MK Davis revisits the ABS Bigfoot

[Dave]

I searched the forum to see if this topic was posted previously, but didn't find anything. My apologies if this is a duplicate.

 

The video is from 2012.  MK Davis breaks down an image from the American Bigfoot Society, and he was able to pull some information out of the photo.

 

Has anyone heard anything more in regards to the validity of the image?

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Dave

[norseman]

I always assumed a hoax.

[Annie Nore]

Is there any truth to this type of analysis?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I thought it had already been declared a hoax.

[Catmandoo]

At the end of the day, it is still a mystery. ABS has the copyright on the image, not the original person. The one submitted image is cropped. Usual backstory in the way of no proceeding or following images. Image release was 2012 with the image being taken 4 years earlier. A 'white flash camera', aka 'flash and dash' is good for color of hair, fur, skin, stripe / spot patterns at night. Still used by fin & feather departments to identify individual animals via color, stripes, spots and weird coats. IR flash images don't have the same capabilities for details.

Opinions go back and forth. Still a mystery.

[Catmandoo]

3 hours ago, Annie Nore said:

Is there any truth to this type of analysis?

 Sort of, maybe. I do not follow MK Davis. He burned a small amount of time researching the 'hairy back shot'. He found slime.

There is a way to analyze synthetic 'hair / fur'. The parent material is extruded in a 'natural' color for the respective plastic. It is not brown, grey, silver. Colored dyes have to be added. The color of the end product may require several applications / combination solutions of dyes.  I have read about analyzing the reflected light coming off the target to determine underlying dye colors.  I spend very little time checking  images on the internet and I have not scanned hair / fur. 

14 years later and still 'an unknown'. Let go of it.

I used to know a marine surveyor who had a special acronym for items on his vessel surveys: "N.T.D.K."   'Neat Thing, Don't Know'.

Neat Thing, Don't Know.  We should use that term.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Catmandoo
text

[Dave]

7 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

At the end of the day, it is still a mystery. ABS has the copyright on the image, not the original person. The one submitted image is cropped. Usual backstory in the way of no proceeding or following images. Image release was 2012 with the image being taken 4 years earlier. A 'white flash camera', aka 'flash and dash' is good for color of hair, fur, skin, stripe / spot patterns at night. Still used by fin & feather departments to identify individual animals via color, stripes, spots and weird coats. IR flash images don't have the same capabilities for details.

Opinions go back and forth. Still a mystery.

Interesting. I would hope ABS did some validation of the image and original owner.

6 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 Sort of, maybe. I do not follow MK Davis. He burned a small amount of time researching the 'hairy back shot'. He found slime.

There is a way to analyze synthetic 'hair / fur'. The parent material is extruded in a 'natural' color for the respective plastic. It is not brown, grey, silver. Colored dyes have to be added. The color of the end product may require several applications / combination solutions of dyes.  I have read about analyzing the reflected light coming off the target to determine underlying dye colors.  I spend very little time checking  images on the internet and I have not scanned hair / fur. 

14 years later and still 'an unknown'. Let go of it.

I used to know a marine surveyor who had a special acronym for items on his vessel surveys: "N.T.D.K."   'Neat Thing, Don't Know'.

Neat Thing, Don't Know.  We should use that term.

Makes sense.

[Catmandoo]

47 minutes ago, Dave said:

Interesting. I would hope ABS did some validation of the image and original owner.

 

ABS had the image for 4 years before releasing it. I do not know if the original is on film or digital. 

If any forum members want to open a can of worms, contact MK Davis and ask him if he has the software to 'scan' the hairs to check for dye / dye layers.

[Dave]

54 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

ABS had the image for 4 years before releasing it. I do not know if the original is on film or digital. 

If any forum members want to open a can of worms, contact MK Davis and ask him if he has the software to 'scan' the hairs to check for dye / dye layers.

It does sound like it hasn't been proven a hoax yet, so there's still some meat left on that bone...

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, Dave said:

It does sound like it hasn't been proven a hoax yet, so there's still some meat left on that bone...

 

The image itself accomplishes zip. Any meat would consist of answers:

- Where was the image taken?

- Was there any trace evidence casted at the photo location?

- Were there any reports recorded in the area before/after the photo was taken?

Those answers won't be forthcoming. The entire affair is thus rendered completely worthless. Cat's right:

Let it go.

[Dave]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

The image itself accomplishes zip. Any meat would consist of answers:

- Where was the image taken?

- Was there any trace evidence casted at the photo location?

- Were there any reports recorded in the area before/after the photo was taken?

Those answers won't be forthcoming. The entire affair is thus rendered completely worthless. Cat's right:

Let it go.

I agree with what you're saying... and let what go?

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Dave said:

........ and let what go?

 

Spending effort on meaningless (and likely hoaxed) pics and videos. It's like handing money out of your car window to panhandlers; you think you're doing good, but what you're really doing is rewarding bad behavior and motivating more people to bad behavior.

[NCBFr]

Since there is no context, no details, and no background on the image you have to assume it is BS.  With that said, 

 

1.  One does not simply walk in to Mordor.  You do not get this shot unless you are well hidden with a very high quality long range lens.  Good luck camping in the bush for months on end hoping for the money shot which is 1 in a billion+ maybe.  If you take the pic 5 feet behind a real BF, odds are your head will not be attached to your body 5 seconds after the phone/camera goes click.  

 

2.  I find the background fascinating,  Assuming the pic is real, is it standing in front of the garden of Eden?  Looks kind of like Florida maybe, but would really love the backstory.

[ShadowBorn]

This photo is a hoax. It was taken in a room. If you go back on the video to the time stamp 2:08 and pause. You will see the shadows of the leaves on a drywall. As the flash goes off on the camera. I am not buying it. Hoax.

[Dave]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Spending effort on meaningless (and likely hoaxed) pics and videos. It's like handing money out of your car window to panhandlers; you think you're doing good, but what you're really doing is rewarding bad behavior and motivating more people to bad behavior.

I hadn't realized you deemed it a hoax. I also hadn't realized learning more about the photo (as you suggested would be what we'd want to know about it) was "holding onto something."  I had no preconceived notion about the photo or its authenticity, hence why I was asking about it.  I suppose that qualifies as "not letting it go."

 

I'll be sure to run all topics by you before posting so I don't appear to be "holding onto something."

1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said:

This photo is a hoax. It was taken in a room. If you go back on the video to the time stamp 2:08 and pause. You will see the shadows of the leaves on a drywall. As the flash goes off on the camera. I am not buying it. Hoax.

Interesting, thank you.