The footage is grainy. It’s shaky. It’s exactly what you’d expect from a handheld camera tucked away in the deep, damp woods of the Pacific Northwest during the early 2010s. If you’ve spent any time in the darker corners of YouTube or paranormal forums, you’ve likely stumbled upon the discourse surrounding Sasquatch Birth Journal 2.
It’s weird.
For many, this isn’t just another "blobsquatch" video where a blurry brown shape wanders through a pine forest. No, this one claimed to show something far more intimate—and far more controversial. We are talking about the alleged live birth of a Bigfoot.
Honestly, the whole thing blew up because it touched on a biological reality that most monster hunters ignore. Usually, we talk about footprints or vocalizations. We rarely talk about the messy, visceral reality of how a 700-pound homid would actually bring life into the world. That’s why Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 became such a lightning rod for skeptics and believers alike.
The Backstory of Sasquatch Birth Journal 2
So, where did this actually come from?
The video is inextricably linked to the Erickson Project and the work of Adrian Erickson. Back around 2011 and 2012, there was this massive hype cycle. Erickson claimed to have spent years (and a small fortune) documenting a family of Sasquatch on a property in Kentucky. This wasn't just a weekend camping trip. This was a long-term habituation study.
The "Birth Journal" footage was touted as the crown jewel of this collection.
The narrative was simple: the team had placed cameras in a location where a female Sasquatch—often referred to by researchers as "Matilda"—was known to frequent. They claimed to have captured her in the act of giving birth. When Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 started circulating in snippets and leaked frames, the community went into a full-blown meltdown.
Think about the implications for a second. If real, it would be the biological find of the century. It would move Bigfoot from the realm of "maybe-ghost-maybe-ape" into the world of documented mammalian biology.
But, as is always the case in cryptozoology, things got complicated fast.
👉 See also: Why Elsbeth Season 1 Episode 2 and Its Reality TV Satire Actually Worked
What the Footage Actually Shows (And Why People Doubt It)
If you watch the clips associated with the birth journal, you see a large, hairy mass. It's moving rhythmically. There is a sense of labor.
But here’s the rub.
The "Matilda" creature looks... different. Her fur isn't like the coarse, wild hair described in the Patterson-Gimlin film. It looks uniform. Some critics, including veteran researchers like Bill Munns, who famously analyzed the 1967 film frame-by-frame, pointed out inconsistencies in the way the fur moved.
Critics basically said it looked like a rug.
There's also the Melba Ketchum connection. Dr. Melba Ketchum, a veterinarian who spearheaded the "Sasquatch Genome Project," used the Erickson footage to supplement her controversial DNA findings. She published a paper in 2013 claiming that Sasquatch was a human hybrid. The scientific community at large rejected the paper. They cited peer-review issues and potential sample contamination.
Because the Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 was so closely tied to this DNA study, when the study lost credibility, the video went down with the ship.
It's a shame, really.
Whether the video is a hoax or a miracle, it represents a specific era of Bigfoot hunting—the "Habituation Era." This was a time when people moved away from chasing shadows and started trying to live alongside them. Even if you think the birth journal is a guy in a suit, the psychology behind why it was made is fascinating. It shows a desire to humanize the creature.
Breaking Down the Skepticism
Why don't more people believe in Sasquatch Birth Journal 2?
- The Lighting and Quality: Despite being filmed in the 21st century, the clarity is frustratingly low. In an age of 4K trail cams, the "dreamy" blur of the birth footage feels intentional to many.
- The Anatomy Problem: Primate births are usually somewhat hidden or involve specific postures. The creature in the journal appears to be lying in a way that some biologists argue is counterintuitive for a large wild hominid.
- The "Paywall" History: For a long time, this footage wasn't free. You had to buy the documentary or pay for access. In the world of science, if you have proof of a new species, you don't sell it for $19.99—you win a Nobel Prize.
That last point is what really stings for the "boots on the ground" researchers. They feel like the Erickson Project took a serious subject and turned it into a commercial spectacle.
The Legacy of the Journal Today
Despite the drama, the footage hasn't vanished. It’s still a rite of passage for new researchers to watch it and decide for themselves.
The Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 serves as a cautionary tale about the intersection of "Bigfooting" and big money. When investors get involved, the pressure to produce "miracle footage" becomes immense. Sometimes, that pressure leads to genuine discoveries. Other times, it leads to things that look suspiciously like synthetic fur in the Kentucky woods.
Interestingly, some modern researchers are revisiting the habituation theory without the baggage of the Erickson Project. They are looking at the behaviors described in those journals—nest building, food sharing, and yes, birthing cycles—and comparing them to known great ape behaviors.
Even if the video is a fake, it forced the community to ask: What would a Sasquatch birth actually look like? That question alone has driven better field research. It has led people to look for birthing beds and nursery areas rather than just footprints on a trail.
Actionable Insights for Researching Sasquatch Media
If you want to dive deeper into the world of Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 or similar "high-stakes" Bigfoot evidence, you have to be methodical. You can't just take a YouTube upload at face value.
- Check the Source: Look for the original "Erickson Project" press releases from 2011-2013. Compare what they promised versus what was actually released in the Sasquatch: The Legend Meets Science updates.
- Analyze the Fur: Look at "Matilda" compared to the Patterson-Gimlin subject (Patty). Pay attention to "secondary motion"—the way the skin moves under the hair. Synthetic fur usually moves as a single mat, while real animal hide has independent muscle ripples.
- Read the Ketchum Paper Critiques: Don't just read the DNA study. Read the rebuttals from geneticists who looked at the raw data. It provides vital context for why the birth journal was eventually sidelined by mainstream cryptozoology.
- Visit the Locations: If you’re really serious, look into the geography of the Kentucky habituation sites. The terrain and flora in the video should match the specific region of the Appalachian foothills where it was allegedly filmed.
The story of Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 isn't just about a monster. It’s about our obsession with the "smoking gun." We want the proof to be definitive. We want to see the beginning of life so we can finally stop arguing about whether the creature exists at all. Until a body is found or a high-definition, multi-angle video emerges that passes every forensic test, journals like this will remain exactly what they are: digital ghosts in the machine of American folklore.
Stick to the data, keep an open mind, but always check for the zipper.