Specksquatch: Latest video from British Columbia is too far away (UPDATE: identified?)

A person has come forward to say he may be the Speck in question. See update below.

Originally published May 4, 2014.

Hikers film a dark speck in a remote valley against the snow. There is not enough information to conclude what it is. Therefore, Sasquatch?

B.C. hiker films possible sasquatch in mountains near Squamish – British Columbia – CBC News.

A B.C. man who claims he filmed a possible sasquatch while hiking in the Tantalus Range near Squamish, B.C. two years ago is getting thousands of hits on YouTube after recently uploading the footage.

The video shows a black dot of a figure apparently moving up the slope of a snow covered mountain.

“I can’t see it very well,” Lamont says into the camera lens. “It’s this little black dot walking in the middle of the snow in the middle of nowhere.”

First, it can’t really be the middle of nowhere if THEY are there. Yes, it looks remote for sure. They are adamant that the figure was bipedal and without snowshoes or backpack. The camera doesn’t do justice here, the eye can judge better. But they also note he’s huge. I’m not sure that any of that can be confirmed at such a distance. They say it’s not a bear. Here is more from the youtube page which has over 88,000 views.

There was a very steep drop off below where the video was shot, easily a 300m sheer face. We were not equipped with climbing gear and a descent around would have been impossible before nightfall.

Perhaps the most reasonable explanation for this video is a very ill prepared hiker, hiking up a difficult section of snowline as opposed to a much easier route, one who is very physically fit and able to cover ground in unusually quick fashion and must have had very large feet as we were breaking through snow crust in just our boots.

This may intrigue some people but once again, there is nothing to go on. Even if they had been able to get there to film the trackway or even to get closer to the object, that would not have been suitable evidence to prove Bigfoot. Only a body or a solid DNA specimen will do at this point.
valley specksquatch

UPDATE (16-May-2014): RidgeWalker Pete has come forward to say that he was in this area around that time and this may be him, not a mystery creature.

Has the Squamish ‘Sasquatch’ been identified? – British Columbia – CBC News.

Enter Peter Tennant, a.k.a. Ridgewalker Pete. The 56-year-old from White Rock believes his admittedly odd hobby of walking by himself across remote B.C. mountainsides put him in the cross-hairs of Lamont’s lens.

Tennant says he does a lot of solo hiking, shoots pictures and video of his walks, then sets them to music. And Tennant says he was on Tricouni Peak in July 2011, the same month Lamont shot his video.

The hiker says he ran across the Sasquatch story on the CBC website and recognized the valley as the same one he’d been exploring that July.

Here is Pete’s blog on the news story.

Pete says this could have been him. Also, he’s never seen any evidence of Sasquatch.

But the person who filmed the incident isn’t buying that this is Pete.

Ridgewalker Pete says his hiking diary confirms he was on Tricouni Mountain the last week of July.

Mystery solved … until we asked Lamont, the wildlife biologist who shot the video, “When were you on Tricouni Peak?”

“We were there July 2,” he said.

And that’s at least three weeks before Ridgewalker Pete.

It’s also from 2011, that’s a lot of time to forget details. Can we resolve a date dilemma or do we assume Sasquatch?

This is not anywhere near convincing evidence for a Sasquatch.

  27 comments for “Specksquatch: Latest video from British Columbia is too far away (UPDATE: identified?)

  1. Chris Howard
    May 4, 2014 at 10:05 AM

    That is, clearly, a Frankenstein: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2646378/

  2. busterggi
    May 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM

    In the middle of nowhere climbing a mountain at 7000 ft – why would someone wearing a tee shirt, no winter wear on the cameraman, who’s climbed that same mountain even higher, cameraman is above the figure in the snow, find the presence of someone else incredible?

  3. May 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    The hiker is clearly below the tree line – there are mature trees near him (it looks like a man to me), and it looks like he’s walking towards some kind of road or river – note the blue patch of water – he’s walking downhill to somewhere that leads off the mountain.

  4. GMc
    May 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM

    Slow news day at CBC. By the way, British Columbia (spelling).

  5. Indrid Cole
    May 4, 2014 at 12:53 PM

    I’m no mountain climber but it seems like maybe a small set of binoculars would be a practical thing to bring along. How did they even notice it in the first place? From his tone of voice it comes off as fake.

  6. May 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM

    and a comment from the CBC’s site:
    “He is on Tricouni Peak, not in the Tantalus range.

    I like that he pans from up the Checkamus river from Squamish to Whistler and says “middle of nowhere.” The “Sasquatch” is about 1km from there ascent route, and about 3km from the trailhead.”

    It doesn’t sound like he’s even on a difficult hike – more like a nice walk in the sunshine.

  7. RDW
    May 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM

    I’d think in descending order it might be : a friend of theirs, a bear, the boogey man, Jebus, or a Bigfoot.

  8. idoubtit
    May 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM

    Doesn’t spell check the title. D’oh!

  9. Chris Howard
    May 4, 2014 at 2:29 PM

    Frankenstein. πŸ˜‰

  10. padego
    May 4, 2014 at 2:36 PM

    Imagine, you’re lost trying to figure out which way’s the best way off this friggin’ mountain hoping for some if any help, meanwhile on the opposite peak a group of twits have come to the conclusion that you’re a BigFoot….

  11. idoubtit
    May 4, 2014 at 2:46 PM

    Frankenstein’s MONSTER. Frankenstein was the scientist dude.

  12. May 4, 2014 at 4:30 PM

    Specksquatch. I love it Sharon, and I’m probably going to use it in a future blog.

  13. GMc
    May 4, 2014 at 6:08 PM

    Just saw this: http://zitscomics.com/comics/may-4-2014/ It seems to be an excellent summary. πŸ™‚

  14. Lagaya1
    May 4, 2014 at 9:23 PM

    If you discount appearances, it was the scientist who was the real monster in the original Mary Shelley version. his creation was kind and intelligent- at least at first. The scientist was a horrible man.

  15. Frederick
    May 4, 2014 at 11:24 PM

    The guys who filmed this, are also in the middle of no where, and are bipedal, so it means they are bigfoots too?
    The animal they film is not even close enough to even gauge it size, you cannot state that it is bipedal with any accuracy, doing so is dishonest ( they still assume a lot in the video, like it is conclusive, but it is not, biased from the start) My money at 99% that it is a bear, goat or any other mountain animal who lived there. the other 1% Maybe another hiker, They are there too after all, so why nobody else could go there.
    case closed for me. πŸ™‚

  16. Brian
    May 5, 2014 at 7:02 AM

    Looking at the video and picture, it might as well be Herman Munster!

  17. Rex Dart
    May 5, 2014 at 10:26 AM

    But as I saw pithily (but not for the first time) pointed out in a Cracked infographic thingy, the monster acknowledges Frankenstein as his father, and sons take on the surnames of their fathers. (And if Frankenstein is NOT the monster’s surname, what would be?)

  18. Chris Howard
    May 5, 2014 at 7:29 PM

    They both wandered the tundra, so the answer is yes. πŸ˜‰

  19. ken
    May 7, 2014 at 12:35 AM

    And, this comes out, TWO YEARS after it was filmed, on the SAME DAY that [] Dyer shows up in Texas with the bigfoot he supposedly shot, six years after HE was caught in another bigfoot flim-flam.

    I wanna believe, but some part of me is SCREAMING publicity stunt.

    #1. you’re a wildlife biologist but you walk in the middle of nowhere with NO BINOCULARS?? No.

    #2, your camera is a piece of shit, even for two years ago? No.

    #3, your buddy, whom you happen to pan around to ……. isn’t even looking at specksquatch…….he’d cleanign his nails or something.

    #4, I don’t know the area, but I DID note it was suspicious the way he panned only 180 degree field of view and declared “look, we’re in the middle of nowhere. For all I know there’s an INTERSTATE (inter-province?) highway BEHIND them. And one commenter above says they’re LESS THAN 8/10’s of a mile from a trailhead here. So it could be a 6’9” Army Ranger out for his exercise.

    #5. TWO YEARS ago? And you’re some kind of wildlife, outdoorsy, forestry dude? And you don’t “release” the video for general consumption and dissection but only for a few friends? NO. BS.

    #6, there are at least TWO GUYS out there. Guy #2 didn’t even bring a camera? No monocular? No binocs either? BS.

    Just too many wierdities about this one for it to be real.

    [Edited for language.]

  20. Frederick
    May 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

    you make excellent points. It is kind of weird, they could have film a empty field of view 2 years ago, and saying all the crap they are saying, and then add with cgi, a small walking dot. it is not even hard. And since it is small and hard to see, it is harder to really notice it is fake.

  21. Lee
    May 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM

    It is a very small, slow traveling UFO. My vote goes for a titmouse and two people too high to contemplate “Let’s get closer!” DUH!

  22. Bill T.
    May 8, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    I can’t make out what it is, I have no actual data to go on, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is the infamous Abdominal Schneemann!

  23. Indrid Cole
    May 9, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    Good point. The guy down below is probably in a hurry because he thinks there is a family of Bigfoot’s up on the peak staring down at him.

  24. Artor
    May 15, 2014 at 2:06 AM

    That’s FRONKENSTEEN!!!

  25. May 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM

    If we can establish the dates don’t match, and it’s not Ridgewalker Pete, then logically it’s not anyone else either. Right? I’m pretty sure that’s correct, isn’t it?

  26. Lee
    May 16, 2014 at 2:10 PM

    I believe Pete should have hesitated somewhat in providing the time period he was exploring. It would be most helpful to see the time stamp on the video.

  27. SamSquantch
    August 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM


Comments are closed.