“Squeaky”, apparently, is a Bigfoot which Michael D. Greene claims to have filmed using a thermal imaging camera. The BFRO released this low-res version of the footage on their YouTube channel a couple of days ago.
Here, Michael Greene describes how he obtained the footage:
On Greene’s website, BushLoper.net, you can view the high-resolution footage for $3. Per viewing. [Please note: Oregon Bigfoot is NOT affiliated with this website.]
I have not personally viewed the footage, because the other clips on his site did not load well on my computer, in spite of DSL and 4 GB of RAM. Those other clips, which offer a comparison of sorts, are available for viewing on the above site at no charge. None of this footage appears to be in any way available for download for closer examination or in-depth frame-by-frame analysis aside from the low-res version above, but it’s unlikely that much more detail would be available if it were, given that it’s thermal footage.
Now… a couple of things I’ve learned while using thermal imaging cameras which might help put this footage in context:
Thermal cameras do not care about light. As I discovered, that’s a difficult concept to wrap your brain around when you first begin to use one because it seems rather counter-intuitive. They detect heat signatures ONLY, and depending on the sensitivity of the camera they do it well – within a fraction of a degree. They can literally see in the dark.
Thermal cameras emit NO light. They are not “infrared”. In other words, unlike a Sony Nightshot camera which emits an infrared light that illuminates a scene, thermal imagers are strictly passive. But neither are they “x-ray” cameras. They cannot see through solid objects to a heat source behind. They only register whatever heat is “painting” the picture in the world before you.
Thermals have multiple settings… at least the ones I’ve used. White hot (greyscale), black hot, multiple color settings… Setting it to greyscale usually gives the most detail and best resolution, so that’s what I’ve usually used. The hotter something is, the less fine detail you’ll see because the heat “blows out” the image, kind of like bright sunlight in a photograph. The more uniform the heat pattern, the less detail there is available as well. Generally, clothing, glasses, things of that sort show up well on people because the different fabrics transfer and retain heat differently. In a white-hot setting, glasses show up black, because the glass is colder. Nostrils, open mouths and eyes show up brighter, because more heat is being lost there. Bare skin shows up much brighter than clothing. More detail is available the closer the subject is. A distant subject will appear as more of a “hot blob”. With a subject close to the camera, you will be able to discern more detail, via more subtle differentiation of heat signatures. For what it’s worth, you can place your hand on a wall, remove it, and a “ghost” of your hand will stay on the wall, fading slowly. Thermals are sensitive enough to see that brief of a heat transfer.
When we were filming Mysterious Encounters, we came upon a strange glowing “spot” on the ground in the woods, right beside the trail. Couldn’t figure out what it was. Shined a flashlight on it and there was nothing there… looked through the thermal and there it was, glowing.
Mario, the cameraguy, comes over and asks what we’re looking at. We show him, and he starts laughing.
“That’s my pee. I just went there a couple of minutes ago,” he says. *grin*
My initial reactions to the footage are as follows:
The “creature” I see in this film appears to be rather uniformly “hot”, meaning I don’t see any evidence of clothing. Of course, remember that I’m looking at a low-res version of the footage… but having worn a gorilla suit before, I can tell you that the heat in a gorilla suit does NOT escape well. It’s stifling inside – I almost had a heat stroke during the brief time I wore one. I would not expect a suit to show a sufficient heat signature on a thermal camera, and there would definitely be telltale hotspots from the eyeholes in a mask. None of that is apparent here.
The movements and size are what I would expect to see from an elusive, bulky biped. My research and personal experience tells me these creatures are cautious – and surprisingly sneaky, when necessary.
There is not anything in this film that immediately jumps out at me as a hoax. That said, there is nothing conclusive here, either. Compelling, but inconclusive.
Feel free to share your thoughts with me at the email link below. :)
