The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[Kurokage]

If I remember from ATS, if you use a flash comparator on the legs, the muscles move like fabric swishing.  Not lot muscles flexing and contracting.

There's two sides to that. One side says muscle movement, the other a suit, and I think until ones actually caught or irrefutable evidence is produced it tends to come down to belief.

I will say though, that the footage has still not been proven one way or the other.  

[Halfswede]

The thing that always gets me with this film is the boobs. To me, they are obvious. Why would you complicate a hoax suit with boobs? Honestly, to get the roundness without seams and weird fur patterning would be a significant and very unnecessary challenge to the hoax.

[WallFlowerActive]

I remember. It was about the time the stabilised version came out.

 If you use this video Patterson-Gimlin Film HD 60fps



And start messing around, you can make a gif 




The back of the legs look like fabric.  Not muscle.




Added.  There is no evidence of muscle flexing and contracting.  Just fabric swishing around.  



Then when the guy looks at the camera, staged.



Animals I have encountered react in some way.  Freeze and stare.  Sniff the air.  Bark.  Stop and snort.  Back away.  Turn tail and bolt.  The video almost looks like a guy giving a head nod to a bro.  It’s not wild animal behaviour at all.  

I was out taking pictures of a buck.  Saw it, and put my camera to my eye.  I was taking pictures, and the buck would walk forward towards me.  Raising and lowering its head for change in perspective.  Would stop and use a hove to stomp the ground.  This continued until the buck was about thirty feet away.  I’m guessing the wind was blowing in a direction he couldn’t smell me.  I finally put the camera down from my face and said boo.  He finally tuned tail and ran after looking very confused.

[Maxmars]

If I remember from ATS, if you use a flash comparator on the legs, the muscles move like fabric swishing.  Not lot muscles flexing and contracting.

This speaks to something that absolutely demands we acknowledge... up front...

This is about a captured image, a digital video now, since actual film has been removed from the equation,

Translating that into a digital form includes pattern 'synthesis'... to 'correct and enhance' the visual acuity lost between the physical medium and the "digital process."

All these things may considered to be 'revealed' by the render, or in fact, they could just as well be  'inserted' into the output... intentionally, or incidentally.

Anything digital is not evidence... only an image of it.

[WallFlowerActive]

This speaks to something that absolutely demands we acknowledge... up front...

This is about a captured image, a digital video now, since actual film has been removed from the equation,

Translating that into a digital form includes pattern 'synthesis'... to 'correct and enhance' the visual acuity lost between the physical medium and the "digital process."

All these things may considered to be 'revealed' by the render, or in fact, they could just as well be  'inserted' into the output... intentionally, or incidentally.

Anything digital is not evidence... only an image of it.

Oh.  You sound like a flat earther when people post images of earth taken from space and high altitude balloons.

The stabilisation only can use what’s there.  What is there is fabric moving around.  It’s not muscle flexing and contracting.

Then the staged look at the camera has nothing to do with your argument.  It’s a dude looking at another dude he knew was there.  It’s not wild animal behaviour at all.  The look at the camera shows no curiosity at all.

[WallFlowerActive]

I also look at it another way.  

How large of a group would need to to be around to keep reproducing.  I compare it to if a group about half the size of a NFL team was living in the woods.  You would know if 25 linebacker sized creatures were maintaining a population.  From poop to the hit on the food supply.  To remnants of meals.

There are lots of crazy skilled hunters. No confirmed Bigfoot trophies that would make them famous.

[UltraBudgie]

Oh.  You sound like a flat earther when people post images of earth taken from space and high altitude balloons.

Pointing out that curvature cannot be measured from an image without knowing and correcting for spherical lens distortion is a perfectly valid objection.

The rest of Flat Earth— meh, whatever. It's not Tuesday so I'm not going to bother.

Max is wrong; raw digital scans of film can be as valid, in terms of fidelity of evidence, as the original celluloid. Provided the scanning parameters and post-processing are documented and verifiable. Though they never add data per se, but at best give insight to what is in the original source. In this case, it seems the post-processing is largely image-stabilization, with perhaps some per-pixel brightness and contrast correction? That would not introduce the kind of localized spatial distortions that would make muscle look like cloth.


Edit: I said "per-pixel" brightness and contrast correction. I meant "per-frame".

[WallFlowerActive]

More food for thought.  I took some really close pictures of a doe and fawn with a 400mm lens and ignored in my excitement something obvious but later revealed itself.  They were swarmed by horse and deer flies making the images sort of gross.  But if you watch animals they react to flies and gnats.  Makes them twitch and fidgety.  The doe also had a large visible scar.

[Halfswede]

...

Animals I have encountered react in some way.  Freeze and stare.  Sniff the air.  Bark.  Stop and snort.  Back away.  Turn tail and bolt.  The video almost looks like a guy giving a head nod to a bro.  It’s not wild animal behaviour at all.  
...

Interestingly, this is a commonly reported encounter -- a sense of zero f's given in many encounters. Others describe them standing still, or trying to hide behind trees, but there are definitely many many encounters described just like that, where they seem to acknowledge the viewer, but don't change anything about their current path.

That said, it could be claimed that people are just describing things as they recall in this PG film.  Except some encounters are far earlier...maybe PG took from them.

I encourage anyone who hasn't, to just go read all of the class A encounters on BFRO (I had a few spare weeks one time when things were slow).  There are interesting consistencies as well as interesting adamant inconsistencies like people saying "I didn't understand because I thought they were supposed to be thick or brown or whatever".  In any case, there you can at least just read people's accounts and judge for yourself rather than someone's rolled up summation of it all.

[WallFlowerActive]

That said, it could be claimed that people are just describing things as they recall in this PG film.  Except some encounters are far earlier...maybe PG took from them.

This is a guy in a suit giving a staged glance.




Anyone telling you differently is like a flat earther trying to sell you something.