Old Time Lifter Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 43 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I read and I have read Cliffs report. Nothing in it to convince me that what is depicted in the video is not added, also nothing to convince that it wasn't. Therefore it is inconclusive as I said. Is there something to convince you that it might have been added? I don't think it's a costume as the temperature seems pretty consistent and I wouldn't think you'd see that with a costume especially one that would extend the arms which this thing seems to have overly long arms. I don't know what to think of this one but I don't in my limited knowledge see a reason to say it's fabricated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 21, 2019 Admin Share Posted February 21, 2019 I would think it would be very easy to verify the film is legit and not CGI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 I think it's useless. It's a shadow. If the PG film doesn't even get a dime of investment from the appropriate sources, this won't even tingle my inner thigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) I agree. Not worthy of further study. He also took a hoaxed photo and later admitted it was a friend in a costume Edited February 21, 2019 by Patterson-Gimlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I agree. Not worthy of further study. He also took a hoaxed photo and later admitted it was a friend in a costume If true, as a believer and not a "knower", I have to disregard anything else out of this camp. On faith alone, a yes can be a yes until proven otherwise, but a no is a no forever. Even if it means I"m missing the good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 That is a very good approach. As a non believer and an ardent skeptic. I am probably too critical of the evidence presented. I look for explanations that seek to disprove man apes in the hear and now. I usually have no problem explaining them away with the help of friends and colleagues except for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: ........As a non believer and an ardent skeptic. I am probably too critical of the evidence presented. I look for explanations that seek to disprove man apes in the hear and now. I usually have no problem explaining them away with the help of friends and colleagues except for one. This phenomenon can be frustrating, especially for those who have had no personal experience with it. I have no problem rejecting most reports, videos, photos, etc and still maintaining my conviction that these creatures exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKH Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Huntster said: I think it's useless. It's a shadow. If the PG film doesn't even get a dime of investment from the appropriate sources, this won't even tingle my inner thigh. Useless depends on your use, I guess. It's not a shadow, but a heat signature of a large biped with inhuman proportions. The comment on investment does not make sense to me. But I care neither about "investment" in nor "proof" of their reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 hours ago, JKH said: Useless depends on your use, I guess........ My use is either proof for the good of the species or race or, a good quality personal visual. Of the two uses, my #1 is for a good personal visual. I've had many such top notch observations of grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, moose, elk, caribou, deer, lynx, bobcats, coyotes, fox, raptors of all kinds, whales, porpoises, even sharks. Some even lasted for long periods of time through binocs or were at arms length. All were treats. None were mere heat signatures. Admittedly, I've never seen a polar bear in the wilds with my own eyes or musk oxen in the wilds, but I'll probably do so before I see a sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, JKH said: Don't you guys read? Quoting from Cliff B's investigation report, look it up if you want. On my Pulsar thermal imager, I always use "Black hot" so the object I'm looking for appears black and the forest is white. In an open field it may not make too much of a difference but in the woods where you want to see something peeking behind a tree, the 'Black hot" works much better, IMO. To my eyes it pops more so than "White hot" 15 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I read and I have read Cliffs report. Nothing in it to convince me that what is depicted in the video is not added, also nothing to convince that it wasn't. Therefore it is inconclusive as I said. PG - Just curious, how do you add something to the video later? Edited February 22, 2019 by wiiawiwb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted February 22, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2019 Wiiawiwb Does white hot and Black hot matter on the climate that you are using your FLIR ? Like I said before I like to use my white hot in the state I am in since it is more of a cooler state. But like a state like Florida where it is hot and humid using black I would think would be better. Now being a newbie to using these FLIRs devices I still have no understanding on how to use it in different climates. This comes with experience of learning the in's and outs of using the FLIR. So is the function a personal preference ? or is there purpose to the function of the FLIR ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 7 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: On my Pulsar thermal imager, I always use "Black hot" so the object I'm looking for appears black and the forest is white. In an open field it may not make too much of a difference but in the woods where you want to see something peeking behind a tree, the 'Black hot" works much better, IMO. To my eyes it pops more so than "White hot" PG - Just curious, how do you add something to the video later? I have no idea. An expert told me it was more than likely that he did it. I will ask my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 hours ago, ShadowBorn said: Wiiawiwb Does white hot and Black hot matter on the climate that you are using your FLIR ? Like I said before I like to use my white hot in the state I am in since it is more of a cooler state. But like a state like Florida where it is hot and humid using black I would think would be better. Now being a newbie to using these FLIRs devices I still have no understanding on how to use it in different climates. This comes with experience of learning the in's and outs of using the FLIR. So is the function a personal preference ? or is there purpose to the function of the FLIR ? Shadow...my Pulsar was new last year so I am also learning the ropes. I had it out about a half dozen times and none of those were hot or steamy. The last two were in the 20s and 30s. The times before that 40s-60s. In that range, I found small fields of heat, such as something behind a tree or brush, would appear better in Black hot. Having said that, here is my Pulsar filming a chipmunk in red hot. As you can see in the video, even in a tiny little animal like that, the red color pops too. I still use black hot as my money color. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbca0qjPIFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLtaIbiS9qM 1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I have no idea. An expert told me it was more than likely that he did it. I will ask my friend I don't doubt that it is possible. It must be done when the video is in some video editing software akin to Photoshop for photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkieFoot Posted February 22, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2019 In Cliff B.'s analysis, something he mentioned in his conclusion that he thought spoke against the video being a hoax was the fact the Browns had gone back to the location (Torreya State Park) many times since making the video to do more research and make more accurate measurements at Cliff's request. They stayed in contact after the FB show was there. Cliff used these new measurements to make new calculations in his analysis. Let's assume a scenario that the image showing the Bigfoot was actually doctored and the video really was a hoax. The obvious question in this scenario would be: Since the Browns never told Cliff, or anyone else, the video was faked, did the Browns just humor Cliff and play him for a fool? When Cliff would ask them for certain measurements, they traveled to the actual site and took the measurements he requested. Did the Browns do this just to humor Cliff and let him continue to think the figure was a real Bigfoot? Did they just dupe Cliff? If the video is a hoax, this has to be true. (sidenote: I did read on the internet that Stacy Brown Sr. passed away a couple of months ago.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 22, 2019 Admin Share Posted February 22, 2019 No offense meant. But the video stands until someone can prove that its a hoax. Which I doubt. Just because its possible to add something later doesn't mean anyone did. So many people have scrutinized it, I think something like CGI tampering would be easy to find. With that said its a video...... OK. Just like hundreds of other Bigfoot videos? Its value is virtually zero outside the BF community. I hate to sound like a broken record. But if the FLIR scope was attached to a rifle? The mystery could have been solved when this video was shot. Done. Stick a fork in it. It just levels the playing field. If someone is posting gun flir video of a Bigfoot and you ask them why they didn't shoot it!? *Crickets* There is your answer right there! Either its a hoax? Or they did not feel confident enough that it wasnt a human or something other than a Bigfoot. Game over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts