All language subtitles for The.Proof.Is.Out.There.S04E01.The.Bigfoot.Files.1080p.HULU.WEB-DL.AAC2.0.H.264-RAWR_track3_[eng]

Tonight on "The
Proof is Out There."

In this special episode,

a deep dive into the most
provocative evidence of Bigfoot.

I am convinced this evidence
demonstrates the existence

of an unrecognized species.

From thermal imagery
some consider a slam dunk.

I knew exactly what
we had on camera.

To scientific
analysis of footprints.

This particular animal's
footprints have been found

on a number of occasions.

To photos that
light up the internet.

We'll show you why some
skeptics are becoming believers.

Every year that passes
brings us one year closer

to academic acceptance
of the species.

This is no hoax.

If this were a fake
suit, we'd be able to tell.

But is it proof?

"The Proof is Out There:
The Bigfoot Files."

Good evening and
welcome to another season

of "The Proof is Out There."

We are back.

Tonight, we're focusing
a whole episode

on one of the most compelling
mysteries in history, Bigfoot.

We'll be investigating
some of the freshest,

most compelling
evidence Bigfoot hunters

say they've ever seen.

The question, is
the creature real?

Is it a legend simply stuck
in our cultural consciousness

or is it just the world's
longest running hoax?

The big problem with
Bigfoot is that much

of the alleged proof
turns out to be faked

like this video from 2013.

It's one of the complications
of undertaking an investigation

of a topic that's
this controversial

is that it seems to attract
hoaxers like moths to a flame.

It really irritates me
because it diminishes those

of us who take this
very seriously.

And yet, serious
Bigfoot researchers seem

to be growing in number.

A recent article on the cover
of the Wall Street Journal

reported that real scientists
are devoting real effort

to the study of and search
for Bigfoot, AKA Sasquatch,

even if most are
doing it secretly

to avoid reputational harm.

I think that this generation
of scientists are open-minded

to the prospect of other
relic hominoids living

alongside our own species.

How can that be?

Well, many experts are
reexamining the evidence

of previous hoaxes
and finding flaws

in the arguments
of the doubters.

Take the ongoing debate
between believers

and skeptics over Ray Wallace,

the man who was
involved with the event

that first made Bigfoot famous.

Bluff Creek, California, 1958.

Hundreds of massive
footprints are found

in the soil by men
constructing a road

into a remote area of
northern California.

A headline in a local
paper gets national pickup

and the name Bigfoot is born.

The contractor on the
project was Ray Wallace

and when he died, his
kids told the press

that their dad was
Bigfoot all along

and had used these
carved wooden stompers

to leave prints all over
the Pacific Northwest.

Case closed? Not
according to believers.

The carved wooden feet alleged

to be the source of
those footprints simply

do not match the
footprint record

that has been collected and
studied from that region.

In fact, compare
the print on the right,

which Meldrum believes
is a real Bigfoot print

to the known hoax on the left.

Meldrum points to the identical
oval shaped toes of the fake

that are not reflected
in the other footprints.

And while the
hoaxes' credibility

has been deteriorating,

belief in the earliest reports

of Bigfoot has been
gaining strength.

We're talking about the folklore
of Native American tribes.

Native Americans have had
the longest relationship

with the creature
we now call Bigfoot.

Field researcher
Cliff Barackman points

to the images like this,

the so-called Hairy
Man pictographs thought

to have been created by the
Californian Tule River tribe

around the year 500 AD.

They say this is a
depiction of a Sasquatch

that they just happen
to call Hairy Man

in their particular language.

The male is literally
eight and a half feet tall

and his arms are
spread six feet wide.

Note this
interesting detail.

There are other animals
depicted in this cave.

Centipede, deer,
beaver, coyote.

You name it. They're
all real animals.

So why would this one
example show something

that is fanciful
and mythological

when everything else there
is basically a drawing

of things that are
still found there?

Now, I wanna show
you something.

Possibly the most confounding
artifact we have ever seen.

This is a photo of
a ceremonial mask

of the Tsimshian people of
British Columbia, Canada.

It was collected around 1914.

Take a close look at the skull,
the nose, and the teeth.

This sure looks like a
primate of some kind.

Just one problem.

There are no known primates
indigenous to North America.

This mask was such an accurate

and naturalistic depiction

of what could only
be a great ape.

The very prominent eyebrows
with very sunken eye sockets.

The nose with nostrils that
are laterally directed,

a broad nose, but
really significant

is this distance between
the nose and the upper lip.

So what would've
been the inspiration

if some form of great ape
didn't exist in North America?

If this mask,
believed to have been carved

in the middle of
the 19th century,

really is a depiction
of a real creature,

we still have to explain how

that creature got
to North America.

One current theory is
that Bigfoot originated

from some common Asian ancestor,
possibly gigantopithecus.

Over the millennia, that
species could have branched

into other legendary hominids
like the Yeti of Asia

or the Yowie of Australia,

while the subspecies we call
Bigfoot might have migrated

to North America via
the Bering land bridge.

The most likely scenario
is that a population

of giant, terrestrial,
bipedal apes

that had dispersed through
Southern and Eastern Asia

had expanded its range
into North America.

But if that's true,

where are the
Sasquatch skeletons?

We find bones of fossils of
other things like dinosaurs.

Why not Bigfoot?

Dr. Meldrum says that fact

doesn't discount
Bigfoot's existence.

It seems like there's
fossils everywhere,

but when you consider
the periods of time

and the number of organisms
through that period,

it's a remarkably small fraction

that ever are fossilized and
discovered by paleontologists.

We continually find
fossils of species

that we had no idea existed.

The absence of evidence

doesn't mean the
evidence of absence.

As we've said, there
are no Bigfoot fossils,

but there are alleged
Bigfoot footprints.

So let's take a closer look
at a particular collection

of prints that has
gained notoriety

amongst the Bigfoot
community, which is...

No small feat.

This story begins all
the way back in 1991

in the Blue Mountains

of Washington state just
north of Mill Creek.

Former U.S. forest patrolman

and Bigfoot investigator
Paul Freeman has come here

with a colleague looking
for evidence of Bigfoot.

Sure enough, what
they found were hundreds

of tracks of a Sasquatch.

Freeman
measures the prints

and makes these plaster casts.

He's convinced this area
is a Bigfoot hotspot.

And over the years, the
evidence just keeps piling up.

1992, in the neighboring
Deduct Spring area

of the Blue Mountains,

Freeman shoots
this video showing

what he claims is a Bigfoot
ambling through the woods.

(bleep).

The creature allegedly
left more prints like this.

And four years later,

even more prints found
in the moist ground

in the nearby Five Points area.

Look closer. These whoppers
are 14 inches long.

If they're real, whatever
left them is big.

Really big.

Many of these
footprints penetrate

into the ground quite deeply.

And this photograph right here,

you can see right there, the
midtarsal pressure ridge.

Check it out.
According to Barackman,

this midtarsal
pressure ridge is one

of the key differences between
human and Sasquatch anatomy.

Behind the metatarsals
is a big jumble

of bone right beneath the ankle.

But that jumble of
bones in human beings,

it doesn't bend at all
because we have an arch

that holds our foot stiff,

but Sasquatch can
actually bend their foot

to some degree at that location.

It is called the
midtarsal joint.

Of course,
some have claimed this

was all one big hoax
perpetrated by Freeman,

but Barackman says we know
what faked prints look like.

You can see when we
compare Freeman's

to a known fake made
with a wooden prosthetic.

It sure looks like
there's a difference.

Upon push-off,
sometimes a mound of dirt

is raised up behind
the metatarsals.

This was not possible with
a fake wooden prosthetic.

The idea of the midtarsal
break was actually developed

by our very own Bigfoot
expert, Jeff Meldrum.

Meldrum's hypothesis has
been, no pun intended,

a major step

in the investigative
research of Sasquatches.

Let's see what our
experts have to say

about these particular prints.

Anthropologist Kathy
Strain explains

there's always been
some skepticism

when it comes to the
findings of Paul Freeman.

A lot of people said he
found so much evidence.

He was outside all the time

and he found prints here
and he found prints there.

And he has that well-known video

that there's just no way
that he could be authentic.

We know Professor
Meldrum believes in Bigfoot,

but he's also on the lookout
for any potential hoaxes.

That's why Meldrum decided
to drop in unexpectedly

on Freeman to verify
his evidence firsthand.

I was a bit incredulous,

but I thought, what
have I got to lose?

Then he saw the latest
Five Points tracks up close.

Meldrum quickly concluded
they couldn't be prints

from some local animal.

And the most likely candidate
out there is the bear.

The bear isn't
completely flatfooted.

Its heel does not entirely
rest on the ground.

The heel of a bear
has a very pointed

in appearance as opposed

to the very rounded, full heel
pad of the Sasquatch foot.

But the real a-ha
moment was, you guessed it,

evidence of that same
midtarsal ridge ruling

out prints made
by any human foot.

The heel is elevated.

This, retaining that
midfoot flexibility,

the advantage of a very
flexible grasping foot

for climbing up in the trees.

Another one that jumped
out is this track

from Mill Creek in 1991,

separated by a considerable
number of years

and yet showing this exact
proportions, the orientation.

Now to
quote Lewis Carroll,

"It gets even curiouser."

Since all of these
prints show evidence

of the midtarsal ridge
and are the same size,

Meldrum and Cliff
Barackman not only believe

that these prints are real,

but that they could be coming

from the same individual
specimen of Bigfoot.

This particular animal's
footprints have been found

on a number of occasions
in 1991, 1992, '96.

There were
remarkable similarities

that suggested these could in
fact be the same individual.

And get this.

Based on research, Meldrum
thinks Sasquatch can live

to be about 30 to 50 years old.

So this specimen
could very well be

at least 15 to 25 years of age.

This evidence
demonstrates the existence

of an unrecognized species.

Our verdict?
Potential primate print.

We're sure these prints
don't come from a bear.

They sure look different
from known fakes

and that midtarsal ridge appears

to eliminate the human foot too.

If they're real, they
could be valuable evidence

in proving Bigfoot's existence.

It's been said that Bigfoot
exhibits nocturnal behavior.

Perhaps to hunt or
to avoid detection.

But the cloak of darkness
couldn't hide the creature

in the stunning footage
you're about to see captured

by two campers armed with
a night vision camera.

It's May 2012 near the
town of Quincy, Florida.

Retired army ranger, Stacy
Brown Sr., now deceased,

and his filmmaker
son, Stacy Brown Jr.,

are camping into
Torreya State Park

on a search for the
elusive Bigfoot.

They start hearing some noises,

so they pull out their
Flir thermal camera

and head off down a trail.

We would hear something
running on our right

and then we would hear
something running on our left

and it just stopped real quick.

And then dad looked
up at the, you know,

up at the tree and he is
like, "Oh, I see something."

The thermal
camera is rolling

as Stacy Sr. notices a little
black object sticking out

of one side of a tree.

Then it takes off
and crosses this gap

and he goes into full
blown panic mode.

The camera goes dead.

He's like, "We gotta
go. We gotta go."

He's like, "Do
you got your gun?"

Back at their truck,
Stacy Jr. gets a first peek

at this eye popping footage

and this money shot
that looks just like

the iconic lookback
frame of Patty

from the famous
Patterson-Gimlin film,

which claimed to capture
Bigfoot strolling

alongside a northern
California creek in 1967.

I knew exactly what
we had on camera.

It was proof to me and my dad

because who on a Tuesday
night is a mile and a half

into the woods running
around with no flashlight?

Noted Bigfoot
investigator Steve Cole

says he's not
surprised by the area

where this footage was captured.

In Florida, they have
something called the skunk ape

and there's been
a lot of sightings

over many years of
what they describe

as a Bigfoot type of creature.

What they call that
is the skunk ape,

partly because it smells skunky,

but for all intents
and purposes,

it's the same
thing as a Bigfoot.

It's not quite as big or robust

as the ones in say,
the Pacific Northwest,

but that is kind of expected due

to the climate being
a lot more tropical.

These swamp sightings go
back to the native tribes.

The Seminoles and the Muskogee

called the creature
Esti Capcaki, or Tall Man,

and claimed he was the
protector of the forest.

So could this be what
the Browns encountered?

We turned to our
experts for answers.

We first asked the
most obvious question.

Could this just be a person?

It was shot with
a thermal imager

and so it's picking
up the heat signature.

Typically, if any
clothing is being worn,

it masks the intensity
of the heat emanating

from those covered
parts of the body.

Honestly, don't see any of that.

It's just a pretty
uniform signature

that would suggest a
body a la naturale.

But why would
a person be walking

around nude in the woods?

Wildlife biologist
Stephanie Manka

instead notes the way the
figure moves seems more

like a different animal
that doesn't wear clothes.

It looks to be
like a large primate,

but it doesn't seem to
match the body structure

of the living apes,
of chimpanzees,

or gorillas being the
most prominent ones.

It seems like its
legs are too long

and when gorillas walk
on their hind legs,

they're not hunched
over like that.

They're more upright.

Some have
theorized that gorillas

or large chimps
could have escaped

from one of the private zoos

that have littered
Florida over decades.

But anthropologist
Kathy Strain says

neither this
creature's morphology

nor its gait
support that theory.

The way it comes
out of the trees

is what we call a groucho walk.

It's very typical of
what witnesses say

Bigfoot walks like.

You can see it on the
Patterson-Gimlin film.

You can see it in other examples

where it's this
strangely bent knee gait.

It seems to be out
of human proportions

in the sense that
you can't see a neck.

It has very beefy looking arms.

It has interesting
legs that seem shorter

than what you would
see in humans.

Whatever this was,
it was pretty big.

In excess of six,
six and a half,

seven feet in height perhaps.

And quite bulky.

It appears very substantial.

That is the arms and the
legs are not spindly.

They appear to be
thick and muscular.

Or could this
all just be a hoax?

In order to have
this video be credible,

I would expect to see a lot

more thermal imagery
through the trees.

I wouldn't expect it to
just completely disappear.

Stacy Brown Jr.
claims the reason the clip ends

is because the camera
stopped working.

So what does Meldrum think?

I know Stacy
actually, personally,

and have visited with him.

I have no reason to suspect
that he contrived this.

And so the only other
question would be

is anyone foolish enough

to traipse around buck
naked in the dark?

Our verdict? Unknown creature.

Given that this footage
was filmed at night

with an early generation
thermal imaging camera,

we don't quite have
enough information

to reach a definitive answer,

but whether this was indeed
the Florida skunk ape

or merely a subspecies
of Florida Man

with a proclivity for nocturnal
nudism, we can say this.

The situation definitely
warrants further investigation.

There have only been
a handful of instances

where someone reported
seeing a juvenile Sasquatch.

You're about to see one of them.

A rare glimpse at what some
are calling a baby Bigfoot.

Take a look.

May 23rd, 1997, the Catskill
Mountains of New York,

and Doug Pridgen is filming
his friends around a fire.

It's a Friday night
and they're camped out

for a nearby music festival,
but they are not alone.

- Are we filming now?
- We're filming.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

In the
background of the footage,

a shape emerges
between the trees.

It appears to be a
small, bipedal creature

that proceeds to climb and
swing from the branches.

Look again, especially
at that swinging motion.

This is not a dude in a suit.

There's no way a
person could imitate

that kind of motion
up in a tree.

Most of those branches probably

couldn't even support an
adult human male's weight.

It has to be an
ape of some sort.

I think that is a Sasquatch

doing baby Sasquatch
stuff up in a tree.

While
reported sightings

of young Sasquatch-like primates
are rare, they do exist,

including one story
from British Columbia

that dates all the
way back to the 1800s.

The story goes that on
the Trans-Canadian railroad,

the railroad workers saw
a juvenile Sasquatch,

even though they
didn't call it that,

'cause the word
didn't exist yet.

They hit it with a rock,

knocked it out, and
basically captured it.

People came and looked at it.

A couple newspaper
accounts depict

how big it was, how tall it was.

It wouldn't eat this.
It would eat that.

And then it disappears.

Some people think that they are
gonna ship it back to the UK

and it died in transit and
they threw it overboard.

Dr. Grover Krantz suggested

that perhaps P.T.
Barnum bought it

because it was around that time

that Jojo the Dogface
Boy became part

of the traveling
circus for P.T. Barnum.

Barackman also believes
that if you look closely,

you can actually see a
potential mama Sasquatch

in this footage.

Right there. Look at that.

It's moving. It just
moved back that direction.

One of the most
common misconceptions

about Bigfoot is that
it is an individual.

But it's not true.

They clearly reproduce as
any normal animal would

and right here, this
is the proof of that.

We have a larger one down below
and a juvenile up in a tree.

Many Sasquatch researchers

believe the reason
juvenile Bigfoot sightings

are so rarely documented,
may be the same reason

you've probably never
seen a baby pigeon

or a baby squirrel.

The mothers of these animals

secretly protect
their young offspring

in secluded nests or shelters

until the moment they
are big and strong enough

to reveal themselves
to the outside world.

Let's see if this potential
baby Bigfoot is ready

to reveal himself
to our experts.

Some question if
this could possibly

be a human child swinging
on these branches.

The problem is humans,
for all their agility,

don't have the capability

to cavort around amongst
the branches of a tree

as the individual that
I witness in this film.

That points to at
least the infant

being something
other than human.

So if it's not human,
what about a small bear?

Infant bears are
known to climb trees.

But Meldrum says this
creature's anatomy

is much closer to an ape's.

Its limb proportions aren't

that different from
a small chimpanzee.

Either what we're looking at

is something like
a chimpanzee infant

or it is a young Sasquatch.

Private investigator
Steve Coles was one of

the first people to investigate
this mysterious video.

We had to confirm, and we
did with the property owner,

that they did not
allow any animals

whatsoever on the property
because of insurance purposes.

I did make calls around to
see if there was any escapes

from zoos or medical
laboratories and there weren't.

We checked with
wildlife biologist,

Stephanie Manka, to see if
she could shed any light

on this potential primate.

So based on primate behavior,

I would expect the
young to be closer

to the adult because primates,

they tend to have fewer young

and the young tend to
stay around the mother

for a long period of time.

I wouldn't expect
it to be so far away

from the mother in the trees.

And I highly doubt that a mother

with its young would
bring it so close

to people at an event
like a music festival

where there is a lot of noise
and a lot of people there.

In fact,
it is this behavior

that makes Manka
disagree with Meldrum

on the potential identity
of these creatures.

With bears, they love
to scavenge on human foods

and in fact, a festival like
this could even attract bears

because they could realize

that there's a lot
of free food around

for them to scavenge.

Black bears can
easily climb trees

and often moms will
encourage their cubs

to go up trees to protect
them from predators.

I think it's most
likely a bear cub

that's swinging in these
branches and not a primate.

Our verdict?
Unidentified animal.

Manka thinks the creature's
behavior says bear cub,

while Meldrum thinks its limb
proportions mean primate.

Seems like the only thing
our experts can agree on

is that whatever this thing
is, it certainly isn't human.

With the proliferation of
trail cams in America's forests,

it's often asked why we haven't
recorded the Sasquatch on one.

Well, maybe we have,
as you're about to see.

September 16th, 2007,
Ridgeway, Pennsylvania.

Rick Jacobs fastens a
motion sensing camera

in a remote section of the
Allegheny National Forest

about 115 miles
northeast of Pittsburgh.

He's hoping to photograph deer
that may be using the trail,

but when he reviews the
pictures he's captured,

he sees this.

Two furry bear cubs
foraging at 20:04:23.

But check out this second
image, taken 28 minutes later,

where we see an ape-like
animal from a rear side angle

with its head obscured
by its shoulders.

In the third image,
taken 30 seconds later,

the animal, lean and elongated,

appears to be smelling
the ground near

where deer attractant
mix had been scattered.

Field researcher Cliff
Barackman tells us that

where these photos were taken
is definitely Bigfoot country.

I've spoken to
several witnesses

who have seen Sasquatches
just a few miles away

from where this particular
picture was taken.

One gentleman was driving
his van down the road

when this thing came
out of the forest

and you know what his
number one observation was

besides the mass and the size

of the thing was the
size of its butt.

That's no coincidence.

It's one of the
prominent features.

Bigfoot got back.

Bigfoot got back?

As ridiculous as that may sound,

it's consistent with
that famous image

of Patty we keep referencing,

the alleged Sasquatch captured
on the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Your butt muscles,

which are the largest
muscles in your body,

are used for keeping your
torso over your pelvis.

And they're used
for bipedal walking.

That's why bears don't
have big butt muscles.

They're quadrupeds.

But wait,

this creature doesn't have
that same big hindquarters.

So what gives?

All the other pictures
that I think are real

of Sasquatches have
well-developed butt muscles,

but yet this one does not.

Barackman theorizes
that it could be possible

that what we are seeing is
an underdeveloped specimen,

a Bigfoot junior if you will.

This clearly would not
be a full sized Sasquatch.

It doesn't look
like it's that big

and it is generally thought

that Sasquatches lean
a little bit more

towards going on all
fours when they're young.

The Bigfoot Field
Research Organization

agrees with Barackman.

Even though the derriere
of this creature

appears to be flat, similar
to a bear's bottom,

they claim the
limb-to-torso ratio seen

in these photos can only
compare to a bipedal primate.

Let's see what
our experts think.

We checked in with wildlife
biologist Stephanie Manka.

I think it is
most likely a bear,

given the body shape
and the body size.

A younger bear.

They're smaller, but they
can have lengthier limbs

and be a little bit thinner.

The reasons why it
doesn't look like a bear

is because you can't
clearly make out a snout

and that might be because
of the angle of the head

or the blurriness in the photo.

But even
if the strange shape

and size can be attributed
to this being a young bear,

its patchy exterior
still looks a little odd.

I think that its skin is
exposed because of mange.

Mange is an
insect-like arachnid.

They're very tiny and they
burrow into animals' skin

and this causes a lot
of pain and itching,

and if left untreated,

the animal can
lose a lot of hair

and it can make the skin
exposed and looked scaly.

As we've seen,
anatomist and Bigfoot expert,

Dr. Jeff Meldrum knows a
thing or two about feet

and he agrees with Manka

after spotting a key
piece of evidence.

Those are the feet of a bear.

They aren't the
plantigrade feet of an ape.

And if you adjust the
lighting ever so slightly,

guess what pops up?

A tail. It has a
short stubby tail,

which is a dead giveaway
that it's a bear.

Meldrum suggests
that if more frames

from the trail camera
were made available,

the truth would've been
immediately obvious.

There seems to be
some cherry picking

in the depiction
of selected frames

and it's very misleading.

Our verdict? Black bear.

Our experts agree and we're
inclined to agree with them.

There's really nothing
big about these feet.

This is most likely just a
growing bear cub suffering

from a nasty case of mange.

However, we do know

that trail cams are more
prevalent than ever,

so we'll be sure to bring
you more relevant images

as they come in.

Several counties
in Washington state

have created Sasquatch
preservation laws,

making it illegal to
hunt such a specimen

if ever discovered.

However, the Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department
actually stated

that since Sasquatch
is technically not

on the endangered species list,

it is legally open season
on any pesky Bigfoots.

And after hearing the
sounds in our next story,

I can understand why
some Texas residents

may be getting itchy
trigger fingers.

It's January, 2022,
and Boyd Sims,

a "Proof is Out There" viewer,

is on a month long
expedition 50 miles north

of Houston, Texas in the
Sam Houston National Forest.

He is there to record
wildlife sounds.

And what he discovers
is music to his ears.

I couldn't believe
what I was hearing.

I was shocked. I was in shock.

Boyd has made
dozens of strange recordings

of what he describes
as Bigfoot calls.

I spent years looking
for explanations

of the audio recordings I have

and can't find any
animal that makes any

of the sounds that
I have recorded.

Sasquatch is definitely
here in Texas.

This area of the
country has a ton

of Bigfoot reports
out of it dating back

into the 1800s.

I have personally spoken
to a dozen or two people

that have seen
Sasquatches in this area.

One fisherman found footprints
that were about 13 inches.

In fact, there are more
than 40 Sasquatch reports a year

inside the Sam Houston
National Forest.

That's a pretty
significant number of people

that have seen
Sasquatches in this area.

Boyd's recordings are
hardly the first time

an alleged Bigfoot
sound was captured.

Made in the early 1970s,

the Sierra sound
recordings are touted

as the gold standard of
evidence for Bigfoot language.

According to one
respected linguist,

these sounds captured

in California's Sierra
Nevada mountains

reveal an actual
intelligent conversation

in an as of yet
undocumented language.

Could we be hearing
more evidence

of Bigfoot talking
in Boyd's recordings?

We'll let our experts sound off.

The whoops

may be the means by
which males and females

of this relatively solitary,

widely dispersed, very
rare species find a mate.

These loud calls are
probably territorial.

By comparison,

large male orangutans
broadcast their territory

by a loud raucous call that
booms out through the jungle.

They've even developed
extensive laryngeal air sacks

that act as almost
like amplifiers

and so it stands to reason

that perhaps Sasquatch
have these same air sacks.

Meldrum suggests
that these air sacks

may also enable Sasquatch
to produce infrasound,

a low frequency sound used

by animals such as
elephants and whales.

These sounds allow animals to
communicate at great distances

and can even affect the
physiology of a listener.

It can cause the
stimulation of receptors

in the brain that
will evoke fear

and trepidation as
well as other emotions.

I've talked to witnesses
who said, you know,

that their very core vibrated

from the intensity and
the pitch of these sounds.

Could Sasquatches
possibly be using infrasound

to keep people away
as a desperate effort

to keep their dwindling
species alive?

We checked in with forensic
audio analyst Dr. Robert Maher,

who first compares the recording

to known animals
found in the area,

starting with the wild boar.

It's making a kind of
a chirpy kind of sound

rather than a long howl like
the Sam Houston recording.

If it's not a boar,

could it be another local
animal like the fox?

Maher doesn't think so.

Rather than being a howl,

it's much more of a
modulating kind of,

kind of thing.

So it didn't seem like the fox
would be a likely candidate.

However, when
it comes to the coyote.

We can see the sound
starts at a lower pitch,

goes up, and then
sustains at that level.

And that's similar
to what we heard

in the Sam Houston recording.

I can't say that it's
absolutely certain,

but it's similar enough that
I think that's a possibility.

Okay, so
maybe a coyote.

But what about the
big man himself?

Maher checks for a Bigfoot match

using the popular Sierra sounds.

We see a continuous
sort of tone,

but it's very short in duration

and tends to be more
of a yippy quality

where the observation in Sam
Houston was more of a howl.

The characteristics
are different enough

that they're not
the same source.

Our verdict? Unknown
animal noises.

While we have ruled out
most of the local wildlife,

the coyote was similar,
but not a clear match,

and the Sierra sounds
had a different tone.

Nothing lined up well
enough to make a clear call,

but if you ever find yourself

in the Sam Houston
National Forest like Boyd,

be prepared for something
strange to happen.

Be prepared to record it
and be prepared to run.

We'll conclude our special
Bigfoot episode with a question.

We know how people behave

when they think
they've seen Bigfoot,

but how would Bigfoot
behave when he sees people?

One intrepid family claims
they found out the hard way.

It's April 2009 and Chuck
Newton has taken his young son

into the Appalachian
mountains of Virginia

to have some fun with
the family's ATV.

Chuck barrels over
rocks in the ravine,

showing off for his young son

when suddenly something
strange appears.

A hairy humanoid crossing
their path nonchalantly.

Chuck stops cold in his tracks.

It's a wide shot.

So let's push in and slow down
so you can get a better look.

We see that it's
a bipedal figure

that appears to be very
large from this perspective,

possibly exceeding
seven feet in height.

What was that?

Field researcher Cliff
Barackman says Bigfoot sightings

in this area go all the way
back to Native Americans.

In Virginia, the
Cherokee people had stories

of giant, hair covered,
people-like things in the woods.

They were doing the
same sort of things

as the people the Pacific
Northwest described.

The most reasonable explanation

for these different people
describing the same animals

is that they were
describing the same animals.

Sasquatches have a
continent-wide distribution.

During the turn
of the 20th century,

local newspapers in
the area reported

on strange Sasquatch encounters.

An old newspaper report

from 1892 reports a
large upright being

with thick hair covering
its head and shoulders.

But the word Sasquatch
didn't exist then.

They chose to call
it the Woodbooger.

The Woodbooger
was rumored to be

a horrifying sight
that was known

to carry away small children
who wandered off in the night.

And booger, or Woodbooger,
actually shares some

of the same word
roots as boogeyman

and are used in much
of the same way.

A lot of times, people will say,

"Now, you don't go out
in the woods at night

because the booger
will get you."

Although this video
has its fair share of skeptics,

Barackman thinks
this could be real.

I find Chuck's reaction to
be very natural, unstaged.

When he turns and
looks at the camera

and points it, did you see that?

And then he
immediately looks back

and watches the animal
as it walks away.

I find that many times,

hoaxers focus on
the camera itself

instead of at this amazing
thing that they just saw

that was unexpected
right in front of them.

I've had the opportunity
to go to this location

with the witness, Chuck,

and I found him to
be very believable.

Interesting fact.

Sasquatch sightings
gained momentum

in the American South
right after the Civil War.

One theory is that
Confederate soldiers

who refuse to surrender

and hid out in the woods
were being mistaken

for these hairy creatures.

Of course, that doesn't explain

the older Native
American legends.

Let's see what our
experts have to say.

The creature that we're seeing

in this video is
clearly bipedal.

The only other
animal in this area

that would be able
to walk bipedally

would be a bear walking
on its hind legs.

But when they do, they
typically waddle more

and take shorter steps.

This being is clearly
taking larger steps

than a black bear would.

So if it's not a bear,

could we be looking at
a real life Bigfoot?

Biologist Floyd
Hayes isn't so sure.

I'm just a little
astonished to see

that it's just casually
crossing the stream.

Doesn't seem to be the
least bit concerned

about this loud, noisy
vehicle that's approaching it.

I think this is
either a human being

in an ape-like costume
that's crossing the river,

or it is a fabricated video.

Anatomy Professor
Dr. Jeff Meldrum disagrees.

He finds that this behavior

could be perfectly
acceptable for a Sasquatch.

The two most
common circumstances

under which encounters occur
are on roads or near water.

And so here we have the latter

and even an ATV trudging
up that creek bed

might not have
sounded as intrusive

or intimidating as
it would otherwise,

given the muffling effect of
the white noise of the stream.

The witness interaction

with the videographer is
also very spontaneous,

very natural, very convincing.

What was that?

And as for this
being a man in a suit,

Meldrum is doubtful,

but is hesitant to make
the call without evidence

of the actual scale
of this creature.

I would probably put it
no more than seven feet.

All these off the
shelf costumes are made

for average people,
but they're not made

for a seven or eight
foot tall person.

So if we could
establish larger size,

that would certainly
lessen the chances

of it being someone
donning a costume.

Our verdict? An
unknown mammal.

Our experts are stumped.

And honestly, I am too.

If this is not a hoax,
it's nice to know

that some Sasquatch
seem pretty content

to mind their own business
when humans disturb them.

And that's our show for tonight.

Thank you so much for joining us

and if you ever encounter
Bigfoot, remember,

don't panic and keep
those cameras rolling.