Notes on updates:
I had the opportunity to visit the location of this video with Stacy Brown Jr. and Sr. while filming Finding Bigfoot. While there, I took measurements of my own of the tree, the distance between the two trees that the subject hides and walks behind, and the distance to the photographer. Since much of what I said in my previously posted analysis still is accurate and true, I will augment this article with updates below the pertinent paragraphs. The updated information will be printed in brackets and italics.
This interesting clip of video was obtained by a father and son team from Florida on May 8, 2012, sometime between midnight and 1 am. The two men were bigfooting somewhere on the panhandle of Florida around the town of Quincy on the night they got their footage. The exact location is between the property where the Bridges have their ongoing encounters, and where I recorded a “whoop” vocalization last year.
[The location was identified as Torreya State Park in the Finding Bigfoot episode. The actual film site is remarkably close to where the above whoop vocalization was recorded, probably less than 150 yards away. This brings up an interesting, though unanswerable question: was the bigfoot that whooped the same one that was filmed?]
The night the two men were camping, they tried a passive approach by simply having a campfire and playing loud music on a stereo. Every once in a while the duo would go for walks without using any lights. No other campers or people of any sort were ever observed on that night, and both witnesses are sure they were the only people present.
Stacy Brown Sr. was armed with a FLIR Scout thermal imager with which he was continually scanning the nearby woods. He had the polarity switched on the FLIR, so that the warm things in the viewfinder appeared black as opposed to the more commonly used white.
At some point in the evening, they heard some knocks, so they walked in that direction. Every time they heard noises, it seemed like it was just a little bit ahead of them, no matter how far they went. Stacy Sr. then saw a heat signature from behind some trees a little ways off into the palmettos. Whatever it was stepped briefly out into the open. What Stacy Sr. saw was a large, man-shaped figure take one long step and disappear into the brush. He turned to his son who had not seen the figure at all and said, “We gotta go.”
My interpretation of what is seen
For much of the footage, the figure is hiding behind a tree. It seems to be peering out from behind this tree, probably watching the two men as they stood on the nearby trail just over 120 feet away. It shifts its weight to the left foot, which is slightly away from the trunk of the tree, and steps out with its right foot while still touching the tree with its right hand. One very long step puts the creature nearby a stand of trees and bushes, behind which it disappears never to be seen again. This fleeting glimpse of the creature is brief, but more than enough to distinguish its shape from any other known animal in the woods. It can only be a human or a sasquatch.
[Measurements at the site using a range finder indicate that Stacy’s previous measurement of 120 feet is accurate, probably to within a half yard.]
If the figure is human, it is a strangely proportioned one. It’s head seems to sit very low on the shoulders, and it sticks outward from them as if it could be looking downwards as it walks. The creature that is shown in Paul Freeman’s 1994 footage looks downward as it takes steps. This has also been observed by eyewitnesses of bigfoots, sometimes noting that the creature almost seemed to be looking for something on the ground as it walked.
By wearing pads like the kind football players use, it is possible to recreate this low head/high shoulder look if one was wearing a suit. However, the figure’s right arm extends directly out from its very high shoulder, strongly reducing the possibility that the shoulders are the result of any football-style padding.
The left arm extends down to at least the knee level even though the arm is not directly vertical, but rather angled forward. It is quite possible that the hands might extend slightly below the knee if the figure was standing upright with its arms hanging down at its side. The long arms are another congruence with what is commonly noted by people who observe sasquatches.
While we only get to see one of the subject’s steps, there are some interesting similarities to the gait used by the Patterson/Gimlin Film subject. This figure’s trailing leg in the initial swing stage of its gait reaches an angle of 89 degrees, far beyond that of a normal human gait, but very closely matching that of the Patterson/Gimlin Film subject. The leading leg is sufficiently obscured so that it is unknown whether or not the knees ever totally straighten out, or lock, as is typical of a human gait, or remain slightly bent, as would be typical of a sasquatch’s compliant gait.
Initial size comparison
The easiest way to get a ballpark estimate of the size of a figure in a film is to use the same camera and film someone of known size standing where the figure stood from the same position as the original photographer. Finding exactly where the photographer and subject stood may not be that easy, but luckily in this case the Browns knew the trail they were on and were able to more or less find where they were standing. After closely examining both the daytime stills they provided, as well as the thermal recreation footage they took, I have determined that they were in the correct location but probably a few feet away from exactly where the footage was taken. The major landmarks in the footage are visible, but the other trees and bushes seem to be slightly out-of-place, indicating that the recreation photos and films were not taken at exactly the correct position. Having done many similar recreations, I cannot stress enough how difficult it is to get things exactly lined up. Many times, it appears that new trees or plants have grown at the site, but this is largely due to different camera perspectives. The Brown Recreation Footage is simply more testimony for how difficult lining everything up actually is.
I took a still from the thermal recreation supplied to me by Stacy Brown Jr. and superimposed it on a frame from the original footage. I then resized it so that the branch in the upper right of the frame matched in size to the one that is plainly visible in the original footage. Because the camera position was not exactly the same, I then moved the recreation frame around so that the human and bigfoot figure were next to each other for comparison purposes.
[This was more difficult because of the “washed-out” appearance of the original footage. I was not aware until my onsite interview with the Browns that it had rained previously that night. That would make the environment wet, and therefore more or less the same temperature. Rain tends to wash out images in thermal cameras.]
The figure was clearly much larger than the human who measures 69 inches, or 5 ft, 9 in tall. The difference in height is not the only thing that is impressive. Standing alone, the bigfoot figure appears to be rather lanky in build, but once it is compared to a regular human, one can see just how massive the subject is. I acknowledge that these comparisons are only approximations, but it is plain that the subject is much larger than the human standing in the same film plane. Please also take into consideration that the human is directly facing the camera, while the subject is showing its profile. If the figure had been facing the camera in this frame, the contrast in size would be even more dramatic.
[Below is a screen grab from the Finding Bigfoot episode. It shows Bobo walking the same path as the subject of the film. It is unknown if the two frames are at the same zoom level or not, which could change things, but it appears that Bobo is significantly smaller than the figure. Bobo stands at 6 ft, 4 in. He is walking with a bent-knee gait, similar to the film subject, which makes him shorter. This introduces some discrepancy as well. I would argue this discrepancy in true size is negligible for our purposes.]
A note on measurements and calculations
The Browns have been back to the film site on more than ten occasions to do more research and to obtain measurements. On several of those visits, they had instructions from me on which measurements to take in order to determine the dimensions of the creature, as well as the step length. While it was difficult to take comparison photographs and video from the exact location of the footage, the team has offered data that will give some very good, yet approximate sizes of various things seen in the footage.
[Now I have been to the actual film site as well, and my new calculations are below written in italics.]
The measurements below are not exact, nor are they meant to be exact. There are many difficulties with getting exact measurements both at the site, as well as from the photographs themselves. It has already been noted that the recreation photos and videos were not taken from the exact same position as was the original. This will introduce some error into any calculations done from them. Another difficulty is the low resolution of the thermal imager that they used. These factors combined with the inexactness introduced by human error on my part means that any results will not be precise. However, the results of my calculations should give us some ballpark figures that will shed light on what is shown in the video.
[My newest calculations are no more precise than the originals. However, what the new calculations do is verify the range of size of the figure. Only at the smallest estimated statures can the figure be possibly considered human. These smallest estimations are also the least likely based on observations and comparisons.]
Shoulder width
I started with trying to determine the shoulder width of the figure. Measurements taken at the film site indicate that the first tree that the figure is hiding behind is 78 inches in circumference. It was estimated that this tree was 27 inches wide, but using the more accurate measurement of its circumference and the simple formula C=2πr, the diameter is found to be 24.8 inches. The measurement was taken at about 65 inches above the ground.
[The new calculations are based on two measurements I took of this tree. At five feet above the ground, the tree was 77 inches is circumference, which gives it a diameter of 24.5 inches. At seven feet above the ground, the tree has a circumference of 74 inches, yielding a diameter of 23.5 inches. For my calculations, I took the 24.5 inch diameter, and also took my pixel measurements at the level of five feet based on the photograph of Stacy Brown (5 ft 9 in) in the same location. This height was approximately the middle of the film subject’s torso.]
Some of the frames of the video show the creature’s shoulders protruding outwards from the tree on both sides as it tries to hide from view. It seems a simple task to use ratios to determine the approximate breadth of the shoulders. Complicating things slightly is that the creature seems to be wider in some frames than in others. This is probably due to the creature not standing exactly perpendicular to the camera at all times, but rather moving about as it tries to observe the two men on the trail below. By taking pixel measurements of both the tree diameter (x1) and the figure’s shoulder breadth (x2) from four different frames in the video, and using the ratio x1/y1 = x2/y2 where y1 is the tree’s diameter (24.8 in) and y2 is the figure’s shoulder width in inches, I have determined four different possible widths of the shoulders: 39.4 in, 48.3 in, 50.0 in, and a staggering 53.7 in (when the creature seemed the widest). I tried to measure the shoulders at the same location on the creature in each case, so as to not confuse any outward flaring of the arms with the shoulder widths. The average of these numbers is 47.85 inches, or just about four feet wide. I find this number to be consistent with eyewitness reports of large male sasquatches.
[My new calculations using the tree diameter yield a shoulder width of 41 or 42 inches, depending on where this is measured on the film subject. Using a simpler method of calculating the shoulder width (the tree is 44% the width of the shoulders of the creatures standing behind it) yields a width of 35 or 36 inches. When compared with the measured distance between the trees, the width came out to be 31 inches. Any of these shoulder widths is extremely wide, even for a human in a suit. I think the second method of comparing the tree width directly with the subject’s width as it stands behind the tree is probably the most accurate, and happens to be the average of the three calculated widths. ]
Step length
It is possible to get an estimate of the creature’s step length with the numbers derived so far. The creature’s left leg can be seen separated from the tree right before it takes the step that exposes it to view, and the landing point of the right leg can be extrapolated from the foot’s trajectory as the creature finishes its step. I superimposed a still frame of the video from the beginning of its step with one from the landing of the leading foot. I then drew a line at what I interpreted to be the midpoint of the leg at both points in the step. Using another simple ratio of x1/y1 = x2/y2 where x1 is the diameter of the tree in pixels (20.67 pxls), y1 is the actual diameter of the tree in inches (24.8 in), x2 is the step distance in pixels (74.0 pxls), and y2 is the actual distance in inches, I arrived at a step length of about 89 inches (7 ft 5 in).
[As it turns out, the two trees the film subject steps between aren’t even seven feet apart, so the above calculation has some error in it. I measured the distance between the two trees to be 72 inches at their base. However, using the tree diameter as a gauge, I got a 77 inch step length. There must be some error in this method also, since the trees are not that far apart.]
Another method to determine the step length is to use the measured distance between the two trees in the footage. Stacy Brown Jr. supplied me with the measured distance between the first tree where the subject was initially hiding and the one that the subject can be seen walking behind right before it disappears into the brush. This measurement was 116 inches, or 9 ft. 8 in. Using the above ratio with the changes of x1 measuring 105 pxls and y1 measuring 116 inches, I arrive at a step length of 81.75 inches, or just under 6 ft 10 in.
[As mentioned earlier, the two trees are 72 inches apart at their base. It is unknown where Stacy measured, or even if he measured the correct tree. Using the newly-measured distance between the trees yields a step length of a bit over 56 inches, or 4 ft 8 in. This corresponds pretty well with other measured bigfoot step lengths. I think this method of calculation is also the most accurate, as it introduces the least amount of uncertainty and error into the calculations.]
These two estimates are only seven inches apart, so I am confident that this represents the approximate step length seen in the video. While that is a bit longer than the average 5 foot step, it can be assumed that the creature was in a hurry to get out of sight as quickly as possible and took a longer step than it might have done so in a more casual situation. It certainly appears like it’s taking a longer than comfortable step.
[The above ratios still hold true, but starting with the correct numbers should give more accurate results.]
Height
Using the measured distance between the two trees, a pixel to real distance ratio can be used to measure the height of the figure. Using two different frames of the video, I determined the approximate height in pixels of the figure in each frame. For each, I took a straight vertical line from the crown of the head to where I interpret the feet to end. Then for each frame I took a pixel measurement from the crown of the head to the bend in the trailing leg, and then from there to where I interpret the bottom of the foot to be. Each method gave me widely varying measurements, but I think the results show reasonable estimates of minimum and maximum heights.
Using the above two measurements on frame 9, I arrived at a height of 93.4 inches (7 ft 9 in) and 103.1 in (8 ft 7 in). Using the two measurement methods above for frame 10 of the video, I arrived at a height of 107.7 inches (8 ft 11.7 in) and 101.3 in (8 ft 5.3 in). The average of all four of these results is about 8 ft 5 in.
[The new data yielded a height that varies from just over 72 inches to over nine feet. The largest results can safely be ignored, as all the results that were derived from this method (using the tree diameter as a starting point) were obviously too large. The method of using the distance between the two trees yields a height that is obviously too small at only 73 inches. (Bobo, who stands 76 inches, is dwarfed by the film subject, though it has already been acknowledged that both Bobo and the film subject were walking with a bent-knee gait, making their walking height a few inches shorter than their standing height). Taking the average of the two calculated heights gives a height of a little over 8 feet. Just estimating the figure’s height by looking at the clip makes me think this might be a bit high as well, but maybe it’s not. It looks like the figure stands between 7.5 and 8 feet tall, but that’s only by “eyeballing” it.]
Another method of determining the creature’s height is to use the calculated step length. It can be measured in the footage that the creature’s step length is approximately 80% that of its height. By taking the two calculated step lengths above and dividing them by 0.8, we get a height of 102 inches (8 ft 6 in) and 111.25 inches (9 ft 3 in). These numbers fall more or less in line with the other results derived from the former different method.
[I feel that the newly calculated step length is pretty accurate. Using this number as a jumping off point gives a height of just over 73 inches. As mentioned before, this seems to me to be a bit short for the figure in the video, but perhaps my assumption is wrong. Perhaps also skewing my perception is that the sasquatch is standing on a bent leg in frame 10 from which the measurements were derived. Also, I estimated where the foot hits the ground for my height measurement. Perhaps the figure’s legs are longer than I estimated when measuring pixel height.]
While the above results vary by more than 17 inches, I feel that these very rough calculations give us some idea of the approximate size of the creature in the video. No measurement yielded a result anywhere near the height of any normal human being. Whatever is depicted in the footage is clearly very large.
[While my new calculations do yield a minimum height that is definitely within human range, this result can be safely dismissed by looking at the recreations made with both Stacy Brown and Bobo which clearly indicate that the figure is much, much larger than either of the two men. While the calculations that I think would be the most accurate give somewhat small height estimates, all of the calculated values using the step length and/or the spacing of the trees seem a bit small. I would assume that the height is just another example of a smaller-than-real value.]
Conclusions
I have interviewed both of the witnesses that were there that night and I am satisfied that they are not lying about what they did and observed. Their actions since obtaining the footage support that the footage is not a hoax in that they have spent considerable money visiting the location on many occasions since to do further research and to obtain accurate measurements at my request. The measurements they obtained were used to calculate the dimensions of the creature in the footage, and every result of every calculation showed that whatever is in that film is simply immense. While the results of my calculations are only approximations of the creature’s size, it is clear that the figure is very large. It seems to stand somewhere around 8.5 feet tall, and have a shoulder width of about 4 feet. The creature is simply too big to be a human, and the steps are ridiculously long. The figure’s shape, posture, and gait match those seen in other films purporting to show sasquatches. The data provided by the Browns strongly suggests that the figure seen in their film is a sasquatch.
[My newest analysis does not change my opinion of the film at all. Even though my numbers indicate the possibility that the figure is within the height range of humans at the smallest end of the scale, the largest height estimates are way beyond any human alive. The true height value is probably in the middle somewhere (the average of the values is 8 ft 4 in).]
The below slideshow contains the best still from the video as the creature steps out.
