I searched all over and couldn't find the former thread on this topic so I had to make a new one.

While reading the message boards today I came across this post on the "Sasquatch Northwest" board.

PEI video hoax
by M.K. Davis

Regarding the thread below about the PEI video. The gig's up on that one as far as I'm concerned. It's served as a distraction for a while now. It's a cheap suit. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If anyone is interested in why I'm of that opinion , email me and I will send you my evidence. M.K.

So who wants to be the one to e-mail him and find out why he says this?
LOL

Here is the link if anyone wants to go read it and send him an e-mail.
Sasquatch Northwest

Here's the link to the old topic:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=51&st=0

If M.K. has real evidence or analysis to support his/her claim, I invite him/her to post it. The fact the he/she chooses not to pretty much tells me all I need to know...

[EDIT] Fixed the link. - Bip

Are you having trouble identifying the sexes Bipto! LOL

Just kidding....M.K. Davis is a he. I have heard him talk on paltalk.
He is a "self proclaimed?" expert on using some "green" technique on photographs to see if they are genuine or faked. He has spent a lot of time studying the Patterson film. I am not sure I agree with him on his analyses though.

Okeydoke sent an e-mail to him and posted a response on the board.my question in the email was that why,if he had evidence that it was a hoax why doesn't he post it for everyone to see?I would.if for know other reason so that other researchers if they accepted the evidence would know not to waste any time on it.but maybe thats just me?

Pardon my ignorance guys
but what is the "PEI" Video?

Hey Streamrunner!

That would be the Prince Edward Island video...

Go take a look. 8)

{edit} Jim, I read your post and I posted as well asking him to post it on the message board so everyone could see. :wink:

Streamrunner, go check out our earlier thread. It's got some good stuff in it including some marvelous video analysis by yours truly! :wink:

I really dislike anyone who calls themselves an 'Expert'.

As someone who gives evidence in court as an 'Expert Witness' a ozen times a year, I dislike the phrase even more

I always tell people that Experts built the Titanic, and an Amature built the Ark !

I couldn't agree more Paul. That is why I slipped that "self-proclaimed" in there! LOL
However, I haven't heard him call himself an expert, but I have heard others do it and flock to him with photos like he is one and can make or break a photo. :roll:

You stole my phrase because I always use that one too! I heard it on a movie once and it has stuck with me ever since. I almost used that on my signature. I might still yet!

Glad to hear I am not the only one who doesn't like "experts".

My definition of expert:
Ex - meaning "has been"
Spurt - meaning "a drip under pressure"

Exspurt, change the spelling to expert and keep the meaning.

Expert = a has been drip under pressure!

LMBO @ U.........

"Hello Jim , How are you? I'm not really fishing , however , I think that this is quite interesting. Synthetic fibers that have been dyed brown , especially the cheaper fibers , have as a base coat , the color green. Then other layers of color are added to get the desired brown. When this cheap fiber is photographed in brilliant sunshine , often the green undercoat , will bleed through. This would be very faint and maybe undetectable to the eye. Good imaging programs , however , often contain a feature called " Hue and Saturation." This feature is designed to restore color to very faded color photographs. This feature of the program is sensitive enough to pick up the green . The computer can then be asked to saturate the subject with color. This does not add , or take away color. It takes the color that is there and intensifies it. The attatched photo that I'm sending , is a comparison. With my program , I can target just the areas I want to be saturated with color. Both subjects are photographed in brilliant sunshine. PEI on left, Patterson animal on right. The green on the PEI subject is the area where the sun shines directly on the fur. The blue is where shadow is cast on the subject. There is a clear line of demarcation. No natural fur will show up as green. This is synthetic fur of a cheap nature. The Patterson animal , however , shows no inclination toward green. Look at the PEI photo yourself , not this one but an unenhanced one. Brighten it up a bit and you can see the green without saturation. This test is not 100%. Some synthetics may slip through. But if the subject does appear homogenously green , it's a cinch that it's not organic hair. This only works for brown colors , and then , only in brilliant sunshine. I encourage you to try it yourself. Thanks, M.K."
This is what I got from M.K.Davis regarding the pei video I don't know if the following will work or not so I'll give it a try .ok can't get the enclosed photot to work(better reread that chapter in HTML for dummies)but I did notice something while looking at the top of the photo just to add a little fire to the conversation its listed as Beckjord at the top of the enclosure isn't that interesting. the other problem thet I have is the statement of working only in direct sunlight the pei photo is in the denser woods in a clearing and is a black object moving rapidly,Patty is on a sandbar at a sunny time of the day there are more discrepancies but you'll see them if you compare the 2.i.e. film type etc.Of course personally the fact that Mr.beckjord says its fake is enough for me to believe its real. 8)

(uh oh part II just came up. :roll: ) Jim, how are you? The photo I'm sending you is color saturated. You will notice that the bottom of the subject is green and the top is blue. In a good imaging program there is a feature called " Hue and Saturation." This is designed to restore colors to a very faded photograph. This part of the program is extremely sensitive to color.
When artificial fibers are dyed brown , they are first given a layer of green as a basecoat. Then other colors are overlain until the desired brown is attained. When cheap fiber is photographed in brilliant sunshine , often the result is that the green will bleed through. A sensitive program will pick it up , and it can then be saturated to intensify the color. The bottom of the PEI subject is being hit by direct sunlight. The top is in shadow. The bottom is green. Natural hair will not turn green this way , as evidenced by the Patterson photo on the right. Both subjects were selectively saturated with color. The Patterson animal showed no inclination to turn green , even though the saturation was turned all the way up. Not so for the PEI subject. You can see green on it without saturation. All you have to do is brighten it up a bit. I encourage you to try it yourself. This only works with brown, and then, only in brilliant sunlight. It's not a hundred percent as some synthetics might slip through , but if the subject shows significant green , then it is highly likely to be fake. Thanks for your attention , M.K.Davis

Ok, Jim, I got an e-mail just like you got, word for word. He attached a photo comparison of patty and the pei creature. I tried to upload the photo to photoisland so I could post it here, but their upload feature is not working this morning. So I am going to just e-mail it to Bipto.

Velly intelesting. Can't wait to see them.

Well, I can't comment on the analysis stuff, but here's the photo...



Kinda sounds like mumbo-jumbo, but I'm no expert in photo analysis.

{edit} Now that I look at it, the colors (especially on Patty) look "sprayed on". Hmmm...

I agree, Bipto. Why isn't the full image saturated? If he was doing it as he claimed to be, the background and foreground would also be saturated. Hmmm...

Beckjord? Who's he, the one armed man?

Ok, here is my take.
I took the original PEI pictures to my photo program. No matter what I did, I could not get that creature to turn blue or green, nothing but black..LOL
Maybe I am not doing something just like he did or maybe my program doesn't have the feature his had.

Now what I see wrong with this analysis is this. The photo shows no shadows of the man running, of the trees or of the creature itself. Nor does it show a shadow across its back.
Now this leads me to believe that the sun was either at high noon (which would mean there wouldn't have been a shadow across the back and sun shining on its side below) or the sky was overcast and not shining or reflecting at all. Does anyone know what time this was taken? That might help. It would help us to place the shadows where they should be.

I am in a mind to think that the sky was overcast though and therefore was not casting shadows because it doesn't appear to be a very bright day in the photos.
Anyway, I could sure see someone learning to walk like Patty before I could see someone learning to run on all fours or bent forward as fast as the thing on PEI is running in the video.
I still say it remains to be seen. While I don't think a large population of creatures could exist on PEI, I could see where a small group could.

Then again, I could be entirely wrong.

Beckjord = EB = #####

Yea Jim, Erik has been having a fit for a long time now saying that M.K. stole that picture from his website. Apparently he did! LOL
He probably leaves the "Beckjord" up top to irritate EB further. :roll:

I don't know what time of day the video was shot, but this frame shows the most sky:



It's possible that the sky was washed out by the camera, but it certainly appears overcast to me. Not too cloudy, but not better than overcast...

It looks like a late evening shot to me....like the sun is gradually fadding..

In any case, how could the sun even if it is shining (which I doubt) be shining on the bottom of the creature and not the top? The only way this could be is if the creature's back were partially obscured by overhanging limbs or blocked by the top of trees and the sun was coming from behind the person filming. But there are no limbs or trees between the person filming and the creature. Makes no sense, it's just not possible! There are no shadows cast by anything in that photo! Am I missing something? Help me somebody!

Sounds "Fishy" to me
I would have to see what all of you are seeing to be of much help... looks like you are covering lots of angles here
Thanks for the references Bipto, and filling me in Arky.
If its overcast, no shadows, regarding brighter light on different areas
of the subject matter .... ?????

I saw this video a little while ago, and my immediate reaction was:

I don't buy this ! - the whole thing has a 'staged' feel to it.

If someone really has some decent evidence, I'd love to see it - in the meantime, I'm puttin ghtis one to the back of the drawer where it belongs.

I know this guy from a while back. He's the one who "analyses" frames from the Patterson film and then claims to be able to resolve objects that are so small they aren't even within the bounds of resolution of the original film emulsion. The tools he uses are suspect at best (I've never heard of the photo imaging package) and he seems to have little or no understanding of the effects of compression. The Patterson frames he "analysed" were low resolution JPGs copied from various web sites.

I've got an mpeg copy of the PEI video, which is, as far as I know, all that's ever been released. The video is 320 x 240 pixels -- far too small for any worthwhile or meaningful analysis.

Roger

I think Roger is on to something here.

Here's a link to the software that was used for this "enhancement". PhotoImpact

For $90 it is definitely not a high end photo enhancement and graphics package! Probably no better (if even) than Adobe's Photoshop or JASC's PaintshopPro.

As to whether or not the video is fake, I don't have an opinion as I have yet to be able to get the damned thing to play on my PC for some reason. I get the audio but no video. Oh well.

I had the same problem with the one on the website Fishy, I had Ranshirl mail it to me and it played fine. I can send it to you and you can try it if you like.

I Keep thinking Gorilla everytime I see it.the way it moves would be very hard for a person to imitate at that speed(at least I can't and I've tried )plus trhow in trying to do it in a costume and you've got someone who should try out for one of the strange abilities tv shows.

Photoshop costs $600 so, um, no, it ain't no Photoshop!


My thoughts exactly. Too fast. Too fluid. Too natural. I have a hard time thinking someone without a costume could run as well as the figure in the video does.

Fish, do you have QuickTime installed? I have a QT version of it...

I tried out the method he used for part of his PGF "analysis" (the one that's supposed to show scars and suchlike) in Photoshop 4 and guess what -- no scars, nothing, it's not reproducible. Not that that was a great surprise :-)

Roger

NO SH*T?! Jeez!!!

I got Adobe Photoshop 6 for nuthin' but a little aggravation and some file sharing. :wink:

edonkey2000.com

[edit] Forgot to add, yeah I've got QT but for some strange reason that one just doesn't want to play on it.

I just finished playing with it in photoshop.inconclusive at best.I also for a comparison ran 2 pictures of my kids one at the beach in full sunlight and one in a park under the shade of trees similar results except for the fact that it makes the one in the park look splotchy all over and not just in one specific area? still trying to upload it to here but no luck so far.

Wouldn't it be funny if, after your analysis, you discovered that your children were actually monkeys in kid costumes!

Sometimes I think mine is...

If not by their looks,then by their actions I think they may be at that.At least I'm sure of their existence(either that or I step on alot of phantom dinosaur toys )

Oh yeah !! I remember this farcical nonsense of a video now ...
I didnt need any photoshop thingy ... just a slow running PC

Watch CAREFULLY, as our friend prances out of the woods, and then the "animal" comes into view .. our prancing friend starts to turn around BEFORE the camera operator says anything (clue or red flag #1)

The cam remains steady (!!!) and the vocal reaction of the cam operator is one of surprise and shock (red flag #2) soooo not the reaction of an amatuer camera operator.

The "animal" runs to the area where the prancing boy came from (red flag #3) this IS NOT sasquatch behavior, if it were a sassi, it would have stayed where it could watch, not run thru the film.

It just looks too rehearsed, .. or rather,.. not rehearsed enough

Hoax, .. and a poor one at that ... the only Bad Hoax Video, that i can think of, that would beat it out for "Worst hoax video" , would be "Cat Chaser", where a dude in a monkey suit chases a cat around a pumphouse THAT was funny (only because of the actions of the dude, not that it was chasin a cat, i love cats *legal disclaimer* )

Well Rob I can explain away the red flag number one.

The "prancer" as you referred to him, was supposedly in an amateur movie and "bad guys" were going to be put in later chasing the individual, the prancer was looking over his right shoulder because that is the area the bad guys were to be put in and running after him. If you notice, he is not looking over his left shoulder, which is where the "animal" came from.

Also, about bigfoot behavior. I have often heard of them drawn to places where humans had just been, out of curiosity. And chances are if that is a bigfoot, then it knew there were only 2 humans there, because it had already been watching and knew there were no longer people in the area it ran to as it had just watched them leave. It is quite possible it thought they might have seen it due to the fact the man was running, in which case, no need to hide yourself any longer. If indeed it went quadruped and was a bigfoot, then it makes sense that it did that in order to duck the view and any possible gunfire from the two individuals.

And last but not least, the camera was not held steady once the operator realized he had just seen something unusual, it became very unsteady at that time. I would likely have reacted the same way as sometimes it hits me after the fact of what I just saw. Total shock comes first.

Now if indeed you would like to explain away what "else" it could have been feel free. I am at a loss. I find it difficult to believe a human can assume that posture and run with such fluid movements and speed the subject used, but that's me. And there are no bears on Prince Edward Island either....soooooo.....explain that.

Very well said Arkansan....... :wink:

*she tasks me .. she tasks me and i shall have her !!* (star trek thing, sorry)

OK, Like i said, these guys are Amatuer movie makers ... how were they going to "insert" the bad guys??? Most amatuers will do shots and splice, if they have a splicer, or film scenes in sequence. They cant dub in the bad guys. And if they CAN dub in something, did they dub in the animal ?? hmmmmmmm. :wink:

The only clip i saw of this was a steaming video feed ... low res and not high quality. I couldnt see any detail of the animal, just a dark blob, apparentlly on all fours ... for all i know it could have been one of the guys dog.

"There are no bears on Prince Edward Island" ... well, there arent "supposed" to be cougars in Delaware or the Eastern Shore of Maryland , or in Minnesota or Michigan ... yet, there are. It "could" have been a bear. It "could" have been a dog. It "could " have been a guy in a suit. It "could " have been a sasquatch. We find animals were they "arent supposed" to be, all the darned time !!!


I just find the clip to be highly suspect. The reactions of the camera man, and running boy seem unnatural to me. The cam was too steady during the run-thru, and got shakey afterwards ... he had said "what the *** ??" and stayed steady until the animal went into the woods ... and i still say the running boy turned before the cam op said anything ....

my vote - hoax.

And its OK Arkan ,, i still luv ya youse an mese thinks alot alike . guess it comes frm walkin the tiers :wink:

Rob,

Wrath of Khan reference! Nice one. Did you get the new DVD yet? That's still the best movie...

Sorry, back to business.

Your points about the guy's head turning. He is turing his head away from the direction the figure eventually emerges. Also, I think they weren't going to insert them digitally, just cross cut to another shot of the bad guys. Anywho, looking at the video again, the cameraman's reactions don't seem too weird. He does react very quickly to the figure emerging from the woods, but then again the figure emerges directly behind his running actor. One could logically assume he'd see it right away based on it's position relative to the action in the shot.

If you have QuickTime, I can email you a copy of the video. It's 320 x 240 and weighs in at 3.4 MB. I'd host it on my server and let you download it, but I'm unsure of the copyright issues in doing that. You can also download it from this page, but you'll notice it isn't among very good company!

After looking at this thing, like, a hundred times I am now of the opinion that it's not a guy in suit. As Ark said, very fluid motion, very fast, probably very hard for a person to do. Check out our original thread on this one. There are some still images on the second page with some rudimentary 'analysis' of the images.

Is it a bigfoot? I think so. Could be a gorilla. Whatever it is, it isn't supposed to be there...

Also Rob, (yea I wuv you too.. :roll: ) LOL, the subject is not on all fours the entire time, it emerges from the woodline in what appears to be a bipedal position and then hits all fours and then as it reaches the woods, it is definitely on 2 legs again. I have never seen a dog able to do that and it would be more unusual for a bear to do that than it would to just accept that it might be a bigfoot in the film. You should spend some time really looking at the video and speed it up and slow it down and pause frame it, that is what I did. If you really do, you will find it puzzling at best. :wink:

Found this in the book "mysterious canada"by john robert Colombo about the Traverspine Gorillas. May be unrelated but interesting nonetheless. Labrador,New Foundland near goose bay apparently in 1913 there were reports of ape like things that ran on both all fours and on two legs.killed dogs and uprooted rotten logs apparently searching for grubs.there were supposedly two of them one larger than the other(male and female ?) I'm searching right now to see if I can find the story somewhere on the web so I can post a link to it.

LOL @ Bipto.....

I agree with Bipto and Arky, it looks ligit to me, cause I also have the video and it looks like it gets to the edge of the woods and then stands on the hind legs. I slowed it down to look too and that is when I seen it get up at the edge of the woods.

I looked at it again in slow motion.....the subject is so dark and hard to see...but it doesn't look very big even when standing up.....

I still think it looks legit to me. The actor is looking over his shoulder to the right as a part of the "plot", nothing too suspicious there. The cameraman's reactions seem unrehearsed and genuine. His reaction by running after the dark figure is typical of a younger person..."leap before you look". If the intent by running after it was to catch another fleeting glimpse, then where is the payoff? That's probably where some good sense kicked in... and he ended the pursuit. The dark figure running across the field had very fluid and very speedy movements. The dark figure, to me anyway, appears to run in a stooped position...not necessarily on all fours...then stands and slows upon reaching the trees. I surmise a juvenile Bigfoot just having some wholesome fun on a summer afternoon.

Scene-stealer!

Reminds me of my brother when he was a kid - he'd show up whenever there was a news crew at our school, claiming to see the entire thing (fire, car accident) just to get on camera. 8)

Great thread guys fantastic analysis of this film. I'm going to see what I can do with my copy of photoshop.

-Ray

I think one of the best things to do in regards to checking out this footage is to get more on their story.

What is the movie about? what was the scene about? why was that location chosen over a location closer to civilization if ony a small scene was to be made of a guy running in the woods?

Is this film finished and can we verify that it in fact was finished or not? It sure would be interesting if there were nothing more to all this other than the alleged BF footage. Wonder if the actual story ever checked out.

Could shed some light on this. I personally think if nothing turns up about the film other than the "BF" footage, I would chalk it up as a candidate for a hoax. Then again I think the Patterson footage is BS too.

SkunkHunter

sorry to bump this up so long after the fact. (almost a year later) But since it happened on my island I find it terribly interesting.
I notice that you can't link to the original thread though. Is it gone?

I know my last post said that I thought the Paterson footage was BS. But now I feel it may be legit. The Patterson footage, not the PIE footage.

My previous post was about a year old.

i'd like to see this too,

bipto, does your offer of emailing it still stand?

gael