Sasquatch Coffee

2012 Pine Ridge Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 9th, 2012

Paul Smith Bigfoot

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. 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.


61 Responses to “2012 Pine Ridge Bigfoot Video”

  1. PhotoExpert responds:

    Interesting.

    This video reminds me of the recent camper video shot on iPhone. That one was shot through a screened part of the tent. This one is shot through mesh or large screening. Hmmm. Is this the new trend for supposed Bigfoot video footage? Is this a hidden signal that perhaps hoaxers are at work? Is there word in the “hoaxing community” that you can laugh at the Bigfoot community because they will believe any video that is shot through screening must be real?

    I do not know if that is a viable rumor or even when it was started. But it makes one wonder.

    I think it may just be coincidental. However, I feel most holding the video cam like the videographer in this video, would have moved around and away from the mesh to get a better shot of the intended subject. Also, with all the open space behind the boy jumping on the trapoline, why would anyone not go around the mesh and film instead of filming through it?

    Also, the female videographer asks, “What is that?” when it is a fly speck in the far left frame of the video. Really? Filming through mesh, where the subject of the video is not the Bigfoot, very small movement, and she picks it out instantaneously? No, I am not buying it. The videographer catches it almost immediately. I do not think even a professional, taking video of another subject, would catch something in frame, the INSTANT it appeared as a fly speck in the monitor. Not happening! Add to that, why start an innocent enough video, filming the mesh instead of moving to the open area. Unless, unless you are some kids trying to hoax something! Now that makes sense.

    I will say, the supposed Bigfoot does cover quite a large area in a short amount of time. However, a fast kid could cover a flat open area in about the same amount of time.

    For me, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being most probable, the authenticity of the subject in the video being a Bigfoot is about a 2. Hey, some of you may disagree and that’s fine. I am just stating my opinion and giving my two cents for this particular video.

    Too many red flags for me. But I do give an A for effort. The reactions were not great but were decent compared to some other videos. Starting the filming behind the screen was a good idea too. The supposed Bigfoot ran pretty well.

    The killers for me were ironically the same things. The reactions were good but not perfect enough to be deemed as natural reactions. Filming behind a screen or mesh intentionally loses grades of definition and clarity. And the supposed Bigfoot ran well but not nearly fast enough to be outside the range of what an average fit human could do. But there was one more thing that was out of place, the reaction time of the videographer was way too fast in relation to the appearance of the supposed Bigfoot. Way too fast! Even a professional videoagrapher, most likely would not have caught that tiny blur or movement until the supposed Bigfoot was halfway or near the right side of the screen. That is the tipoff for me. It seems way too planned!!!

    Go at it!

  2. AtomicEar responds:

    There are a lot of things that can be said about this video. Primarily it seems to be shot through a screen door, and though this blurs EVERYTHING, there are several emotion and reactions in the video that seem significant/genuine.

  3. Ulysses responds:

    God bless and take care of these frightened people but why in the world could they not follow the image and see where it went or used the close up/ focus ? Oh the things we could have seen. It did indeed look promising .

  4. slappy responds:

    FB/FB “verifies” this in 3… 2… 1…

  5. dconstrukt responds:

    looks like a person running…. duh.

    how many other real videos of bigfoot do you see with them running fast like in this video?

    none.

    they’re usually walking slower and lumbering around. (7ft 400-500 lbs, remember?)

  6. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Why wouldn’t you open the screen door to film? Maybe to “screen” out details?

  7. Loren Coleman responds:

    I posted a couple updates to ponder, stimulated by the comments here.

  8. faron27 responds:

    the fact that the observer doesn’t move from the obstructed view is suspect… as it could easily be a person running across the field.

  9. Ploughboy responds:

    I’d be more inclined to put the probabilities a little higher up the 1-10 scale than Photo Expert. I can’t cite you any hard reasons for that…mainly just a “feel.” Since we’ll never have the definitive answer to that one way or the other, I can’t say that any of our opinions matter, but…

    What I find most compelling is the vocal inflections of the woman filming. As a courtroom lawyer, I’ve probably had more people lie to my face (and under oath) than just about anyone, short of a police officer. You get to know the signals, believe me. Her tone is one of genuine incredulity. If this is a hoax, which it very well might be, I don’t think she was in on it. The body language of the boy was also unstudied and spontaneous to my eye. He had to hear her say “What is that” several times before he even reacted.

    I’m also not made wary by her catching the movement so quickly. Above all else, our eyes have evolved to spot movement, and almost instantaneously. Every morning I look out my bedroom window first thing. Even still half asleep I can scan my yard and pick up all small animal movement around my vegetable garden in about a millisecond. Give me a cup of coffee, and I can double that reaction time!

    What is very interesting to me as well is the gait of that figure. Running that fast requires head down and arms-a-pumping. I don’t get that impression from it. It seems to glide over the landscape…something that is well documented as a BF characteristic in the first hand accounts.

  10. ProfessorFrink responds:

    After reading the video poster’s comments it makes one ponder an even deeper question.

    Why did the Bigfoot cross the road?

  11. Ploughboy responds:

    I’ve looked at this several more times…and my impressions of it being legitimate only get stronger.

    I’ve never seen a bi-pedal (that is to say, a human) move at that kind of pace with that (apparent) lack of exertion. That thing is booking it, whatever it is, and the lack of side-to-side, bobbing, pumping, sway or rapid leg movement is like nothing I’ve seen. It seems to “jump” ahead on its course, you know?

    There are many, many descriptions of that appreciation of Sasquatch locomotion in the first hand accounts. If I’ve read it once, I’ve read it a dozen times: “It didn’t seem like it could cover that distance so quickly, but before I knew it, it was across the [clearing, field, road, etc.]. I don’t think I ever had a full appreciation of what accounts were trying to describe until I saw this.

    It leads me to conclude that the human brain might only be calibrated to track and appreciate and anticipate the walking and running speed of a biped only in the context of our own species. Naturally, as the only (according to us) bipedal creature out there, the cognitive dissonance in our brains might be yielding some very confusing impressions when confronted with an “other.” Really, my brain told me “wheels.” Not, ummm, likely.

    When the context and location of this video is accounted for, I have a hard time concluding it to be a hoax. Truly fascinating footage, worth 10 “tent” videos, in my estimation.

  12. sasquatch responds:

    ON THE OTHER HAND; If you’re faking a bigfoot sighting, why do it right by your house or have the actor (in suit presumably) be so far from the camera and running? I got the impression that the person filming was behind a safety net of some kind for the tramp.

    If you’re gonna fake something you take more steps to “make it look good”.

  13. Goodfoot responds:

    Even if it’s the real deal – and it isn’t – it’s of zero value. And I feel impelled to say this: one day folks will look back in embarrassment at the term “apes”. They’re about as apelike as people are.

  14. jan09 responds:

    Try to imagine watching this video in a vacuum, in which you’ve never even heard of the notion of Bigfoot. There is absolutely nothing in this video that suggests the subject in question is a large, bipedal, non-human primate vs. being a person running through a field. It’s only a potential Bigfoot because people want it to be.

  15. Loren Coleman responds:

    I appreciated what the courtroom lawyer (Ploughboy) said above: “I’m also not made wary by her catching the movement so quickly. Above all else, our eyes have evolved to spot movement, and almost instantaneously.”

    That has been my experience with rural people, as well, throughout the country versus urban people and those who enjoy their world via nature on screens.

  16. Ploughboy responds:

    Good to know that rings a bell with you too Loren. You know as well, I think there is an undercurrent of skepticism directed at Sasquatch sighting reports only for the fact that they are typically made by rural people and, well, you know… But that is a whole ‘nother subject.

    Jan09: Well, in the alternative, imagine that you are a scientist acquainted with the huge body of evidence, and that you’ve reviewed that in the hopes of coming to some hypothesis or understanding of what might explain such things. I do agree though, if you pretend that such a body of evidence does not exist, well, what is there to look at? Sadly, that pretty much describes the view of most zoologists who should know better.

    Point being, no occurrence or fact exists in a vacuum. The phenomenon of Sasquatch least of all. Science builds on facts as they accumulate, and extrapolates outcomes and forseeeable outcomes accordingly. If you want to hold out for nothing less than a certified letter from The Big Man, be my guest. OTOH, I think you’ll miss out on a whole of very interesting stuff in the meanwhile. It is there to be had, if you want it.

  17. volmar responds:

    It could be Bigfoot, it could be Johnny next door or even an orc from Middle Land. It’s too far away… We’ll never know for sure.

  18. TheCryptoMaster responds:

    As I see it-
    Being a Hoax?–then both the grandmother and boy were not in on it-
    Why? The reaction of the Grandmother(old eyes)(screen door) not withstanding– but more of the boy-
    -He reacted afraid calling to his grandmother, in a little boy way, twice.
    -As whatever ran to the far right even at a distance-the boy can be seen moving to the right to get away from it and then to the left.
    A natural instinct to get as far away as possible, from something unknown and frightening. Even at that distance.
    As for it being a person running.-The boy was not looking through a screen. And unless he normally wears prescription glasses.
    I doubt he would be that afraid of a person running across a field.
    If he is, he has other problems.
    So, It may well be a hoax-but I don’t believe the boy or grandmother were in on it.
    Can this be judged on reaction alone-No—-next evidence.
    If it needs to be investigated at all. If possible find the people involved-use the same camera through the screen and get stand-in to approximate height and speed.

  19. William responds:

    I highly suspect of this video. The timing of it seems strange as why would she be filming a kid jumping around on a tramp anyway? Also, I watched a scientific analysis program of the Memorial Day footage as well as another program called “Fact or Faked” and they totally demonstrated that it was possible for a fast human to actually out run the speed of the Memorial day footage runner who looked the size of a guy in a chimp suit anyway.
    Sorry, not impressed by this in the least. It screams fake to me.

  20. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ploughboy–You would rate the video a little higher than the “2” I gave it. What would you give it, a 3? A 4? Just curious and I may agree with you on either choice. However, this video is not worthy of a 4, in my professional opinion. I have trouble giving it a 3 even when being liberal in my assessment of the facts at hand. I feel comfortable with a 2. What grade do you honestly feel comfortable giving this video?

    You stated: “I can’t cite you any hard reasons for that…mainly just a “feel.”

    You said you were a court room lawyer, correct? In what court of law in this great land, would a judge allow no hard reasons or facts? What judge or court would allow a “feel” You stated you were an lawyer. I would have thought you deal with evidence, data and facts, every single day. Having no “hard reasons” or evidence would not be a viable case before a judge, wouldn’t you agree? Yet you use that reasoning here at Cryptomundo to make your point. You are using “feelings”. In dealing with BF evidence, we must remain objective and base our observations on facts. I am sorry, your argument for your position of this being a good video holds no weight because of lack of evidence. I don’t mean to beat up on you here but considering your frame of reference as an attorney, the last thing I would expect is for you to make your case on a “feel”. Just saying…

    I do agree with you on the tone of the voice though and stated that. For me, it is semi-convincing at best. I’ve heard better reactions and I have heard worse faked reactions.

    I also somewhat agree with you on the pace of the supposed BF. It is fast. Faster than an athletic human, probably not. As fast, yes. I was captain of my track team in college. Back then, we ran the 100 yard dash and not the 100 meters that they run today. I could run a 9.5-9.8 hundred. That is pretty fast but there were thousands even faster than that around the country. Could I run as fast as the supposed BF in this video? Probably. Could someone else run faster than the supposed BF in this video? Most likely! Could they do it without exerting themselves? Maybe yes and maybe no. You stated that the supposed BF in this video did it without that lack of exertion. You did preface that with the word “apparent”. So I agree with you. It did move fast and without apparent exertion. But faster than a human? Here is where I disagree with you. Maybe you have not been to a track meet. But I guarantee you, if you saw Bolt run in the Olympics, it was almost unbelievable any human could run that fast. But he did. And many other humans can run fast too. Faster than this supposed BF? I don’t know because there is no comparison or measurement.

    However, I do recall a similar video that contained a supposed BF running across a meadow. I think it was vacationers on the 4th of July. I may be wrong. But that subject moved fast, just like this one. A TV program later re-enacted the video using a stunt person in a suit. Guess what? They looked fast too, just as fast. In fact, I believe the stunt man was faster than the subject of the video. The terrain in this video is flatter than that of the other video. When I first saw that other video, I said to myself, can a human move as fast as that? I was unconvinced that it was possible. But clearly it was possible and the stuntman was no track star. So theoretically, in my track days, I would have blown the supposed BF away in a race. I wonder how fast I would have looked wearing that costume instead of a regular speed stuntman.

    Loren and Ploughboy–I might not disagree with your argument , but only with a caveat. Yes, I agree, rural people may be able to spot movement or wildlife much faster than a person acclimated to city living. I think we all get that. However, the videographer is not looking at the scenery or scene through eyes only. They are not gazing upon a still horizon or scene with their eyes. They are using the downgraded crutch of a video screen. They are either looking at the entire scene unfolding through the viewfinder of a videocam or a small screen display, utilizing recording technology. That is the case we have here at hand and need to deal with that. And not the scenario of one looking out a window or simply viewing a still scene in front of them.

    At best, let’s say the viewing screen was the size of an iphone. That would make the BF almost infinitesimally small in relation to the entire viewing screen. Add to that flyspeck of movement, the videographer is concentrating on the boy on the trampoline. And she is doing so through a small screen.

    Sorry, a piece of dust or insect close to the lens would go unnoticed moving in front of that lens by the person looking through a viewfinder or viewing screen. It happens all the time. Ever watch any ghost programs currently running on TV? Some of them are professional camera people and they miss dust, condensation, insects, etc. They do not see the orb or dust until they review it over and over much later and even then it is hard to see. Also, some of those orbs are 5 times the size in relation to the supposed BF in this video. A normal sized orb would be about the same size as the BF on this videographer’s view screen. And working with cameras every single day, I can tell you this is the case for almost every single individual, both amature and professional. It would go unnoticed. Yet this videographer declares and affirms the movement simultaneously as it appears. There is not even a small delay of seconds or when the supposed BF becomes more noticeable on the screen. Forget the theory that she is gazing upon a still scene through her own eyes.

    That would be my caveat. That yes, one might notice small movement, if they were not looking through a screen. I am sure I would too. But it is a different scenario when looking through a viewfinder or viewing screen of a video recording device. We must make that distinction here too at Cryptomundo when analyzing evidence. I feel a duty to point that out.

    I also must point out that when you or Ploughboy are taking in a view, it is a view of a still scene. There might be some dynamics taking place in the scene such as wind blowing grass, etc. However, in this scene, there is erratic and constant movement of the boy jumping on the trampoline. The photographer is “focused” on that supposedly both with the camera and mentally. Did you ever see that YouTube video of students passing around a basketball as a bear walks through the scene. Viewing that on your computer screen, one does not notice the bear. I foget the psychological term for this cause, but it exists. Focusing on movement on a computer screen obliviates the bear from being viewed, although it is clearly there. There is a HUGE difference between looking at a still rural scene and what takes place in this video. Both you and Ploughboy are making an argument for a still scene, viewed first hand by the viewer’s own eyes versus a dynamic scene, with camera focus and psychological focus taking place on another subject, all through a tiny view screen with the BF being almost neglible when the videographer makes her declaration. We are looking at an apple here while the arguments you make are on behalf of the banana. I must point out the reasons or argument for the apple because that is the case at hand.

    If you want more facts about a person viewing a scene through their own eyes versus a viewing screen, I can give you some basics. Our eyes see first hand a scene that is comparable to a 49mm lens. That’s pretty good but it is limited as compared to let’s say, an owl. Add the view screen and we diminish the field of view significantly. By how much depends on the person and type of view screen. But it is significant even at best. Now take that small screen within our limited field of view and the subject being extremely small within the second field of view. It is almost impossible to highly improbable that this videographer would see the supposed BF. Looking at the scene directly with her own eyes and no camera view screen, I might agree with you. Not a problem! But I must be objective and point out the facts at hand. I believe you and Ploughboy did not consider the facts I just presented when you made your statements. And remember, the videographer did not go back and exclaim, “What’s that?” after reviewing the footage. She did it while viewing the view screen in real time.

    I rest my case! Don’t kill the messenger!

  21. jan09 responds:

    Ploughboy: Well you sure beat the stuffing out of that straw man. I never said I wouldn’t settle for anything less than a “certified letter”. I never said there was no evidence for Bigfoot. What I said was there’s none of it to be found in this particular video.

  22. squatchman responds:

    It looks like the creature was running really fast. The body structure also looks like a sasquatch too! I think this is a real sasquatch film, unlike the film from the tent two weeks ago. The native Indians also know that the sasquatch is real, so there is really no reason for them to create a hoax video.

  23. Goodfoot responds:

    Two things arise:

    1. The Memorial Day Footage has proved to be nothing especially conclusive. The being is running at human running speed, and not more. Furthermore, it seems to be six feet tall.

    2. That no one seems to have drawn attention to the footage is inconclusive at this point. Maybe something was learned from the FB/FB fiasco? We do not know!

  24. Ploughboy responds:

    Jan09…The premise of your hypothetical was that the viewer assume to be ignorant of the possibility of BF existing. As I said, if you find that useful, crack down on it. Me-my-own-personal-self, I don’t find such exercises much useful and I’d rather view it in the context of all the other evidence out there. I’d be glad to entertain a discussion on that.

  25. Ploughboy responds:

    PhotoExpert….oh, I dunno, I guess I’d peg it for myself as a 5.1, i.e., more probable than not. But THAT is based on the context of all the other evidence out there, and the points I tried to articulate.

    Just a quick aside though, after 25+ years of talking to juries while defending civil suits, you can take my word for it…from the point of view of the experienced trial lawyer it is ALWAYS about feelings, as much as the average juror would like to tell you differently. (As well, after serving as the foreperson in a capital murder trial a few years back, I’ve truly seen the sausage being made…!) Lawyers who go in thinking the largest mountain of evidence will always win the day will get their corners sanded off pretty quickly.

    But am I any different from the average trier of fact? Well maybe yes, probably no. If I am, it is because I’m free to do my own investigation and explore other evidence at will. As I’ve said often, there is a mountain of first hand accounts out there to read. I really can’t comprehend how one offers an opinion on this subject without reading those in detail and then using them as the context of other possible evidence. I guess you CAN do that, but those that do come to offer opinions without doing that come with very little credibility in the eyes of those who have. What’s your point of view on that, if you would entertain that for a moment?

  26. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ploughboy–Yes, I will entertain that thought for a moment and give you a response. I enjoy a good conversation here at Cryptomundo, but sometimes there are no worthy adversarial opinions. You give worthy debate and rebuttal.

    OK, so about a 5.1 is what you give this evidence. We are not too far off. By your first couple of responses, I thought you were on the path to saying this was an 8 or 9. So I get a feel of what you think of this evidence. You are slightly leaning by 1 tenth of a point towards this being authentic than you are towards this being a hoax. I can work with that.

    Yes, a jury is composed of people with feelings. I take it as a trial lawyer you opt for a jury prayer instead of going before a single judge? I see your point! Fair enough.

    I see where you were headed now. Thanks for explaining your thinking process on this. You were taking into account other evidence besides this video, as a trier of fact. I was looking at it from another standpoint. I was replying to this video as a counselor of fact, solely on this video alone. I think one must judge the evidence at hand prior to relating to other evidence on Bigfoot that may be out there. I think I see where you were headed. I think if you are being honest with yourself, that my points hold water, solely based what we see in this video alone. You were kind of combining the total life experience you have gathered to date and then applying it to this video for validity. I get it! I see where you were going now.

    If I used your standards and applied the combined portfolio we have accumulated to date on Bigfoot, I would probably agree with you. In fact, I agree with your stand 100%, for taking in eyewitness accounts as evidence. There is another poster here named DWA. Myself and DWA are always discussing, posting and telling people that one can not exclude eyewitness testimony and the numerous eyewitness accounts. They must be taken into consideration as part of the total evidence.

    If that is where you were going with your initial comments in your first two posts, I believe we are on the same page sir!

    I was looking at this video separate and solely, as a single piece of video evidence to be analyzed. If we do that, I find it leaning heavily as not being an authentic Bigfoot video. And if I employ your standards of analysis, I must also take into account past faked videos and hoaxes, that this video shares a few similarities with known hoaxed videos

    Great discussing the footage with you Ploughboy. I totally love having intelligent conversations here. Loren had a post here not too long ago on what Cryptomundians miss about the site. My reply was posts with awesome conversations. I believe my wish came true! Keep up the great posting! I definitely enjoyed the exchange.

  27. Whervish responds:

    PhotoExpert — I’m a professional still photographer but have also shot a lot of video, and while I’d agree that it’d be very hard to detect such a small speck through a viewfinder, you’re forgetting that the great majority of video these days is shot on camera phones or tablets, in which the shooting method is often to hold the device at arm’s length, roughly compose the shot, then alternate between viewing the image on the screen and viewing it as it’s happening.

    That said, in this video, the moving object is never more than a few pixels big. I wonder if the shooter has a larger, uncompressed version?

  28. Whervish responds:

    Also, most camera phones have a fixed, slightly wide-angle lens, which means that if this was indeed shot with one, the ‘bigfoot’ in this video would’ve appeared larger to the witnesses than it does in this video.

  29. Ploughboy responds:

    Photoexpert….yep, I’d say we are probably coming at this with a similar pov, thanks for the reply.

    Since I became interested in the Sasquatch field, as a kid (I’m 54) when the PG film was published, I’ve been extremely eager to read first hand accounts. Those were few and far between until the interwebs happened. Now, if you follow them, you can see a new report posted on the BFRO website almost daily. Is this explained by a sudden outbreak of Squatch hysteria? I don’t believe so. I believe that these incidents were always occurring, but the knowledge was local, and passed along by word of mouth, which naturally left the narratives subject to change, embellishments, etc. It was much easier to discount these as tall tales or local folklore when you didn’t see them collected in one place, with overlapping observations from coinciding times and places. What is most compelling to me is the similarities in the description of the behaviors of the animal being observed, as well as the similarities in the human reaction to the experiences. I think that the database is an amazing resource, and one I rarely see addressed anywhere. It is almost as if we are afraid to see what is there, you know?

    Oh yeah, DWA are well acquainted, having shared a few trails and the occasional fruit jar. If he were in residence this week and not out in the desert chasing the ghost of Ed Abbey, his take on this video would no doubt be: “Consistent with other evidence, put it on the stack….”

  30. sasquatch responds:

    I’d like to know if there is an uncompressed version too.
    The people seemed very natural to me.
    I noticed that the woman says “what is that? What is IT?” etc.
    So right off the bat she doesn’t believe it’s a human.
    Otherwise she’d say; “WHO is that?” “Why are they running?”

    The boy seems to be showing off a little, but seems natural as well.
    It IS odd that you’d be filming through a net or screen.
    But who knows why folks film stuff? (another argument really).
    I believe it’s a net attached to the tramp, because it moves at the same time as the boy bounces. So not a screen door.
    Again if you’re going to the trouble to hoax a Bigfoot, why have the key actor be SO FAR from the camera.
    That doesn’t follow for me. There’s very little bang for the buck for the alleged perpetrators. I think this could be a real Sasquatch.
    Of course you can never be 100% sure unless they shot it and an autopsy was done, dNA, close-up photo’s, Zoologists analysis etc.

  31. PhotoExpert responds:

    Whervish–Hey! Thanks for joining in this discussion. Ploughboy, Loren and I were getting kind of lonely. LOL

    In response to your post, no, I did forget that iphones and other devices being used to capture video these days. I actually clearly stated that in my post. If you would have read my post more carefully, I actually mentioned the iphone by name and other viewing screens from recording devices. But I thank you for backing up my point.

    I also covered the point that you were mentioned as well, about any recording device being held at arms length, and going back and forth, to make sure the subject is in video frame. Actually, you are helping me make my point. I posted about the psychological part of doing video. I pointed out the bear walking across screen while kids pass around a basketball and the people viewing this scene, see no bear. Now, if that screen is at arm’s length and the viewing screen is no bigger than an iPhone, there’s no way to see the supposed Bigfoot come into frame. No way! As you stated, the person recording is looking at a tiny screen, the supposed Bigfoot taking up just a couple of pixels on that screen, and it is feet away. I would have trouble seeing the few tiny pixels on that little screen from a nose’s length away!

    Ah, but then you would certainly argue that the person recording the video is actually going back and forth from the actual viewing screen of the iPhone or any other recording device. Right you are sir! I acknowledged that in my post as well. I agree with you, that is what would happen. But what you fail to acknowledge is the obvious. And since you are a still photographer yourself, I am surprised you did not think of this as well–the person recording is going to look back and concentrate on the subject they were recording, the boy jumping, and not some small object coming into frame. As a videographer or photographer, you are concentrating on the task at hand–getting the shot of the boy on the trampoline. Your mind blocks out any other movement as you focus. Which brings me back to the bear and the kids playing basketball video.

    I do not know what kind of photography you do, but if you are taking a photo of someone dancing on a city street, with your still camera, and people are moving in the background, I sincerely doubt you would be unaware of any out of place movement in your peripheral vision. Extremely unlikely! The bear and basketball video drives home this point perfectly. And with your attention being focused on the person dancing, you are not going to notice something as small as this supposed Bigfoot coming into frame that equals just a few pixels at best on camera. And immediately declare, “What’s that?” simultaneously as it occurs. No way Whervish. You have to be honest with yourself. As a professional photographer, you are probably more aware of peripheral movement than an amateur and the person taking this video is not professional. They have less ability than professionals.

    Also, you forgot to mention that this is taking place through mesh screening which limits your peripheral vision. If you are looking straight through mesh, you have bigger holes to look through the mesh. As the mesh angles off on each side, the holes become smaller and more of your vision is blocked. From the videographer’s perspective, they are seeing nothing but black mesh with smaller and smaller holes. More of their vision is blocked. This applies to holding an iPhone and just plain eyesight. It’s fact. It’s optical physics! So you must also factor in the mesh. That’s another red flag for me.

    To argue to the contrary, you would be saying, an amateur photographer, partly blinded by mesh, with the psychological factors of concentrating on doing video of a boy on a trampoline, was able to instantly see a supposed Bigfoot coming into frame that on the viewing screen, only accounts for a few pixels. Yes, that is what happened, right? You have got to be kidding me. So I analyze video taking all factors into account. And these are kids, they would never hoax for fun, right?

    Whervish, please go back and read my prior two posts, along with this one, and then reconsider your position on this hoax, I mean video. Honestly, I am not going to say with 100% certainty that this is a hoax, but I will state that it is probably a hoax. And my prior track record here at Cryptomundo is perfect. By perfect, I mean, I have not got one wrong so far.

    Whervish, you also stated: “Also, most camera phones have a fixed, slightly wide-angle lens, which means that if this was indeed shot with one, the ‘bigfoot’ in this video would’ve appeared larger to the witnesses than it does in this video.”

    You are correct about that. But again, if it is a handheld device that took this video, you neglected the mesh effect and psychological effect.

    Thanks for adding to the conversation. I love these discussions. At so many forums today, all you get is name calling without intellectual debate. Here at Cryptomundo, it is like having a discussion with a family member. So, I look forward to seeing you around Whervish. It is an honor to talk to another professional photographer and to receive their input. Your input got me to thinking and because of that, I am leaning further towards this being a hoax.

  32. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ploughboy–Yep, we are on the same page. And you know DWA too? He’s a good man. Many times I just post, “What DWA said”, because I am in total agreement with him. I have nothing to add. We think exactly alike. In fact, we call each other “brothers from another mother.”

    If you think like DWA, then we definitely are on the same page. I saw you started posting a few months ago. Maybe you have been posting longer than that. So let’s just say your posting caught my attention a few months ago. I wish you would post more often and with greater frequency.

    There are many times when Loren, Craig, Nick, Mystery_man and others, post stimulating cryptozoological articles and few respond. Or some respond with nothing to say. Or they say things which do not further the discussion. I definitely appreciate your thought provoking commentary. I may not always agree with some posters here, but I definitely respect them for their point of view.

    See you around Cryptomundo! I can hardly wait for the next Bigfoot video to pop up!

    Oh, and thanks to Loren for posting this and creating such a wonderful, thought provoking thread!

  33. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Most of the nets I’ve seen used to keep people from falling off a trampoline completely surround it. I don’t see the net on the other side, so I guess we’re back to a screen door.

  34. Loren Coleman responds:

    FYI, everyone, please refer to the Terms of Use, regarding your access to the Cryptomundo Site indicates your agreement to abide by these Terms. Please also note, “Cryptomundo reserves the right to edit and/or delete any comment at the editorial staff’s discretion.”

    Sniping remarks, slang derogatory to Natives or where they live, and comments on comment editing/deletions are, for example, immediate grounds for non-approvals.

  35. shownuff responds:

    a two year old channel w/ only the owner of the channel watching 12,000 videos. I do that in a month. lol. and if you look they are making money off the video. They have Adsense which is a way to get ads on the video and google pays the owner of the channel or video. out of 13 videos, this one video is the only video with the most views. Matter fact the only video with views in the 1000’s. Not saying it is fake, but anyone can do this these days. It seemed to me in the video, whoever speaks to the kid to do something the so called Bigfoot starts to run. Fake! lol. And by the way by watching this garbage video we are putting money into the hands of a Hoax. Let us put money into something more detailed not Blobs! I am so tired of videos w/ people using software to enhance images that I still see Blobs!

  36. CDC responds:

    “What is that”? “What is that”?

    Hoax, simple.

    The people in the video are all in on it, and this video, like 99% of all other Bigfoot videos, is a hoax.

    Patterson/Gimlin, and maybe Freeman…all the rest so far are hoaxes in my opinion

  37. Ploughboy responds:

    Glad to be welcomed around the campfire PhotoExpert. DWA is probably my biggest impetus for getting back to devoting more time to Bigfootology, and for finally joining Cryptomundo. I’ve been lurking here for years. He would frequently forward links to his posts, and we would often have back-channel conversations about them. I figured I’d just eliminate the middle man.

    While my most passionate interest is in The Big Man, I’m fascinated by all kinds of mystery. The prospect of a totally explained world sort of leaves me depressed, you know? Thanks for your comments too.

  38. William responds:

    Running Bigfoot videos always scream fake to me, especially in broad daylight accross an open field. Why would any Bigfoot do this in the first place. If you accept the species exists, they are known to be mainly nocturnal, highly secretive and for one to be running accross open space in broad day light would be extremely out of character. What would this large extremely intimidating creature be running from in the first place? And why in an open field? I realize they sometimes may have to cross open areas but my guess is they would do so at night. The entire scenario screams fake.

  39. Whervish responds:

    PhotoExpert, a couple other points to consider: When a person is looking through a screened window at something beyond it, do they notice the screen and window panes at all? When you’re sitting behind home plate at a baseball game, do you notice the netting at all after the first few seconds? This video seems to be shot through the netting common around trampolines, and while it obscures the view somewhat, it’s not a huge factor.

    Also, this is presumably the backyard of either the grandma or the kid, so it’s a view she’s seen a million times, which makes her much more likely to notice something out of the ordinary in that view. And the black figure is in wide-open space, not peaking out from behind a tree in a dense forest. And, as mentioned before, the figure would appear much bigger to the viewer than it does on this video.

    Please note that I’m not arguing that this video is valid — I’m merely saying that it is certainly within the realm of possibility for someone to notice such movement.

  40. Ploughboy responds:

    William, I certainly understand that question, and I asked it of myself too, but thought better of posting my opinions as it does get very speculative. But no matter, here’s what I think (again, I’m making several leaps here, admittedly):

    Rutting behavior.

    If there is one set of circumstances that will make an otherwise shy and nocturnal creature expose itself with complete disregard, that would be it. A male mammal on the scent/track of an in-season female will of course take the most direct route, with seemingly no regard for self-preservation. Of course, procreation is the imperitive for the species and the death of a few individuals in pursuit of that is an acceptable outcome to advance that goal. Any deer hunter will confirm that during the rut a buck will cast normal caution to the wind and make what would in other times be completely reckless decisions. A lot of these bucks wind up on living room walls, we know. Maybe some Bigfoots wind up on video for the same reason.

    In the first hand accounts there is at least one of an observation of two male Sasquatch appearing to mate with a female, in broad daylight. If I recall, the account was made by a bear hunter, in Alaska.

    Who knows? Possible? It is one explanation if this video really is of a Bigfoot out in the open at that time of day.

  41. G. de La Hoya responds:

    Come back another day and watch it with the sound muted. The kid was immediately aware of where grandma’s eyes were focused while he was bouncing around? Watch his bouncing head.

  42. Ploughboy responds:

    “ImperAtive” Sorry.

  43. Ploughboy responds:

    So if you go by the time display, and assuming that is accurate, the figure is visible for 26 seconds. I catch a glimpse of it down near the tree at about the 12 second mark. It disapears in what looks to be a dip in the landscape and reappears as the woman first says, “What is that?” (I’m betting too, that she was pointing at the same time, which would have also given the boy a clear indication to look that way) The figure disappears screen right at 38 seconds. The somewhat oblique angle and foreshortened view of the apparent line of approach would mean that the actual ground covered by the figure is greater than it would appear. I’m estimating that the figure crosses about 75 yds., from near the large tree to where it walks out of view, without taking that into account. That is what, about 8.6 feet per second?

    Obviously, a person can run that fast, and faster. Is this figure running? It really doesn’t look like it to me, for reasons I’ve stated already. It gives every appearance to me to be traveling at a brisk walk. Could a human, walking, cover that (presumably uneven) ground at that pace?

    And yeah, I think this was filmed through a screen door. As anyone knows who has ever looked out of a window through a screen at a distant object, your distant point of focus makes that mesh disappears. This is especially true of fiberglass mesh, which limits the glare you get with aluminum screens.

    (Interestingly, I once heard Neil Young use this phenomenon as a way to describe analog vs. digital sound. He said that focusing on an idyllic outdoor scene looking past a screen door is like analog, and when you move in and focus on the mesh, well, that is the digital world.)

  44. volmar responds:

    I must agree with CDC: Patterson/Gimlin and Freeman are excellent videos that clearly show a Sasquatch. This video is one of a thousand “Blobsquatch” videos out there. I don’t know how people are able to see a Sasquatch in it, wishful thinking, perhaps? I can’t say it’s a hoax, but there’s no way I could see anything but an “unidentified running object” in the distance. I have one doubt, though, why would a Sasquatch cross the road in broad day light?

  45. zpf responds:

    Ploughboy: “And yeah, I think this was filmed through a screen door. As anyone knows who has ever looked out of a window through a screen at a distant object, your distant point of focus makes that mesh disappears. This is especially true of fiberglass mesh, which limits the glare you get with aluminum screens.”

    Yes, I’ve noticed many times when looking through screen, the screen can become much more prominent through a camera.

    I love this video. At first I thought, as the boy turns his feet as if he’s considering turning around to look a few times at the beginning, that he was just poorly rehearsed and not ready for the timing, etc. But after watching it a few times their reactions seem very genuine to me. I also think it makes sense Grandma stops filming about when she does–it seems to fall in line with the rhythm of her escalating reaction–time to start thinking about getting ourselves inside or whatever.

  46. zpf responds:

    Within the 20 sec mark the kid does seem to look over in that direction prior to his official reaction however.

  47. PLMerite responds:

    All things considered I’d give it a 2 on the 1-10 scale.

    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.

    And the kid does come across as a little scared.

    The thing does seem to be really booking across the field.

    On the minus side: Why would anyone be shooting a kid jumping on a trampoline, and if so, why through a screen door? While your eye might see past the screen, if you’re looking through your camera’s perspective you’re going to notice it.

    The kid seems to know exactly where to look. But if that’s your home turf you might be expected to pick up on movement or out-of-place elements very quickly.

    We have no reference for scale beyond the old pickup truck. No measure for how much ground the thing covered in the 20-30 seconds it’s in view.

    If anyone’s in that neck of the woods it would be the perfect case to investigate and try to fill in some of the blanks.

    Just my two cents.

    Now I’m going back to watching X-Files. I know that’s fake.

  48. BunniesLair responds:

    I Would like to make a couple of points:

    1.It is not a screen door. It is a safety mesh that go around the trampoline in order to prevent someone from inadvertently going off the edge.

    2. It appeared to me that the camera was on a tripod. There was no shake; and if we take the poster at his word that the person behind the camera was Gramma, then I would expect more shake or movement as she moved to watch the object.

    3. The reason I believe the camera did not follow the object moving, was because the camera was on a tripod and Gramma didnt want to ruin grandsons trampoline video, so she moved.. to see it better, the camera did not.

  49. Ploughboy responds:

    Bunnieslair…look again. There is no net surrounding the trampoline. I figure the woman had the camera pressed right up against the screen, which would have given it stability.

  50. Ploughboy responds:

    http://wn.com/Bigfoot_Video#/videos

    Just to stir the pot a bit….no idea as to the provenance of this clip. I had never seen it before. It does fit into the category of “I was filming something else, when…” It is a pretty nice frontal shot of, well…what, exactly? ( Yes, the man-in-suit vs. true BF dichotomy certainly still applies)

  51. Ploughboy responds:

    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.

  52. Alamo responds:

    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.

  53. Loren Coleman responds:

    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?

  54. Alamo responds:

    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.

  55. DWA responds:

    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.)

  56. DWA responds:

    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.

  57. Alamo responds:

    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

  58. DWA responds:

    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.

  59. DWA responds:

    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.

  60. Alamo responds:

    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.

  61. DWA responds:

    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.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



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.