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

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.

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.

“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.

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…?

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.

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.