Eulerian Analyzation: The Patterson Bigfoot Film

By now, most common ATS users have no doubt seen the thread by an ATS peer member, where MIT's 'Eulerian Video Algorithm' is discussed. You may have noticed other threads popping up, where some controversial videos are analyzed. The first (and potentially only) thread I've seen so far, analyzes the 'Area 51 Alien Interview' film.

I decided to do a analyze the original and most controversial Bigfoot video, the Patterson Film (stabilized version).

Below are the results:



Eulerian Motion Filter -






I don't know about you guys, but the amplified motion really looks so much more like the movement of a man in a suit. I don't know how to explain it, but you may be able to see what I mean when you watch the video.

Even though it does look more like a man's gate, it doesn't reveal anything that would suggest it's a man in a 'Bigfoot Suit'. In fact, I think it actually looks more like it is not a suit, but a real creature.




Eulerian Color Filter:

WOW!! At first glance, it seems this filter doesn't reveal much of anything. However, watching @ 1/2 speed, some things jump out.

Are we seeing the seams of a suit? Maybe we are seeing the underlying 'frame' of a suit, or does the video show the creatures bodily form? Maybe it highlights it's skeletal structure?

What do you think? -

I don't mean to be mean, so Don't take this the wrong way.

I think the case with this Technology is a bit of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Its an interesting technique, and in the hands of a trained photo expert or software engineer familiar with it, it can be a powerful tool.

With out that last part, its a item of curiosity, not proof of anything.

ETA:

One of the key pieces on the site, even gives strict recording perimeters to maximize the software, something none of these other videos did, so keep that in mind.

WITH that being said, I would be intrigued to see this applied by a professional to something like the Kennedy shooting.

Yeah, I don't want anyone to think this is being presented as anything more than what it is. I hope everyone realizes this is a new way to analyze a video and shouldn't be considered proof of anything, one way or the other.

Personally, I have no issue with anyone using whatever means possible to reveal new insight on some of the more controversial aspects of conspiracy theories, regardless of their professional expertise - as long as their intentions are sincere and not intentionally misleading. I may feel different if it is not presented in a place like a forum, where everyone can work together to determine the legitimacy of any results.

I would like to think there will be plenty of people using this resource from Quanta, to analyze anything they think may have hidden properties - regardless of how new or old the evidence is or the quality of technology at the time of creation.

reply to post by benrl


I completely agree. There seems to be tons of background interference in the applied video compared to the ones professionally done by ppl very familiar with the software. I honestly think it will take a while of training and reading the paper before another person can just start applying it to old degraded footage and expect to extract some type of hidden information within the original. What do they even say about it being used on reel style film? Is it sensitive enough to pick up the subtle changes that is required to be magnified? Is there a fps lower limit? Until I find out or it's explained I think it's useless trying to understand what I'm supposed to be looking at.

NiZZiM
reply to post by benrl

 

I completely agree. There seems to be tons of background interference in the applied video compared to the ones professionally done by ppl very familiar with the software. I honestly think it will take a while of training and reading the paper before another person can just start applying it to old degraded footage and expect to extract some type of hidden information within the original. What do they even say about it being used on reel style film? Is it sensitive enough to pick up the subtle changes that is required to be magnified? Is there a fps lower limit? Until I find out or it's explained I think it's useless trying to understand what I'm supposed to be looking at.

A modern digital camera picks up data the human eye can't, film? Dunno.

Heres a test, take a remote, point it at your cell cam, and guess what, you see the light.

Why, camera lens picks up things the eye can't.

That is an excellent point to consider,

That I hadn't thought of.

Wow!.. Bigfoot has hairy tetas..

It reminds Me of the zebra transformation. Can someone run the drew Carrie footage through the algorithm? Also it does look like seems on Samsquatch video. Ty for the post.

This was posted in the other thread on the topic a couple of times:

Tips for recording and processing videos from MIT:

At capture time:
- Minimize extraneous motion. Put the camera on a tripod. If appropriate, provide support for your subject (e.g. hand on a table, stable chair).
- Minimize image noise. Use a camera with a good sensor, make sure there is enough light.
- Record in the highest spatial resolution possible and have the subject occupy most of the frame. The more pixels covering the object of interest - the better the signal you would be able to extract.
- If possible, record/store your video uncompressed. Codecs that compress frames independently (e.g. Motion JPEG) are usually preferable over codecs exploiting inter-frame redundancy (e.g. H.264) that, under some settings, can introduce compression-related temporal signals to the video.

If you can't say "yes" to at least 3 of those requirements it probably wont work.
In the case of the Patterson film; using edit suite stabilised video that has been run through countless codecs and is filmed at distance probably isn't going to reveal a lot.

On the one hand, it's intriguing, but I don't quite know what I'm looking for in the processed video.

On the other hand, it seems kinda like when people would filter the carp out of a picture, then zoom in 10000x and claim they were seeing reptiles doing pushups or something...

Would that be a heat signature coming through the suit?

The thing about the Patterson film for me is the "costume" itself. I used to own a costume shop. I have actually designed and made a custom gorilla suit for a gentleman (with a zipper in the crotch). I just don't understand how they could have made a costume that is so effective we argue about it still today... and this was in 1963. Want to see what a blockbuster Hollywood film can do with a gorilla suit, watch King Kong 1986. Not even close to the realistic quality or fit that Patterson film would have had to utilize, even the quality of fur has a sheen the Hollywood version doesn't. The biggest thing however is the movement of leg muscles visible as it walks. Fur fabric is a thick fabric; and to lay that close and tightly to the skin so that muscular movement is visible? Very strange.

kudos for having a go. i hope bigfoot is real. this technology, or certainly it's use on a wider scale, is in it's infancy. i have no doubt there remain to be found uses for it that even the creators didn't think of. like many technologies before.

The way it walks looks to me as if the man inside the suit (if indeed it is a man in a suit) has watched a film of Gorrilas walking once or twice,and then tried to copy it with very little if any practice.If you were going to fake this,you spend hours watching the films,then some trips to the zoo,and finally before venturing into the woods some decent practice time in your back yard.The fancy enhancements do change my view on this.

The Patterson film has been analyzed up the wazoo byp the best people in the field for 40 years. It has never been replicated by anyone period. If this isn't proof positive of Bigfoot then nothing will be proof other than a corpse.

Good work on the part of the op. I think the parameters for this tech is very specific though and anything outside those perimeters is impractical.

Doesn't look convincing.