2012 Pine Ridge Bigfoot Video
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 9th, 2012
The image may be clicked to enlarge it. Does the Pine Ridge Bigfoot look like this one drawn by Paul Smith for the cover of my book Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America?
Reports from the Oglala Sioux Nation (Pine Ridge Reservation), South Dakota, regarding what is described as Big Man or Bigfoot have been discussed here at Cryptomundo from the beginning of this site. These have includied Pine Ridge sightings from July 28, 2006, an update for more encounters on July 29-30, 2006, more from August 2006 of a Bigfoot being shoot, another August 2006 sighting, reports on the 2006 police audio (here and here), the police chief confirming the 2006 sightings, more on the 2006 “stovepipe hat” Bigfoot accounts, and a September 2006 update. Click here and here for more Oglala Sioux updates through 2009.
Yesterday, I discovered this video on YouTube that seems to have been overlooked from a few months ago. It has many features about it that look credible. Take a look.
Two 10 am Updates:
The running speed of this alleged Bigfoot compares favorably with the running alleged Bigfoot in the Memorial Day footage.
Interview items placed at YouTube. This video has flown under the radar of Sasquatch investigators, and I note the filmmaker & poster have not promoted it at all. The increase in viewer numbers is only due to its posting here at Cryptomundo at midnight on Tuesday October 9, 2012.
#1
CommentMaker1: Why would you not walk out from behind that screen and get a better look?
VideoPoster: idk [I don’t know] It was my grandmaa taking the footage. I actually followed it a little more and saw it cross the street…
#2
CommentMaker2: Not sure what to think, can hardly see it.
VideoPoster: Idk… It ran from the corner and my grandma saw it :/ I didnt know what to think.. It ran across the street and into the woods. It was like …8 or 7 ft… reall tall :/
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.
http://www.ourbigfoot.com/algonquin-bigfoot.html
Sorry, the link above was not the one I wanted to post. This is the correct one: A “bumper cam” shot” from Ontario.
Maybe not the blobbiest of the blobsquatches out there…just a tiny bit intriguing.
I call BS on this Bigfoot.
What I find highly suspect is that this does not jibe with normal wild animal behavior, let alone mesh with the supposed highly elusive nature of Bigfoot. Why is it running? (running expends lots of energy, animals only run if they feel they are in immediate danger) And why laterally across her field of vision? It cannot help but know they are there, what with all the bouncing and shouting. Wild animals will instinctively move AWAY from humans & immediately get behind cover, then move in a stealthy way to skirt the human presence. There is cover available but the figure makes no use of any of it, in fact, it moves in such a way that you cannot help but notice… all it would have to do is crouch down into the tall grass and move more slowly in order to disappear into the background. All sorts of wild animals roam around in close proximity to humans, but few people see much of them for this very same reason.
Alamo? I’m confused. Since when is “running” not “normal animal behavior”?
How is it that you have made the grandmother incidentally videoing this scene the focus of the “Bigfoot,” and not some other human or nonhuman animals off to the left of this recorded scene?
I’m certainly not saying that running isn’t a natural behavior, what I’m saying is that running in this manner is certainly not (“broad daylight across an open field”, as another poster put it). Running is not the most efficient or effective way to escape danger (which is why we are told to walk rapidly, not run, in an emergency) it’s just as easy to run into deeper danger or get injured running blindly away. Running causes physiological changes which lessen awareness (increased BP, breath, heart rate), making it less possible to effectively evaluate the surroundings (ever try to think straight with your heart pounding in your ears?), running also uses precious energy reserves… for these reasons, an animal will only run in extremis (if it thinks it’s in immediate danger). For example, if you spook a deer in the woods, it will take off at full speed, but only until it gains cover… it will stop in the next thicket, listen and evaluate… if you are still coming, it will move away, but only slightly faster than you are coming, enough to stay ahead of you… all the while keeping behind cover… the faster you come, the faster it will flee. Like the natural born Kung Fu masters that they are, they will use just enough energy to stay out of harm’s reach. The figure in the video is using an awful lot of energy in a way that makes it more visible and puts it in greater danger. Definitely not natural.
OK, fair question… why does his focus have to be those two? Maybe Bigfoot was spooked by something off to the left of the screen. In that case, the figure does not use any sort of evasive maneuvers or attempt to take cover at any time… theorizing a spooked animal makes a run across an open field in plain view even more incongruous. There is a large tree there to the left of the screen… if it was running in fear, natural behavior would be to sprint to it, take cover, then peek out from behind to see what’s going on… if danger is still imminent, sprint farther down to the grassy knoll and go to ground… peek out, re-evaluate and repeat until out of sight and danger. When it comes to this kind of thing, Bigfoot is the Grandmaster of Grandmasters… so much so that its elusiveness has caused some on these boards to postulate that Bigfoot is not of a corporeal nature at all (for me, that’s a cop-out that defeats the purpose of Cryptozoology altogether). In any case, my whole point is that the behavior demonstrated here flies in the face of something generally accepted to be the most basic of Bigfoot traits. The P/G film (and – IMO -every other reputable BF film) demonstrates exactly what I’m talking about, the animal strides quickly away and puts foliage between itself and the observers as soon as possible. So much so, that it’s cliche, the Bigfoot seeking audience is no longer satisfied with seeing him peek out from behind trees…maybe him doing the 50 yard dash will be the next big thing.
Toss ‘er on the pile.
Not enough to tell anything.
I can go with prior posters’ claims as to the authenticity of the reactions. But that figure is way too far off – and moving way too close to feasible human pace over that terrain – for me to say: whoa here. I’m getting no more a squatchfeel for this one than I am for the Memorial Day footage. Shoot, either one could be the real McCoy. I’m simply saying that if they are, they don’t do enough to prove it to me.
Alamo: in response to your points.
“What I find highly suspect is that this does not jibe with normal wild animal behavior, let alone mesh with the supposed highly elusive nature of Bigfoot.”
As I have said here many times: the prime enabler of Bigfoot elusiveness is mainstream science. The full range of encounters are on record – a prime indicator of authenticity – including animals about as upset by the witness’s presence as tame deer are. Only problem? People believe you about the deer. These animals are blundering into – and frequently very deliberately across – people’s paths all the time if the literature is any indicator. Just no one believes anyone who reports it.
“Why is it running? (running expends lots of energy, animals only run if they feel they are in immediate danger) ”
Animals do what they want, frequently when they know it will bug us. Ever seen ravens fly? Huge amounts of energy-using aerobatics, for very very clearly nothing but fun. (Hmmm. Like us.) Ploughboy makes the point that mating will prompt a lot of energy expenditure that may not enhance the survival chances of random individuals. Animals do what they do, for the reasons they do it. Like run, for fun, a lot. Every assumption we make turns out to be wrong on further review.
“And why laterally across her field of vision? It cannot help but know they are there, what with all the bouncing and shouting. Wild animals will instinctively move AWAY from humans & immediately get behind cover, then move in a stealthy way to skirt the human presence.”
Animals – wild ones – will walk right up to you when you wave a hankie, to see what it is. (Been there. So have many hunters, to get that venison on the table.) Animals will look up, see you, and freeze, going, what is that? And stare and stare. Animals will see you coming and start, stop, start, stop, start, stop…AND RUN RIGHT ACROSS YOUR PATH WHEN YOU ARE A FOOT AWAY. (Been there.) Animals, like, you know, bears, will walk, deliberately and slowly, right across your path, two of them, single file, scant single-digit yards from you, HAVING TO KNOW YOU ARE THERE, yet acting as if your species has never existed and there is nothing where you are standing. (Been there, twice. Once in CA, once in NC.)
Animals do what they want to do.
“There is cover available but the figure makes no use of any of it, in fact, it moves in such a way that you cannot help but notice…”
Animals frequently do not take advantage of cover; in these instances, they have decided that speed is going to work better. Didn’t say they’re batting a thousand on judgment. Just saying that’s what they’ll do. (Pronghorn antelope won’t crouch down even though they can. They’ll race your car to see who’s faster. Been there.)
“[A]ll it would have to do is crouch down into the tall grass and move more slowly in order to disappear into the background. All sorts of wild animals roam around in close proximity to humans, but few people see much of them for this very same reason.”
You said “few.” Some do see them, for the reasons I have outlined. Assumptions are dangerous when you’re talking about anything with a brain.
(Plough/Photo: glad to yentl. We’ll have to do it in person sometime. All this would be better over beer.)
PLMerite:
“On the plus side: Because of all the times I’ve tried to bring a camera to bear quickly and failed, I’m pretty much convinced that you’d almost have to have a camera up and rolling because of something else to capture anything so fleeting as a bigfoot sighting.”
What I’m always saying to everybody who thinks millions of cellphones in pockets = millions of Bigfeet pics! The “in pockets” thing? Automatic killer.
I have read of virtually no encounters in which a camera would have gotten anything except under the circumstances you cite.
Oh, here’s one. Look at the clarity of these shotz, YouTube!
That’s with copious time.
People. If it isn’t posing for you, you won’t get it on a cellcam, or on any other cam you are carrying that isn’t at your eye, shooting.
Way it is.
DWA,
I don’t doubt at all that you’ve seen those things, I’ve seen some unusual things myself… I’ll also wager dollars to doughnuts that (like me) you’ve spent thousands upon thousands of hours in the wilds in order to see stuff like that. You’re right, animals do what they “want” to do and don’t always act in ways that you might expect… but I’m talking about the normal, usual and ordinary behavior which they exhibit 99.99% of the time… not the exceptions which you point out. Sure, play behavior is common in higher animals (running for the sake of running for example), mostly in juveniles and tapering off as the animal gets older… I’ll also point out that predation/ attrition among those demonstrating this behavior is very high. For example, any deer exhibiting the behavior you mentioned during hunting season would likely not be appearing in next season’s episodes of “Survivor”.
It wasn’t too long ago that there was no such thing as “hunting season”, so an animal demonstrating this (non survival enhancing) behavior at any time could easily be killed. Ploughboy mentioned in another post about your discussions on the “Uncanny Chasm”, and how he believes (and I agree with him), that our ancestors hunted these creatures to near extinction… partly because we inhabited the same territories and competed for the same scarce resources, but even more so because they are so much like us. Any BF survivors left must be the most elusive of the elusive. I’m not making some overblown hardcore claim of 100% elusiveness – matter of fact, it’s the lack of 100% elusiveness that has brought us all here – but I don’t think that anyone can realistically say that BF is not one of the most elusive animals on the planet. What the behavior in the video amounts to is as if I, in crystal clear water, splashed noisily in a straight line, in full view of a Great White shark, knowing full well that the shark knew I was there (except even a Great White, unlike a man with a gun, couldn’t reach out and kill me from where he sat from several hundred yards away). I’m not saying that I (or BF) would never do this kind of thing (What if my little girl was in the water? You bet… two sharks… no problems… I’ll take them both on…), what I’m saying is that extenuating circumstances would have to be extraordinary and it would be highly unusual and abnormal behavior to expose oneself in this way.
It’s the name of the game isn’t it? Any purported evidence for BF’s existence must pass much more rigorous examination than a film of a deer exhibiting strange behavior. This is because, unless you’re some wacky guy named Walt, nobody ever made a decent buck off a movie about a deer… Sasquatch, on the other hand… though my opinion is that anyone with a real, honest to goodness film of BF will get more pain to both ends of their anatomy than fame and fortune. Bottom line is, I don’t think this video will be very useful as evidence of BF. A couple of other posters put it at about a “2”, I agree and I’ll even break it down, here’s why:
Each one of these 5 elements we’ll score from 0 to 2… 0 being of no value, 1 being of solid value and 2 being of extraordinary value:
1) Is it in a format that contains enough detail/information to be of use?
It’s obviously some sort of digital camera, possibly attached to a tripod, problem is the user does not re-position the camera or use the zoom function to get a better look. The film is of limited resolution/ value… score: 0.5
2) Does the subject act in a natural, consistent manner?
My recent posts contain my thoughts on this matter… absent extraordinary circumstances, the behavior is abnormal and unusual… score: 0.5
3) Does the one taking the film act in a natural, consistent manner? (“Character” – eg. social position or history of trouble with the law, is not necessarily important, but IMO, once a hoaxer… always a hoaxer. We should eliminate out of hand anything coming from past hoaxers.)
From her words, the grandmother gives the distinct impression of being intrigued by the figure. Why does she not take the camera out from behind the screen, why not zoom in to get a better look? Their answer for this glaring failure to act in the simplest way to improve the footage: “I don’t know”. You can see grandma playing with the zoom at the beginning, but only to make sure it was zoomed all the way out… that’s funny right there. Contrast this to the P/G film… Patterson is visibly shaken… he immediately moves to a better vantage point to steady the camera and get a better shot… this would be the expected, normal behavior when filming something like this… score: 0
4) Is the area one in which BF sightings have traditionally been made, is the terrain/ habitat consistent with those inhabited by BF?
South Dakota does have a history of a few sightings and BF has a mythological presence among the First Nations of that area, but from the footage, the specific area in question is not heavily wooded enough to be thought of as a typical BF habitat. This doesn’t mean to say that BF can’t hang out there… our family has a couple of thousand acres in South Central Georgia (represent). I’ve seen (heard) lots of things that are not supposed to be native to the area: alligators, coyotes, feral hogs and even panthers… it’s mostly creek/ branch bottom and the surrounding lands are Georgia Paper tree farms (no underbrush)… so we have an awful lot of wildlife that moves in as our land is mostly unimproved and still has the vegetation and cover these animals need to survive (It may even be possible we have a skunk ape or two in there)… score: 0.5
5) Was other evidence able to be collected at the scene? No known evidence, we can revise if something comes up… score: 0
Total score: 1.5
Alamo:
If by all that you meant to say this is inconclusive, um, er, yeah. I said that too.
In the end, no film or photo is going to serve as proof. We all know how science has solved this issue in the past. Out in the field, on the ground. It’s going to have to do that again.
Alamo, I actually should add this:
You may be right about expected vs. abnormal behavior. But the full range of encounters have been reported for sasquatch, and I mean just about every interaction – ordinary or otherwise – that one can report having with a wild animal.
(In spades, if one can take the habituation scenarios seriously, something of which I’m not so sure but which is conceivable. Far more conceivable than, say, somebody having one of those scenarios and not providing much better evidence than they have.)
You’re right that you aren’t going to have one casual hike and see two bears crossing a trail in front of you, la de da. But exceptional behavior can be witnessed, and can be captured on film. No, I wouldn’t expect sasquatch to be racing across open fields (cue “Love Is A Many-Splendored Thing”) nationwide around the clock. But it’s still possible that somebody got something extraordinary, at the durndest time.
Not that I’d bet much that that’s what happened here. There simply isn’t much to bet on.
Hey DWA,
Yah, I think we got all the candy out of this pinata… :o) I will give it one last parting smack though: It seems to me like the framing is not centered on and doesn’t follow the purported subject. His head is chopped off half the time and the camera doesn’t follow him as he does his moves.. instead, from the very beginning, it keeps the line along which the figure will be running right in the center of the frame.
Alamo: yup.
I wouldn’t stop anyone from running right out there and looking for tracks or other evidence.
But unless we do that with these, entertaining is all they can be.