Sasquatch Coffee

Elk Hunters Film Bigfoot in Montana

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 8th, 2013

Caution for language in the video.

While looking for elk in Big Sky, Montana, these guys got the shock of their lives when they caught something walking in their headlights. The creature appeared to be bipedal and had an auburn tint. One question we have about this footage is why were they filming at night in the middle of nowhere in the first place?

What do the Cryptomundians think?

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster.

52 Responses to “Elk Hunters Film Bigfoot in Montana”

  1. Mark Bernas via Facebook responds:

    They are clearly acting.

  2. Matthew Pfeifer via Facebook responds:

    This video screams FAKE!

  3. Robert Snyder via Facebook responds:

    definitely, bad acting

  4. Adrian Laine via Facebook responds:

    Horrible. Love the white gloves too, or lack of gloves showing white hands.

  5. Tara Taylor via Facebook responds:

    Interesting, and I hope it is authentic! Of course it could just be another hunter in the woods wearing heavy gear, but I’d assume that if these are normal, legal hunting grounds that hunters are used to stumbling into other hunters without being frightened off. What was that flying object that flew off when the ‘Bigfoot’ walked away? Perhaps it caught a bird and got startled into letting go of its prey before getting to kill/eat it?

  6. William responds:

    Hard to say but size-wise it looked more in the human range. Also, whatever it was had something white in its hand (flashlight maybe). Imo this was a human being.

  7. Van Lightning via Facebook responds:

    “Acting!” Jon Lovitz

  8. David Ennis via Facebook responds:


  9. semillama responds:

    Well, that IS pretty much what I would say in the same situation…

  10. Crystal Panek via Facebook responds:

    I don’t understand why someone would be filming in the dark while driving down the road to look for elk? Hoax??? Unfortunately, I think it is…

  11. Alan Clark Huffines via Facebook responds:


  12. Logan Kellum via Facebook responds:

    terrible and fake

  13. tpanek responds:

    When and where did this happen?

  14. Stephen Strum via Facebook responds:

    Acting and bad acting at that!!

  15. Peltboy25 responds:

    Gotta agree with the original assessment; why on earth was the camera rolling on a random section of road at night in the middle of nowhere? Without any context for that lucky accident, this screams HOAX to me.

  16. Tara Taylor via Facebook responds:

    While it may be fake, and unfortunately it likely is, why do so many people question the fact that some people do have their cameras out at random times…
    When I am at a park, in the mountains, etc. my camera is always around my neck and on. I don’t use my video camera function, but my camera is always ready in case I see scenery, an animal or insect, etc. I’d like to get a pic of.
    Some people do film what they are doing. They may simply have actually wanted to film their hunt to have on record or show other people their hunt. Just like people with dogs will randomly film their dogs playing to share with other dog people, maybe hunters film their hunts to share with other hunters.
    Just because something doesn’t seem like something you would do, doesn’t mean it isn’t something people actually do. Everyone has their hobbies, and some people like to keep their hobbies on record to share. If I snapped a picture of a cryptid while hiking, are people going to say “Why did she have her camera out and ready? That seems staged.” My camera is always out and ready. Many people are always ready to film, many people are always actively filming what they do.

  17. Tara Taylor via Facebook responds:

    I still want to know what it is that is flying away from the figure as it walks away…

  18. Ragnar responds:

    Don’t know what it was, but

    1) filming. Not unusual to me. One of my co-workers wears a Go-Pro camera on his daily run. Why? Because he can. I also know a guy who has a dashcam in his car. Why? Because he can.

    2) the white thing the figure is carrying? Looked like snow to me.

  19. Cryptidcrazy responds:

    Seems very fake, like bad acting.

  20. Cryptoraptor responds:

    Whoever made it:

    1. Decent visuals but…..

    2. Too much exposition in the opening dialogue. The one guy is giving information that the other guy would already know at that point. It comes across as fake. The viewers can figure out what’s going on after the titled setup. You’re forcing words into the character’s mouth. Don’t underestimate the audience. Just say “it was right around here” or something like that. The guy would have mentioned that there were elk there already. It’s unnatural having him fully reinterrate it soley to get the audience up to speed.

    Read chapter 15 in Robert McKee’s “Story”. The bottom line is ….show, don’t tell.

    3.There’s also too much melodrama. Overreacting. They see something in the snow that would normally just make them curious instead of “Lets get the f- out of here”. They’re safe in a 2 ton car that can out run an Olympic sprinter. They shouldn’t even suggest running away after seeing a bear unless they’re in a convertible.

    Once again Robert McKee’s Story. Chapter 16 page 370

    The principles that apply in regular screenwriting apply to these types of Youtube videos.

  21. WIDOW responds:

    Hmm wrong size and the arms are wayyy too short. Bad acting as well. Fake fake fake. Makes me mad when I see hoaxes. I gre up in Washington state and Oregon. We would go hunting in remote areas. I had a ton of real experiences. I get mad when I see these hoaxes because they muddy the water so to speak on getting to the truth.

  22. eyeofstrm responds:


  23. Dr. Scholl responds:

    I would maybe be more convinced if this was taken from a fixed and always on dashboard cam rather than from a handheld.

  24. PhotoExpert responds:

    I am screaming FAKE and HOAX on this one!

    I am not going to pull any punches. This is about as “hoxie” as they come. There are so many red flags on this one.

    The first red flag: Why are they filming at night in such a random fashion? Well, they could be spotlighting for elk which is illegal. Why would any ethical hunter put his license and ability to hunt in jeopardy by filming an illegal act? The answer is, they would not. Some hunters may illegally spotlight elk but they certainly would not further put themselves in legal jeopardy by filming it.

    The second red flag: Since no sane individual would put themselves in legal jeopardy by filming an illegal act, then they must be hoaxing. But is the location easy to get to and set up hoax? Yep, it is right off the main road. Simply drop off a buddy in a Bigfoot costume and you are good to go. Little to no work required except to drive by randomly filming at night.

    Third red flag: Their responses and acting is just horrible. I know amature actors at dinner theatre that are far superior to this when it comes to acting skills. The reactions of these guys is not even close to what one would suspect. And what they say and the tone they say it, well, it is just not believable. They see a human sized figure walking slowly in the snow. The figure is walking away from them. They are protected in a car which could also easily evade the costumed human and they probably have their guns with them. So to want to get out of there or be scared is simply ludicrous!

    Fourth red flag: The hoaxed Bigfoot appears to be human sized and not at all matching the reports of BF that have been recorded. The supposed Bigfoot looks like a human in a bad costume. It also walks like a human in a bad costume, having trouble negotiating a little bit of snow that is calf deep. A wild animal or alleged Bigfoot would have no trouble getting out of sight. It screams FAKE and HOAX! In fact, it is a prime of example of what to look for in a hoax.

    I would not invest another second in analyzing this as it would be a waste of one’s time, simply based on the number of red flags. Not even a good attempt at a hoax. Hoaxers are not the brightest people in the world in my opinion. Sure, some are better than others but most are in the lower ranges of IQ, Eventually, even the best hoaxers eventually get found out. These hoaxers are obviously not the cream of the crop but more like the bottom of the barrel variety.

  25. cryptokellie responds:

    Person in suit, trying to walk like Patty. Notice that the figure moves out into the open and into full view just as the headlights hit him/her and then into the brush again before a good look can be obtained. The figure does not appear to be especially large for whatever that is worth. Have to agree with William that the figure does seem to be carrying something reflective in it’s right hand.
    I did enjoy the slo-mo swearing though.
    “Wwwhhaaaaat daaaaaaa f………ck!!!” Followed by the classic “Lets get the f..k otta here!”
    Yeah…these are grown men.

  26. springheeledjack responds:

    Unfortunately, in this day and age of hoaxers and high tech gear (and not so high tech suits), we have to assume it’s fake unless we can prove otherwise.

    While interesting, we need answers on all of their actions. I could go through a laundry list of suspicious things in the video, but that would just give hoaxers a better idea of how to shoot a video and not raise the red flags:)

    I’m assuming this is faked.

  27. DWA responds:

    The dialogue sounds like fill-in-time-till-guy-in-suit. One can’t see totally convincing proportions, one way or the other. So no red flags. But the dialogue is at least a yellow one. And while there are reports of ones the apparent size of this one…well, I’m not buying the plane ticket. If you do, tell us what you find.

  28. Goodfoot responds:

    “What’s THAT? What’s Earl doin’ out here on foot? In a *#&_% MONKEY suit?”
    “Let’s get [yawn] outta here!”

  29. muircertach responds:

    Probably the most convincing footage I have ever seen.

  30. Jeremy Shea via Facebook responds:

    Why didn’t these two hunters do their thing and shoot it? I would have.

  31. Jim OR responds:

    Obviously inconclusive but interesting and not obviously a fake IMO.

    This bothers me a lot though and I’ve been meaning to mention it for a while: while it is true that the “why were you filming blah blah” is always a question that should be asked and answered – the question is almost always used as a REASON to dismiss – always, and all the way back to Patterson.

    This drives me insane because the skeptics use the converse as an argument all the time as well – ie. “with all the people walking around with video cameras, phone cameras etc etc ad nauseum, SOMEONE would get footage or a still….blah blah blah” and then every time someone shares a video or photo – “oh yeah right so we’re supposed to believe that you just happened to be using your phone camera when Sasquatch walks by”

    Its always heads they win tails you lose nonsense. You know what I mean?

  32. alan borky responds:

    By god Craig I don’t know what’s happening to Bigfoot these days perhaps it’s the recession but the poor buggers’ve practically shrunken away to nothing. We’ll be having to call ‘em Sasquashed soon.

    I also have to say though the hearts of the hunters of these things’re must be shrinking down to the size of peas too.

    Because I mean there’s a car load of these guys and they see something resembling a famished leprous plague ridden medieval midget stumbling into the long grass to die and one of our heroes screeches “What the f*ck! Let’s get out’o here!”

    I mean for shame is this really what North American manhood’s come down to?

  33. hoodoorocket responds:

    Is it my imagination or does the guy in the carpet suit fall on his face into a shallow ditch at the very end?

    Didn’t watch it with the sound on but I hope there was Benny Hill/Yakety Sax music in the back ground…

  34. William responds:

    Yeah, I must admit I was also laughing at the way these so called “hunters” were so scared of something they caught only a fleeting glimpses which which was also quite a distance away and they were safely inside a moving vehicle.

    Bad acting, bad hoax all the way around in my estimation. Laughable.

  35. Cryptoraptor responds:

    PhotoExpert Quote:

    “Hoaxers are not the brightest people in the world in my opinion. Sure, some are better than others but most are in the lower ranges of IQ, Eventually, even the best hoaxers eventually get found out.”

    In the second sentence you state that most hoaxers “are in the lower ranges of IQ”. Can you state any studies that back that up or is it just your opinion as in the first sentence?

    Do you consider the Patterson/Gimlin film a hoax? If you are uncertain if P/G is a hoax… is it possible that you are also uncertain as to whether or not you have been intellectually outfoxed by “lower ranges of IQ” individuals? Why do you perpetually spend so much time evaluating the work of individuals that you believe to possess “lower ranges of IQ”?

    If you end up with the conclusion that the hoaxers are providing you entertainment then maybe their product is as valid as any other form of entertainment and that you possess no special skills to assess IQ.

  36. PhotoExpert responds:

    Pssst, hey Einstein, I mean Cryptoraptor, it is not only my experience, but the experience of most Cryptomundians, that most hoaxers are of a low IQ. The fact that I have to explain this to you tells me something about your IQ. But maybe you are just trying to be humorous in a passive aggressive way by asking your question. With that in mind, I will attempt to answer you.

    Not only is it my opinion, it is factual based on the empirical data collected over the many years. I don’t need a study to back up my comment. Simply read any article here or read a newspaper or go to YouTube. So you are implying that the hundreds of videos at YouTube reporting to have filmed a Sasquatch are real? Really? Because that is the case at hand. Almost all are known hoaxes or later to be discovered as hoaxes. That is a fact and also my opinion. If you read a newspaper, you will see that two BF were reported recently. In one, the guy was killed trying to imitate BF in a cheap costume. In another, the guy ran into park rangers and was found that all prior sightings and videos of these sightings were hoaxes. The empirical evidence also happens to agree with my opinion. I don’t need a study for that. Just as I do not need a study to tell me the sky is blue and not red.

    I consider the PG film not to be a hoax for many reasons. I consider it to be a genuine piece of footage captured by Patterson and Gimlin that has stood the test of time when trying to be debunked. It has stood that test of time and scrutiny. I have never been intellectually outfoxed by lower ranges of IQ individuals. Why? Because common sense, a set of professional skills, and an intellect above those with lower IQs make outfoxing me impossible. If you think you can outfox me, then give it go my friend. You would fail based on the previous statement I just made.

    You asked the question, “Why do you perpetually spend so much time evaluating the work of individuals that you believe to possess “lower ranges of IQ”?”

    I will answer that question. I do it for people like you. I do it for people who are newbies to the Cryptozoological world. I do it for people who are not blessed with IQs as high as mine. I do it for people who do not have the experience, professional abilities, or that lack a skill set to determine what is a hoax and what may be genuine. I do it for the Cryptozoological community. I do it to separate the wheat from the chaffe, so real research can take place. I do it because it is interesting and fun. I do it to help people and most appreciate it as can be judged by the “thank yous” I receive both publicly and privately.

    Of course there are some armchair quarterbacks out there, actually very similar to you, who can only criticize passive aggressively and add nothing to research or the Cryptozoological community. Yes, these people will complain about a post or comment or just voice their opinion. They really have nothing to contribute on the professional level. And on a personal level, they just like to stir the waters with unintelligent commentary. I get that! If that is your thing, then do not let me stop you. But be prepared when someone who is a more worthy opponent calls you out or challenges you. In other words, it would just show your foolishness to bring a knife to a gunfight.

    So in conclusion, I will address your last paragraph of nonsense, in the hopes of educating you and raising your IQ a bit. You state that hoaxers are providing us with entertainment and maybe their product is as valid as any form of entertainment. Really? Do you think Ebert or Siskel would consider these hoaxed videos worthy entertainment? I say that as a tribute to both now deceased film critics. But do you think any of these YouTube videos are actually entertainment? I cancel them in the first couple of seconds. The ones I have watched to the end are pure crap! But if you consider crap to be entertainment, then by all means, do not let me stop you from being entertained by B, D, or F rated flicks. You can laugh away and enjoy them. It takes a person of a certain IQ to find enjoyment in that dribble. But by all means laugh away. I will not stop you. One can learn a lot about a person by seeing what films and videos they enjoy. And if you enjoy drinking swill while watching this crap, do not count on me to tell you about the great champagnes out there as you drink your swill. We are on two different pages.

    As far as possessing no special skills in assessing IQs, there is where you would be incorrect. It does not take a genius or a person with a high IQ, to determine that their potential adversary has a low IQ. As long as their IQ is noticeably lower, there is no perceived threat to one’s own IQ. All the person assessing the IQ has to determine that the IQ of the person they are assessing is lower or higher than their own. It requires no special skill sets. It requires common sense and empirical data.

    And with that being said, we now know where you stand!

    One thing you failed to mention, so I will bring it to your attentions, is the fact that these crap faked videos and hoaxes, adds nothing to research in the Cryptozoological field. Nothing! In fact, it detracts and interferes with true research. Maybe you missed that because of your self-perceived high IQ. That is the biggest problem of these hoaxed videos. It is detrimental to real Cryptozoological research. And that is why I invest my time in debunking this garbage from those with lower IQs that produce or defend this garbage. You know, guys like you who consider it good cinema and outstanding entertainment. It is people like you that fail to see the harm of these hoaxes and your IQ being what it is, never consider the detriment and applaud and defend such garbage.

    Next time, bring your gun to a gunfight instead of taking wild swings with a bat and hoping that you hit a homerun. Because if that is what your intentions were, you just struck out Casey! If your IQ does not allow you to figure out the reference I just made, here’s a hint, you can Google it. See how helpful I continue to be to those with lower IQs?

  37. Goodfoot responds:

    So very much talk about IQ; so very little actually utilized.

  38. asecretcountry responds:

    Goodfoot responds: April 9th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
    So very much talk about IQ; so very little actually utilized.

    “Goodfoot”..…if your not able to actually understand what “photoexpert” said..its best not to let other people on a public board know that…just saying. :)
    “Photoexpert”..should be applauded for clarity and humour…

  39. BronzeSteel responds:

    Like most of you I smell hoax.

  40. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot– Did someone pee in your cornflakes this morning or are your panties just ruffled? Or maybe you are just one of those individuals seeking attention, any kind of attention, no matter how negative it may turn out to be.

    Did I touch a nerve in you when I was posting about lower IQ individuals? Sorry about that if I hurt your feelings. But as asecretcountry so eloquently pointed out, and I quote–“Goodfoot”..…if your not able to actually understand what “photoexpert” said..its best not to let other people on a public board know that…just saying.

    Obviously, asecretcountry is in the upper limits of those with higher IQ quotients. Asecretcountry gets it! And I thank asecretcountry for taking the time to explain to you why your own post points the finger back at you. It takes a higher IQ to understand and comprehend those with similar higher IQs. Asecretcountry gets it and also astutely gets the humor in my postings. Unfortunately, you did not, which speaks volumes about your IQ or lack thereof!

    Goodfoot, I do have some good news for you though. You got one thing correct that you posted and I actually agree with, that is your post apples to you to a T!!! Good job in describing yourself as a poster. You know Goodfoot, I do have some parting words of advice for you though, “Sometimes it is better to not open your mouth and let everybody THINK you are a fool, instead of opening your mouth and thus removing any doubt that indeed you are a fool”.

    Unfortunately, I did not convey this tidbit of advice to you before you made your post. I might have saved you from embarrassing yourself. But by all means, keep opening your mouth and posting here. It makes my job easy. Other people can point out the obvious to you as asecretcountry just did! LOL

    Asecretcountry–Thank you! I find your posts educational and I see we both have the same sense of humor. It is obvious to me from your posts that you are one of the Cryptomundians with a high intellect and also a sense of humor. You get it! No explanations needed. Of course those with a higher IQ, such as yourself, understand what is not so obvious to others. Did you laugh as hard as I did when reading Goodfoot’s attempt at a post to make himself seem intelligent and pithy? I could not have posted any better. Your post covered it beatifully. But then again, I just had to post something to Goodfoot in reply since he was obviously seeking some kind of attention. I look forward to seeing you around Cryptomundo! Don’t hesitate to say hello or post as you just did. It is a lot of work for one person, such as myself, trying to explain things to less intellectually endowed individuals. Your help would be most appreciated! Again, thanks for the assist!

    You know Goodfoot, there is one more tidbit of advice I can bestow upon you to make the quality of your life better in the future–If you do not have anything positive to say, keep your mouth shut and say nothing at all. It is similar to the last piece of advice I gave you but with individuals such as yourself, I like to give to examples so your mind can comprehend the concept I am putting forth. I hope that helps.

  41. Goodfoot responds:


    Yes; I bow to you, as you have proved your superiority in every way, my liege. Nicely done, O Exalted Lionhearted One!!!!

  42. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot–You may now rise from your bow, loyal subject. Your submission and inferiority have been acknowledged!

    Goodfoot–On a serious note, that last post of yours was pretty funny! And it was humorous in more intellectual way. Well, at least it was far superior than your prior post. Even you must acknowledge that previous post was pretty weak. Dude, I did not want to beat up on you. But when you come out of nowhere and try to throw a haymaker at me for no apparent reason, even though you never connected, a man has a right to defend himself. I am the kind of person that will not start a fight but I will finish one. And when the aggression on your part was so obvious to other posters besides me, you might want to read what you are typing before posting it.

    My question is, “Why attack someone for no reason?” What did I ever do to you? I mean, if you did not like my posting, don’t read it. Or read it and ignore it! I would respect that. But coming in on the offense like you did and missing with your first shot, a skilled pugilist as myself has to take you down a few notches., although asecretcountry beat me to the punch.

    But this last post of yours was pretty good. Maybe the lesson I tried to teach you took hold. In any case, it obviously raised your IQ and posting ability to a higher standard. Every poster at Cryptomundo enjoys little good-hearted fun. Just remember that for the future. You are a fast learner young grasshopper.

    I’ll see you around Cryptomundo, hopefully in a friendly way and not in an adversarial way. Good last post! Kudos!

  43. Cryptoraptor responds:

    Sir Isaac Photo”expert”, most internet bigfoot hoaxers are likely high school or college students with IQs over 100 who are just having fun. Factoring in the rare high profile oddball hoaxers does not change the fact that most internet bigfoot hoaxers are likely young educated people having fun at gullible peoples expense.

    Photo”expert” quote:

    “I consider it to be a genuine piece of footage captured by Patterson and Gimlin…”

    Yes, its a genuine piece of footage. All footage of anything is genuine footage. If you really believed it was bigfoot you would have committed and said that you believed it to be a genuine footage of BIGFOOT. So, you believe Patterson filmed an actual eight foot tall broad-shouldered bearded woman with hairy breasts, Mr. IQ?

    You are afraid to admit that analysing bigfoot hoaxes is entertainment for you. It legitimately entertains you. If your “expertise” was absent from the cryptozoological world it would not miss a beat. You are posting and “analysing” for your own entertainment. You fail to grasp that hoaxes ARE most of the cryptozoological world and that it will only increase.

    You are hardly clever.

  44. PhotoExpert responds:

    Cryptoraptor–Sniff, sniff, I knew I had smelled a scoptic. I just had to bait them and sniff them out. Then you took the bait. Nice job Einstein!

    I have to give it to you though, you did a good job in hiding it, you know, your true religion–being a skeptic. But like I stated in an earlier post, a person with a lower IQ is not going to outfox a person with a higher IQ. This is a case in point! LOL

    With that being said, let’s move on and address your most recent post. I am always happy to answer questions from those who are sincere. And in your case, I am happy to answer questions from those who are not sincere.

    You stated: “Sir Isaac Photo”expert”, most internet bigfoot hoaxers are likely high school or college students with IQs over 100 who are just having fun.”

    Well, your reference to me as Sir Isaac Newton holds merit, in that to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when one tries to bait me or outfox me, I usually slam them with an equal reaction but I make sure it hits a more vital area. Hence, great job on bringing a knife to a gunfight, again! And as stated in your own words, some hoaxers IQs are about 100 or above. Again, you prove my point, most hoaxers are of lower IQs. My emperical data backs that up and now you do too! Thanks for proving my point!

    Cryptoraptor, you quoted me in your second paragraph and then rambled on about the definition of “genuine”. You asked me a direct question: “So, you believe Patterson filmed an actual eight foot tall broad-shouldered bearded woman with hairy breasts, Mr. IQ? ”

    So let me address that question: Cryptoraptor, unlike you who has his own religion called skepticism, in my world I throw out belief systems and go with the facts at hand. Although you believe in something as your religion, I can only be objective. Do you get that Einstein? Objectivity in analyzing video or pictorial evidence has no place for “beliefs”, just objectivity. So objectively speaking, I can only say that the PG is genuine and has stood the test of time and scrutiny. I can not put my personal beliefs or disbeliefs into analyzing data to try and make it fit. You do that! You do that because of religion of skepticism, you beliefs. I leave my belief system on the table when analyzing video or photos as an expert in the field. My beliefs have nothing to do with what the PG film is or is not. But you already have your mind made up and then try to make the facts fit. That is not science. That is your belief system in play Mr. Skeptic! I am neither a skeptic or believer. I am objective like that. Hence the moniker, PhotoExpert!

    Your last paragraph, again show your lower IQ and also your lack of common sense. Yes, analyzing film is fun for me because I love what I do. I already spent a whole paragraph in previous post explaining that to you. I realize people like you whose belief is to be a skeptic is skeptical of everything, but trust me on this, I love analyzing video and photographs. I already stated it once. But for you, I will answer that a second time. Some people are slower than others. So you will receive two answers.

    Geesh, yes, enjoying analyzing video as I stated previously, is fun for me. If it were not, I would not be in this field Einstein. Wake up! Drink a coffee and throw your religion out the window just once. If you would have read my last post or at least understood it, you would know that entertainment is only part of it. The majority of it is to benefit real Cryptozoological research.

    One last thing genius, you stated: If your “expertise” was absent from the cryptozoological world it would not miss a beat.

    On this statement, I will give you the benefit of the doubt of being a newbie to Cryptozoology instead of calling you a moron. Undoubtedly, you have not seen posts here where I solved photographs through photographic analysis. Undoubtedly, you have not read the post here by Loren Coleman and others talking about my contributions to the world of Cryptozoology. Do yourself a favor and learn to read instead of having tunnel vision. And there is one more thing, there are many other examples of my contributions to the world of Cryptozoology that will never be seen or known to you. Why? Well, when you hit my level of professionalism in photo analysis, many times we experts are asked to sign a little legal form called a “Nondisclosure Agreement”.

    Let me explain that for you. It means I can not tell or disclose any of the work or anaysis obtained or I could be sued. There are several high profile cases which I was involved with that I can not even talk about. However, others who contribute to the world of Cyptozoology know about them, such as Loren Coleman. He could, he does and would vouch for me on that. You are out of the loop on so many things. You are not in the world of those who contribute to scientific analysis. You are too busy with your religion of skepticism and subjectivity.

    Cryptoraptor, I grow bored of putting you in your place and correcting your absurd and ludicrous statements. I am going to have to move on after explaining things to you for a second time. Almost everyone gets it but you!

    Now that you have been corrected and enlightened, try moving on. And for goodness sakes, try leaving your belief system behind when you post again. It only makes you look foolish in the eyes of true contributors to the world of Cryptozoology. Aren’t you weary and growing tired of playing the same game you play and losing all the time to those with superior IQs.

    Another one bites the dust! Good job on taking the bait and showing your true colors Cryptoraptor. Now everyone knows what you are about and that ain’t a good thing. I put that last sentence in words you should even comprehend!

    See you around Cryptomundo, Cryptogecko!

  45. Shelley responds:

    To those who thought if the elk hunters were planning to illegally spotlight an elk and shoot it, it was strange for them to run video camera: There are numerous law enforcement photos of hunters filming themselves doing illegal things–the temptation and bragging rights are just too strong. As a matter of fact, one of the first things a game enforcement officer does around here is to casually ask to see if the suspects have taken any pictures on their phone recently. Although legally they can refuse, almost everyone shows the pictures.

    Actually, THAT would be a good setup for a Bigfoot hoax, having someone find the footage on their phone camera when they are stopped for some legal infraction. So much more subtle than this.

  46. Cryptoraptor responds:

    photo”expert”, you are projecting. It takes a lot of faith and little “expertise” to believe a man in in costume with obvious, large cutout holes in the eye area is actually an eight foot tall ape woman. Unless one believes in Patterson they are outside your belief system. You are a Pattersonist. Your entire belief hinges on Patterson. photo”expert” has been outfoxed his entire life by Roger Patterson.

    At least you admit that analyzing photos and videos created by low IQ individuals is stimulating and fun for you.

    The “expert” who believes a man in a costume is an eight foot tall ape woman also is involved in top secret high profile undercover secret agent work that he can’t discuss. “expert” is the go-to guy when high school students pull high profile bigfoot hoaxes. Analyzing teenagers in costumes does not make one a contributor to science.

    Don’t take yourself so seriously, photo”expert”.

  47. PhotoExpert responds:

    Cryptogecko, I thought I dismissed you already? LOL

    I am going to have to even dummy down my normal posting for you so that you can understand. You don’t seem to be getting it. So let me try and third time to make it perfectly clear.

    At first I thought you were either a moron or a newbie, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. From here on in, it has become clear you are not a newbie. So what does that leave us with?

    For the third time, I never said that the subject in the PG film is a BF. Nor did I say that the subject in the PG is a man. I clearly and firmly stated that “the film is genuine”. What don’t you get about that? Are you that thick-skulled to not understand the basic concept of genuine? Or does your religion of blatant skepticism, prevent you from comprehending simple concepts and words?

    I can’t be a Pattersonist as you refer to because I do not personally know the man. I know of him and some things about him. I do not know him. Therefore, I can not believe in his being, his core values, etc. You got it wrong for the umpteenth time. If you consider outfoxing me by being incorrect every time you post, then, yep, you are doing a good job of outfoxing me. How does it feel to be wrong every time you post? How does it feel to be corrected with facts and data every single time you post here? Some people are just gluttons for punishment. You appear to be one of those people.

    Cryptogecko, on a lighter note, I am actually having fun with you. This going back and forth at least gives us something to lighten a boring day. And I will say, that unlike most posters, you do have moments where that intellect of yours pops up and cloaks some of your more moronic statements. So really, I think us going back and forth is fun and interesting too. Also, sometimes the threads here at Cryptomundo do get boring. And I always like a difference of opinion. It would be boring to eat vanilla ice cream all the time. And one last thing, before going back to correcting you and dealing with your desire to be punished publicly here, you are a gentleman. I say that because you are not rude and really do not resort to name calling. I respect that. I find it endearing the way you put quotations marks around the “expert” part of my name. I imagine you do that to you physician when you refer to him as “Doctor”. But seriously, I do appreciate your mannerly attacks without getting rude. It does show some character compare to most. Now back to correcting you!

    It might interest you that I actually have friends who are skeptics. I thought you might appreciate that, in case you think I beat up on all skeptics. I do not. Do you know Ben Radford? I consider Ben a friend. In fact, he comes by here from time to time and openly and publicly agrees with my posts and mentions me by name. He does not consider me a “believer”. He considers me objective. And believers do not always agree with me. Why? Because they do not consider me a believer, they consider me to be objective. Honestly, I am not in any camp, one way or the other. I have friends in both camps. So calling me a Pattersonist is way off base. You can check with Ben if you don’t believe me or the facts, which are one in the same.

    You stated: At least you admit that analyzing photos and videos created by low IQ individuals is stimulating and fun for you.

    Again, for the third time, YES, I enjoy that! You finally got it! I was surprised when you missed that the first time I posted it. But you got it the second time. Good for you! You finally got it! And I will confirm it a third time just so I make sure you get it. YES!

    You stated: The “expert” who believes a man in a costume is an eight foot tall ape woman also is involved in top secret high profile undercover secret agent work that he can’t discuss.

    Oh boy, where do I begin with you on this statement? For the third time, I never said that. For the third time, I clearly and soundly stated, that the PG is genuine and has stood the test of time and scrutiny. It is what it is. You can read into that any way you like but I can only state the facts. That is what keeps my opinion professional. Unlike you, a novice, or a person that has no worries about keeping their reputation intact as an expert, you can go further than I can in stating your beliefs.

    A person that states that they believe the PG film shows just this or that, is coming their subjective brain. I can not use any subjectivity whatsoever, and that is why my professional work is always objective. Do you get that? Do you finally understand? Was I able to finally get through to you and give you the answer you are so desperately seeking? I hope you can read between the lines and finally get it. I can not make it any clearer than I have.

    Finally Cryptogecko, you really need to expand your horizons. I already told you that you must read a paper or book every once in a while. You have failed to do so. Though you do continue to make up crap in your head, not having one iota of proof to the contrary, as I supply proof after proof, to show you how wrong you are.

    See, I know this concept may be a little hard for you to comprehend, given your lower IQ quotient, but there is this thing called anonymity. Do you know what that means? When I give analysis outside of Cryptomundo, I do not use the name PhotoExpert. I use my real name. So any study, paper or analysis that you would see, would have my real name on it and not my moniker, PhotoExpert. Do you get that? For safety concerns and privacy, I keep the two separate. Get it? If you want to really show me and this board, that you do not have a low IQ and are not just full of crap, then please post my real name in your next post. I will admit you have genius level IQ and not my subordinate if you do that. Just post my real name and nothing else and I will publicly admit you outfoxed me. How’s that for a challenge?

    If you can not do that, then every thing you posted would make you a moron! So prove to me and prove to all of us that indeed you are not a moron as I suspect Prove you know me and summaries of my work in the field of photo analysis. Out me with my real name and tell us all what high profile cases I have not worked on or have worked on. Until you can do that, you are just rambling on with your opinions. I have contributed to the field of Cryptozoology and you have not. You have done nothing. And that is because your lower IQ, or your religion of skepticism, or your lack of skills sets, prevents you from contributing anything worthwhile. In other words, I have a proven track record in Cryptozoology and you do not! End of story!

    Cryptogecko, here is a hint, I have Ben Radford and Loren Coleman that would back me up on what I am saying. Who do you have that could vouch for you and any of your contributions to the field of Cryptozoology? I suspect no one! Why? You have never contributed anything at all, not once!

    As far as the top secret agent stuff. What are you talking about? Please tell me you understand the legal concept of a Nondisclosure Agreement. I know you are not that intelligent. But please tell me you at least understand that. If not, your IQ is even lower than I though, especially since I already explained it to you once before. Surely, you are not implying that signing a nondisclosure agreement is the same as being top secret agent stuff, are you? You do see those two things as being different I hope. I hope for your sake and the sake of your IQ you get that difference. Geesh, maybe you are a moron, if you equate those two things. I sure hope not! But good try in attempting to twist my explanation of a NDA into being a secret agent. Your attempt fails again.

    And now I will address your last statement: Don’t take yourself so seriously, photo”expert”.

    I don’t take myself too seriously. I would say that I do take my work seriously, though. Personally, I could care less about what some nobody thinks of me. And proof of the fact that I do not take myself too seriously, I am posting back and forth with the likes of you. Surely, someone who puts themself on a pedestal, would not reply or engage a person such as yourself, who has not made any significant contributions to the world of Cryptozoology. They would be above that, if they really took themselves too seriously. Fortunately, I do not. So I engage you! In fact, I’d sit down and have a drink with you, although I probably would not drink what you were drinking.

    Anyway, Gecko, (can I call you Gecko for short?) you have been corrected once again. Maybe on your 100th try, you might get it right. But until then, some years down the line, you will think before you open your mouth and post nonsense. You are so easily discredited, that you have not won one point in our debate, not one! But I will give you credit on even trying to attempt to take on a much more worthy and intellectual adversary. You do have balls! And that is the best thing I could say about you, oh, and yes, your gentlemanly manner of posting. I do respect you on those two issues. I will even give you a Kudos on that. And that was from the heart and serious. I really mean that. I do respect that about you. The other things, not so much! LOL

    So go ahead and reply to this with my real name. If you do that, everyone will know you are not a moron. But remember, if you don’t, every one will know what they already suspect.

    My real name please…!

  48. Cryptoraptor responds:

    You know you’ve hit the big time when you sign secret non-disclosure agreements on bigfoot prank “analyses”. There must be dozens of top secret bigfoot pranks that only you can decipher. Careful not to get carpel tunnel on the levels slider in CS6 . The bigfoot pranks that only you are privy to must boggle the mind. How privileged you are. “Don’t you know who I am?” Wow, you’re a player in the bigfoot prank industry and write rambling self-congratulatory essays. I must give you credit. You use a lot of words. Substance, not so much.

    The idea that you compare yourself even remotely close to doctor status…..

    Let’s be clear. photo”expert” is not just saying Patterson’s footage is a genuine 16 mm film. photo”expert” is saying that he believes it is genuine footage of a naked, hairy eight foot tall bearded ape-woman.

    You mention red flags in some of your online ”analysis” which on the outset make you skeptical of certain pranks but you seem to miss the huge cutout holes in the eye area, the hairy breasts, the beard on a woman, and the big clown feet that have to be lifted high off the ground in the Patterson film.

    You are a bigfoot photo”expert” in the bigfoot industry because you validate the linchpin Patterson film as well as assorted hoaxes here and there. You’re the bigfoot believer and photo”expert” that people who make their money writing bigfoot books go to.

    You somehow want to believe that you are contributing to science by “analyzing” bigfoot pranks. The irony of calling yourself photo”expert” is lost on you.

    The idea that you are impressed with someone’s intellect if they know your name speaks volumes on your overblown sense of self importance. You are very far from being an arbiter on anything related to intellect.

    I must say that I feel a bitt’ better about your mental health knowing that this is also a business to you and that you have found a way to make money from it. You are part of the bigfoot industry chain which begins with the hoaxers.

    Glad you caught your surname allusion.

  49. PhotoExpert responds:

    Couldn’t list post my real name as the challenge required? That was the proof if you were a moron or not.

    I only have one word for you-MORON!

    I am not interested in anything else that you now have to say. Psst, and neither is anyone else! LOL Since you failed again by failing this challenge, you are dismissed. But now it was doneg publicly. And with the proof a skeptic like you requires! LOL That is the great and also ironic part about showing you can’t back up anything you claim. Love it!

    Move on and try discrediting someone else you know nothing about. Go on posting untruths as you follow your true religion of scepticism, throwing out any and all evidence that interferes with the predetermined route you follow like a map. Go on putting words in people’s mouth after experts like myself explain the facts to you three times or more. Take your lower IQ quotient and try to use it on a less worthy adversary. You have been outfoxed and proven to be a moron by failing yet another challenge. Your usefulness in the Cryptozoological field has come to an end, expert in nothing! Well, maybe that is too harsh, expert in believing in scepticism. Move on amateur! Or more aptly put, move on moron!

    Couldn’t even post my real name after stating he knew what studies and photo analysis I was involved in or not. Here’s a thought, if you were unable to tell me what studies I was involved in, then no person, at least no logical person, can say what you just stated. You fail big time! I asked for proof, you failed miserably. And now, everyone KNOWS it!

    By the way, I mentioned your by screen name in a new post here. And although you fail to see, even after 4 explanations, and continue to try and put words in my mouth–that photoexpert thinks Bigfoot is a real bearded woman, blah, blah, blah… I agree with you in that post I just made. Yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here’s more irony, you actually agree with me and I agree with you, yet you keep arguing a point we both agree on. Your scepticism has blinded you so much, that you disagree and try to put words in the mouth of people who are actually agreeing with you on some point. This makes you a moron too if the failing to post my real name did not! LOL Hysterical!

    Gecko, your comedic value is priceless! The problem is, people are laughing AT you and not WITH you! Move on! Better luck next time grasshopper. I kind of like you now and enjoy your company since you follow me around this board. It’s sort of like that ugly stray dog that follows you on the street. You wish it would just stop barking and go away, but you have sympathy for it because of what it is!

    Being outed as a moron by your lack of proof to back up your words, failing to post my real name, being displayed to all the world that you know nothing about me and are not qualified to talk about me or anything for that matter, and you still come back. Most would be embarrassed at this point beyond belief. But not you! There is that cojones I mentioned before. You do have balls! Not too brght, but you have balls.

    Be sure to say hello as you follow me around Cryptomundo, Gecko. I miss that little stray dog. Or I can drive by and supersize my next meal while you are at work. Even I take a break from photoanalysis.

    By the way, I received several emails from people are enjoying our little back and forth. Well, at least they are enjoying my humorous posts and they are enjoying you making a fool of yourself.

    Bye Gecko, until you stalk me down again! LOL

  50. Cryptoraptor responds:

    Nice try, Dave.

    I accept your surrender and apology.

  51. PhotoExpert responds:

    Gecko, LOL, nice try but still a swing and a miss! Loren or Craig could confirm you are wrong again, while keeping the anonymity of my name.

    Good try on trying to save face, but still wrong!

    Confucius said that even a drowning man will grab the edge of a sword to save himself from drowning. I have some bandages if you need them!

    Anyway, Gecko, I look forward to seeing you around Cryptomundo. Even though we disagree on some things. I sometimes see you post statements that do make sense. This time, not so much, but you actually do make sense sometimes. I look forward to one of those times. Did you find that recent post that I agreed with you yet? If so, there is where you made sense. When you make sense, I will give you kudos. When you make no sense at all, I will rip you!

    This post is now played out. But I do look forward to engaging your wit and cunning in a future post here. I am sure there will be something I say that you will take issue with. I can probably guarantee that. See you around Cryptomundo, Gecko!

  52. Cryptoraptor responds:

    photo “expert”,

    If you are not the character I alluded to then you are of much less significance than even I had considered. Even if you actually are the guy from Maryland, you are a still virtual nobody. I would have had more respect for you though because we would have had similar knowledge of videography, editing, and effects programs, even though the Maryland guy is merely a technician.

    As it stands you are simply a delusional(regarding self importance)long-winded bigfoot neurotic.

    I suspect that you are only of average intelligence but have miles of unsupported self-confidence and tenacity…. but even you will have to admit that that is about it.

    photo “expert” finally met someone who called “him” on his bs.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.