59 Responses to “Vancouver Island Bigfoot Video”

1. Danno responds: March 21st, 2007 at 9:26 am

   It’s not wise to run up on a bear like that. If I was that kid’s father we would definately be having a talk about how to be safe in the woods.

2. skeptik responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:11 am

   If that was a bear, they certainly risked their lives for this footage.
   Apart from that? We all know the great quality of utube vids.

3. Delawhere responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:22 am

   Blobsquatch strikes again

4. catvmex responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:25 am

   The video is such poor quality, I don’t see how anyone could say anything about.

5. ShefZ28 responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:27 am

   I don’t see much in the video.

   I had much more typed out but I was looking too much into a blurry video.

   Basically it was this:

   1 Its walking down hill and away from the camera

   2 At the 1:18 left mark I thought I could make out the shoulders, head (hunched over) and the arm swing.

   My idea is this…
   If you stuck two kids in a forest with a camera who wanted to fake a “sighting” of something I think they would push it a little more then what is in the video. They basically have little or no evidence in that video, but at the time they thought. I would have at least dug out the footprint to get it clearly in the film.
   If i would have taken this film back and watched it I would have been disappointed and gone back to re-film it with more solid hoaxed evidence.

   Meh… out of the “bigfoot” videos Ive seen this year, this would be my vote for the one I think is less likely to be a hoax.

6. skeptik responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:31 am

   Calling it a hoax would be stretching it.
   They’ve shot something on camera, which is probably a known animal, and put it online.
   I agree with ShefZ28 that they seem convincing. Background check, anyone?

7. mystery_man responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:43 am

   A few problems I hhave with this one. First off, see how they used the classic “jerk the camera away from the subject and get it back in site as it dissappears” technique. I also think that if it had stared at them like they claim, then they got a good enough look at its face to know it was staring and if they knew it was staring at them, then they were probably intently staring at it. With me? Wouldn’t this be enough to tell if it was a bear or not? The description is contradictory too. They say it is probably a bear, but they also say it was humanoid, so which is it? Another thing is I don’t know what it is, but the commentary in the video just seems a bit unconvincing to me. This is of course wholly my opinion, but it seems very forced and fake to me. I also can’t believe that anyone in their right mind would so swiftly go investigate the area where a seven foot creature was just seen. Kudos to them for at least making a show of looking for tracks(as sloppily done as it appears to be), and I give them credit for at least throwing out that it could have been a bear, but I have the sneaking suspicion that these kids were out fooling around with the camera and came up with a hoax.

8. calash responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:50 am

   I agree with ShefZ28. It doesn’t have a “hoaxy” feel to it. Unfortunately my audio is presently disabled so I can’t hear any comments. I guess one could speculate that they knew it was a bear but decided to play up the Bigfoot angle to have some fun on Youtube. It seems a bit telling that the individual doing the filming himself thinks that it was a bear. With all the bushes and branches its too bad that they did not look for hair or fur samples.
   Regards

9. mystery_man responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:05 am

   Well, if you listen to the audio, he doesn’t think it is a bear at the time. He says “It’s, I don’t know, some sort of humanoid thing, I don’t know.” No mention of a bear there. I would have thought they just had filmed a bear if it wasn’t for posting it as something perhaps more than that and the innuendo that it is not a bear. That makes me a bit suspicious. There are really good bear videos that do not get this kind of attention. It’s the sasquatch angle that is being played into here despite the disclaimer that he thinks it might have been a bear. I think this video has a very hoaxy feel to it and I think it is keeping in line with some kids out playing with a camera without more rescources to pull off something better. Of course I could be wrong, but that is the feeling i’m getting at this point.

10. Bob Michaels responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am

    I think it’s a Bear, if it’s a Sasquatch, I have one question, Does a Wild Sasquatch crap in the woods?

11. squatchwatcher responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:13 am

    I would think that a couple of kids filming a “large humanoid” would be a little bit more shook up than what they seem to be. It could be that they are use to animals in the woods and know a little bit about the outdoors. But you’d think that they would know how to look a little more for evidence. Especially if it was a bear, why would one of them try to run up to it? This just looks like a couple of kids having fun with mom and dads camera. By the way, if my kids saw a huge hairy beast they would come running and screaming to find me. Of course I wouldn’t let my kids go wondering around the woods by themselves if bears are around. So where are mom and dad? I would guess they’re on the porch behind them laughing at their kids backyard antics.

12. sschaper responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:19 am

    If it is a hoax, those kids are very good actors.

    It doesn’t look to me like a bear, as it gets down on all fours at the beginning.

    They try to photograph the exact spot, footprints and stuff, which I don’t remember the other hoaxers doing. But step in the print, like kids might do, destroying evidence. On the other hand, they call themselves atheists and skeptics, which does not enhance their credibility to me, but detracts from it.

    How credible is it, though, for a breeding population to be on Vancouver Island?

13. mystery_man responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Well, like some have said before, who is to say that hoaxers don’t read sites like this in order to get better ideas on how to hoax? Someone could see comments made about previous videos and say to themselves “Well, we should say it could be a bear and go look for tracks, that’ll give it more credibility.” I think the acting is unconvincing personally. They don’t seem that shook up and are rather quick to go snooping around afterwards during which they just have a “whoa, far out.” attitude. And I still don’t like the confusion they have in trying to classify it. Is it a humanoid? A bear? If it is a bear, why make such a fuss to find footprints and why not say it was a bear in the video when they first saw it? If he really thinks this is just a bear, then why make such a big deal at all? Like sschaper said, claiming to be “atheists and skeptics” is a little odd if one is just claiming that this is a bear. It seems obvious they want this to be seen as a Bigfoot. If it is was indeed a Bigfoot, why the uncertainty even when they saw it staring at them? If they don’t know, then why not just say “I don’t know” instead of drawing any conclusions at all? I think the contradictions could be perhaps because they didn’t know which angle to take that would most make people believe them.

14. Scarfe responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:52 am

    At around the 1:18 mark, it appears the creature goes from a standing position to all fours, and exits the frame on all fours. To me, this seems very much like a bear. Perhaps coming upon an animal unexpectadly standing upright would shock a person into assuming it was humanoid, but from what I can see in this video the creature exits on all fours.

    As a fun fact, I was born on Vancouver Island, not too far from Tofino.

15. richard_from_idaho responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am

    Bear, bear, bear. Vancouver Island is LOADED with black bears and websites for tourism stress how easy it is to see them in the spring while driving or walking. This looks pretty much like my last black bear sighting in Idaho.

16. bill green responds: March 21st, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    hey everyone this is a interesting possible sasquatch filmfootage. im little skeptical of it. more research needs to be done this filmfootage, contact the people filmed this possible sasquatch. thanks bill green

17. Mike Smith responds: March 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    I’m not going to say but it looked like a bear to me. I would like to see the video in a slower setting if one is out.

18. stonelk responds: March 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    It dosn’t move like a bear. The way the shoulders move is all wrong for a bear. Some folks see it dropping to four leggs but watch the video and the kids follow it over a steep bank. I like the coment about the classic “jerk the camera away from the subject and get it back in site. A Hollywood camera man with a steady cam would have a hard time running through the forrest while keeping the subject in the view finder.

19. richcap responds: March 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    I hate to be a pessimist - but that’s a black bear. Can I say that with 100% accuracy? No. The likelihood that its a black bear at 99.99% - yes.
    As sasquatch enthusiasts, researches and the like, we need first rule out “common” wildlife species as the culprit, then go into “squatch mode”.

20. DWA responds: March 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Uncle Wiggly.

    Those kids sound like they’re investigating the passage of a recently-departed squirrel.

    Next to the Manitoba video, this one is bad bad bad. Next to Patty, of course, well need I go on?

21. DWA responds: March 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Oh, the figure?

    Guy in a black hoodie. No problem.

22. dogu4 responds: March 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    I can see where anyone could discount this sighting as a bear, but then why didnt the kids who shot it scream “bear! bear!”…that is what people do when they see a bear, having lived and worked in bear country the idea of someone, kids especially, not yelling “bear!” when they see a bear is almost an impossibility…the fact that the video is jerky and poor quality doesn’t suggest to me that it’s a hoax, even if these techniques might be used by a hoaxer, because, in fact, if you had your little handy cam and encountered any animal, bear or bigfoot, you could pretty much expect this sorta quality…the notion that someone is going to get the critter to cooperate so some excited pink monkeys can run up to it and film it (or stick it with a tranquilizer)flies in the face how we suspect this amazingly powerful, stealthy and cryptic creature reacts.
    Let’s hope some follow-up information and a closer look at the master tape helps to resolve the questions that surround the sighting.

23. greywolf responds: March 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Well, what does the fact that they are atheist have to do with it? I understand being skeptical from the bad video. I’d say bear but who knows? I think there should be a international photo 101 course on BF photography.

24. Xothrmik responds: March 21st, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    If that’s not a bear, I’m a Sasquatch.

25. DWA responds: March 21st, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    OK, this seems a good time to generate some interesting commentary.

    Could anyone who thinks this might be a real sas take a look back at the Manitoba video from earlier this month and tell me what you think of that one?

    That’s the only Bigfoot video I’ve seen other than the Patterson film that I’ve bothered to watch more than, say, twice before yawning, fake. That might really be what it says it is.

26. btgoss responds: March 21st, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Perhaps it is my vocation making me think this way, but we might, and this may have already been done or suggested, work up a profile of how people react in tense/stressful situations with camera in hand. Maybe using the power of the internet to collect videos.

    Then we can compare it to what happens in these videos. Since we all say how we would have kept the camera on target, and run up to the beast for hair and blood samples. Is that realistic? When people see a crime do they jerk the camera like that? Does the person carrying the camera react as much to truly known events (like weather, or fire) or unknown events ( out of season weather, animal attacks on city people).

    I think that might help us build a profile of the only “known” we have in all of these videos, how people react during high stress (and even that is going to be a wide range of reactions). That would go along way towards helping to identify the “fakes”.

27. Rillo777 responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    I don’t see it dropping to all fours, either. Around mark 1:18 it looks to me like its using its arms to push aside branches as it enters the ravine. The kids sound sufficiently scared to me to rule out hoax.
    As far as kids go, I’m pretty sure I was braver and a whole lot more foolhardy in my youth than I am now and I could have seen myself acting very much like the kids in the video did. Ater all, many kids seem to think they’re invulnerable anyway This one may possibly have something to it!

28. Jeffro responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    I simply see a large blackish mass that appears to be hunched over but I’m not sure. It looks like it moves some branches out of it’s way and when the kid finally puts the camera back onto that area you can still see the branches moving. This couldn’t of been from a gust of wind as the surrounding branches in the area are not moving as much.

    If this was a bear or some other animal, wouldn’t that animal make some sort of noise as if it were being threatened? I mean the kid was running towards this creature which in my mind would of shown the animal in question a sign of aggression. I would think a bear would of stood up on two legs and made some sort of noise or movements in response to the kid running.

    This is just another one of those videos that could be real but in the end it just irritates the hell out of the viewer.

29. squatchwatcher responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    To me the quality of the video is just to bad to really see anything definite, just a furry blob moving behind a tree. As far as the reaction of the kids, well my kids can be pretty convincing when they want to play a joke on ol’ dad. Kids have a HUGE imagination, any of you with kids can vouch to this, so it wouldn’t be to hard to act a little frightened on camera. I still think its a couple of kids playing in their backyard with mom and dads video camera, but I hope I’m wrong!

30. squatchwatcher responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    On the other hand, if that is a real animal,possibly a bear, then these two kids must be making a video for “when animals attack 15!”. Who runs up to a big wild animal? I was young and dumb once to, but that dumb!

31. Fred Facker responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    I’m with the faction calling bear. If you slow the video down, you can see it looks over at the kids then drops to all fours and walks off. Last I checked neither bigfoot nor hoaxers walked around on all four legs.

32. squatchwatcher responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    I meant to say I was NOT that dumb.

33. loyalfromlondon responds: March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    Funny, I was just visiting Vancouver Island last week to go spelunking in Horne Lake. I remember on a trip last summer to the same cave system talking to my guide Andrew about Bigfoot sightings in the area.

    Too bad the film is of such bad quality, not to mention the strange foreword and odd timing of the upload. Personally, if Youtube (and the internet in its current form for that matter) had existed during my sighting back in the early 90’s, I would have uploaded the video THAT NIGHT.

34. dogu4 responds: March 21st, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    The only reason I’d call it a bear is because the incident happens in such prime bear habitat and the creature is definitely the kind of inky black that black bears are noted for having, but aside from those two facts (not insignificant, I realise) from what I can actually see I cant see anything that IS definitely a bear…no sight of the snout or ears or extremities and its sinking down as it’s moving away isn’t clear enough for me to see it’s going down to 4 legs…or 2 legs and 2 arms. Again maybe seeing the master-tape or if the video were processed for image capture it would reveal some more unambiguous details.

    What is still curious is the kid’s reaction…and I can attest to the fact that lots of people who see wild animals will push ahead and brush away branches and other people and even armed park-rangers as they go right up to take get their picture or video. For years I lead naturalist hikes through bear country and part of the introduction included my cautioning the group about doing exactly this and never the less when we were lucky and encountered bears or moose up close I had to guard my groups from heading right up to the critter; eyes glued to the eye-piece or flip screen…I kinda thought that because the person was looking at the scene through the video camera it would give them the impression that they were somehow at a safe distance.

    I’ve also spent years shooting event-videos and I know that shooting on the spur of the moment while moving through and around trees and plants while excited, looks exactly like what we see in this video. I’ve worked with lots of highly experienced videographers who worked professionally but were terrible at getting these kinds of shots…there are no “re-takes” when your shooting an event. I feel a surprise bigfoot sighting is bound to be even more chaotic than even the most elaborate bar-mitzvah or big Italian wedding.

    Sure would like some backstory on this one.

35. jchip responds: March 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    If you stop it just as it drops to all fours, you see a pretty distinct outline of a bear’s head, snout, and ears. Clearly a bear.

36. simianfever responds: March 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Put me in the bear camp on this one. It definitely appears to drop to all fours and at that point, movement wise, it looks like any other film I’ve seen of a bear heading away from the camera. If this wasn’t a cellphone camera then whatever compression was done takes all the detail out. I have to imagine the original film would show enough detail to prove it a bear beyond reasonable doubt.

37. sasquatch responds: March 21st, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    My guess?…Dad is the… “I don’t know, humanoid thing”.

38. jayman responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Again, too brief and indistinct to say anything with certainty. It seems to be something, but could be anything. Insufficient evidence.

39. elsanto responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    Having trained and performed as an actor, and having trained them, the kid who’s off-camera has some potential, to be sure. As someone observed, most kids who are hoaxing would overdo it. This kid hits the right tone of surprise/urgency. The kid holding the camera, however, is completely unconvincing, especailly when they check out the tracks.

    That aside, this video is just too darn unclear for me to rule “bear” or “sasquatch.” I don’t honestly know where people see ears or snout, but the way it drops down does make me think it might be a bear going down on all fours. The way it moves, however, doesn’t seem like a bear. At the same time, it doesn’t have the fluidity that we see in the Manitoba footage, or even the Freeman footage. And then there are the arms… that subued armswing makes me suspicious, as I’ll explain.

    Let’s suppose, as someone has already hypothesized, that they are kids who are out to hoax, and that they have been doing their homework by checking out this and other sites. Having done so, they would know that the arms are a dead giveaway (the BFRO site states this explicitly). That being the case, they would either have to invest a lot of time and money coming up with convincing prosthetics, or they would have to avoid showing too much arm. Guess which they did?

    That backgrounder with the staring, etc., also is suspect. No doubt these kids have heard of sasquatch, and I’m damn sure that they would realize what it was that was staring at them if they had got that good a look at it.

    Just my two cents.

40. harleyb responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    That’s a good attempt at a fake or hoax I should say. Looks promising at first glance though.

41. mystery_man responds: March 21st, 2007 at 10:48 pm

    The more I think about it, the more I take into account some things that have been said by other posters. This is indeed bear country and the thing does appear to drop on all fours. So that is two definite votes for the theory of this being a bear. What is there to support this being a Bigfoot? Well, the kids say it is some sort of “humanoid thing”. There is a hint of some bipedalism, but not enough to rule out a bear. That’s about it and I suppose in the heat of the moment, someone could get that impression seeing a bear on its hind legs. The camera jerk thing could be explained by a lot of things, but I still think its fishy, as was said before there are crime videos taken under just as much stress that don’t jerk around like this. But I am willing to overlook that for now in consideration that these were kids taken off guard and that is one seen where the reaction from them does seem genuine. I also guess some teens could be foolhardy enough to go in and investigate so quickly. I am starting to drift away from my initial thoughts that this is a hoax and am starting to think this was a bear that caught them off guard. They may have said they were “atheists” and whatnot because they knew they would be jumped on for this clip and after their initial excitement over filming it, came to suspect it was only a bear themselves. Considering the area where it was shot and what we actually see in the clip without reading anything into it, I’d say the evidence is overwhelmingly tilted towards this being a bear.

42. Cryptonut responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    Whether it’s fake or not, we’ll never know. However, people such as ourselves who are somewhat consumed about the subject of Bigfoot are very opinionated sometimes when trying to objectively evaluate evidence (as skimpy as it is most of the time) from our own perspective. They called it a humanoid, not a bigfoot, or a sasquatch. The thing is that some of the people that will run into these things may know very little about them, or may be even clueless as to what a bigfoot is. Kids like this running around in the forest are probably not thinking about how to collect evidence, nor what the issues are with collecting good evidence or what the issues and history behind the obsession that is Bigfoot. Evidence that most people who are up on the topic would want to pursue is probably well known to those who are engaged in the subject, but a couple of kids with a video cam in the forest….probably not. They may also not want to risk the scrutiny of someone telling them they are crazy if they say they saw a hairy human in the forest….a bear is a safe out. I will make no judgement on the film or the kids, but we have to be a little more open to the possibility that some of these “blobs” may indeed be real.

43. mystery_man responds: March 21st, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    Still not completely ruling out a hoax, though. Elsanto gave a good point that related to what I said before about people reading sites like this to learn what to do in a hoax. The arm is not shown too much because it could possibly be construed as a giveaway. That and making an effort to look for the tracks before turning off the camera because it’s “getting wet”, seems a tad forced, but that could just be my personal impression. Hmmm, I think this is most likely a bear, maybe a hoax, most probably not a sasquatch.

44. elsanto responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 am

    Another thought just hit me… if they did indeed see a bear, why would they go back and check the tracks? If one has seen and filmed a bear, one would not feel the need to check out the tracks at all.

    The fact that they did go back to film tracks suggests to me that they did indeed have some awareness of sasquatches (or at least some concept of them), which again leads me to believe that they might be trying to hoax us because the mistake that has been so often made with bona fide witnesses — thinking of Memorial Day Footage and Freeman) who have caught them on film is that they have failed to take pictures of tracks. (Patterson excepted, of course). This suggests to me that the kids had been doing their homework. I’m really leaning on the hoax side, here.

    The third cent.

45. mahee-kat responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am

    Where’s the DV quality tape?

46. Danno responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 am

    I think the footage of them stumbling onto the bear is real, they just decided to make it into a bigfoot video after the fact. The word “humanoid” was not mentioned at the intial sighting, only when they went to find the footprints. One way to impress your friends I guess.

47. joppa responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 am

    Thar’s a Bar!
    Whar?
    Over Thar!

    Could it be an ape?
    Eatin’ a grape?

    Naw, it’s on four paws.
    Watch out for the claws.

48. dogu4 responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 am

    Cryptonut makes some very valid points regarding these kids in particular and the vast majority of the rest of the population when it comes to becoming a witness on an issue like this.

    I went over to You Tube and left him a welcoming word and suggested he might want to check out the level of discussion around here, pointing out that it would be a lot more supportive and insightful than the kinds of comments he’s getting at You Tube (dude!). No answer yet but it had already been a week since he last posted and over a month since he first launched it. I can imagine a teenage guy finding a lot of the insinuation offensive. I hope he’ll consider answering a few well put questions, and he might have a few of his own.

49. DWA responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 am

    jeffro: As to your query

    ——————
    If this was a bear or some other animal, wouldn’t that animal make some sort of noise as if it were being threatened? I mean the kid was running towards this creature which in my mind would of shown the animal in question a sign of aggression. I would think a bear would of stood up on two legs and made some sort of noise or movements in response to the kid running.
    ——————–

    In my experience with bears - which includes out-and-out confrontations with both black and grizzly bears, in which no vocalizations occurred on the part of the bear - it is rare to hear any sound but the sound of the bear running away. This animal - whatever it was and I could see why people are saying bear - did exactly what I’d expect a black bear to do; that’s what most of the ones I’ve met in the woods have done. None of them has vocalized in any way that I can recall. Black bears usually respond to aggression by running. (A griz at that distance: not so good an idea.)

    It is even rarer - again given my experience - for a bear to rise up on its hind legs, a behavior I have never seen in the wild. They do that when they’re feeling curious - and not threatened.

50. dogu4 responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Bears are like people in some respect and by that I mean that while you can more or less predict how people will act, individual people (and individual bears) can have motives and drives that aren’t apparent and unless you know the full circumstances, you’d e wise to study the situation if you have the opportunity . The image of lunging snarling growling black bear is one that is favored by taxidermists, film-makers and other story tellers, but in fact, black bears appears to be adapted for life hidden in forests, using the cover that is natural to forests, and is more likely to quietly close-in on people or to dissolve into the background until it can see an advantage it can utilize. One would be mistaken to take as example of bear behaviour the attacks at the Laird Hot Springs in British Columbia a few years back as typical. It turned out that bear, were it human, would have been diagnosed as mentally disturbed, driven by hunger and injury..and who knows what else neurologically.

    The guy who shot the video is from that Vancouver region and seems to be well aware of how bears normally react, even if, to be safe, one knows not to approach wild animals. Let’s hope he responds and comes to pay a visit.

51. YourPTR! responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    It’s an interesting video that showed initial promise. However, it is very low quality and short even for the subject matter. After repeated viewing it does bare a remarkable resembalance to a bear fleeing from the camera on all fours and I feel that’s almost certainly what this footage represents. Next!

52. nanniegoat responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    My son is a professional hunting guide and he often has stated that it is not the bears that worry him but the big cats. Bears just flat out don’t like people and at the first sign of encroachment will high tail it out of there, just as this one did.
    Sadly, no bigfoot here.

53. ilexoak responds: March 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    This is a good case study on how bears can look “hominoid” when the stand to look around. Especially at a distance in the woods.

54. CHRISDCMC12 responds: March 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 am

    Looks more like a man or bear the video is so blurry you can’t see.

55. styxx679 responds: March 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 am

    Okay, I have a digi-cam, my girlfriend loves it and uses it everyday. I’ve had several digi-cams. I’ve never even held one that filmed anything of this quality. In this day and age, especially with kids, you’re not going to have a camera that’s so bad. If it’s a hoax, I think they lowered the quality to either hide a poor bigfoot costume or help to hide the features of the bear. The quality is the most suspicious aspect of this video aside from the boy filming looking side to side with the camera as his eyes

56. sschaper responds: March 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    I wish we could see the original quality, rather than the shrunk-down upload to that web site. And I wish we could look at it frame by frame, the first frame with the thing it it does look more ape-like than bear like, and as I watched it a few times, it no longer looks like it is getting down on its haunches with too-long legs for a bear, but like it is walking down a ravine.

    The pixellation is horrible.

57. mystery_man responds: March 24th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    sschaper- oh good, it’s not just my computer! I was thinking about how horrible the pixelation was too. It is so bad that i cannot honestly tell you if that kid is investigating an honest footprint or a hole in the ground.

58. asagan responds: March 26th, 2007 at 5:32 am

    This is so clearly a bear. You can easily see it walk away on all fours. These people must have never seen a bear before. Pathetic.

59. canuck responds: April 14th, 2007 at 3:11 am

    what I saw…

    1. The forearms are too long when standing to be a bear.
    2. Bigfoot walks both long and short distances on all 4’s.
    3. There is no snout.
    4. Bears run quickly from loud noises, this animal never broke into a run.
    5. On all fours all legs are too long.
    6. Estimating the height of the photographer’s eye level at 5′6″ and the terrain in front of the camera I would estimate this subject would be taller than 7ft. Why you ask? After spending 25 yrs. looking through a viewfinder you get a knack at judging distances and heights accurately. (hint)
    I watched this video from the point of view through the camera lens as though I was shooting the scene. (try it yourself).
    As a multiple sasquatch witness some very close, (10-15ft.) I would have to say my best guess is….. This was not a black bear!

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|