The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[Bush Master]

From a purely anthropological standpoint, nfw are these creatures surviving without leaving a trace on the landscape.

[WallFlowerActive]

If I want to track Deer.  I have found their scat.  Where they cross creeks.  Scratch at the ground and trees.  They usually have deer runs.  They graze in fields like wild cattle.

Foxes.  They are more elusive.  But I and numerous other people have seen them in person playing in yards.  With good to very good pictures captured.  I’ve even found a fox den.

I wish I had time to track and photograph Bobcats.  But have no large areas of public land where I live.  But unfortunately they do get hit by cars.  Not as tragic, we have one that shows up at work regularly on the security cameras.  And raccoons don’t raid the dumpster like the used to.  Seems the racoon population has taken a hit.  If I had more time and land access.  I would probably start by the river looking for tracks in the sand and up creek beds.  

I think I did glance the bobcat while doing my rounds.  I was confused and my mind tried to rectify it with something I have seen.  I thought it was an overly muscular pit bull.  But it ran into the woods and started making a strange warning cry / whine?  But you have to wonder if Bigfoot sightings are people trying to rectify seeing a bear?  For whatever reasons, the human brain is programmed into Anthropomorphism.

All my life I would have loved to get a clear image of Bigfoot like I have with deer, fox, raccoons, hawks, hummingbirds, coyotes, groundhogs, bears.  I feel like the bears was like cheating.  They were just there on the trails in the Smokey Mountains.  Seems large animals that forage for food learn humans leave scraps of food everywhere.  And learn to forage in various trash cans and dumpsters. 

Added.  Hell, even living in the mid west.  I’ve seen lions and tigers on a regular basis.  There is a large cat rescue center that is local that takes in things like tigers and lions from vegas shows that fold. 

If I want to find Smurfs, I go to media and books.  And theme parks.  Eventually it’s the same for Bigfoot.

[WallFlowerActive]

Shrugs..

Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear?

Sasquatch sightings were statistically significantly associated with bear populations such that, on the average, every 1000 bear increase in the bear population is associated with a 4% ( 95% CI: 1 – 7%) increase in sasquatch sightings. 
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wi.../jzo.13148

[Kurokage]

A video about the gait of patty.

[WallFlowerActive]

A video about the gait of patty.
[Video: https://youtu.be/pkGtFwo8umk?si=x48EvkqMryZt25Wb]

I can load up videos people swear the earth in flat.

People lie for attention.  That’s a fact life.

Unfortunately in the video the “legs” flap and sway left to right.  The back of the legs aren’t flexing and contracting up and down in line with the vertical structure of the legs.  



The back of the suit looks like a guy wearing a giant diaper.  

And there is no getting around the staged look over the shoulder glance that was like a hey bro head nod.

If there were Bigfeet made of flesh and bone, breathing, eating, pooping, breading.  It would be as obvious as a deer runs or a bobcat controlling the racoon population.  The ecosystem of North America is a large puzzle where the fantasy of a flesh and bone Bigfoot has no part, no place. Like a Smurf.  As far has nature photography and Bigfoot, Bigfoot might as well be a Smurf.

[Kurokage]

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".

Just to add my 2 cents here...

The original film was shot at around 16-18fps I think at a resolution of less than 480p? 

In the 1960s, the standard frame rate for 8mm cine cameras was typically 16 frames per second (fps). However, some cameras were designed for 18 fps as well.

As to the issues of upscaling the resolution and FPS of the 'patty' video, it does add additional pixels, and also artifacts and noise. Which can then be used by both sides of the argument as showing muscle movement or cloth rippling.

https://blinksandbuttons.net/does-upscal...e-quality/

Upscaling is a common practice used to enhance the resolution of videos and images, enabling them to be displayed on higher-resolution screens. However, the question arises as to whether this process actually reduces the quality of the content.

The article delves into the concept of upscaling, discussing how it involves interpolating additional pixels to enhance the overall resolution. It also explains the difference between linear and non-linear upscaling algorithms, shedding light on the advantages and disadvantages of each technique.

 
 Is upscaling a reliable solution for improving the resolution of low-quality videos or images?Upscaling can be a useful tool to enhance the resolution of low-quality videos or images, but it is not a guaranteed solution. The success of upscaling largely depends on the quality of the source material and the upscaling algorithm used. In some cases, it may yield marginal improvements, while in others, it could amplify the existing issues or introduce artifacts.

[UltraBudgie]

The original film was shot at around 16-18fps I think at a resolution of less than 480p? 

Quick search shows that the Patterson-Gimlin footage was shot at 18fps, with Kodachrome II film stock using a Cine-Kodak K100 16mm camera.

Kodachome II is much better than 480p; generally scanning at 5120x3840 (20 megapixels) will capture all possible nuance. Effective resolution is lower—very much limited by lens quality, exposure, and motion blur.

[WallFlowerActive]

The original film was shot at around 16-18fps I think at a resolution of less than 480p? 

The dude was supposed to be a serious Bigfoot hunter.

I know from hunting and photography, once you find where an animal population is, you exploit for lack of a better term.  You track.  You build a strategy.  Sit for hours in blinds.  Even easier today with trail cameras.  You tweak your strategy to you get that kill or imagine.  They acted exactly like guys that staged a hoax and the area was a disposable stage.  It was a prop.   Nothing more.

Again.  You might as well be hunting Smurfs when it comes to Bigfeet.  They live in media and imagination.  Not as flesh and bone breathing, pooping, eating, water drinking, foraging, breading populations with physical needs.  Added that makes them open to capture, hunting, imaging with repeatability.

[UltraBudgie]

As to the issues of upscaling the resolution and FPS of the 'patty' video, it does add additional pixels, and also artifacts and noise.

Also worth noting that any video hosted on YouTube is useless in any evidentiary sense. They upscale and interpolate videos automatically in opaque ways, without informing either users or content creators.



It's part of the push to acclimate people to accepting AI-generated content.

[Kurokage]

Quick search shows that the Patterson-Gimlin footage was shot at 18fps, with Kodachrome II film stock using a Cine-Kodak K100 16mm camera.

Kodachome II is much better than 480p; generally scanning at 5120x3840 (20 megapixels) will capture all possible nuance. Effective resolution is lower—very much limited by lens quality, exposure, and motion blur.

Part of the problem is that the original film stock hasn't been seen in ages and most are of copies of copies.

That's also why I posted the video back on page 4, as the video author claims the original footage is being cleaned up and shown.