Update: New Klamath River Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 8th, 2008

Well, no need to wait for FCastle6969 to respond with any additional information regarding the footage shown below.

Cryptomundo readers makuus & fmurphy1970 have already solved the “mystery.”

Yes it is Oliver.

Look at this documentary made by Channel 5 in the UK.

Go to 2 mins 40 secs and you will see the exact same clip as shown in this supposed ‘bigfoot’ video.

These fakers really annoy me!fmurphy1970

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, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


38 Responses to “Update: New Klamath River Bigfoot Video”

  1. mystery_man responds:

    This is exactly what I was hoping someone would come up with and I was scouring through footage of Oliver myself. Wow, good job makuus and fmurphy1970!

  2. fallofrain responds:

    I can understand the frustration and anger many people feel about fakers. They don’t help cryptobiology a bit. On the other hand I don’t accept any extraordinary photo as what the photographer says it is. Maybe I’m cynical, or maybe I like a good mystery to try to solve. My congratulations to those who said Oliver. I was guessing a suit.

  3. Scarfe responds:

    The black and white footage appears in this video around the 2:46 mark

  4. jayman responds:

    My first thought when I saw the film was “chimpanzee” but I didn’t think of Oliver. But it wasn’t a suit.

  5. superd responds:

    Great sleuthing, and I enjoyed the clip on Oliver. Is he still alive?

  6. TheSuspiciousOne responds:

    Reminds me of de Loys’ Ape.

  7. bill green responds:

    hey craig wow your very welcome for the new update about oliver ie bigfoot video here in cryptomundo. good afternoon bill. but the debates will continue about this photo indeed. 🙂

  8. fmurphy1970 responds:

    Many thanks to Cryptomundo reader Dogu4 who prompted me to search through the Oliver YouTube clips.

  9. Maine Crypto responds:

    Wow, good job guys! That is a really interesting documentary, thanks for posting it here.

  10. Medieval responds:

    I’m glad the truth was discovered before this forgery lingered. These clowns that fake these videos really irritate me to no end.

  11. olejason responds:

    I can’t believe people in the other post thought it was a suit

  12. Spinach Village responds:

    I am a amazed at peoples willingness to lie and purposely mislead… it still baffles me

  13. Digger44 responds:

    I find it so hilarious that so many of you are adamant that this is a suit and a hoax when it is a proven chimpanzee. And you wonder why there are so many skeptics against bigfoot believers? So many people have crowned themselves experts of analysis when you actually do not have a clue.

    Thanks to Loren and Craig for always being level headed and letting the facts speak for themselves instead of making foolish conclusions based upon some doll eye, facial expressions, mouth, and lips that are all from a suit, but are actually a live chimpanzee. I think that people’s false analysis claiming this was a suit is just as foolish as the hoaxer who knowingly posted this clip.

    The truth is that if we actually got an authentic bigfoot video, most couldn’t tell it from their elbow.

  14. fallofrain responds:

    As one of the “fools” described by Digger, I’d like to respond. We all see things differently, and because you were smart enough to see the truth immediately is not justification for calling others “fools”. I’m sorry I don’t have your obviously superior intellect. To me, not having seen many photos of Oliver, I felt the character was not beyond the abilities of a good makeup artist…the apes in the movie 2001 come to mind. And shooting the scene from above would have hidden a multitude of errors in makeup. I never believed it was the type of suit with a removable head and molded-in abs. It would be nice to have a little tolerance of other people’s observations. Thanks.

  15. cryptidsrus responds:

    I second what SUPERD said. Is Oliver still alive?
    Great footage.

  16. sausage1 responds:

    Well done , Makuus and fmurphy 1970.

    Proof again that, evidentially speaking, video and film just don’t cut it when not supported by other evidence.

  17. DWA responds:

    Digger44: Hate to say it, but you might be right.

    I’ve been thinking for some time now that if a truly legitimate sas video ever surfaced, a world of primates with four million years of evolution as hunters behind them would recognize it instantly; the search image would say “not human.”

    Problem is, modern humans have so duped themselves that they have everything figured out that they kill, instantly, what their eyes tell them.

    My first look didn’t say “sasquatch,” but it didn’t conclude “human” either. Subsequent views just didn’t say “human” to me. I’m not conversant enough with the Oliver story that that registered at all as a potential answer. But the face said: gorilla or chimp, probably the latter. Another thing too many armchair skeptics lack: fundamental animal-ID chops.

    It seems too many people are:

    1) So blinded by technology and by too little time outside that their critical faculties have tanked;

    2) So credulous that they’ll swallow any “it’s fake” scenario;

    3) So jaded (or so scared of being thought credulous or uncool) that they shout “fake” knee-jerk, at everything;

    Or some combination of the above (read: they really do need to get out more and turn off their cynic buttons).

    Sad, really.

  18. shdwmnkyX responds:

    I am glad this others caught this too. Though an amazing animal Oliver is still nothing more than a chimp.

  19. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Good job, folks!

    Now, how about some of that same level of critical analysis of a certain film shot in 1967 in Bluff Creek?

  20. Lyndon responds:

    Benjamin Radford writes:

    “Good job, folks!

    Now, how about some of that same level of critical analysis of a certain film shot in 1967 in Bluff Creek?”

    Hmmmm, well the 1967 Bluff Creek footage DOESN’T look like Oliver, nor does it look like any man in a suit that I have ever seen, and I’ve seen just about all of them.

    Next.

  21. mystery_man responds:

    Yeah, I’m not sure about that comment from Digger either. It’s easy to criticize other’s opinions in retrospect, it seems. Personally I thought the footage looked strange, but I didn’t make any conclusion on any particular point because there was a lack of evidence on what it actually was until now. I left options open. I think it is important to approach the analysis from different angles and for some, the suit idea was an angle to be considered. We didn’t KNOW it was a chimpanzee at first, some people didn’t even know about Oliver, and for me I wanted to be open minded and look at all possible explanations until there was more evidence to point to one explanation. I’m glad this was cleared up in such a timely fashion.

    I think Occam’s Razor was applied very well in this case. Quick definition for those that don’t know it or misunderstand it. Occam’s Razor says “Pluritas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. In lay man’s terms, “Don’t make stuff up unless you need to.” Occam’s Razor does not really mean “Choose the simplest solution”, and it doesn’t pretend to find the correct solution. It basically means hey, let’s look at the natural explanation for now until any new evidence challenges it. In this case the two natural explanations were-

    1) Man in suit. We know there are elaborate suits and we know there are hoaxers.
    or
    2) A chimpanzee walking bipedally since we know it has a precedent.

    In this case, I think number 1 was a legitimate speculation, especially for those were not aware of Oliver’s bipedal capabilities. The face looked strange and some may not have wanted to make assumptions that it was a chimp until that was adequately explained. I find it hilarious that anyone could insist this was Bigfoot without considering any other option as I’m am sure some people did, even though there was not other evidence in this case other than what we see in the film. Are we to immediately go to the “Bigfoot” hypothesis instead? What does Digger have to say about everyone who was convinced it must be Bigfoot? If there was some evidence that challenged that this was a chimp or man in suit, then fine let’s look at alternate possibilities, but there wasn’t and look, we have evidence that it was Oliver (One of our natural explanations). Occam’s Razor in action. Nice.

    In the end, it is the people who dug up the evidence, like Dogu4, makuus, and fmurphy170 in this case, that are going to make the difference in these types of analysis, whether what we see is a hoax or the real deal. It is not the ones complaining in hindsight about how everyone was wrong or criticizing other’s views. Until the evidence is forthcoming, let’s be open minded to the possibilities, including “man in suit”.

  22. mystery_man responds:

    Note that what I mean above by “natural explanation” is the mundane or proven explanation. Bigfoot has not been verified to exist, no matter how much we might like it to be, and therefore we have to look at the explanations that we know DO exist until evidence to the contrary presents itself. In the case of this clip, we KNOW people make convincing suits and hoax. We KNOW there was a chimp named Oliver who could walk upright and had similar features to what is in the film. These are the mundane options. We DON’T KNOW Bigfoot exists, and Occam’s Razor says that we should not add in or make-up unknown entities until the known ones are ruled out or incontrovertible evidence to support the unknown becomes evident. There is no such evidence surrounding this video.

    Critical thinking and doubt is always going to hang over this sort of video footage until concrete confirmation of Bigfoot is produced. I think it is as simple as that. Why should science accept a complete unknown and drop what we do know unless there is crucial evidence to back it up? That is the way it is, and it is the way science tends to (read ALWAYS) operate. I think it is a dangerous path if we start to completely accept new things without this evidence and it ignores the best way we have of learning about the universe (despite what some seem to think), science. Investigate further, yes. Look into the preliminary evidence, of course. Build the case for Bigfoot, absolutely. These are certainly things I wish would be taken more seriously in cryptozoology. But do not start discarding the proven and what we know in favor of embracing the unproven. We have to work within the framework of science.

    Frankly, I’m glad for it, and in the end it is better for the credibility of cryptozoology if we play by the rules and learn to be critical of the “evidence” from all angles rather than just the ones we want to look at.

  23. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I agree, but I also think the same way about anything who shouts a knee-jerk “real!” at everything, or are so credulous as to swallow any “it’s real” scenario. I think sometimes people have to turn off their “believe anything” buttons. You could take your list and just as easily turn it on its head to the other end of the spectrum and it is just as sad. Critical thinking goes both ways and to me, one who says “fake” all the time without consideration of the facts is just as lacking in critical faculties as one who accepts everything at face value. People have to be willing to consider possibilities opposite to what they think in order to be truly open minded, in my opinion. I think if they are not doing that, then they are close minded no matter which explanation they are going with.

  24. DWA responds:

    Lyndon:

    Good job, folk! 😀

    The critical analysis of P/G has been done, to a fare-thee-well, by eminently qualified workers in relevant fields. Their analysis has held up, which is why we’re still talking about it. I’d like to see Ben argue with them. (Why doesn’t he? That would be serious research. I’d buy a ticket.)

    What has smelled to high heaven is the attempts to debunk P/G, none of which has uncovered a thread of evidence of a reasonable hoax scenario. David Daegling’s ‘analysis’ – trumpeted as a creme de la creme of skepticism – essentially ignores the film in favor of “disproving” two egregiously overreaching proponent misstatements (which I can understand, given how frustrated they must have gotten).

    Now that we’ve dismissed that old chestnut (again): good job, folks! A chimp is a chimp.

    And a sasquatch is something else.

  25. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: it may come as no shock that I agree with you.

    I’ve never liked true believers. I like sifting the evidence and seeing where it leads.

    But I can understand Digger’s getting a little upset with folks trumpeting “suit” at something that, well, isn’t.

    I’ve frequently expressed high dudgeon at mainstream science’s treatment of cryptids in general. My problem isn’t that they have other things to do than search for Bigfoot, and are doing them. My problem is that they’re not looking at the evidence before they make “expert” pronouncements that show, pretty clearly, that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

  26. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Another mystery solved by the Cryptomundo team! Good job you guys 🙂

  27. Digger44 responds:

    mystery_man:

    I have absolutely no issues with most of what you have just posted. Please notice what you posted in the second line of your first reply,

    “Personally I thought the footage looked strange, but I didn’t make any conclusion on any particular point because there was a lack of evidence on what it actually was until now.”

    What you just described is simply the common sense that it would be nice to see ALL posters use whether you are pro, con, or neutral.

    You make a great point about the pro-everything crowd seeing Sas in everything. For example, the Sonoma video as well as the Jacob’s pictures. A certain organization, that we will not named, deemed these videos authentic as soon as they were received. It took less than a week in both cases to see that they were not authentic. This pro-everything crowd is ridiculous and will not use a scientific method of proof until after they jump to conclusions. I no way am I defending this.

    Yet on the other hand, there are people who try to make up or invent evidence that does not exist in order to debunk whatever is on the table. Instead of being logical and using scientific observation, they try to invent a connection of the object in question and link it to common things that they are aware of. For example, Oliver has fake eyes, his mouth cannot open, and he has fake lips. None of these things are true whether a person knew this was an Oliver video or not. The analysis done in the original post defied Occam’s Razor by adding things that were not naturally in the video clip.

    Simply because one option may have been that the video was a man in monkey suit, we do not now invent complex evidence to prove that theory. What’s wrong with the face staying in the same position in a short clip? Why must a real animal flare its nose or sniff? Why dolls eyes and not teddy bear? Why was the animal in the video agitated? Whoever said the animal was agitated? These defy Occam’s Razor of simplicity. They compound the problem by adding evidence that never existed.

    Now here is where something happened that I cannot understand. Immediately after the video was posted, many users jumped right in and posted that this was clearly an Oliver clip. dogu4, jayhsee, SurlyT, drjon, mark1, and Randlet all gave some very interesting input claiming this was an Oliver video. There is therefore no excuse to claim “Oliver Ignorance” when six guys pointed out the identity of the video.

    I am not trying to pick on you mystery_man in any way. You were very open in your post as to what it could or could not be, never making a definite conclusion. Free thinking and opinions are a great thing, and by all means I respect yours.

    To follow your illustration of Occam’s Razor, the simplest suggestion that this was indeed Oliver and not a fake. There is no reason to add data that does not exist.

  28. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I’d have to agree with you on that one!

  29. fallofrain responds:

    Being upset at other people isn’t the point. We all disagree strongly with other people at some time or another. The point is being civil, and unfortunately a few people, no matter what their beliefs, aren’t.

  30. DWA responds:

    fallofrain: point taken.

    I personally would like to see the conversation kept to the evidence. As fuzzy puts it: let’s set aside the time-wasters, and on with the search.

  31. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: nope, wouldn’t want to misuse Occam here. He might get upset.

    But sometimes “Pluritas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” might not mean what a lot of people think it does.

    For example, positing Patty as a man in a suit postulates a ton of pluralities, most of which have been gone over and gone over here. That that figure is a human doesn’t seem to be the “natural” explanation, given what would have to pertain for it to be true. Despite Krantz’s misstep of resting his analysis on a single measure, the infamous man of which none anywhere are “built that broadly,” the fact is that on every relative measurement that can be taken, Patty’s at the very limits of the human curve. To postulate that one person like that – hitting on all of them – could be found (on Patterson’s budget!), or that Bob Hieronymous could be in that suit, well, requires that we add in or make-up quite a few unknown entities.

    We may “KNOW people make…suits and hoax.” But “convincing” might not be the word I’d use. I personally have never seen a suit that could convince me; every ape suit I have ever seen – including Bigfoot outfits – requires a pretty much standard-issue human to fit inside of it. Padding doesn’t alter that issue enough to make a difference; it can’t, if you want the person to look natural in the suit. (Catch-22: “natural” means “human” in this case.) There’s no question, from the reports that I have read [many], that the sasquatch, if it’s the animal people are describing, doesn’t look like anything I have ever seen on, say, Youtube. (Except the Peguis, MN one. What happened to that guy?)

    It does, however, seem to look like Patty, more or less, allowing for the differences one would expect among individuals in a species.

    “We KNOW there was a chimp named Oliver who could walk upright and had similar features to what is in the film.” Exactly. THAT is a mundane option, and of course, bingo.

    “We DON’T KNOW Bigfoot exists, and Occam’s Razor says that until the known ones are ruled out or incontrovertible evidence to support the unknown becomes evident….”

    How I apply that one is: if you can rule out a suit (or show that the folks claiming to have been in it have postulated nowhere near enough pluralities to get themselves to fit in that suit), and you can rule out a known animal, you might have something that would benefit from further pursuit in order to figure out what it is.

  32. mystery_man responds:

    Digger- I thank you for your rational and well thought out response to me. As far as the suit thing goes, I can only say that I have seen more hard evidence for the capacity for humans to make very convincing suits than I have seen for sasquatch. That is not to say I think sasquatch cannot exist or that everything could be a man in a suit, nor does it mean I personally find nothing compelling in the evidence presented so far. No, far from it. But it does mean that more evidence has to be presented to overturn that sort of conclusion, and I mean evidence that is cross checked, peer reviewed, and generally agreed upon by scientific consensus. I will say that most scientists would be far more willing to believe that a suit could be manufactured to those specifications than would be willing to make a jump based on unproven evidence that this is a real sasquatch.

    You are right in that this was the video of a real animal, yet people failed to see that and instead saw a suit. I’m happy you noted that I myself did not do this. I merely kept the possibility open. Real animals DO usually sniff and and look about when they are curious about something, as the subject in this video certainly was since it was looking up at the camera (agitated was an assumption, my bad.). Obviously it is not always the case, but it happens enough that I don’t find it adding unnecessary complexity to consider the possibility that this lack of movement could have some cause. I also think since very convincing, believable suits can be made, it is not really always adding undue complexity or new entities to the possibilities. Promoting the idea that this is an animal not yet proven to exist before considering the ideas based on scientific fact IS. Assuming a suit and assuming a scientific unknown as the answer are two wholly different things. No matter, the evidence will come through in the end, as it did here.

  33. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- First of all I wasn’t talking about PG here, so I don’t even know how much I should reply to what you said, since you already know my stance on that one! 🙂 Anyway, I don’t think we can use Patty as hard data or a comparison by which to judge other video evidence because it is not known to be real itself. I think it is a mistake to assume as real data that may be false, no matter how convincing or real it seems. Think of how the world would be if all scientists did this and accepted new ideas without this sort of evidence. Chaos. Until we know for sure, and it is a generally agreed upon truth, the PG footage cannot be totally relied upon and should not be depended on as some sort of holotype. It is as simple as that. It COULD be Bigfoot, but if it DOES turn out to be a hoax think of how all data, like basing this video on comparisons to it, will be compromised and useless. That would ultimately hurt the field and further deteriorate credibility.

    Solid, reliable evidence is of utmost importance. Our scientific knowledge of the natural world is essentially a series of provisional truths backed by evidence, and these truths are amended based on actual new evidence, not what we strongly believe things to be. If we are to accept something new as generally accepted fact, there must be generally agreed upon evidence to show why we should and why the old way is not correct. Every time a paradigm has been shifted, or old beliefs overthrown (sometimes with great resistance, unfortunately), it was ultimately through enough evidence to show why the old way was wrong, not by those who believed or accepted things one way or another without it. I really feel that these video clips, even PG, are not that evidence, as compelling as they may be sometimes.

    Science cannot assume anything, or at the very least should limit assumptions as much as humanly possible. It is a skeptical endeavor, because we have to be sure with in as much of a degree of reasonable certainty as possible. Science is about discovering how things really work, of trying to KNOW, of testing what is real and what is false. As a result scientists typically try very hard to prove each other’s theories wrong, and every hypothesis is checked and peer reviewed constantly in the hopes that whatever remains just might be the truth. A really good quote I heard somewhere was “Science is a way of not fooling ourselves.” Sasquatch may very well be real, but I want to KNOW. Don’t you? That knowledge is simply going to require more than video footage, or at least footage that is independently verified by many scientists (not just a cherry picked handful) and holds up to considerable critical scrutiny. This is how real discoveries are unearthed from the rough, the good ideas separated from the bad. This is a strength of science, it’s self correcting and demanding nature. We have to reason, compare, contrast, analyze, and consider, but to do this this requires evidence.

    So when some try to point to how a piece of footage could be a man in a suit, I don’t think they should be ostracized and I don’t think it is necessarily always faulty thinking. Let’s hear them out. They are working within the confines of what is known, of what hundreds of years of study of our natural world has led us to. New discoveries can be made, of course, but it is up to the proponents to show them if they are incorrect, not the other way around.
    If the overwhelming evidence was there, Bigfoot would be accepted. Obviously, some people with the power to conduct real research are not convinced that PG is worth their time. I don’t agree, but neither do I think we should bash on them because this is not paradigm-shifting compelling stuff at this point in time. Anyway, nobody is stopping anyone from following up on the PG footage anyway.

    Sorry to go on like this, but I really do have a lot of trust in science and I think it should be respected. Yes, science has been wrong before, and indeed does not know everything. But that doesn’t mean scientific methods should not be applied, and it certainly doesn’t mean that those who think Bigfoot must be real (or that it ISN’T a man in a suit) are right. In the end, we essentially agree on the most important thing. More evidence is needed and that this sort of stuff should probably be looked into more than it currently is. Absolutely we should be encouraging more scientists or people with the means or equipment to verify or falsify sasquatch claims if they think it is worth pursuing. With enough evidence (if it is there to be found), it will not matter whether anyone THINKS this is a man in a suit or not, because we will know. End of story.

  34. mystery_man responds:

    Digger- By the way, I was in no way saying that you were claiming this was a possible Bigfoot in this film. Looking back at what I wrote it may seem like that, but that is not what I meant to do and I fully realize you never suggested that. I actually suspect you agree with me on the point of not jumping to unknown conclusions. I only illustrated the comparison of assuming a suit and assuming a Bigfoot as being different things for the purpose of showing what I see to be a lesser amount of added complexity when considering the suit angle in this case when compared to the unknown and so added it to more my list of mundane explanations for applying Occam’s Razor.

    I can’t see how data does not exist in the case of a suit hypothesis for this particular film since productions have created some pretty life like suits along these lines just as surely as Oliver exists. Animals are sometimes this still and show absence of nasal flaring and the like, but not always, whereas a suit most probably would be like this. With the somewhat low quality of footage and short length of the clip, I think bearing these things in mind it is reasonable for someone to consider a man in suit scenario without adding nonexistent data or complexity. I didn’t go with that foregone conclusion myself, but I could see how someone could contemplate it and still be within reason to do so. (Note to DWA, I am not talking about PG here!)

    Anyway, you make valid points, and I did not mean to pick on you either or assume you were saying things you weren’t. I was just trying to illustrate my own point, such as it is.

  35. mystery_man responds:

    Digger- That was an excellent point by the way about the six other posters who mentioned Oliver right away. After looking at any footage of Oliver and investigating those claims, I can’t see how anyone could think it was anything other than him. I thought that was a great observation. I suppose after having that brought to light so soon and so effectively, to say this was a suit WOULD be adding unnecessary data. In the end, I suppose you are right. Oliver was mentioned, the evidence was out there to be found, no reason to add in a suit hypothesis. Very valid points. This sort of evidence was exactly what I had been hoping someone would come up with as I was unable to reach a conclusion on the clip alone. Evidence is key to what we should allow ourselves to accept. This video clip has been an interesting exercise. I stand by what I said before. Occam’s Razor in motion. Nice. Thanks for taking the time share ideas on the matter with me!

  36. DWA responds:

    m_m:

    This

    —————————

    Solid, reliable evidence is of utmost importance. Our scientific knowledge of the natural world is essentially a series of provisional truths backed by evidence, and these truths are amended based on actual new evidence, not what we strongly believe things to be. If we are to accept something new as generally accepted fact, there must be generally agreed upon evidence to show why we should and why the old way is not correct.

    —————————–

    is one of the best things I’ve seen written about science lately.

    In fact, this would be useful in another discussion I’m having right now. May I use it? (I’ll credit you.)

  37. Digger44 responds:

    mystery,

    Thanks for taking my input the way I meant it. I enjoy direct and logical conversation. You do contribute much to this sight, and many people value your input.

    Keep up the good work and best of luck. Some day we will get the bottom of this phenomenon.

  38. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Of course you may use it! Thanks for the kind words. 🙂




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|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.