The Jacobs Photos

[Catmandoo]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

Your most basic trail camera is light years ahead in resolution from an old Kodak camera from the 1960’s.

 

No. Trail cameras that extrapolate pixels to boost 'image quality'  are mediocre.  A K-100 has a little noise, no electronics and  no EMF projection.

'Old Kodak cameras' from the 60's did well / do well. Check prices on ebay. Back in the day, and now,  film stock and lenses were / are important factors.  Bill has done  a lot of work on 'the glass' options and is not finished. Kodachrome movie film was the best. There are Kodachrome images taken in 1937 that look like they were taken yesterday. Proper care, handling and storage is important for film.

Most viewers of the 'PGF' don't know that they are not looking at the original 'PGF'.  Viewers are looking at an 'Ektachrome duplicate film' of the Kodachrome PGF. For copying, the exposure was adjusted to lighten up the copy film in an attempt for more detail since they were dealing with a Sasquatch with black hair. I don't have any problems with Patty but a picture of a picture is challenging to get resolution. We have to move forward and expect to never see the original Kodachrome PGF. It was beat up in projectors and storage was /is bad.

[norseman]

34 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

 

No. Trail cameras that extrapolate pixels to boost 'image quality'  are mediocre.  A K-100 has a little noise, no electronics and  no EMF projection.

'Old Kodak cameras' from the 60's did well / do well. Check prices on ebay. Back in the day, and now,  film stock and lenses were / are important factors.  Bill has done  a lot of work on 'the glass' options and is not finished. Kodachrome movie film was the best. There are Kodachrome images taken in 1937 that look like they were taken yesterday. Proper care, handling and storage is important for film.

Most viewers of the 'PGF' don't know that they are not looking at the original 'PGF'.  Viewers are looking at an 'Ektachrome duplicate film' of the Kodachrome PGF. For copying, the exposure was adjusted to lighten up the copy film in an attempt for more detail since they were dealing with a Sasquatch with black hair. I don't have any problems with Patty but a picture of a picture is challenging to get resolution. We have to move forward and expect to never see the original Kodachrome PGF. It was beat up in projectors and storage was /is bad.

I don’t know about the original.
 

But I will absolutely vote hands down my trail cam photos over any copy of the PGF for clarity and resolution that I have ever seen. 
 

It’s not even on the same planet.

[Catmandoo]

^^^^ I don't remember the distance from Patty to the camera. Take your ungulates, move them to the 'Patty' distance and set them in motion at Patty's walking speed and you have to hand hold your trail camera. Unfortunately your animals will not allow you to get that close. Hand held versus fixed mount is a planet of difference.

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Catmandoo said:

^^^^ I don't remember the distance from Patty to the camera. Take your ungulates, move them to the 'Patty' distance and set them in motion at Patty's walking speed and you have to hand hold your trail camera. Unfortunately your animals will not allow you to get that close. Hand held versus fixed mount is a planet of difference.

 

My point being is that technology has come along way. I could pull up hunting shows with Elk running around across the canyon shot with hand held cameras. Ridiculous clarity. This is part of the problem with the PGF. Everyone expects Natgeo clarity from 2 1960’s cowboys.

 

I think the PGF is better than the Freeman stuff. Early VHS cam corders were horrible.

[Backdoc]

14 hours ago, Twist said:

The way I read BD’s post,  I agree with him.    I take his post about clear and unclear refers to the content in said film.   What is the actual subject of the film.    A bipedal creature vs an ambiguous potentially bipedal “creature”

 

Norse, your take on his post seems to be in regards to clarity and resolution.   I think your take, while accurate, is missing the meaning BD attempted to convey.

 

I may be completely wrong however. 🤷🏻

 

 

Thank you.   Exactly.     

[Backdoc]

I'll leave the camera details up to the experts.   

 

I just want a camera to work well enough to define accurately what I am seeing.  I don't think the Jacobs photo accomplishes that.   

 

If we look at the Jim McClarin walking video from 1968, we can see a guy walking.  We cannot tell if Jim is wearing a wristwatch. If we can, we cannot tell the time on it.   We can certainly agree we are looking at a man walking, and he is walking at Bluff Creek.  That is, it's not an elephant.  It's not a bear.   In the PGF we can tell Patty is at bluff creek as well in that same location generally.    Like a telescope of old vs new, we cannot see every single detail.  That is, if Patty was wearing a watch, we cannot tell that time on that either.  The PGF is at least good enough to define there is a something walking on two legs from left to right.  All that's left is the man or beast argument. 

 

As far as extreme detail, here is a security video still I grabbed on a quick internet search.    Is this good enough to find or convict the robbers? This video doesn't look very clear to me.   

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Backdoc

[Backdoc]

23 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Yup. I'm convinced.

 

 

Still my position:   If I had a $20 bill in jacket I did not know I had, I would put $10 on Patty, $5 on a hoax and keep the last $5.  

 

If I am on a jury the case made proving the PGF being a hoax has not been made.   

 

 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I'll leave the camera details up to the experts.   

 

I just want a camera to work well enough to define accurately what I am seeing.  I don't think the Jacobs photo accomplishes that.   

 

If we look at the Jim McClarin walking video from 1968, we can see a guy walking.  We cannot tell if Jim is wearing a wristwatch. If we can, we cannot tell the time on it.   We can certainly agree we are looking at a man walking, and he is walking at Bluff Creek.  That is, it's not an elephant.  It's not a bear.   In the PGF we can tell Patty is at bluff creek as well in that same location generally.    Like a telescope of old vs new, we cannot see every single detail.  That is, if Patty was wearing a watch, we cannot tell that time on that either.  The PGF is at least good enough to define there is a something walking on two legs from left to right.  All that's left is the man or beast argument. 

 

As far as extreme detail, here is a security video still I grabbed on a quick internet search.    Is this good enough to find or convict the robbers? This video doesn't look very clear to me.   

 

 

 

Well? I’m not going to confuse them with Bears…

[Patterson-Gimlin]

5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Still my position:   If I had a $20 bill in jacket I did not know I had, I would put $10 on Patty, $5 on a hoax and keep the last $5.  

 

If I am on a jury the case made proving the PGF being a hoax has not been made.   

 

 

I like that. I would put $ 9 on hoax One dollar on Patty and donate $10 to this forum. 

 

 

Reasonable doubt. Hung jury. 

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Still my position:   If I had a $20 bill in jacket I did not know I had, I would put $10 on Patty, $5 on a hoax and keep the last $5.  

 

If I am on a jury the case made proving the PGF being a hoax has not been made.   

 

Then sasquatches simply don't exist.

[norseman]

I feel like PGF champions are some of the worst critics of other evidence. It’s like they are defending the PGF from the competition or something. My film is awesome and yours is trash!

 

While I will admit that the Jacobs photo is ambiguous. (It’s also obviously not a normal Bear photo)

 

If Patty was a real creature? She comes from a species of real creatures. Right? That means there is NO WAY that only one has been caught on film in 60 years! I run trail cameras as a hobby. There are tons and tons of crummy photos showing deer back sides, blurry birds, branches blowing in the wind. Etc. I don’t keep those because they are not clear photos. The Jacobs photos isn’t blurry. It’s not a half photo. 🤷‍♂️
 

I think we can do well to keep an open mind in the face of this mystery. I stand by my statement that no photo will prove anything. But I can assure you that if that showed up on my trail camera? I dang sure would go scour the area! Is it intriguing? Absolutely!

 

 

[Huntster]

11 hours ago, norseman said:

I feel like PGF champions are some of the worst critics of other evidence. It’s like they are defending the PGF from the competition or something. My film is awesome and yours is trash!.......

 

The original reviews of the PG film from the late 60's and early 70's documented by qualified scientists were all along the lines of Backdoc; it cannot be confirmed that it was not a hoax, even though if it was a hoax, nobody can figure out how a couple of rodeo yocals from Yakima pulled it off.

 

Since that time we also have had Greg Long's book claiming that it was hoaxed, which has been fully discredited, as well as the Munns Report and several others who have focused on the photography aspect of the film. Instead of proving it to be a hoax, these studies have supported its authenticity.

 

While there have since been several other films and photos, none show the creature so clearly for so long, in motion, and with the documented locational history of sasquatchery that the PG film features.

 

In short, the best film footage is essentially disregarded as valid evidence. This is despite the similar claims that the lunar landings were a hoax, and those claiming such are considered wackos. The analogy is identical. In short, science is relegated to a belief ideology, with the believers/disbelievers both citing "Science" as their foundational basis. 

 

I find it more disbelievable that better film footage will either surface or would motivate Science as an industry to act than the possibility that the PG film was hoaxed. Denial, as a psychological reality, is widely accepted by Science, and its hold on this phenomenon is more than obvious. Yet when I cite that, even that is denied. 

 

If the PG film is not enough evidence to warrant action, or is not to be even accepted as valid evidence of the existence of sasquatchery, than the lack of a specimen since the advent of modern Science, at least going back to Darwin and his ideology, pretty much confirms that sasquatches don't exist.........or will never be allowed to exist.

[Huntster]

22 hours ago, Backdoc said:

.......As far as extreme detail, here is a security video still I grabbed on a quick internet search.    Is this good enough to find or convict the robbers?........

 

 

 

 

While by itself it might not be enough to find or convict these men, but its enough to show their clothing, features, and that they were in a specific spot at a specific moment, and if police are granted the authority to search the premises of these men and find these articles of clothing, and present their past history of identical wrongdoing, this photo/video might very well support their conviction.

 

Of course, if the police, DA, or courts don't give a damn, din't investigate, and even hinder the crime victim from legally seeking justice privately, these criminals will more than likely continue their illegal activities.........and my bet is that is exactly what occurred........and my wager is $100, not $100K, because I care even less than the police, DA, or courts.

[norseman]

23 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

The original reviews of the PG film from the late 60's and early 70's documented by qualified scientists were all along the lines of Backdoc; it cannot be confirmed that it was not a hoax, even though if it was a hoax, nobody can figure out how a couple of rodeo yocals from Yakima pulled it off.

 

Since that time we also have had Greg Long's book claiming that it was hoaxed, which has been fully discredited, as well as the Munns Report and several others who have focused on the photography aspect of the film. Instead of proving it to be a hoax, these studies have supported its authenticity.

 

While there have since been several other films and photos, none show the creature so clearly for so long, in motion, and with the documented locational history of sasquatchery that the PG film features.

 

In short, the best film footage is essentially disregarded as valid evidence. This is despite the similar claims that the lunar landings were a hoax, and those claiming such are considered wackos. The analogy is identical. In short, science is relegated to a belief ideology, with the believers/disbelievers both citing "Science" as their foundational basis. 

 

I find it more disbelievable that better film footage will either surface or would motivate Science as an industry to act than the possibility that the PG film was hoaxed. Denial, as a psychological reality, is widely accepted by Science, and its hold on this phenomenon is more than obvious. Yet when I cite that, even that is denied. 

 

If the PG film is not enough evidence to warrant action, or is not to be even accepted as valid evidence of the existence of sasquatchery, than the lack of a specimen since the advent of modern Science, at least going back to Darwin and his ideology, pretty much confirms that sasquatches don't exist.........or will never be allowed to exist.

Regardless of what science believes or disbelieves?
 

If Patty is a real creature? There is a population out there. That population will not all look the same. That population will not all act the same. Be the same age group. Be the same gender. Or even be bipedal. Human infants and toddlers are not always bipedal.

 

So I would caution going forward calling anything a Bear simply because it’s on all fours. It stands to reason that we are going to capture more footage of this creature than just the PGF. And it’s probably NOT going to look like Patty. Evidence shouldn’t be in competition of each other. It instead supports each other.

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

........It stands to reason that we are going to capture more footage of this creature than just the PGF.........

 

Reason has no place in sasquatch science. Indeed, science has no place in sasquatch science, because Science denies the existence of sasquatches.