Rick Noll did some very thorough background work concerning the actual site of this video footage.

If you go to Bigfoot Forums you should still be able to find some old threads there where Rick’s input was very interesting.

RSR!

Although the analysis in the report doesn’t exactly sway me, it’s interesting to read.

Note also that there were about 100 people in the vicinity. Which makes that location, on Memorial Day weekend, a place a runner could most plausibly be.

Any information about the setting? How remote is it? How likely is it that a human would be running there? Is there a road or trail anywhere near where the figure was first and last seen?

My thoughts as to what it could be:

1. Runner. (A petite one, apparently. Either female, or a very small guy.) Wearing a dark hoodie and same-color pants. Not out for a hoax; just out for a run.

2. Sasquatch. (A small one, either a juvenile or a subadult or small - quite small, bordering on dwarf - adult female. But then, we have a pretty wide size range in adults too, don’t we…?)

No other possibilities. NO WAY it’s an ape suit. Show me one other instance of anyone in an ape suit moving over terrain like that with that much ease.

But we’ll never prove what it is. We can’t.

I think that sasvid analysis falls victim to the Scientific Omniscience Presumption (SOP), which cripples all scientific movement into the unknown.

We presume someone would HAVE to have shot a sas , or hit one with a car, or photographed one, or videotaped one, etc. Well, all those things have happened, if you read reports, and all of them more than once. We further presume that if any of those things would have happened, the long rough road to confirmation would inevitably have been traveled; there’s NO WAY it couldn’t have! Something this big, running all over the continent, science would HAVE to know about by now. I mean, science knows everything!

We do the same thing with photo and video evidence. The latest technology, we presume, HAS to tell us what’s in that footage. There’s NO WAY that science and the latest technology can’t discover everything, right now. If science says it isn’t so, we presume, it can’t be so. If we can’t see what is in that video, we make stuff up, because this technology CAN’T come back with an “inconclusive.” IT JUST CAN’T.

Well, our brave troops in Iraq can tell you about the limits of the latest technology. And science, if we just read the papers, is finding out stuff it didn’t know – or finding out it was wrong – all the time.

No one will EVER prove what Patty is, or what this video shows. We need to find the animal, and science needs to confirm it.

Get over it!

I can’t tell what is in the Memorial Day footage. And I don’t think anyone can. Too far away; too ambiguous. I reject the debunk “explanations” just as readily as I do the “ape” ones.

100% correct DWA. It’s too inclusive to ’show’ anything of note.

Claims of clearly a mask being seen lifted, complete with white latex insides as some have insisted on other forums, are as fanciful as those claims that insist they can clearly see a baby or young one moving around on top.

I’m open to the possibility that the Memorial Day footage wasn’t a hoax at all. It could be a juvenile sas. It could be a person, running, in an outfit appropriate for that purpose. (Hoody, sweat pants. Many run in clothes intended to generate a heavy sweat.) So no one needs to have been hoaxing, or hoaxed. (Unless one can count thinking a person is a sas “being hoaxed.”) But no one can tell that for certain, or for anything near certain; and there doesn’t seem any way that anyone has told me to show that it’s what it’s purported to be. My gut is that a human - who again does not have to be in an ape suit to look like that, at that distance - can definitely handle the terrain in that way, that fast.

As to P/G, as I’ve said before: the evidence indicates not only that sas frequently make retreats either that leisurely or more so. Frequently they don’t retreat at all; they threaten until the observer does. Or doesn’t, as has also happened, in which case the sas then, invariably, does.

Either way, I can see a scientist pushing farther into the topic based on a careful analysis of P/G. Just look at the ones who have.

Not the Memorial Day video, though. Not enough there.

1. If the Freeman footage is what I understand it to be (Is this the one that we see the famous still of one svelte sas?), it looks just like a person in a suit. Both Patty and the anecdotal evidence seem to jibe. The Freeman doesn’t fit.

2. I can’t tell what is in the Memorial Day footage. And I don’t think anyone can. Too far away; too ambiguous. I reject the debunk “explanations” just as readily as I do the “ape” ones. As I said, at least we can tell it’s a bipedal animal. The kind is VERY open to question.

3. The only other piece of photo evidence I put anywhere near Patty’s league (and, I guess it follows, the only other one that really intrigues me): the Peguis, Manitoba, video from March 2007. (Go to Youtube; it still should be there.) It says much for the field that I haven’t heard a thing about this one since pretty much that time. As a friend of mine who isn’t prone to making pronouncements lightly says: if Patty is Bigfoot, then this is. (Oh. And let’s not debate that one here. You can find the earlier Cryptomundo threads, and my thoughts are all over those.)

The P/G bigfoot is walking along without apparently caring that it has been caught out in the open by two men on horseback.

The Freeman bigfoot is almost cowlike, merely moseying along, even though it has been discovered by a human. Like the P/G bigfoot, rather odd behavior for a secretive, ever elusive animal.

In the Memorial Day footage, the bigfoot is running very quickly from one point to another.
What is the difference in the behavior of these three subjects and what difference does it make?

If all three are hoaxes, then the behavior of the subjects tells the tale. The P/G and Freeman footage were hoaxed by the filmmakers themselves, and there was no threat to the subject (who was in on it, of course). On the other hand, the Memorial Day film was a hoax perpetrated by the subject on innocent folks with a camera. The subject had to hurry in order to make a clean getaway.

I also think the Freeman footage is much better than either the Memorial Day or Redwood footage. But, Patty is still queen.