Bigfoot Media Today.....

[HOLDMYBEER]

The vetting of evidence is a fairly defined process that applies to all evidence... sasquatch, criminal, civil. Your original post is directed to photo and video evidence so I will limit to that.

 

I realize these forums are dedicated to discussion, debate and entertainment. Those goals are provoked by the common posting of a photo or video clip that has almost no support information with the idea people will voice opinions without the details. It is good you bring up concept of looking past the picture.

 

Any video or photo (or recording) is captured with some sort of device. That device should be acquired, examined and "authenticated". The process is simply a documentation that the imagery or sound recording actually came from the device under the circumstances claimed. Yes, the authentication process has to be performed by a person certified to do the job and yes, the owner of the device has to give it up for examination. This is no different than the examination of any high profile evidence. Some individuals may be reluctant to give up their device for examination. So be it. I can only say that the role of investigator requires a certain amount of salesmanship in dealing with witnesses. 

 

I have a fellow who is a certified forensic examiner specializing in computers and software. He has his own company and has been testifying behind his work in major cases. He has the ability to review all contents of something like a cell phone and determine if the images were actually recorded with the device (versus transferred to the device from elsewhere), the date and time (to the second) of each photo, the location if the phone contains GPS or cell tower information) and a few other bits of important information that I hesitate to put out on an open forum. All of the information from the examination is put into a report that goes for pages and contains great detail.  The last cell phone I sent him allegedly containing photos of a sasquatch was determined to also contain information that eventually generated a confession of deceit from the owner. 

 

In the arena of sasquatch there is so much speculation I see no substitute for a thorough processing of alleged evidence. You heard me bang on that drum throughout the Melba Ketchum threads for what seemed like forever.   And I still hear people say that claims of sasquatch encounters should not be treated as 'friggin criminal cases'.  I have to disagree. Serious criminal cases are a dime a dozen and happen everyday, everywhere.

[TD-40]

How do we vet out misIDs and hoaxes?

 

I have spent the past eight years working in fraud investigation--cybercrime. I have seen a lot of stuff. When I look at data, I have to make a judgment about what are legitimate accounts and which are high risk. There are patterns I look for, trends, and certain behaviors. I also look at surrounding accounts that may have a similar look at feel. Then I have to make comparisons to form an assessment as to their legitimacy. I also look at probabilities. What are the chances that twelve accounts that joined today all have the same month and year of birthday and are using the same email domain? "Something is wrong here."

 

I go through this process before I start looking at digital footprints of the account. It's a process by which you have to account for behaviors, probabilities, and known trends and patterns.

 

So I guess when I look at bigfoot videos, I look at all behaviors and compare them to behaviors that we accept as legitimate. The stealth, the smell, the way it walks, the color, the shape, the size, the sound, ... everything. What are the chances that a bigfoot would stand off the side of the road in clear view of headlights and just stand there while you take video? You have to be discriminate and scrutinize. There really isn't one or two main things that have to pass the smell test before I believe it is legitimate. It's more like a long process that stands the test of time.

[Ike]

Keep in mind, I'm not vested in this one way or another, other than I would like to eventually see this film resolved regardless of outcome. Clearly you are of the opinion that it is a hoax, whereas I am not in a position of authority to say one way or another.

 

Why is it so hard to imagine Patterson and Gimlin had someone else involved in the hoax. I see this all the time how could "stupid ole Patterson who could barely tie his shoe" pull off the hoax. Even the pgf geeks in the pgf forums section, where this conversation belongs, try to use it.

If the pgf was a hoax I think most would agree Patterson must have had some help.

 

Okay, you ask "Why is it so hard to imagine Patterson and Gimlin had someone else involved in the hoax." It's not, I can wrap my head around that, just as easily as I can your statement "If the pgf was a hoax I think most would agree Patterson must have had some help." The real question in this circumstance is "who?". To date the only serious contender to come out of the shadows and state he was involved is Bob Heironimus. From what I can tell, he is even less qualified to make a suit than Roger Patterson was. So what qualifications does he have that makes him a master monster costume maker? Perhaps we should look to higher sources on this. Care to trot out the old John Chambers argument? A man who was the top dog in his trade at the time. Unfortunately, he completely denies any involvement...repeatedly.

 

http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/chambers.asp

 

Of course, those in the suit camp like to give him a pass because they feel he denied it for whatever reason, when in reality he was the creator. Personally, I think that IF it is a costume in the PGF, it far surpasses anything Chambers or anyone else at the time ever created. Funny how it works that everyone is a liar according to the folks who claim a hoax...Patterson and Gimlin lied about filming a real live creature, Chambers lied about making the costume. Apparently, the only people who haven't lied in this story according to the deniers is Heironimus and Morris because it fits their agenda.

 

I am open to the concept that this was all a grand hoax, but for me, I want to know the who, what, when, why, and how. Nobody here is obligated to justify their positions, but the reality is that if the people in the "hoax" camp want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of their back slapping club, they have to demonstrate their case far beyond stating it is a "hoax" and "we don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove it's real." Even Greg Long had better sauce than that.

 

Once again though, in an attempt to put this thread back on track rather than turning it into the Jr. PGF Forum, this is a classic case of vetting a video for authenticity. Any photo, video, audio evidence should be scrutinized ad nauseum to get to the truth of the matter, which I believe to be paramount.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Ike

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I have contemplated this for a long time, and even discussed it a little bit here on the forums, and the conclusion I've reached is that there is absolutely no way to discern what is real and what is a hoax. Of course we can assign a probability, but often times without all the facts, that too means nothing.

 

I suppose another factor that comes into play when analyzing any video is experience. Personal experience. That is not to say that someone who has not had an encounter will know less than another person regarding the characteristics and behaviors of these animals, as I believe it is possible to understand them to a certain degree based solely off of eyewitness testimony. But where the difference arises is when these two types of people approach a new piece of evidence.

 

Those who adamantly do not believe sasquatch exists will undoubtedly not be giving the video a fair chance, while the other side will. I know what some will say to this...They will give examples of the extremes. They will say that a believer will think all videos are real, and this is simply not the case. I am a believer, yet I know I dismiss more videos than anything else. Well, actually, I probably say that I don't think a certain video is real, but I leave room for the possibility, since there is not enough evidence either way.

 

I guess my point is that neither extreme is a place that we should want to be. We shouldn't think all videos are real, and we shouldn't think all videos are fake. Either of those points of view will result in stagnation, as all objectivity will have been lost. Even as a believer I get frustrated by the blind belief I sometimes see. Granted, I probably believe things based more on belief than physical evidence in some instances, but I really do try to offer an explanation in as many cases as possible. For instance, stating that I cannot believe that every single one of the thousands of sasquatch reports are hoaxes or misidentifications. That is not really a great argument, even those it does make sense. The only reason it would be considered a valid argument is that the probability of these accounts being false is quite low. 

 

And I think this is a perfect example of how two different individuals can analyze the same piece of information, yet draw completely different conclusions based on that data. Using the same example, is it not true that the probability of all accounts being false actually decreases as the number of reports increases? But that is not considered to be evidence. Anyway, while there may be too much "belief" regarding this topic, there can also be too much "disbelief" as well, at least in my opinion.

[norseman]

Scale means everything with Sasquatch.

 

If we were hunting a giant snake or spider, it would be easy. As a man cannot just slip into a spider suit and make that work. 

 

This is why I like the PGF over other films, for what ever shortcomings Roger Patterson had with integrity in life? I don't think in the world of hoaxes you can say that the film itself lacks integrity. We know were the film site is...........tracks were associated with the film site and John Green did a comparison film with McClaren as the film subject.

 

It's a well documented film site. Most of these videos we have no idea where they were filmed or who filmed them for that matter.

 

If the big hairy film subject in a future video bumps his head on a tree limb.........and we can go back to the film site and measure that tree limb? That's a huge plus for research.

 

I think we should as a community demand that people include long/lat coords in their videos..............no long/lat? It's dismissed on grounds of skullduggery, end of story.

Edited February 8, 2014 by norseman

[JDL]

Ok,

 

I've read the OP, but no more because I feel the same way Norseman does.  There's so much questionable material that I don't bother unless someone I respect here on the forum says it's worth viewing.  Also a lot of media gets by me for various reasons.

 

What's wrong with nominating willing members to a media review committee?  I'm not talking about discarding any submissions, I'm just talking about rating them for members.  An official thread in which each post contains a link to the post submitting the reviewed media, a rating by the review committee, and any comments.

[norseman]

Cool idea JDL, some sort of BFF stamp of approval!

[Guest]

Norse,  this line from you, "I think we should as a community demand that people include long/lat coords in their videos..............no long/lat? It's dismissed on grounds of skullduggery, end of story."

 

I absolutely agree with this,  no long/lat,  then the video is toast.   No further discussion needed.

 

dav

[TD-40]

There is a place in Idaho where I saw a footprint last summer, and I plan on spending a lot of time there this year. If I see anything or take any media of a bigfoot, I do not plan on revealing the location. No lat/long. Wouldn't make the video toast or skullduggery at all.

 

If PGF were to have been filmed last year, and have made national news with the location, how many people would you expect to descend upon the Bluff Creek area over the next few years? Probably a lot, insomuch that the entire tribe/family would be forced to relocate somewhere else, and I am not going to allow that to happen with my area.

 

So no lat/long if I get lucky with any media or evidence.

Edited February 10, 2014 by TD-40

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Exactly, and that's why you don't want to do it.

 

I want to see what's in the video.  If it's interesting, I'll know.

Lat/lon on a compelling bigfoot video would be multiple fatalities waiting to happen.

 

If I get one on a trail cam in my backyard, I'm not inviting y'all and yer guns over for a bigfoot shoot.  This is precisely why the databases generally don't include this information.

 

I won't consider a video bad because of superficials.  I'll consider it bad because it's bad.

Hey, pssst, where's Area X?

 

Right.

[norseman]

There is a place in Idaho where I saw a footprint last summer, and I plan on spending a lot of time there this year. If I see anything or take any media of a bigfoot, I do not plan on revealing the location. No lat/long. Wouldn't make the video toast or skullduggery at all.

If PGF were to have been filmed last year, and have made national news with the location, how many people would you expect to descend upon the Bluff Creek area over the next few years? Probably a lot, insomuch that the entire tribe/family would be forced to relocate somewhere else, and I am not going to allow that to happen with my area.

So no lat/long if I get lucky with any media or evidence.

And if you film something ? Congrats your the next Todd Standing!

If your worried about overexposure? Be selective as to whom you share the video with!

[TD-40]

if PGF were to happen today, the video would go viral around the world in less than 24 hours. It would be a mistake to reveal to everyone where it happened. The world has changed. It would take people 90 seconds to find the spot on Google Earth then the following weekend you would have 45 hunters up there looking for something to shoot. If PGF happened to me, today, I would not tell the world the location and I'd be prepared to take criticism for not doing so. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's just a different world now.

 

I don't even tell other fishermen about this area. It's my hard to reach and remote fishing spot, and I happened upon a footprint one day.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

I highly doubt it and hence the reason for this thread. We have better quality footage than the PGF and they all have been deemed fakes.

[Guest DWA]

We don't have any footage anywhere near as clear as the P/G that isn't a blatantly obvious fake.

[norseman]

I disagree.

While we think them to be fakes, it certainly is not blatantly obvious.....or in other words? We have not found the zipper...