Has Bigfoot Been Filmed on This Hiker’s iPhone (Video)?

BigfootAnnie Bishop reports on KXLY4 News:

SPOKANE, Wash.— A Spokane woman out for a day hike along the Spokane river claims to have proof of the mysterious and elusive Bigfoot.

Samantha, who did not give her last name, and her friends were hiking at Downriver Park over the weekend when they captured Bigfoot by using their iPhone camera.

Samantha posted a YouTube video of the creature a few days later.

More on KXLY4 News

55 Comments on "Has Bigfoot Been Filmed on This Hiker’s iPhone (Video)?"

  1. Lame!

  2. Lame!

  3. Anonymous | May 29, 2011 at 9:47 pm |

    Looks like a guy in a hoodie to me. Can all bigfoots be explained by guys in hoodies who just wanted to toke in peace in the middle of the forest before being disrupted?

  4. Looks like a guy in a hoodie to me. Can all bigfoots be explained by guys in hoodies who just wanted to toke in peace in the middle of the forest before being disrupted?

  5. Anonymous | May 29, 2011 at 10:03 pm |

    When I’m out hiking with my friends, I ALWAYS make sure I record the entire hike with my iPhone…..

  6. smooth_operator | May 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

    When I’m out hiking with my friends, I ALWAYS make sure I record the entire hike with my iPhone…..

    • You think you’re joking, but that’s just how incredibly boring these kinds of people are. Zomg nature I better record all of it or no one will believe my facebook update that said I went on a hike!

  7. Anonymous | May 29, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

    You think you’re joking, but that’s just how incredibly boring these kinds of people are. Zomg nature I better record all of it or no one will believe my facebook update that said I went on a hike!

  8. I think bigfoot just IS blurry, that’s why he looks like that in every video ever.

  9. I think bigfoot just IS blurry, that’s why he looks like that in every video ever.

    • Greentypewriter | May 29, 2011 at 11:13 pm |

      Mitch Hedberg, circa 2003-05, “I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that’s extra scary to me. There’s a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he’s fuzzy, get out of here.”

  10. DevonGrey | May 29, 2011 at 11:28 pm |

    I’ts a tall kid with baggy pants.

    waitaminute – maybe *I’M* bigfoot.

  11. DevonGrey | May 29, 2011 at 7:28 pm |

    I’ts a tall kid with baggy pants.

    waitaminute – maybe *I’M* bigfoot.

  12. that is so fake it might be real

  13. that is so fake it might be real

  14. i really think they are just watchers 😛

  15. i really think they are just watchers 😛

  16. Ah, looks a tad staged to me…

  17. Ah, looks a tad staged to me…

  18. See only this stuff gets media attention, which is why the public thinks its such a joke, the public will actually believe we think this is proof…. wtf

  19. See only this stuff gets media attention, which is why the public thinks its such a joke, the public will actually believe we think this is proof…. wtf

  20. mrjstauffer | May 30, 2011 at 1:56 am |

    looks like a guy wearing a black hoodie

  21. hipster!

  22. mrjstauffer | May 29, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

    looks like a guy wearing a black hoodie

  23. There is a phantom-like quality to this. It doesn’t seem solid. 

  24. There is a phantom-like quality to this. It doesn’t seem solid. 

  25. Greentypewriter | May 30, 2011 at 3:13 am |

    Mitch Hedberg, circa 2003-05, “I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that’s extra scary to me. There’s a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he’s fuzzy, get out of here.”

  26. This is near downtown Spokane…c’mon.  This is like seeing bigfoot in Central Park. 

  27. This is near downtown Spokane…c’mon.  This is like seeing bigfoot in Central Park. 

  28. That guy wearing a black hoodie running in background better watch out, there’s apparently a bigfoot roaming around somewhere in this video.

  29. That guy wearing a black hoodie running in background better watch out, there’s apparently a bigfoot roaming around somewhere in this video.

  30. Theneonheart.com | May 30, 2011 at 8:39 am |

    She didn’t give her last name because it is ‘Samantha Hiking Spokane Bigfoot Stabilized Enhanced’

  31. Theneonheart.com | May 30, 2011 at 4:39 am |

    She didn’t give her last name because it is ‘Samantha Hiking Spokane Bigfoot Stabilized Enhanced’

  32. The funny thing is, that if  that guy walking in the background had his camera phone on too, pointed at them….He probably would have caught what he would believe later to be TWO young ‘Bigfoot’ creatures walking through the woods on his camera!!! 

  33. The funny thing is, that if  that guy walking in the background had his camera phone on too, pointed at them….He probably would have caught what he would believe later to be TWO young ‘Bigfoot’ creatures walking through the woods on his camera!!! 

  34. Yep…staged.  Fake-a-roonie.  Why?  The figure is (1) obviously stooping forward on purpose in a “yes, I’m either a missing link, or Roddy McDowell or the ghost of Groucho Marx” sort of way (2) the figure is walking nearly perfectly horizontally to the camera in order to get the best possible shot of the figure in motion and is backlit as well (3) the figure shows no signs whatsoever of trying to hide his obviously human frame and proportions and the outfit looks nothing other than, as others have pointed out, a guy in dark sweat pants and a hoodie, maybe a Planet of the Apes mask (4) the figure is simply not that far away and is walking in an area that is catching copious amounts of sunlight and yet, it’s just a dark silhouette, which also shows that it could not be a hairy, organically colored sasquatch that the light would play off, etc but is someone in a dark costume/outfit designed to make the figure pop in the background (5) the figure doesn’t turn its head or otherwise acknowledge the presence of (at least) 3 humans nearby (6) the figure is in the extreme top of the frame exactly where it needs to be in the shot in order to still be in the frame (7) the face-slapping by the guy is the signal to the bighoodie to start his lumbering (8) the figure is walking with face straight ahead because if the head was moved, it would have further exposed the fakery (9) the last section of the video, the zoomed in portion does not cover the same stretch of original footage, only a brief portion of it, a further indication of the fake (10) the woman hiker has a backpack and a bandanna on because y’know…they’re hiking…whereas the face-slapper is wearing streetclothes, no cap, etc which means the whole hiking thing is contrived to make you think they’re out for a legitimate hike (11) the camera operator is focused on the hikers but then the camera veers to the right just on cue to capture the figure, even angling that way then making sure to angle back to the hikers at the end, because, we’re filming the hikers here, right, not the landscape, etc (12) we are assuming the camera operator is looking at the phone to film rather than just walking and holding the camera out to the side if they are documenting a hike and would have obviously seen this figure in the background, since it is so prominent.  However, the terrain is so “tricky” that the two hikers are always facing down at the ground in front of them, accentuated by the female hiker who feels she needs to brace herself on a downed tree and then have a hand on the upright tree at the left to steady herself.  All this is to explain why the two hikers were not able to see the figure because they had to pay attention to where they were walking…yet one of the group is able to walk with a phone filming the hike.  Because we see two hikers keeping their eyes on the path, we naturally use this as an excuse for why the cameraman also did not see the figure at the time because the hikers are keeping their eyes on the path, but then if we consider it, it makes no sense to be filming if the terrain at that point was so tricky and the camera is not pointing down to match the point of view of the other hikers, especially the tall male hiker who even if he was looking at the ground, his peripheral vision would have picked up a quick moving black silhouette that at the time appeared to be directly at eye level!  So the whole “we didn’t see bighoodie at the time” deal falls apart right there because two hikers have to keep eyes at ground level, yet one hiker is able to film them.  In other words, two hikers with heads down on a tricky hike causes us to immediately assume the cameraman is having to do the same, yet the camera is not focused on the ground, and we have to assume the cameraman is using the viewscreen to see where he is going, since the video is so steady.  Nope Jamie, we have to call this one busted.

    On the last point…this brings out the nix on most photos/videos/sightings of bigfoot.  The person who sees bigfoot takes a picture or two, takes a few SECONDS of film, has a brief eyewitness encounter, etc and then does nothing to pursue/follow the figure but is apparently satisfied with the brief encounter.  Which is why the camera operator in this faked thing cannot acknowledge the figure at the time because you can’t yell out and say, “jumping juiced-up jesus, it’s bigfoot” because that would mean the figure would be obligated to at least turn its head, if not change its direction of travel which would further expose the fake and so you can also be spared the question, “why didn’t you follow it and get more video?”  With a smartphone, yes you could run out of battery, but it makes it harder to say that you ran out of film, or had the lens cap on or any of the other excuses given to not get more than a few seconds/minutes of video as happens historically in “bigfoot” sightings.

    fiat lux

  35. Yep…staged.  Fake-a-roonie.  Why?  The figure is (1) obviously stooping forward on purpose in a “yes, I’m either a missing link, or Roddy McDowell or the ghost of Groucho Marx” sort of way (2) the figure is walking nearly perfectly horizontally to the camera in order to get the best possible shot of the figure in motion and is backlit as well (3) the figure shows no signs whatsoever of trying to hide his obviously human frame and proportions and the outfit looks nothing other than, as others have pointed out, a guy in dark sweat pants and a hoodie, maybe a Planet of the Apes mask (4) the figure is simply not that far away and is walking in an area that is catching copious amounts of sunlight and yet, it’s just a dark silhouette, which also shows that it could not be a hairy, organically colored sasquatch that the light would play off, etc but is someone in a dark costume/outfit designed to make the figure pop in the background (5) the figure doesn’t turn its head or otherwise acknowledge the presence of (at least) 3 humans nearby (6) the figure is in the extreme top of the frame exactly where it needs to be in the shot in order to still be in the frame (7) the face-slapping by the guy is the signal to the bighoodie to start his lumbering (8) the figure is walking with face straight ahead because if the head was moved, it would have further exposed the fakery (9) the last section of the video, the zoomed in portion does not cover the same stretch of original footage, only a brief portion of it, a further indication of the fake (10) the woman hiker has a backpack and a bandanna on because y’know…they’re hiking…whereas the face-slapper is wearing streetclothes, no cap, etc which means the whole hiking thing is contrived to make you think they’re out for a legitimate hike (11) the camera operator is focused on the hikers but then the camera veers to the right just on cue to capture the figure, even angling that way then making sure to angle back to the hikers at the end, because, we’re filming the hikers here, right, not the landscape, etc (12) we are assuming the camera operator is looking at the phone to film rather than just walking and holding the camera out to the side if they are documenting a hike and would have obviously seen this figure in the background, since it is so prominent.  However, the terrain is so “tricky” that the two hikers are always facing down at the ground in front of them, accentuated by the female hiker who feels she needs to brace herself on a downed tree and then have a hand on the upright tree at the left to steady herself.  All this is to explain why the two hikers were not able to see the figure because they had to pay attention to where they were walking…yet one of the group is able to walk with a phone filming the hike.  Because we see two hikers keeping their eyes on the path, we naturally use this as an excuse for why the cameraman also did not see the figure at the time because the hikers are keeping their eyes on the path, but then if we consider it, it makes no sense to be filming if the terrain at that point was so tricky and the camera is not pointing down to match the point of view of the other hikers, especially the tall male hiker who even if he was looking at the ground, his peripheral vision would have picked up a quick moving black silhouette that at the time appeared to be directly at eye level!  So the whole “we didn’t see bighoodie at the time” deal falls apart right there because two hikers have to keep eyes at ground level, yet one hiker is able to film them.  In other words, two hikers with heads down on a tricky hike causes us to immediately assume the cameraman is having to do the same, yet the camera is not focused on the ground, and we have to assume the cameraman is using the viewscreen to see where he is going, since the video is so steady.  Nope Jamie, we have to call this one busted.

    On the last point…this brings out the nix on most photos/videos/sightings of bigfoot.  The person who sees bigfoot takes a picture or two, takes a few SECONDS of film, has a brief eyewitness encounter, etc and then does nothing to pursue/follow the figure but is apparently satisfied with the brief encounter.  Which is why the camera operator in this faked thing cannot acknowledge the figure at the time because you can’t yell out and say, “jumping juiced-up jesus, it’s bigfoot” because that would mean the figure would be obligated to at least turn its head, if not change its direction of travel which would further expose the fake and so you can also be spared the question, “why didn’t you follow it and get more video?”  With a smartphone, yes you could run out of battery, but it makes it harder to say that you ran out of film, or had the lens cap on or any of the other excuses given to not get more than a few seconds/minutes of video as happens historically in “bigfoot” sightings.

    fiat lux

    • Broken_Finger | May 30, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

      Holy shit, that was very thorough.  

      He really did have a very “Corneliusy” kind of walk, though.  Good call on that.  

      Also, shoes.  

    • …henceforth, all sightings of sasquatch should be renamed “bighoodie”!

  36. Simiantongue | May 30, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

    What’s with the edges of the video frame moving like that, while the video itself is pretty steady? Never seen video footage from a phone that does that.

    Oh and BTW this is probably a viral video attempt to sell iphones.

  37. Simiantongue | May 30, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

    What’s with the edges of the video frame moving like that, while the video itself is pretty steady? Never seen video footage from a phone that does that.

    Oh and BTW this is probably a viral video attempt to sell iphones.

  38. Simiantongue | May 30, 2011 at 11:24 am |

    What’s with the edges of the video frame moving like that, while the video itself is pretty steady? Never seen video footage from a phone that does that.

    Oh and BTW this is probably a viral video attempt to sell iphones.

    • that part at least isn’t fake. There’s a processing thing you can do in some video editors where you “stabilize” a piece of video around some component in the video, so that point is fixed and every frame is moved to make that point stay in the same spot. That’s meant to negate camera motion. Normally the piece is then cropped so you don’t see the edges but in this case it was probably too small, pixel-wise, to crop.

  39. Anonymous | May 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm |

    Holy shit, that was very thorough.  

    He really did have a very “Corneliusy” kind of walk, though.  Good call on that.  

    Also, shoes.  

  40. That was me. I like to pretend to be a furry monster in the woods regularly

  41. That was me. I like to pretend to be a furry monster in the woods regularly

  42. Lots of reasons it’s fake, but the first thing that I noticed was that the Bigfoot figure moves too quickly for the terrain.  Even if it were walking on a paved sidewalk back there, it seems to move along its path faster than its feet could carry it, and it should be ambling through some thick woods.  Definitely a composite.

  43. Lots of reasons it’s fake, but the first thing that I noticed was that the Bigfoot figure moves too quickly for the terrain.  Even if it were walking on a paved sidewalk back there, it seems to move along its path faster than its feet could carry it, and it should be ambling through some thick woods.  Definitely a composite.

  44. Anonymous | May 31, 2011 at 3:30 am |

    …henceforth, all sightings of sasquatch should be renamed “bighoodie”!

  45. Anonymous | May 31, 2011 at 3:33 am |

    that part at least isn’t fake. There’s a processing thing you can do in some video editors where you “stabilize” a piece of video around some component in the video, so that point is fixed and every frame is moved to make that point stay in the same spot. That’s meant to negate camera motion. Normally the piece is then cropped so you don’t see the edges but in this case it was probably too small, pixel-wise, to crop.

  46. Fiveforty | Jun 1, 2011 at 11:16 pm |

    at :37 you can see the nike sign on his shoe

  47. Fiveforty | Jun 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm |

    at :37 you can see the nike sign on his shoe

  48. Simiantongue | Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 pm |

    That’s good to know thanks for the info.

Comments are closed.