Leaderboard

Came across this interesting John Hawks post He was impressed!

Wow! What an interesting time to be alive back then. All of these cousins walking around.

Hmmm .... video removed, anyone got another url for this? Must have violated copyright, here is another source.

Sasquatches are 100% what they are and what I think they are has zero % effect on that, however, my personal view is flesh and blood with wooish capabilities that are consistent with an earthly creature, even if we haven't studied these capabilities in other earthly creatures. They may be unique to the species.

I found it much easier to accept the opinion that they're hominids. A different human species, like Neanderthal, Denisovans, feral humans, etc. Once I did, everything "opened up", including DNA evidence. I just can't accept extra terrestrial origin until some proof of interstellar or inter-dimensional travel is revealed.

Yes it would be amazing to know that! I don't use any electronic devices including Trail Cams......all the animals know it's there and IMO the hairyman does too 100%.....I was using some occasionally 10 or so years ago, and they pretty much boycotted me for over 2 years.

IMKER: No work, files, or images by M.K.Davis were used in this effort or the paper subsequently published. He and his efforts did not influence the project in any way, shape or form. And there is nothing about astrophotography that contributes any analytical value to the PGF study. Worship him if you like, but I have yet to see any real merit to his efforts and I've never used any of his efforts or material in any way to advance our knowledge of the PGF. The only time I reference his efforts is when I'm cleaning up a mess his flawed efforts caused.

Interpolated frames are always problematic for factual analysis because the computer doing the interpolation is working from an algorithmic protocol which generalizes how to calculate changes of position, but the specifics of the image may cause the computer to miscalculate (anatomically), especially on Patty, when some of her features are at the grain level of the film, and grain patterns can vary, so the computer is interpolating changes in grain pattern, not changes of true anatomy. I've taken two identical frames of Patty, but copied in two independent instances, and by overlapping them, and cycling back and forth from one scan to the other, I can create the appearance of facial movement, even in the same frame (which of course has no natural movement. The apparent false movement is the fluctuation of the grain pattern. Any proper analysis of Patty requires a consideration of how close the studied feature is to the grain pattern. Generally the smaller the feature, the greater the likelyhood of grain noise being the source, not true image detail. I've seen other researchers neglect this variable, and produce flawed analysis, so as a general rule, when I see something about her anatomy that is curious or questionable, I look for verification of the same feature in other frames. The more it shows in other frames, the more likely it is real, and not grain noise.