Guest Cervelo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well done PT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Thanks but I have an Oops now to admit to this morning. In that last photo, I had it slowed down so much that I wasn't listening to the sound and got the sequence mixed up. As the scenes were going back and forth a few times between subject and investigator. That last image (Exhibit C) with the jersey is of the investigator not the subject. So at least for that particular shot, my image capture was not accurate! That's what I get for trying to do these things when I'm tired and ready for bed. But the rest remains solid, especially using the rock outcropping then with the investigator's height for scale. So even though the angle is different between photographers, that rock outcrop is unique enough to use as a baseline along with the person's stated height of 6 feet. Edit to add, I still believe the subject had difficulty negotiating the terrain in whatever footwear he had on and this remains the reason for his flailing arms. Sorry for the error guys. Edited July 6, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Thanks but I have an Oops now to admit to this morning. In that last photo, I had it slowed down so much that I wasn't listening to the sound and got the sequence mixed up. As the scenes were going back and forth a few times between subject and investigator. That last image with the jersey is of the investigator not the subject. So at least for that particular shot, my image capture was not accurate! That's what I get for trying to do these things when I'm tired and ready for bed. But the rest remains solid, especially using the rock outcropping then with the investigator's height for scale. Sorry for the error. Now that you are rested, give it another try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Also PT, can you get both subjects in exhibit 2B on the same, level terrain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Excellent analysis, PT. Especially Exhibit C. Tracker- It's been confirmed (by a friend of) the gentleman behind the camera that he concocted the BF story in order to entertain the kids. PT has thoroughly shown the subject on the ridge to be a hiker. Are you going to acknowledge this as a hoax and misidentification? I'll admit there's some oddities, PT did a good job of pointing some of them out. On the flip side the guy who did the analysis used the same techniques to show it was a 9' Sasq. with 60% arm ratio etc. So computers can work for or against videos and pictures depending on which side of the fence your on. One of the things I felt was a little off was that group didn't retreat after seeing an agitated large Bf that may be approaching? So I'am back on the fence with this one. Thanks alot Pt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 So I'am back on the fence with this one. Well, at least you are open to the possibility (within your own mind) of it being a hoax by the videographer (which has already been substantiated). The videographer simply played into the hiker on the ridge (to hype things up) once the hiker was pointed out by one of the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 ... I'm sorry Tracker and Ace, but the alleged subject is not 9-10' tall! He is under 6' tall. I never said the subject was that tall. Are you just trying to draw attention to your post by saying that, to make it seem like the original premise was more grand? Although I never mentioned height, the alleged subject isn't under 6' tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Tracker, I'd like to see where the investigator had used the rock outcrop or any other solid object as a standard between the two films. The outcrop was the only reliable object I could find that could be compared between the two film sequences that had individuals visible. And with the investigator's stated height as 6 feet, tying him with the rock allows use of said rock as baseline. So even tho the angle was different there to, that outcrop was unique enough. Unfortunately those shots in the trees had nothing in them that could be used. Mainly because the second video wasn't at the same angle as the original, as evidenced by lack of certain objects in the footage, and so that branch they used had no baseline height established. Like that analogy of the front gun sights, that branch was unfortunately moving separate from the barrel. There was also no way they could accurately conclude where investigator should standing as compared to the subject based on distance given their angle was different. Only the line of sight was accurate left to right, but there could have been a few hundred feet distance variable between them w/o using a range-finder on both subjects AND the cameraman would have needed to be in the exact spot, he/she wasn't. In other words, the subject could have been a hundred feet in front of the branch or behind it, and without seeing one get in the way of the other, you wouldn't even know which it was, given what was it, 700 yd distance of the footage in the first place? Rod said: "Also PT, can you get both subjects in exhibit 2B on the same, level terrain? " I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean overlaying the two? I prob could have but the side by side using the rock outcrop seemed more important and they were close enough to one another for the comparison. Anyway thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Rod said: "Also PT, can you get both subjects in exhibit 2B on the same, level terrain? "[/color] I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean overlaying the two? I prob could have but the side by side using the rock outcrop seemed more important and they were close enough to one another for the comparison. Anyway thanks. Exhibit 2B: With the side-by-side comparison, did you analyze both the BFRO investigator (BFROI) and the subject in the same, exact loaction? If not, the BFROI is higher up on the incline making him to appear taller, or just as tall as the subject. Also, the subject's terrain is not evenly matched with the BFROI's. It is slightly elevated on the right. Can you overlay the two in the same, exact location on even terrain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I never said the subject was that tall. Are you just trying to draw attention to your post by saying that, to make it seem like the original premise was more grand? Although I never mentioned height, the alleged subject isn't under 6' tall. No Ace, that's what Tracker had stated in the opening paragraph of the thread based on what was stated in the video at 10:32 that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Rod, give me a couple time markers so I know where you are talking about? But yes, the two videographers are at somewhat different elevations so that makes their analysis a bit ambiguous at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well, at least you are open to the possibility (within your own mind) of it being a hoax by the videographer (which has already been substantiated). The videographer simply played into the hiker on the ridge (to hype things up) once the hiker was pointed out by one of the kids. Yea if I was there I would of approached it from the bush and settled the matter. With me i wouldn't even post something like that. We only get videos of sightings and encounters under poor conditions or at a distance. " That's a Bf on that mountain top over there, see ? " I am fed up with all the chickening out filming at a distance crap. Time to man-up or go back to playing darts as a hobby. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I am fed up with all the chickening out filming at a distance crap. Time to man-up or go back to playing darts as a hobby. JMO We are simply spinning our wheels if we believe we are going to prove the existence of sasquatches through photos/videos. The mainstream scientific community (and most skeptics) ignores such 'evidence'. They will not waste their effort and time attempting to authenticate videos and photos. It's not going to matter which videos or photos are presented. They will be dismissed as fraudulent, unless a body (or piece of it) is submitted by one scientific organization and then authenticated by numerous others that are both biased and unbiased toward the sasquatch. JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Rod, give me a couple time markers so I know where you are talking about? But yes, the two videographers are at somewhat different elevations so that makes their analysis a bit ambiguous at best. You could probably use the ones from Exhibit 2B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Maybe later this evening I'll take the time to do an overlay with them in as exact same location as possible. Don't really have time now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts