The Patterson Gimlin Footage

[DougieJones]

How do any of us know we humans haven't found one? Is your individual knowledge of an event needed for said event to have happened? For all anyone here knows we have multiple 'bigfoot' skeletons (I personally think if we do the Smithsonian Institute is the best bet as holding the remains). I'm not saying it's true, all this could absolutely be bullshit. I just don't understand how people can be so completely closed-minded on so many subjects.

 

[moreorless87]

Yeah but they said the same things about the pyramids for a long time.

"There's no way they could've moved these huge blocks without advanced technology!" But then they figured it out eventually and saw that it was totally possible.

In these situations as well you always get the "skeptics" looking to pick holes in legitimate science but are quite happy to believe that its Bigfoot, Aliens, God, etc without any evidence.

Its really the classic form of dishonesty arguing were the burden of proof is always placed on the opponent, "I know I was caught fucking a goat 56 times but you need to proove I was fucking it THIS TIME or I WIN!"

 

[BluntForceTrama]

You can’t really think that by enhancing a frame of that film is going to give you details like the glare in an eye or focused in hair?

@Volador Bill Munns was the costume creator behind the Planetof the Apes in the 60s Hes gone on the record to state the film is not a hoax and no suit existed then or after to mimic what was caught in the footage


Jeff Meldrum Professor Biological Sciences, Idaho State University


Page 45 goes into depth on the film quality
https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries...-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf

 

[BluntForceTrama]

 

[sleepwalk]

My biggest issue with the PGF is the bottoms of the feet.

My biggest issue with the debunking is that Bob Hieronymous' story makes little sense and contradicts itself.

Is there enormous primates in the undeveloped areas of the US? Probably not. Almost assuredly not.

Do I dismiss stories from eye witnesses? Very rarely. The whole thing is very intriguing.

 

[BluntForceTrama]

My biggest issue with the PGF is the bottoms of the feet.

My biggest issue with the debunking is that Bob Hieronymous' story makes little sense and contradicts itself.

Is there enormous primates in the undeveloped areas of the US? Probably not. Almost assuredly not.

Do I dismiss stories from eye witnesses? Very rarely. The whole thing is very intriguing.

basically my sentiments (ive read the sediment in the area hd been washed by a flood with ash material) but ill admit mines a bit more intense lol

 

[90 50]

Some things make this easy to write off as a hoax. Known conmen get the footage.
They made a suit.

They hear of a sighting in an area.

They take off with thier ghetto ass suit to make a prank film, filming in the recent sighting reporting area.

Then the unthinkable happens. While they are setting up to film thier prank, and actual whole ass Bigfoot strolls past.

As fucked up as it sounds, it’s the most probable with the quality of this footage.

A suit like that wasn’t made back then. Sorry.

This falls into the “it’s to fucked up to be fake” scenario.

 

[witt1021]

does a bigfoot shit in the woods?

 

[BoogerDawson]

Scott Herriott had a sighting in Klamath, CA in 1992. His friend took some footage that made it on Ancient Mysteries. I saw some clips, and while it isn't great quality, I can make out what appears to be a Sasquatch like creature. I've heard Scott speak about this incident on various podcasts and interviews over the years.

 

[elreece]

this is just ridiculous lol grown ass men believing in fairy tales.

 

[zapataxiv]

does a bigfoot shit in the woods?

I'm pretty sure it shits on the pope

 

[theleerygoose]

It’s a suit, if the species existed there would have to be a population.

 

[The Hash Slinging Slasher]

My wife is a full on Bigfoot believer. I’d say there’s a 98% chance it doesn’t exist. Maybe at some point long ago, but almost certainly not today.

 

[JBSchroeds]

MK davis is a wizard
this one came out last week
digital filtration techniques enhance not alter
allowing details to pop including hair flow pattern and visibility of ear

I watched part of this and this guy seems to not understand what upscaling is. It absolutely creates something out of nothing. It is an informed something, but it's not retrieving data that was originally there and magically revealing it by the upscaller. Here's an example I did for DOOM sprites using a 2x upscaller.

I was looking up various upscalers (as one does) and ran across one called DCCI and I'm really impressed by the results it gives on a simple x2 scale. You think there would be interest in doing this up as a full WAD? I don't have the time at the moment, but I'm considering adding it to the "if you get the time" list.
View attachment 917952 View attachment 917950 View attachment 917951

There's no AI involved, but it uses edge-detection techniques to make a best-guess at what the added detail should look like. Those fur striations that you see in the upscaled version are a halmark of edge-detecting upscallers.

 

[revoltub]

MK Davis released this today


2:24 but i encourage some of you boneheads to watch the entire thing.

Lets assume what Davis is presenting here is an enhanced image....not altered not AI


Ive been admiring MK Daviss work for a while The dude (an astro photographer by trade) is vetted and hes not messing around. Hes a documenter and has been on this footge for nearly 30 years. Hes one of the heavies on this subject that in all viability includes three maybe four.

The closer you look the more real it becomes..

No way this footage is fake Thing isnt human

Bigfoot has a nice clean mop of head hair.

 

[listrahtes]

Comparing Stonehenge to the pyramids is hilarious. Literal apes could have put Stonehenge together. The pyramids are a feat beyond explanation.

Maybe for a retard like yourself but not with avery basic understanding of mathematics and physics which they had back then, but you obviously not.

The pyramids are no mystery at all. They are a sign how bad education has gotten with all the idiotic conspiracies.

 

[Volador]

MK Davis released this today


2:24 but i encourage some of you boneheads to watch the entire thing.

Lets assume what Davis is presenting here is an enhanced image....not altered not AI


Ive been admiring MK Daviss work for a while The dude (an astro photographer by trade) is vetted and hes not messing around. Hes a documenter and has been on this footge for nearly 30 years. Hes one of the heavies on this subject that in all viability includes three maybe four.

The closer you look the more real it becomes..

No way this footage is fake Thing isnt human

Lmao...

Lets assume what Davis is presenting here is an enhanced image....not altered not AI

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? Those things weren't captured in the first place, so they can't be "revealed" by magic software. 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". Vetted by who? And he didn't even do the pictures himself, he talks about some dude "Todd Gatewood", who gave him the images. We don't even know who the hell that is or what software he used. There is zero information about either of them anywhere, and it doesn't seem like either has ever made any scientific contribution to any field in any way we can verify. MK Davis' website is a home made word press site purely dedicated to Bigfoot. The only google results about this guy are about Bigfoot. 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.

Bill Munns was the costume creator behind the Planetof the Apes in the 60s

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/

Hes gone on the record to state the film is not a hoax and no suit existed then or after to mimic what was caught in the footage

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? 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 care about, and they don't add any new information or provide any real tangible evidence, other than Photoshopped images. 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.

 

[BluntForceTrama]

I watched part of this and this guy seems to not understand what upscaling is. It absolutely creates something out of nothing. It is an informed something, but it's not retrieving data that was originally there and magically revealing it by the upscaller. Here's an example I did for DOOM sprites using a 2x upscaller.

There's no AI involved, but it uses edge-detection techniques to make a best-guess at what the added detail should look like. Those fur striations that you see in the upscaled version are a halmark of edge-detecting upscallers.

to be honest i saw this on a bigger screen and was a little disappointed if im totally honest....the image definitely comes off produced and filtered.....even the glare looks like a bear homo baldheaded dude w handlebar mustache lol

disappointed in davis for not commenting on it....maybe he'll do a follow up, I definitely left a text on the YT

 

[BluntForceTrama]

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.

the confirmation bias is thick on both sides apparently dude lol

 

[owen_taggart]

the confirmation bias is thick on both sides apparently dude lol

that's it? that's your counterargument?