Hello M.K-primateer,


I was hoping you might view this area with the arrow with your enhancing techniques.I have been plagued with this figure for some time now and all i get is flack about it.That part doesnt bother me.What does is that although I see a possible saquatch and a younger one in its arms , I also see just random branches and the like fooling my eye.Perhaps you can put an end to my wonderment.Thanks

thephaige

Is this what you are seeing?

IN a word YES

This is the area way blown up to show the shape.This is a big contravercy.I just want to see primateers overlapping image technique to help shut me up about this.

That is the best example of a Blobsquatch I can ever remember seeing. It sure does look like sun light shining on hair to me. And the shape of it sure sort of match's the back of patty. That could very well be the young one that people have talked about for years in the patty film. But this is the first time I remember anyone pointing it out as nicely as you have.
So thanks great post :-)

I myself have been thinking how crazy people were for see'ing something in there.....untill now. I cant say for sure that is another BF, but now i do see something.

Nice to have some acknowlegment after all this time.I will Like it when i see primateers analysis if he were so gracious to look at this. If it ends up being nothing I will be relieved.But if it ends up being something it can only prove beyond a shadow that this footage is real. Even if you believe already this will shut the door for those with even a tinge of scepticism because who would bring 2 Bigfoot suits out there. Wait and see I guess.

i am for saying there is another one there good eye i have never had this brought to my attention. boy the man in the suit will crap himself saying all along how he helped the hoax when all along he helped prove the existance.he wqas walking straight to a family unit of the big man er woman
just goes to show onc again the film isnt fake as this ois the best i have seen yet to say well u better check ur self before lieing about the suit. well man in the suit what do u sat now?

Here is something else to think about, when you see one there are usually others! That blob also has the same coloring? Fur?

Who knows? It would not be out of the question to have more than one individual at the scene nor be filmed in the background. The background would have to be stabilized to see if this or any-other likely shape moves independently of the camera.

I'm starting to think the head area is too small? Good job! and I think I see a stick across the chest area...

Ok, check this out if you haven't already.. http://www.trueseekers.org/patterson.html

COOL

Now I dont feel like im a crazy person anymore.

Of cource Id be affraid to circle anything in red

Hmmm in that link is a downloadable of one of the 3rd party copies Patt/Grim footage from before Legend Meets Science's clean version.

I dont think all these newer discoveries could be realised with that footage being its poor condition.

I believe it to be a large fallen log. If you follow the the edge of the object diagonally on the left side, you will see that it continues past a tree. Also, compair the size of the object with Patty , you will see that they are about the same size in the two dimensional photogragh. Considering the distance between the two objects, the far object would possibly two to three times the size of Patty .

My 2 cents.

Leemon

I like your second argument concerning the relative size. I don't really see the fallen tree though.

The lower portion of the log is some what concealed by the high grass, and other vegetation.

Oh good god, not again...

Tried a gif animation to see if there is movement

Im not sure it will show large enough but here it goes.

This is 5 different frames at different points of being visual in the film.

Slowed down some

what would be the left arm appears to move

You seeing an arm moving is most likely an artifact created by the shifting images. I do not see a living creature there, only a .

Just say no.

I think we're jonzin' for revatex's photos!

Bloblog?

Blobwood?

Blobtree?

Blobouflage?

Counselor, any of those names would do.

I think the GIF was a good idea, and that it effecitvely proved that there is nothing there.
I see no movement not attributable to the sifting of frames.....not even a hind of movement of the "body".
It's an amalgamation of background noise, IMHO.

I guess I should say do I like the GIF images, but they do not reveal anything.

if the one in the back ground was a male he could be large enough to look clost to the size of patty also all other logs and trees r of the lighter white bark not the dark pine until u get well into the forrest.i think it is a nother one i may be wrong and may be wanting to believe but i do. i would like to see the other footage of this area after the film to see a compairson to see if there is a loge here. it would have to be a short time after the PG film this would provide us with an answer

Go pull out your LMS DVD and watch it again! View the Patterson footage at the end of the DVD and watch it zoomed in and frame by frame and you will realize it's nothing more then "Foliage"!!! Don't waste my time!

Next!

"Relax don't do it!"

Your wrong to dismiss it as just foliage. The issue of minimal movement is a fact of nature that animals go still when in threatening situations so your comments dont disprove or prove anything. I wasnt really expecting large movement in the gifs just wanted to see if they was any there. Obviuosly sas is the master of stealth so I guess you would expect him/her back there flappin his arms like jumpin jacks right.

Haha Cut4sign I find it amusing that you think YOUR time is the most important consideration here.

Good science will probe an issue untill its unprobable.Some of you may be at this point and good for you.Others of us however are not so please allow the debate to thrust foward.

Can anyone prove to me that is a pile of branches then please do so.
I would think the enhanced images that primateer is capable of would shed more light on this.By all means I hope his analysis shuts me up.

If it does I will be the first to say,"I was wrong and sorry to waste all your precious time"

mmm, should I, shouldn't I? Bipto, sorry, this is the thread I may need, to get this out of my system. Phaige & I both compared notes on this last winter. I did some image stuff on my own, saved what I thought were the best. Here are a few, may take a while to sort them for posting, bear with me if you can't stand this stuff. Thanks in advance...(On this one, please disregard the yellow head outline, but mind those feet).

phase two..

There is absolutely nothing there. The GIF shows absolutely nothing. You could just as easily grab any random spot in the background, blow it up to 80000% and start circling faces, arms, babies, etc.


There is no science whatsoever in reading tea leaves and that's what this thread is all about in the end - finding patterns in otherwise random shapes. It is a total waste of time.

JMO, of course.

..

i have an issue that is irking me.well i just wont say it as it dosent matter.i am asking my telepathic invisible bigfoot to come breath on ur neck or leave giant hand prints on ur windows and mirrors then u will know what i want to say :yuck:

I note nothing. The two frames look identical to me. Then again, I'm not hoping against all reason to find another bigfoot in that film...

Ah whatever.

your entitled to your opinion.

I lightened that last one some, to try & show it better. My pics show up darker when I post them. If you like, I can quit now, but a couple more would wrap up my "presentation". Any votes?

From "The Mona Lisa Method of Tea Leaf Reading" (slightly modified):

Blobeography, otherwise known as blobeomancy or blobology, is the art of blobsquatch reading. "Blobo" or "blob" is an Arab root, meaning something that is not there.

Blobsquatch reading is an ancient practice interpreting patterns made by image artifacts on film or in photos. In addition to the reading of image artifacts, the tradition of blobeography includes the reading of shadows and fuzzy foliage.

Although blobeography is commonly associated with Gypsy fortunetellers, the tradition of blobsquatch reading arises independently from Asia, the Middle East and Ancient Greece. Modern blobeography has also been associated with the Scotch, Irish and websites across the Internet.

The significance of the ubiquitous, cross cultural and historical pervasiveness of image artifacts, shadows and foliage reading may be related to the primal human desire for understanding the self. Just as psychological analysis grew prodigiously during the Victorian era, blobeography became popularized as a parlor game. But the practice distinguishes itself from amorphic fortune telling, mystical, occult or other magical activities. Specifically, blobeography is not an application of magic, but rather a tool for tapping into the subconscious by applying meditation to pattern recognition and symbolism.

Blobeography can be a powerful meditative tool providing insights into the reader's subconscious. The significance of symbolism in psychological study finds theoretical foundation from Plato through Karl Jung. From a modern sociobiological standpoint, procedures such as drinking from the opposite hand, may coordinate left and right brain activity to stimulate creative problem solving. Common sense indicates that slowing down to focus and organize one's own thoughts is an effective problem solving methodology.

The process of blobeography stimulates the imagination to create individualized interpretations and solutions. Blobsquatch reading is a fun, healthful and creative way to listen to yourself.

My apologies to Professor Trelawney.

Far be it from me to squash scientific inquiry. Please finish your presentation so it can be judged by everyone on its merits.

I will await to see if primateer is up to the challenge. Untill then no one can prove anything to me one way or the other, but I lean on my gut.

To say this is pointless is kinda narow minded IMO.It will prove alot of other things to the on the fencers and also is an important discovery for social habits.

Obviously if this were such an obvious thing then this issue would have been dead long ago.

I again ask you to prove to me this is nothing. Show me the branches. Show me another patch of branches that has the coloration like a bigfoot and reflects light as this area does.

You cant or have chosen not 2.

Or perhaps you argument is you dont chose to waste your time.But you waste your time posting on the topic. Making we who see something out to be rediculous or whatever. What are you affraid of?

You know there are actually people who still believe the Holocaust didnt happen . and that we didnt actually go to the moon.

Funny you are so staunch in your position with no more proof to your point than we have for ours.

This is the same attitude I hate in Religious zelots.They believe a certain way and try to debunk or convert you to there line of thinkin anyway they can.

Just let us freakin believe what we wish to and dont try to make us out to be hopeles romantics with no thread of scientific thought.

Thanks, Bipto! As I said, this really should move this thing along, right out of my system...

Houston, we have a problem....
In the frame comparisons done by Toe Toe...the apparent "movement" is caused by the second (right hand) frame being somewhat re-sized as compared to the first(left hand) frame...in a nutshell, it's stretched. Now...I don't say Toe-Toe did this on purpose..but, the fact remains, that we are not seeing lateral(or longitudal)movement at all..but instead, a "blow up" of slight, but noticable, ammount.
I'll demonstrate shortly that when the two frames are re-sized so as to be in alignment..there is absolutely NO change...none...
Film at 11....

Almost done. Also, any comments on the "feet"?
edit: please move the bottom slider all the way to the right, to see the whole picture, especially re: the hand on head here.

Will somebody use their self as dabait an' go into the woods an' get one these thangs!?

Personally, I have wondered the same thing about that particular blob. I don't think it is anything other than a stump/log. My reasoning is that:
1) it seams too big when the distance is taken into consideration
2) it doesn't move when Patty is making tracks. Yes, animals tend to freeze to blend in, but my experience is that once one starts moving the rest seem to catch on that the jig is up and they take off too. This blob stays put, making it, IMHO just a cool shaped blob.

I'm no expert, but that's my .02.

17x7

OK....
Again...there is no differnence at all in the two Images..they are catagoricaly identical, IF, they are properly aligned to one another(instead of the right hand image being stretched somewhat in both the lateral and longitudal planes).
After I re-aligned a copy of the right hand image over the top of the left hand image...and did a simple multi-frame step over between them...you can see that indeed, the two are mirror images(outside of a minor change in contrast and tint, which is not relevent to the movement issue).
See for yourselves......
The image starts as posted by Toe-Toe, then fades into a version in which the right side has been overlayed over the left..you can see in the transition, that NO movement occours between the various aspects of the two sides, once a number of markers in both sides were aligned(in order to fix the image stretch aparent in the right hand side).

And suddenly primateer is the arbiter of blobsquatchery? He's going to be able to do anything to prove to you that what you're seeing is background clutter? How will he do that, exactly?


Yes, it is an insightful look into social habits, but not of the sasquatch.


It is dead, you just won't acknowledge it.


How can I show you the branches? How can I prove to you anything? Regardless of what anyone says, you will always see a bigfoot standing off in the distance (and, as leemon rightly points out, it would tower over Patty - opinion on that? Think it's 20 feet tall?). Since we've left the station of objective observation, I'm afraid there's nothing I or anyone else can do to disabuse you of your position.


No, I can't. You're right. Do you also see a face on the moon? Do you think the moon has a face?


Read my signature. To allow this kind of interchange to occur without rebuttal will lead some to think your view on this is mainstream when it is clearly not. It is a total and complete wast of time to look for more bigfoot in a film that shows one beautifully, it is not a waste to of time to try to show we are not all chasing shadows. Standing up to this topic is just as 'noble' as going after Greg Long and Mary Green.


Yes, and there are others who say Patty's carrying a baby and using a tampon in the film and they came to that conclusion using the same logic and methodology you're employing to find more bigfoot back in the woods.

Regarding the Holocaust and the moon landing - It is demonstrably true that both those events happened. Lots and lots of evidence and witness testimony to prove them both. In the case of the 'second PG bigfoot', we've got NO witness testimony and NO evidence. Neither P or G saw anything at any point that would lead them to think there was a bigfoot standing where you say it was. They were there for quite some time. P never left the scene since he was off his horse. They both made several casts before leaving. Are you suggesting your mystery sasquatch just stood there unnoticed the entire time? How long was that, a couple hours at least, right? Out in the open...in the sunlight...motionless and invisible to two guys working yards away. Um, yeah.


I have no proof the roof shingles on my house aren't made of licorice but that doesn't mean I'm going to climb up there and eat one. I mean, they look like licorice. According to you, if something looks like something else - even if logic would suggest it is not that thing - there's no reason to think it's not that thing. The blob in the background looks like a bigfoot (to some) and the shingles on my roof look like sheets of licorice (to some). I wonder if bigfoot likes licorice?


See, I don't care if you ever come to my side of this debate. You're free to see whatever mysterious shapes you like in that film. I'm here only to demonstrate you are not representative of the majority view. Do you think I should do another poll on the subject?


You don't need me to make you look like a hopeless romantic. Believe whatever you want, but each and every time this topic comes up on this forum I will be here to oppose it.