Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Check this out Everything they show has something seriously wrong with it (out of focus, shaky camera, Chewbacca mask...). The people who recorded these videos are in on the hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) Looks to me they might have either used autofocus (notice some foreground elements are sharp) and the lens too slow for the pan, or used a manual focus set too close, and didn't adjust in the moment. Some video cams in low light will not focus on further objects..so it may have grabbed the foreground with enough light and locked on that. Either way I can't disagree, they have all of those typical BF video problems. Can't agree though that "those who recorded are in on the hoax." Not sure what is a hoax here, if any, and I know I can't resolve it...hoping they do actually produce this documentary though. And, Moneymaker comes clean on his/BFRO involvement early and his sale of reputed hoaxed footage..and gee, everyone just be honest....and not so greedy...or, or , or...hahah I know they tried hard... Edited October 4, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Looks to me they might have either used autofocus (notice some foreground elements are sharp) and the lens too slow for the pan, or used a manual focus set too close, and didn't adjust in the moment. Some video cams in low light will not focus on further objects..so it may have grabbed the foreground with enough light and locked on that. Either way I can't disagree, they have all of those typical BF video problems. I know you can hide a lot in the faults of the equipment, but yah, digital cams, cell cams and earlier autofocus vid cams have a lot of "quirks" to fight with. I despair of getting a decent sas pic if I get the opportunity when "equipped" because I fight with my cameras all the time when practising on other wildlife. I think I might suck it up and get a DSLR that takes old MANUAL lenses.. though a couple I've got are in the "powershot" range, so I really ought to wrap my head around this... http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK Which should give me more options (i.e.at least power up into the settings and modes I want instead of having to frig with the menus for 2 minutes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) yeah it would.. and some effort to learn/do it looks like... It was/is a learning curve on what choices to make, they all have trade offs. Given when most of this film was shot..2004-2008 it would have been, and maybe still will be, some of the more talked about..in a good way,. Today, with so many cheap HD cameras, plotwatchers, gopros, thermal imagers for rent, the standard maybe has increased with the never ending stream of BF Youtubes......it's 2013, almost 2014. But, those are the details i want...camera types, lenses, etc...as well as the witnesses comments.... hard to do much with what we have been given. Just watched a youtube today, sorry not recalling channel..new one to me, and he is using a $1500 telephoto lens on I assume a 18MP or more DSLR.... for day....not a bad plan, great resolution really and at distance.....if one could afford and doesn't mind lugging around or posting at a spotting location...ugh.... Edited October 4, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Looks to me they might have either used autofocus (notice some foreground elements are sharp) and the lens too slow for the pan, or used a manual focus set too close, and didn't adjust in the moment. Some video cams in low light will not focus on further objects..so it may have grabbed the foreground with enough light and locked on that. Either way I can't disagree, they have all of those typical BF video problems. Can't agree though that "those who recorded are in on the hoax." Not sure what is a hoax here, if any, and I know I can't resolve it...hoping they do actually produce this documentary though. And, Moneymaker comes clean on his/BFRO involvement early and his sale of reputed hoaxed footage..and gee, everyone just be honest....and not so greedy...or, or , or...hahah I know they tried hard... MM has explained in detail what his involvement was. It's already out there. He didn't sell anything. Gee whiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 (edited) Really? I would like that link, b/c the last I read there was a sale of several videos to EP pre 2008 or so, from the site, from MM.... Edited October 5, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 watched the video, think I could have done a better job. looked like cheap fake fur and an unlicensed cheap knock off of a Chubaca mask. the frames that showed the creature walking looked like a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Okay, so obviusly this new footage is straight garbage. A couple of night vision sequences a terrible face shot of a wookie, and a sleeping shag carpet. Fits right in with plenty other hoax footage. But what this does clarify for me, and others possibly is that the PG film is the real deal. No footage can compare. Not even after all these years. Amen to that brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) I'm curious about something. Ketchum seems to be the champion of the "they are human" crowd. But any photos associated with her seem to be of Chewtilda who looks very decidedly not human. That seems rather odd. Would one not expect photos that are supposed to support her research would look more human than...wookie? Chewtilda seems to me to be the least human looking of all the alleged BF photos. That seems pretty ironic. Bingo. I am not discounting Dr. Ketchum's work with the DNA, but I am personally questioning the Matilda facial shots. Upper level primates don't have hair all over the face. A Hominid should have hominid teeth. Matilda's doggy teeth are wrong, just as the horsey teeth were a dead giveaway with the Georgia boys' hoax. I think the Erikson team didn't check that video and its provenance very well and just accepted it and so did Dr. Ketchum. I have no issue with the sleeping squatch but there is simply not enough there to accept or to discount it. The blobsquatch pics fall into the same category. One of the peer reviewers correctly questioned the pics and video and in my opinion, they did not strengthen the conclusion of the paper. Leaked peer reviews posted today on Dr. Ketchum's FB page: http://www.bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html It is all such a shame, because the samples submitted and the work done by Dr. Ketchum was probably very thorough and pretty good. They should have checked the video with someone who knows hominin bones, fossil species included. Matilda's face also doesn't accord well with the NA mask images, which actually do accord very well with both Neanderthal and Homo erectus supspecies' skull shapes overall, for example showing the classic "ski mask" brow ridge and prominent cheek bones with deeply set eyes, recessed chin, prognathic teeth and jaws. Now I know that it could be possible for prominent canines to quickly evolve, and actually some Neanderthals did have them, but there should be a strong U shaped frontal bite with big human-like rectangular incisors (and 4, not 6 as in horses). In the end it comes down to the teeth. http://www.boneclones.com/catalog-fossil-hominids.htm See any prominent canines and tiny incisors here? Hmmm? Edited October 6, 2013 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Just looked at the facial shot of Matilda again. Granted, it is really blurry and what we take for facial hair could be hair hanging into the face. The jaw is not very strong though the canines and canine roots are prominent. It is not a skull shape of a hominid, IMHO. A hominin, maybe but the teeth are still too small. Would it even be possible for a hominin, say giganto, to hybridize with modern humans and produce this sort of creature? It would be a lot less likely than for a Homo erectus like creature to hybridize with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Bingo. I am not discounting Dr. Ketchum's work with the DNA, but I am personally questioning the Matilda facial shots. Upper level primates don't have hair all over the face. A Hominid should have hominid teeth. Matilda's doggy teeth are wrong, just as the horsey teeth were a dead giveaway with the Georgia boys' hoax. I think the Erikson team didn't check that video and its provenance very well and just accepted it and so did Dr. Ketchum. I have no issue with the sleeping squatch but there is simply not enough there to accept or to discount it. The blobsquatch pics fall into the same category. One of the peer reviewers correctly questioned the pics and video and in my opinion, they did not strengthen the conclusion of the paper. Leaked peer reviews posted today on Dr. Ketchum's FB page: http://www.bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html It is all such a shame, because the samples submitted and the work done by Dr. Ketchum was probably very thorough and pretty good. They should have checked the video with someone who knows hominin bones, fossil species included. Matilda's face also doesn't accord well with the NA mask images, which actually do accord very well with both Neanderthal and Homo erectus supspecies' skull shapes overall, for example showing the classic "ski mask" brow ridge and prominent cheek bones with deeply set eyes, recessed chin, prognathic teeth and jaws. Now I know that it could be possible for prominent canines to quickly evolve, and actually some Neanderthals did have them, but there should be a strong U shaped frontal bite with big human-like rectangular incisors (and 4, not 6 as in horses). In the end it comes down to the teeth. http://www.boneclones.com/catalog-fossil-hominids.htm See any prominent canines and tiny incisors here? Hmmm? They coud have checked with a 12 year old star wars fan. I'm not sure there is any good excuse for showing that video. It's clear that it's pure garbage. I still don't understand the mindset that some of it could be real after the dog face mask shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I still don't understand the mindset that some of it could be real after the dog face mask shows up. Because some people NEED to belive to feel *vindicated* or for what ever reason they possess deep down inside. It's part of the same reason that some people keep coming to a BF forum day after day, month after month, year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) Well it is so obvious that it seems disingenious. They really aren't that stupid. And I have heard that the chewbacca costume was heavily influenced by bigfoot images. It did come out after Patty. I agree with a previous poster that the lack of mouth and tongue motions is also troubling, and the profile is very gorilla-like. One major difference I noticed in the chewbacca comparison shots is that there is an overbite in chewbacca and a pronounced underbite in Matilda. Matilda's eyes are also exceptionally widely spaced. She also has a gorilla-like low brow. Chewbacca had a real human skull inside, so he had to have a human domed brow. Matilda's side profile is classically gorillalike. If anything the Matilda shots support the original contention of Drs. Meldrum and Krantz that Sasquatch is not human, or not from the Homo (Hominid) family but branches out earlier. The DNA results disagree, but that could be accounted for by the hybridization. C'mon, let's not dismiss this outright...there is still something to this in spite of initial impressions. Look closer. Edited October 6, 2013 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) But it doesn't actually look much like Patty (or any of the eyewitness drawings I've ever seen). The face is pretty dog-like and it just so happens that that Chewbacca from Star Wars was based on George Lucas' dog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca#Creation Edited October 6, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) The face is pretty dog-like and ... And the first thing an eye-witness I know, whose encounter has brought them face-to-face with these, said basically, "Wow. Great pic. Too bad it's fake." When I asked about the face, mouth and teeth, his response was that the long "eye-teeth" were all wrong because their teeth were roughly just like ours. (*rounded* was the word he used) He's been close enough to one to know that.. and I trust that knowledge far more than I do a pic like that at a press conference. Edited October 6, 2013 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts