New Ukrainian Bigfoot Video

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 31st, 2011

The following video was uploaded to youtube on March 18, 2011 by user SDNikitin.

снежный человек
даже не знаю, кто или что это было…

Translated: bigfoot
do not even know who or what it was …

Following are some enhanced versions of the clip with interpretations.

#19 of 65 Best Bigfoot video Crimean Sasquatch “снежный человек- The Yeti”

New Ukrainian bigfoot video breakdown

Ukrainian bigfoot video stabilized

What do the Cryptomundians think of this one?

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

40 Responses to “New Ukrainian Bigfoot Video”

  1. MountDesertIslander responds:

    Three things,

    1) This almost looks too much like ‘Patty’ to me. I felt like someone rehearsed the walk until it was ‘just right’.

    2) The ‘creature’ does not turn to examine what might be chasing it. An animal trying to get away from a pursuer would either run, hide, confront, or, at the very, least examine the nature of the threat. This subject simply offers its back and strolls away like ‘Patty’. I would suggest that a real live Bigfoot stays that way because it doesn’t stroll away from a possible gun toting hunter.

    3) The film went directly to YouTube. If I was in the woods and captured a real image like that, my first call would be to Loren Coleman. After he had a chance to examine what I had, I’d hope Loren’s next call would be to the Discovery Channel. Why would you ever give footage like that away? Even Patterson and Gimlin took their film and a projector on tour and charged admission to see what they had.

    I don’t think there’s any shame for being rewarded for a successful hunt.

  2. YowieLover responds:

    If he was actually hunting the BF, given the non threatening situation, it would have been more prudent to get closer to it for decent footage and make an exit if threatened than retreat with questionable evidence.

    Again, another blurfoot…I guess we’ll never know about this one.

  3. DWA responds:

    Wow. Knobby of the Ukraine.

    The critical problem with cryptozoology? They can’t keep the cameras steady. Just sayin’.

  4. wolfatrest responds:

    Arms look fake. Like someone is wearing a suit with fake hands, not a natural appearing swing to them.

  5. Floyd responds:

    Looks fake to me. The figure’s legs appear fully extended in contrast to Patty, who walks with bended knees.

  6. TheForthcoming responds:

    Looks real to a certain extent. I say the video seems like it is authentic.

    I can see in some shots the cone shaped head of the creature.

    Notice that the creature is taking big strides too fast for a human to cover and the cameraman seems to be showing genuine fear or emotion though one could argue that it is perhaps bad acting but I doubt it.

    The problem though is that the video is shaky, out of focus and blurry.

    It could be a human but the way it is moving taking big strides and covering a lot of ground seems to indicate otherwise.

  7. DWA responds:

    MDI: not saying this video does much for me.

    But the Roe sighting – one of the linchpin pieces of evidence you always hear about – involved an animal turning its back and walking away from a man with a rifle, a hunter who decided he just couldn’t shoot it.

    Patty’s withdrawal (as you point out) was very leisurely. She would have been more than easy enough to shoot.

    Bigfoot encounter reports describe virtually every way an animal can react to a human (other than injuring one…oh, wait, there’s one of those). Almost all of those ways are described more than once. In one pretty amazing TX report, a guy had the head of a female sas in his crosshairs as she looked quite unconcernedly at him. He didn’t think his gun (he was hunting wild hog, one of which the female had just killed) was going to get it done. She just hoisted the hog over her shoulder and walked off.

    That’s what makes me think that the evidence supports the animal’s existence. Bear and deer have exhibited the above range to me; I don’t see why the sasquatch would be different.

    (Or a human, which is what I think this is.)

  8. seamonkeychar responds:


    Seriously? You’re running around in some apparently deserted Ukrainian forest with a camera, crashing around and spewing a running commentary, and Bigfoot doesn’t even turn around to look? Pretty sure he would have noticed you there. (you being general)

  9. DWA responds:


    I should have added: I don’t worry much about how the video got submitted. I only care what is on it.

    Not everybody knows protocol on these things. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if somebody more concerned about proving the animal than money did something like this, going straight to the court of public opinion in the conviction he’d get what he needed out of that alone.

    And I don’t blame the animal’s nonexistence on the searchers’ missteps.

  10. mosritemecha responds:

    Ask a kid to walk like an ape sometime. They will probably bend their knees and swing their arms as they walk.

  11. DWA responds:

    Whoa. “This is a real sasquatch”?

    Says who?

    “The video speaks for itself”?

    These pseudo-analyses kill me. The alleged features …well, you don’t super-magnify a video like this, because video artifacts start looking like ‘features.’

    I know. I know. I just got finished saying I don’t blame the animal’s nonexistence on the searchers’ missteps. But I am having significant heartburn with somebody thinking there is something conclusive (listen to the narrative) in this video.

    And as to hoax markers. P/G Film Shake just strikes me as a flag, particularly when nothing seems to be contributing to it (Patterson was running), and there’s no effort to focus on the animal after the lens goes groundward. Could they have run out of video? Yes. Should it happen every time? No.

    Can’t tell what that is. But I’m not sending a team there tomorrow.

  12. Mïk responds:

    Back up, people! SOME of these videos have to be real or there’s no reason for you to post on this site. SHEESH!

    I’m disappointed that there is never a clear shot of the fellow, but the fact that he doesn’t show up on cue is a factor in this kind of pursuit. It’s the same phenomenon that brings a waitress to ask about your meal right when you shovel in a mouthful. Sas will always show up when your best camera is back in the boot. Add to that the jitters you get from finally seeeing this guy you’ve been looking for all your life, and visioning all the money your gonna make from the video.

    This looks real legit to me, a non-scientific, benefit-of-the-doubt, kind of guy. Let’s give this time to simmer and see what boils to the surface. Sometimes these things negate themselves. The video, though shaky, is MUCH clear than the recent ‘Knobby’ one. It doesn’t deserve all the negativity being thrown at it.

  13. dogu4 responds:

    Real or not, it underscores that without some kind of evidence to add to the sighting’s legitimacy, it will never be widely accepted.

    If, however, the video is part of a research project of sorts and other corroborating evidence can be produced as a result of some new understanding of this supposed creature’s nature, and others can then use that improved understanding to further the gathering of evidence, then we really got something. Let’s hope that there’s more of this. I have to imagine that this video is creating some stir among the cryptozoological community in Eurasia’s Ukraine. If not, at least it offers tantalizing bits of possibility upon which we can continue to fantasize or, preferably, come up with better approaches that will eventually bring us the kind of proof that objectivity and reason requires. cheers.

  14. MountDesertIslander responds:


    If this is a fake it is better than most. The suit, if it is a suit, has longer than normal prosthetic arms and a conical head. I make the claim of prosthesis because they simply hang there. They do not shove brush aside or demonstrate any kind of tactile environment manipulating qualities.

    It seems to me that ‘Patty was further away from Patterson/Gimlin than the Ukrainian beast was to this photographer.

    ‘Patty’ also moved with more urgency than this animal.

    But, I think the most compelling discussion that will come from this entry into the crypozoological world of scrutiny is that of protocol for submission. I don’t think that one necessarily needs to have the blessings of a known name in the field in order to have any legitimacy, (thinking specifically of the Georgia hoaxers for example) but it doesn’t hurt. If this Ukrainian knows of YouTube and has the ability to load a video to this site, then he knows how to find sites like Cryptomundo. Attempting to make an end run around the most knowledgeable minds in the field seems a bit contrived.

    Even though the ‘Knobby’ video served as comic relief, I would have rather it wasn’t picked up by the mainstream media without proper disclaimers attached by someone in the field. I saw ‘Knobby’ on MSN billed as possible proof of Bigfoot. That really does a disservice to committed researchers.

  15. Spoofnerd responds:

    Hey look! It’s the Blair Witch Project Sasquatch episode!

    While the proportions look better than most man in a suit videos (ie: Knobby), and the walk certainly looks better than a lot of the blobsquatch shots out there, there is something wrong with the legs. They don’t appear muscular enough and as a previous poster mentioned, no bent kneed gait.

    We don’t see any of the musculature that is so evident with Patty.

    My take? Fake.

  16. xdarkridex responds:

    I don’t think there’s enough data here to come up with anything substantive. I think that’s the case with most of these videos, and it’s definitely the case here. It’s intriguing, and I don’t think there’s any obvious red flags of fakery, but that doesn’t mean there are red flags of authenticity, either.

  17. Mïk responds:

    The problem with having a video of Sas posted to YouTube straight off, for me, is the opposite. I’d rather a video be posted without any ‘expert’ opinion attached than to not have that video posted at all. We, at least, get a chance to catch up with analysis after its out, rather than not hearing about it because academia isn’t gonna stick its neck out. The more video we get to see, the more the fakes get sorted out. ‘Knobby’ was a laffer, but this one, not so much. At least we got to see it. If all videos had to have peer-review, we wouldn’t see any. Sas ain’t gonna take college courses, ya know.

    MountDesertIslander- this one moved different than your interpretation of Patty, but that’s not saying it’s not a Sasquatch. It may live closer to the humans than Bluff Creek, It may not have as much intolerance of humans than Patty. The use of its arms really does depend on its environment; you can’t discount the video because the subject didn’t move like you want it to.

  18. DWA responds:


    “Back up, people! SOME of these videos have to be real or there’s no reason for you to post on this site. SHEESH!”

    Actually, none of them has to be real. And you’re talking to someone who, if he were forced to bet up or down right now, would say that two of them are.

    (Not this one.)

    And we’d still have much reason to post here. Like, to tell people who are new to this game what evidence is, and what proof is.

    As others here say, there are no universal red flag hoax markers (although more than one of us has noted something that is just hard for us, personally, now, to swallow), but there are no earmarks of authenticity either.

    The reason to post here is to evaluate the evidence, and, if you feel like it, to speculate upon it.

    We won’t confirm a hairy hominoid with a video, says here.

    But it pays to review the evidence, and to learn evidence evaluation chops, for free, from some of us who have been down this road.

    I’m mystified by people who think something HAS to be real. No it doesn’t, really. Something may be. But none of it has to be. And for all that, the animals are real, or not, regardless what any of us thinks.

    What science needs to get is something that allows the channeling of far-too-scarce resources down the most likely avenue of return for time and money invested. Evidence paves the way to truth. But science only goes for really good bets.

    Says here: this ain’t one to bet on.

  19. DWA responds:

    Another point to be made about evaluating video.

    Anyone remember the Olsen “Champ” video? [echo] [sigh]

    I told a skeptic that the subject of that video bears no resemblance to any known animal. He said: so. You are saying it’s an unknown animal? I responded: NO! here is, precisely, what I said: the subject of that video bears no resemblance to any known animal.

    Here was my point: people were yelling deer! moose! elk! (Elk? In Vermont?) driftwood! otter! Et cetera!

    People were doing what people with low analysis chops tend to do: saying WHAT IT HAD TO BE. In their minds, not on Olsen’s cell vid. Well, doesn’t have to be nuthin’. I mean, it is something. But what do you see on the video? I saw something that looked like nothing anyone was shouting out, including Champ. Who knows what Champ looks like?

    The skeptic said to me: you HAVE to think it’s an unknown animal to say what you’re saying. I replied, um, dude! No I don’t.

    All I have to say is this: Wanna find out what that is? It’s gonna take a whole lot more than this video to find out what that is.

    There seems to be a strain of thought in crypto that every photo, every video, can be analyzed until we tease out of it what it really is. Know what my experience on this site tells me? Well, I don’t think we have gotten, truly, to the bottom of what ANY photo or video shown on this site actually is. Even the ones that look like utter laugh fakes might not be guys in suits. They might be gals in suits, or robots. Or total concocted computer graphics/Photoshop wonders.

    You need more than the video, or the photo. The ones that do the most are the ones who get qualified searchers to go: I’m buying a ticket, flying there, and finding out what that is, on the ground.

    They’re never proof. No matter what anyone thinks. But they might say: follow this up.

    This one says what most of them do to me: whatever it is, I’m not buying this ticket.

  20. Ragnar responds:

    Fake. Why?

    1. Has the “feel” of movie footage. Just doesn’t strike me as “guy in the woods with a camera”.
    2. Language doesn’t sound right to be Ukrainian. Actually sounds Japanese to me.
    3. Shaky cam, stumbling, etc. Give me a break.

    On a side note, I get a real kick out of the commentators who make 6-plus minute long “analysis” of a 16 second video. Do these guys have real jobs?

  21. Ragnar responds:

    Oh, almost forgot #4 and 5.

    4. Bigfoot just looks so purposeful walking from one side of the frame to the other. Just looks out of place striding along like that.
    5. Look at the scenery. The forest is just trees. No undergrowth, no cover, and Bigfoot is brown. Could you get a better background for the big guy to star in?

  22. DWA responds:


    “I’d rather a video be posted without any ‘expert’ opinion attached than to not have that video posted at all.”

    I’d agree with you. In fact, I can do totally without the experts, because they frequently don’t know what they are talking about. A lot of the “expert” opinion attached to this video isn’t. I mean, yeah, I’d rather see it with the comments than not see it. But folks who don’t know about things like this can get the wrong ideas from, well, the guy I hear spouting clear nonsense on this video in a calm, no-nonsense voice. I think something like six “Confirms” were listed, and all of them are a crock, because, well, nothing is confirmed until the species is. (And some of them were pulled off what are clearly pixelated video artifacts, a total no-no.)

    There is simply no way to say that this video confirms, or provides compelling evidence of, anything, except that somebody shot a video of something.

  23. norman-uk responds:

    Well I think this is a great film! Looks like the real thing to me or at the very least a brilliant fake synonymous to the real thing. I do appreciate the analysis given and find it persuasive.

    Legs look a bit long at times but so do patty’s and there looks an element of posing by the subject.

    I plan on provisionaly accepting the film as genuine because it does seem to fit so much of what has been reported over such a long period of time. I am covinced Sasquatch is a real creature from all the reports, so to me it is very unlikely that , even where there are doubts, that there are not mutiple genuine films of sasquatch. I think this is one of them!

    I say again if you look at reports of sasquatch over many years, (I am just reading John Greens 1978 book- Sasquatch. The apes among us-again) it would be daft to be in denial about the reality of sasquatch and indeed like creatures all over the world, consequently being more open minded about films and reports like this one.

    Can someone hurry up and translate the gasping Ukrainian commentry? Sounds like he is saying ‘suicide’.

  24. Craig Woolheater responds:

    The commentary as translated by the folks who posted the third video from the top:

    Translation of what is said in the video-
    “Operator speaks to his friend (Serega).

    – Serega, what is it?

    – Serega, it is…

    – Serega…

    – Serega, lets get out of here!

    – F*ck!”zombietom69

  25. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I’d have to completely agree with you here. Here’s my two cents.

    First, there is only so much information we can tease out of some of these pieces of photographic or video evidence. In far too many cases, we get blurry and low quality images which offer nothing really concrete to latch onto. In some of these cases it could very well be a Sasquatch on the film, but we can’t show that with any convincing weight, and any evidence where you have to squint at it to try to discern anything about it is poor evidence, let’s face it.

    With blurry or ambiguous photos or videos, we are stuck. There is no way to show what it is, and limitations inherent to photography itself put a cap on just how much resolution you can coax out of any given image. You can only stabalize and enhance a poor quality piece of footage so much before you have, well, a very well stabilized, enhanced blurry footage.

    We are trying to build a case that a giant, bipedal, temperate ape that defies the existing paradigm exists, and blurry or ambiguous video footage or photos are just basically useless to this extent, no matter what might REALLY be shown. Someone can insist and insist all they want that the footage really shows a Sasquatch, but in science insisting is not going to get anyone anywhere. It has to be shown, and the way to do this is with clear, more easily analyzed footage that unambiguously shows something not within the parameters of a known animal.

    Then, and only then can we start to get somehwere in any scientifically useful sense. Until we get to that point, we are forced to fall back on Occam’s Razor and lean towards the blurry image being something known rather than something unknown until it can be adequately demonstrated to be otherwise. This may rub hard core proponents the wrong way, but that is the way things are in science.

    Second, photographic evidence does not exist in a void. The very fact that you have it means that we can all agree on one thing and that is – something was there. Was it a bear? A man in a suit? A Sasquatch? The Tooth Fairy? Unless it was a… ahem.. interdimensional being of some sort that magically leaves no trace behind, then there probably certain things we can ascertain by simply going to the site.

    Maybe there are footprints, or hair, or landmarks that you can compare with a normal sized human and what’s in the video. The creature (or whatever it is) was probably in the area before it was filmed and may have left behind scat, or dropped its iphone. With the P/G footage, we have other evidence tied to the footage, which gives it more weight as evidence. It amazes me how rarely anyone goes back to the site and investigates anything left behind by the subject of a given photograph or video.

    The more physical sign you can find to tie to the video, the more water it holds. You don’t know if you don’t look.

    We live in a world of advanced photo doctoring techniques where people can alter photos to the point that they can fool even reputable news sources. The weight of photographs and video footage, our ability to confidently accept them as an accurate representation of reality is not what it used to be. As a result, the value of this kind of evidence has degenerated over time. We have to be careful. We have to be skeptical and analyze these pieces meticulously.

    Also, In this age of smart phones and mini cameras, it is getting harder and harder to accept that so many Bigfoot sightings produce so few photos. It is an interesting phenomenon considering how often these creatures are allegedly seen.

    The excuse that the witness was frightened or caught off guard is also becoming a harder pill to swallow. We live in a world where spontaneous, often amazing or frightening events such as car crashes and such, as well as bizarre natural phenomena like ball lightning, as well as rare wildlife, are often caught on film and end up on sites such as YouTube and Twitter, and what not. The increasing number of people with readily available digital photography capabilities in their pockets has allowed us to capture many spontaneous moments more often.

    I’m not saying this means Bigfoot doesn’t exist, just that it is a little odd. This is just another reason why I am very careful with these pieces of low quality photographic evidence when they do emerge.

    I have an open mind, but I approach photographic evidence with a pinch of salt and an arched eyebrow. We should look at these and try to analyze them, but also bear in mind that it is quite likely they will for many reasons turn out to be worthless as any kind of hard evidence.

    In the case of this video, if someone wants to check it out, then that’s great. But as it stands, this is of no real use as scientific evidence. Nothing here says this can’t be a bunch of other things we know about that are NOT Sasquatch.

  26. David-Australia responds:

    “4. Bigfoot just looks so purposeful walking from one side of the frame to the other. Just looks out of place striding along like that.”

    Haven’t viewed the PG film for quite a while (and which most now seem to accept as genuine), but I recall that “Patty” also walked “purposefully”.

  27. Mausinn responds:

    Can’t say fake or not from what I see. It is interesting.

    I just have a few comments though.

    As far as arms just hanging at its side, how often do you go for a walk and swing your arms or make random movements for no reason? Perhaps the subject had no reason to carry it’s arms any other way.

    The camera is shaky. I would imagine if the person was scared enough, it would be shaky. I can’t say that I would be all cool and calm if it were me behind the camera.

    Why the constant comparison to Patty? I keep hearing how BF subject don’t move like Patty or they don’t look like Patty. How many humans move and act the exact same way? Yet, we are all humans, just different from one another. Why would we expect a BF to be cookie cutter the same unless they are all clones? Same goes for why the arms are the length they are and the legs seem to be at a different bend than Patty’s, not all creatures are exactly the same.

    The subject was shot in the Ukraine and he didn’t send the video to Loren. IF you shot a video here, would you know who to send it to in the Ukraine? Perhaps this person did the best thing that he knew of. Almost everyone knows of You Tube.

    Like I said, not sure if it’s real or not, but for sure, we can’t make them all fit the same mold. Plus, how can we deem something real or fake until we have something proven to compare it to?

  28. Mr. Rush responds:

    I suddenly have a craving for some Jack’s Links jerky.

  29. Dogsqueezins responds:

    *yawn* Fake. They can’t fool me. Next, please…

  30. MountDesertIslander responds:

    After revisiting the analysis videos again I was was struck by the fact that this footage was taken on a phone camera. I don’t know how i missed that the first time.

    In my limited experience with phone cameras I have not been too impressed with the quality of the image. This explains the curse of the blobsquatch problem that accompanies this encounter. While moving, it’s nearly impossible to hold a phone steady enough to get a clear shot.

    The next question is: how close to the cell phone did the subject of this video have to be? At first, when I thought it was a handheld camera, I was estimating 40- 50 feet. Considering that this was filmed on a phone’s fish-eye lens I’m guessing they had to be within 25 feet. I dunno, it’s hard to imagine those guys walking right up on top of the creature like that.

    Unless there are foot castings, fur samples, or additional footage coming this just screams Ukrainians with too much time in their hands.

  31. wzolotovskaya responds:

    I don’t normally post, but I had something to add. My husband is from Russia and entertains me when it comes to discussing Bigfoot, etc. I asked him to watch the video and listen to the person talking. Since they were speaking Russian, I felt that a native speaker would be able to hear the difference in someone being genuine or fake. He told me that it sounded like bad acting. He also noted that the trees in the woods were very small and explained that deeper, well established forests in Ukraine had larger trees and undergrowth, much like the US. He told me that it looked like a recently planted forest that was probably near a residential/tourist area. In fact, he pointed out that the woods seemed to thin out dramatically in the background, suggesting that this thing was walking toward what may be open land, which is counter-intuitive, at least when it comes to elusive wild animals. Overall, I’m not convinced but I am impressed. I usually don’t spend too much time looking at these videos because, like a lot of others, I set the bar at the P/G film and no other videos that I have seen have come close to it. It was a good try, not quite as baggy-monkey-suit-looking as a lot of others.

  32. DWA responds:

    M_m: Nice, as usual. A couple of good things you said deserve some expansion.

    I usually don’t use Occam on these things (and oh, I demonstrably *do* use it, a lot) unless there are markers clear on the video that say, “Occam tells me it is this because…”

    For hairy hominoid video or photo, I grit my teeth at what I, personally, have come to see as *possible* hoax markers. Not showing any attempt to re-focus on the figure after the camera goes wayward – something I have seen in a lot of these – says to me, “don’t let them look too closely or we’re punked.” Camera shake that doesn’t appear to have any clear source (Patterson was running while he shot, and the shake reflects that perfectly) bothers me. Both of those markers show up here. Almost every time I have seen them, it has been with at least one other marker that bothers me. One of these – dialogue/monologue that sounds corny, made up, and out of sorts with the kinds of reactions I have read eyewitnesses describing – just makes me wince.

    But those markers alone aren’t killers. First, One CAN run out of video capacity. It’s just the point at which it keeps on happening that bothers me. Second, people have all kinds of reactions to sasquatch. Patterson chased Patty, not just on foot, but following the tracks on horseback almost three miles. (Sure a guy on a suit stays ahead of a horse.) He’s not the only one. Others have run AWAY, just as fast, without even thinking before they did it, and despite their assertion that the critter never threatened them at all. Still others have remained in place and observed, some through their rifle scopes. (And some admitting the rifle felt like a flyswatter.) Then there’s one guy who said that no one in the car had seen it, nothing at all, nothing, and then *began praying aloud.* Maybe some reactions cause people to do weird stuff with their cameras. And say stupid things, like praying aloud, or stage whispering “We need to alert the authorities!” (No I’m not kidding.) I don’t know, I’ve never seen a sasquatch. So the markers just bother me. They don’t kill the video, although the chuckle factor makes it one I personally wouldn’t follow up as The Smoking Gun. You might see something I didn’t. You might be right.

    One marker I have always seen, however, that makes me pull Occam out of the drawer, rapier in hand, is a figure that shows HUMAN PROPORTIONS. If the arms and legs and torso show relationships I’ve come to know as typical for humans, Occam runs this one through. It ain’t real, period. (Hitching up the suit drawers as one hobbles across the road in front of a stationary car kills it too, Knobby.) Not only do witnesses, consistently and repeatedly, describe feats of athleticism that would shame a track star in a track suit, much less a schmoe in an ape suit, but they also describe distinctly non-human proportions. The arms are too long; the legs are too long; the muscularity is boggling; the girth is enormous; that sort of thing. They never considered “ape suit” a possibility. Because the thing just didn’t look human…like a human in an ape suit does. Knobby crossed a road in about a minute that a sasquatch would cross in two to three steps. That’s a very human thing to do (especially while waving, and hitching one’s drawers up). Even a leisurely bigfoot gets across a road so quickly the observers marvel at it.

    I can’t see this figure well enough to tell whether it’s a man in a suit. So it just bothers me and makes me ask, OK. What are sighting records from this region? If this is the only thing that shows up, I’m not buying the ticket. If all we have is a battery of these, I don’t have to go there; I’ll see them at Cannes.

    I don’t have to presume what it is to decide what to do with it. I can be undecided but leaning yes (Patty; Peguis) or leaning no (pretty much all the others). Or just totally undecided (Jacobs photos). If I’d seen Patty or Peguis the day or so after they were shot, and been a bigfooter in that area, someone else would have had to turn the computer off (the projector, I guess for Patty). ‘Cause I’d have been out the door. There might be some evidence there I’d want to see.

    As to photos: me personally, my cell camera would be almost useless in the event of a sighting, as it would almost certainly be off (it’s for me to call *you* when *I* want), and even if on, not deployable quickly enough. I almost never have it on, when it’s on my person. Most observers’ reports indicate a cell would have been useless. Then there’s – holy cow!!! – what you are seeing. One Washington observer later noted her camera, on her lap – right where it had been for that leisurely road crossing. (From the sketch she and the other witnesses provided, it would have been one interesting photo. But then there you are. She was a bit preoccupied *looking*.) I took not a shot of a lengthy encounter with an Alaskan grizzly, during which a camera was about my neck the whole time. If I had seen the camera one of my buddies had up, I’d have knocked it out of his hands, thinking it provocative to the bear, which wanted our food and was making, actually, a rather polite request for it. (Thanks for those photos, man!) So, see, m_m could be seen to have a point there too.

    But m_m’s most important point – and mine – is this: without on the ground followup, forget finding out what any of these are. A photo is a start; a video maybe better. But neither proves anything. The key word is “start.” Now: do you follow up?

    Me: I’d drive up to talk to Jacobs first. Cheaper. A bit cold, that trail. But looking at it bothers me less.

  33. DWA responds:

    David_Australia: In fact, Patty looks one heck of a LOT more purposeful than this guy.

    Mausinn: Too many people do indeed think that it has to behave one way. I have seen many eyewitness reports; the arms wind up all over. Some have been observed doing the Patty Swing while running, others with arms cocked like a track star’s. Just as with us, I’d assume it’s situational and to some extent, as with us, individual. (I can say, though, I’ve never seen anyone walk like Patty.) Your last sentence is kind of key, with the exception I note above with regard to human proportions, which tell me: whatever that is, it’s not the one I buy a ticket to investigate.

  34. DWA responds:

    “One marker I have always seen, however, that makes me pull Occam out of the drawer, rapier in hand, …”

    Before I’m called for mixing a metaphor: clearly the guy packs a Gillette. And, if the explanation doesn’t pass, he, um, er, runs it through, yeah.

    What. He SHAVES it…?

  35. DWA responds:


    “The next question is: how close to the cell phone did the subject of this video have to be? At first, when I thought it was a handheld camera, I was estimating 40- 50 feet. Considering that this was filmed on a phone’s fish-eye lens I’m guessing they had to be within 25 feet. I dunno, it’s hard to imagine those guys walking right up on top of the creature like that.”

    I’ve walked up on a number of bears; I mean, I actually had to back away from them and start talking softly, raising the volume until they heard me, looked up, and then ate me.

    KIDDING. But walking right past them, as close as I would have had to do that, would have been out of the question. Not to mention easy to do. Until they noticed me, in which case I wouldn’t, in all probability, have been walking for long.

    And on two occasions, as I have posted here before, I’ve had a pair of the biggest bears I’ve seen cross a trail, steps from me, one after the other, with no evidence that they had the slightest idea I was there.

    So. If this is authentic, and the animal in question is old, diseased, or just plain unconcerned or preoccupied, they could get pretty close. There are numerous close encounters in the sasquatch literature that back that up.

  36. somebodyssquatchingme responds:

    I think 2011 would be a good year for enthusiasts like us to make our own fake videos using various camera phones and non-professional equipment. Use ghillie suits, rented ape costumes, whatever you can make “work.” Then we would have a base line of absolutely known fake videos to compare against. We can put them on YouTube and ask Loren to keep all the links here on Cryptomundo.

  37. Ragnar responds:


    This is the kind of remark that makes me wonder why the hoaxers don’t do a better job. They have the internet and can easily research in about 10 minutes all of the markers of a hoax video and then make one that avoids them.

  38. Cryptoraptor responds:

    It amazes me that even after this video people will still say Bigfoot does not exist. What more proof do you need?

  39. DWA responds:

    Ragnar: Possible explanations:

    1. They see how gullible so many folks are and think that the serious comments they get make it all worthwhile.

    2. They don’t know how to make one any other way.

    3. The crappy suits make the hoax markers necessary.

  40. Mahalo X responds:

    Well it’s either a good fake, or crappy footage of the genuine article (as usual).

    Science is not about proof, but supporting evidence. If not evidence of bigfoot as an organism, hoaxes are at least evidence of bigfoot as a “real” part of our culture.

    Here are my questions; Who hoaxes? believers or non-believers. Do people create Bigfoot videos hoping to validate the existence of crypto hominoids, or is it solely for fame and money?

    The “I want to believe” attitude seems to drive many pseudo-scientific crypto-enthusiasts, are these the hoaxers?

    I just wish one of these creatures would step out in front of a fully equipped research crew while they were filming some nature documentary.

    If Attenborough was hosting; all the better. lol

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|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.