I believe that there is pretty much a metric f**kton of things we don’t know about our co-habitees.

    However, what you have to take into account is man’s desire for fame and recognition, even notoriety. His need for his (or her) “five minutes of fame”. Because of this, it is important to apply a healthy dose of skepticism at all times.

    Take the CHAD UFO sightings as an example. In of itself, the images, films and information is pretty plausible. But then you have to remember that so many people have posted videos of similar fly-bys to show off their impressive skills with CGI rendering software, and admit as much, that it makes you take pause. I have no idea if the CHAD sightings are real or fake. But do I believe in aliens or extra-terrestrial life? Applying logic, I would say that I do – the oddds of such life existing are so much greater than not existing that it would be foolish to assume otherwise. Do I believe they have visited earth? I have no idea. I would like to. But without conclusive, irrefutable proof, I cannot. I am a pragmatist. I have very little use for faith. But this viewpoint does not automatically remove my right to say that the CHAD films and images are fake, if I beleive them to be.

    In a smiliar way, this is the same. I suspect there are a lot of creatures out there that would astound us. But to reflect on your point about not worrying about quality whilst being afraid for your life, I agree.

    However, I have to look at what is presented to me and think logically and pragmatically about said evidence. If I were in such a position, I would put my camera or mobile phone to record video, and film as best I could. Now, yes, perhaps I may forget to put the recording quality up to maximum, and not being a professional camera operator I’m sure my footage would be shaky and inarticulate. But even assuming this, there are certain things that stand out and say “deliberately created”.

    Firstly – no audio. Show me a phone or videocamera that has no built in microphone, or has an option to record image only and not audio. I am assuming that due to the “apparent unexpected” nature of the filming, the intent is that this is not meant to depict a professional camera (which WOULDN’T have an audio pick-up built in). To further that point, were it a professional camera, you would have to ask a) why was a film crew there at just the right time, b) have they kept the receipt for the camera because for a several thousand dollar camera it sure does give a sucky image, and c) why had they not set up the sound recording equipment. These points suggest therefore that the recording is on a low-grade camera. So again I ask, as these have audio pick ups as standard, why no sound? If this was really a guy caught on the hop, he would have audio. My conclusion therefore is that the audio has been removed deliberately, for some unknown reason, and that this is staged.

    Secondly, why is the image “squished down” a number of times? I can think of no camera, cheap or expensive, that would randomly drop a whole mess of lines for no reason. The only excpetion I can think of would be a very old video recording, played on a very old VCR, with VERY bad tracking. But then you have the question – if the film is so old, why is it only coming to light now? Why would yo keep such a thing secret for all those years? One can assume that as the poster has the ability t scan the tape to digital and post it on the internet, he probably doesn’t have a clunky old videocamera (and besides, the blocky image quality is an artifact of digital cameras and video compression, not video tape-based cameras). Lastly, you could assert that the artifacting comes from the compression from digital capture. If that is the case, then if yo uhad a crystal clear video of this event, would you apply the most severe compression you could, or would yo umake sure the image quality was as high as possible?

    Thirdly, why is there a missing section? There are two cuts in this film – the first close-up, then a second where the “yeti” is further away. what happened in the middle? Was the camera turned off? Seems illogical that, assuming the cameraman was afraid, he would take the time to stop filming and run, and then stop running, turn around and start filming again. If you were being chased by a lion that you had been filming, would you stop running? Personally, I would just run and have the camera running all the time.

    Lastly, what is gained by the repeat of the second cut? Repeating the second half does not increase the validity of the film.

    So, for THESE reasons, I call fake. The squishing, the jump cuts and the repeat, mixed with the lack of audio, none of which have a reasonable or convincing reason to exist, as far as I can see, simply shine like a beacon that tell me someone is trying too hard to make a film look “hastily and unexpectedly shot”.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to come across as snarky, and I suppose I could have explained all this in my original post, but I was tired and it was probably late.

    I am simply saying that you can’t assume that because someone calls fake that either they don’t beleive or that they should shut up and put up.

    I will make a mental note to cover my ass next time 🙂


Leave a Reply