Bigfoot Watching Target Practice? Yes or No?
A woman uploaded this video to YouTube because she thought the figure running in the background (starting at about 38 seconds into the video) could have been a Bigfoot.
Do you agree? Yes or no?
My opinion is that it could have been, but it is too far away to be certain. I don’t believe the helicopter had anything to do with it. If helicopters were going to track Bigfoot, they’d have a field day here in the Klamath National Forest, if they could see past the trees. Thankfully, they’re usually not around.
The running figure could have been a man who suddenly decided he was too close to possible danger. Or it could have been a Bigfoot frightened away. It seems plausible that it could have been a Bigfoot because… why would a man sit so close to kids with guns? You would think a man would be aware that it could be dangerous.
Again, it could have been a criminal the helicopter was looking for. The area doesn’t look heavily forested enough to be prime Bigfoot habitat. Note that it runs fast on snow, something men usually don’t do.
There’s quite a lot of response on the YouTube page if you want to click through and read that.
From a Bigfoot researcher’s POV I find the film of little value in proving the existence of Bigfoot. Even if what we’re looking at is a legitimate running Bigfoot, it is too far away to be able to analyze it in any detail in the way that the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film has been analyzed. If people still refuse to believe that Patty was a Bigfoot, how would they ever believe this?
My partner said, “If that’s a fake, it’s an excellent fake.” We stopped the video several times and noted the man or whatever it was, had a very long stride.
December 12, 2009
The Trail-Cam “Bigfoot” – My Opinion
A reader emailed to ask me what I think of this new trail cam “Bigfoot”. The picture was originally published in the Bemidji Pioneer, in Minnesota, and was a trail cam photo attributed to brothers Peter and Casey Kedrowski, and their father, Tim Kedrowski.
My first impression was that it obviously is not a Bigfoot, because the legs don’t have any muscle definition – in fact, they look very much like a costume or a pair of loose pants.
My partner’s first impression was that it is a hunter in dark camo (see examples below which are from Cabelas.) I’m not sure if my examples are the darkest camo, but it very well could have been a hunter walking by in full camo, including one of those strange hats.
Camo or not, the legs look like the give-away to me, because they aren’t curved as muscles in an unclothed leg would be. Others have pointed to the hand, barely visible behind the tree. It looks like a glove to me.
And those two bright spots on the head – they couldn’t be a Bigfoot’s eyes because a Bigfoot’s head is close to the body – there’s no neck, so a Bigfoot doesn’t turn his head like a human being does. A Bigfoot has to turn his torso too. (I get these ideas from eyewitness reports, such as those in David Paulides’ books.)
It could be a Bigfoot costume. I’ve seen plenty of them in the Bigfoot parades here in Happy Camp and in Willow Creek, and they hang exactly like that – baggy and loose.
Sample photos of dark camo winter clothing and headgear from the Cabelas website:
So, it looks to me like either an intentional hoax, or perhaps just an accident. Perhaps the brothers put up a trail cam and later a hunter walked by, triggering the motion sensor. In that case the brothers may have honestly thought they got a Bigfoot’s photo, however the lack of muscle definition in the legs makes me wonder how this particular photo got to be so well publicized. Surely people can’t be thinking this is real. Or can they?
Bigfoot researchers must have an enormous amount of skepticism in examining Bigfoot evidence, but others, unfamiliar with evidence we’ve seen submitted over time, might be more willing to believe.
Because I’ve got this site I often am sent possible Bigfoot pictures, but they’re usually very unimpressive, I’m sorry to say. We’ve got a big credibility problem with all Bigfoot photographs these days because with modern software photos are easily faked, and there are excellent artists available to do that. To have a truly conclusive photo that nobody would be skeptical about would be very difficult these days. I’d go so far as to say it is impossible. So when someone points to something shadowy behind a tree and says it is a Bigfoot, I don’t believe it. If it isn’t clear enough to be analyzed it isn’t going to impress any credible Bigfoot researcher.
Even movies are questionable. Look how much controversy there’s been over the years about the Patterson-Gimlen film. I do believe that’s a real Bigfoot, but a lot of people are still denying it, even though many respectable scholars have analyzed it frame by frame and declared it has to be real.
What we need is for some Bigfoot researcher to make contact with a Bigfoot on a long term relationship basis. I know people have reported having these relationships, but often these people will not allow others to know, for the protection of their Sasquatch friends. We need credible scientists or scholars to be able to witness and hopefully even participate in these relationships, to document the existence of these forest people. Photographs aren’t going to suffice, and film most likely won’t either, though Patty is a great start. And I’m totally against the theory that killing one will help; that would only give the Sasquatches one more reason to want to avoid us.
So there you have it… my opinion. I often don’t comment on these types of photographs that hit the news because if I can’t believe they’re real Sasquatches, what good does it do to show them to people?
If you want to see a lot of bad “Bigfoot” photographs head over to this link: Field & Stream’s Trail Cam Contest – they offered a million dollars to anyone who could provide a photo of a Bigfoot, so consequently they attracted all kinds of hoax photos from collages to blobsquatches to bears to sheer nothingness. People were desperate to get that money! (Thanks to Don Campbell for sending me that link.) You can sift through the photos and help rate them… it is great advertising for Bushnell trail cams.
I wonder if this photo everyone is talking about was intended for that contest. Is it worth a million dollars to you to put on a Bigfoot costume and walk in front of a trail cam at night?
Too late… the contest has ended.
August 25, 2009
Is It Real? – An Analysis of Bigfoot Evidence
Is It Real? is a web page with a fascinating analysis of Bigfoot photographic evidence. Author Jack D. Davis of Elmira, Oregon started researching Bigfoot evidence after learning about Dr. Jeffrey Thompson’s sighting at Oregon Caves National Monument in 2000.
The site starts with a careful analysis of one frame of the Patterson-Gimlin film, compared to a photograph of a Sasquatch taken on Silver Star Mountain in Washington state, in 2005. Using TurboCad Jack Davis compares the shape and proves they are nearly identical. He also compares them to the faces of gorillas and humans.
Next he takes a look at the back of the Sasquatch in the Patterson-Gimlin film and compares it with a Silver Back Gorilla’s back, and the back of a man in a Bigfoot costume. Though he’s admittedly not a scientist, he’s great at noticing details that might escape others. He shows the clear resemblance between Patty’s back and the Gorilla’s back, and then points out how certain elements of the costume shot clearly show it is false.
Do not miss his page on Measuring Patty Using CAD Software, as he comes up with a plausible theory on her height and weight using photo and footprint measurements.
A Bigfoot Massacre? Bloody Nonsense!
John Green is a hero in the Bigfoot research community – and rightly so. As a young Canadian newsman he took time to come to the Klamath River Valley to explore early Bluff Creek Bigfoot footprints, and the Patterson-Gimlin film site. You can read his entire account of events including his part in them in his seminal work, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us
Also implicated are Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, Bigfoot film legends. It is a miracle that they saw Patty and now someone accuses them of helping to kill her and her family. What a terrible accusation! And it simply isn’t believable. Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967 for the filming of Patty. John Green wasn’t on the scene until June 1968 (see page 123 of his book.) [Update, 8/27/09: According to a more recent post on Cryptomundo, the footage of John Green was from late August/early September 1967, filmed by Rene Dahinden.] How could they all have participated in a Bigfoot massacre together? It doesn’t make sense and to accuse them is like attacking the holy icons of the Bigfoot research community. You can’t do that without repercussions.
I read what Loren Coleman posted about this on Cryptomundo yesterday morning – Bigfoot Massacre Theorist, John Green & Coverup – and my first impression was that the YouTube video referenced showed an inaccurate photoshopped image of a man with red hands. I tried to replicate the process with a screen capture from the original film in the video. I lightened, saturated, and adjusted the ‘before’ image of the scene and couldn’t find any red on the man’s hands. I also noted that the red hand version in the YouTube video also featured blurred faces on two of the men in the picture – another clear indication that major photoshopping took place. The man looks tanned, not bloody. I hope nobody falls for this theory, which looks inaccurate to me – and that’s saying it nicely.
My main point in responding to this is just to say that I live here in the Klamath River Valley (of which Bluff Creek is a part) and want to point out that the Patterson-Gimlin film took place in October when we’ve got a lot of red in Autumn foilage. The poison oak turns bright red at that time of year. We’ve also got dark red bark falling off the Madrone trees, and a lot of the soil here is red which could account for what MK Davis seems to think is a bloody dog paw print.
This is the original picture from the film, which I screen captured from the YouTube video before it was removed by whoever posted it there.
This is my lightened version showing no blood on the extended hand of the man on the right.
This is my lightened version with increased contrast showing no blood. Note that the red truck in the background is bright red, but not the man’s hand.
This is what appears to be a photoshopped version from the YouTube video showing blurred faces and a bloody hand.
The section of this photo said to be skin and blood could just as easily be a backpack frame style popular back in the sixties. I had one very similar to that at the time. Or it could be something else. And the red part could have been photoshopped in just like the red-hand photo above appears to be heavily photoshopped.Loren Coleman wrote a follow-up blog posting this morning with responses from John Green – which is where I got this photo. John Green said Bob Titmus wasn’t there and that the rifles were there to protect the dog at the dog owner’s insistence.
To anyone taking this massacre theory seriously – please go dig up the bones of these massacre victims to prove your allegations, and quit relying on poor quality old amateur films. When you produce impressive evidence, people may take this seriously, but not before. In the meantime, what seems to be an attack harming the reputations of our heroes (Patterson, Gimlin, Green, Titmus, and whoever else was implicated) is upsetting a lot of people.
I am amused at the thought of you on your hands and knees digging in one of our local gravel bars. As a person who has done a bit of digging around here (during prospecting) I can say it isn’t likely you’ll have much fun doing this, but if the theory is that believable to you, why not? Finding Bigfoot bones would be something like finding buried treasure.
November 27, 2008
My Bigfoot Video Collection
I’ve created a page for Bigfoot videos – mostly found on YouTube. My intention was to include only videos I believed and respected, but I got a tiny bit carried away at the end because I wanted opinions on the 1992 Paul Freeman video. I’m not saying I disbelieve it. The video is blurry and I want to believe it, but have to place it in that “I don’t know” category.
Other videos in the collection feature Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, Patty, and Bobby Clarke. Take a look at these Bigfoot videos and let me know what you think.
