you can see what appears to be an eye blinking…

I don’t have software to slow down the video but it sure looks like an eye blinking to me..

and it doesn’t look like a human eye since there are no “whites” of the eye..

looks like something with a grey skinned face looking back at the camera..and blinking right before he turns away..

Anyone have software to slow down and analyze this?

Over the years I have seen, (as I’m sure many of you have, hence my post) many supposed sasquatch videos. Occasionally I run across that same gait, uncanny posture and as well a certain something I can’t quite explain, upon viewing a particular clip. The particular impressions created as a result, is a very particular culmination of several traits, which when combined scream ‘Authentic’. The traits can be alluded to as, confident, aggressive, determined, and of great physical strength, agile, deft, fast, vigilant and bold yet secretive. These impressions are created against the background of a very noticeable and particular peculiar gait and posture.

The tiny glimpse we get at 0:05-0.06 in the video is a perfect example of this set of impressions I’m left with. I’ve related the same feeling in regard to other videos and referenced in other posts here on Cryptomundo. Interestingly the subject videos depicting these impressions are all similar in their particular circumstances.

If what I’m being impressed with is indeed real; then the sasquatch is an extraordinarily magnificent creature which could never be kept in captivity, say, as gorillas are.

One of the very important things I’ve come to rely upon in successfully hunting big game is to listen to, and often, follow this still, quiet inner voice, (Hunches?). It has proven itself countless times over the years, and it seems the more remote the habitat the more important (and louder) this hunch-voice becomes, sometimes to the point of seemingly screaming, (often in cases where imminent danger lurks?).

Scientific? No, at least not in the way we normally understand it. An absolute reality? Absolutely, and without question!

In my humble opinion and based on what I explain above; the video is most probably authentic.

Also regarding the “eye”–the size seems to be way too large to match the subject in the other frames proportionately.

a personal and sincere observation no less! …I really can see acres of fabric at 23 secs!

I’m disappointed that you can’t. But for now will you keep on trying?

It could be your secret eureka moment!

Regards.

You’re just right. And they’re wrong.

I did what you suggested. It is no clearer at full screen than at small screen.

Inconclusive. Unless somebody goes there and finds something interesting, this could be anything. OK, anything kinda human size to somewhat bigger.

Going there seems quite practically possible, as some dude with a videocam was, well, just there. Bigfoot researchers do this all the time.

Dr. DWA

P.S. One extremely obvious point that seems to be very much glossed over by all of The Certain is that the very disagreement so obvious on this blog is virtual proof of my assertion. Inconclusive.

P.P.S. You’re pontificating a wee tad.

But I say don’t waste your time to undertake such efforts with this one! I’m sure! ….and here’s why!

…Sometimes a single clear frame can speak a thousand words, and although not crystal clear the view we get of this bipedal figure around the 23 second mark speaks volumes; with the clip expanded to ‘full frame’ on ones computer and with approximately two seconds worth of ’bipedal motion’ quickly replayed over and over again; visual familiarity sets in, and the image gets evermore clearer!

What can be ascertained at this point in the clip is the shortness of the arm length (very un-simian), and a figure not covered with hair or fur, but instead with swathes of fabric; draped over the figure in general and in particular the right arm, and also hanging down from the side(s) of the head. Also something akin to the frontal brim of a hat turned upwards can just about be seen. There is absolutely no conical head to be seen at all (only imagined)!

Ghillie suit for short? I don’t know but I can definitely see what Mausinno saw from his earlier posting; his comments have unfortunately been passed over; he clearly sees what I clearly see!!!

Please note; no personal ’brik bats’ here; hurled at others from a self pontificating ‘sacred pen on high‘, no irrelevant tangents undertaken or pompous self indulgent drivel administered to other bloggers in a patronising way. …just my keen and hopefully factual observations from the most telling two seconds of this intriguing clip!

Thanks for listening……

;D

Scaryeyes, you are wrong. Many people here are telling you so, and you should listen to them.

This is a BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN. Problem is, we can’t tell whether it is a biological specimen of a bear, or of a dude in a ghillie suit.

Listen to the certainty up there, man! They KNOW what it is, despite not a scrap of evidence that anyone could go anywhere with.

People. People.

PEOPLE!

Does Dr. DWA need to keep rolling out this lecture? Please.

Not only is a scientist forbidden, by the rules of his trade, to scoff (AT ANYTHING), he is also forbidden to pronounce (ON ANYTHING) without evidence! To pronounce without evidence is to undermine one’s scientific credibility, and yet scientists pronounce on crypto subjects in just this way, every day. They feel, you see, that they are being called upon to Be The Expert, and experts, for some damn reason, have to be expert on ANYTHING they are asked.

There is only one take on this video. Interesting, but inconclusive. (If you don’t find these interesting, um, why do you even look at them?)

There is no evidence that it is a bear; a human; a bigfoot; or anything. It is just about equally likely to be any of the first three (contrary to what the BFRO may have on file, there are many reported sasquatch sightings from this part of Alaska). You can’t just use statistical likelihood, because there are no earmarks pointing to any species…other than the ones people are making up here. What the hell good does it do to pronounce it a bear or a human based on statistical likelihood, or pixel mirages, when for all we know it could be something else, something cool, and you are discouraging anyone who might want to do the only thing that can be done to help us find out, which is go there and look for evidence?

l don’t know what it is. And if you’ve been paying attention lately you know we’ll never find out. Because more than likely no one will do a followup investigation. More than likely if someone does, we’ll never hear about the results (probably because somebody will toss the sample).

But one thing you never want to do is discourage somebody from doing followup because he doesn’t want to be laughed at by all the people who think this is a biological specimen of a bear in a ghillie suit.

So, yeah, scaryeyes, it’s a video.

At least that’s what *I* think. But many here seem a lot more certain than me. Although how they get that way only God knows….hey, maybe He’ll tell us today.

And finally. With regard to “there’s every reason to presume it’s human if there’s no evidence that it’s anything else,” you can’t presume it’s ANYTHING, unless evidence that it is that very thing is right there on the video. The rules that hold science together as a discipline flat forbid it. That was a free hint why crypto isn’t a science, yet.