New McKenzie River Bigfoot Footage

Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 1st, 2010

Do you see the Bigfoot on shore, to the left of the man in the water vessel, between 1:41 and 1:46, on the YouTube video?

Dated, 2008, in central Oregon, on the McKenzie River.

Matt Moneymaker discusses it here.

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.

35 Responses to “New McKenzie River Bigfoot Footage”

  1. gridbug responds:

    Interesting but inconclusive, at least until the original footage is examined.

  2. ILoveSnakes responds:

    It’s Blobsquatch!!!

  3. romany12 responds:

    Someone on youtube made the point that the location of the supposed bigfoot sighting is passed at both 1:41 and 3:34. Which appears to be true. You get a much better view at 3:34 of the location. There appears to be two large boulders and no logs.

    At 1:41 the figure does appear to be moving and does appear to be large. It will all boil down to being either a human or a bigfoot.

  4. Mïk responds:

    Did ya expect him to sign up for a casting call? It’s always gonna be blobsquatch…up to the point where it’s deadsquatch. Relax, somebody will find one AND get a good picture, eventually

  5. krakatoa responds:

    Better than most, but in the end, still a blob.

    File under “interesting” if for no other reason than it appears to be a remote location and unscripted.

  6. sasquatch responds:

    If the raft is closer to the camera, then this creature is about twice the size of the man in the raft. It does appear that the raft IS closer and at least even to the camera locations distance from the creature.

    O.K. now, we must look at the figures proportions; tall, long arms, short neck.


    If in fact the video was not used to promote belief in Bigfoot, but was a fishing program and the “creature not even noticed for a long time, then we do have an intriguing situation on our hands. Especially because the area is well established in Bigfoot lore.

    More thoughts; the figure looks very much like the cell phone still shots that the kid took up in Washington. large frame but fairly lanky. I’d say it’s a real Sasquatch at this point. I mean if it was a faked set-up I believe the camera man would have followed the creature, not the raft out in front.

  7. Watcher responds:

    I have previously seen a still photo of the image Loren included, but I hadn’t seen the video yet. It looks very intriguing and I would love to see any further images or video from that area. My group has been looking for Bigfoot evidence in Nevada, California, Wyoming, and recently in Utah, but we have been focusing more on ecological possibility. The McKenzie river area looks very similar to Nevada County in California.

    I hope we all get some solid answers soon.

  8. springheeledjack responds:

    I haven’t watched the video yet, but again, in this day and age with the technology available, the only way to substantiate footage like this is to be able to cross reference with interviews with the individuals, double checking as much information as you can and so on.

    Youtube is always dubious with me because so much of what’s on there is for those wanting their 15 minutes. I have no doubt some serious stuff may be there, but sifting through it is a time intensive undertaking.

    Personally, I’d want more details from all of the witnesses, separately, of everything to see if the stories jibe and the facts are accurate. And of course, with the hoaxsters, even that doesn’t rule out a fake. Just gives us more chances to weed out the hoaxsters.

  9. tropicalwolf responds:

    Look at the angle of the light. It is a shadow, just like the one on the man’s back. Yawn……moving on….

  10. Kopite responds:

    It always amuses me when people say we don’t have any pictures or footage of sasquatch. Well, not counting the Patterson/Gimlin footage ANY of these fleeting images (or ‘blobsquatches as they are called) could well be real images of sasquatches. Just because they aren’t clear doesn’t mean they aren’t authentic images. It’s just that we’ll never know so in a sense it is wrong to claim there aren’t images of sasquatch besides the P/G footage. We don’t KNOW they aren’t real images of a sasquatch.

    Add this one to the list.

    To me this one is interesting. On the face of it I can’t see it being staged. They aren’t making a ballyhoo about it and didn’t even notice it and they have other videos of their wilderness trips that have nothing to do with sasquatch.

    What’s so unreasonable (providing you are open minded enough about sasquatch to begin with) to accept that these guys just ‘maybe’ caught a fleeting glimpse of a sasquatch on camera in a wild area well known for reports of such creatures?

  11. theprof responds:

    I can see why people might think the object/person in those frames is larger than a human but judging by distance [estimated] from one boat to the other and then from boat to shore I’d say this was definitely a person not a Sasquatch [though I’d LOVE this to be a hairy hominid!].

    The perfect con is where the con man knows “nothing” about it. I’ve seen this with UFO footage,loch ness creature and others.

    Basically,do your filming. A colleague is on shore and as he knows you are filming the boat he stands up. Its very brief but the conman can then say they saw nothing -they were having fun on the river and just saw this “figure” on playback later -hey,they aint saying its Sasquatch but what else could it be in the wilderness?

    You need to find the exact spot and film there from a similar distance. Also,has anyone interviewed the persons involved?

    I’m afraid that even with today’s technology you cannot make something like this good enough to say “THAT is an unknown hairy hominid!”

    Interesting but someone needs to interview those involved.

  12. skeptik responds:

    It’s a shadow on the lying tree trunk.

  13. Blue Steel responds:

    Ok – I’ve got to jump in on this one, since I know this area pretty well. I’ve rafted this stretch about 6 times, and fished it a couple of times as well.
    The area of the “sighting” is at Fishladder Rapids, a short stretch of class III – class IV rapids (depending upon the water flow that day). This stretch of the McKenzie River generally follows Hwy 126 from the Cascades (mountain range) down to Springfield/Eugene, in the Willamette valley. So the area of the sighting is within 100-200 yds. of a well-traveled Hwy. There’s also a forest access road (Rd. 42) that dumps out near there. Having said that – it’s not that easy to get to that side of the river in that particular spot.

    This river is fairly shallow, with an average depth of only 2-3 feet, although there are places where it gets deeper, as well as a few 20+ deep pools. The guide in the video is talking about 1650 cfm, which is very high water flow for this river, and which would basically make it ‘un-fordable’ for most of us puny humans. Lots and lots of rocks (you can hear the bottom of the boat “bumping” all the way down in the video). And lots of fish: plenty of trout, and a Steelhead run once or twice a year.

    Looking at the video on youtube, it’s pretty clear that at the 1:39 mark, you can get a look at the spot in question, and there’s no “shadow”, until about 1:41. It’s almost as if the ‘blobsquatch’ comes out of the bushes – right before the camera cuts away. The camera cuts away for a second or two, then back again, and you can clearly see something big and moving. Based upon my observation, I would discount the suggestions that it is a log or other inanimate object. In addition, when you see the boat run through the same stretch (apparently later that same day) at 3:34 or so in the video – there’s nothing in that spot!

  14. DWA responds:

    Blue Steel: agreed.

    Shadow, it ain’t. Inanimate object, it ain’t. Which leaves: animal, pretty clearly on two legs. Only question, what kind.

    Some responses here tend toward what I call the “Omnipotent Hoaxer” trap. They had no knowledge of anything like this? AhHAH! That’s the No Knowledge ruse! Or whatever, that the hoaxer of course thought of, because they think of EVERYTHING. Um, no they don’t, says this viewer of umptygodzillion fakes. No they most certainly don’t think of half the stuff they should.

    People going to this trouble to film something like this? With all that jargon – these are people, because I understand what I see and what they are saying, who KNOW what they are doing – and one minute thirty-nine seconds to the meaty part? Says here, if they toss in a sas hoax it will be as a very obvious joke. Or VERY early on in the video, while you still are paying total attention. (AhHAH! They used the Not So Obvious and Waaaaaayyyyyy Into the video ruses!…)

    Not saying it’s impossible. But with no evidence that it happened, it’s not the first thing I’m thinking. And most certainly not the last.

    This one is reeeeeealllly interesting. Although, sure, it could be a person, it doesn’t behave as one would expect a person in on this to behave, and it seems very likely that a person is not in that spot at that time unless they are in on it.

  15. terry the censor responds:

    Remember, the boat is moving. A lot.

  16. DWA responds:

    sasquatch: “I mean if it was a faked set-up I believe the camera man would have followed the creature, not the raft out in front.”

    Good point.

    (Aha! They used the don’t-follow-the-figure ruse…!) :-p

    HOAXES ALWAYS THAT IS ALWAYS FOLLOW THE FIGURE. I’ve never seen an exception. Why, um, did they bother otherwise? Answer: they don’t.

    (AHA! You fell for the One Of A Kind They’ll Never Think This Is One Of A Kind ruse…!)


  17. JETEXAS responds:

    There’s obviously another boat pulled up on the bank there with one guy standing by it. The other guy, “bigfoot”, is walking back to him from down the bank. They then begin speaking to each other. Bigfoot is even wearing a baseball cap.

  18. jerrywayne responds:

    When I read this post and was told the accompanying video might include a sighting of sasquatch, I took a look.

    “Damn!” I thought to myself. It looks really big, like a sasquatch should! It’s in a good area known for sasquatch sightings. The video makers don’t seem to be “in on it” if it’s a hoax. The event makes sense biologically (a river location with protein meals for a large mammal), and cryptozoologically (a plausible chance encounter with a cryptid)! “Damn!”

    But then I read JETEXAS’ explanation:

    “Damn!” I thought to myself. I can see the boat. I can see the man. I can even see the ballcap. “Damn.”

    Oh, the power of suggestion.

  19. LeCope responds:

    That is some shaky camera work, but I’ll blame the river for that. I did a quick stabilization of the movie and although the source was very low resolution I can say that it is clearly a figure walking. Given the area, I’d wager it was a fisherman. If I did the same treatment with the original footage, you might be able to make out who or what the figure is. My conclusion: blobsquatch.

  20. terry the censor responds:

    I was looking for the standing figure and totally missed what looks like a guy in a cap crouching. Good call.

  21. Evil_Monkey responds:

    Interesting footage however my perspective was completely changed once I focused on the 2nd figure pointed out by JETEXAS and I have to agree that it just looks like 2 guys but maybe cleaned up footage will confirm or deny this.

  22. Kopite responds:

    JerryWayne wrote:

    But then I read JETEXAS’ explanation:

    “Damn!” I thought to myself. I can see the boat. I can see the man. I can even see the ballcap. “Damn.”

    Oh, the power of suggestion.

    Yes but it’s imagination that there is a boat and a man with a ballcap on. We can’t actually see any such thing.

    We do however see a dark upright figure of some sort. That’s not imagination. There is some such figure there. The debate is “what is it?”.

  23. subrosa responds:

    Yeah, right…a couple of guys who spend their life on the river, who know every nook and cranny, RIVER GUIDES, and they don’t notice a damned BIGFOOT moving around next to the water!

    Sometimes some common sense needs to be injected.

  24. Evil_Monkey responds:

    Kopite, maybe your not looking in the right place for the 2nd figure but to say that people are imagining it… hmmm!
    I dont see a boat however but the 2nd figure is to the left of where the blob appears, near to the water line. frame by frame it appears as though the figure starts to move as the camera pans by.

    I’m no image expert but the still is from 1:40 of the film, arrow pointing to 2nd figure. watch the frames around it and watch the “figure” that seems to move. I’m not saying im right or wrong here and am happy to put my hands up and say im wrong if someone can explain what the 2nd “figure” is, however to me and others it appears to be a person, if this is the case then theres either someone who has one hell of a story to tell or it was simply a couple of guys going about their business.

  25. DWA responds:

    subrosa: Sometimes common sense isn’t so common.

    The boat you can see in the shot had no chance of seeing the figure from that position, best I can tell. Angle all wrong; boatman focused on the water; figure didn’t even move until the boat was in that position.

    The movement was brief enough that it had to be called to the filmmakers’ attention. They not only didn’t notice it on the water; they didn’t notice it on the video. Wildlife spotting is not the primary focus when one is running whitewater solo in a big boat.

    I agree, though. Sometimes common sense has to be injected. And common sense says this: you’re pulling a hoax, you aren’t showing a blobsquatch. You are making damn sure the viewers see the suit. Period.

  26. JETEXAS responds:

    I’ve rewatched it about 10 times. The stationary guy is actually standing on the bow of the boat. Both guys are looking down in the screen capture because “bigfoot” walks up and either hands the other guy something or throws it in the boat, I can’t tell which because it happens so fast.

    I also think there is yet another boat pulled up on the bank upstream of the boat the man is standing on that only flashes for an instant at the very beginning of that cut.

  27. krakatoa responds:

    When I first saw the bit, I saw the second “crouching figure” first.

    I ruled it out when @ 3:31, you see the crouching figure in the same position in a clearer shot of the bank, and it appears to just be an optical illusion, while there is no such optical illusion of light & shadows suggesting a figure walking.

    In no case am I convinced of anything. Yes, potentially there is a boat there, but I can’t really tell from this vid. The only thing that I’m relatively sure of is that @ the 1:41 mark, something appears to stand up & move to the left of frame.

    I can’t make a conclusion either way as to what that something is. Interesting, but blob.

  28. Kopite responds:


    Multiple boats now as well as men in ballcaps.

    Hey I think I see a massive green gargoyle head on the left just before blobsquatch shows up.


  29. JETEXAS responds:

    I do have massive 21″ inch high-res monitors on this machine, which is perhaps why I can see this better, but I tried to point it out for those of you who are still doubting.

  30. JMonkey responds:


    Did you see that…log. Yeah its a log. Almost positive. But if it is the infamous Blobsquatch, then he must have shrunk. He would be no taller than a normal human being according to the measurements I used based on the guy in the boat. Notice that this is the only picture as well, and there is a full boat in front of them. Wonder why noone else took a pick of hairy. May be because it is a Moss covered stump on a river bank. Hope for the best, and believe the most likely is my motto.

  31. E responds:


    The P/G film is one of the funniest hoaxes within the world of CZ.. People still believe in it!

    This one is interesting though. I’m not saying it’s Sasquatch, but it sure looks animate and bipedal. But it’s hard to see from the lack of quality. Can’t someone go back to those parts and try to catch something goiod on film? Would be nice =)

  32. terry the censor responds:

    We seem to be missing one thing: the commentor who says this MUST be bigfoot because he saw one in [western state] when he was [x] years old. That dude must be busy on the UFO blogs telling people a dream he had about [cats/owls/ghost children] when he was [x+4] years old proves the alien autopsy video is real.

  33. Kopite responds:

    E writes:


    The P/G film is one of the funniest hoaxes within the world of CZ.. People still believe in it!

    Yeah you mean like when NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC did their recent special on the footage and came out on the POSITIVE side?

    You need to get informed.

  34. Kopite responds:


    By far the funniest hoax in Cryptozoology is Bob Heironimus’ claim he’s the guy in the P/G ‘suit’. If you are in need of a chuckle just go and Google the Bob Heironimus/Phillip Morris Cow Camp ‘recreation’ and be prepared to double yourself over in stitches at the stills of ol’ Bob Heironimus looking like a cuddly 6ft Ewok instead of even a reasonable facsimilie of ‘Patty’. So laughable was the Ewok hoax that they were too embarrassed to release it as footage.

    Apologies for being off topic but I’m just addressing the aforementioned subject of funny hoaxes.

  35. DWA responds:

    “The P/G film is one of the funniest hoaxes within the world of CZ.. People still believe in it!”

    Actually, that’s probably the most unintentionally-funny statement within the world of CZ.

    Technically-qualified people (they’re called scientists) who have reviewed the film have found:

    1. Not one scintilla of evidence that it is anything but genuine;
    2. Truly copious evidence that it IS genuine.

    Once again, we have ignorant laymen refusing to learn one thing that the scientists who disagree with them know.

    Now, how Patty got into THIS discussion is anyone’s guess. But opportunities to set the record straight are always appreciated. So thanks there. 😉

    (Patty’s one hell of a whole lot more “interesting” than this one. If you disagree, I recommend glasses. A conversation with Jeff Meldrum might help too.)

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


Creatureplica Fouke Monster 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.