Sonoma Video, Merged threads Options

[tollstoi]

I don't trust it either. a fake video (well, at least in my opinion).
tollstoi

[Ocoee]

Whether this is a hoax or not, at least it's something new to look at. It isn't boring, either.

I had to right-click on the movie link and hit "Save Target As," downloading it to my computer in order to watch it on Quicktime. Then it worked fine.

The abrupt ending of the film clip is maddening. Note to all hoaxers: even if the animal disappears, let us see what happened right after that - especially if you went down the hill to look for clues as you say you did - and that would be pretty brave if you really did that. Also, what did your girlfriend do while you investigated? Did she stand there alone in that tall grass knowing there might be a creature lurking? Odd, indeed.

Having said all that, I personally have no problem with the arm swing. I'm impressed with how fast this "thingy" moved, especially with the arm swing. I've slowed it down frame by frame, too, and it's actually more impressive to watch in regular time. Slowed down, it just looks like a blob in the grass. In motion - who knows what it is?

I'm no anatomical genius or anything, but if this is a guy in a hairy suit, just how did he do that exaggerated arm swing unless he is double jointed? He's in tall grass, in a heavy suit, on a slope - of course, he could have practiced, but that thing is moving fast. I'm keeping an open mind on this one. It interests me - call me a fool. It's ten times better than most things we see here, lol. I'll take this over those excruciating blobs that no one can see.

[Roadrunner]

Having said all that, I personally have no problem with the arm swing. I'm impressed with how fast this "thingy" moved, especially with the arm swing. I've slowed it down frame by frame, too, and it's actually more impressive to watch in regular time. Slowed down, it just looks like a blob in the grass. In motion - who knows what it is?

I'm not that impressed by how fast it moves, it moves no quicker than any fleet-footed individual would. As to the arm swing, it made me think of what I call the 'sock effect', but a large sock on your arm half-on, half-off and swing your arms. Another theory is that it is going up an incline, every bi-pedal swings their arms more when they move up a gradient to counter imbalance.

This post has been edited by Roadrunner: Nov 21 2005, 09:08 AM

[ludo]

After repeatedly viewing the NY baby and now the Sonoma walker, it occurs to me that it might be useful to create a ‘checklist’ which all videos are initially subjected to. I think everyone does this anyway when we check out new footage, but I humbly suggest that standardising it a little might focus the discussions which follow any new film.

The sort of thing I’m thinking of would be a series of questions we apply to any new video. As a brief example:

1.
Clarity. How much can you see? And for how long? Enough to form a useful opinion on the subject?

2.
Non-human-ness. Is anything visible which points to something outside the human range, in size/shape/height/movement?

3.
Behaviour. Does the subject behave in a manner which fits the general consensus of observations?

4.
Detail. How many actual elements of the subject are observable? e.g. Eyes/face/sagittal crest/hand/feet?

5.
Filming. Do the actions of the camera-user (or others) seem believable? Does the camera user say or do anything (if there is sound)? How does the camera-user move in relation to the subject?

6.
Camera-user. Who was filming? When? Why were they carrying a camera? What’s their background? Will they benefit financially from the footage? Have they spoken to experienced interviewers? What does the camera-user say happened?


I apologise if I’m teaching anyone to suck eggs, and if the above is so obvious that I shouldn’t even have bothered mentioning it. I think all the above elements do usually get mentioned in video analysis, but it struck me that I’d never seen them listed.

I generally get rather excited when new footage is uncovered and I find that ordering my thoughts as above helps me be the impartial, careful observer I should be.

Also, it’s clear that someone here with a more academic//legal brain than mine could vastly improve the checklist.

Thanks for reading. Now I’ll go back to endlessly watching the clips with my nose an inch from the screen…

[Hairy Man]

Walking Carpet wrote:

Kathy--is it okay if I call you Kathy?--I mean absolutely no disrespect to you.  You are much more knowledgeable than I am.  In fact, I have great respect for you.

Feel free to call me Kathy...but you kind of have me at a disadvantage, cause I don't know your name (I'll call you WC for short).

You are concerned that this sighting has yet to be investigated.  Investigated by whom?

This gentleman submitted his report to the BFRO and TBRC. The TBRC then passed on the information to a group of independent researchers here in California and close to the film site, myself included, to follow up on. We have contacted this gentleman (along with many folks from the forum who aren't even located in California). He said that he is getting lots of strange phone calls and now is confused on whom he should talk to. :doh:

What else do we really need to know? The whole incident was fully documented by the best device we currently have available.  I read the written report on this guy's website.  I saw the video.  They tell different stories to me.  On what other testimony need I rely?

No, the entire incident is not fully documented. We don't know details where the film was taken (is this right off a road? is it a five mile hike? is it remote? next to a home?). What time of day? What is the distance from witness to creature? What is the height of trees we can see in the film? Can we estimate height of the creature based on this data? Is there sound on the film? If so, what can I hear?

If there is more tape, then why not say so?

Who's asked? Is this guy up on what to say and not to say? Server space is limited, I would have just put the best stuff on myself. But again, an investigation would determine that.

I could care less about the exact location, sound, weather, elevation, vegetation, etc. The fact remains that I seriously doubt that the figure in this video is a sasquatch based on any number of things that are evident to me--minutia notwithstanding.  I looked at this video without prejudice and found it lacking, to say the least.  All the science in the world is very unlikely to change my mind.

People are more than welcome to have their opinion and base it on their guts. However, you can't have it both ways. Folks can't base their opinion on this film on how they feel about it, then turn around and complain that MOBigfoot is wrong for throwing out theories without back up data or that the scientific community is wrong for dismissing the Patterson/Gimlin film out of hand. They are all the same thing. They have no data to back up their opinion; it just struck them as a hoax when they saw it. Again, I am not saying it is wrong for anyone to do that...what I am saying is that one cannot hold someone else to a standard that they aren't upholding themselves. (And WC, you are always respectful and professional in your comments...and I for one appreciate that!).

My entire point, which I have been trying to state, but not so well... It's time for us to raise the bar. Using the scientific method to question and investigate a film, a sighting, a sound report, a belief that bigfoot is human...will do more to further this "discipline" than opinions ever will. And before anyone else says it, I don't care if science doesn't follow it's own methods in regards to evidence already presented to them about bigfoot....two wrongs don't make a right. AND, I completely reject the idea that we aren't a discipline.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Nov 21 2005, 11:35 AM

[jimf]

This gentleman submitted his report to the BFRO and TBRC. The TBRC then passed on the information to a group of independent researchers here in California and close to the film site, myself included, to follow up on. We have contacted this gentleman (along with many folks from the forum who aren't even located in California). He said that he is getting lots of strange phone calls and now is confused on whom he should talk to. 

Umm he posted his email and phone number publicly regarding the alleged video and sighting. What did he expect?

And before anyone else says it, I don't care if science doesn't follow it's own methods in regards to evidence already presented to them about bigfoot....two wrongs don't make a right. AND, I completely reject the idea that we aren't a discipline.

Could you please point out to me the link to scientifically interview a witness then? I can't seem to find it and the other police and FBI links I have regarding it don't seem to mention it's basis in science.

[Hairy Man]

jimf wrote:

Umm he posted his email and phone number publicly regarding the alleged video and sighting. What did he expect? 

This gentleman posted the video and phone number/email on his own webpage and sent the link to the BFRO and TBRC. It was Craig that posted the link on a public page. So no, I wouldn't assume that this gentlemen intended tons of phone calls from the general public.

jimf wrote:

Could you please point out to me the link to scientifically interview a witness then? I can't seem to find it and the other police and FBI links I have regarding it  don't seem to mention it's basis in science.

Police science and criminology are sciences that study criminal behavior. In bigfooting, we borrow their methods to enhance our discipline (just like we borrow archaeological methods, anthropological methods, etc.).

Main Entry: crim·i·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "kri-m&-'nä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian criminologia, from Latin crimin-, crimen + Italian -o- + -logia -logy
: the scientific study of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals , and of penal treatment.

Interviewing is scientific when it is done is a systematic way, with standardized protocols, methods, and questions, such as with this:

http://www.ncjrs.org/nij/eyewitness/procedures_intrv.html

Same is true of evidence collection. It's scientific because you are adhering to accepted standardized protocols and methods.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Nov 21 2005, 01:03 PM

[Volsquatch]

This gentleman posted the video and phone number/email on his own webpage and sent the link to the BFRO and TBRC.

Wasn't "his own webpage" accessable by the public?

It was Craig that posted the link on a public page.

Again, accessable by the public.

So no, I wouldn't assume that this gentlemen intended tons of phone calls from the general public.

I wouldn't assume that he intended tons of phone calls from the general public either, but like Jim, I can see where he shouldn't have been suprised that it happened, given the circumstances.

This post has been edited by Volsquatch: Nov 21 2005, 01:44 PM

[photowriter]

I've mentioned this in another thread, but I don't think it was mentioned in here. I think that it's not too "bigfoot" creatures (obviously faked in my opinion) that are even seen in this video. I think that it's one that is crossing to the left and "convieniently" disappears in almost the same spot (once the camera moves around to give the illusion of a search for the creature) that the other "bigfoot" emerges going the opposite direction.

[Saskwatcher]

The thing to do now is ....

Hikin' & Campin' !!!!

From Sonoma to Mendocino !!!


I'd sure love to be out there !!!

BIGFOOT RESEARCHERS....ASSEMBLE !!!!

[photowriter]

Just a quick follow-up. I don't want to jump on the "hate all new evidence" band-wagon, but this video just seems really exaggerated. After reading his website, I do think that someone should look at the whole video, however, I don't think it will yield what everyone hopes for. You should never dismiss evidence without looking at it first though. NEVER

[Roadrunner]

The link to the enhanced version can be found HERE

[Monkey's Uncle]

The link to the enhanced version can be found HERE

Thanks for the link.

One thing I noticed is right at the very end of the enhanced video the subject appears to quickly turn it's head towards the camera operator. It was difficult to pick up because the enhanced video ends right at that point. I then went back and looked at the original Quicktime version and noticed the same thing.

[FanofSquatch]

Exellent work on the enhanced version, thank you! It appears to me to actually be a sizeable creature broad shoulders and long arms. Do they swing too much? I don't know I am a little more convinced that this may be something. It's no blob and enjoyable to watch, even my wife who thinks I am a TOTAL idiot for beliving in BF stopped for a second look. Maybe someone should be unoficially be appointed to approach this guy and report back here with everything in an unbiased way.

[wambs]

The left arm swingly wildly appears like it might be broken or extra room in a suit?

[Saskwatcher]

My wife keeps repeating, "That's the second one,
and it looks like it has a broken arm !".

[jimf]

This gentleman posted the video and phone number/email on his own webpage and sent the link to the BFRO and TBRC. It was Craig that posted the link on a public page. So no, I wouldn't assume that this gentlemen intended tons of phone calls from the general public.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/marknelson/

This is where I first saw it,and it had nothing to do with Craig,the TBRC or the BFRO. Its a public site with the report ,the video clip and his name and email there for anyone who wants to use it.

Police science and criminology are sciences that study criminal behavior. In bigfooting, we borrow their methods to enhance our discipline (just like we borrow archaeological methods, anthropological methods, etc.).

I agree that you can use them as standards,but to say that a bigfoot investigation or interniew falls into the same perameters as a criminal investigation isn't so.
In interviewing a bigfoot witness, first off,no crime has been commited.
In a criminal investigation when interviewing the witness,there are several factors you're trying to determine aside from the veracity of the witness, such as motive, intent etc etc. the crime itself is an event that has already happened as a fact of the interview process. Thats not the case in a bigfoot witness interview, in as much you are trying to determine wether the event happened at all in the first place.

Even the subject of criminology itself as defined it isn't pertinent to the interview process of a witness. Criminology as a whole deals more with the overall aspects or a criminal investigation ( kinda says so right there in the definition you put up).

Wanting it to be scientific in value and it actually being scientific are two seperate things. And as you already know,what we have the most of as far a anecdotal evidence regarding sasquatch are those very witness interviews and sighting reports. And more than likely at the generous side of any estimate 50% or more of them are likely false or other misidentifications.

[Saskwatcher]

I say we go "C.S.I." on their asses !!!!

[billgreen2005big...]

hi roadrunner good evening your welcome for posting the link to enhanced version of this sasquatch filmfootage it does look interesting & authentic but more research needs to be done to it. wow i see the man is getting alot phone calls & emails from researchers here etc about his filmfootage well someone here should tell him to come on this forum to talk with us about his filmfootage. i hope ca sasquatch researchers continue to go the filmfootage location to update us on future sasquatch evidence etc. thanks bill. please keep me posted ok. this enhanced verison of the filmfootage realy helped my research. i hope we get to see more enhanced version of the whole filmfootage. :flagusa: :bf:

This post has been edited by billgreen2005bigfoot: Nov 21 2005, 04:25 PM

[blair Tucker]

Bill,
what ever became of the train hit bf and the tarp deal?

Hey Bill.
I'm was reading through an old post and got caught up in something else and never got around to what you found out.

[Maheekat]

I found this in northern SC

This post has been edited by Maheekat: Nov 21 2005, 05:18 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[Maheekat]

#2

This post has been edited by Maheekat: Nov 21 2005, 05:19 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[mspstomper]

WTH? Is he wearing a catchers mitt on that left hand? Looks just like what my son does when he is imitating Patty's walk.

[BigfootDad]

Well, Maheekat, no idea what's in those pictures...yet...
pity the person with dial up and re-size, will ya? (everybody, not just you! )
--oh, aerial photos...where in Northern Sonoma County? and what do you see in them?
--(almost an hour later...) BIG FOOT MTN!! right on!!
good find!! where is it??


yeah, I've emailed that guy and gotten a response, but have not made phone contact and don't believe that I will.

the zoom at the end is a red flag for me...it has "student film project" written all over it...but who knows. No information was submitted to any org (that I know of) providing location, time or an extended narrative. From the narrative on his website, there are a few things that I wonder about...where in Sonoma County do you find elk? and if it's towards the coast (west of Hwy 101), once you're in the hills, I think the forest is different...more conifers.

someone posted a map of the Mt. St. Helena area...that rock-faced peak at the start of the video doesn't look like any part of Mt St Helena that I've seen...it's been a long time. Mt St Helena looks like a mini-Mt Shasta....big wide dormant Cascade-type volcano...

Here's a pic....

This post has been edited by BigfootDad: Nov 21 2005, 06:00 PM

[Gigantofootecus]

I picked 4 known arbitrary points when the arm is fully extended backwards: top of the head, end of the shoulder, base of the neck, and to the end of the arm (excluding finger tips?). The arm to head ratio came to approx. 4.5 (likewise for the arm to 1/2 shoulder ratio). I measured these same points on my body and the 1/2 shoulder to head ratio was the same, but my arm to head ratio is approx. 2.8. Even with considerable fudging I couldn't get my ratio above 3, and with the image, below 4. I'd say this guy must have been wearing arm extensions. Gotta find the elbow.

[walkingcarpet]

Feel free to call me Kathy...but you kind of have me at a disadvantage, cause I don't know your name (I'll call you WC for short).

Oops. My real name is Paul--same as everyone else. Nice to meet you.

No, the entire incident is not fully documented.  We don't know details where the film was taken (is this right off a road?  is it a five mile hike?  is it remote? next to a home?).  What time of day?  What is the distance from witness to creature?  What is the height of trees we can see in the film?  Can we estimate height of the creature based on this data?  Is there sound on the film?  If so, what can I hear?

The incident itself is documented. The details might not be. It doesn't make much difference if it was right off a road or not--bigfoot are sighted near roads regularly. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the details are inconsequential, but they are not nearly as important as the figure itself. If the figure is suspect, the height of the trees or the time of day are of no real use. Estimating the height of the figure is just that--estimating. The whole figure isn't even visible, making accurate measurements virtually impossible.

There is sound. Not much, but you can hear the cameraman breathing and twigs and leaves breaking.

Folks can't base their opinion on this film on how they feel about it, then turn around and complain that MOBigfoot is wrong for throwing out theories without back up data or that the scientific community is wrong for dismissing the Patterson/Gimlin film out of hand.  They are all the same thing.

I'b be inclined to agree up to a point. Empirical evidence isn't neccesary in every case--there are degrees. One might theorize, for example that bigfoot can disappear at will. Since what we know of science tells us that this is physically impossible, we can safely dimiss this theory without further investigation.

(And WC, you are always respectful and professional in your comments...and I for one appreciate that!).

Well, thanks, but Ringo might disagree. And he'd be right.

My entire point, which I have been trying to state, but not so well... It's time for us to raise the bar. Using the scientific method to question and investigate a film, a sighting, a sound report, a belief that bigfoot is human...will do more to further this "discipline" than opinions ever will.

I agree. But investigation--especially in this field--requires one to use judgement and logic as well. There is more to science than weights and measures.

[BigfootDad]

Now, here's a photo of an area that the video location reminds me of....
Central California near Morro Bay, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, etc...

this is Bishop Peak, one of the "Seven Sisters" that run through San Luis Obispo County from the city of SLO to Morro Bay, CA (and famous Morro Rock)....from the internet.

the exposed rocks in the beginning of the video remind me of that area....

and, lastly, although it has been amazing, warm November weather, the grass around here is all gray, flattened down and dead looking. If this video was shot 9 days ago north of me, that's something that raises a red flag...
We'll see...only a site visit would tell...and I'll be glad to hear if that ever happens.

We can go on with our day-to-day...thank goodness this wasn't HYPE, HYPE, HYPE like Manitoba and then "let-down City"...
this is more like, "Oh, wow!"...then "let-down city"....

This post has been edited by BigfootDad: Nov 21 2005, 05:24 PM

[Maheekat]

Well, Maheekat, no idea what's in those pictures...yet...
pity the person with dial up and re-size, will ya? (everybody, not just you! )

oops, ok did it work?

[BigfootDad]

Well, Maheekat, no idea what's in those pictures...yet...
pity the person with dial up and re-size, will ya? (everybody, not just you!  )

oops, ok did it work?

YES!!
Much better!
thanks, man!!

[BigfootDad]

what's our closest road and town to Big Foot Mtn...?
great discovery!!

This post has been edited by BigfootDad: Nov 21 2005, 05:27 PM

[Maheekat]

I found this quite some time ago while looking into my experience....

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp...cfort+ross%7cca

[Roadrunner]

Now, here's a photo of an area that the video location reminds me of....
Central California near Morro Bay, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, etc...

this is Bishop Peak, one of the "Seven Sisters" that run through San Luis Obispo County from the city of SLO to Morro Bay, CA (and famous Morro Rock)....from the internet.

the exposed rocks in the beginning of the video remind me of that area....

Agreed.

It does look more similar in appearance than Mt St. Helena. Except the witness states the sighting took place in ''northern Sonoma county.'' According to google earth, that mountain is not in Sonoma county. I only made an educated guestimate as to the location, based on what little information there is.

[Hairy Man]

I agree that you can use them as standards, but to say that a bigfoot investigation or interniew falls into the same perameters as a criminal investigation isn't so. 

I'm not sure what you mean...you mean don't take the witness into an interview room and interrogate them for 14 hours straight? Correct, I wouldn't do that at all. But I would use police interviewing standards and methods, and treat the report as a criminal investigation, collecting as much data and evidence as possible, and conducting a professional and thorough interview.

In a criminal investigation when interviewing the witness,there are several factors you're trying to determine aside from the veracity of the witness, such as motive, intent etc etc. the crime itself is an event that  has already happened as a fact of the interview process. Thats not the case in a bigfoot witness interview, in as much you are trying to determine wether the event happened at all in the first place.

Motive and intent are important factors in any interview to determine if the witness is lying. Why wouldn't it be? In a criminal investigation, such as a murder, the only fact you have is a body. You have to investigate everything else (time, weapon, etc.). The fact in a bigfoot investigation is that someone submitted a report to be investigated.

Even the subject of criminology itself as  defined it isn't pertinent to the interview process of a witness. Criminology as a whole deals more with the overall aspects or a criminal investigation ( kinda says so right there in the definition you put up).

What? Criminology is the study of criminal acts and how to better investigate those crimes...interviewing is a HUGE aspect of that study. They are the ones who interview serial killers, etc. and give police tips on how to interview suspected killers correctly. If you mean that criminologists are not the ones doing day-to-day interviews, correct...but police follow the methods and standards developed by criminologists.

Wanting it to be scientific in value  and it actually being scientific are two seperate things. And as you already know,what we have the most of as far a anecdotal evidence regarding sasquatch are those very witness interviews and sighting reports. And more than likely at the generous side of any estimate 50% or more of them are likely false or other misidentifications.

Jim, this thread has nothing to do with criminology. What it was about was a film that is now out and folks saying it is or isn't fake based on nothing other than a 10 second video. That is poor science...regardless of any past sins of bigfootology. Bigfooting can be scientific if those doing it CHOSE to do so.

Yes, we probably do have a high threshold of false reports, and the only way that is ever going to change is if people start applying scientific methods to all aspects of research...including making comments about evidence not yet investigated. And in order to do that, folks have to have some standards and guides, and those are going to have to be borrowed from other disciplines, because there already developed. You asked how interviewing could be scientific, and I told you that it can be through the application of already developed methods and procedures. It's pretty clear what aspect of those methods apply to bigfooting and which don't. Someone needs to put it all together, but it’s there. But of course, if you don't find criminology useful in your interviewing, then don't use it.