Kicking Bigfoot – The Patterson Film and M.K. Davis stabilization enhancements
Podcast: Download
By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 111
Some people believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or Sasquatch: A frightening, prehistoric, half-gorilla-half-man, it lives in heavily forested mountainous areas like the Colorado Rockies. Apparently wide-ranging and stinkier than all get out, they have a knack for avoiding investigators and their cameras.
Apart from innumerable plaster casts of giant feet, one of the popular proofs of Bigfoot is the “Patterson Bigfoot film”, which shows a supposed Bigfoot striding away from an excited and shaky cameraman, the late Roger Patterson. Taken in 1967, there have been no other videos held in such high esteem and presented as proof of the existence of Bigfoot.
And so the Patterson video persists. With the loss of the original film and equipment, and the death of Roger Patterson, evidence is hard to verify or disprove. Never mind Roger Patterson was a known con artist and was arrested after the video shoot for stealing the movie camera.
Legends persist, often because “experts” review the Bigfoot video and declare it simply can’t be a hoax. Of course, the cameraman was excited and moving, and Bigfoot was shot from some distance away. So difficult to see, many details are subjective and open to interpretation.
And technology comes to help. “Bigfoot researcher” M.K. Davis took the Patterson video and got to work processing and motion-stabilizing the images frame by frame. Distortion from shaking was removed. Images were zoomed in, so the viewer can see Bigfoot much better. This was originally done to help prove Bigfoot’s authenticity. The final video is similar to the original, but is properly aimed and shake-free.
The effort does prove something, but not the original intent. To me, the “authentic Bigfoot” now really looks like a guy walking in a padded gorilla suit.
It’s interesting how technology can bring clarity to certain things. Here, digital manipulation allows us to remove shaking from the video, zooming in on the star of the show. We must use the tools we have to get closer and closer to the truth. Here, technology gives us the ability to examine proof in highly detailed ways, from life-and-death forensic analysis to eyebrow-raising claims of a half-man-half-ape.
In a perfect world, fantastic claims are supported by independent, easily-verifiable proof. But human nature is goofy. Fifty bucks says even after we get super-detailed satellite photography and hair sample DNA tests continually matching known animals, the Bigfoot proponents won’t rest.
As for me? I hear the giant creature sobbing as it moves from cult status, to legend, and finally to myth. Bigfoot, rest in peace.
View the video of the original Patterson Bigfoot film and the M.K. Davis enhancements.
When originally written, this article drew criticism from some in the cryptozoological community:
1) Mr. Beckjord contacted me with a rebuttal of many of my claims, and referenced his website for photographic and other evidence resulting from his many years of research. Visit his site and his Bigfoot photographic evidence and judge for yourself.
2) Here is a criticism of my article from cryptomundo.com. Scroll down that page to response number 24 to read my reply, or read it right here, as I’ve kept it for archival purposes:
First, looking at the original critique, the point made more than any other is that I don’t know the original collection of moving images is a “film”, not a movie or a video. This is because my source materials were an MPEG video file and an animated GIF. I had that terminology in my head, and that’s where my references in the article originated. Also, I don’t think the distinction is as important today: When we go to the movie theater, we watch a “movie”. Never mind it’s actually played on a reel-to-reel film projector, but we let the terminology slide. But, my grandmother, and those in her generation, call these “films”. Who’s right? Watch episode 4 (“The Inferno”) of the British comedy “Coupling”, and they’ll refer to VHS tapes as “films”. Whether cultural, generational or social, today’s concepts for film, movie, tape, digital video, et cetera are becoming interchangeable.
The original critique also says, “The article never details one item that this reporter sees in M. K. Davis’s enhancements for why he feels this way. It sounds more like pure faith in the misconceptions he has internalized about Patterson than about the footage, which has influenced Andy Kaiser.”
I am given a limited amount of space in the newspaper to make my point. Usually about 500 words. So I have to pick and choose what I want to say, and clearly stick to my point. In this case, I wanted to illustrate how technology is allowing us to uncover mysteries and help answer and clarify previously unanswerable questions. The article was not about detailing why I thought M.K. Davis’ work was faulty. However, let me address a little of that now.
Craig Woolheater says: “Provide a suit that matches what is in the film. Prove that it was made before the film was made. That’s not too tall an order if it was indeed a suit. Show me the monkey suit!”
If I did that, you’d think the film was a hoax? I don’t see how finding a suit similar in age and appearance to what appears in the Patterson film is relevant. While it may affect the film’s credibility, how would that prove or disprove the existence of Bigfoot? It may add credence to the hoax belief, but doesn’t conclusively confirm or deny the issue.
You’ve heard of “Occam’s razor”? It’s the concept that states “when given a choice of possibilities, the simplest is usually correct”. Let’s examine the case of Bigfoot, and look at the possibilities and how they relate to the Patterson film/MPEG/video:
Option 1:
The Patterson film, while interesting and well-designed, is a hoax, and Bigfoot does not exist. Other Bigfoot evidence consists of unexplained, misinterpreted, or hoaxed data.
Option 2:
The Patterson film is real. Bigfoot does exist. However, there is no independently verifiable evidence. No physical samples where DNA testing shows a new species. No bodies have been found, indicating these creatures, living with us for millennia, apparently disappear into thin air when they die.
Option one logically makes the most sense to me.
Being a skeptical thinker, I am open to the idea of Bigfoot, but don’t see the proof that science demands. Show me a body. Not a picture. Not a movie. Not stories from those who claim to have seen it. Show me something that can’t possibly be a hoax. Something that can be peer-reviewed and verified by everyone, and can be put through the scientific testing necessary to qualify it as a new species. Bigfoot proponents claim Bigfoot exists. Prove it by showing objective evidence.
Podcast
Support
Email alerts
RSS
Facebook