The South Hill is actually pretty active for what we would consider “wildlife”. For years there have been tracks, signs and evidence of a family of deer living in the woods between 24th and 27th off of Thor. I have never seen them, but I do find new tracks, fresh sign, and hear about people spotting them from time to time.

There’s also a family of turkeys that have been living near 14th and Thor as well, though I haven’t been down there to see if they are still there this year yet.

My point is that if something was making its home in the town, there would be more evidence pointing to that. As you pointed out as well, the Spokane River is very long, and there are more places with less populace outside of town, between us and CDA, or as far north as Canada.

It makes more sense to me that the sasquatch would seek areas away from us, where they have a bit more freedom and room to forage adequately. The Washington Bigfoot Research Group has a North East branch, and the majority of their sightings takes place out in the woods, not inside cities. Coupled with the sightings back in the 70s out in Colville, it makes sense that our outlying areas would be more inviting to them.

That’s not to say it isn’t possible, I just haven’t heard of a sighting this close to town before, and it makes me very wary of this video.

It looks like the cuff of a pants leg near the foot. The general thickness of the calf supports this observation.

It could be that the intervening foliage caused the feature, but it seems to persist over two frames indicating that the feature is attached to the leg.

My first guess is this human is wearing pants.

There are several quiet spots along the Spokane River, in town, for a sasquatch to homestead. The poster of the video says it was in town, but the river flows from Lake Coeur d’Alene to Fort Spokane on the Columbia, a trip of several hundred miles. That would give Patty plenty of room to forage.

Sasquatch is mostly a nocturnal creature and wouldn’t be very noticable, even in a city.

Whether this is real or not, who knows? The poster claims to have discovered it after viewing at home. I don’t understand the wavy, and I’m inclined to think it’s a post-production flaw but, unless it can be proven false, let’s just stack it atop the pile of brief glimpses…and move on.

I thought this looked chimp like as well. If it is a fake it is well done, very understated – less is more.

There are a plethora of places in and around town that have walking and hiking trails, so it’s just as likely that the creature in the film is simply a hiker.

We’ve also got a decent population of mountain folk and homeless who make themselves comfortable in our woods, and the woods between us and Canada.

I’m at first skeptical considering the source, The Inlander, which is unreliable at its best. Filled with young “journalists” and a lot of opinions, it’s more of an entertainment read than actual news. I’m willing to bet we see an article about bigfoot in the next couple weeks.

Second, having rafted, hiked, and hunted all over this and several other states, it’d be really difficult for a bigfoot to survive near the Spokane River, given the little amount of safe sources of water. The river is very dangerous, and we have deaths year round from people being killed when they fall in and drown. There is a strong undertow on most of the river. Thats not to say this isn’t near one of the safe spots, but the rest of the area has natural springs, more game and wild edibles just a little further north of Spokane. There’s also a large population of outdoorists, who climb all over the area for fun, and if there was such a creature living near us, we’d see more reports and more often than just one in almost 30 years.

I haven’t actually watched the video thoroughly yet. (My internet is off because I’m moving across town and YouTube is blocked from the work computers) But if it does seem like a credible lead, it’ll be easy enough to get local trackers and experts out there to find more evidence.

If it is a hoax, the perpetrator (yes, perpetrator) decided to alter posture in order to confuse viewers. As much as we loath hoaxers, we should give them a few points for originality.

He (or she) has crouched the back forwards, bent the knees, widened the gait and moved as fast as a jogger.

Although it seems difficult, if not impossible, for a normal-postured person to imitate all this, I tried it and it is doable.

So although the alleged hominid looks bizarre, it is not impossible for it to be a person.

John Kirk: pretty much agree. It’s hard, unlike most hoaxes, to say what this *isn’t*, as it’s too indistinct to say clearly that it’s human – the sole dead giveaway that you are looking at a hoax.

Tropicalwolf: one thing you will never see in a hoax, that’s for sure, is the fast and elusive. Nobody’s gonna get the cam up that quickly. Of course they don’t always sprint for the hills. Patty didn’t; and there are many other reports of animals that either departed leisurely or actually threatened and even chased the witness (probably intimidation behavior, never followed through in any report I’ve read, which is not inconsistent at all with known ape behavior).

As far as animals crossing your path, I can’t tell you how many deer just blot right in front of you rather than running the other way. This subject appears to be moving away from the hikers, I don’t see where it is crossing the path as much as I’ve seen in other purported BF videos.

The subject does not appear to fit into what has become the expected image of BF. It appears to be too thin for the accepted form of the creature. Often people look for how a subject walks or turns or reacts in a video. One would think, or imagine, that by now anyone who would set out to fake a video of BF would have the expectations down as to how the subject should look, walk, or act / react. Applying the expected norms to an early video may be relevant, but in the present, to claim that a video be weighted more to the believable side due to the fact that the subject looks or acts like the accepted visage of BF, is being a bit presumptive. I think any video that come out needs to be looked at not only for video clues of either hoaxing or validation, but the circumstances of the video capture as well as a great deal of background on those offering the video be looked into. It is unfortunate that we can’t take anything at face value anymore, but there have been so many hoaxes and misleading videos now, that everything is suspect. As the public become more savvy on what is expected from a sighting, it becomes better equipped to engineer the results and outcome.