Thursday, December 5, 2013

1996 Memorial Day Bigfoot Footage

Some have declared that the second-best piece of Bigfoot film/video footage, after the Patterson-Gimlin film, is this series of moving pictures...

The Memorial Day video shows a figure, matching the description of a Bigfoot, running across a hill. It disappears behind a less-inclined, sloped area, then reappears briefly, walking this time, before going into the trees at the extreme right of the frame.

This is the third clip analyzed in the program Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (the so-called Exhibit 8). The History documentary produced and directed by Doug Haijcek (today most recalled for “MonsterQuest”), was released January 9, 2003. In the hour-long program, the location where the Memorial Day footage was taken is used to make forensic measurements to determine the film subject’s height, path, speed, and stride by measuring the subject against fixed objects in the background.

Derek Prior, a three-time All-American sprinter from the University of Washington, runs the same route as the filmed figure to determine if the alleged Bigfoot’s running speed was too fast for a human to duplicate, to compare his speed and stride to the subject’s, and to give a visual comparison to the figure in the footage.

In the concluding segment of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, the results of the forensic measurements are revealed. The film subject – supposedly a Bigfoot – has the following alleged measurements:

A height of 5.3 ft (1.61 m)
A leg length of 2½ ft (0.76 m)
A running speed of 8.56 mph (13.77 km/h)
A stride of 4.25 ft (1.29 m)

Derek Prior, a Homo sapiens, on the other hand, was able to run the same path at 17.1 mph (27.51 km/h) and had a stride of 6.8 ft (2.07 m).

One aspect of the film continues to remain a mystery. At the end of the Memorial Day footage, before the subject disappears into the tree line, it seems to grow taller by 8 inches (20.32 cm). One possible explanation was suggested that if it was indeed a real animal, it could be carrying a younger animal that had climbed higher on its back.
As the years have passed, more and more skeptics within the Bigfoot field have surfaced, regarding the footage. It has been pointed out that Dr. Grover Krantz decided to avoid any discussions of the Memorial Day footage when he revised his book on Sasquatch, commenting that “he wouldn’t waste ink on that footage.”

It appears Daniel Perez has become one of the most outspoken critics from within Bigfootery to question the footage. He wrote, for example, in part:

When the Memorial Day footage is displayed, the audio is silent without any narrative explaining why. If the producers of the program felt the remarks made on camera were racist, they could have bleeped the questionable dialog. The real reason, I believe, is that the audio is both illuminating and revealing.

Here are excerpts of the audio:

“He was right behind that small pine tree, right?”

“I’m freak.”

“Yeah, I’m scared.”

“I could make a million bucks.”

“That’s a guy with a big hair cut. . . .”

“Sure is ambitious, running a lot. . . .”

“It’s a Bigfoot.”

“That’s not a Bigfoot. . . .”

“It’s a Dickfoot.”

“It’s all on video!”

“I’ve only had two drinks.”

“Me, too, two too many.”

And somewhere in the audio, as the subject comes into view is this: “looks like a white boy to me,” a statement made without a doubt by the late Fred Bradshaw, an avid Bigfooter from Elma, Washington. Having known Fred Bradshaw since 1995, his voice is easily recognizable. Isn’t it convenient, or too convenient, that a Bigfooter would be present when a camping couple just happens to film a Bigfoot? What was Fred Bradshaw’s connection to Owen and Lori Pate? And why has the couple never acknowledged Bradshaw was there? Their reluctance to be interviewed or questioned on the matter speaks volumes. ~ Daniel Perez, 2007 - Source:

Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a Full Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, who in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (which is an expansion of the aforementioned program by the same name) wrote the following concerning the experiment with the sprinter:
As the team was preoccupied with the scale and speed of the figure, less commentary was offered about the specifics of the anatomy and behavior that could be observed from the video image itself. The subject reportedly hesitated at the tree line for a considerable time and was seen occasionally peering from behind some cover. When it finally broke from cover and was captured on videotape, it made its descent down the hillside, apparently with something of a slightly lighter hue on its back. That something then appeared to slip lower on the figure's back and an appendage of sorts, flailed behind. At that point the running figure, with arms pumping, reached back with its right arm to clasp the object itself, without breaking stride. Also discernible were unmistakable breasts that gyrated with each running step. There are no indications of clothing, no bulging, bunching, or borders. There is nothing to contradict Line's testimony that he saw a hair-covered figure through the binoculars. The figure passed behind an intervening rise in topography and when it emerged beyond, its right arm was poised upward, toward or above its head, as if steadying something. The arm dropped and the figure noticeably increased in height before entering the timber.

Could this be a female sasquatch, perhaps a young female, with a youngster on board? The smaller size and apparent breasts suggest this might be the case. Was the infant nearly dislodged from its piggyback position as its mother made a dash for cover behind the intervening high ground? Did it receive a boost into a position behind the female's neck and peer over the top of her head? This is a posture for infant transport that is typically practiced by apes, and humans for that matter. Infants ride atop the adult's back or shoulders and peer over the adult's head. This is sometimes until the infant is quite large, if the adult is indulgent.
The site argues strongly for the films authenticity, stating:
In the Sasquatch Legend Meets Science DVD, a track star ran the same course and it was discovered that he was both larger and faster than the subject in the the film. Some feel that those details automatically discount the Memorial Day footage as a hoax. (I  guess Bigfoots are never supposed to be shorter than humans no matter what their age or gender, or run slower than a track star when their reportedly carrying  a baby on their back...) The funny thing is Mr. Track Star biffed it [slipped and was almost injured] on his first attempt. In running shoes.


If they wanted to make a valid comparison, why didn't they dress Mr. Track Star in a monkey suit.

In my opinion, it's unlikely that anyone in a gorilla suit could run like that across a steep uneven hillside without falling.
The TV program Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files had one of their investigators do just that in an episode entitled Sasquatch Sprint / Alien Attacker. When dressed in a Bigfoot costume the investigator, who is in good shape, indeed fell on his first attempt and thought he might have sprained his ankle. It also took him  12.06 seconds to cover the same ground in the suit, that the the figure in the original video covered in only  10.6 seconds. The investigator took off the Bigfoot mask at the end of clip to see if that could account for what is a believed by some to be a the baby on the back of the figure and it did appear similar. The show interviewed the witnesses and found them credible, but concluded they believed they were victims of a hoax.

The Oregon Bigfoot site also estimates that a jump the 5'3"  figure does, which is featured in the video below, to be approximately 7 feet in length. Presumably also hard to do for a person of such stature in a monkey suit.

Here is a video making a case for the baby on the back idea from an individual that has made many similar analysis videos, including one where he was apparently fooled by a hoax. That said, each of his analyses should be judged on their own merits. Remember, in this one he is making a case for an idea raised by a scientist first.  

Conclusion: From the info we have there is nothing to suggest a high-probability this is a Sasquatch, but there is enough to say that it's a possibility, which is almost as rare.