Bigfoot Lives (2007) Online

There was a time in my life when I was really into the whole Bigfoot thing. Of course I was a kid at the time. Now I'm a jaded adult, and while I still yearn for a good mystery, and while I wish - truly wish - that Bigfoot were really out there somewhere, I now really doubt it. Too much of the "evidence" for the creature's existence is shaky; just like this "documentary" which - in spite of its bold title - is entirely unconvincing, looking often faked or staged.

If I appreciated anything about this, it was that it effectively made the point that Bigfoot sightings are not restricted to the Pacific coast area. There are so-called "investigations" of sightings in a wide variety of locations, including Texas, Ohio and western New York State. Yes. There have been sightings all over. I live in the Niagara Peninsula of southern Ontario, Canada and there's been the odd reported sighting here on occasion over the years. So that point is made, but the accounts remain unconvincing and scientifically undocumented.

I'm not sure if film-maker Tom Biscardi (apparently from an organization called "Search for Bigfoot, Inc.") was being serious with this or not. Was he trying to entertain, educate or convince? He didn't do well at the first, was moderately successful at the second and failed abysmally at the third. 4/10

This video leaves more questions than it provides answers (and real proof). It digresses toward a ridiculous end, almost as if the most absurd, staged encounters would be more believable after a thorough priming. What a crock.

Here are some of the main issues I had with this documentary:

1) Early in the video we find BF tracks in the mud in a swampy area. Two tracks are side by side, less than shoulder length apart. People don't stand like this when on unsteady footing, why should BF? The viewer is told that there are about "12 tracks" leading up to the spot where the two in the video are seen, but these tracks are never shown to the viewer, and no study is undertaken as to the gait of the BF. This is my main problem with the video; statements are made and there's absolutely no proof provided to back it up.

2) The guy who supposedly shot a BF in Arizona: Biscardi interviews this guy about the shooting, and the scene ends with a BF screaming in pain in the woods (audio added to enhance story). If you've ever hunted, or shot at an animal, you know that the very FIRST thing that you do is go look for the blood trail and try to find what you've shot at. But there was no discussion on this; the scene ends and the viewer is made to accept, at face value, the entire story of the shooting without any discussion of a blood trail, hair, or even tracks. Even if the guy was scared, he could have returned the next day with more people to look for evidence. This account amounts to nothing but a story with no evidence whatsoever to support the shooting.

3) The BF hand: Biscardi claims that the DNA concludes that it is not human, nor from a known primate, but from an unknown species. OK, so where's the proof of this statement? It is never provided. Again, let's just accept Biscardi's word, with no actual physical proof to back it up.

4) Hans Mobius and the BF by the Gator: This is the dumbest Photshop'd image I've ever seen. The BF image is totally black and lacks any dimension and detail whatsoever. And the picture was taken in broad daylight, yet no detail can be made out, even on close inspection. Furthermore, it's an obvious hoax for two reasons. One is that when you closely inspect the picture, it is pixelated, except for the black, dimensionless image. This indicates that the image was drawn, placed on TOP of the original picture (if the image was taken at the same time as the background, everything would be pixelated not just the background). Worse than this, however, is the Bigfoot's arm. Upon close inspection, it's obvious that its arm is not attached but there is a slight separation from the drawn torso. Only a drawn image would show this.

5) Body Parts: Some guy claims his dog brought home pieces of a Bigfoot. But the Fish and Wildlife took them. Then his dog brought home "the other foot", and he "took pictures of it, video of it" (Biscardi displays the picture, which is so poor quality it barely resembles a foot). He kept them in the freezer for a time, "but we finally took it out of there" and buried it (no reason given). Then this guy "tries to locate it (later), but couldn't find it". The video shown in this segment was dramatic but inconclusive. It shows some kind of leg and foot of a small creature (what they claim is a baby BF) but who knows? It's all mangled up and hard to tell, plus Biscardi has no DNA evidence from local testing to talk about, and the evidence was buried after the filming was done and can't be located.

6) The viewer is led to a dig site in the middle of the woods in Paris, TX, where a supposed BF skeleton is being excavated. It's about 2 feet in the ground. Biscardi says that they were going to get it analyzed "and find out what's it's all about". Then the segment ends. I suppose it was better to turn out the video rather than include more unsubstantiated results. But the bigger question is: what led someone to start digging here in the middle of the woods? This obvious question is never addressed, leading me to conclude that the entire dig site is staged.

7) Mike's encounter: LOL, it looks like Biscardi took a page from the Blair Witch Project with this one! The guy in the video claims that he's bumped in the night by a BF while filming, yet he doesn't even scream. This is poor acting and a dumb way to end the video.

So, after watching this video, Biscardi has left me with one big question: if HE really believes in Bigfoot, why would he put out a video that has so many clearly faked encounters in it? If he were a serious BF believer, he would be ashamed of the things in this video. If Biscardi, who has hunted Bigfoot for 30 years, put this out as the best thing he has to show after all this time, I suspect that knows Bigfoot is a myth. This video takes you on a journey for evidence, but in the end the evidence is always elusive and has either disappeared or is unsubstantiated. As Biscardi says at the end "Now it's up to you. You either believe, or you don't". Well, I unequivocally don't! I would rate this video a zero, only I enjoyed the music track, the editing, and the special effects.

I am an avid Bigfoot enthusiast, who has spent countless hours doing extensive research on the subject, so when I came across this "Documentary" about it, I was thrilled. This was my first introduction with Tom Biscardi, and good lord when I was done watching this I was so flabbergasted at what I had just seen, I literally watched the entire movie again right then in there so that I could analyze every bit of falsified information and straight up garbage that was being displayed in front of me. I actually gathered a few of my friends who were also quite interested in any real evidence that would suggest Bigfoot existed to watch so I could show them that this was a 90 minute long scam. It pains me to see that people try and capitalize on something like this. But I guess it just goes to show you what someone will do to make a buck. The 2 best parts of the movie are the archaeological dig site (absolutely staged to the billionth degree) and the supposed real footage at the end. Anybody with an eye for detail can see the film editing and cutting which leads me to the conclusion that if this "real" footage is garbage, than this whole damn show belongs in the trash. Tom Biscardi is a fraud and a falsifier. Lets hope he remains out of the public eye for the rest of his lifetime.

First, I believe Bigfoot exists. I believe it is a North American relative of the gorilla. Having said that, I have a hard time believing much in this film.

Tom Biscardi, the man behind this film, was involved in not just one, but two major Bigfoot hoaxes. One of which was the one where the hoaxers claimed to have a Bigfoot body in a freezer. People were scammed out of money, to watch the unveiling of the body. The body never existed and Biscardi claimed to have been fooled himself. He ended up having to refund people their money.

There were eye witnesses is in this movie that I'm sure were sincere and honest, but Tom Biscardi's integrity is compromised.

I just grabbed this movie off the rack at the library. Had I seen that Tom Biscardi had any thing to do with it, I would probably not have bothered.

Bigfoot Lives (2007)

** (out of 4)

Tom Biscardi and Todd Douglas Bailey, experts in the field of Bigfoot, made this documentary that shows them going to various locations in America to tell stories of people who encountered the creature as well as evidence they captured. Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Texas, New York and Minnesota are just a few of the states that are visited and we then hear the people's stories before seeing the actual evidence, which ranges from video and photos all the way to footprints and a possible hand. I've always enjoyed Bigfoot stories and this here is going to slightly entertain those who like hearing about encounters with the creature. With that said, this here is certainly far from a good movie because in large part the filmmakers tried to add some "style" to the material. The most noticeable thing is a rather annoying music score that is constantly being used to try and make the evidence appear mysterious and creepy. This little trick never works and instead it just makes the viewer feel annoyed and at times it's somewhat laughable. we get countless stories being told here and to be honest none of them are 100% great to the point where a non-believer would change their opinion. None of the stories are anything we haven't seen before, although I think most people will admit that some of the evidence is rather interesting. The big reveal at the end is the remains of an infant creature, which I'm sure will have Bigfoot fans debating.

I'm going to be quick.

• This movie is full of fake encounters. - The audio is terrible. - The man who shot "bigfoot" probably shot some random stranger, thus causing him to start crying during the interview. - The "Bigfoot" hand seems mysteriously like a human hand with the finger tips removed (can't trace the victim). I mean why would someone cut the finger tips off a "Bigfoot" hand? I truly don't believe him when he said it was tested for human DNA. Could it possibly be from the person the previous crying guy shot? haha

Good for a laugh but that's it.