It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jon-Erik Beckjord

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
www.beckjord.com...

Regulars in this forum have to look at this guy's site. He makes some bold claims of the Patterson film. He says that when he got the original film he was able to enchance it and find features where the supposed bigfoot actually "morphs" and changes. He claims that the mammories on this beast actually morph into baby head's and he says that in still frames you can see the baby's foot and head around the mother. He makes some wild claims about the head aswell saying that it changes shape. This guy in my opinion is total hogwash, I can see nothing from the jpg stills that he posts that support his claims. And to his defense he says that only his high dpi images can really pick up this characterizations.




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
somebody has to have their own opinion on the character of Beckjord, or maybe lack there of. Am I the only one to see his claims about his still images as completely erroneous? I don't see the details that he see's. True he says that his high dpi are the only way to see some of the features, but I can't even see the ones that he claims are night-and-day, in his jpgs.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Have you read the recent thread about the Patterson video being pretty clearly a fake? (www.abovetopsecret.com...)

I'm having a hard time finding the pictures of which you speak, unless I'm completely blind, which is entirely possible, I suppose.


I wonder if Beckjord has seen the stabilized footage...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Oh shi'ite, thats right. I forgot that the particular layout of the site is particularly hard to navigate through unless you look at the bottom status bar displaying what link it is. Here it is...

www.beckjord.com...

The text in red detailing his description oh what he sees in each of the pictures is there. He numbers the frames in their order some 25, 300-400 range. His comments are ludicrous, he claims the creature morphs practically at every part in it's body atleast once, from the head, breasts, feet and thighs.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by saukrates420]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
well, my first reaction was
when I saw this:


Send us $25,000 and we will show the entire frame also, in each case.

and


The film is just too weird to have been faked



I looked over the pics and read what he said he was seeing. I stared at the damn pics. By the time I thought I was seeing what he described, I was seeing other things in the patterns too.

I don't know, I think he's trying too hard with this one. Sort of a combination between "look hard enough and you'll find it" and "the lady doth protest too much."

Also, I can't really find any other information about the claim that the original footage is held up in litigation. I did read about that same claim here. I'd be interesting in finding out if and why this may be true.

I'm going to try to look over the rest of the site later, when I get home tonight. I'm also going to reread the thread I mentioned in my previous response. Be sure to post if you have any other ideas!



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Hey! I stabilized the film in 1976.
In 16mm.

It still is not a fake. I own two top copies in 16mm.

Jon-Erik Beckjord



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by saukrates420
www.beckjord.com...

Regulars in this forum have to look at this guy's site. He makes some bold claims of the Patterson film. He says that when he got the original film he was able to enchance it and find features where the supposed bigfoot actually "morphs" and changes. He claims that the mammories on this beast actually morph into baby head's and he says that in still frames you can see the baby's foot and head around the mother. He makes some wild claims about the head aswell saying that it changes shape. This guy in my opinion is total hogwash, I can see nothing from the jpg stills that he posts that support his claims. And to his defense he says that only his high dpi images can really pick up this characterizations.


Reply:

When actual researchers visit me, and sit down at a table and view the photos, 90% have no problems in making out the creature(s) in them.

Of course, it means telling me WHO YOU ARE, and shaking my hand.

In my lectures, 80% see the creatures. The rest are older folks with
bad glasses or eyesight. Kids make them out immediately!

Get into the real world, get off the Net.

Beckjord


[edit on 8-4-2007 by beckjord]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by saukrates420
somebody has to have their own opinion on the character of Beckjord, or maybe lack there of. Am I the only one to see his claims about his still images as completely erroneous? I don't see the details that he see's. True he says that his high dpi are the only way to see some of the features, but I can't even see the ones that he claims are night-and-day, in his jpgs.


reply: sorry to learn you are blind.

EB



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by saukrates420
Oh shi'ite, thats right. I forgot that the particular layout of the site is particularly hard to navigate through unless you look at the bottom status bar displaying what link it is. Here it is...

www.beckjord.com...

The text in red detailing his description oh what he sees in each of the pictures is there. He numbers the frames in their order some 25, 300-400 range. His comments are ludicrous, he claims the creature morphs practically at every part in it's body atleast once, from the head, breasts, feet and thighs.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by saukrates420]


reply:

I do so claim, and I do so because it is true, even if outside
your Weltanshanung. It is not made up.

Erik B



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ishari
well, my first reaction was
when I saw this:


Send us $25,000 and we will show the entire frame also, in each case.

and


The film is just too weird to have been faked



I looked over the pics and read what he said he was seeing. I stared at the damn pics. By the time I thought I was seeing what he described, I was seeing other things in the patterns too.

I don't know, I think he's trying too hard with this one. Sort of a combination between "look hard enough and you'll find it" and "the lady doth protest too much."

Also, I can't really find any other information about the claim that the original footage is held up in litigation. I did read about that same claim here. I'd be interesting in finding out if and why this may be true.

I'm going to try to look over the rest of the site later, when I get home tonight. I'm also going to reread the thread I mentioned in my previous response. Be sure to post if you have any other ideas!


reply:

I discovered that there is such a thing as psychic viewing of photos.
Some have this and others never.

Skeptics rarely have it, kids often do have it.

If you don't see the images, let your son, or niece or grandson look.

Many people do not "see" these because their innate skepticism refuses to allow them to admit they see it.

I even have one famous Bigfoot Professor who DREW for me a BF baby
on Patty, but then wrote under it that he did not believe what he was seeing. !!!!!!!!!

Also a famous skeptic, Bob Sheaffer, did the same.

"I see it but I do not believe it"

Oh well.... Bigfoot does not care.

eb



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   
No, dude, Bigfoot was not trying to break into the car.

EB



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
could you not have condensed all these reposts into one?

well so far all i've heard you say is - paraphrased naturally - "you're all idiots, i'm clever, so there."

if you have noted a distinct difference in viewing *ahem* 'abilities' from different age groups, i would suggest you read up on psychology, especially about the mental processes of growing children.

as we all know, children are more imaginative than adults. the areas of the brain that control recognition of shape, colour, and patterns is much more active during a child's preteen years, as is the large portion of the brain that all humans use for facial recognition.
i shouldn't need to remind you that a child may have nightmares about a monster in their room and when pointed out to their parents it turns out to be a folded coat on a chair, or a branch against the window.
also, it is important to note the effect of suggestion upon the mind of a child. telling a child there is something in a box will give them hours of amusement pretending they can see it, touch it, hold it, play with it.
if you wish to use the child-versus-adult argument to justify your claims, i would implore you to take a time-out to do some research on your 'test subjects' before posting your findings.

half-cocked research can undermine even the best theories.

[edit on 4/20/2007 by Batty]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Well said, Batty. Thats pretty much what I had planned to say. When you do your so called research, you tell them what they are looking for. If you just sit a bunch of people with no knowledge of the video and say "What do you all see?", they will say probably 95% of the time "That's a Bigfoot!". Now take another group of people and have them tell you who they are and shake your hand as you said. Give them a little speach about the things you think you see in the video and then ask them what they see, they are gonna say whatever you suggested they see. Either because you suggested it to their mind already or because the don't want to call you out and have a debate about your insanity. My guess is that these "older people with bad eyes" say they can't see it because its not there. Their eyesight isn't the problem, they are too strong minded to accept your little speach about what they should be seeing.

Oh and way ta quintuple post.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Wow... those claims really are quite erroneous. Just wondering, but why do you trust a bunch of kids with eyewitness testimony more than adults? Are they somehow more credible? Or, is it just convenient for you that kids tend to exaggerate their claims and are easily influenced into believing things.

By the way, welcome to ATS. I'm sure that you'll have plenty of healthy debates and discussions during your stay here.

P.S. Love your artwork.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Ahh... by the way.

Here is a photo of the entire campsite area. Mr. Beckjord decided to crop the already blurry photo to make it even blurrier, for the sake of pointing out the alleged Bigfoot.

His claimed "bigfoot" is circled in pink. As you can see, it just looks like a blob. A big, brown, blob. Since it looks like a brown blob, I decided to circle some more blobs in the photo with blue to point out even more bigfoots! Wow there's a whole family of them!



My question is, Mr. Beckjord, why didn't you see the bigfoot in person when you were at the campsite? Didn't you notice a large primate hanging just a few feet away from your tent? Wouldn't you have seen it if it jumped onto the ground or jumped into another tree? Wouldn't you have heard it breathing or howling or anything else a bigfoot does? I mean, c'mon, your tent and your car were at most, 5feet away from the bigfoot.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
i'm going to have to plead ignorance here - the temptation to go to his site and research it properly were thwarted by my 'good nature' (if any human actually has it, heh) to not start a fight.
i'm presuming this guy hasn't set within a mile of a real bigfoot (again, if they exist), and doubtless this pic isn't his own.
i'd like to hear him explain why he presents no evidence beyond personal criticism of anyone who disagrees with him, provides no testimonies beyond third-party quotes, and dubious stills.
the allegation that bigfoots 'shafeshift' is laughable, and ruins what the large percentage of anthropologists and cryptozoologists have been trying to present as scraps of evidence supporting the same cause as he does.
if this man has any guts, any claim to true knowledge on the subject, he will return to this forum, and face us as an equal.

i propose a truce, a peaceful neautral zone by way of this thread, to assess his claims and withdraw any negative comments while discussing here.

please, beckjord, return and discuss this topic with a clear, and confident mind.

we all await you, without prejudice.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Heh, if you do look closely, you can see
something with a face. It's eerie.

This is great, I can almost imagine
this cr*p's real!
There's NO monkies in America, everyone
knows that!!
Seriously though, this stuff's great, my kids
love it.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Doubtful as Beckjord's claims may be, I have an instant problem with anyone whose defense is 'everybody knows that'. Hundreds of years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat. Public opinion is about the poorest support of a claim you can get.



posted on May, 4 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I'm surprised it took beckjord this long to find ATS.

I'm taking bets on how long he will be here before he gets banned.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
What ever happened to the images that were on his website after Beckjord died? He may have had some weird interpretations, but he was one of the few people to get access to one of the most early generation copies of the Patterson Gimiln Bigfoot film, and his images were among the best available.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join