Independence Day Bigfoot Video... Result is in.

       People continually ask me to review the Independence Day Bigfoot Video, you know the one carrying the "baby." So here's the skinny of it all. Let's break this down in two ways. The actions of the videographer and the film itself. Here's just the raw facts. 

1. Videographer Behaviors

🔍 1. Camera Movement and Framing✅ Observed:

• Camera pans and zooms toward the subject, rather than away.
• The subject is often centered or near-center in frame.
• There is little panic, no signs of running or stumbling.
• Camera holds on the figure for several seconds, with minimal shaking for an alleged high-adrenaline encounter.

⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In a legitimate, high-stress sighting of an unknown hominid:

• Most people experience a fight-flight-freeze response.
• Expect erratic movement, loss of framing, or even abandonment of the shot altogether.
• This footage demonstrates a level of composure and technical handling inconsistent with a spontaneous reaction to a large, unknown animal.

📌 Interpretation: Behavior suggests the photographer either knew where the subject would appear or was acting under low stress, possibly staging or filming a planned scenario.

🔊 2. Absence of Audio ReactionsIf audio is present (which it is in some versions), it's often eerily quiet:

• No gasp, shouted expletives, or startled verbal confirmation ("What is that?!" etc.)
• No labored breathing, even during a supposed chase or follow
• No vocal communication with others, even if multiple people were allegedly present

⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In a real sighting, most people speak without thinking—verbalizing shock, fear, or even profanity. The absence of this is highly suspect unless:

• The audio was muted or replaced
• The videographer is unusually disciplined or disassociated (which is rare in spontaneous events)

🚶 3. Pursuit BehaviorThe camera tracks the figure without hesitation:

• No decision-making moment ("Should I follow it?")
• No concern for personal safety
• No attempt to gain higher ground or safer vantage point

⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In genuine wildlife or cryptid encounters:

• Most witnesses retreat or maintain safe distance
• Rarely do they move toward the unknown, unless emboldened by group presence or a weapon

📌 Interpretation: Either the photographer did not perceive danger, or the event was scripted, removing the uncertainty normally present.

⏱ 4. Duration of FilmingThe subject is filmed for a prolonged period, with:

• Subject in-frame for a surprisingly long time
• No scramble to grab the camera, stabilize it, or refocus

⚠️ Inconsistency:Legit sightings tend to be extremely brief—many under 10 seconds—because the creature moves quickly or the videographer panics.
📌 Long, clear, and stable framing is atypical, especially if the encounter is described as "sudden" or "unexpected."

🧠 5. Cognitive-Emotional DisconnectThere is no visible or audible emotional escalation:

• No shift from confusion → awe → fear
• No sign of shaking voice or hyperventilation
• No attempt to narrate, flee, or signal others

This suggests the event was either:

1. Filmed calmly by someone who already knew the subject wasn’t dangerous, or
2. Staged, and therefore lacking authentic emotional markers.

2. The Film... Inconsistencies show "post-production work"

📌 1. Zoomed-In Rock Interaction (Frames 1–4)These show the region where the subject appears to interact with or pass in front of the rock:

• You can clearly see in Frame 2 and 3, the upper body cuts in front of the rock.
  
• However, the legs remain visibly behind it, with no natural transition.
  
• There’s no anatomical continuity, which suggests a compositing mask error.
  

📌 2. Marked Full FramesThese highlight the analyzed region with a red bounding box:

• Note how shadows and edges behave unnaturally around the interaction point.
  
• The rock edge remains static, while the subject's interaction with it is inconsistent across frames.
  

What’s notable here is the high initial motion (Frame 1–2) where the upper body appears in front of the rock, followed by a drop in magnitude, even though you'd expect consistent stride flow if the figure were moving uniformly. This supports the idea of compositional discontinuity or layer mismatch during the rock crossing.

Conclusion:

The inconsistencies in depth occlusion, combined with edge behavior and inconsistent motion magnitude, suggest the video segment likely underwent manipulation. The interaction between the figure and the rock violates physical continuity.  

So folks, this one is not a winner!!! 

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D