This topic has been discussed alot. Here is a youtube clip which contains clips of the footage at the halfway point. http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKfuZepS68A Footage of the figure is about halfway through.


I'm aware there are multiple threads on this topic, however, many I have read are doing a huge disservice to the footage. Quite frankly 50% of the people are not seeing the Bigfoot in question even as it stares the camera in the face.

What is to me the most clear encounter with a Sasquatch-like animal that I have ever seen on video (besides PGF), has been turned into a terrible blobsquatch escapade by those who don't actually see the figure (no fault of their own, really). I don't mean to step on anyone's toes here, but it's bound to happen.

I have spoken to Scott Herriott (aka Yetifan) on the phone about this. We have agreed that people are still under the wrong impression of where the Bigfoot is in the 'staredown' footage. Scott was, as you know, one of the two men involved that day of the footage. I completely trust the authenticity of the footage based on his account of the invesigation, to this day he does not pressure people into accepting that there is a Sasquatch in that film, even though, if you look at it in the RIGHT way... it is so obvious as to seem unbelievable. Almost so obvious as to bring about the question of a hoax (which is extremely unlikely in my opinion.)


So here goes...

This is the figure staring into the camera.

Click to view attachment

Do you see it? This screen cap was taken from a clip that actually highlights the facial area. You should see two eyes, most notable the left eye (right side to us) which is brightly lit and peering out from behind the branch. You should also notice the other eye, closer to the trunk of that nearby tree. And finally, you should be able to see the enormous frame of the primates head.

Don't see it? Honestly I don't think many people do.

This is where alot of focus is unfortunately being paid.

Click to view attachment

This bright grey area is very prominent and is being pointed out as the face. It is not. In fact, you can see that it is instead the crest of the animals head. While I admit that in blobsquatch terms you can create a face from what appears to be an eye and a nose, the 'eye' itself has zero definition and the nose is nothing more than an over exposed leaf...

no, this area is part of the massive mountain gorillian skull that rests a full 8 inches above the REAL face and eyes. This is a massive primate with an enormous head and the eyes in relation to the tip of its crest will help you see it.


Click to view attachment

Hopefully you see the same thing I do. The outline of the animal in this footage resembles a mountain gorrila. This is a serious implication.



Click to view attachment


The figure has a large, domed head very similar to a Mountain Gorrilla. You can see actual skin tone on the face. You can see an ear. You can see a single nostril and both eyes. All of this fits within the frame of a large primate similar to a Gorrilla.

Simply put I can't make it any clearer than this


Click to view attachment


This is the figure I see. This is the face that those who 'see it' are seeing as well. This is the figure that slowly moves in the footage. At one point it very slightly tilts its gaze up at Scott and Daryll and you can see the top of its head move very clearly. The movement is so pronounced at the top of his head that people are mistaking it for the actual face.

It's easy to see why the brightest, highest point on the figure seems to move the most. But it is not the face. It is the top of the head, and it is large. Even a small movement of the animals head would be greatly pronounced by the high domed skull. And you can see this clearly in the footage if you look for it.

The Klamath video is well over 15 years old and quite simply I think it has been put through it's paces enough that there is little hope of people giving it a second review, or trying to REALLY see the figure. But it's there. Scott and Darryl were the only two on that mountain and they caught something on footage I believe to be a Bigfoot.

Other people did not see the painfully obvious, and if they did, it most likely seemed a hoax to them. There is also the unfortunate effect of people blobsquatching the hell out of this footage. They point out faces that aren't there. Eyes that aren't there. The figure is as plain and obvious as Scott and Darryl could have ever hoped, yet it is has been misinterpreted to the point that the potency of this evidence has been kind of drained.

Once the details are obvious it is almost hard not to see a massive primate staring at the camera.

This is a Bigfoot on film if you ask me. At this point it's of no consequence whether people see it, don't see it, claim it a hoax, etc. What's there is there. I just hoped to help people see it like I do, and everytime I hear someone say that they see the figure crystal clear it makes me feel alot better.
Thanks for reading.

I just had a quick followup with Scott and it seems alot of this was my conjecture :biggrin: I certainly can't cite any references on the idea of the animal having a large crested head and shoulders visible in the footage. These are things I thought I saw myself very clearly and tried to outline, but as I now understand it, it was just more surrounding foliage It seemed so crystal clear to me but I certainly can't argue with the source.

Regardless, the reference for the eyes is the same. They are still outlined correctly by myself and the footage that highlights it. There is no argument about where the eyes are, every detail surrounding that was my own making though. The facial features, the large crested head, I can still see these things (sorry, can't shake it), but it is not what Scott claims is in the footage, that claim was my own. The only thing we correctly agreed on was the eyes, they are not in the grey area cited often above them.

That's ok Dan, I can sort of see it, but there's lot of foliage in between that obscures the figure.

Still, I like your hypothesis.

I can't even come close to agreeing that this is the clearest piece of evidence since the P/G film.
Sorry, I tried, I just don't see it.

I have to agree with mkianni.

If you have to draw lines on the photo to point to where you should focus, it is not clear evidence, it is opinion.

MontanaDan wrote:





Since I was there that day on the hill and saw the eyes from approx. 40 ft. away and also saw them glow red after about 10 minutes I know, basically, where stuff in the video is. The dark area is where the eyes were and it was no more than a couple of feet off the ground.
The rest of the speculation in regards to THAT piece of video is, in my opinion, incorrect blobsquatching. The other piece of video shot by the father (we each had video cameras in hopes of finding footprint evidence following a sighting a few weeks earlier at the base of the hill by two local kids...the guy with me being the father of one of them) again, in my opinion, shows, in all probability, a head, shoulder and upper arm of a sasquatch.

I felt then and continue to feel that the video is virtually worthless, scientifically speaking (at least in a "proof" sense), since "What can be objectively gleaned from it?"


You can find a moving gif. of what I believe to be the head and shoulder here....


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...chdom&st=25


It's in the seventh post down...that blobby thing coming if from the left was the father's finger, pointing.



Also, for a fairly complete description of the events surrounding what happened...go here...


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...chdom&st=50


It's the ninth post from the top.


Anyone know how to copy that gif over here? I can't find it on my computer. Thanks.

Click to view attachment

(edited by moregon add animated gif by request)

yeah so .......freak me out man. This was and still is my fav BF sighting and now that I have seen the footage am more of a beliver.


Danger

I'm still a little cross eyed trying to get a grip on this, although the gif does more justice to my senses than the still with the linesquatch.
Now that I have many questions to go along with my tired eyes, I'll read through the thread link you provided to try and find some answers.

I am probably one of the 50% that did not see anything the first time around,but after reading this post and viewing the Youtube video over and over (just the sighting part) I am now convinced that something was there but just can't "see" it. Something moves slightly and is there but I just can't make out the eyes and shoulder in the clip. This is high on the freaky scale for sure made even better by reading the account first hand.

I forgot to mention the color, if this thing was very light colored do you think that it knew that it did not blend in well with the foliage, or was it just doing what is instinctive unaware of its ineffective coloration.

that shoulder looks so out of place unless there is 2 of them??

Scott, thanks for clearing all that up! I should have took a hint from myself at the whole blobsquatching tendency with this footage I saw alot into it that I guess wasn't there. At the same time, I agree with FanofSquatch 100%

Agreed, unless instead of the no-neck sasquatch we're seeing his cousin, the 12" long neck sasquatch.

Can anyone post some stills of the head only(from the animated gif)?
That would really help me

same here

White haired or gray-haired?
If gray haired and still has that much meat on the delts, lord have mercy.
But the angle of the shot is deceptive to me, especially if coming from a down-hill looking up-hill angle of view. Thank goodness there was a shot of something, because with the high-ground perspective of the Sas. they would have cleared the area ahead of time. Pregnant female about to deliever? I know its a stretch. Just doesn't make sense but I'll take any video I can get.

This is all I get from the animated jpeg.
And I'm serious.

Pennywise mask

Every time I look at this I see the same thing, it looks to me like a decontamination suit or a space suit or something along those lines. I just don't get what a lot of others are seeing here and interpreting as a sasquatch.

I certainly mean no disrespect to the person or persons who had the encounter, I guess I just had to be there.

I think maybe, just maybe, i'm starting to see the right angle ahving watched it now over & over & over & over.....

I'm sure i'm looking at the right area, in fatc i ma, but i'm just not sure what exactly i should be looking for ( if that makes sense as i know what i am supposed to see but just can't )

Very frustrating for me & i just hit myself on the head twice !!

Could you post a GIF of that?

Unfortunately it's a Bobbysquatch & no one wants that !!!

The trouble is that a video or film is not a very good representation of what the photographer saw - I took a photo the other day of someone I could see as clear as day walking in some woods - when I looked at the photo later, I had a hard time recognising the person - the picture looked grainy and distant, and this I suspect is the real problem with Scott's video - try as I might, I just can't see what is in the video - there is something moving, I'll accept that, but I can't see what it is, but I suspect that Scott got a much clearer view on the day in question.

I think if I had seen a sasquatch, and the video came out like Scott's, I'd be pissed - really pissed, and I have to give Scott a lot of credit for sticking with it - he has always been upfront and willing to answer any questions about it - even with people like me who can't see it.

That said, I've ordered a copy of Scott's DVD (don't know why it has taken so long for me to do so), and I'll sit down with a good monitor and see what I can see when the disc arrives.

Drew, I got the very same mental picture when I first viewed the photo. If that is a photo of a squatch, he must be suffering from some mange like disease.

It can shapeshift? Is this why we can't find it?

Ok well i've seen the Video & i can now see SOMETHING...

I've watched it over & over & over again & ( forgetting i was looking in the wrong place as i thought ) i believe i saw something that was certainly alive as its head move unquestionably ut it's tough to work out what it actually is really..

It's low to the Floor right & the Camera angle that Owens is filming from has Owens above the Creature ??

Is it crouching or just maybe trying to camorflauge itself ??

Daryl Owens says it's 7ft but if it's crouching, how would he be able to guess that ??

here is the face I see in it. The oval on the right contains a closed eyelid. The inverted V is the shape of the nose and the 3 lines indicate the lips.

Having actually been there that day I can categorically say that the above is not a face. I was no more than forty feet away and the objects outlined
are out-of-focus branches closer to the camera than the actual eyes and nose. The eyes and nose were actually just below the right eye outline above and farther back.
The creature's right eye can be seen in the still. I would illustrate it but I'm completely Photoshopped unskilled.

I have to admit that I really skimmmed the 1st thread and was simply looking at the picture with fresh eyes, no basica opinion of what I was looking for. In reading back I realize that the initial post was done with yourseslf as an advisor and I now see the face as it is described.... I have to admit though the face I saw while not the right face sure doesn look real.

To be honest, and again, only a humble opinion, I don't see what is so amazing about this photo. If you have to draw an outline around the supposed face to point it out, it can't be that compelling... and it isn't. No more wasted breath.... can someone please bring me a carcass?

When I first saw this photo my attention was immediatly drawn to this figure.



I didnt even notice the other one until it was mentioned.

Hi

This is my first time reading this thread, checking out the pictures i can see the other image but it is too much guessing not enough picture, as pointed out there is a little BF in the picutre also, i gotta give a no way on this one, but an A+for effort

Tim

I bought Scott's DVD for myself as a Christmas present, and was fortunate enough to be able to watch it on the big new flatscreen HD television set my hubby bought himself as a Christmas present. (Hmmm, can you guess who spent more?!) But I digress...

Anyway, there are two images that Scott filmed. First there is the hard-to-see face hidden in the bushes. It can easily be argued this is a very blobsquatchy image; I for one have never been able to see anything in the numerous discussions about it here. However, in the DVD you can definitely a bit of movement of this figure so it makes it easier to determine there is indeed something there.

The second image in the film is the most intriguing. It is what I like to call the "Stormtrooper" figure further up the slope. I have no idea what that thing is. Is it a sasquatch? Another, as-yet-unseen crypto of the woods? A guy who took a wrong turn on his way to the local Star Wars convention? I have not a clue. But it is there, and it's apparent from the crew's reactions that they are completely freaked out by it. Even my hubby, who is a 100% BF skeptic, was a little perplexed as to how to explain this part of the film.

Overall, BTW, the DVD is very well done and quite funny in parts. I'm not sure if Scott is still in the filmmaking business, but I think a sequel would be fun to watch!

I saw the face from the first clip first off, look for the orangeish red glowing eyes like most reports involve and when you see it you WILL s**t bricks, I caught the apelike nose and facial wrinkles as well. But in the second clip I only saw movement, I couldn't make the figure out again.

I know I saw a better video copy of this somewhere?

Anyone know where it is online?

I think I saw part of the arm, but the editing in that show kept cutting away. I would like to see the clip without the interviews cut in to see if there was any movement. That would be proof that something was there.

Same here...............really poor video.

You can see whatever you want to see in this video, just like finding pictures in the clouds.
It's just a jumble of foliage with shadows smeared by poor video resolution. [And a very excitable narrator with a big imagination].
I've seen the video over and over, seen MANY enhancement stills and you know what? There ain't no primate there.
There's not even a blobsquatch there. I've even suspended my disbelief and tried to IMAGINE what people claim to see in it. Nope. NADA.

Hypothetically, if there were a squatch there, the video is still too poor quality to be of any use.

And your conclusion is exactly the proof we need to find out WHY we can't catch one, video-tape one, or even get a picture. They are so much like us, genius in their own rights. They are just like humans who instead of being made to live in a society as we do, are instead created to live in the wild, amongst(And living off of) animals that horrify us at the sight of them(Lions, Tigers, and Bears oh my!) And their only worry in life or danger to their lives is their brothers in the city, us, even if it is a very minor danger at that!

I think that in order for us to get what we want considering this subject we have to put our selves in their shoes. I believe that since they are so much like us, and even may be human just like we are, that we can come to understand their strengths and weaknesses and eventually catch one or just photograph one.

Think as though you lived a life in the wild with only one danger, what could you do to protect yourself from this minor threat? If they are human then they would be as smart as we were, but they would be more focused when it came to hiding themselves in the wild and just general knowledge of their surroundings and wilderness! Their are stories of researchers tracking one, following the tracks. The tracks continue for a long time, then go up onto a fallen tree and go to the end of the tree, jump off of it and just end right their. Come to find out the Giant had walked to the end of the tree and jumped off for fact, but then backtracked, walking BACKWARDS perfectly over its own tracks to the middle of the fallen tree and jumped off the left side and walked to a creek and followed the creek. Of course by the time they realized what the Giant had done, it was long gone walking in the creek as to not make any more tracks! Genius!

They are their, just as they are in this video, it is just that human eyes are more attracted to movement than anything, and these creatures blend in very well with tree bark and can stand perfectly still. So all we see is a stump or part of a tree when it is a Sasquatch studying us! Most people wont see them unless they start moving, and they know it! We underestimate this target far to much, and to many of us have tried to kill them or mistreated them on sight!

I agree that alleged squatches are smart, freakishly dextruous and elusive - but those points don't put a squatch in this video.

This is a case akin to the "badgeman" image from the photo at dealy plaza on JFK's big day (no offense intended).

Cheers! I'm off to a wedding. The groom is a fellow once described as a "midget Sasquatch in platforms".

I guess it depends on the viewers eyes, some can see it, some can't. But it is deffinently their, and no amount of arrows and boxes will show someone that, you see it, or you don't.

I think it shows the Patterson creature in repose and someone just won't admit it.

I have to agree that this isn't the clearest of video's. But I do think I see slight movement in the bush. I have trouble seeing the whole arm but there are two moments when, what I think is the head, moves slightly. Like one post said, Humans are attracted to movement. I am sure like most wildlife these creatures know when to hold still and wait.

Certainly they know more about us than we know about them, maybe that is why they are so extremely curious about us that they would risk their own lives just to watch us go about our own days? Maybe they know that knowledge of us will keep them alive and out of harms way? Or maybe it is just part of their nature to be so curious, being intelligent creatures they will want to put their minds to good use, the same way we want to know everything about them.

One point I have learned from studying frames from the PGF is that their fur reflects their surroundings. Go get a big picture of the PGF creature and enlarge the hell out of it, you can see where the green of the surrounding forest reflect off of its black fur! Camouflaged! Their fur is kept so sleek and clean that it reflects their surrounding environments colors! Remember how most reports that got a good enough look to see the quality of the fur noticed that it was very clean for something wild! Maybe they know that their fur, if kept clean and oiled will reflect their environment to help them hide even better!?!?

Link to thread quoted below


I am probably confused but I remember seeing this quote and thinking it apparently applied to the segment where I thought I saw something that looked like some head above the vegetation. It isn't very clear and this wasn't made from a very good copy but I crudely stabilized it to see if it would reveal anything because it would be kind of odd to be seeing heads where they don't exist. I guess this is the disappointing segment or it could be a different angle on the one laying down with the closeups of the toes?

This is just a short segment but its head just bops around like that for several seconds.
Click to view attachment

It appears to be much lower quality that this exotic white bigfoot? This is just cropped off a larger gif on the previous page.
Click to view attachment

If you have a hard time seeing the prominent cheek bones, one is very bright from the sun? and the mouth is also brighter. If you focus on the "collar' or the vegetation, the appearance might be easier to see. My mind sometimes loses the image and it becomes confused but I darkened it and increased the contrast and that seemed to help me see it more clearly or am I imagining things?? That really was a rhetorical question because I am pretty sure i am basically looking at it right because it moves more latter on. I was looking at it wrong until I stabilized it. I could still be misinterpreting something like the bright cheek bone could be hair. It sure looks like a head and I don't see what else it could be bopping around like that.


The website below isn't English but I liked the graphic and wanted to take the opportunity to mention my favorite candidate for ancestor of BF while illustrating the cheek bones which seem very prominent in the gif animation. It is sangiran 17 which is about a million year old erectus from Java. That adds some weight for it being authentic and not just a moving blobsquatch because that seems a little odd looking to me to make a mask like that but that is just my opinion. The white guy probably looks strange to most anybody.



link to graphic of Sangarin

Morwood, the main scientist in charge of the floresiensis find, said the 'primitive" features of floresiensis indicate a likely more primitive lineage of erectus. There is evidence that the earlier form may have been replaced by a group that is closer to modern humans. If this sangiran belongs to the same lineage as floresiensis then it is very likely that it split off from modern humans very early in genus homo.

I have a hard time seeing this guy over the internet and I know what it looks like. Sometimes he is obvious as can be and other times my mind only sees blobs moving. The mind is strange. I thought I would add a small version to help out.
Click to view attachment
His left cheek is very light and so is his mouth. The cheeks are very wide. There is a light streak of hair from the sun shinning on his left above the bright cheek. He mostly looks to his left but he does look right at the camera. The eyes are black dots but very hard to see and it is confusing because they are lower that you would think. Seeing the eyes is key to seeing the face. They are right above the cheeks but the head is tilted.

You guys can't be serious....another blobsquatch to add the the ever growing pile.......cheers

How can I respond to that. Is is a question? I don't even know what "guys" you are talking about but I suppose that applies to the whole video. If you don't see it, the problem isn't mine.

That image seems to have been rejected. If it weren't for Yetifan stabilizing the white head I would never have seen that one at all. I can't say I ever saw the one laying down either. If you are talking about the last image I just thought someone likely had a better video and might look at it more closely. The color enhancement in the show seemed far superior in resolution where they were said to show the toes. It looks like a head to me but I am not at all surprised people have a hard time visualizing it. My brother can't see it either. I guess it is just me and some producer somewhere.

Wow,,, is that it's finger or banana in its nostril? It clearly seems to be a sort of photo that lends itself to you imagination. The mind will focus on patterns that are familiar in order to make sense out of obscure objects. Sort of a jungle Roshak test.

~A

The mouth on the drawn figure is its right eye, you need to see the video where it moves just a touch!

Scott- do you have a hair sample that came back chimp or human but unidentifiable? If 'n0' i AM AGONNA KICK someones ass, If yes, then Can I see the results?

Drew asked:





I don't have a hair sample. Daryl had them and gave them to one "Sterling Bunnell" from the Bay area of Calif. He was the guy who made the basic claim (in a
report that was used on A&E's "Bigfoot) that the hairs were similar but distinguishable from chimp hair samples he had. I have no idea if Bunnell is legit or a crackpot or somewhere in between.
I'm pretty sure they show a bit of the report in that A&E show.