Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Paranormal & Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2017, 11:45 AM   #1
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
size_of_light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,187
Likes: 286 (169 Posts)
Default New Patterson-Gimlin Film Enhancement - Teeth, Areola and Nips Visible

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, MK Davis has posted some fascinating new digital enhancements that bring out hitherto (is that a word?) unseen details.

Patty seems to be far less hairy than it previously appeared.

Her teeth, her Jada Fire-sized areola and her nipples also seem to be visible.

MK also reveals that a certain high-profile version of the famous frame 352 has been airbrushed to distort and conceal the true appearance of the figure in the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Kjt9Os8uY
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2017, 10:39 AM   #2
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,907
Likes: 1,046 (572 Posts)
Default

That film is the definitive Bigfoot film. How anyone can still call that piece of film fake, or rather the creature, is beyond me, when it clearly is real.

There's another excellent Bigfoot video analyser by the name of Bigfoot Tony. Does some excellent work of dissecting many Bigfoot videos to determine whether he thinks they are hoaxes, misidentifications or a real Bigfoot. I think the Patterson/Gimlin film has been done to death. I don't know how much you can do with that film considering its quality. I think some Bigfoot researchers become a little obsessed with it.

Last edited by techman; 17-07-2017 at 10:40 AM.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2017, 04:17 PM   #3
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
size_of_light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,187
Likes: 286 (169 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
That film is the definitive Bigfoot film. How anyone can still call that piece of film fake, or rather the creature, is beyond me, when it clearly is real.

There's another excellent Bigfoot video analyser by the name of Bigfoot Tony. Does some excellent work of dissecting many Bigfoot videos to determine whether he thinks they are hoaxes, misidentifications or a real Bigfoot. I think the Patterson/Gimlin film has been done to death. I don't know how much you can do with that film considering its quality. I think some Bigfoot researchers become a little obsessed with it.
Will check out this Bigfoot Tony dude, thanks for the tip.

I think the Patterson Gimlin film will remain the most valuable visual evidence because it was recorded on film.

Any video that shows up in the future will always be suspect due to the ease with which it might have been faked with digital effects software.

My take on Bigfoot is pretty much in line with that of researcher and author Nick Redfern.

People are genuinely seeing these creatures but it is very unlikely that they are just some form of undiscovered primate lumbering about the woods. Their uncanny ability to evade detection suggests they have some kind of ethereal quality, as Native American, Australian Aboriginal and other indigenous cultures assert.

This is why I find the PG film so fascinating. The more details that are revealed, the more clear it becomes that we're looking at an actual flesh and blood creature, which is a head-spinning thing to contemplate when you're convinced it isn't a wholly physical being.

Last edited by size_of_light; 15-08-2017 at 04:18 PM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2018, 09:01 AM   #4
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,907
Likes: 1,046 (572 Posts)
Default

To be honest, I much prefer the research of Bigfoot Tony, primarily because he seems to use logic and common sense when looking for key signs in the videos he's analysing, and he carefully looks through every possible detail he can to determine whether what the videoer or witness saw was just merely the effect of paradolia creating an illusion of a figure, or whether the figure moves according to known Bigfoot traits. All the other researchers of analysing videos of this nature, and im sorry to be blunt here, tend to be Americans (not surprising of course), and for me they tend to jump to conclusions and exaggerate alot. I think Bigfoot Tony seems to have the knack in spotting what's possibly real evidence and what's likely just a bloke in a suit or stationary object (ie tree stump etc) - either intentional or accidental by the photographer. One video I liked of his, which he did a good job of unravelling and showing what likely was filmed, was a video taken in the deep south (Mississippi I think), which claimed to show a deer being drowned by a Sasquatch. Bigfoot Tony, after carefully doing a thorough analysis of the video, felt that the creature splashing in the water was likely an Alligator, given the characteristics and details he noticed. Bigfoot Tony, as well as fellow researchers of his, seems pretty convinced a Bigfoot type Wild man exists in the UK. I'm in agreement with him there as there seems to be more evidence coming forward (albeit in very tiny dribs and drabs) of eyewitnesses, and more so of people documenting Bigfoot type tree structures. I saw a very unusual display of trees and branches made into a structure in my local woods over year ago, very like the reported Sasquatch tree structures. I mentioned this on the British Bigfoot Research site, but for some reason I never got an answer as to whether it could possible by a tree structure or just bush craft, fallen trees or kids making them. To me though they looked very odd, and I've never seen anything remotely like it before or since, and I traverse this woods on an almost weekly basis but never see trees or branches laid up in a structure like that.

As for video and photo fakery, I hear that lots and lots in regards to modern computer technology, and to be honest I find the whole "anything can be faked these days with video equipment...all you need is a computer with Photoshop or After Effects" annoying. Yes it can but with what software?. I have used programmes like Adobe Premiere and After Affects (the ones debunkers etc claim are valuable resources for fakes), and I'll tell you now that it is not easy to fake stuff using those software programmes, in fact you'd find it very hard to achieve anything realistic enough that will fool anyone. They are not easy things to use, nor are they these state of the art programmes most people think they are. Unless you're a true expert on such software and know the ins and outs of manipulating imagery, using chroma keying, key frames, etc, you'd really struggle to create anything beyond a simple object moving from left to right using key frames. And you cannot create very convincing CGI style effects using After Effects or Premiere or even Photoshop. The sophisticated graphics that are often used in TV adverts (there are some mind blowing effects used to promote a furniture store) these days are truly light years beyond what After Effects or any other similar program can do, and these things will not be available to the public. The stuff you can do on your home PC using a £1,000 Adobe Suite package will likely be equivalent to the graphics the TV studios etc where doing in the 80s. If anyone's faking footage that's truly fooling anyone (on an amateur level) then I doubt they're using Adobe After Effects or Photoshop. Photoshop is easy to fake imagery provided you've had lots of experience, but faking video is a different thing altogether.

Last edited by techman; 16-01-2018 at 09:34 AM.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2018, 07:41 PM   #5
massie20000
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 24
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

thank you for sharing this! very interesting
massie20000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2018, 03:34 AM   #6
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
size_of_light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,187
Likes: 286 (169 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
If anyone's faking footage that's truly fooling anyone (on an amateur level) then I doubt they're using Adobe After Effects or Photoshop. Photoshop is easy to fake imagery provided you've had lots of experience, but faking video is a different thing altogether.
Right. And there probably are some really good digital artists out there fooling people just for kicks, but I suspect most of the sophisticated fakery is being done on the level of intelligence agencies for a variety of reasons.

--

In my OP, I mentioned that Patty's areola and nipples are visible, but after a quick review of the MK Davis video just now, I'm not sure he specifically went into this, so here is the breakdown of my observations...

I mentioned that Patty appears to have 'Jada Fire-sized areola'. For those unfamiliar, Jada Fire is a (now-retired) adult actress.

Here is a comparison that may help you see the mammary gland resemblance:






Arrow no. 1 in the below enlargements is pointing to the curved upper edge of the areola of both ladies.

Arrow no. 2 is pointing to the position of their nipples. Patty's nipples look swollen in comparison. Perhaps she is lactating or considerably older than her human counterpart.



Upon closer inspection, it seems likely to me that we can actually see Patty's nipple-opening, in the same way that Jada's milkhole is prominently visible.




Last edited by size_of_light; 17-01-2018 at 09:26 AM.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2018, 12:42 PM   #7
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
size_of_light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,187
Likes: 286 (169 Posts)
Default

Patterson Bigfoot Film with High Quality Frames

size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.