Hmm… I always wondered if it would be worth the cost to put a small team of hunters with trank darts (with appropriate guesstimation for weight, constitution, and mammalian primate issues) and a way to drop food and supplies weekly to them and have them track.

I, too, think this footage is almost certainly genuine.

One thing I may differ from most readers on, is the height of the hominid in the film. I read an earlier blog entry, here, that compared the two commercially available lenses, shooting a human subject of known height, at the estimated distance. My impression was that the lens was used, that would put this hominid at around 5 feet tall.

This would be consistent with some eyewitness accounts I have been privileged to hear, over the last 30 years or so. It seems that the unexpected and alarming nature of encounters, combined with the observation of a massive muscular body and an imposing presence, tend to result in overestimations of the height. Also, the “macho factor” seems to clash with a fear response; many men (and some women) would feel better saying they were frightened by a 7 or 8 foot tall behemoth, than a 5-footer. I once observed one fresh eyewitness change his story in this way, and this way alone, when faced with a different listening audience. (A child who lived in the area of the sighting, namely me, versus a group of adults including rather “macho” men. I feel he told me the truth, that the hominid was only about 4.5 to 5 feet tall, in this case, but nonetheless frightening, imposing in his demeanor, very muscular, quick on his feet, and notably stealthy in the woods.)

Perhaps many footprints are overlooked because they aren’t of the expected size? I suspect so. Perhaps there are some giants, I can’t say there aren’t. However, exaggeration of height is a factor to consider. Eyewitness reports often include wildly varying height estimates, and it’s my opinion that is likely due to this height exaggeration phenomenon.

I personally believe that the footage is real.

There are too many small anomalies in the footage, like the protruding bulges, breasts, and so forth.

One other clue to me is that of the “shine” of the fur.

I’m an avid hunter; my father started taking me with him when I was 5 years old. I’m now 45, and if you spend time in the woods, you learn that animals have a different “look” than the forest/field itself.
I feel that it is the natural oil of the fur/feathers or “shine” is a dead giveaway. Once you learn to look for that, it is easy to distinguish an animal from landscape and you can see animals in various conditions and great distances.