The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[UltraBudgie]

PS: I watched part of another video in which that supposed photo archivist talked about the TIFF images he uses and talked only about image size, not colour depth, which makes me think he may not know what he should be doing.

If you're scanning with the correct gamma (luma curve) settings, 24 bpp (8 bits per primary) is just fine. You can do 10 bits per primary if you want to be sure. That's basic stuff, not worth mentioning. What is perhaps worth mentioning is the different gamut some film can have; film can represent some colours that sRGB cannot.

In order to capture every nuance of Kodochrome II's film grain, you need about 20 mpel (5120x3840). That's much higher than the "effective resolution", which can be thought of as the highest-resolution checkboard that you can capture each individual square of on a single frame.

Interesting to note that recent sophisticated techniques of multi-frame compositing and guassian deblurring can generate higher-resolution images than any single frame can capture. This, for example, was used to generate the revised security cam photos released during the Charlie Kirk shooting, if you'll remember.

[ArMaP]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I would be happy with normal evidence.

[Maxmars]

I would be happy with normal evidence.

Yes, but everyone has to agree what constitutes evidence.

Right now "evidence" is only presented as relayed information.
And even that is rendered from evidence into a virtual representation of it.

Real immediate evidence would be a direct personal encounter....
but that would only be true for the experience, you.

As we have seen, no one here will accept anecdotal evidence at all.
Virtual evidence has little weight as we have nearly perfected the art of 'rendering.'

What is evidence in this context... only a corpse.

I have difficulty in accepting that hundreds of thousands are all suffering the same illusion.

[UltraBudgie]

Yes, but everyone has to agree what constitutes evidence.

Tangible, verifiable, and anomalous?

Occam's razor is pretty sharp though...

[ArMaP]

Yes, but everyone has to agree what constitutes evidence.

Right now "evidence" is only presented as relayed information.
And even that is rendered from evidence into a virtual representation of it.

Real immediate evidence would be a direct personal encounter....
but that would only be true for the experience, you.

As we have seen, no one here will accept anecdotal evidence at all.
Virtual evidence has little weight as we have nearly perfected the art of 'rendering.'

I should have said "normal physical evidence".

What is evidence in this context... only a corpse.

Unless bigfoot appears and disappears from this existence, there are other things that are physical evidence.
If they exist and are alive they need to eat something, so we should be able to find signs of their eating. We should also find their excrements and, unless they bury their dead, the bones of those that have died.



I have difficulty in accepting that hundreds of thousands are all suffering the same illusion.
[/quote]

[Halfswede]

Yes, but everyone has to agree what constitutes evidence.

Right now "evidence" is only presented as relayed information.
And even that is rendered from evidence into a virtual representation of it.

Real immediate evidence would be a direct personal encounter....
but that would only be true for the experience, you.

As we have seen, no one here will accept anecdotal evidence at all.
Virtual evidence has little weight as we have nearly perfected the art of 'rendering.'

What is evidence in this context... only a corpse.

I have difficulty in accepting that hundreds of thousands are all suffering the same illusion.

This is the issue. People go to prison all the time on anecdotal evidence alone: "I saw that guy go in that house at 8 pm".

I don't think most people bother to look at the magnitudes of thousands upon thousands of anecdotal encounters, coupled with hundreds upon hundreds of quality footprints, as well as a handful of hair and poop samples found to be "unknown non-human primate".  When take all together, it's definitely not the "no evidence" that people purport. It's just not often even looked at before making some summary conclusion.

I tend to ignore the footprints and DNA, and analyze the encounters. There are enough out there that are very close up to discount that those particular ones were misidentification. That leaves lying and man in suit. Man in suit doesn't happen in some of the locations described (wading through a swamp in 90 degree weather) so that leaves lying. You sort of have to conclude that 100% of those close encounters are lying to make it fake.

The way people describe encounters is pretty telling.  There's something compelling when you hear a life-long hunter describe how he won't go into the woods alone after seeing what they saw, and all of their friends laughing at them. Or you get some unique perspective that was so different than any other, like the fisherman who reported watching one hand catch about 4 or 5 salmon, taking each one on the shore by the tail and swinging/whacking its head 3 or 4 times until it dies, then throwing them all over its shoulder and walking off. Or a housewife telling about on peeking in a window that's 8 feet up. 

I think people just tend to have the perception that there are a couple of dozen reports and a few crummy tracks. It's quite substantial when you actually look, and not just far away confusing encounters, but many are very close or very long and from all walks of life -- police, military, old ladies, kids, hunters veteran park rangers, biologists, etc. Even entire buses full of dozens of people who say and reported it.

Unfortunately its one of those things that even if a body were found, people still wouldn't believe. Unless they were trapped in a zoo exhibit, nobody will accept it. There's also some very significant repercussions from a wildlife management and deeper considerations if they were found to exist or acknowledged.  The story of the forest service guys finding the young one on the forest road burned badly and being met by three-letter spooks who took it away after calling it in makes sense in many ways.

I just encourage people to read the thousands of first-hand encounters and judge for yourselves. Are 100% of them lying, monkey suit, or misidentification, because that is the only conclusion you can make if you think it is 100% fake. You can read how people are describing things in their own words and see if they seem like lies or made-up. BFRO.com has many, but there are other sites. 

This OP is really about PG film, so I don't want to clutter it with general sasquatch stuff, but there really is a lot more than this film and a small bit of junk evidence.

[ArMaP]

This is the issue. People go to prison all the time on anecdotal evidence alone: "I saw that guy go in that house at 8 pm".

That is not enough in science and shouldn't be enough in justice either.

I don't think most people bother to look at the magnitudes of thousands upon thousands of anecdotal encounters, coupled with hundreds upon hundreds of quality footprints, as well as a handful of hair samples found to be "unknown non-human primate".  When take all together, it's definitely not the "no evidence" that people purport. It's just not often even looked at before making some summary conclusion.

Personally, I see personal accounts more as evidence of how people are than evidence of what they say they saw.
Footprints are better than nothing, but can easily be faked.
Hair samples are good evidence, if proven real.

[Halfswede]

That is not enough in science and shouldn't be enough in justice either.


Personally, I see personal accounts more as evidence of how people are than evidence of what they say they saw.
Footprints are better than nothing, but can easily be faked.
Hair samples are good evidence, if proven real.

I think in this case it's an issue of people's concept of evidence vs. proof. On this topic, people tend to conflate the two and loudly declare there is no evidence, making it seem pointless to look at the evidence. That coupled with the absolute ridicule make it where even the people reporting are the smallest fraction. So many describe waiting decades to tell even their families and still got ridiculed.

There is no proof.

There is lots of evidence, some very weak, and some compelling, but at the end of the day we have about half a dozen intriguing videos, several fully exposed hoaxes, and have reached a time when no amount of video evidence will be accepted due to technology. The use of game cams is pointless, people have reportedly hit them with cars and had the feds take over. 

At this point, how would you provide proof? If today, in your state, watched a BF cross your barbed-wire fence and leave a bunch of hair, what would you actually do and how successful would you actually be to bring that forward -- do you take to the police? do you take to the news? how many primatologists would you attempt to contact to take a look at it before you gave up? Alas, you are left with a small community of labeled "kooks and cons" that would do anything with it and then it's already tainted from a credibility standpoint. 

It's like the big cats in England.  In frustration, one person sent in actual jaguar hair taken from a cat sanctuary in the states and the scientists at the govt (DoE I beleive) got the summary report of 'house cat DNA'. It's doubtful that they even tested it. If you sponsor the testing yourself, you get immediate credibility issues. It's complex.

We get it at the state level all the time with certain wildlife. No cougars/bears/etc in this state. People are thrilled to jump on social media smack down any pics and vids with the backing of "Science" and declare anyone who claims otherwise an idiot. So game cam "proof" gets shared among hunters and everybody lays low and laughs at F&W but have no interest in the mobs of "smart people" telling them that the giant cougar sniffing their camper in their back yard doesn't exist there. My belief is that wildlife management simply doesn't want the headache of a now very rare animal in their state. Imagine something incredibly rare.

My main point is that this is a very complicated social and scientific endeavor from so many angles.

[WallFlowerActive]

My main point is that this is a very complicated social and scientific endeavor from so many angles.

And yet.  Researchers capture and tag bears and mountain lions.  Big game hunters are pretty proficient.

But.. You have this.

Hunter dies in freak accident after bear falls from tree in Virginiahttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...042545007/

Even dead giant squids wash ashore time to time.

But a Bigfoot has never been accidentally shot by a bear hunter, nobody can find a Bigfoot to capture, and from drought to wildfires no credible Bigfoot corpses.

It was sad.  Blue tongue disease was cutting into the local deer population and it was common to walk through the woods to find a sick or dead dear.

Life is messy.  So.  Bigfoot isn’t flesh and bone like a deer, bear, or mountain lion.

[ArMaP]

I think in this case it's an issue of people's concept of evidence vs. proof.

That's my problem. In Portuguese we rarely use the word "evidência", which appears to be the direct translation of "evidence", we mostly use the word "prova" (proof) when dealing with things like this.

At this point, how would you provide proof? If today, in your state, watched a BF cross your barbed-wire fence and leave a bunch of hair, what would you actually do and how successful would you actually be to bring that forward -- do you take to the police? do you take to the news? how many primatologists would you attempt to contact to take a look at it before you gave up? Alas, you are left with a small community of labeled "kooks and cons" that would do anything with it and then it's already tainted from a credibility standpoint. 

Although there aren't any sightings of bigfoot in Portugal, I think I would contact a couple of university professors I know, one a chemist and the other a biologist, to see if they would be able to analyse it.