Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 2:12:34 GMT -5
Another thing I wanted to post here just for the record is exactly how much MK manipulated the color in his photos- MK's manipulated creek photo- and of course the real photo showing that it's clearly not a "river of blood" or whatever he's calling it now, just a regular creek- This to me was probably the most obvious bit of fake evidence that he presented and is a pretty good example of how a charlatan works. If you could describe his massacre theory in two words it would be Pareidolia and Apophenia.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 19, 2009 8:54:48 GMT -5
Your post showing the artifacts on the film is well taken and most accurate. This certainly would explain why these particular artifacts aren't seen on other film prints. The cause could range from anything from dirt to mold. A similar occurrence happened to the famous Zapruder film and is quite noticeable on the DVD 'Image of an Assassination'. The damage to the Zapruder film was due to improper storage. These films being discussed were copies created to assist in public speaking venues and have suffered damage over time. The people behind this asinine scenario have shown time and time again that they were not qualified to take on the responsibility of conducting a thorough investigation into the matter. The one called 'Monster Hunter' is a prime example of this.
It appears that the illustrator(s) was suggesting that they could see evidence of the Creature being shot by pointing to a location on its back. In the real world it would be IMPOSSIBLE to see a bullet strike the subject through all that hair from such a great distance ... let alone on a piece of blurry film. Somewhere along the way they have embraced the misconception that by adjusting the contrast that this would ad clarity to the image - it does just the opposite!
I invite people to look at the shadows and dark spots on the trees and surrounding forest in the animation attached to the previous post. While attempting to gain clarity by adjusting the contrast and lighting ... the objects I refer to are altered from their original shape. This type of recklessness is what created the illusion that the creature went down on one knee as if a bullet could do such a thing to such a large animal. Motion and panning blur caused many things within the image to appear to move when in fact they did not.
One should ask themselves why someone like MK Davis didn't seek and present peer review? Paulides mentioned his experts looking at the film, but no names were offered. I might add that these were alleged experts who were claiming a 99% certainty that a small 35MM camera was a large movie camera because they didn't know enough to cross check their initial observations by seeking a better print for analysis. When seen in this light it is not hard to understand why those experts still remain nameless.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 19, 2009 9:26:07 GMT -5
and of course the real photo showing that it's clearly not a "river of blood" or whatever he's calling it now, just a regular creek- This to me was probably the most obvious bit of fake evidence that he presented and is a pretty good example of how a charlatan works. If you could describe his massacre theory in two words it would be Pareidolia and Apophenia. I am not sure if Davis did the faking of the image or they were given to him that way, but he certainly is the one who presented them as fact. Then people like Bobbie Short, Paulides, Monster Hunter, and etc., became accomplices after the fact by promoting MK's nonsense through means of finger pointing and slandering the innocent before conducting a complete and competent investigation. To date I have not yet heard that the offenders have apologized for their mistakes regardless of their personal views of the people involved. It's odd that these individuals had lots to say out of the gate, but have now fallen silent. I am bewildered at how quickly they were willing to accept the lunacy of MK's outlandish claims, but have been so slow in admitting they made a mistake in lieu of the evidence against them. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 20:56:21 GMT -5
I am not sure if Davis did the faking of the image or they were given to him that way, but he certainly is the one who presented them as fact. This is MK's original transparency photo- taken from a GIF posted on Monster Hunter's site June 19th: Even if MK got the photo this way, why would he crop it down to just the water for his evidence of "blood"? Considering it's everywhere- the trees, log, even the sasquatch is red in this photo. I think it's pretty clear that there's a color issue with the transparency and that he tailored it to suit his needs. I guess the "bloody forest" didn't fit in with his story.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 19, 2009 22:20:54 GMT -5
MK must have adjusted the contrast and lighting on the transparency because the background in the shadows is very dark. In the previous post to the one above, the same background is seen, but lighter with more foliage visible. If this is truly a transparency, I'd bet that MK altered it by adjusting the contrast and lighting, if not the color tones as well.
I'm afraid that anything MK's connected with must be suspect anxd investigated thoroughly.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Oct 20, 2009 0:06:24 GMT -5
Bill,
You have done a wonderful job! Thank you! I think MK might have used colour saturation as well, just look at the red; it was very blurry.
cheers, seb
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 23, 2009 1:21:47 GMT -5
Here is an animation that I saw on the Internet whereas MK has labeled it the 'early pony-tail walk'. What appears to have happen is that MK sees the dark hair as being a pony-tail and because if its diamond type shape he must think its been tied somehow. Once again it is my opinion that he has not considered the angle of reflection of the sun's light to the subject and as she moves ... between it and the constant panning blur of Roger's camera there is an ongoing changing of shapes. One such occurrence can be seen in the dark shaded spots on the trees for they change shape with those on the creature. Another criticism I have is that MK doesn't stabilize the images and plays them too fast for the viewer so the naked eye can readily pick up these uniform transitions within the image. (see Davis animation below) By stabilizing the image ... the shading transitions throughout the image become more noticeable. (see Miller animation below) In the image below there is no knotted or tied pony-tail. As the angle of reflection changes there may come points in the film that it appears that way, but common sense would dictate that if its clearly not there in one part of the film, then it's not there in other parts. (see below) Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
superd
No life here!
Posts: 24
|
Post by superd on Oct 25, 2009 18:23:39 GMT -5
"but common sense would dictate that if its clearly not there in one part of the film, then it's not there in other parts" That's the same logic I was going to use. Thanks for saying it Bill David Merryfield aka superd
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Oct 28, 2009 14:50:13 GMT -5
MK Davis claimed the shape seen in this Patterson Frame was a Sasquatch print ... In the real world it was just a shape formed by a downed log. If having poor photo and film interpretation skills were a crime, then Davis would have been hung a long time ago. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2009 10:55:04 GMT -5
The way I see it- these guys are no different than the Georgia hoaxers. Both are wild tales of dead sasquatch without a single shred of hard evidence to back up their claims. Both are also deliberate attempts at garnering attention.
It's pretty rediculous to accuse someone of killing a sasquatch when there are no dead sasquatch to be found. You would think anyone with a shred of common sense would pick up on this blatant discrepancy, but maybe I'm just giving a little too much credit here.
The bottom line is that you can't have a massacre without bodies, and that's all that really needs to be said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 2:22:22 GMT -5
The latest 'evidence' posted over there by Monster Hunter- Quote: "When you skin a deer or large animal...what do you do?...you remove your watch and rings to keep them clean of blood... "Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that his watch a little higher up his arm? I can also see his watch in these other frames from the same sequence- The real kicker is that these pictures are from MK- how did he come to the conclusion that he wasn't wearing his watch? Did he just completely ignore all the other frames of the film?? As dumb as the 'watch' angle is, it's almost funny how desperate they're getting- really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. NOTE: I have sent Lansdale the majority of the debunkings here and to date he hasn't posted a single one on his board. For an organization that claims to search for the truth, they have no interest in debating any of their finds or opposing viewpoints that will hurt their massacre theory. They are more determined to paint a false picture of what happened than the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Nov 6, 2009 0:27:49 GMT -5
I think if you handed Monster Hunter two slices of bread ... one smeared with wet dung and the other with apple butter ... he'd probably just put the two slices together - take a photo of it - have MK alter the coloring - and then try and sell it as a PBJ!
If by now someone still wishes to make claims using a poor degraded and over contrasted copy of that film, then they just aren't that bright.
And about the scraping of the barrel remark ... have you all not heard that MK and company have started a new research organization called 'the bottom of the barrel scrapers' (sigh~)
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by rastaman on Nov 6, 2009 0:53:30 GMT -5
Jim Lansdale has been a storyteller, or should we say a BSer for a long time now. He's claimed to have ongoing BF activity at a food plot that he supposedly has set up, but when asked why he has no clear photos of a BF after years of activity, all kinds of excuses come out instead of answers.
He continues to be the mouthpiece for the GCBRO, after Mary Green was also caught BSing about her constant BF activity on her property in the early days of the GCBRO. After someone did a Google map search of her farm area, and then confronted her about the fact that she was surrounded by fields and little forest cover to hide a BF, her lies were easily exposed.
Only now, Jim Lansdale still continues to keep the lies alive with his small group of cult followers on their website. Anything said or read on the GCBRO should be treated as outlandish and bizarre stories.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Nov 6, 2009 1:14:36 GMT -5
One of the fellows invited to Monster Hunter's arm coming out of the bush shooting event said that when he arrived - one of the GCBRO idiots had a shotgun in one hand and a beer in the other. The next member he met had a rifle in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other hand.
The guy seems to have a lot of sightings ... as many as he has excuses as to why he never gets a photo of the creatures.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Nov 6, 2009 20:42:44 GMT -5
Only now, Jim Lansdale still continues to keep the lies alive with his small group of cult followers on their website. Anything said or read on the GCBRO should be treated as outlandish and bizarre stories. In the case of the missing watch ... If Monster Hunter was responsible for choosing that frame to deceitfully try and make it look as though the pilot took off the watch so to clean and skin a Sasquatch, then he too must be viewed as a hoaxer with a mission. I went back and looked at the film and before and after the particular frame he used there were other frames that were sharper and showed the watch quite well. Once one is caught purposely trying to mislead others, then it is no longer a case of dealing with someone ignorant of the subject matter, but rather a very dishonest individual fabricating a scenario that he or she knew to be a lie and that's a whole other matter altogether! Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|