Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot video gets makeover

45 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
Posted (edited)

Ughhhhh.... MORE PG Film....?

This had better be really good...

Goes to link...

EDIT: It seems to me that the more "detail" that is "added", the more it seems like a suit to me. Looks kind of patchy in this video. with the hair either missing, or going a different direction over much of the critter.

I know that they can make high res copies off old film reels, but AFAIK, the only remaining PG Film copies are digital. So, how can it be improved on in clarity?

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd

I think this guy has done a good job of editing and cleaning up the video with today's software/technology. However, it still looks like a man/woman in a suit taking a stroll (to me).

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
43 minutes ago, pixiii said:

I think this guy has done a good job of editing and cleaning up the video with today's software/technology. However, it still looks like a man/woman in a suit taking a stroll (to me).

You can't get more information out of the publicly available footage.

You can 'edit and clean it up', but that's ultimately just distorting and manipulating the original, creating false data.

The only way we could get 'better' footage would be to have access to the original raw footage as taken by the camera and unedited/uncompressed.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
curiouse

I thought I saw a Doco. Years back claiming that this whole thing was a set up. FAKE!  So why are we still intrigued?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 minutes ago, curiouse said:

I thought I saw a Doco. Years back claiming that this whole thing was a set up. FAKE!  So why are we still intrigued?

Because people like to believe in weird stuff. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Because people like to believe in weird stuff. 

If only it was hard-wired into human brains to somehow not be sucked in by BS.

We might be back in caves banging each other over the heads with rocks/bones sooner than anticipated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
Posted (edited)

Apart from stabilizing and sharpening, there's not a lot you can do without a better transfer from the original film.

To me, it looks like a human trying to create an unusually large stride.

Edited by acute
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Timothy said:

You can't get more information out of the publicly available footage.

You can 'edit and clean it up', but that's ultimately just distorting and manipulating the original, creating false data.

The only way we could get 'better' footage would be to have access to the original raw footage as taken by the camera and unedited/uncompressed.

thank you tim :tu:

257c6b63c49e3f0b8d4f0bd1a7905577.jpg.ea843da3f68b16b097e4eea172c0ec20.jpg

 

is this "new" manipulated video more of mk Davis type bs tripe  add stuff that was never there and make ridiculous claims about it?

remember his bigfoot massacre theory?

i can see it now meldrum will leap out of a bush to hail this 4K video as more undeniable Proof the PGF is of a real bigfoot and you can not only see muscle movement but you can now see warts, 2 moles ( benign ) , a zit, and several fleas known to be fleas that only attack primates....:rolleyes:

( oh, please ignore the zipper )

i do admit this version does scream and reek of man in suit more than ever before, well done.

Edited by the13bats
mistyped
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42

4k remaster. LMAO. A turd covered in gold leaf is still a turd.
Maybe they actually thought that CSI tv show style digital 'enhancing' was a real thing...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DirtyDocMartens

Does it look like bigfoot is wearing sneakers to anyone else? The narrator says he's a skeptic but only addresses the parts he thinks are the most impressive. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
3 hours ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

Does it look like bigfoot is wearing sneakers to anyone else? The narrator says he's a skeptic but only addresses the parts he thinks are the most impressive. 

while i dont see the muscle movement do i see a blurry

images(40).jpg.4a471b295f2bf8e4e03a3b4abb290771.jpg

on that one ankle?

dick smith famous make up artist and from feedback a really great kind hearted guy, called the cosume armature work placing great criticism on the bright white flat feet, that he would do rather fancy painting to make them look like real feet,

then i recalled c heston in planet of the apes, he was hurting his feet too much running arounf bare foot so they glued soles to the bottoms of his feet, if careful you can see them in the film when you know to look,

patterson knew ray wallace, at the most i believe he used wallace feet at the least he studied them, in the PGF one foot is bigger and this was same with tracks wallace faked, and wallace fake tracks look very much like the PGF creature tracks.

i do not know why but many if not most who present something like this do always claim to be a skeptic yet avoid things that point to hoax.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
13 hours ago, Timothy said:

You can't get more information out of the publicly available footage.

You can 'edit and clean it up', but that's ultimately just distorting and manipulating the original, creating false data.

The only way we could get 'better' footage would be to have access to the original raw footage as taken by the camera and unedited/uncompressed.

@Timothy thanks for clarifying that.  I'm no expert in video technology or editing whatsoever I'm afraid, but what you said made much better sense! :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
3 hours ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

Does it look like bigfoot is wearing sneakers to anyone else? The narrator says he's a skeptic but only addresses the parts he thinks are the most impressive. 

Yes! Under the feet looked really odd.  I thought if it was indeed a suit being worn, that the soles of the suit would be just like they appeared to look....something lighter in colour and flat and non-organic in nature.  Again, this is just my own opinion.  Someone else might see actual feet! :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
9 minutes ago, pixiii said:

@Timothy thanks for clarifying that.  I'm no expert in video technology or editing whatsoever I'm afraid, but what you said made much better sense! :) 

also the orginal is a bit of a mystery, krantz green a few others claimed they saw it in the day, but it vanished, and like you im not savvy in this stuff but i know if the resolution wasnt there to start with it can only be enhanced so much, if you find an unmolested copy of the orginal on YouTube, it sucks, a little subject jerks and shakes across a blurry screen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever

Something new that stuck out to me is: does the (suit?) seems to "bunch up" around the top of the hip when he/she steps? Regardless, whoever this is had a sizable booty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

Something new that stuck out to me is: does the (suit?) seems to "bunch up" around the top of the hip when he/she steps? Regardless, whoever this is had a sizable booty.

after all the it can or cant be a suit, some top minds in make up when questioned about the diaper butt speculate the bottom is kind of a hip waders idea, the butt part like training pants,

this "new" video did show me what some call muscle movement looks like a suit sliding , bunching and relaxing, cheap mismatched fur casting odd reflections and the head looking very much like a hood idea, 

some of the frame by frame movements just scream human in suit to me.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don Caesar

The clearest footage I’ve seen yet.

IMO, that’s a human being in a suit. The upper leg, just below the hip, folds horizontally as it strides - as if there is a pocket of empty space inside the leg - that should be filled with solid muscle and fat were this creature genuine.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
On 7/11/2019 at 7:40 PM, UM-Bot said:

A 4K remaster of the infamous footage, which is alleged to show a live Bigfoot, has been posted online.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/328962/patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-video-gets-makeover

This film is too controversial to consider real, I am not believer in the films authenticity. 

Here a link that may be fact or more fiction I don't know for sure.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/00000144-0a3e-d3cb-a96c-7b3f24c90000

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
Posted (edited)

The weird thing that has struck me about the film is how nonchalantly the animal appears to walk off..To me it don't make sense...Any wild animal surprised is going to blaze a trail getting the hell out of there...This creature seemed in no hurry...To me almost appears as if it expected it, to be seen that is. I won't say at this point the film is a fake but the creatures reactions do not fit the typical wild animal reaction to being spooked.

Edited by Minimalists
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
40 minutes ago, Minimalists said:

The weird thing that has struck me about the film is how nonchalantly the animal appears to walk off..To me it don't make sense...Any wild animal surprised is going to blaze a trail getting the hell out of there...This creature seemed in no hurry...To me almost appears as if it expected it, to be seen that is. I won't say at this point the film is a fake but the creatures reactions do not fit the typical wild animal reaction to being spooked.

ive heard the DTBs say well a creature that large that intellegent knows it can just kill the dolts filming it,

however, that is pure speculation on their part how do they know what its thinking that is if its even a real creature,

wild animals might freeze, like dear in headlights, they might speed up like a shocked possum or scared hog but they do something they have some reaction the subject in this film did nothing, ive always figured that when it turned was either to see if roger was filiming, or because roger yelled at the guy in the fur suit,

ive also always gotten the fell the subject was walking very conscience of it like when a drunk has to walk a line for a cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
On 7/11/2019 at 3:50 AM, DieChecker said:

Ughhhhh.... MORE PG Film....?

This had better be really good...

Goes to link...

EDIT: It seems to me that the more "detail" that is "added", the more it seems like a suit to me. Looks kind of patchy in this video. with the hair either missing, or going a different direction over much of the critter.

I know that they can make high res copies off old film reels, but AFAIK, the only remaining PG Film copies are digital. So, how can it be improved on in clarity?

Actually the stabilized version was made by a guy who used the original film as his source. Search YouTube for stabilized version and a documentary about how it was made comes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
On 7/11/2019 at 4:52 AM, Timothy said:

You can't get more information out of the publicly available footage.

You can 'edit and clean it up', but that's ultimately just distorting and manipulating the original, creating false data.

The only way we could get 'better' footage would be to have access to the original raw footage as taken by the camera and unedited/uncompressed.

That’s probably technically true, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve scanned crappy pictures from the 60’s and 70’s for my mom, opened them in photoshop and brought out tons of detail. And that’s using a version that’s probably 15 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
On 7/12/2019 at 3:35 PM, the13bats said:

after all the it can or cant be a suit, some top minds in make up when questioned about the diaper butt speculate the bottom is kind of a hip waders idea, the butt part like training pants,

this "new" video did show me what some call muscle movement looks like a suit sliding , bunching and relaxing, cheap mismatched fur casting odd reflections and the head looking very much like a hood idea, 

some of the frame by frame movements just scream human in suit to me.

That it screams human in a suit to you is unsurprising. 

The patchiness in this version is from sharpening the image which brings out highlights, although sharpening may really just have revealed that it really is patchy. Could be either thing.

as far as mismatched fur goes there are a lot of samples that tested as hair, not fur, and also not attributable to any known species.(learned that from your hero Meldrum) Hair is different than fur in its structure and I can say just looking myself over that different types of hair grow on different parts of my body. Just a thought.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

it screams of a man in a fur suit to a lot of people not just me.

im not surprised with you jumping at at my reply, now i have to do something i hate doing and talk about my for lack of a better word credentials, i too have studied hair/ fur, i have no idea if as much as your hero meldrum, but likely in ways he didnt  heck jimmy chilcutt said meldrum an alleged expert in bi pedial locomotion didnt know about dermal ridges, and he had to clue him in, hum,

ive also have been involved in the field of special effects make up,

since you, me or your hero meldrum do not have any PGF subject hair to test i will go by what i see, not just from this new video but from watching the PGF about 40 years countless times...it screams man in fur suit.

i respect you are true believer please return that respect and understand i require proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.