Maybe this will finally give us some answers.

Nobody encoutering something that size as an unkown in the open would be stupid enough to just film it’s charge at them, with a car available at their back.

It’s certainly an animal, in view of the movement.
It’s not a bear, as it has that simian cross-gait, short leaps, and angling. Bears will likely keep charging, while simians aren’t that agressive, just territorial with mostly bluff-charges (this one stops or dissapears to the side).
It didn’t react emmediately because it’s used to traffic, but standing there and staring it down is asking for a rise.
It’s pretty heavy like a gorilla, but the snout, ears, tail say Baboonie.
Forget the “shape shifting”.
The person in the mirror is a child, possibly not the same filmer.
If the “maw” shot is real, maybe it’s filmed through the window glass.

“Found in some estate sale” is so cliche it’s silly.
That’s the only way they could elicite “wonder”, because if it was their own film they’d have to have definitive answers.
“Gee….. do you think?”
No, I think any actual death would result in police inquiries, evidence, paperwork, all respectfully sequestered together. I really doubt someone misplaced their family member’s Actual Sudden Death Vid in the old magazines box, after seperating it to show to friends. They didn’t treat this video as significant, only a forgetable novelty.
If it were a real monster….??? “Oh that one, I think it’s in the laundry closet”?

The bear attack looks fake (hoax or not) :
no bear leaves the top half of a torso unmarked and the entire lower half, skeleton and all, cleanly removed and gone, and minus exsanguination.
The face isn’t visible because that’s harder to replicate convincingly.

It’s hard enough to explain a rare and reclusive Bigfoot species without remains, I won’t be buying a whole managerie of “new unknown”s or “werewolves”
that have hardly ever been cited.

The second video seems awfully fake. And clean. Are we really meant to believe that whatever it was ate THE ENTIRE lower half of a human?

Ultimately, no legitimate person submits an ambiguous, low resolution video (when a high-res version could be submitted) unless the intent is to conjure speculation. (A good mystery needs ambiguity.)

It’s clear that the second film could not be on the same reel as the first film so there is no tangible way of connecting the two. In which case, the validity/invalidity of one does not imply the other (considering the modern ability to manipulate or alter video imagery). You have to “believe” the implied story in the first vid to connect the second vid.

I am swayed to believe that the first video is an authentic home movie made by a boy messing around, filming stuff like furry cats in a field (with the animal mouth portion possibly added on digitally). There is nothing in the second vid that implies it cannot be created with a digital camera and some software. This does not guarantee that it is a fraud (it could intentionally be a fictional movie inspired by the first vid), but it is the way in which it was introduced to the online masses that suggests it is intended to be a hoax, or some sort of promo.