Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 Mods. Please delete or merge this thread if it's been covered. I've watched a lot of FB/FB videos and analysis. I'm wondering how the BF community here feels about him. I noticed that he disables comments in all of his videos on YT. I'm also aware of how some kids hoaxed him and his analysis was exposed as completely wrong. Still though, that hardly invalidates all of his other observations. Anyway, what's the general consensus here? Favorable? Good for the BF community? Bad? Indifferent? I'm not asking about the man himself, but his work.
bipedalist Posted June 1, 2012 BFF Patron Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) I like his slow motion, enlargement and more recent stabilization (anti-shake) video review as a technical effort. I don't often agree with his analysis of arcane and often incorrect attributions that he claims to see in the video efforts of others. That said, he spends a great deal of time with the video's of others and even when making mistakes does some things that few others attempt to do, which he does get my accolades for in the attempt. Still, it seems when left to autofocus and camcorders, the fickle pixel is king! Edited June 1, 2012 by bipedalist
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 IMHO, He sometimes sees more in his analysis of video footage.. and comes to more conclusions, then I feel is possible, from the video footage being analyzed. That said, I have had him point out some interesting things that i can see, in certain clips. His analysis of the 2005 Prince Edward Island footage (with Brian Brown's enhancements) made it possible for me to compare the slowed motion of the moving creature.. to what I had seen in the field with my own eyes. The folks in this field of interest, that have already condemned that footage as a hoax.. I say .. Don't be so quick to pull the trigger and bury it. This will be a valuable piece of video evidence, once this creature (if ever) is documented as existing.
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I've followed his work for some time and found that especially since last year he has dialed back a touch on the over the top analysis. He did that filming last year with the documentary group from Australia and I believe he had some consulting that helped dial it back. His interviews I think are very good, like the one he did with salubrious about the Colorado BF sightings. I also agree that his work with slow motion, enlargement, and stabilization are very good. One thing I do like is he does usually present the raw footage, then goes through the step by step process of analysis. I don't like that he is leading the viewer by presenting his "facts" before showing that raw footage. I would rather see the raw footage, then have him go step by step through analysis, then a conclusion. Yes, he seems to have been taken in by a hoax or two. I'm of the opinion that his YT channel might be working with another one that he hasn't posted to FB yet (maybe he's trying out responses before doing the full blown analysis).
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) I really like his work, but one thing I don't like is how he attempts to make sense of everything in the videos. In other words, he sometimes makes conclusions based on things that just aren't really there. Edited June 1, 2012 by OntarioSquatch
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 ^ I've noticed that too. He seems to have an odd mixture of really, really good observations with giant leaps to conclusions thrown in. Just a strange combination. I would like to see him leave a little more room. Something like, "It's possible this or that is a shadow or trick of light." Just something that to make him appear more objective. But I do like some of his stuff.
Guest Shaun Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I watch his stuff with a cynical eye. The whole 'confirms on' thing bugs me. There's no scientific proof that any of the points he 'confirms' are actually valid. He's just made his own assumptions. If he just broke the videos down I'd be more comfortable watching them.
Guest MikeG Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 As always, I wonder whether he is receiving the imagery at a higher resolution than is generally available online. If he is, then he's a lucky chap. If he isn't and is only seeing what we see, then he............erm.......allows himself the luxury of interpolating rather more than I am comfortable with. I want to see his zoomed and stabilised version of the PGF when the original is finally unearthed and properly scanned. Mike
salubrious Posted June 1, 2012 Moderator Posted June 1, 2012 ^^ yes, it does seem that he is seeing better resolution than what you see on FB/FB. I commented to him that they should include a link to the raw footage, as when I have found it on YT, invariably it is easier to see detail than on facebook. I think there is something about facebook that reduces resolution, but it could just be his process. One great example is one he calls 'The Face of Bigfoot'. He uses TimbergiantBigfoot's YT video 'Elusive One Nearby?' for that. You can see more in that raw footage than on FB/FB!
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I've taken to skipping his intros and analysis altogether, and just getting to the meat and potatoes of his video analysis. "Confirms on..." :D I do wish he would take time to vet the videos before doing the analysis. It seems he will simply pull any promising new video off the internet and run with it without trying to contact the person taking the video, etc. This causes problems with hoaxing. Right now on his YT channel he's thrown in the "promising" video of the figure shaking trees behind the bushes with a couple of vocalizations. However, a simple click on the channel of the person posting on YT quickly reveals that it is a couple of kids with a penchant for posting goofy videos... several of which are episodes of "Bigfoot Escapes from the Hospital". Vet the videos before you analyze please....
BobbyO Posted June 1, 2012 SSR Team Posted June 1, 2012 I think they're a joke and do more harm to the subject than good.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I love his analyses. Of course, like others, I cannot agree with every single item that is presented, but most of what he sees in those videos can be seen in HD on a large screen. I'm sure that is how he watches them, and it helps him see more. I doubt he does it by himself either, but I'm not sure. I figured they had a small group of people analyzing each video. What people have to realize though is that he is coming from a very specific point of view. Unlike many people, FB/FB's stance is that sasquatch is real, and they build a profile based on what they already know. This is the reason some of the items seem strange to other people. If they notice something they already recognize, although it is hard for others to see in the video, they present it anyway. I think that is where a lot of the confusion originates, but I admit I have thought them/him wrong on maybe 2 or 3 occasions. Roughly, lol, as I can't remember. I also agree that this is one of the best, if not the best, sources for stabilized videos. Also, just the way the videos are presented is really impressive, instead of annoying like other presentations. They get an A in my book. However, there have also been a few videos they thought were real that I disagreed with...About the same number of items I have disagreed with in their analyses. That is pretty impressive imo.
Guest Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 I also would like to say that I really like his videos most of the time. He is one of the few out there that take the time to go through each video and slow it down or zoom in and then post it for everyone to see. While I don't always agree with everything he says, I think a lot of his videos are terrific and am thankful he does what he does.
Guest thermalman Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 I watch his stuff with a cynical eye. The whole 'confirms on' thing bugs me. There's no scientific proof that any of the points he 'confirms' are actually valid. He's just made his own assumptions. If he just broke the videos down I'd be more comfortable watching them. Good point.
BobZenor Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 I get a kick out of how he sees cone heads and mid tarsal breaks on nearly every film. He could also tone down some of the other assumptions that he makes and not present them as facts. Still his videos are usually interesting and entertaining if you aren't the type that worries about how "the bigfoot community" is made to look. I don't fall into that category much.
Recommended Posts