Leaderboard

Hi, everyone! It has been a while since I have posted, but I have an interesting (potentially) analysis I wanted to share. Although these data are not from the SSR, @Matrix and I thought this could be something of interest. Color is a field in the SSR though, so eyewitnesses do report it. ThinkerThunker recently did a color analysis on the Ontario Bigfoot footage. He collected color (RGB) data at various points in the footage subject, then drew a basic sketch of the subject using those colors. While that does not prove or disprove the subject's validity, it does raise an interesting qualitative analysis for footage subjects in the future. I looked at 2 subjects for this analysis: The PG Film (widely accepted as the real deal, but not proven/disproven) and the "Flash of Beauty" subject (admitted to be faked). I used photoshop and color picker tool, just like TT did, and collected 12 data points from each subject. I made sure to hit the major body parts (head, ankle, thigh, arm, chest, etc). Then, I entered those data into a spreadsheet and plotted them in 3D space to compare the spread of values. Hypothesis (We owe this one to Matrix) : A subject which is a real animal would most likely have more varying color in their pelage (hair/fur) than a costume. Results: Patty had more distribution in her coloration than the Flash of Beauty subject. Discussion: Making costumes is hard! Adding the variation of colors that we see in known mammals (take for example wolves and coyotes, which have patterned pelage) is difficult and time consuming. It would require tedious research and effort with dyes. Is it possible? Sure, if you put in the time and effort and money. Is it likely? Probably not. Most costumes you get for Halloween have monotypic coloration (e.g., most gorilla costumes are jet black. I'm sure all of us know that they have brown and greys mixed into their hair, depending on species and gender). What is your take on this? Is coloration a valid way to tell hoax from a likely real Sasquatch? Next step: FOB vs an Orangutan to see if there is a significant difference in RGB Thanks for reading and Happy Holidays!

I read recently that the snowpack in the northern hemisphere is at a 50+ year high. Bad news for the Europeans living under "green" energy policies... Mid October the temp was in the mid 70's here (northern BC), then below freezing a week later and has remained cold since. Not a ton of snow though, maybe 2'.

My Thoughts: 1. You need to distinguish between more current images and the PGF, so you can try to define the color variability in fake furs. in 1967 fake fur was pathetically unrealistic in general. I didn't see any really impressive natural-looking furs until around 1976, when Rick baker showed me a color swatch of premium fake furs (for fake fur coats) from Europe, but you had to buy the fur a bolt at a time, minimum, which was enough for 10 full suits, so out of the price range for your average creature maker or hoaxer. Fake fur rose to very realistic levels in the mid 1980's with National hair technology (now called National Fibre technology) custom weaving fake hair strands into a spandex base. I has them do so very complex color blends, and they succeeded splendidly. By the mid 70's, they also had course guard hairs and base fur combined for a more natural look. 2. Where experimentation might be worthy is testing real and fake furs under daylight and open shade outdoors, to see how each photographs. One example of a test would be to take a taxidermy full body figure (using the animal's real pelt) and then take an identical manniken and dress it with fake fur to match the real animal as best one can, and photograph both side by side under same lighting. That might reveal differences that can be quantified. Something like the attached image, the two upper right photos of a real chimpanzee and a fake one, side by side. Bill

You're welcome. Would bringing in some color palettes from any great apes be helpful as an additional control? Although, the idea of using man-made suits seems to work just fine for that having a third set of data points in the space where one set is say a Gorilla, Chimp, or Orangutan might be a neat corollary.

Very cool, bipedalist. Thank you for sharing. That does not surprise me at all. If you are a large mammal living in montane areas, you need some nice pelage to retain your heat (and protect from moisture, also seen in montane areas!). I will have to give these pdfs a read!

There is something to this analysis I think. I am also thinking of some of the analysis of putative BF hairs by people like Meldrum/Mioncyznski which may allude to BF guard hairs and undercoat fur like coyotes as I remember. Just throwing that out there.

I think it to be a brilliant approach, BugMaster. The respective plot points in your 3D graphic space says it all.

I hope you don't mind I got a giggle from your comment, Doug. I'm really good at reading people and animals. I'm confident that's what this thing was thinking. It was ready to attack. If I had opened my door or window it was ON. I can defend myself very well but I knew I didn't have a chance with whatever this thing was.

This may not "mesh" with what folks are thinking but my first impression when I saw the crosshatching was that it may have been a result of hoaxing by using a "foot" that had been molded using a fiberglass mesh material. I have seen such detail in a fiberglass surface where the resin was thin enough to fill the mesh but not thick enough to create a smooth resin surface. Does this make any sense? As I said- it was my first impression (pun intended).

Spent part of the day snow shoeing. Found a pair of Bigfoot tracks. Must have been snow falling out of a tree. They looked good! In places the snow is as high as a four strand barb wire fence. It was a work out!