Featured Sponsors

Featured Post
Latest Post

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Harley Hoffman Bigfoot

In 2001, an event took place in British Columbia. However, the video-taped encounter was not released to the public until April 8, 2006. At first it was claimed to be some of the best footage of a bigfoot since the Patterson Film.

It's a mostly forgotten video now. So what went wrong?

Leo and I discuss the video in this post. But first let's take a look at the video  before we continue.

Nancy: When I first viewed this video I was struck by the details that could be seen. Definitely not a blobsquatch or treesquatch. It wasn't blurry. It was clear. You could see the shades of color in the hair and the muscles moving. I could see how the broad shoulders and back tapered  down towards the waist and the upper buttocks. And I couldn't understand why more people didn't include this on their list of favorite or best videos of sasquatch.

Leo: When it came out, I looked for unbiased opinions. It was "dude in a suit" or a complete acceptance. It was "too clear". It looked different from the ones [sasquatch]  I had seen. If it was a dude in a suit, that was one damn fine suit.

Nancy: Not being so involved with the "community", I guess I wasn't so worried at first on what others thought. I liked the look, I liked the way it moved, I thought it could be real. So, back to the question. What went wrong?

Leo: It was damn clear, convincing. It spooked people. At the time it was better than the rest of the stuff out there. Because of that, there was negative reaction. The people out there -- bloggers, Tubers -- there were very few people doing bigfoot on the internet compared to now  -- anyone who was doing breakdowns -- their purpose was to make it seem fake. Even to including personal lives of the witnesses. Anything to discredit them [their evidence]. M.K. Davis is a notable exception. His discussions left it up to the viewer to decide for themselves.

Nancy: I already said what I like about the video, what made it real for me. What makes you feel this could be a real bigfoot?

Leo: Unless Hoffman was tied to Hollywood in any way in order to have access [to make-up, costumes] -- the change in hair length, that piece of matted hair [called by some an "ear"], the bulk, the detail. That's a lot of time, a lot of cash to waste in order to get nothing [in return] from the film.

Nancy: That's true. He didn't make money, get rich. Maybe his 15 minutes of fame. You can't find much information about him on the internet. He doesn't appear as a presenter or guest speaker at conventions and shows. He doesn't get profiled on "documentaries". He doesn't belong to Bigfoot/Sasquatch groups. He's not a member of the "community".

Leo: Most hoaxers are in it for the money or the attention. Harley Hoffman didn't stick around long enough for either one of those things.

Nancy: There are some who cite the length of time between the filming and the revealing - 5 years - as being a red flag.

Leo: It didn't, doesn't matter. It's what's in the film. Not their personal business. Doesn't matter if it's a year or ten years.

Nancy: I agree. Not everyone rushes to publicize an experience or encounter. Delay is understandable. Back to the next "red flag" cited  : that  Harley Hoffman was not active in the "Bigfoot Community". He wasn't giving interviews; appearing on tv; joining online discussions. In other words, he wasn't doing the "usual" things.

Leo: Is it that important? I would take the word of someone outside of it [the bigfoot community] before someone inside of it. Why? Inside it you have all kinds of descriptions to go by, access to shared info, to help them hoax. Someone could look it up online, but it's a lot more work for no return [on a hoax].

Nancy:  However, even today, little is known about the man.  He is said to have an identical twin brother Hutch Hoffman. Hutch was the one who had the website searchforsanta.com. [that domain is currently for sale for those who are interested.]  

Leo: A man's privacy is a man's privacy. Isn't any rule book on how you need to act. He didn't give in to their demands for proof. Even back then the self-appointed authority figures demanded 100% of your information. It's a 'red flag' if you're not willing to hand everything over. He didn't go looking for fame -- publicity -- and it's a 'red flag'. It doesn't matter if he's Hutch, or Harley, or Harry ---- is the subject in the film real? None of the rest has anything to do with what's in the film. It was bad back then. It's even worse today. Many [but not all] of these hoax-busters and breakdown guys think you owe them every piece of your work. Their  real meaning of "breakdown" is them going after you and your work and breaking you down so you never share anything again. That's their goal. "Patty" and possibly Freeman. But everything else has to be stopped. And the sad part is that many people let them.

Nancy: And they want your life story.

zoomed in head shot of Hoffman bigfoot.
alleged "ear" can be seen.

Leo: People don't have to share. You can show what you want and keep the rest to yourself. If someone does not believe what you do share, does it change what you saw? No.

Nancy: Not our job to prove anything to anyone.

Leo: Could be why Hoffman backed out. He may have seen all the trash and said "These people are insane." And if that's true and he was chased away by it all, who knows what other material he may have had.

Nancy: That's an interesting thought. Because I found stated in an older blog from June 2011, someone signed on as "Silver Fox" who made this claim  : "Hoffman was spending a lot of time in the woods and had gotten into a semi-habituation with some before he got this video." That person also added that Hoffman said you have to have the right mindset when you're around them because you only see them when they want you to see them.

Leo: I don't buy into the "you have to be a saint in order to see them" thing. I was no saint but I do respect them and respect their home.

Nancy: Couldn't that be what he meant by 'right mind set'?

Leo: If he was habituating, that could be why he stopped. It just plain didn't matter to him.

Nancy: Why he stopped researching?

Leo: No. If he was actually interacting in any way, he probably said why put up with this b***s***. [the trash talk on the internet] Whose approval did he really need. If he had their [sasquatch] approval, that was more important than a bunch of names on the screen.

Nancy: Silver Fox made the claim : "Hoffman passed two polygraphs." And refuted the statement that Hoffman did not talk about the video : "Harley Hoffman did release a number of statements on the internet. He said he had been studying bigfoots in British Columbia for a long time. He eventually got to the point where he semi-habituated some of them." I did attempt to track down the alleged interviews. I did find a link to one of them but I was unable to open it with any of the software currently available publicly.

Leo: Passing a polygraph in the Bigfoot World holds no weight unless you're Roger Patterson. Heironimus passed one, too. And Gimlin refuses to take one. There have been others who have taken polygraphs . They weren't popular people. Even though a highly qualified person did the test and there was no signs of deception, it was dismissed. So polygraphs don't count to the Bigfoot Community. Unless you're Patterson.

Nancy: So, back to the video. What else did you think of the video? First impressions?

Leo: Well, I knew it wasn't a sasquatch person. If real, it was another type of bigfoot.

Nancy: Because ?

Leo: For one, sasquatch people don't let themselves look that rough. The condition of the hair. It's hard to tell, but the general "unclean" look. Some bigfoot tend to have a little less human look to their features, although we really don't get a good look at them here. It's hard to say. There are two places that could easily be mistaken for a dark face and dark flat nose. But when you look at the rest around it, it could just be hair and a piece curled down resembling a possible nose.

Nancy: And then we have the alleged "ear".

Leo: I don't think it's an ear. It looks more like matted hair from maybe some sap.

Nancy: Or a burr?

Leo: Who knows? But something looks to have gotten into the hair and gotten matted up like that.

Nancy: Maybe done on purpose.

Leo: Could be. It could have been tied up or something as simple as the subject getting some sap in it's hair, it's hard to say but to me it looks like a ponytail that has been cut leaving a few inches above the elastic. I'm not saying that's what it is but it has that shape at the 12 second mark. I don't think its an ear at all.

Nancy: So let's talk about the hair. I feel the hair looks natural, realistic. I know some have said it looked fake, but the reasons run from looks too artificial to that's a real good suit.

Leo: I'm not calling it either way. But it doesn't make much sense to go to that much trouble and expense for that quality of a suit for no return on it.

Nancy: What do you think makes the hair look real?

Leo: For me, one thing is it's patchy. Why would you make or buy an expensive suit and then shave parts of it. No one was really talking about hair or fur back then.

Nancy: Most talk of hair seemed to be contained with talking about suits. Talk about actual hair came up more after 2011.

Leo: People mostly called it fur and didn't seem to be concerned about it much. The biggest complaint was the video was too clear so it had to be a suit. I say that if it was a suit, whoever made that suit had to have seen a bigfoot and studied the hell out of the being. There are details that would be absolutely pointless if you were creating a suit for no reward. If it was a fake suit, why didn't he make more videos?

Nancy: Some complaints are that the footage is too short.

Leo: There seems to be a break in the film. It's possible there was more. But who knows. Just because people demanded more, doesn't mean if there was more that he had to post it. He may have gotten too close, he may have gotten some footage he wanted to keep just for himself. When an encounter like this happens, you're not thinking about what other people would like to see, or want to see. Regardless of how people think it should go, or how they say they would do it, it doesn't happen that way. When it happens to you, you're not feeling brave, or bullet-proof.

Nancy: Some of the nay-sayers claimed the suit was too loose fitting. I didn't notice anything loose.  How do you feel about those who claim they see a cape, or a collar, a zipper, or padding, like football pads.

Leo: I see none of the other things but a case can be made for football pads, I understand why they would think that. The hair itself looks as though it takes the shape of the pads that come down toward the bicep.

Nancy: The shoulder does look rounded. Hard to tell if it's the way the light hits or if that is the actual shape. How about the critic who said the head turned in a way that a "real bigfoot" can't turn it's head. Or that the head was too big?

Leo: The Patterson subject moved a certain way and looked a certain way so anything after that has to also --  Bigfooter rule #1.

Nancy: So, anyhow, now the video was a fake. Some said the camera was too close. No way anyone could get that close to a bigfoot.

Leo: Ok, so now we have to throw out any and all Bigfoot encounters closer than what? 200 feet?

Nancy: For some people, apparently. You know, the old -- it's fake. Why can't anyone walk up and get a good close picture or video and -- it's fake. No one can get that close to one.  And I discard the theory that this film is nothing more than the Freeman Footage made over. The figure is not the same.

Leo: In the Paul Freeman video, I believe that is a sasquatch person, not a bigfoot. If Hoffman's film is real, it is some sort of bigfoot. I don't see any [physical] resemblance to Freeman's at all. Except that both have the figure walking right to left instead of the  "standard" left to right.

Nancy: So, how about our conclusions? You go first.

Leo: I couldn't care less about his personal life. By some accounts Patterson wasn't exactly a trustworthy man and I've never believed one word about the backstory, time, or events that preceded or followed. But at the same time I strongly believe the subject in that film to be real. Of all the reasons that we discussed on why or how other people have dismissed the film I'm basing my opinion on something else in the film and its not what is there but what isn't. I don't do breakdowns or watch them; I have eyes and a brain of my own to make those decisions. Debunked by someone else doesn't mean anything to me. I don't know if I have a conclusion on this film but my opinion is this. . . I've never seen two "Bigfoot" with my own two eyes that looked alike but thin, muscular,and even overweight, when they swing their arms walking at a faster pace their shoulder blades move and I'm by no means disputing anyone who has seen anything different but for me it is either a damn fine suit or it's real. After watching this over and over after many years of not watching it again, I would have to lean toward the damn fine suit made by or with the help of someone who has had an actual encounter. In the end, I wasn't there so I'm not going to throw the word hoax at it. It's just my opinion and nothing more. This is a very interesting discussion piece at the very least and I have enjoyed doing this post with Nancy very much. It was a lot of fun.

Nancy: Well, there are reasons on both sides [fake or real] that are valid and some not so well thought through. There are parts of it I really like and other parts that make me say "hmmm". What I won't do is discard it entirely based on who he is or was, or on whatever name he called himself, or based on the Santa Clause film. Just by looking at the video footage, I have to put this video in the "Maybe" file. In other words, keep researching. And so, I remain on the fence. I always enjoy our discussions on events and things in the "Bigfoot Community" and I really appreciate your being willing to share this one publicly. Thank you, Leo.

I'll leave you with Harley Hoffman's opening words from his video:

"It's absolutely real. I'm telling you apply the same scientific principles that they espouse to that film and tell me it isn't real. Don't forget science is an attitude. It's not machines. Science is an attitude -- of questioning -- not doubting, but questioning. Science may or may not ever get the proof that will satisfy it."

Sources :


[Please Note: Sadly Nancy passed away at the first of January, 2022. We will continue to honor her and her research by sharing her work. RIP Nancy. -Thomas]


"I'll spark the thought; what you do with it is up to you."
 "Those that know, need no further proof. Those that don't, should not demand it from others, but seek it for themselves."

This Post By TCC Team Member Nancy Marietta. Nancy has had a lifelong interest in the paranormal and cryptids. Nancy is also a published author and her book, The Price of war, has been met with great reviews.


  This post by Leo Frank, Leo enjoys the outdoors and researching Bigfoot. Leo has over 23 years experience researching and investigating Sasquatch across different regions of North America. He is also the author of the very popular book Sasquatch Family Ties.

This post sponsored in part by
(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!)

Have you had a close encounter or witnessed something unusual?
Send us an Email

We Accept Guest Posts - Send Them To Us!
(All Submissions Subject to Approval)
Send us an Email

Help us!
Help Support The Crypto Crew



Post a Comment

The Crypto Crew - Submit Sighting - TCC Team
Interactive Sightings Map

SPONSOR LINKS: Available Contact us

Help Us!

Help Support
The Cyrpto Crew

[If interested in licensing any of our content,Articles or pictures contact us by Clicking Here]

"..you’ll be amazed when I tell you that I’m sure that they exist." - Dr. Jane Goodall during interview with NPR and asked about Bigfoot.

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material and is presented in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, of US copyright laws.

Contact Form

The Crypto Crews blog is protected under the Lanham (Trademark) Act (Title 15, Chapter 22 of the United States Code)

Site Stats

Total Pageviews