Okay, this is like offering Jello as desert after a seven course gourmet meal coming right on the heels of the Dr. Ketchum report, still some of us have to get on with things and keep the lantern burning, even in the face of the sun.

I found this video while looking into another account of a bigfoot caught in a police officers dashboard camera that turn out an admitted hoax by some local teens. Of course going from an admitted hoax to a video this clear sets off some natural mental blocks that say to me that this is probably fake too. Yet the video below possesses some merits discussed in the analysis.

Taken as real this video contains the best footage of a Bigfoot face I have ever seen, but listen to the analysis and then I will have a few comments on some key points.

Okay, you have watched the video now. You have, haven’t you?

I am going to address the main characteristics described in the analysis.

First is the described Large Nocturnal Eyes. I am sorry to say that what the analysis describes as large nocturnal eyes with no whites showing simply appears to me to be deep set eyes beneath a heavy brow where you cannot actually see the eye. Nor do I see an eye that is especially large in proportion to the face.

For reference here is the Bigfoot face in question:

And a selection of Nocturnal eyed faces:

Okay, someone out there, someone like me, might criticize these choices for none of them being primates, and further that the raccoon is not specifically nocturnal, but spend a lot of time active during the day as well. And to me I would say, pooh. I specifically chose these creatures because they are different species and because all are at least partially nocturnal and share a very specific characteristic regarding their eyes. They are all large and/or prominent. None are deep set in the face, all are easily identifiable, and in the case of the raccoon, yes it is absolutely a species as comfortable during the day as it is at night. How many daytime bigfoot sightings are there?

Next subject the nose. Granted this video as viewed on You Tube is not spectacularly detailed, but it shows enough for me to question this:

Here is Patty from the Patterson/Gimlin film.

And the new guy again:

Is it just me or does the new face seem to have made a visit Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon?
My opinion of course, and there are variations across any species, but for a creature this size, that seems a small nose to breath through, let alone use for any kind of scent detection. Still, it is possible Bigfoot is a mouth breather.

Mentioned with the nose is the size of the lip on this creature and as we have little frame of reference for the actual size of this creature, and as the size of the lip is no indication that this could or could not be a mask or other make-up, I personally do not invest much in its description.

Next is the anatomy of the neck, as is a common feature commented upon in analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film. Again, what I have to say on this is purely my opinion, however, in analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film it is commented that the manner in which Patty turns her entire body to look back is because the heavy musculature of her neck does not permit her to turn her head to the same degree a human can. The subject in this video does not seem to have that same limitation. I certainly see some turn of the shoulder as the subject filmed turns to look, but not more than I would say a human might naturally do. As for the motion of muscles and tendons beneath the skin, this video is not high enough quality for me to comment.

That the video is taken through a mesh screen does make it more difficult for this image to be a CGI to the point of being highly unlikely. But as much as I would like to be convinced this is real, I am stuck with questions.

[email protected]

The following two tabs change content below.

Henry Paterson

Editor at GhostTheory
I would like nothing more than the proof of various cryptids, alien civilizations, even alien visitors to be found. But that proof will come only through rigorous science and objective analysis, and by holding evidence to the highest standards of scrutiny. Born in south eastern Pennsylvania, i have found myself at one time or another living in Chicago, Cleveland, Raleigh-Durham, on the island of Kaua'i and finally landed on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. I have turned my hand to various professions from early work in 3d graphics to historic building restoration, carpentry and log home building to working in a bronze art foundry on the WWII Veterans Memorial. Currently I am a writer, script writer and working for a non profit organization called Empowerment Through Connection which is involved in equine assisted therapy for veterans, at risk teens and women.

Latest posts by Henry Paterson (see all)

  • Rmon

    His tent was only 4 meters away or something? How convenient. ‘Ol Sas here was not so shy.

  • Dung Shooken

    We’re getting closer people!

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    Well, there’s several problems with this: one…like most Bigfoot vids we have very little frame of reference for where we are, who is there and no framing before or after the “event” captured on video. What happened afterwards? And YES, you can make a suit that can emulate musculature, the Mythbusters could make one in an afternoon if they just had to make the upper torso and head. Also, I don’t see any mouth movement. The closeup is just too fuzzy to really make that out, unless you’re a believer and not trying to be objective. Also, I don’t see any eyes whatsoever, so the whole “nocturnal vs non-nocturnal” stuff has no merit. Most telling is we don’t see the whole “creature.” Also going back to, yes you can make a convincing suit with working bone-musculature underneath…again, the guy in the video wants it to be Bigfoot. When I look at it, I see what he’s talking about, but it could also just as well be the shifting of an appliance. Having the “creature” half hidden by a tree, but this close to human activity, only makes it more suspicious. If Bigfoot was this curious about people and came this close to a camp with tents and whatever else must have been there, we would have Bigfoot in a cage by now.

    But most damning of all is…comparing other video/pictures/illustrations to somehow verify that this is real is pretty ridiculous, considering that all that stuff has itself not been proven as real. The guy in the video is using the other material as if it’s an Audubon Field Guide to Sasquatch, which is hilarious. “See, the head looks the same as in this drawing this guy did!” OMG.

  • Arclight

    Two words: INCONCLUSIVE and UNAUTHENTICATED…

  • WadeBaker

    Looks pretty good to me. I’ll believe it’s a hoax when I see somebody duplicate it and have it appear as convincing.

  • Well, we will know in April.
    You see the person who shot this video is Rick Dyer, who was also one of the hoaxers who claimed he had a bigfoot in a freezer a few years ago. Now there are claims that he shot this particuar bigfoot in the presence of a documentary crew. The movie is claimed to be in possession of the body and holding it in storage until April when the documentary is to be released.

    That story is here:
    http://www.ghosttheory.com/2012/12/14/another-dead-bigfoot
    They have not responded to requests for information

     

  • I really want to believe…

  • As you correctly point out there are no conclusively proven pictures of an unknown larger than human primate in the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere, the only comparisons available are those that at least can be more fully analyzed, as is the case with the Paterson/Gimlin film. The inconsistencies in the Patterson/Gimlin film which make it highly unlikely to have been a person in a suit (which I will not bother to list here but are worth consideration) can be used to point out inconsistencies in the video that is the subject of this story make it unlikely that they are, at the very least, the same creature and at worst inconsistent hoaxes.

    I think if you actually read the article you will find that we agree as I pointed out that the eyes cannot be seen, as opposed to what others have claimed about this face, and that is the reason for the nocturnal vs diurnal comparison. If they were nocturnal eyes they would be more prominently visible. For which I included examples.

    None of the article is written by the man who shot the video.

  • My biggest thing is we once had much less in the way of forests in the Pac Northwest than we do now. We didn’t find “Bigfoot” then, why would we now.

    Still, I prefer to give at least some credence to Native American lore, and perhaps there is something out there.

    But until we find it, I’ll disbelieve it.

  • This is true Derrick, but put the reduced forest into perspective. The reduction, I am assuming you are 0’s here, was largely due to logging, an intrusive and extremely noisy process, easily avoided by a reportedly wary and observant creature. And also keep in mind that there many reports of encounters stemming from the incresed presence of humans in the forests.

    However much logging there was, there is still a lot of relatively inaccessible deep forest along the Cascades and the Olympics (where I live btw, where are you)

  • Gunnar

    I really want to believe that this video is real, and the picture from the Patterson/Gimlin film, featured in this article, only proves the validity of the film, as both pictures show a very similar creature (so, no, I don’t think the nose looks small).
    What gets me, is the camper film shows a creature who bears an incredible similarity to another creature.
    “Harry” from the movie Harry and The Hendersons.
    Taken from that point of view, the camper film suddenly looks like an incredibly huge hoax…..or did Hollywood get it right?