norseman Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 As you all know, I'm not a big fan of media concerning Bigfoot. I think it's a giant waste of time. Of course many people who are taking pictures and video are not researchers they are just every day joes with a I phone. The PGF is like the gold standard of Squatch films, but I wonder if it has more to do with the release date of the film, and not so much it's quality. The back story is like a double edge sword, Roger Paterson is accused of being a charlatan, but at the same time Patty was associated with tracks on the ground that follow on people found. We know where they filmed it. We know what camera was used to film it. Today? We have a plethora of videos and pictures clogging up the internet. Some of them are very very bad, some of them are simply comedy and not meant to be taken seriously (butchykid for example). Some of them are so blurry you cannot tell what it is. And some of them are dang good. The problem is? How do we vet each of these videos and pictures? I'll openly admit I've become so jaded that I simply dismiss every video and photo I see, simply because I cannot know for certain the character of who took it, where they took it, when they took it, etc. With a few exceptions..... Anyhow how do you go about vetting photos and video? Do you think there is anything out there that stacks up to the gold standard? And lastly do you think any real photos or video is sliding through the cracks because we have been bombarded with so many fakes and frauds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Unless any footage or photography is at least is good as the Patterson footage in terms of clarity, I pretty much write it off. There hasn't been any clear images since then that don't scream "hoax". I don't agree with some though, that say footage or photos will never prove anything. I think good, clear, up close images would go a long way. And If it's so easy to make a convincing fake with photoshop, how come we haven't seen any? Edited February 7, 2014 by barncat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 What clear images screams "hoax"? What is your system of vetting? I'm not really interested in discussing media here, as much as I'm trying to understand what goes through the person's mind when they view it. And what scream's hoax and what scream's real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Hello Norseman, Good topic!. Man, the PGF is really something when one compares it to ANYTHING since then. So what's up with that? Look, the generation watching YT vids now are probably the most jaded of all because I get the impression that most of the public do NOT compare the newer vids to the PGF. They compare them to each other and go on the word of the vid maker. Now that is an assumption on my part but it's just about the only reason I can think of as to why Sasquatch isn't largely taken seriously. With PGF it would seem all our eggs are in one basket though because we don't have anything else either. Question for you N-man: Do you actually think it at all possible that there is NO OTHER FILM ever taken of Sasquatch that is as good if not better than the Patterson-gimlin footage? I don't. I find it rather ludicrous for good film to not exist. In 60 years? No way there isn't any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 I see better video footage all the time.........but most people proclaim that these videos are hoaxes. I would like to know what people see in the video that makes them a hoax, or are they looking at the camera man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) What clear images screams "hoax"? What is your system of vetting? I'm not really interested in discussing media here, as much as I'm trying to understand what goes through the person's mind when they view it. And what scream's hoax and what scream's real? Well, the best example is the Erickson "Matilda" footage, where it's pretty obviously a wookie mask. The sleeping Matlida footage is pretty obviously hoaxed to me as well, for the simple reason that whoever filmed it apparently decided not to wait around until the thing woke up. The Hovey photo of the back of the Sasquatch is a pretty good fake, but again, why not any other photos that show anything other than the back? No other "clear" images come to my mind right now. I see better video footage all the time.........but most people proclaim that these videos are hoaxes. I would like to know what people see in the video that makes them a hoax, or are they looking at the camera man? Any examples? Edited February 7, 2014 by barncat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Pretty compelling from a "realistic" standpoint for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErWDBUqwtb4 I have a rule, and that rule is that I don't trust any anti kill squatcher that is trying to sell me something. In other words? If your in the business of perpetrating a myth? A) You don't want anyone stumbling into your hoax with a rifle and a agenda. B ) Once the mystery is solved, science takes over and your no longer the conduit in which "knowledge and wonderment" flow. BUT.........just comparing apples to apples, I'd say those videos and especially Todd Standings eye blink footage is better by far and away quality wise to the PGF. But to follow my own rule, that would exclude the PGF and Roger Patterson as well, he was anti kill. But I cut him some slack because I truly feet at that time he and Bob truly thought that video would break it all open. Now it's almost fifty years later...... As far as Todd Standing's video, I refuse to buy it, therefore I don't know what's all in there, if he has video of them walking or jumping or whatever like the first video. The first video, second part, with the adult and the baby kinda looks like a person in a gorilla suit, but to me, so does a real gorilla walking upright. And I have no idea who is responsible for the video. I'll admit I'm very weak when it comes to keeping track of who is who in Bigfootdom. Edited February 7, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The first video you posted looks like an obvious suit to me as well. To be less subjective, it doesn't show muscles, odd proportions, or anything that would be hard to fake Leaving aside Todd Standings reputation, His images of two different supposed sasquatch look to be totally different creatures. One of them looks like a muppet and I think is pretty laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 So you are vetting videos on how they appear to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 I'm not being judgmental at all, just curious. But, I think a lot of people look at the guy that took the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Oh I see what you mean, the character and reputation of the person behind the camera. Yeah, of course that is important in making a judgement. But it's also easy to do a character asassination on someone, and i think to some degree that was done to roger Patterson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Right. But is it also being done to others in the here and now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Possibly, That's why I'll trust what my eyes tell me rather than hearsay about someone. You can dig up dirt on anyone if you look hard enough. In the case of Biscardi or Rick Dyer, though, you don't have to look very hard. Edited February 7, 2014 by barncat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Hello Norseman, In the case of a video say. What is the process of finding the info on the author? And how does one go from there to the reputation sequence? Edited February 7, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts