Rod 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... Understood. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Look at the map and see if the nest sites are accurate? The thing that makes me more likely to think it is a hiker is the forest road on the mountain. Someone could have parked there and made their way to the other end of the mountain. It wouldn't be difficult to get on top. Orang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Rod, Because the subject footage and the investigator footage are at different scales (as evidence by the rock outcrop), and because the angle of shot is different between the two footages, trying to line up the two subjects where they would overlap once they are brought together at the same scale is easier said than done. If they were at the same size, it would be easier, but unfortunately that's the erred variable that caused people to think the subject was much bigger then the human in the first place. So its definitely not getting done tonight cause I've got a few other things I've got to finish up right now. But I'll work on it as I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Rod, Because the subject footage and the investigator footage are at different scales (as evidence by the rock outcrop), and because the angle of shot is different between the two footages, trying to line up the two subjects where they would overlap once they are brought together at the same scale is easier said than done. If they were at the same size, it would be easier, but unfortunately that's the erred variable that caused people to think the subject was much bigger then the human in the first place. So its definitely not getting done tonight cause I've got a few other things I've got to finish up right now. But I'll work on it as I can. Thank you for the efforts. Let's go back to the side-by-sides. As I said earlier, 2B is a well-constructed exhibit, but the BFROI seems at more of an incline than the subject- lending height to the BFROI. Although I firmly believe the subject to be a hiker, I believe it would be convincing to those who have doubts to see them side-by-side on the same level terrain, if that's even possible taking into consideration your above comments about differing camera angles, etc. NOTE: This lends credence to how flawed the BFRO's investigations can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Rod said: NOTE: This lends credence to how flawed the BFRO's investigations can be. Yes from what is used as the control points in the video, I truly don't see how the investigators could have come up with a Sasquatch. The Horizontal and Vertical Planes of the second videographer's images just don't match that of the original footage. If he had, well they aren't available in this particular video. The only reliable stationary object that one can use as a constant between the two footage's herein appears to be the rock outcropping, even while the planes are different between shots. The rock outcrop is still as solid as it gets to provide a constant. Tie that to the only other reliable measured height (being the 6' tall researcher), and that at least allows a worthwhile comparison to be made between the two. But did they even do that? I dunno? As for doing an exact overlay between the two, so far I have been unable to do so. The shot angles are just too different. The Saddle along the ridge just doesn't match up when the whole image is overlayed. So my crop showing the rock and subject superimposed at an equal 70% reduction size is about as good as my time is worth putting into this video. Unfortunately in the other key scene when the researcher uses the branch in the trees to try and demonstrate the height of the subject, that is a completely misleading height test. When the subject first shows up between the trees, I contend that he is initially walking down the ridge well beyond the trees, then at that point where he begins facing the camera and moving his arms around, he is actually walking towards the camera for a while. I wonder if what they did is just assume the subject was standing right/under near the branch flailing his arms, and tried to match that with the stand in? That is of course what the original videographer and FacebookBF did in their narrations. But at that 700+ Yds distance, he could have been a hundred feet behind the branch and you wouldn't even know it at that distance. Thus, I wonder if they erroneously had the researcher go stand 'under' the branch in the bfro comparison, and then moved the camera in place to accommodate the shot? Because as they made that comparison shot, they were at a different horizontal and vertical plane then the original, and this can only give false results. Using that branch without lining up the shot exactly as it was in the original footage, was not an example of quality investigation if you ask me. If there is other examination where they correct these errors, then that is likely what would validate the subject is no taller then the investigator. Where is that footage? Here's a good consideration added by Art1972 in the other MMB Thread: "Compression, long-lens, or telephoto distortion can be seen in images shot from a distance using a long focus lens or the more common telephoto sub-type (with an angle of view narrower than a normal lens). When zoomed in, closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed." No doubt depth of field has a major impact on this footage, as does the different horizontal and vertical planes of the footage. And if the investigator merely stood under the branch and raised his arm up to show comparison height, along with the footage taken from a different angle then the original, well some major errors were made in the analyses at that point because the subject probably never was in such close ground area proximity to the branch. I haven't seen the $50 Commercial DVD but if it consists of the same viewpoints as seen with the video herein, well this is just one more blurry human figure that has been milked for all its worth. Edited July 9, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dml7788 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 WOW. AMAZING. I don't believe in Evolution so that part was a little ridiculous to me. Not sure if this is the real deal, but I have to give props for one of the best bigfoot sightings ever, or one of the best hoaxes. GREAT VIDEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Huh? Hey what program are you using to do that overlay and measurements etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Hey Tracker, To view the vid first, I use VLC. There you can s l o w it down to where you can stop it mid frame @ 1/30th. Then stop play and do a screen capture of the shots you want. Then I took it over into Photoshop where I further cropped the desired image sections. Then within the particular shot, I chained the two independent crops together and reduced both simultaneously so that the rock size matched the other comparison image. Then pasted the crops in as an overlay on a separate layer first in case further adjustment is made. When done, just flattened the image and Wala! Hmm, how do you spell Wala? Hope that answered your question and prob a whole lot more... I guess I could have just said VLC & Photoshop and let you figure it out, but we're all better off with more knowledge right? Edited July 10, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bucket Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'm new to this, but I don't see anything that makes me think it's definitely a sasquatch. Too far away to make any real determination. And what was up with the dumb kid making all the remarks? Shaddap junior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Hey Tracker, To view the vid first, I use VLC. There you can s l o w it down to where you can stop it mid frame @ 1/30th. Then stop play and do a screen capture of the shots you want. Then I took it over into Photoshop where I further cropped the desired image sections. Then within the particular shot, I chained the two independent crops together and reduced both simultaneously so that the rock size matched the other comparison image. Then pasted the crops in as an overlay on a separate layer first in case further adjustment is made. When done, just flattened the image and Wala! Hmm, how do you spell Wala? Hope that answered your question and prob a whole lot more... I guess I could have just said VLC & Photoshop and let you figure it out, but we're all better off with more knowledge right? Hey thanks, all i ever see is these shaky vids at a distance. VLC? is that a free down load or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Voila Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Hey thanks, all i ever see is these shaky vids at a distance. VLC? is that a free down load or something? Yes VLC is a free download and one of the best for viewing certain types of video files, although I use the Mac version and not really sure how the PC version compares. Tim said: Voila I suppose that is the original pronunciation isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Here's the thread that I think contains the info some were looking for! I have not reread it to confirm what we were discussing in the Sierra thread. Enjoy:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts