first i believe in ufos,ghosts,bigfoot,etc etc.the footage of manitoba is fake,why can the camera not focus,or zoom in for that matter,as soon as they do zoom,they immediatly zoom out,and disrupt the focus,this video is to recent for any camera whether it a 100 dollars or a thousand to put such bogus pictures out,they got theyre wish to be able to sell the tape and make money,which thet are doing as we speak,proof is in the pudding

I read a story related to this Manitoba bigfoot sighting which stated that the man who took this video carries his camcorder with him all of the time. If that is so, there is no reason to believe that he doesn't know how to use it. Therefore, there is no reason that this entire thing should be a big blur. Even an old video camera which requires the operator to manually focus the lens only takes a second or two to focus. Why did this guy take so much footage leaving it blurry? Perhaps because it will look more like a potential bigfoot if it is blurry. No one is going to pay a cent for clearly focused footage of a human walking on the other side of a lake. What's amazing is that so many people are accepting this as if it is support or proof for the existence of bigfoot. Here's the problem with bigfoot and bigfoot sightings. Go to any reputable bigfoot page such as www.bfro.net and read the sightings reports. You will see reports from just about all 50 states. What? I thought that Bigfoot only lived in the Pacific Northwest. Later he turned up in Florida (as the skunk ape) and in the woods of southern Ohio. Then he became a citizen of Texas and Oklahoma. In each of these locations there seems to be local native Americans who have legends about the creature. This only adds fuel to the fire. After a few decades bigfoot shows up in just about every state. Why is this? Does sasquatch really reside in Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, and New Jersey (and just about every state except Hawaii). According to eyewitness reports at www.bfro.net he does. Even many bigfoot enthusiasts would admit that Sasquatch doesn't exist at these locations. Well then what are people seeing and reporting at these unlikely locations? If not bigfoot, what? If you can question the veracity of these eyewitness reports and subsequently dismiss them, then you can do the same for all of the eyewitness reports. If someone is "seeing something" in Rhode Island that is dismissed, then someone "seeing something" anywhere can likewise also be dismissed. When it comes to bigfoot, you've got to use Ockham's Razor.