What was fake and who faked it?

This documentary ("documentary"?) ended up being much more fascinating than I first expected, because after watching it I had to reflect on all I saw and wonder how much of it can be trusted. I'm curious as to how much of it other viewers think is fake.

As far as I'm concerned below are the different levels of fiction that might be portrayed in the film, and along with each I've given my opinion as to how likely it is. I'd love to hear what other people think.


Scenario 1: The entire production is fiction.

The filmmaker (Morgan Matthews) used real Bigfoot investigators to create three separate fictional stories. The bigfoot investigators are playing characters and staging interesting situations for the filmmaker and the audience. The movie is essentially the Bigfoot version of "Incident at Loch Ness".

My opinion: This would seem more probable to me if the Bigfoot investigators didn't come across as so stupid and unlikable. I doubt they'd voluntarily portray themselves that way and make their work seem so seedy.
Probability: 10%


Scenario 2: Two of the stories are real; the entire portion involving Rick Dyer is staged fiction.

The filmmaker really did go out with the other two groups (with Biscardi et al. and the two redneck guys) and everything there was authentic. The filmmaker conspired with the Rick guy to go on an artificial outing with manufactured tension that culminated in a fake Bigfoot encounter.

My opinion: This would seem more plausible to me if it weren't for the homeless guy with the wounded dog. That wound seemed very real, so I don't think *everything* in this outing was fiction.
Probability: 5%


Scenario 3: Two of the stories were real, as were portions of the Rick Dyer outing. Rick and filmmaker collaborated on creating drama as well as the Bigfoot encounter.

In this scenario the homeless people were genuine and they really did report a Bigfoot encounter, but everything involving the filmmaker and Rick in the woods (including the weird shirtlessness, Rick's hostility, and the Bigfoot sighting) was deliberate acting and staged.

My opinion: Satisfactorily explains everything. Rick is a known hoaxer with no reputation to worry about who'd be willing to go along with this. Explains the filmmaker's actions leading up to and during the Bigfoot encounter.
Probability: 50%


Scenario 4: Two of the stories were real; there was hoaxing, but the filmmaker did not knowingly participate.

Rick Dyer, without the filmmaker's involvement, deliberately created a tense situation in the woods and staged his faked Bigfoot encounter. The hoax was perpetrated on the filmmaker without his knowledge or consent.

My opinion: This does an okay job explaining everything, except the Bigfoot encounter seems too perfectly shot to not have been planned out. You get a nice shot of the creature, plus the filmmaker seems to stay down on the ground way too long after being knocked down. If I'm scared in the woods and a Bigfoot (or rather "Bigfoot") knocks me down I'm getting right up and getting myself ready to respond to whatever it does next, but there's no sign that he did any of that. I don't know, maybe he thought it was a bear and so he played dead?
Probability: 35%


Scenario 5: Everything was real. That was a real Bigfoot.

Well, I'm generally a skeptic so in my opinion definitely not. The filmmaker doesn't even really push this idea in the film.
Probability: 0%