Ah crap, 2 for 3. I did positively ID a tree stump (in a still) and a photoshop in a video. I took this as inconclusive (but not a hoax), but the OP responded that he was a bear hunter and knows what a bear looks like. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

So I'm curious, when analyzing video do you completely discount eyewitness testimony? I do understand that folk can/will lie or exaggerate. Or did the distance (for the observer) make you think that this sighting was a good candidate for misidentification? Given that it's a hot topic in the popular media, I expect false sightings to increase.

I'm an analyst and a digital artist so I have good deduction skills and the HW/SW/pixel experience for serious video analysis. These exercises help keep my mind sharp. I'm usually more wary, but the witness seemed to talk the talk (I've also hiked all over Cascadia).

If you would rather respond via email, just drop a brief response here and I'll contact you.

Curious Dave in WA

This is a misidentification...don;t think the guy was hoaxing or anything.
It is very easy to be fooled by something like this. I think the distance along with the briefness of the sighting just fooled this person.

I spent a few hours looking at this video...going frame by frame,adjusting color..ect.. This is a bear with at least 1 cub, maybe 2. I would assume the big bear was on it's back legs eating something from the tree. You can see the 1 cub raise it nose to the mother bear.

I would suggest people make sure to watch this in HD by clicking the HD button. In a couple of the frames you can see the pointy ears and the snout.

Feel free to contact me at thecryptocrew@kih.net

Thanks

I don't believe that bigfoot exists, but I am not buying that this was a bear. Sorry. It's not a bear. A guy in a suit, maybe, but not a bear.