Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/03/2022 in all areas

  1. Hi folks sorry for your concern. As the big male BF told me once in a dream, rumors of my extinction are very much exaggerated. Or maybe that was Mark Twain. I lost access (password) to the yahoo account that I use for the forum and due to that and a fussy password here have been unable to sign in. Just now figuring out how to get back in although logging in here was confusing and it took me several trys to get in. I did have a bad case of COVID in 2020 that took me out of field work. Have not fully recovered yet. In the mean time I have had a lot of time to think about field work in general. My encounter experience progressed from playful interaction at first and got more and more ounfriendly as time went on. I was dealing with a family group in a fairly small area who were apparently not nomadic in that they were there year round. Then clear cut logging started at the North end of their area and worked south wiping out most lanes of travel cover for them. I was present in the daytime three or more times a week. I had to have been a major problem for their food gathering and hunting. As you may remeber I cornered one against a ridgeline and advanced on it as fast as I could move through difficult down wood, trying to get it to break cover. That got me growled at and a tree broken off behind me. The final contact resulted in an infrasound attack from a very close distance. I cannot understand how I did not see the administrator of that attack because it was less than 10 feet away as evidenced by a large depression in the veggetation. It was painful, frightening, and kept me out of the woods for a couple of months. As I recovered from Covid I had a lot of time to think. The combination of my frequent presence and the clear cutting process had to put a lot of stress on that family group. I did not see or understand that I was a big part of their problem. They may have even thought I was part of the clear cut crew. I stopped seeing any footprints after a few months and stopped having any contact. Anyway I feel a lot of guilt for my part in disrupting their life and being part of the forces that made them move. The final concern I have about continuing with field work in some form is that along with the infrasound event, I had several instances where I heard something moving close by and should have seen it because of lack of cover, but did not see a thing. In one case something ran past behind me and hit my pack. I was in the middle of a logging road with no cover with ten yards or so. I cannot help but shake the feeling that they are capable of masking or going invisible somehow. Are we dealing with some predator type creature? tha Anyway that is were I am with regard to field work. I do not plan on staying out of the woods but my primary purpose for being there will be for some other reason. Maybe that is the best route to take anyway?
    15 points
  2. I'm happy to announce that we may be seeing some bold new PGF research, because Doug Hajicek (of MonsterQuest fame) is launching a new funding campaign for "Legend Meets Science 2" as seen here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hajicek/legend-meets-science-ii-film-sequel-a-bigfoot-documentary?ref=3icq5m&token=6ab15f4a Doug did an incredible job on LMS 1, providing researchers with some of the best frame scans and video renders of the PGF for many years, and he and I have been in talks for some time now about taking PGF research to the next level in this new LMS 2 project. So please support it, or share the info with friends, and if it is successful, we can look forward to some bold and exciting new research. Mods: I hope this notice is appropriately placed. If not, move at your discretion. Thank you.
    10 points
  3. While this is "old" news, attached is the obituary and remembrance photograph. These can be copied and forwarded to responsible parties at will by Forum members. Joe here Peter Cyril Byrne WWII Veteran, Conservationist, Explorer, Author: 1925–2023 Peter was born August 22, 1925 in Dublin, Ireland. He was raised with three siblings on their family estate in Ireland. In 1943 he enlisted in the Royal Air Force and was stationed in the East Indian Ocean on the Coco’s Islands off of Australia where he served with distinction until the war ended. When the war ended Peter became a tea planter in northeast India. After a serendipitous encounter in Bombay, he became friends with the King of Nepal’s brother and was granted property in Nepal where Peter conducted hunting safaris in the White Grass Plains of western Nepal. More details of Peter’s early days can be viewed at www.peterCbyrne.com. In 1968, after 18 years of big game hunting, he turned to conservation in Nepal where he convinced the government to create a wildlife preserve, and eventually establish the Sukila Phanta National Park. He said, “I showed them that taking a photograph of a rhinoceros was worth 1,000 times more than shooting it once.” He also pioneered Nepal river rafting, and trekking expeditions on many of his trips to the country. During the Nepal years, Peter also established the non-profit International Wildlife Conservation Society. In the interests of the Society, he traveled globally and through his magnetic personality, established many friends and gained honors, among them a Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society and membership in the Explorers Club of New York. But, spiritually, he was forever drawn to Nepal and the Himalayas, with his last trip to Nepal thought to be in 2012. In Nepal, Peter was sought after by Texas oil man Tom Slick. Slick financed a two year Byrne Himalayan expedition to find the fabled yeti. After few results were found of the yeti, in 1960 Slick brought Peter to northern California and the Pacific Northwest USA to track Bigfoot. That search unfortunately ended with Slick’s sudden death in an airplane crash in 1962. Thereafter, Peter conducted two other, long and well-funded northern Oregon Bigfoot projects. Again, with no physical evidence of Bigfoot, those projects ended in the late 1990s. Peter then moved to Los Angeles, but after never really feeling at home in the overcrowded city, he retired to a home on the banks of the Nestucca River in Pacific City, Oregon. In Pacific City, Peter continued to write the remainder of his 20 books. He also wandered the mountains of the Coastal Range with friends in his continuing quest for sightings of Bigfoot. Peter Cyril Byrne passed away peacefully on July 28, 2023 in Tillamook, Oregon. He is survived by his daughter Rara Byrne now living in Perth, Australia, his sister Beryl Greene of Maidenhead, England, and his life partner of more than 25 years - Cathy Griffin is now living in Pacific City, Oregon in the cabin they shared. Remembrances: A journalism scholarship is being established in Peter’s honor. For information on the fund, and a celebration of life for Peter, please see the website at peterCbyrne.com.
    8 points
  4. What is unsavory is Hiflier's longstanding "I know best" attitude, and his feeling that he is justified in demanding things from the community as a whole. The bigfoot "enthusiast" community, for lack of a better term, isn't monolithic, nor do all its members share motivations and desires. Many of us don't care a bit about proving anything. Not to science, to friends or family, or to society at large. We want to learn and to experience, not be scolded and dictated to.
    8 points
  5. To begin with, DNA has no amino acids, which are found in proteins. Nucleotide bases hold the DNA strands together through hydrogen bonding. Until I see the sequence and the primers used I do not believe Mayor's claim of chimpanzee DNA. Based on behavior and physical characteristics it's as unlikely that Sasquatch DNA is that close to a chimpanzee as it is to be very close to human. UNLESS hybridization is involved. Presumably we are talking about mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother only. So a hybridization event will not show anything about evolution of the male, or the female. It's a slice in time(of the mating) of the female. Nuclear eDNA is much more difficult (and expensive) to sequence, and was not likely the case in either the Mayor or the Disotell case. But, please, show me the data. If Mayor used a sequencer that had previously been used on chimpanzee DNA, there could be carry over. Protocol details, especially blanks and standards, would be helpful to know here. Comparisons of the Kentucky vs the Washington environment based only on rainfall neglect other important factors such as microbe species and populations, temperatures, and sample handling. There is plenty of opportunity for degradation. I am currently analyzing littoral eDNA sequences for signs of an unknown primate and have learned that sequencing errors can confuse the issue, as well as heteroplasmy, and the possibility of sperm mtDNA leaking (into the egg). The latter is fairly minute in humans but may not be so in Sasquatch. The community awaits a sample collected from an observed Sasquatch immediately after deposition, or a body part. Otherwise, as mentioned above, there are too many unknowns to base a case on subtle differences. In the mtDNA region of over 200 bases that I studied, Neanderthal differs from modern human by only ONE mutation, so there's "no room" to distinguish an intermediate Sasquatch there. Longer sequences in other regions are desirable. There's a lot of data to sort through in this work. The so called "mammalian" primers I used also sequenced birds, and fish, lots of them. Unfortunately I know of no readily available software to do this. Also, the NCBI BLAST results are not eDNA friendly, so relevant data must be extracted through character manipulation of large flat files. I wrote BASIC programs and also used Excel sorting. A goal of this work is to develop a simple procedure that can be used by our Community to analyze sequence data from commercial labs.
    8 points
  6. “Honey….. I wanna go to America and hang out in the woods with rednecks with guns and search for a mythic man ape”. 🫣🤣
    8 points
  7. Getting to a point where I am happy with my field truck. I built a bunk in the back and added: 1 200 watts of Solar 2 Diesel heater with the exhaust routed through the bed and a CO sensor 3 Removable Propane shower unit 4 Roof rack 5 Side lighting 6 Interior Fan I am running deep cycle batteries and will eventually switch to lithium. Was able to do a shake down run this past weekend and all went well with it.
    7 points
  8. Wrong. From Nature: A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA " ..... Th/U radiometric analysis of multiple bone specimens using diffusion–adsorption–decay dating models indicates a burial date of 130.7 ± 9.4 thousand years ago. These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon limb bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool production. "
    7 points
  9. If you have “discovery” then please post. Other than that, your rants about how everyone else should proceed in these inquiries are increasingly more and more annoying.
    7 points
  10. https://strangereality.blog/2024/01/29/interview-with-jeff-meldrum/?fbclid=IwAR0aCXdKfEBtgu-pRlCPJBuHP2Lge5ztpEYCjtopcQlZ-1zoZyy3sdxUdGI
    6 points
  11. I have an idea, that I am in the early stages of formulating into a plan. I want to do a three week-to-month-long stationary study in northern Idaho or Washington state. I'd like to invite a SMALL group of 2 or 3 experienced specialists to participate. NOTE: I plan to fund the endeavor out of my own pocket...food, fuel, associated fees, permits as needed, incidentals, et al. The experience I bring is being a VERY critical examiner of evidence from the perspective of a former police officer and homicide detective, and now attorney. I dig evidence, and can examine it from all sides, and try just as hard to DISprove it as I will to prove it. I am also a life long hunter and outdoorsman having been raised on a working cattle ranch in Arizona. My limitation, however, is that both my knees and right hip have been replaced due to a line of duty injury, so venturing too far afield is not in the cards for me. I would be the "in-camp" majordomo, and handle cooking, communications, physical security, and general monitoring of any gear that may need eyes on. The thought is that being in a camp, for an extended period of time with cooking, music, a TV playing movies (via satellite internet and DVD), the Sierra Sounds, recorded kids and women, and maybe even other primates would elicit curiosity or even a desire on the part of the Bigfoot in the area to want us gone from their territory and evoke harassment from them. In other words, some form of contact that could be documented via any technology available. My RV is an extended wheelbase FORD 3500 Diesel 4X4 that is capable of getting remote enough from other people that the chances of human harassment is mitigated to the greatest extent possible. It has a generator, solar, and satellite internet. I also have an 8 man, and 6 man, wall tents for sleeping and general usage. Other necessary camping gear is also part of my kit (mess and Chuck boxes and tables, chairs, cots, etc. I figure that if a group is going to be out there for an extended period of time, comfort, good food, warm beds, and a bit of personal space will be critical. GOAL: Gather, sustain, curate, and present evidence, both physical, and digital, of an extant relict hominem in North America. Obviously, gathering a specimen would be the ideal, but I am a "no kill just to prove it exists" type and would prefer to find the unicorn of a body, or significant part of a body...everyone can dream, right? Besides, I am NOT convinced that the chances of success in bringing out a specimen harvested via violence would be likely, let alone the chances of human survival after killing one would be likely either. Secondarily, I want to use whatever is found to publish a book on the study, and possibly, make any footage into documentary segments for my planned YouTube channel. Win or Lose, Succeed or Fail...I would like to bring this to fruition if for nothing more than the experience. SO....the question is: Am I nuts for thinking seriously about this? Don't hold back, I am asking for opinions.
    6 points
  12. I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of Mike's claims. I'm skeptical of those claiming he's hoaxing. I'm skeptical of the guy claiming to hoax him. There's a fundamental principle we can apply if we are going to be rigorous instead of being knee jerk ... fools. Until we know, we don't know. Until we know what is, we don't know what can't be. Certainty of opinion does not equate to knowledge .. that's a form of narcissism. I think we need to allow this to be an unanswered question, something that may be uncomfortable to those who need an answer even if it is wrong more than they need the truth. We don't have the truth. So IMHO we need to let this stay a question, neither accepting nor rejecting, just watching .. then see what unfolds. Gotta remember how many people believed the so-called debunking of the PGF simply because they had an emotional need for it to be a hoax. Yet it has never been debunked. It has not been proven, either. Lack of a viable means of hoaxing does not eliminate a hoax any more than lack of proof of bigfoot is proof of lack of bigfoot. We need to let this be a question. As they say, 'just sit with it', and not try to force an answer where there isn't one.
    6 points
  13. While I take several trips into the dark forest each year, I have gone on only one bigfoot focused trip. Naturally, I was the new guy. But I did get to handle track castings by Bob Titmus and Bob Gimlin! We were on the East side of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State and intended to camp at a location where people have been frightened away by something throwing sticks from the woods. Forest service gates ruined that plan and we camped a few miles away. :( John Andrews showing a casting given to him by Bob Titmus.
    6 points
  14. Here are some photos from the post above: Chilliwack Lake looking North e
    6 points
  15. This is why I seldom "go bigfooting." Instead, I go fishing, hiking, hunting, exploring, taking pictures, whatever. Make those my first priority. Do it where there seems to be an elevated (comparatively speaking) chance of bigfoot activity, but make bigfoot .. secondary. The odds of success at those other things seems higher, high enough to keep the interest going, and "bigfoot country" is a great place to do them.
    6 points
  16. You can only get so much out of other people's accounts. The only cure for your current feelings is time in the deep woods. Experience it yourself rather than relying on people sharing their experiences for profit.
    6 points
  17. Here's the write up made by Chris Spencer RE the trackway found up in the Northern Olympics on the Olympic Project Property earlier in the year. 50++ pages and i think Chris does a good job of documenting this the best he can. It gets the heart pumping when i realised that i camped with my 16 year old daughter a matter of a few yards from where these were found the previous August.. Trackway-Find-Olympic-Project-Headquarters-compressed.pdf
    6 points
  18. Hello Friends, The attached photo made me laugh in a way; the U.S. Forestry Service tends to downplay (if not straight-out DENY) the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, yet here they are in 1930 casting a footprint. It's hard to have physical proof of something that doesn't really exist! I guess we can never know the circumstances behind this photo, but it's definitely speculative, especially concerning the topic of U.S. government knowledge/involvement in the subject. What are your thoughts...?
    6 points
  19. I have never seen the work of Chris Noel (that he posts on his YouTube channel titled "Impossible Visits") until last week. The title of his 2-year old documentary video "How to See a Sasquatch" piqued my curiosity, so I watched the 1 hour 38 min video (see link below). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlpssL94Gso&t=627s Unfortunately, what the video showed was how folks who have BF in their brain can be self-deceived by noises and animals that they can't identify and how random tree debris can become BF tree structures in their mind. IMHO, none of the evidence presented in this video was indicative of BF presence. Nonetheless, Chris gives the impression that these creatures live very close to his neighborhood and every odd noise or odd tree structure that he runs into is made by the sasquatches. I think this video is a good example of the dangers of wishful thinking when going out in the field looking for evidence. Even if folks are knowers, they need to slow down when it comes to alleged evidence. They should subject the evidence to some type of peer review before publishing/sharing it, and realize that their observations are truly biased by their beliefs. This documentary climaxes in what is supposed to be a sasquatch climbing a tree. However, other video reviewers have examined the creature and have determined that it was a porcupine. Despite the alternative hypothesis of a porcupine (which is very convincing and in my mind conclusive), Chris did not back down and revised his original claim, but instead created another video to support his claim. Below is link to Chris Noel's 2nd video, insisting that the creature is not a porcupine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB9a5H9sFP0 This looks really sad, and should be a warning for all those researchers out there publishing YouTube videos to slow down and get expert wildlife reviews before jumping to conclusions. Brent Dill, who runs "The Tall Ones" YouTube channel with a critical thinking hat on, reviewed this claim 2 years ago and posted 2 good critical videos. See links below. I think he makes a compelling and clear case that that video footage was of a porcupine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogj-W76-Xo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyhKTBZCFK0 In conclusion, wishful thinking and subjective biases are dangers that all long time researchers (who believe in the reality of sasquatch) have to deal with and be attentive to.
    6 points
  20. I'm in West Virginia on vacation. Cruised an old forest service road that leads to an abandoned fire watch tower. No bigfeet in sight. Had to cross three creeks. The main river is called Blackwater becsuse the tanin from all the trees seeps into the water, it looks like black cofee.
    6 points
  21. That was Kitakaze’s theory. The problem with that theory is there is no way a man could have made those tracks. The snow was too deep. And there is no way my dad could have got on the mountain without leaving tracks from the house. And lastly having spent a life in the woods? Ive never seen a set of tracks like them again. I made a set of feet in High School and spoofed my aunt down the hill. And at 6 feet tall? I could have not made those tracks in that much snow. And my dad was 5’10”. I spoofed my aunt in her freshly tilled garden. It was easy. Walk up to the garden, put feet on, walk a loop, take feet off and go home. I dont know if Sasquatch exists, but I am ready if he does….
    6 points
  22. My dream would be a Legend Meets Science Sequel involving a challenge for suit makers: make a Patty suit/ PGF recreation in a same or similar way limited to 1967 materials. That demonstrative evidence would be 'science' in that it would be testing the principle at issue in the PGF. Hope this project gets off the ground. My bigger hope would be Bigfoot TV productions moving toward this type of TV show/ documentary and away from the 'Finding Bigfoot' formula. The subject needs serious discussion. The spirit of the previous Legend Meets Science should be the guiding tenet.
    6 points
  23. Does anyone have any recent proof of the Sasquatch's existence that they could post? Does anyone have any opinions on what the creature, if extant, could be that wasn't already mentioned 50 years ago? Anything to move the stuck needle at all? Anything better than the PGF? Anything better than the 200 plus footprint casts that Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum has? Anything better than Cindy Dosen's hair sample collection? Anything better than the DNA studies that have been done to date? Sure would like to see it, any of it, if anyone would like to share what they have to help the Sasquatch community move its needle even a small fraction from where it is now. What about those nest structures in Washington State? Still there? Any new ones since the last find back in February 2020? Any fresh DNA samples taken from the area that won't get put onto the back burner for a year and a half? Or untested due to labs being too busy with Covid 19 research like back in 2020? Any new water samples taken from the salmon stream headwaters below the nest site's finger ridges to test? Or are these questions not as important or, depending on the level of interest, more important to discovery and proof than photos? I keep waiting for this Forum to get serious but have yet to see much beyond ignoring the things that could honestly solve the relative blankness within the subject. I do see new members come on board and question where this Forum is at and so this isn't just me. The only difference is someone new might posit such a question after being here a short time, while I've been here for nearly ten years and am asking the exact same thing. Yes! This is a discussion Forum but that isn't the point nor is it the issue. The issue is what gets discussed and most of it isn't about Sasquatch OR discovery. The sad part is everyone here, including the long-timers, know what will move the needle but for some odd reason stay with the things they know won't. Could someone perhaps please walk me through why that is? Because, personally, I think discussing methods that will move the needle are okay to discuss. Then again, maybe not? IDK. Any insights on the reason for the chronic stagnation here, believe me, would be appreciated,
    6 points
  24. Hello all. Jeremiah from the Bigfoot Society podcast here. I would love to do some interviews on the podcast with those that have had Sasquatch encounters during their research. Please feel free to send me a DM directly on this and I can provide more information. I have run this request by Gigantor first and he has approved this message.
    6 points
  25. My personal opinion isn't one people who ask such questions usually want to hear .. so .. you've been warned. I think Todd Standing is a straight-up hoaxer. I have not seen anything even vaguely legitimate with his stamp on it. My .. suspicion .. is that at some point long ago he had an authentic "thing" happen but was unable to substantiate it so he did the unthinkable: he tried to manufacture the evidence he could not otherwise produce and he got caught at it. It is too late for him. There is nothing he can do, ever, that won't tainted by his past hoaxes. Worse, any other researcher who is seen with him is tainted as well .. brings their judgement into doubt. MIB
    6 points
  26. A body part will suffice.
    6 points
  27. There is no mundane explanation for this phenomenon. You will hear people talk about bioluminescence, but that occurs only in marine life and terrestrial arthropods like fireflies. It also occurs in some fungi and microscopic organisms. It does not occur in mammals. Even if it did, it would be an odd evolutionary trait for a light gathering organ such the eye with its photoreceptors to also be a photo emitter. Like with other extraordinary attributes commonly associated with Sasquatch, someone looked around for the closest natural equivalent to explain it away. Tapetum lucidum is usually trotted out as an explanation, but many cases of these self illuminating eyes occur when there is no external light source. Even people who are firmly in the flesh and blood undiscovered ape camp like Moneymaker and the NAWAC folks have mentioned the self illuminating eyes phenomenon, regardless of the biological improbability of it. Long answer short… no one has an explanation. Even those of us who have witnessed it.
    6 points
  28. This set of posts exemplifies why these forums are awesome. A. request made B. request immediately acknowledged C. request addressed with multiple offers of specific assistance Amazing, thanks for being awesome humans whose first instinct is to help.
    6 points
  29. I got sent this earlier in the week, what these Orangs are doing shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. In the Olympic Project Nest Area, it's full all around with Evergreen/Wintergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovatum) which has various medicinal purposes, one being helping to facilitate strength after childbirth. Every one of the 20+ nests were made with this plant, with leaves found piled up next to specific nests, which had been stripped. I found some older correspondence regarding my thoughts on this kind of thing if anyone's interested, and i'll c&p it below. ---- Firstly, each and every nest is 'made' from Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovatum). Secondly regarding the Western Swordfern that is mentioned below. Bear in mind that when the guys walked in on the one making the nest back in Feb 2020 (just shout if you're not aware of that and i'll send the podcast/interview link) , a week later when back in the nest area, they found lots of leaves perfectly stripped from this Fern. It'll make more sense when reading further on so revert back to this for clarification when needed. Lastly, bear in mind that each and every nest both from 2016 and the recent 2020 nest, were all constructed/being constructed in the month of February. The Evergreen Huckleberry range makes up 21% of all Olympic and Kitsap Peninsula's land mass as per USGS. Broken down, we see the below. Spring - 40% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 95% increase v the 21% of land mass). Summer - 55% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 162% increase v the 21% of land mass). Fall - 53% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 152% increase v the 21% of land mass) Winter - 59% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 181% increase v the 21% of land mass) These numbers in my opinion are astonishingly high and i do not believe that it should be viewed as coincidence that winter leads the way with this data. ---- Evergreen Huck (Vaccinium Ovatum) which is the species of Huck at the nest site. There are 26 species of Huckleberry in North America with 3 that can be used as a 'birthing aid'. The Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovatum) is one of them as is the Oval-leaf Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovalifolium, has a range in the Olympics but not the Kitsap Peninsula as per various sources and is generally found at higher elevations) and the Bog Bilberry (Vaccinium Uliginosum). Evergreen Huckleberry - The leaves are antiseptic, astringent, carminative and hypoglycaemic. An infusion of the leaves and sugar have been given to a mother after childbirth to help her regain her strength. A decoction of the leaves has been used in the treatment of diabetes. --- The Western Sword Fern, the fern that is the more common fern on the Kitsap Peninsula (geographically/technically separate from the Olympic Peninsula but combined within, within my numbers), and is at the nest site as per various pictures that have been matched up by three different, separate plant/flora ID tools and various flora/fauna experts at the site itself. There are around 40 different species of Fern in the PNW alone with only 2 that can be used as a 'birthing aid'. The Western Sword Fern is one of them. Western Swordfern - An infusion of the fronds has been used as a wash or poultice to treat boils and sores. The young shoots have been chewed and eaten as a treatment for cancer of the womb and to treat sore throats and tonsillitis. The leaves have been chewed by women to facilitate childbirth. The sporangia have been crushed and applied as a poultice to burns, sores and boils. A decoction of the rhizomes has been used in the treatment of dandruff. This is the Fern (again, confirmed within the three different plant ID apps) that the Guys found a few months back at the old nest site that had the leaves plucked/stripped off of the branches. --- As you'll notice from the above, both plants could potentially be used in a 'before (WSF) and after (EH)' type scenario if the nest areas are in fact used for the birthing process. It should also be noted where the Evergreen Huckleberry is also known as the 'Winter Huckleberry' among other things because they are the last fruit to be gathered and the berry's themselves are said to be most tastiest after freezing. Think nest construction months (February) and other general activity in that area. Both leaves and berries themselves are also high in Vitamin C. The fact that the specific species of both Huckleberry and Fern are what they are in the nest area is incredibly interesting to me, again, if in fact the nests are used a birthing area. On a side note, i recently looked at Gorilla Nest structure studies which led me to look for Gorilla Nests that were not just regular every-day type nests, but were being used within the Gorilla birthing process that had young present in the images. For these specific nests and using three separate plant/flora identification apps, i kept coming across a plant within the specific nests with young present called 'Guinean Henweed' which upon further research, yes, is a 'birthing aid' and i quote 'The roots are used as a remedy for toothache, and it has also been used to procure and abortion. A leaf maceration is applied to the belly to induce contractions in case of a difficult delivery.' end quote. I find it quite cool that a fully discovered and recorded Primate in Benin, West Africa, uses flora which can be used as a 'birthing aid' whilst 8,000 miles away in the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America, another albeit undiscovered Primate is potentially doing the exact same thing with the exact same type of localized flora that gives it the same advantages within a birthing area scenario..;)
    5 points
  30. Can't help you with books or movies, and can't tell you when i'll be finished, but i'm working on the long term Olympic Project Nest Area Recording Project which now has over 1,000 combined vocalization and percussive recordings from around 3 years now, that don't appear to belong to any known animal. I'm/We're also collecting localized actual visual sightings from that general area of which many aren't via the normal public ways that we gets reports for the SSR, and i truly believe that the general area there will soon enough provide something decent in way of a pic/video hopefully. Life and bills are right now slowing me down more than i want and that can't be helped, but imo and i appreciate i'm being a little vague here, this project and what it's appearing to yield, is keeping my head in the game, no doubt.
    5 points
  31. I like, and respect Dr. Meldrum. I have had several conversations with him over the last five years. His mind is razor sharp, and his ability to evaluate evidence and apply what he knows rivals the best detectives I ever worked with. That said...as some are asserting that he "sounds like a broken record" on the various podcasts he is invited to appear on...remember he is being asked the same questions over and over and over again. The fact that his answers remain the same is consistency in testimony. It also must be considered that new, or revolutionary evidence is extremely slow in coming, so what does he really have to comment on other than a relatively few new footprints that have come to him that are of a high enough quality to actually examine forensically? He is one of the very, very few researchers of any real high profile who remains committed to common sense, logic, reason, and the scientific method in his approach to the subject. He sticks to what he knows, and is the first to admit what he doesn't know. I give him a lot of credit for that.
    5 points
  32. After having listened to hundreds of accounts on Sasquatch Chronicles and Sasquatch Odyssey podcasts, dozens of which include some very compelling reports that involve instances of supernatural or alien activity and behavior, I find it hard to believe that we are dealing with a purely natural undiscovered species of mammal. I'll readily admit that I am a completely novice and amateur Sasquatch enthusiast and only became interested in the subject because of recent sightings in my area and my own couple of encounters. But listening to the likes of Cliff Barrackman, Jeff Meldrum, and other noted researchers, they all seem to agree that we are still at the 5-yard goal line 50 years after the groundbreaking Patterson-Gimlin film. We don't know much more than what we did back then. However, the magic of the internet has made the collection and recording of sightings and encounters much more easy and common. And along with the vast increase of data on reports, there is also a large increase in the number of reports that include "woo-woo" aspects. Now, I know that Cliff Barrackman flat out rejects any notion that there is ANY "woo-woo" aspect to Bigfoot and that those instances are the result of human error in observation or some other rational explanation. I find that incredibly hypocritical that someone who absolutely believes in Bigfoot, routinely rejects eye-witness accounts that involve supernatural behavior while he himself asks the doubting public to believe his eye-witness accounts. I think what made me think that there is something to the supernatural aspect is an account on one of the podcasts in which the witness was driving along at night and talking to his girlfriend on the cellphone when a sasquatch ran into the road with a racoon in it's mouth. He didn't have time to react and hit the sasquatch at 60 mph. He felt the impact and his girlfriend heard the impact over the phone. The man said he saw a weird flash of light at the time of impact. He pulled over to inspect his vehicle and see what he had hit. No damage to his vehicle. No dead or injured sasquatch. But one side of his car was covered in blood. It was like the creature was teleported at the instant time of impact. Then the host said that he had heard multiple other reports of the same thing happening to other people. Either when shooting at one, or almost hitting one with a vehicle. Weird flash of light and the creature disappears. And that's just one strange phenomenon associated with multiple reports. Then there are the dozens of UFO sightings associated with sasquatch sightings, orbs, mind speak, infrasound, etc, etc. All of those very credible accounts have me believing that we are never going to capture a sasquatch. We might kill one, but the body will never be collected. I used to want to interact with one, as it was a mammal that was native to the woods, and it was fascinating. Now, I don't know what the hell they are, but they surely aren't merely an undiscovered primate or human-hybrid, or else we would have a body by now. So, per the title of the thread, how have the "woo-woo" accounts and sightings affected your opinion of what sasquatch is? Or have you decided to discount them like Barrackman and Meldrum?
    5 points
  33. Since we are discussing infrasound, I would like to RE-share an experience that I had a few decades ago. I originally posted this here 8 or 9 years ago, but i believe it remains relevant to the current discussion. Bit of a long read though... I believe it was the summer of '95, my brother and a mutual lifelong friend (who worked for the defense department) were doing a roughly 70 mile 6 day backpacking trip with shuttle between trailheads A and B, in the south eastern portion of the Sierra Nevada range of California. The route was ambitious but doable as we were quite experienced and still relatively young men in those days. Our journey started out at 9k feet and then climbed to over 12k, then down to 8 and back up to 12k and so on, as we would summit 4 high passes during the hike. Up and down - up and down. It didn't help matters that I dislocated my kneecap during an acclimatization climb on the day prior to starting our route, I decided to do the hike despite considerable pain and impairment, my thinking being that perhaps I could walk it off in some way. it turns out I was right but it took most of a week to do so. The important thing to note here is that because I was injured, I was usually lagging a mile or so behind my partners, and saw things that they didn't see that came into play later on... We got over the top of the first pass late that first evening and spent a frigid night in our camp, as some unseasonably cold air had moved in even though it was still late summer. In the morning our water was frozen and frost glistened on the granite. We slogged on for the next few days down into a magnificent lush green canyon, walled in by granite towers - then up an interminable 3,000 ft. climb, the Golden Staircase. I numbed the pain in my leg by drifting into the "zone" of solitude and clear thought (or so it seemed) inside my head, caused by the exertion and repetitive rhythm of climbing. Another couple of cold nights and then a planned early morning ascent of our penultimate pass, would be followed by a mild descent to XYZ lakes, a lovely hospitable place to camp that I had fond memories of from the early 70's. As I neared the top of the pass, I could see my partners silhouetted in the morning sun, already resting in the narrow notch that defined the low point of the col. Two scruffy looking men approached from the switchbacks ahead and as we passed, we engaged in the normal backpacker banter of "How ya doin'" Where ya headed etc." I mentioned that our destination was XYZ lakes, and their expressions seemed to change. "We were going to stay there too. but it's not a good place to go. there's a massive bear problem there." said the dirtier looking of the two men, his sidekick nodded in agreement. I didn't think much of it and moved on to meet my companions on the pass. The men had told them the same thing... We reflected on the previous days hike and started putting things together. That day we had also ran into two men but hadn't thought much of it - but they had seemed rather odd and out of place. One was wearing a Ranger cap but no other uniform or identification, the other was a sparklingly clean, snazzily yet inappropriately attired man wearing what appeared to be FBI issue sunglasses. He looked as if he had shaved and showered that morning even though we were some 35 miles in from the nearest paved road. They had also advised us to not go to XYZ lakes, "We don't really want people camping there anymore, there are better places to camp," the "Ranger" suggested without identifying himself. As we sat and rested on the pass, we talked about this for a bit, but decided that we weren't going to change our plans at this point. We moved on and my partners swiftly commenced to descend the pass as I straggled along far behind them. At a point perhaps halfway down the pass, I heard a droning sound approaching from behind the peaks to the west and before I knew it an unmarked military helicopter passed a few hundred feet directly above me and made a direct line for a small group of tarns somewhat north of XYZ lakes and perhaps a mile from my lofty vantage point. I sat and rested on a large boulder and watched as the chopper landed in a tiny flat area and was greeted by a figure that emerged from behind some large rocks. The figure was joined by a man who disembarked from the chopper and for the next 15 minutes or so they proceeded to unload what appeared to be some very large wooden crates from the vessel. The chopper then re-ascended and flew off to the east. My thoughts were that this was all highly unusual... I arrived at XYZ lakes a short time later. My partners had arrived at this deserted and rather eerie place a while ago and had begun to set up camp in one of the few remaining flat areas, the same spot coincidentally that I had set up in over 20 years earlier. But something was different now. Gone was the good feel and idyllic ambience of the place, instead it seemed grim and foreboding. My buddies mentioned that they hadn't seen the helicopter but agreed that the place was a little spooky. Later that afternoon we watched in amazement as what appeared to be a massive military aircraft flew high above us at top speed. It appeared to be larger than the size of a football field, as we saw commercial jets later that day for a size comparison. We chatted about this at sunset as we sipped the last of our remaining whiskey, then we each got into our own tents at dusk and fell asleep. I awoke in the middle of the night and heard footsteps on the scree not far from our tents, slowly cautiously and deliberately moving about. They were not the steps of a bear or a deer, besides we were well above the elevation of their usual habitat. I felt a fair amount of fear and a strong reluctance to investigate further. The next thing I knew it was morning... My partners had heard the sounds as well, and they too, were spooked but reluctant or unable to do anything. None of us seemed to want to talk about it much, as if admitting fear could be seen as a weakness. We broke camp and moved on, our destination being XXX Lake some eight miles distance away. It would be the final night of our trip as we would hike down to the high desert the following morning and head home. We arrived at our destination and set up camp, our tents about 20 feet apart on flat gravely shelves above the lake. Afternoon came and went and then we fished for a bit, I remember arguing with my brother over who would clean the fish... We were exhausted from our journey and decided to get an early night, besides we were out of whiskey. It was dusk and we each got into our tents. I crawled into my bag and luxuriated in the fact that my leg was feeling much better and that we would be back in civilization sometime the following afternoon and looked forward to having a real bed to sleep in as well! It was then that I heard a slow shuffling right outside my tent, perhaps two feet from my head, a step and then a pause, slow and deliberate, again and again encircling my tent. I was frozen in terror without the power of speech. I heard my friend cry out my name in a quaking voice, "Mort, is that you"! I heard a low guttural sound from the direction of my brother's tent. I could not answer - the terror was too intense. The next thing we all remember was waking up the following morning. There was no recollection of tossing and turning all night as you normally do sleeping in the mountains, there were no memories of getting up to **** or having a drink, there was just a blank gap after the terror at dusk. Nothing but a long sound sleep...We talked about it as we packed our things. We were still creeped out in a major way over the events that had occurred, but try as we may we were unable to fill in any details. Both of my partners said that they too had also heard footsteps directly outside their tents at the same time as when I did. Then, for all of us, it all went blank... We hit the trail, and I lagged behind, stopping near the end of the lake to **** before the long descent. I took off my pack and walked a few yards off the trail to what appeared to be a very old and abandoned camp from a bygone era. As I stood there, I had a feeling come over me that I have never experienced before or since. It was a feeling of utmost melancholy and tangible despair, along with a sense of evil, of death and decay. I looked around one last time and then was quickly gone, The feeling though, stayed with me for the next several hours as I descended 5,000 vertical feet to the high desert. During the last mile or so I could see the parking lot still far below, it contained what appeared to be several shiny black or white government vehicles. Feds. What was more alarming was that our car was no longer there. It was gone! I was in a fair panic as I finally reached the parking lot and confirmed that the only vehicles that remained there were all of government agencies. "It's odd that we never saw any of these guys on the trail," I thought to myself, "Or maybe we did!" But what was even more alarming at this point was that my partners were nowhere to be found. They were gone as well... I threw off my pack and sat silently on a boulder among the sagebrush, contemplating what had happened and how to proceed. A lot of crazy thoughts went through my head as I stared out at the wide expanse of desert where somewhere the road home lay. Had my friends been abducted, "detained" or arrested for some reason? Were they injured or had they just vanished? Had the car been stolen? Were they playing a cruel joke on me perhaps? After perhaps an hour, I saw from the dirt clouds being thrown up from the desert road that a car was approaching but perhaps still five miles distant. I was cheered at least by the knowledge that I would have someone to share my dilemma with. Finally, as the car emerged through the dust and sagebrush, I could make out that it was our car and that it was occupied by my companions! We had a fine reunion - it turned out that they were far ahead of me and had driven to a small town to pick up a half case of ice-cold beers to surprise me! I was immensely relieved and pleasantly surprised! Soon I waved goodbye to the lingering paranoia. We took this seriously for a lot of years. My brother even went so far as to have his body checked for metal implants prior to a full CAT scan. They turned up negative. After a while my DOD friend claimed that none of these events ever occurred and he would often become angry if we ever talked about them. Then after he retired early and started receiving a massive pension, he again was able to acknowledge that they did occur and was in full agreement over the timeline of events. As for myself - it will always remain a mystery, but at least now I have some idea of possibilities.
    5 points
  34. I hear Bigfoot calls that are obviously coyotes all the time, recorded by researchers. I have viewed hundreds of pictures of leaf faces on this forum. I I have seen pictures of what I call Forest divots attempting to be cast….. I approach this from a hunters standpoint. I don’t ascribe Coyote calls to Elk, because I am not after a recording. I don’t take pictures of bushes that look like Elk, because I am not after bushes. And I don’t make a fuss over ancient forest divots filled in with pine needles. I need FRESH sign! Because I need to make physical contact with what I am hunting! Elk hunting isn’t about showing off your Bull Elk hoof cast at the next Elk conference. Or lots of pictures of bushes that look like Elk. No. It’s about a head on the wall and meat in the freezer. And I have been there! I’ve been that hunter that has chosen an area where Elk were 6 months ago, but they ain’t there now. Very frustrating. Looking at old sign every where. Maybe as researchers advance in skill? They will start to better discern the noises and sign in the forest? Maybe there will be an internal drive to separate the wheat from the chaff? Let’s face it. Most people have nothing in common with the woods anymore. But I applaud a subject like Bigfoot challenging people to go out and explore and learn. But we as a community need to be patient with them. As far as pro Bigfooters seeing a Bigfoot under every bush? I think it’s all about ratings. Which is why I worry about manufacturing evidence with these shows. Unlike Elk there is always a nagging suspicions with Bigfoot…..could this be a hoax?
    5 points
  35. We don't all have the same goals. I care not whether the government or science ever acknowledges anything. I don't need or want anybody doing anything on my behalf. Narcissistic drama annoys me though...
    5 points
  36. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295766&page=60 So, collo, how are things in the alien sub-forum? Any gnashing of teeth?
    5 points
  37. It's been noticed that the "Events" list isn't often checked, so here goes this. Also, there are signs this gathering will be very well attended by numerous Bigfoot people. Make hotel reservations. A Memorial Celebration of A Fortunate Life will be held for Peter on Sunday, September 17th 2023 from 2-4 pm PST at the Kiawanda Community Center (34600 Cape Kiwanda Dr, Pacific City, OR 97135). Friends can record their remarks/wishes on their cell phone and send to lmprods@gmail.com in order to be part this celebration. Remembrances: A journalism scholarship has been established in Peter's honor: The Peter Byrne Endowed Scholarship Fund in Journalism for the Talent and Love of Writing. Checks or funds may be sent payable to the Nestucca High School, PO Box 38, Cloverdale, Oregon 97112. Contributions can also be made to the International Wildlife Conservation Society which was founded by Peter in 1968. Please send your tax-deductible contribution to International Wildlife, PO Box 703, Pacific City, Oregon, 97135. The photo by Joe Beelart was made in October 2007 after Peter invited Joe to the coast to investigate a Bigfoot sighting in which the Bigfoot was walking and eating clams on an estuary shore. The van is one made to order by Peter in the 1970s and was modified into a camper. It has seen service in Nepal, India, and throughout the Pacific Northwest.
    5 points
  38. @hiflier Norse asked earlier about a site to submit samples to. Where have you been submitting yours? I think it makes sense if we can all submit to the same place as often as possible. Being under one scope so to speak may help identify patterns? Just spit balling but it’s a start. How has the process gone for you so far? Do results come back in a timely manner? Do they list all species found? If an unknown is found is that all the results come back as ?
    5 points
  39. I couldn't care less what your history is in law enforcement if i tried, but you're wrong for what you're saying there and this isn't the right place to air your assumptions about someone's personal health publicly, irrespective of what you did in the past. Be better.
    5 points
  40. I don't either. But if that's where the evidence eventually leads, I'm not going to refuse to accept it. I'm perfectly comfortable looking at whatever the data says. Not without questioning it .. data must be interpreted by fallible humans with ulterior motives. We, as a culture, seem to put more value on validating our own views than we do on finding the truth, whatever it is. Given how much we do not know, it is as unscientific to reject her views out of hand as it is to accept them out of hand. There simply is not enough clear evidence for either. And yet we seem to do it anyway and we belittle others who do the same thing, just supporting a different view, as somehow being anti-science. Bigfoot is a mirror. We're guilty of the things we accuse others of and we can't set our egos aside long enough to see it. There are no special points for "i told you so" when Ketchum is proven right or when she is proven wrong. All the "gotcha" in the world is just our own egos on display.
    5 points
  41. You missed much and are wrong in many regards. Ketchum is, or was, a veterinarian with a highly regarded DNA lab. She did the equine genome in the same manner that the neanderthal and human genomes were done. This is not a trivial accomplishment. Her lab was regarded highly enough to have been used by the FBI in identifying Sept 11 human remains. Earlier. She was brought into bigfoot research by David Paulides. Hers was the "mysterious" and un-identified DNA lab mentioned in either The Hoopa Project or Tribal Bigfoot, I forget which. Anyway, those were published in 2008-2009 and her involvement began several years earlier. I'm guessing 2005-2006. +++++++++++ There's more that I can't say. I sat in on calls Ketchum made to my old bigfoot research partner as a silent fly on the wall .. not sure Ketchum knew anyone was listening. That gives me perspective on things she said which others probably don't have. I'm not saying she's right, I'm not saying she's wrong. I'm dismayed by the apparent drive to ridicule and dismiss, to nit pick stuff to death, rather than to weigh the big picture. Most likely Ketchum is absolutely wrong .. but what if she isn't? Have the hecklers considered that? .. or is it fear she might be right which leads them to heckle?
    5 points
  42. Went for a hike today up at McCroskey State Park on the border of Idaho and Washington. I took my new dog with me, Arlo. I adopted him from my daughter last month as he grew too big for the house and drove the cat nuts. They got him during Covid, so he has never been in the woods, never been around people, and never been in public. Today was his first time in the woods and he loved it! I was going to go to a spot I found hunting for mushrooms last year that had what looked like a bed made from pine boughs, but, the road was snowed shut a couple of miles before that spot. Backtracked to an interesting trail that went up a mountain and hiked it a couple of miles until it hit the deep snow and was impassable on foot... Bunches of elk and deer sign in this area, along with lots of wolf sign. Biggest wolf scat I have run across... No BF sign, however. No weird tree structures or bedding, no tracks, no wood knocks, and no vocalizations. I did find a couple of tracks that were interesting. Pretty sure this is a bear hind footprint... But no idea what this is. If it's a wolf, it's massive and heavy. Wasn't defined enough to tell, but it was deep and big. No BF sign, but still a great hike.
    5 points
  43. I doubt that Doug will have sufficient budget to do suit tests, given he has a very aggressive slate of research objectives already. But the best news is he can do the show properly, without some network program executive demanding more eye candy to satisfy the sweet tooth of the couch potatos who are glued to History channel and similar media venues. I've had enough conversations with him to know he's sincere in striving to make a profound difference in the status of Bigfoot research and awareness.
    5 points
  44. I haven't commented on this site for a few years. In fact, one of the last times I remember commenting was in another thread that concerned mitochondrial DNA. Some of the "regulars" treated me like an idiot. Frankly, it was because they had no knowledge of some of the foundations of cell biology. I'm going to make a few points and they can either do their research or dismiss me as an idiot again. First of all, you have to look at mitochondria as a primitive bacteria that was incorporated into what are now eukaryotic cells. We're talking about an event that occurred billions of years ago. For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, it is called Endosymbiotic Theory. Why it's important to understand this concept is that one needs to view mitochondria as symbiotic "parasites" that multiply and pass on their genetics completely independently from our nuclear DNA. Secondly, the mitochondria (and thus the mtDNA) of a mother are passed on to the subsequent generation within the cytoplasm of the mother's egg. It is a continuous line of passage through the female. Thirdly, the mtDNA is very stable. While there is always a possible evolutionary upside for variation in nuclear DNA, there really isn't one for mitochondria. They have a small genome, and most mutations probably won't work out. In fact, most mutations will quickly result in an individual cell's death. Based on the nature of mtDNA inheritance and mtDNA's tendency to maintain its integrity over time, I do find it possible that Bigfoot mtDNA would be indicated as "human" when tested. We frankly have no idea how closely we are related to Bigfoot. And while I'm not going to go to any length to defend Melba Ketchum's studies, I will say that any Bigfoot breeding with a human female, even if it only happened one time, thousands of years ago, would produce a mtDNA "human" result in a sample from a descendant today.
    5 points
  45. Calm down people, he paid his Premium Membership last month. He's probably living it up in an island somewhere...
    5 points
  46. We live in some of the best real estate on the planet…
    5 points
  47. The BFF would donate if they accepted Paypal...
    4 points
  48. I just got these two Puma Knives. The top one is a 1981 White Hunter and the Bottom one is a 1972 Original Bowie.
    4 points
  49. reprinted with permission 1/4/2023 The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 11:263-287 (2022) Research Article MATHEMATICALLY OPTIMAL RESTORATION AND STABILIZATION OF THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM WITH COMPUTATION FEATURE DETECTION Isaac Y. Tian1, Bill Munns2, Jeff Meldrum3 1 Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washing, 3800 E Stevens Way NE, Seattle, WA 98195-2355 2 Blue Jay, CA, 92317 3 Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Ave, Pocatello, ID 83209 *Correspondence to: Isacc Y. Tian, Email: meldd@isu.edu © RHI ABSTRACT The Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF) to date remains the clearest purported video evidence of the unrecognized bipedal primate known as “sasquatch”. Previous analysis of the (PGF) relied on manual manipulation of individual frames to stabilize the erratic camera motion and eliminate image noise and copying defects. We utilize modern computer vision algorithms and a large multi-copy film scan database to generate a mathematically optimal frame stabilization sequence with the clearest image quality restored to date. Eight independent prints of 150 frames of the PGF surrounding the lookback frame at Frame 354 (F354) photographed at close range with a 12-megapixel (MP) digital single lens reflex (DSLR) camera and were computationally aligned and merged per frame index with the SIFT algorithm (Lowe, 2004). The composited frames were then aligned to a stationary background scene from F354 using a 3D homography solved for with the RANSAC algorithm (Fischler, 1981). All composited frames were color corrected to the background scene by solving a linear regression per color channel between the composite frame and the background frame. The resulting composited frame sequence contained more original image detail and less artifacts than any individual copy. Our rendition is an unbiased machine optimized solution that is not susceptible to injected features from manual photo editing or neural net interpolation. The reduced visual distraction from camera motion and film defects plus the accuracy of our result to the camera original allows for clearer observation of both static and dynamic features of the filmed subject in future analyses. KEY WORDS: Feature detection, keypoints, homography, signal-to-noise ratio INTRODUCTION The Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF), photographed on October 20, 1967, by Roger Patterson with Bob Gimlin as witness and co-participant, is a historical artifact that needs little introduction. Countless amateur and published analysis efforts to confirm or debunk whether the film portrays a natural biological entity exactly as it appears, or an actor in a costume, have been undertaken over the last half century. Meldrum (2006) devoted a chapter to scientific reaction and critique of the PGF, while offering his own analysis of the comparative functional morphology and kinematics of the film subject. Munns and Meldrum (2013a) analyzed the integrity of the physical film itself as well as anatomical comparisons between the PGF subject and extant apes and humans in two separate publications. Munns (2014) separately published a non-peer-reviewed book detailing the history of the state of the art in creature suit design and the implications of the PGF subject in the context of the practices at the time. While the PGF source material and attempts at anatomical and biomechanical analysis are not novel, each succeeding generation of research gains access to tools and techniques originating in other disciplines that allow for new interpretations of the same data. Previous analysis methods in both published and self-promoted works relied on ad hoc manual manipulation to stabilize the camera shake and reduce image defects present in multigeneration film copies. Such methods were seminal in bringing attention to the biological plausibility of the subject depicted in the film but were also labor intensive and prone to errors due to both individual bias and the imprecision of visual approximation compared to algorithmic solutions. Previous work was also limited by the image quality of the source material. A long-standing constraint of PGF analysis is the absence of the camera original film reel. As opposed to digital media, film loses clarity and gains noise with subsequent copying and is also subject to physical damage, such as scratching and tearing. Even if the camera original were procured, unless it has been carefully preserved in a climate-controlled environment it is likely to be substantially degraded from its original state. We improve on both these limitations with two contributions: 1. We create composite frames using 8 independent high quality, zoomed-in prints believed to be second generation copies from the ANE group (Munns and Meldrum, 2013a). The copies were digitized by photographing each frame individually at close range with a 12-megapixel (MP) digital single lens reflex (DSLR) camera. Each frame index is aligned to all other copies with a mathematically optimal transformation and merged into a single frame to produce a composited result that combines the image detail from 8 different copies while increasing the signal to noise ratio (SNR) by a factor of √𝑛, where n = 8 copies. 2. We stabilize each frame to a reference background scene set as a high-quality first-generation scan of frame 354 (F354). While previous manual alignment attempts only allowed for in-plane rotation and 2D translation for frame alignment, our computational method uses the RANSAC algorithm to solve for the full homography matrix that best aligned detected image feature pairs between individual frames and a stable background scene. This process allows for both pitch and yaw of the framefor a mathematically optimized 3-dimensional alignment. To our knowledge, individual frame SNR enhancement has never been achieved due to the lack of access to multiple high-quality scans of real film reels and the prohibitive amount of labor involved to accomplish an 8x align and composite for a large frame count. Previous attempts to clean up details in the PGF using image editing software can manipulate the noise and film artifacts present in a single copy but lack the ability to fill in missing data with pieces from other copies or boost SNR through multiple sampling. Computational stabilizations of the PGF have been attempted in recent years, with results posted on YouTube for public viewing. These stabilizations were performed on low resolution digitized single copies of the film made available for previous television productions with unknown copying histories and suffer from the same frame quality issues as the manual analysis efforts. Furthermore, computational stabilization was sometimes achieved with a convolutional neural network (CNN) and not an explicit modeling of the feature detection and 3D transformation. These architectures invariably introduce warping, distortion, and artifacts as they are globally visually convincing on full frames but locally very unstable on details. Our method produced an SNR boosted composite frame sequence that was then stabilized as a playback with no artifacts or nonlinear distortions guaranteed by virtue of the mathematical model (Figure 1). We encoded our result to play back at 16 frames per second (fps) at 4k (3840 x 2160) resolution with no false details introduced by AI pixel supersampling or frame interpolation as is the case in prior unpublished attempts. This ramerate was chosen based on the inferred camera running speed of the original K-100 camera, which was 16 fps at the minimum and was typical at the time for amateur shoots with no accompanying soundtrack (Munns 2014). Contrary to previous computational stabilizations, our results are suitable for future close analysis of the anatomy and biomechanics of the film subject. METHODS Our methodological approach is summarized in Figure 2. Summarized it consisted of two main parts: 1. Cleaning up individual frame quality by reducing noise and filling in missing data with multi-sample frame compositing 2. Producing a high-quality video playback from the resulting frames with homographyoptimized motion stabilization. Multi-Sample Frame Compositing Individual multi-generational copies of the PGF accumulate random noise and non-random film artifacts and lose detail that was present in the camera original with each successive copy. We mitigate the loss of detail in each individual copy by merging multiple high-resolution scans of different copies together. For each frame, we align all copies of that frame to a single master frame and merge them down into a multi-sample composite frame with a sampling factor of 8. Individual frames benefited from multi-sample compositing in two main ways: 1. Reduction of non-randomly distributed defects, such as scratching or holes in the film 2. Reduction of randomly distributed noise, both from the film copying process and the digital photography Non-random defects are the result of physical damage to the film and do not occur uniformly within a frame or across different copies. These types of defects simply change the presence or absence of pixel data for a given frame in a given copy, typically by replacing the pixels with near black or near white damage artifacts. These artifacts are rarely present in the same place across multiple copies as they are the result of local contact damage and not global copying loss. A multi-sample composition of a frame will produce a result that has n “votes” for a color value at each pixel location, with the final composite result being the average. Outlier values such as damage artifacts will usually only hold a 1/n weighted vote in the average and thus be suppressed by a factor of n with more frame samples, provided the copies were independently made. A visual representation of filling in missing or damaged pixels with information from other copies is shown in Figure 3. Global, randomly distributed noise (akin to static on an old TV) is the result of copying loss as well as digital photography sensor noise. Film grains are not uniformly arranged in fixed arrays and result in lossy reprojections where these grains misalign when copied from one generation to the next. Furthermore, all digital devices exhibit some amount of dark current noise, visible as individual fluctuations in pixel color when taking a completely blacked out picture with the lens cap on. This can be probabilistically modeled as Gaussian noise with unknown mean and variance. Since we solve for the color transformation from each copy to the target background, we approximate the noise mean as 0 indicating zero color bias. A copied frame F can then be represented as the original frame μ plus random noise with standard deviation σ. F = N (μ, σ) (1) The variance 𝜎𝐹̅ 2 of 𝐹̅ , the average of n independent samples of F with the same standard deviation σ, is σ2/n by the definition of the variance. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 𝐹̅ can be defined as μ / 𝜎𝐹̅ = μ√𝑛 / σ (2) which increases by a factor of √𝑛 when compared to the single frame representation. Thus, physical defects of the film are suppressed and only have a magnitude of 1/n in the composite when present and the SNR resulting from random copying noise should increase by a factor of √𝑛, which is 2.83 for n=8. A visualization of reducing random noise through multi-sample compositing is shown in Figure 4. Converging to the signal mean via averages of large numbers of samples is justified by the Law of Large Numbers. We used the digitized PGF frame archive, collected as described in When Roger Met Patty (Munns, 2014), as the source material for our analysis. These scans represent the most widely sampled and highest quality digital scans known to date. Each individual frame was hand spooled across a backlight and photographed with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi DSLR (resolution at 4272 x 2848). The camera parameters were as follows: f/7.1, ISO-1600, exposure 1/80s, and 100mm focal length. The images were saved as raw .CR2 files as well as JPG images. We worked with the camera-provided JPG encoded images. We also produced alternative versions with PNG encoding from the .CR2 files. This changes the white balance and exposure from the JPG encoding but does not visually change the compression quality given the limited resolution of the film itself. We used the archive copy numbers 8 and 14, known internally as the ANE group. These two copies provided a total of 8 samples of 150 frames before and after the reference lookback frame at F354. Each copy was printed in 4x slow motion for use during a time in which broadcasts were printed on real film stock. Since the reel must run at a consistent speed, a 0.25x slow motion sequence required each frame to be reproduced 4 times in series. Each reprint was a separate sample of the previous generation’s frame with independent film grain noise and potential damage. Thus, for our purposes they are each four independent copies for a total of 8 samples per frame. A close-up of a frame from Copy 8 is shown in Figure 5. For each frame, the samples were aligned to a master copy computationally. Image feature detection was performed on both query and master frames using the Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) algorithm (Lowe, 2004). SIFT is a computer vision feature detection algorithm that converts image features into numerical vectors whose similarities can be compared across different image detections, known as keypoints. SIFT was performed on all copies of a frame, and feature matching was performed between n-1 copies and a single master copy by finding the nearest neighbors of the keypoints of each frame pair. The choice of master copy is arbitrary: we picked the first frame of Copy 8 in each 4-frame series as the master. We used the OpenCV implementation of SIFT with default parameters and programmed our solution entirely in Python 3.4. A visualization of feature detection and matching between two copies of the same frame is shown in Figure 6. We solved for the planar homography between each query/master frame pair (7 total pairs) using the RANSAC algorithm from the matched feature detections in each pair. A 3D homography matrix representing the rotation and translation difference between two planes, the master and the query frame, can be calculated for each pair (Szeliski, 2010) and applied to each query frame to align its detected features to the corresponding features in the master copy. This transformation accounts for the slight differences in frame alignment and rotation relative to the DSLR sensor during scanning and can be calculated for the 1200 total frames in a manner of minutes. The homography matrix is a 3x3 matrix that relates the 3D difference between two planes. A visualization of a homography transformation is shown in Figure 7. A color correction operation was necessary due to the different biases introduced by the different film stocks and copying methods. This was done so a composite frame composed of many different source copies could be superposed onto a background frame without excessive visual distraction. We approximated the color shift of each frame with a linear equation c’ = mc + b (3) where c’ is the target background color, c is the individual copy color, and m and b are the slope and intercept respectively of a linear relationship. For a single pixel index, this can be expressed as: We solved for m and b for each of the three channels R, G, B independently by aligning F354 from each copy to the background F354 scan using the feature detection method described in the previous section. We take c and c’ from each pair of aligned pixels and create a 3n x 4 matrix by stacking all instances of equation 3 in row major order, where n is the number of aligned pixels in the image pair. We subsampled the pixels as using all pixel correspondences resulted in a matrix with n on the order of 106. We solve this system of linear equations with least squares optimization. Although this color relationship is not guaranteed to be linear, it is a conservative model that can be solved quickly with linear matrix operations. Color mappings involving high order terms such as quadratics can be explored in future work. A demonstration of linear color correction is shown in Figure 8. Homography Optimized Motion Stabilization The substantial motion in the original film makes it difficult to observe the subject in frame without excessive visual distraction. Furthermore, digital scanning of the film introduces yet another source of frame motion as the plane of the film is not guaranteed to be perfectly orthogonal and center aligned to the camera image plane in each copy. We correct for this motion using feature detection and homography transformation as described in the previous section. In this use case, we take each composited frame and detect feature pairs between it and a single master background frame, in this case a high-resolution digital photo of a 1st generation 4x5 inch print of F354 assembled by Bill Munns. We solve for an 8-degree-of-freedom homography matrix for each of the 150 frames that transforms each frame to the same perspective viewing plane as the background scene. This method is more accurate than previous attempts at stabilization using manual alignment due to its ability to account for two extra axes of rotation and perspective distortion, shown in Figure 9. Previous attempts could only rotate each frame in the plane of the screen (the red Z axis) while neglecting the possibility of pitch and yaw and their associated perspective distortions. We cropped the stabilized composite frames to a 16:9 ratio in a region zoomed in on the walk cycle in the 150-frame sequence and scaled the resolution to 4K (3840 x 2160). The cropped region was 3500 pixels wide, so a modest upsample of less than 10% using the Lanczos-4 algorithm was necessary. RESULTS We merged 8 copies of 150 frames (1200 frames total) into a single stabilized 150 frame composite sequence cut to 4K resolution and encoded it at 16 fps with ffmpeg. Although not as clear as the camera original, whose sharpness can be estimated with the clarity of the 4 x 5-inch first generation print used as the background canvas, our result is noticeably clearer than any individual copy in our archive and any copy of the PGF shown to the public in the past. Our results may approximate the appearance of a clean, undamaged 1st generation copy, although this is difficult to confirm without the documentation of a confirmed first-generation reel. We performed a synthetic benchmark using the 4x5 inch print of frame 354 to test the effectiveness of our method on gaussian noise. We randomly generated 8 lossy copies of this frame by adding to each pixel a random value sampled from a normal distribution N (0, 25). We merged the 8 copies into one composite image and compared the mean squared error (MSE) for pixel difference between the composite image and the original, as well as each of the individual copies. This simulates our method on an artificially generated dataset with a noise-free ground truth. The MSE for all 8 individual noisy copies was 610, while the MSE for the composite was 77. This represents an 87% reduction in MSE in the composite image. The peak signal-to-noise ratios (PSNR) were 19.2 for the noisy copies and 28.2 for the composite, a 1.47x increase. This is below the theoretical 2.83x increase. Doubling the standard deviation of the noise to 50 does not change the MSE ratio but improves the PSNR ratio to 1.67. Our method may be more effective as the level of grain noise in the image increases, which is a desirable trend. These results are illustrated in Figure 10. A close-up before and after comparison of the film subject is show in Figure 11. Before frames were sampled from the first frame of Copy 8 in the 4-frame sequence (C8-1). After frames are shown after an 8x alignment and composition with a linear color correction applied. Note the reduction of grain noise and suppression of physical scratches. Three before and after frames showing full-frame background detail are shown in Figure 12. Note the elimination of the film defects around the right hip of the subject in the second and third rows. A single frame example of the homography optimized alignment is shown in Figure 13. Keypoints from feature detection are not shown, but the final position of the corners of the query frame in the background frame is indicated. Frames were cropped before stabilization to remove the black film borders from the results. The composite frame on the left demonstrates an extreme example of filling in missing detail with other frames in the black margins, where half of the copies (all 4 prints of C8) excluded that portion of the frame while it was present in the other half. A full 20 frame walk sequence is shown in Figure 14 to demonstrate the stability of homography optimization. Solving for the transformation matrix between composite frame and background frame produced much closer representations of 3D camera motion than manual manipulation. These results show that our method is robust to heavy distortion from motion blur. Details observed in these restored frames can be annotated with much higher confidence than in previous work, as features present in ourresults are likely to have persisted across multiple independent copies rather than simply being the product of an isolated copying error or damage artifact. Munns and Meldrum (2013b) remarked on the necessity of observing any proposed anatomical feature across multiple independent copies to establish confidence that it is in fact a feature of the true photographic record. Our results fold this cross referencing into a single frame sequence by heavily suppressing artifacts present only in isolated instances while amplifying the image signal that is common to all copies. DISCUSSION Advances in computational algorithms and the aggregation of many high-quality digital scans of various film copies allowed us to produce a clearer and more motion stabilized rendition of the PGF than what manual manipulation of singular degraded copies were capable of in the past five decades. Although this effort alone cannot resolve the question of what was really filmed on October 20th, 1967, a mathematically optimized restoration of the film will hopefully allow a higher level of future analysis of and debate about the film subject absent a layer of visual distraction from image noise and motion that was assumed to be inextricable from the image data in the past. Furthermore, our restoration is reliably reproducible due to its foundations as a numerical optimization algorithm and is not subject to individual biases or errors that inevitably arise from various independent attempts to stabilize and enhance the film by hand in photo-editing software. We did not include additional image manipulation tricks utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) and deep-learning neural networks as part of our main method or results as these techniques create distortions and false details that are not reliable for anatomical or biomechanical analysis. Two common forms of video enhancement with deep learning are pixel interpolation and frame interpolation. The first stretches the image to a higher resolution by expanding the original pixels to fill the desired dimensions, then making up the pixels in between using learned convolutional filters trained on thousands of other images. This is sometimes referred to as “AI superresolution” and is very susceptible to introducing false details. If an image is doubled in width and height, then a full 75% of all pixels in the result were generated by the deep neural network in an attempt to fill in the blanks between the low-resolution pixels. This contrasts with simply resizing the image with an interpolation algorithm, which uses a defined local mathematical function to transform the image to a new larger or smaller size without losing or introducing detail. We did not use superresolution because our frames were scanned at above 4K resolution, and because the result would not be faithful to the camera original. The second form of AI enhancement, frame interpolation, generates entirely new frames between existing frames to create a playback that appears smoother than the original sequence. The generated frames in these methods are even less reliable than superresolution techniques because 100% of the resulting pixels in the new frames are synthesized. This can be applied recursively to exponentially increase the framerate of a video sequence, at the cost of reducing the fraction of ground-truth frames in the playback. At 4x interpolation playing at 64 fps, three out of every four frames are synthesized interpolations. (The 2x interpolation is doubled again, but with even less precision as each frame pair contains one real and one generated frame) We processed our 16-fps video result with an implementation of RIFE-CNN (Huang, 2020) to produce 32 fps and 64 fps high framerate playbacks as an exercise. The results are pleasing to the eye as it reduces the choppiness of the original playback rate substantially, but we maintain that any future analyses must refer back to the original 16 fps frame sequence to ensure all proposed features were present on the original film reel. At most, the high framerate versions can help clarify or identify the motion and dynamics of the subject by smoothing out the playback in a way that is less distracting to a viewer’s eye. All hypotheses regarding dynamic features of the subject must be confirmed on the original 16 fps playback to ensure the observations are not of artifacts or distortions injected by the neural network. These hypotheses will still be inherently low confidence as starting an analysis with the high framerate render creates a huge potential for bias towards the predilections of the neural network output. An example of an interpolated frame with a subtle motion artifact is shown in Figure 15. Our restoration and stabilization method were applied only to 8 copies of 150 frames of the film. As there are over 900 frames in the full sequence and over 20 PGF copies in the digital database compiled by Munns, there remains much room for improvement in the quality of the remainder of the PGF reel. However, regardless of how many copies we use in future multi-sample composites of the remainder of the film, it is likely that the results presented in this work are the best-case scenario for quality restoration. The frames of copies 8 and 14 were originally copied with 4x zoom projection to make the bipedal subject take up more of the frame, meaning the grain density on the subject itself is much higher than any of the other copies and the copying loss is minimal. These copies were also in relatively good condition compared to many of the other full reel scans, which suffer from increased prevalence of scratching and tearing. The use of many copies (up to 20 in some frames) may mitigate some of this damage, but the lower pixel density of the bipedal subject in these full frame copies is a fundamental limitation of the source data. CONCLUSIONS We present a method for restoring the Patterson-Gimlin Film to its best-to-date quality approximating that of a clean first generation copy by computationally aligning and merging 8 copies of the film down to one composite. We estimated that multi-sample frame compositing reduced the MSE of grain noise by 87% and physical damage artifacts by a factor of 8. We stabilized the composited frames onto a high-resolution background canvas by solving for a homography matrix that produced a mathematically optimal alignment on detected feature pairs between each composite frame and the stationary background. Our method was based on analytical, well understood, highly cited computational methods that are mathematically sound and did not rely on unverifiable deep learning filters to generate new pixel data. We believe this is the clearest, best stabilized, and most accurate version of the PGF rendered to date due to the quality and quantity of our source material and the mathematical optimality of our method. Future work can extend this method to the full 900+ frame PGF sequence or do more in-depth analysis of the proposed anatomical and biomechanical features observed in the film subject. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was featured on season 2 of The Proof is Out There, produced for the History Channel by Miguel Sancho and Jennifer Merrick of A+E Networks. We appreciate our colleagues’ support and journalistic integrity in publicizing our research. We also thank the associate editor and anonymous reviewers whose comments benefited this manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Huang Z, Zhang T, Heng W, Shi B, and Zhou S (2020). RIFE: Real-Time Intermediate Flow Estimation for Video Frame Interpolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06294. Lowe DG (2004). Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60(2):91-110. Meldrum J. (2006) Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Tom Doherty Associates. Munns B and Meldrum J (2013a). Analysis Integrity of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Image. The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. 2:41-80. Munns B and Meldrum J (2013b). Surface Anatomy and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Features in the Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hominid. The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. 2:1-21. Munns W (2014). When Roger Met Patty. Charleston, SC: Createspace Independent Pub. Szeliski R (2010). Computer vision: algorithms and applications. London: Springer. Isaac Y. Tian, MS is a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. His research focuses on applications of computer vision, computer graphics, and machine learning for modeling and estimating human body geometry and correlated health metrics from 2D and 3D optical images. He is published in the journals Medical Physics, Obesity, and the Journal of Natural Products for work in computation and AI assisted medical research. He earned his BS in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley with an honors concentration in biomedical engineering and a minor in music. Although not formally trained as a biologist, he is an avid enthusiast in paleontology and natural history, has taken coursework in paleoanthropology, and is a dedicated fan of dinosaur research and paleoart. William "Bill" Munns is a veteran motion picture special makeup effects designer with decades of experience fabricating various makeup effects and "creature costumes" for motion pictures, television and commercials, as well as designing robotics for theme parks and museums. To analyze the subject figure seen in the Patterson-Gimlin Film, he has applied his extensive knowledge of the processes, materials and techniques of creating ape-like fur costumes for human performers to wear. And as both a vintage filmmaker (knowledgeable in making and editing 16mm films) and a computer graphics artist, he possesses unique skills and knowledge vital to analyzing the Patterson-Gimlin Film itself, not just the subject figure seen within it. He has spent 14 years analyzing and researching the film, and thus brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the subject. Jeff Meldrum is a Full Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology at Idaho State University (since 1993). His research centers on primate locomotion generally, and the evolution of hominin bipedalism specifically. His professional interest in sasquatch began when he personally examined a line of 15-inch tracks in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington, in 1996. Over 25 years later, his lab houses well over 300 footprint casts attributed to relict hominoids around the world. He conducts collaborative laboratory and field research throughout the world, and has shared his findings in numerous popular and professional publications and presentations, interviews, and television appearances. He is author of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (Tom Doherty Publishers, 2006) and the editor-in-chief The Relict Hominoid Inquiry (www.isu.edu/rhi). Figure 1. Comparisons of a degraded 3rd gen copy (A) to our result (B) and a 1st generation, almost lossless 4x5 inch print (C). Note the reduction in scratches, appearance of static noise, and correction of washout colors. Figure 2. Visual overview of method. A. Digital photos were taken of multiple physical copies of the same frame of film. Each copy contains different grain noise and film damage. B. Copies are computationally aligned and merged down into one frame using SIFT + RANSAC algorithms. This amplifies the film details that are common to all copies while suppressing the noise that is only present in a single copy. 8 copies were used in this work. C. We solved for a linear color correcting matrix for the red, green, and blue channels independently to correct the composite frame’s appearance to the target background frame, which is a high-resolution scan of a first generation 4x5 inch print of Frame 354. D. We aligned the color-corrected frame to the background frame with SIFT + RANSAC, which finds the best alignment based on the background scenery common to both images. E. We crop a 16:9 aspect ratio portion of the frame, resize it to 4K resolution, and compile the 150 total frames into a video playing at 16fps. Figure 3. Restoration of non-random defects by filling in damage (light blue) or missing data (yellow) with the sum of image data from all copies. Figure 4. Average of n samples boost SNR by a factor of √𝑛. This is analogous to the signal processing equivalent known as time synchronous averaging, where a noisy signal is averaged with repeated samples of itself to cancel out perturbations. The convergence of the average of n samples to the true mean value as n grows towards infinity is consistent with the fundamental principle of probability known as the Law of Large Numbers. Image credit: https://www.crystalinstruments.com/time-synchronous-average Figure 5. Zoomed in frame from Copy 8 showing pixelated random noise and a white pockmark from film damage near the right arm. Figure 6. SIFT feature detection example between two copies. Red circles indicate keypoint with orientation, green lines indicate nearest neighbor matches. Figure 7. Diagram from the OpenCV documentation showing how homography matrix H relates keypoint x in the query frame to the matched keypoint x’ in the master frame. Figure 8. Left, a frame from Copy 8 with an elevated pink hue. Right, after color correction to the F354 background. Figure 9. Manual on-screen manipulation in photo editing software only allows for rotation in the Z-axis (roll), whereas a 3D transformation contains pitch and yaw. Figure 10. Left, the original 4x5 print. Middle, a noisy copy generated by adding N (0, 50) to all pixels. Right, result of merging 8 independent noisy copies into one frame. MSE reduced by 87% and PSNR increased by a factor of 1.67 relative to the single noisy copy. Figure 11. Before and after multi-sample composition. Note the vertical copying defect and diagonal blemish on the original copy Figure 12. Six frames showing the before (left, single master copy) and after (right, 8x composite) frames after alignment, composition, and color correction. Note the reduction in the appearance of static noise and physical damage. Figure 13. Motion stabilization of a single frame using homography. Red arrows show where the corners of the query frame were pasted into the background frame. Figure 14. Twenty consecutive frames demonstrating the effects of homography computed motion stabilization. Notice how even in instances of extreme motion blur the walk cycle is relatively stable compared to adjacent frames. Figure 15. An interpolated frame from a 2x interpolated, 32fps RIFE-CNN processing of our result. Although most of the body is visually indistinguishable from an original frame, there is an artifact introduced by incorrect motion tracking and interpolation of the arm circled in red. Other smaller distortions may be too subtle to see and cannot be depended on for ground truth information.
    4 points
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...