Lmao...
Why should we assume that? Lol? I don't think you understand what "enhanced" means. If the program is modifying pixels according to an algorithm, it is altering the image. You really think you can take a shitty film from the 60's and show the reflection on someone's eyeball or distinctions in a fiber of fur without having to alter anything? Unless you want to use some alternative dictionary, the image is altered. And a program that carries out tasks automatically according to an algorithm is, in fact, an AI (of sorts).
Also, the guy is not "vetted". There is zero information about him anywhere, and it doesn't seem like he has ever made any scientific contribution to any field in any way we can verify. His website is a home made word press site purely dedicated to Bigfoot. The
only google results about this guy are about Bigfoot, lol. As for his astro-photography, it's something he picked up as a hobby. There's a Sherdogger who is an amateur astro-photographer too, it doesn't mean anything.
No, he wasn't. He worked on Swamp Thing, Return of the Living Dead, and a couple other things. Nothing monkey related.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0612989/
And there's also plenty of way more famous and credited makeup and costume artists that think it's fake, but you don't really care about those, why? Lol man. Stan Winston, who worked on Terminator, Aliens, Jurassic Park, maybe one of the most famous Hollywood makeup guys of all time:
"It's a guy in a bad hair suit. Sorry." Later, "For under a thousand dollars -- in that day -- they could have had this suit made. If one of my [professional] colleagues created this for a movie, he'd be out of business.""
Rick Baker (who did Harry and the Hendersons, American Werewolf, The Grinch, Planet of the Apes 2001 remakes, etc) also one of the GOAT costume guys, who even specialized in monkey suits, thought it was fake:
"Rick Baker: Interviewed on camera for a TV program hosted by Geraldo Rivera in the 90's, where Rick is on a setting with the ficticious "Bigfoot" Harry of the "Harry and the Hendersons" shows Universal Studios did. Rick is seated by a costumed actor as "Harry" and begins by commenting on the Harry costume, particularly how the hair for the suit was hand tied, one hair at a time, by an "army" of fabrication crew members over several months. With that introduction made, the TV show host then asks Rick: "You saw the Patterson film. What was your impression of it?" Rick Baker replies: "It looked like fake fur to me. Like the cheap fake fur you could buy at the time. Same length, same texture. Looked fake."
http://themunnsreport.com/tmr 3_3_1 release.pdf . page 9
Either way, the point is that neither Munns nor MK Davis are particularly more credible than other sources, they have no exceptional credentials we should give a fuck about, and they don't add any new information or provide any real tangible evidence. So we are at the exact same point as we were before: Being asked to believe in something for which the only evidence is some shitty blurry footage.