Ah...sorry, I see someone has already posted about this.



Anyone know anything more about this? Or know anyone at the this foundation?

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=80449

This is being discussed in the General Discusion area too. Here's the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSY2r993Mw

Personally, I find the tone of the cameraman's voice to be different from my expectation of someone looking at a Yeti for the first time. But, that's just my opinion. I'd like to hear what others think.

most everyone is going to shake a camera, however the shake appears exagerated.
Walk didnt appear 'normal'. Hard to describe what normal would be for a yeti.
Instead of being one with it's surroundings it sure was walking around slow, hi stepping knee with short stride.
No.. don't think so.

The head sits far too high on the shoulders. Not BF-like at all. It is clearly evident that a man is posing, even though the shaking of the camera and out-of-focus trick is well used here to cast uncertainty and therefore suggest the possibility of it being a real croq mitaine.
Dudlow

Well, let's just say that I agree it is probably a hoax. I've captured a frame from the video and enhanced it as much as I could. I know what I see in it. What do you see?Click to view attachment

My Uncle Harry, complete with cane

lol. I have an uncle like that too! Actually, the cane is really the dark side of a boulder. It is just steadying itself as it steps up to higher ground. "It"? I meant "he". Well, anyway, I think it looks like a buddy of the cameraman's in some sort of bulky "half-costume". Anybody care to pick out parts? (clothing, body parts, etc. or anything else that doesn't fit the BF "profile"? It'd be nice to have confirmation of some kind that it looks the same to someone else.

I agree, but, like most pics, just too blurry to make out

This is obviously a hoax. I can't believe that this is even discussed here!

It sure comes off as a hoax to me.

I have to agree with ya. I have no idea what the guy was saying, but he didn't sound excited or surprised at all. Kind of a strange way to act the first time you are laying eyes upon a mythological creature that supposedly doesn't exist. . .That being said, it just flat out looks like a hoax.

Gotta admit, there's been worse ones posted here!

OK... guess I will say it. Thats enhanced? Sorry but it looks worse then the original. Enhancement is suppose to add clarity of detail in otherwise less than optimum originals. Did you use a cell phone on the uTube screen or what?

Here I used my cell phone camera on the uTube screen and it looks nothing like yours. In fact yours kind of looks like the others below it from "Robot Monster"

By the way... here is also one that has drawn attention with skeptics in comparing to the PG Film.

Yup. That's enhanced. Enhancement of a photo as a whole does not always yield results like we'd like it to but a little time spent looking at a photo can yield clues. This particular enhancement, while not yielding a kodak moment, I thought, did reveal some clues. To me, it revealed a very human form wearing a loose fitting poncho type garment, a hat and "mukluck" type boots or something like it. I admit, I didn't spend a large amount of time on it. I appreciate the criticism though and want to remind you that we don't all always see the same thing. Thanks.
BTW, love your pics! I may have even seen that movie with the outer space monster or whatever it is.

OK, I've mentioned this before in the other thread...

There are actually two yetii in that film, After panning away from the first one they find the second one ( although the scene looks similar, look at the difference in the rocks). Does anyone else see this or am I drinking the wrong Kool-Aid?

I think he goes back to the same subject.

Why do people think this is a Yeti rather than a human? I see no identifiable features. Not that it can't be a Yeti but the odds are not in the Yeti's favor. There are almost 7 billion of us walking around.

If you think so. But I don't. I think the image you posted has been degraded with artifacts imposed.

OK point taken, but one or two UWO's(unidentified walking objects)

Hi DDA!
Listen, I really do appreciate your criticism. I really did like the pics you posted. Very funny! I am willing to agree to disagree about my pic. But first let me try one last time to convince you. If it doesn't work, well then we are of a difference of opinion. I went back and looked at the original frame again and I really feel that I haven't imposed any artifacts and that I did bring out a little more detail. Now remember, the footage had alot of problems to begin with so there really wasn't much that I could do with it. I tried and well, sometimes it doesn't work. I think, this time, it did. Please feel free to disagree, but, please explain why. If you can convince me, then maybe I can learn to do better. Ok? Here goes. Picture #1 is 21 sec. into the footage and has absolutely nothing done to it yet. Not a thing.
Click to view attachment

Pic #2 is the version that I posted earlier.
Click to view attachment

Now, don't just look a the thumbnails here. Click on the one to enlarge and really LOOK at it. This pic I had adjusted, brightness, contrast, sharpness and I cropped it. That is all that I did. If it seemed to be loosing any of it's outline, I backed off. I generally make these adjustments in small increments until I feel it can not be done without loss of image data. You may be right, but I still disagree. It isn't an exact science but I try my hardest. So, check it out and let me know. Take care and I look forward to your post.

Homersquatch.

OK... The object to the left of the subject that now looks like a walking stick was just a shadow on a boulder. The boulder is gone but that shadow is now part of the subject. The dark area on its right looks to be behind the subject and not part of it as well, unless you think it might be carrying a dark baseball glove. The head looks to be out of proportion to the width of the body,but not in my capture. Why is that? If you grant these observations then the other details you think you are seeing might also be nothing but pixel blur and background blending. Upping the contrast just lowers the shadow values and increases the whites. Some people think that it helps separate a subject from the back ground clutter but in fact what it does is bring subtly different tonal ranges closer together where the human eye then further blends them with pattern recognition reasoning.

Of course we chose two different capture points but I don't see any of the problems I am describing in yours with the one I posted below. The only thing I see in it that is unusual is a waistline bulge that maybe should not be there. I don't see a cape on its right whereas in your interpretation it looks more like one than anything else, with the walking stick enhancing the effect of an out of focus Obwan Kanobe figure.

Hey DDA! Thanks for a well thought out response. Ok, first I will say that I did not think the shadow on the boulder was a walking stick and that seems pretty obvious with the comparison to the original. As far as the dark area to the right of the subject, it very well could be a flap of a coat (jacket, shirt, piece of costume, whatever) due to the position of the figure (right arm stretched out to the side, right leg stepping up) as well as motion (remember we are dealing with a video of a figure in motion, not a collection of stills of a figure posing). As far as that dark area being behind the figure, I don't see any of the myriad of boulders casting such strong shadows as you would assume that is. The head in my pic is turn somewhat to the right, offering a profile that is not evident in yours. This profile could include a different shape than the head viewed straight on as well as something that the figure may be wearing on the head. Some details that you may have missed that are also not evident in your photo: a hard corner on the shoulder, indicative of a heavy outer garment made of natural materials (think of your suit coat, or denim work coat), a hard line delineating the scalp area from the facial area with a faint but definitive line that runs ACROSS the chin area (indicative of a mask) as well as faint facial features that include too-round eyes (maybe eye holes in a mask). Also a difined line seperating the legs (especially the top of the thight of the leg that is stepping up but continues across the body) from the torso (think bottom seam of a outer garment). Not to mention, a smoothness to the thigh that is not evident anywhere else. Some of these can also be discerned from looking closely at the "before" picture. To be honest, I don't think is was fair of you to bring another pic into the equation, expecially one that had less to offer to begin with. I do understand how contrast works and I understand how it works in conjunction to adjusting brightness. However, I also understand that the original picture showed, at least faintly, almost all of these details. I am also aware of how our brains will try to restore order to the seemingly chaotic and that it does its share towards progating "blobsquatch" pictures. This does not make me immune to it but I am aware of this when I work on a pic. This is why I always ask the forum to let me know if they see it too. I also know that our egos will prevent us from changing our minds or in other ways, acquiescing when we strongly feel we are correct. I do not claim to be any kind of photo guru or anything so I hope it is not a factor with me. Sorry this is so long but I had alot to address here. To cap it off, I agree to disagree and am quite baffled by the venom that I sense in your posts. Or is it sarcasm? Well, anyway, I do agree with the strange bulge in the waistline. Another piece to the puzzle.

Hi there yourself.

QUOTE

Ok, first I will say that I did not think the shadow on the boulder was a walking stick and that seems pretty obvious with the comparison to the original. As far as the dark area to the right of the subject, it very well could be a flap of a coat (jacket, shirt, piece of costume, whatever) due to the position of the figure (right arm stretched out to the side, right leg stepping up) as well as motion (remember we are dealing with a video of a figure in motion, not a collection of stills of a figure posing). As far as that dark area being behind the figure, I don't see any of the myriad of boulders casting such strong shadows as you would assume that is. The head in my pic is turn somewhat to the right, offering a profile that is not evident in yours. This profile could include a different shape than the head viewed straight on as well as something that the figure may be wearing on the head.

I understand what you are pointing out, but please note as you state so yourself that this is a video and not a still. Looking through the linked uTube posted video I only found one image grab that looked like or contained the items you are pointing out (actually the one you choose). Below I grabbed three more images and have to wonder if the objects you are seeing in the one you posted is nothing more than artifacts since these others look quite normal in comparison. The images I am posting seem to be of better quality (not because of anything I have done, just that the camera settled down for a bit) and they do not show the details you are seeing, in my mind at least.

QUOTE

Some details that you may have missed that are also not evident in your photo: a hard corner on the shoulder, indicative of a heavy outer garment made of natural materials (think of your suit coat, or denim work coat), a hard line delineating the scalp area from the facial area with a faint but definitive line that runs ACROSS the chin area (indicative of a mask) as well as faint facial features that include too-round eyes (maybe eye holes in a mask). Also a difined line seperating the legs (especially the top of the thight of the leg that is stepping up but continues across the body) from the torso (think bottom seam of a outer garment). Not to mention, a smoothness to the thigh that is not evident anywhere else. Some of these can also be discerned from looking closely at the "before" picture.

It is always fail safe to look at these types of images as if they are something quite common and only appear to be of something unknown. I am not saying this video shows anything other than an upright walking, two legged dark humanoid shaped form in a boulder field. On the other hand I am not pointing out things I think I am seeing, because the quality is just not there. If edges of clothes was discernible in this poor quality image what do you see in the PG film?

QUOTE

To be honest, I don't think is was fair of you to bring another pic into the equation, expecially one that had less to offer to begin with.

Maybe, but then again it isn't quite fair to judge the video from that one inferior quality grab.



Same here which is why I try to refrain from it. I do enjoy working on the images but not on identifying what they contain unless absolutely obvious.

QUOTE

I also know that our egos will prevent us from changing our minds or in other ways, acquiescing when we strongly feel we are correct. I do not claim to be any kind of photo guru or anything so I hope it is not a factor with me. Sorry this is so long but I had alot to address here. To cap it off, I agree to disagree and am quite baffled by the venom that I sense in your posts. Or is it sarcasm? Well, anyway, I do agree with the strange bulge in the waistline. Another piece to the puzzle.

My original comment was on the quality of the image posted, it had nothing to do with an ego based commentary on what the image contained. If you are referring to the written words under my avatar, I did not put them there, nor ask for them to be put there. In reality it should have read something more like Plaster Pattern Expert (not that I like the last word either). Agreeing to disagree is perfectly fine and I am truly sorry if my posts conveyed hints of sarcasm or appeared venomous. They were not intended to.

Well, then I am sorry also. Disagreeing on things is an important part of this forum, I think and I really do welcome criticism. You obviously are knowledgable and I hope we can converse here again. If I took your post the wrong way, well, it's hard to understand if someone is being sarcastic or not by reading the words that they type and not hearing the inflection in their voice. I hope there are no hard feelings. I still believe it is a hoax, just for the record.

I think the subject in the video moves with too unsure of footing through the rocks, only to then seek a hiding place to observe the videographer from in a white boulder field with it being dark colored. Of course, there could just be stupid yeti's out there I guess, but I agree. This appears to just be just a human playing a little mysterious subterfuge with a video camera at the limiting range of resolution and claiming it to be otherwise. You would think that there would certainly be more video taken after this what with the trackway. BTW, this type of hesitant movement is what I would of expected to see in the Memorial Day video, if in fact it were a hoax. PG subject didn't hesitate.

Ok, DDA (and anyone else), ok. I'm afraid that I must concede on one of your points about this photo, damndirtyape. Part of the dark area (circled in red) is shadow on a boulder next to and slightly behind the figure. There. I said it. BUT, for the record, although this point does make me disregard some of the outline of the figure; I still stand by what I believe are clues that imply a hoax. I think we are already in agreement that it is, most likely, a hoax so; I won't rehash the debate any more than that. In my defense, when I worked on this, I did not have the video software that I have gotten since and was unable to go through it frame by frame. The pics that you posted convinced me to go back for a second look with the new software and that's when I spotted that little shady area merging with the figures right arm. So, no flap of a coat as I had thought it was. Anyway, DDA, if you have free time sometime, I wonder if you would be so kind as to check out some of the other pics that I've posted here and PM me your impressions. Live and learn right? Thanks.
Click to view attachment
BTW, the black line next to the red circle is where I believe the figure's elbow to be, for clarity's sake.

The subject mills about like he is a geologist. If you ever went hiking with a geologist, that's how they hike. Looks that way to me anyway. They move with that same sort of purpose until they find something. Takes forever to get to point B.