International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

New Alaskan Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 19th, 2011

Here is what the videomaker putua76 says about the above:

I was on a logging road in Ketchikan hiking with my friend when I saw it! Boy did my heart start racing!! It was about 40 yards from the road! Not sure if it knew I was there or not, because the noise of flowing water from the stream. It seemed to travel fast! It made my hair stand up!! At one point you can see a whitish yellowish thing in it’s hand! I believe it was skunk cabbage. Not sure, but it is in bloom.

You see it jump and after that point it just seems to disappear. There was a lot of brush and trees between it and I, I could not tell where it had gone. It was a scary sort of exciting feeling at the same time!! We went to search for tracks but the river bed where we thought it was walking was full of perfect skiping rocks, we found no prints! If there is a Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or Kushtaka I swear I saw him!!putua76

Alaskan media is picking up on the story and publishing comments such as this one: “According to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, this would be the first reported sighting of a Bigfoot in Ketchikan, although there have been 21 previous sightings in Alaska, eight of which have occurred in Fairbanks or Southeast Fairbanks.”

The mentioned (at YouTube) enhancement of the video:

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

55 Responses to “New Alaskan Bigfoot Video”

  1. DWA responds:

    Um, whoa! That guy’s video chops almost had me reaching for a wastebasket. Wheeeeuuuugh.

    But I can’t tell what that is.

    21 sightings in Alaska!?!?!?!? Somebody needs to read him some J. Robert Alley. BFRO has received and posted 21 reports, which ain’t the same thing.

  2. semillama responds:

    That, I have to say, is one of the better videos I’ve seen, and mainly because of the reaction of the man filming it is so genuine. You can hear the fear in his voice as he realizes what he’s seeing, the camera shots show that he doesn’t know where exactly the creature is, and after losing sight completely, he runs to get his friend. Compare that with all the hoax videos where the camera is just positioned perfectly and the creature moves in a way very similar to humans, so that when you see it, your gut feeling is you are looking at a person, and there is no or forced reaction from the filmer.

    This is exactly what I’d expect an actual video to look like. Unfortunately there was no clear shot of the creature in the film, but it did seem bipedal and seemed to move in a way that wasn’t clearly human, but definitely reminiscent of a large primate. It didn’t seem like a bear at all.

    I also want to say it’s refreshing to see a new bigfoot video without cheesy music in the background!

  3. Kalashnikovnik responds:

    Eh. I realize it is at a distance but the object doesn’t give much impression of large size. At one point around 30 seconds in the figure on camera does a little “hop” and lands in a partial crouch or something before continuing on, which to me looked more like a human trying to move in an “animalistic” way rather than an actual animal moving for some reason, it just didn’t look “right”. The guy’s reactions sounded forced too. But I could easily be nitpicking over nothing too.

  4. thehoch responds:

    Well, at least we know the name of the guy in the bigfoot costume…It’s Ross!

  5. Dr Kaco responds:

    @thehoch – LMAO nice one!!!
    And is that a banana in its right hand? Really???? ;p
    Damn it Ross, I told you to eat after we’re done!!!

  6. shadow8 responds:

    I don’t know if it is the vegetation but at about 20-25 seconds into the video you see the back of the “creature”. The back looks silver in comparison to the rest of the body which appears darker. It reminded me of male gorillas who also have silver backs.

  7. Randyman responds:

    Sent chills down my spine. Looks like the real deal. Video not forced or fake-looking, cameraman’s reactions seem genuine. No clear, gratuitous or contrived BF money shot. What is seen of the BF is definitely simian in its movements, especially the raised-arm turn and flee action seen at 0:19 – 0:23 in the original video. Big arms, shoulder and face visible as it turns to run behind trees. Later it leaps thru/over tree trunks in an apelike fashion. This is an animal on the run, a primate acting in fear.

    At 1:00 – 1:02, after some motion blur and zooming in, there appears to be a face with an eye peering out from a dark hiding place under some branches; the eye seems to blink just as the camera pulls away. Or not.

    Note also the tawny, almost blonde tone of the animal’s fur in the first sighting shots as it runs by, and at 0:19 – 23. It’s not the usual dark brown seen in so many hoax videos, and may be a more natural adaptation and genetic trait.

    The fact that the cameraman himself is scared, disoriented and cannot find the target easily after his initial sighting indicates to me this isn’t a hoax. Operators of too many fake videos have known just where and when to shoot to get that perfect video shot of their fur-suited buddy. This ain’t one of those; it wasn’t planned.

    All in all, a chilling and intriguing BF video. More info, please. Bring on the image stabilization and video analysis.

  8. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    It’s definitely the best so called BF video I’ve seen in a long time. There is no way to tell what it is but I think the guy filming was being genuine. It wasn’t blurry and it didn’t seem staged, it’s better than looking at a head floating over a stump. If he faked it he did a good job, if not, he did the best he could do considering the circumstances. Nice post. I think it’s a refreshing video for a change.

    Thanks Loren

  9. Mïk responds:

    I love the positive response shown here. Yeah, there’s the usual nay-sayers, but, in the main, the comments so far are looking up, not down. This is the usual wavy, disfocused, annoyingly jerky video we see all the time, but It’s also the normal video we are GOING to see of actual sasquatch sightings. Most people are not going out to find Bigfoot when these are shot, and they must be commended for having the wherewithal to get a shot of it, while being stunned by the awesomeness of encountering this beast in the first place.

    I believe this is truth. I believe that because of the wavy, disfocused, annoyingly jerky way it was shot. I believe it because it’s the ONLY video posted to YouTube by this guy. I believe it because he was audibly upset by the presence. I also believe it because that is why I come to this site.

  10. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Dude wearing a ghillie suit.

  11. wanderingman responds:

    Interesting. Appears to be holding a stick or a light-colored object in it’s right hand?

  12. skimmer responds:

    first and foremost–someone stabilize the video. 2nd–present the video without suggestion as to what it is or is not. 3rd–ignore the film-makers reaction. we of course need the overall background like location and time of day–but the rest leads us down a merry path…

    the video is of reasonable quality with lots of information to be gleaned–but for now its too early to say…

  13. Weezy responds:

    I thought that was a very interesting video because even if fake it shows how easily a bigfoot can hide and disappear in the thick forest. Obviously no way to tell if it’s real or fake, but it was definitely interesting.

  14. Redrose999 responds:

    What I find interesting is the reflection of the fur. It is shiny. Nice detail if it is fake. Maybe bigfoot uses herbal essence shampoo and conditioner?

  15. Stadtusquo responds:

    My first time posting, as I just joined, though I frequent the site regularly.

    This video is compelling. my first thought was WOW! Then I too, noticed the brief glimpse of a face in the brush at the 1:02 mark. When I viewed the enhanced video, the movement resembled that of a bear. But the Original more looks like an ape.

    Interesting… best I’ve seen in a LOOOOOONG time. Looks legit.

  16. mrdark responds:

    My analysis:

    We can definitely say it’s either a hoax or it’s genuine. What I mean is, there’s no way that’s another animal or person being mistaken for a squatch. It’s a guy in a suit, or it’s an unknown biped.

    A few things either go to suggest extreme quality of the hoax, or add to claims of authenticity. First, color of the creature. A hoaxer likely would have gone for the standard brown, not the blonde/silver/gray we have. Brown is what’s expected, and it’d also be more visible. Second, the reaction. The guy’s either a decent actor, or that’s genuine. Third, it doesn’t fall into the pitfalls so many hoaxes do. It has a beginning and an end. He starts filming as soon as he can. Tracks it, then loses it when he tries to zoom out and follow it. Once he’s sure it’s gone, he bails on the situation and runs back calling for a friend. We see gravel when he does this, which makes his story fit the video: hiking on mountain road with friend. (So many hoaxers miss these little details.)

    The creature does NOT look tall. I don’t think this is a dealbreaker. Juvenile? Dwarf? Something other than our traditional thinking of sasquatch? (This is an area that we don’t get many sightings in, so that makes it less of a deviation than we’d initially think.) However, it could be considered a strike against it.

    Obviously, we’re one step above blobsquatch here. We need some serious video work. Stabilization, etc. Then we’ll know more.

  17. scaryeyes responds:

    Wanderingman – I think that *is* his right hand. It’s a human being, wearing a jacket, with his hood up. But no gloves.

  18. sausage1 responds:

    Redrose999 Sas uses L’oreal – because he’s worth it!

    Doesn’t look very big, DOES look gorilla like. Cue skeptics’ ‘circus train crash’ explanation.

  19. DWA responds:

    I still can’t tell what it is. But some impressions on seeing it again, and again:

    1) Hoaxers always give you a really good look at a biped. That’s usually the problem; a sophisticated viewer can always tell, from the really good look, that that is a biped of species Homo sapiens, in a suit. But if you don’t get the good look, they can’t justify the suit, right?

    2) It does *not* look like the light object in the subject’s right hand *is* the subject’s right hand. It looks like the subject is holding something. I almost never see a hoax in which the suit guy is doing that. Not an earmark of authenticity or anything; but usually I see the same things over and over and over in hoaxes. That’s different. (Has anyone here ever seen a hoax video with breasts? Sorry, had to toss that in there.)

    3) It has the flavor of a wildlife encounter. Hoaxes never do.

    4) The extreme extreme EXTREME! camera motion gave me mild nausea. I don’t think the guy was doing that on purpose; it looks more as if he turned the cam on and left it on – even when he didn’t have the cam up to his eye – so that when he pointed it, it would be shooting.

    This doesn’t feel like most hoaxes. But without followup investigation at the site, it’s just another blobsquatch.

    But as mrdark says, it is one of two varieties of biped: Homo sapiens, or unconfirmed species. And it sure doesn’t look like the kind of shot you get when “they” want you to see the suit.

  20. Mausinn responds:

    I’m with RPJ. If you freeze the frames and take them one at a time from the first appearance, it looks very much like a Ghillie suit. You first see it at the 8 to 11 sec marks, but he was too obscured. After repositioning for a better shot, he comes back in view at 24 secs. That;s the give away shot in my opinion. The head looks like a hood and when the arm raises up, it is obviously a drap of material over the arm. Way too long and even to be hair. This drape and the one on the hood are at least 10 to 12 inches long. This is also not a very good ghillie suit, way to blocky and too many straight lines and angles to afford much camo effect. The leading edge of the hood for the face opening is basically a straight line. I’m not buying the acting job either. Why does every BF camera man seem to just keep saying “Oh My God”? Is that the universal expression for amazement?

  21. PredictorWins responds:

    It’s a black bear.

    From “Black bear are common, and brown (grizzly) bears are seen in mainland areas. Boaters and hikers sight them often, especially near salmon spawning streams throughout the Ketchikan area, Misty Fiords National Monument and on Prince of Wales Island.”

    Unless of course Bigfoot has bear ears, and moves like a bear…

  22. EEB responds:

    I don’t think people who are genuinely frightened usually say things like, “I’m so scared!” and “My heart’s pounding a million miles an hour!” The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

  23. scaryeyes responds:

    I think “Hoaxers always give you a good look at the biped” is quite an assertion, to be honest. Let’s face it, if you want to produce a convincing hoax you either have to keep it blurry, or else be able to afford a damn good suit that stands up to close scrutiny. I can’t even see evidence there is a suit in that footage, all I can see is a person in a raised hood. If they had no suit, it becomes pretty obvious why the footage had to be fleeting and blurry. And if you can draw a few conclusions about what makes an encounter look and feel more genuine, so can a hoaxer. Heck, the encounter itself may even have been genuine; the cameraman may even believe that he is filming Bigfoot, but that doesn’t make it authentic Bigfoot footage.

    As for whether it looks like an object it’s carrying, I’m sorry, but I can see a sleeve and fingers. I accept the footage is blurry enough what I’m seeing could easily be my own eye’s interpretation, but that goes the other way too – you may see an object, but that doesn’t mean there is one. And even if there is, people can carry objects just as well as Bigfoot can.

  24. myakkad responds:

    I think the video is really interesting. I see what appears to be a face at the 1:02 mark also. It looks like an eye that blinks before the camera pulls away. I wish I knew what that was.

  25. BOOTYMONSTER responds:

    Pistol hunter in a ghillie suit.

  26. Inktomi responds:

    I viewed the enhanced footage since that loaded first for me, and my first impression (without reading any comments or the post to bias myself) was a bear. The outlined crest of the creature seemed more to be around one of the ears. I can see the fingers, hoodie comment as well. Could it possibly be some reflection of claws?

    I would also like to point out this video, just because I think it’s really fascinating. I’m not saying its likely to be a three legged bear, but the distance traversed isn’t that great, and this bear might have done likewise.

  27. museumoftheweird responds:

    There is rumor that a local tourism company in Ketchikan will soon be offering “Bigfoot Tours,” and that someone was wearing a similar costume in the downtown area just the other day.

    Is there anyone from that region that can verify this, and what the name of the business is? If true, it’s possible this is just a publicity stunt for their tours. Sorry to be a bummer.

  28. Hambone responds:

    Really bad acting and at :24 seconds definitely shows a man in a ghillie suit. And at :33 the man jumps over a small creek. “I am so scared” not believable for a minute.

  29. zigoapex responds:

    It looks like a ghillie suit and as PredictorWins says about the salmon in the river attract bears witch in turn attract poachers witch would explain why the camera guy was startled and the guy jumped down and hides when he sees or hears the camera guy.

    They get big money for the gull bladders on the black market and in big trouble if they get caught poaching explaining the suit and hiding.

    IMO that seems to fit the situation.

  30. Dogsqueezins responds:

    *yawn* Bear. Moving on.

  31. DWA responds:

    You know the old saying, “At each end of the socioeconomic spectrum there lies a leisure class”?

    At each end of the belief spectrum there lie True Believers.

    The ones at one end want everything to be Bigfoot/UFO/ghosts etc., and tilt every thought they have to that conclusion.

    The ones at the other end think everything is mundane – despite mountains of evidence that on this planet, the mundane is the exception and not the rule – and tilt every thought they have to that conclusion.

    (Hoaxers *always* give you a really good look at the biped. You haven’t seen enough of these if you don’t know that.)

    I don’t see any of the former type on this blog.but I suddenly start seeing loads of the latter.

    You can’t see any of the hoax markers being pointed out up there. No hands; no ghillie suit; and for sure no bear markers. Those who see them are imagining what they want to see. It’s an interesting strain in the crypto field, and should be subject to just as much psychological study as the other extreme.

    There’s no way to tell what that is, although that it’s bipedal seems a reasonable conclusion from the first move it makes.

    There’s no one here saying “this is Bigfoot.” Just some folks with open minds, who know there’s not enough on this video to come to a conclusion.

    I’ve seen more bears in the wild, I bet, than anyone else who’s posted here, many at extremely close range, and I’d bet that’s not a bear. Not the ranch; but a small bet would be worth making, and it wouldn’t be bear.

    Of course, we’ll never know. It’s a trap to think that crypto proceeds by scrutinizing video. It doesn’t; it proceeds by gathering evidence in the field. If that doesn’t happen here, it’s just another fun clip.

    It’s also a trap to read too much into the witness’s reaction. Who cares about that? People react to stuff. They do it in different ways; there’s no script. I care what’s on the video.

  32. DWA responds:

    “I think “Hoaxers always give you a good look at the biped” is quite an assertion, to be honest. Let’s face it, if you want to produce a convincing hoax you either have to keep it blurry, or else be able to afford a damn good suit that stands up to close scrutiny.”


    Not really. And I’ve seen tons of hoax videos.

    First. NO SUCH THING AS A CONVINCING HOAX. Not in this field. EVERY suit is crappy. EVERY guy looks like a guy in a suit. Anything that looks human is a hoax; because eyewitnesses consistently describe something that very clearly wasn’t human. (Hint: they don’t stop at big and hairy.) If it has human proportions or looks like a human looks walking, we’re done.

    Second. Keep it blurry, maybe. Don’t focus on it too long, definitely.
    (EVERY suit is crappy.) BUT YOU ALWAYS SHOW A TWO-LEGGED FIGURE. Why put up a hoax that will have everyone saying, bear? What’s the fun in hoaxing a bear? And you aren’t trying to fool scientists. You’re trying to laugh at true believers who think everything is bigfoot. Trust me, I’ve seen enough of these. I’ve never seen a hoax that shows this little. And no, “they” (who is “they”?) don’t try to do complex subtle little things that will throw you off the scent. They don’t. They’re unsophisticated; they have little time and less money. They want to show you a two-legged object and let your silliness take it from there.

    In short: I’ve seen like three or four videos that interest me. This one’s interesting. Hoaxers don’t do interesting; you don’t have to for a laugh.

    That said: there’s no way to say what this is, just looking at what’s here.

    (I think that the “enhancement” may show features that are more video artifact than real.)

  33. DWA responds:


    It’s certainly possible that what we’re seeing here is a promo. There certainly isn’t enough in the video itself to draw one to a conclusion.

    I don’t think “Bigfoot Tours” would be doing itself much of a favor showing a very clear guy in suit. In town it’s funny and a draw. When people think they may be planting this guy in the backcountry.well, not so much.

    Maybe for a tour group like this, something really vague and intriguing might work.

  34. DWA responds:

    Inktomi: the bear-on-two-legs video is interesting in its own right.

    But people reporting sasquatch sightings report an animal that looks totally unlike that – much longer arms, much longer legs, a head shaped like an ape’s or a human’s, and a much more fluid and athletic gait than a human athlete much less a bear on its hind legs.

    While it’s I suppose possible that this one could be a bear, I’d bet it’s either a guy in a suit, or something else bipedal. The initial movement seems to show broad shoulders – not exactly characteristic of bears. And it does clearly seem to be holding something, which bears don’t do because they don’t have hands.

  35. scaryeyes responds:

    There’s being open minded and there’s being credulous to the point of absurdity. There’s no possible way to say for certain what’s in that footage, but equally absolutely no evidence that it’s anything other than that other extremely common North American primate biped.

    It’s absolute rubbish that there’s no such thing as a convincing hoax. Just look at the scores which have taken people in over the years. If only cryptozoology were that easy.

  36. DWA responds:

    scaryeyes: there have been almost no convincing hoaxes in the field of biology.

    If you are talking about other fields, sure. But it’s harder to fake animals than it is money or art. A lot of people don’t get this, that’s OK. But hoaxes in biology that fool experts for long are almost non-existent. The Piltdown hoax – exposed almost sixty years ago – is still used as a prototype, which tells you how many there are. (“Experts” were far easier to fool then; there was a much lower baseline of knowledge.)

    By contrast, that the Patterson-Gimlin film is still live after over forty years – with a number of fully qualified experts holding that it is authentic, and not a single shred of evidence that it was faked – is a major piece of evidence in favor of it being authentic. So it doesn’t count, in case you were counting it.

    (Trust me. I’ve never heard a scientist give an argument against either the film or the sasquatch that I can’t shoot full of holes in 30 seconds. Time me.)

    That it can’t be told what is on this video is not reason to presume it’s human. You can only do that based on evidence. To presume without evidence is being credulous BEYOND the point of absurdity. Credulity like that is precisely why crypto can’t get off the dime; scientists who should know better depend upon rote belief instead of focusing on the evidence presented.

    An open mind says the only thing that can be said about this video:

    Somebody needs to get there, on the ground, and see what the evidence says.

    Or not.

    In the latter case, we will never know what that is. Of course, in the former case, we might not either. Depends what’s there. Because there is very little here, other than an interesting whatsit.

  37. fluffy1030 responds:

    Ghillie suit

  38. scotteb responds:

    Clearly a fake. Not sure of a ghillie suit more then wearing a raincoat/hood and the right hand gives it away as human. It is the same ‘ol, shoot the ground for more then 1/2 the video, win an award for being a C class actor, and know that some people will believe you filmed the real thing, even if it’s filming mud. I have been shooting video for 20 years or more, under water and above land. No one would focus on anything, but what you are shooting unless scared or you are being attacked (had a shark situation once and forgot about filming the thing, hehe) or simply, hiding what you are shooting and trying to pass it off as another waste of time for all of us.

    If it was possible to sue hoaxers, this crap would have ceased a long time ago and we’d be left with the P/G film only, to look at and debate. My 2 cents.

  39. sasquatch responds:

    If you watch the first video-WHEN IT’s DONE…click on the foreign language version-it slows it down when the “BF” shows up-
    Looks very much like a gorilla clambering over a log while holding something…the coloration is dead on for Patty. you can pause it right when you can see the hand holding the object-the orientation (posture) of the hand looks real ape-ey to me.

  40. twas brillig responds:

    How the heck does anyone conclude without question that the person who filmed this hoaxed it without seeing an interview with or questioning the individual personally? Integrity is not to be judged in the eye of the beholder here.

    Its definitely not a freakin’ bear.

  41. Mibs responds:

    Speaking as someone who’s worn one and been around those who’ve worn them, this looks like someone in a Ghillie suit.

  42. NWesterner responds:

    I smelled fake from the first viewing. The footage looks as if a human is acting like they would think a bigfoot would move. And then if you go to 1:02 seconds you see a glimpse of the bigfoot looking at him through the branches. That was very convenient that he zeroed in on that exact spot with the camera by chance. Fake.

  43. fossilhunter responds:

    Greetings All!

    I have a question for those who are more video and web savvy than I. At about the :32 second mark, as he’s saying “It’s right behind that tree” and the thing makes “the leap”, it looks like I can see right through it. The tree behind it does not disappear as it moves across in front of it. Is anyone else getting that?

    I’d sure like to see a stabilized version! (hint hint!)

  44. scaryeyes responds:

    DWA, this is a video, not a biological specimen, and what’s more a video so blurry and indistinct you could have a real Bigfoot stand beside you for comparision and probably still not be able to say for certain whether that’s what the film shows. I’m by no means the entire skeptic you’ve decided to paint me as based on a couple of comments, but there’s no advantage to cryptozoology in being over-credulous, all it does is make cryptozoologists look… well, over-credulous. At best. And I’m sorry, but given that human beings are an extremely populous biped that most definitely does exist, there’s every reason to presume it’s human if there’s no evidence that it’s anything else.

  45. sausage1 responds:

    LOVE the bear video – very thought provoking.

  46. DWA responds:

    “DWA, this is a video, not a biological specimen,…”

    Scaryeyes, you are wrong. Many people here are telling you so, and you should listen to them.

    This is a BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN. Problem is, we can’t tell whether it is a biological specimen of a bear, or of a dude in a ghillie suit.

    Listen to the certainty up there, man! They KNOW what it is, despite not a scrap of evidence that anyone could go anywhere with.

    People. People.


    Does Dr. DWA need to keep rolling out this lecture? Please.

    Not only is a scientist forbidden, by the rules of his trade, to scoff (AT ANYTHING), he is also forbidden to pronounce (ON ANYTHING) without evidence! To pronounce without evidence is to undermine one’s scientific credibility, and yet scientists pronounce on crypto subjects in just this way, every day. They feel, you see, that they are being called upon to Be The Expert, and experts, for some damn reason, have to be expert on ANYTHING they are asked.

    There is only one take on this video. Interesting, but inconclusive. (If you don’t find these interesting, um, why do you even look at them?)

    There is no evidence that it is a bear; a human; a bigfoot; or anything. It is just about equally likely to be any of the first three (contrary to what the BFRO may have on file, there are many reported sasquatch sightings from this part of Alaska). You can’t just use statistical likelihood, because there are no earmarks pointing to any species…other than the ones people are making up here. What the hell good does it do to pronounce it a bear or a human based on statistical likelihood, or pixel mirages, when for all we know it could be something else, something cool, and you are discouraging anyone who might want to do the only thing that can be done to help us find out, which is go there and look for evidence?

    l don’t know what it is. And if you’ve been paying attention lately you know we’ll never find out. Because more than likely no one will do a followup investigation. More than likely if someone does, we’ll never hear about the results (probably because somebody will toss the sample).

    But one thing you never want to do is discourage somebody from doing followup because he doesn’t want to be laughed at by all the people who think this is a biological specimen of a bear in a ghillie suit.

    So, yeah, scaryeyes, it’s a video.

    At least that’s what *I* think. But many here seem a lot more certain than me. Although how they get that way only God knows….hey, maybe He’ll tell us today.

    And finally. With regard to “there’s every reason to presume it’s human if there’s no evidence that it’s anything else,” you can’t presume it’s ANYTHING, unless evidence that it is that very thing is right there on the video. The rules that hold science together as a discipline flat forbid it. That was a free hint why crypto isn’t a science, yet.

  47. PredictorWins2 responds:

    This just in! Dramatic film stabilization technique used on the Ketchikan BF Sighting film. The truth is revealed (sort of) !!


  48. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    It has been suggested on this blog that this indistinct yet intriguing video footage warrants (if it were practically possible) a follow up search for evidence at the scene in order to possibly help determine the truth of the matter.

    But I say don’t waste your time to undertake such efforts with this one! I’m sure! ….and here’s why!

    …Sometimes a single clear frame can speak a thousand words, and although not crystal clear the view we get of this bipedal figure around the 23 second mark speaks volumes; with the clip expanded to ‘full frame’ on ones computer and with approximately two seconds worth of ’bipedal motion’ quickly replayed over and over again; visual familiarity sets in, and the image gets evermore clearer!

    What can be ascertained at this point in the clip is the shortness of the arm length (very un-simian), and a figure not covered with hair or fur, but instead with swathes of fabric; draped over the figure in general and in particular the right arm, and also hanging down from the side(s) of the head. Also something akin to the frontal brim of a hat turned upwards can just about be seen. There is absolutely no conical head to be seen at all (only imagined)!

    Ghillie suit for short? I don’t know but I can definitely see what Mausinno saw from his earlier posting; his comments have unfortunately been passed over; he clearly sees what I clearly see!!!

    Please note; no personal ’brik bats’ here; hurled at others from a self pontificating ‘sacred pen on high‘, no irrelevant tangents undertaken or pompous self indulgent drivel administered to other bloggers in a patronising way. …just my keen and hopefully factual observations from the most telling two seconds of this intriguing clip!

    Thanks for listening……

  49. TheForthcoming responds:

    I detect some logical fallacies in these comments such as appealing to emotion.

  50. DWA responds:

    dermal_ridges_are_proof: your last paragraph says you’re not doing any of those things of which you accuse others.

    You’re just right. And they’re wrong.

    I did what you suggested. It is no clearer at full screen than at small screen.

    Inconclusive. Unless somebody goes there and finds something interesting, this could be anything. OK, anything kinda human size to somewhat bigger.

    Going there seems quite practically possible, as some dude with a videocam was, well, just there. Bigfoot researchers do this all the time.

    Dr. DWA 😉

    P.S. One extremely obvious point that seems to be very much glossed over by all of The Certain is that the very disagreement so obvious on this blog is virtual proof of my assertion. Inconclusive.

    P.P.S. You’re pontificating a wee tad.

  51. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    DWA …….Well?

    a personal and sincere observation no less! …I really can see acres of fabric at 23 secs!

    I’m disappointed that you can’t. But for now will you keep on trying?

    It could be your secret eureka moment!


  52. zpf responds:

    I’m not seeing how it could be non-bipedal (“bear,” e.g.); the subject seems to maintain a striding gait each time we catch a glimpse of it, plus it definitely seems to be carrying something white.

    Also regarding the “eye”–the size seems to be way too large to match the subject in the other frames proportionately.

  53. Opalman responds:

    I realize this post is a bit late in the writing. I hope that there is continued interest in this video and its enhancement. I don’t have the time to gleam every topic at the site…wish I did and wish I had seen this clip sooner.

    Over the years I have seen, (as I’m sure many of you have, hence my post) many supposed sasquatch videos. Occasionally I run across that same gait, uncanny posture and as well a certain something I can’t quite explain, upon viewing a particular clip. The particular impressions created as a result, is a very particular culmination of several traits, which when combined scream ‘Authentic’. The traits can be alluded to as, confident, aggressive, determined, and of great physical strength, agile, deft, fast, vigilant and bold yet secretive. These impressions are created against the background of a very noticeable and particular peculiar gait and posture.

    The tiny glimpse we get at 0:05-0.06 in the video is a perfect example of this set of impressions I’m left with. I’ve related the same feeling in regard to other videos and referenced in other posts here on Cryptomundo. Interestingly the subject videos depicting these impressions are all similar in their particular circumstances.

    If what I’m being impressed with is indeed real; then the sasquatch is an extraordinarily magnificent creature which could never be kept in captivity, say, as gorillas are.

    One of the very important things I’ve come to rely upon in successfully hunting big game is to listen to, and often, follow this still, quiet inner voice, (Hunches?). It has proven itself countless times over the years, and it seems the more remote the habitat the more important (and louder) this hunch-voice becomes, sometimes to the point of seemingly screaming, (often in cases where imminent danger lurks?).

    Scientific? No, at least not in the way we normally understand it. An absolute reality? Absolutely, and without question!

    In my humble opinion and based on what I explain above; the video is most probably authentic.

  54. squinn responds:

    I’m on the fence. The subject in question leaps from higher ground to lower ground just like an ape, but the cameraman narrates his thoughts and feelings like a parathetical screenplay.

  55. bigfoots responds:

    As pointed out on this website,

    you can see what appears to be an eye blinking…

    I don’t have software to slow down the video but it sure looks like an eye blinking to me..

    and it doesn’t look like a human eye since there are no “whites” of the eye..

    looks like something with a grey skinned face looking back at the camera..and blinking right before he turns away..

    Anyone have software to slow down and analyze this?

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

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|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.