Cryptozoology forums > Blogs > Scott Marlowe's blog > view thread

Subject: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Hawkwolf posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 12:13pm  I downloaded the image in your blog, and zoomed in and out on it. I was able to make out a pattern that appears to be a face. But honestly, my first thought was it looked more like Robbie Coltrane than either of the 'pithecus facial reconstructions you showed. Then upon further reflection, I decided it looked more like you than it did Robbie Coltrane. Rather than an early hominid or even ape face, what I see is a perfectly normal human face with a broad nose, high forehead, and merry,(dare I say) chubby cheeks. Heck, it could be me, with my beard shaved off. Maybe it's just the way the picture uploaded to the site here. Maybe I just need new bifocals. But honestly, I just don't see what you see. Perhaps if you posted a good quality close up of the 'face' we might be better able to appreciate your line of reasoning. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 12:40pm  Golly, I guess you all better start calling me "Hagrid". Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 12:41pm  On second thought, Robbie has more hair than I do! Do you think he'd be insulted? Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Hawkwolf posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 12:53pm  Naw, Scott ... you're too clean cut. :) Besides, Robbie Coltrane came to mind from some his pre-Potter work. Of course, it could be ..... (gasp) Crypto-Man !! (cue dramatic music) Seriously, I'm pretty sure you've looked at the posted picture in better resolution than what showed up on the blog post, so I'll try to keep an open mind here. For now, at the risk of repeating myself, all I can say is I can see what appears to be a face, but I don't see anything 'ape-like' about it. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: /PJ posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 1:05pm  Scott: I took your advice and shrunk it down. I even got the idea from a person in chat to load it into an iPod. I can see a face there that is gorilla-ish. I can't say it's a hoax, and I can't say it's real either. I can say it's interesting! I can wait to see what further investigations may show. I have 40+ years or so (I hope) to watch this progress and eventually come to an end. I guess that leaves me on the fence yet again. What is the possibility of seeing further enhancements soon? Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 7:48pm  That depends on the video analysis materials generated and Tom's authorizations to post them here. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: /PJ posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 10:13pm  That's fair enough. I wish you luck in your investigations, and I thank MK (and yourself) for the time and effort. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 10:22pm  PJ, for all the understanding and support that you and several members here have given, much appreciation. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: /PJ posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 10:53pm  Darn it, I had a long post typed out, had a system malfunction and lost it. Might have been a good thing because I said some nasty things about a few fellow posters. (hmmmmm) Basically it said that yourself, MK, and any others involved are just doing your job. Investigating a claim, and trying to make the best out of an originally bad video. I don't see the harm in that. I guess those other people have forgotten how to think like a naive child, or an over trusting adult, and the flip side of that: A curious scientist. I think a few of them might have forgotten how to think at all. This is cryptozoology, and there are plenty of people like that to be found. If you (collectively) can remove any doubt from the minds of these people (be it once side of the "fence" or the other), I see it as a good thing. Even if this video gets shelved tomorrow, at least I can say YOU tried, when others did NOTHING. Thanks again Scott. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 11:53pm  PJ, as a rule, humans "progress and mature by fault." Sometimes trial and error is all we have, but it sure beats sitting on the bench (or in an armchair) and just watching the game. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 7:46pm  Hawk, remember that I've blown up the image so that the pixelation is also visible. MK sent the file in 96 DPI and I didn't change that. Web pages can only display 72 DPI. Try backing up from your monitor or downloading (right click/save) the image and loading it in your graphics software. Then reduce the size by a factor of two or so. Also, the color range of a monitor can cause grainieness too. Are you set at millions of colors? Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Gerry Bacon posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 9:50pm  Scott, I too used a photo program to shrink it so I could make out the face. May I ask why a mask isn't being considered as a possible explanation? Gerry Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 10:20pm  The answer is in the blog. MK is supposed to sign on to comment so that you can get the answer from the "horse's mouth" instead of what many here seem to think is the "horse's back end." Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Gerry Bacon posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 11:40pm  I found no reference to a possible mask in the blog, only that it couldn't be photoshopped or CGI. Also, if I may, should we trust the other analyst? If this is Tom's man, can we be sure his analysis is on the level? Gerry Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 11:50pm  Gerry, I thought that I mentioned in the blog that my first thought was that the face was a mask or composite. I guess I omitted the mask issue. Sorry. Nevertheless, MK debunked that idea since the answer is the same as for the composite. But, I'll let MK address that issue when he posts here. The other videographer, to Tom's surprise, is a cz.com'er like us. He too is due to comment on this issue here. I won't steal his thunder now. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Hawkwolf posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 4:30am  Scott, if I were to fake a 'hairy hominid' for video, I wouldn't use a simple mask. Instead, I'd go with one of the foam latex appliances out there sold by various costume companies. Most of these kits include detailed instructions on how to blend the appliance on to your own face, color it, etc. I fail to see how MK (or anyone) could rule this method out, especially given the quality of the original video. It wouldn't take Rick Baker, just someone with a bit of a live theater background and around $50 to spend. Even in broad daylight , it would look more 'real' than a mask, and at night .... Scroll down this page to see examples Honestly, I don't see where any sort of image enhancement would show where the edges of a halfway decent makeup job would be. Perhaps MK can enlighten me. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 6:56am  This is a good point and the reason that I'm associating with Ripley's and studying their special effects methods. It is also the reason that I requested that Tom submit the material to another expert -- not because I question MK, but because I expect something similar. MK is a specialist in video enhancement and analysis, but not in makeup special effects. I cannot discount the possibility of a hoax based on this and Brad's contention that the movements were rehearsed -- as I said before. Just that it would complicate the production process such that the producer would have to have a motive beyond the typical hoax. This is also a reason that the film requires considerable study. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Hawkwolf posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 11:47am  Nice to see you're trying to keep all bases covered. "I cannot discount the possibility of a hoax based on this and Brad's contention that the movements were rehearsed -- as I said before. Just that it would complicate the production process such that the producer would have to have a motive beyond the typical hoax." Complicate the process? Not really. As I mentioned before, the facial makeup might take the involvement of someone familiar with live theater. The same type of individual would have no problem with the idea of rehearsing their movements until their 'director' was satisfied. As to motive, your own words provide one: "beyond the typical hoax". Face it, most of the BF vids you'll find slogging through You-Tube are , to be kind, amateurish at best. I can easily conceive of a couple of film or theater students deciding "Man, if you're gonna do a hoax Sasquatch vid, do it right." In other words, professional pride. Before anyone plays the 'expense' card, as I noted above, the facial appliances are around $50 if you don't have the expertise to make them yourself. Figure maybe another hundred tops in materials for the suit. Filming at night adds credibility, and covers a multitude of sins. Now, assuming you made your 'best hoax BF vid ever', who do you contact to get it out before the public? Just uploading it to You-Tube won't do it. You want publicity for your work, and maybe a chance to recoup the little bit of money you put into the project. Let's see ... who's a prominent 'Bigfoot researcher' who might give you a few bucks for this thing, but at the very least will hype it? Tom something ..yeah, that's the guy. As my hypothetical scenario plays out, our little band of filmmakers is in hog heaven right now, because their project is good enough to warrant serious study, instead of the scorn most BF vids get. Mind you, I'm not dismissing it out of hand as a hoax. There's enough ambiguity here for me to wait until all the analysis has been done. But, I can understand the mindset of someone taking a little more time and effort than the "usual hoax", knowing their only real reward will be a private satisfaction in a job well done. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 12:39am  Hawk, True. But, that kind of ego would also have a hard time containing itself long enough to max out the hoax. Moreover, the more people involved in such a hoax the greater the potential for a "leak." I'm with you on the logic, but as with the other possibilities, only time and research will tell us what the facts actually are. Until then, every explanation is only speculation. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Hawkwolf posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 5:52am  I don't know, Scott. It would only take at most two people if they had the right expertise: an actor and a director to rehearse the 'scene' and get it the way they wanted. Either might have the necessary background to handle the make-up and costume. In fact, since (iirc) this is supposed to come from a trail cam, one person with the necessary skills could pull it off. It'd take a bit more effort, since you'd have to review the tape, and adjust your 'performance' until you felt you had gotten it right. As for great egos containing themselves over an exquisite bit of fakery, how long was it between the first publication of the Surgeon's Photo and the revelation that it was a hoax? Even in today's internet-driven, instant gratification, mental fast food world, there are people left who would find all the gratification they needed simply knowing their little gem was taken seriously. But, as you said, all the facts that can be reasonably obtained aren't in yet, so all anyone can do is speculate at this point. I'm merely applying Occam's Beard Trimmer here. (It's kind of like Occam's Razor, only with a wider range of settings, and thus much more flexible. It may not shave quite as close, but it gets the job done.) Sadly, perhaps the only real proof of any sort of unknown hominid or ape in North America would be gently referred to as a 'type specimen'. Thanks for keeping us informed here, and for your thoughtful replies and good humor. You ,sir, are both a gentleman, and a scholar. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 11:55pm  Gerry, since I don't know the gentleman personally or by reputation, I'm not in a position to comment on the "trust" issue. There we shall have to see what develops and conduct the usual due dilligence. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 12:55am  I'd like to share some material that Tom sent me this morning. These are correspondence from Bill Appleton, the Chief Technology Officer of DreamFactory in Mountain View, California. I'll comment where appropriate inside of parens: June 29, 2007 Hi Tom and Bob, I am a video and photographic analyst that works with other researchers at The Bigfoot Forums. Recently we saw your new trail cam video that appeared on the azfamilly.com website entitled "3TV Exclusive: New Bigfoot video surfaces June 27th, 2007.” Everyone on the forum was interested in this film, although the images were very hard to see. Unfortunately the dark oval added by the TV station didn’t “enhance” the images, but actually made them harder to discern. We were wondering if you would kindly provide us with a better copy of the video in the interests of furthering Bigfoot research. I would be happy to post it on the forums with whatever restrictions you specify. One suggestion is that you retain the copyright and allow us to look at some clips under “fair use” for research. A version of the film with the dark oval removed would be a big improvement, maybe an AVI or MPEG file that we could link to. This would be very exciting for us and some knowledgeable forum members might be able to help in the analysis. This would also provide positive exposure for your organization and research efforts. Thanks for your time. Best, Bill Appleton (I stand corrected. I was under the impression that Tom initiated the contact here, not Bill. Tom, of course, made the film available.) June 29, 2007 Hi Tom, Thanks for entrusting me with your video, I’ll have something to look at next week, and will call if questions arise. Thanks as well for your new DVD. Have a nice weekend. Best, Bill Appleton ---- July 6, 2007 Hi Tom, I tried some things with the video but they didn’t produce the best results. The video stream looks like it was analog at one point, which makes some of my tricks less effective. But I’m going to try some other techniques this weekend, will advise on the results. Best, Bill Appleton (These conclusions are consistant with those of M.K. Davis.) July 9, 2007 Hi Tom, As for the Memorial Day Footage, I usually take the position that reasonable people might disagree about this or that when it comes to evidence. But when the Bigfoot gets to the end of the film and removes his mask and swings it back and forth as he walks into the woods – that is pretty much the limit for me. I’m going to straight up call it like I see it at that point! (Referring to his analysis of the Memorial Day Footage -- NOT BISCARDI's Video) There is some generational loss on your trail cam video, I have a few more tricks to try, but so far no better results than what the MK enhancement shows. I have a board meeting on Wednesday – my least favorite activity, they should call it a bored meeting. Anyway, I would like to do radio at some later date if possible. Best, Bill Appleton (I just spoke with Bill to confirm that he as OK with my posting this material here. Given that Bill solicited the film FROM Tom, and that Tom was immediately forthcoming with the footage for independent analysis, don't you all think that we're seeing something magical happening here in addition to the obvious procedural ramifications in analyzing the video?) Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Mark57c posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 6:20pm  Scott I appreciate your efforts and that you are keeping us as up to date as you can. I am waiting for further info when it becomes available my friend. (After 50 years on planet Earth, I have learned the fine art of patience) Mark Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: primateer posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 3:41am  There are a lot of compression artifacts in the image. This is not uncommon. Almost every form of digital storage uses compression of some sort. Combine this with the unusual darkness of the images and it becomes quite a challenge to bring it to the point of analysis. The face image is about the closest to the camera with the best angle. I have provided Scott with a version that has had most of the compression artifacts removed or diminsished. When Scott posts it,remember that this image came from a tape that was shot in almost dark conditions. It's not magic, to get it to this point, but I did have to use my entire bag of tricks. Tell me what you see. M.K. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: scmarlowe posted Mon, Jul 9 2007, 10:23pm  By the way Hawk, if you're that good with Photoshop, I can send you a better photo to use for the composite! Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... From: Hawkwolf posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 1:15am  Photoshop? I only wish. Actually, I did a fast copy and paste in MS Paint. And, thanks to some clarification from you, I finally see what you were talking about. Originally, the only face I could see was in the area I've outlined in yellow, which I have finally decided is Winston Churchill in a rare serene moment. However, on your advice, I did a massive shrink job, (which I pasted over the place previously occupied by your smiling face) and Voila!, there it is. Strictly by chance, I had put your picture over the ape-like face which becomes visible when the image is shrunken down. As a suggestion, perhaps you could edit your blog entry to add the handy 'shrink' tip? Thanks for your patience and good humor, Scott. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: Brad posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 9:41am  In regards to this topic, and largely to the forum in general, I am done. My apologies to Scott, and everyone else who found things I said offensive. I didn't mean to offend. Scott has been a stand-up guy on this forum. One people should listen to. Thats my honest opinion. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: Stu posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 10:01am  You two-faced coward. Cut & run. Well done. Sums you up. Stu Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: scmarlowe posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 2:21pm  Stu, that isn't fair. It takes a big man to admit a mistake and own up to it. Brad, I accept your apology and, if you are willing, extend a hand of friendship. Your input is valuable to the site and while we may not agree all the time, I would like to hear your viewpoints as long as we can agree to disagree on those subjects without resorting to personal attacks or competitive lapses in professional decorum. Thank you. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: Stu posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 4:52pm  Okay Scott, point accepted. My hackles were up. I was peed off big time. Not just because of Forum posts, but what he said in Chat over the past 2 days. No apology was forthcoming when he again entered Chat last night. He just kept quiet, then said he was leaving (cz.com itself, & Chat). Hence the 'cut & run' statement. It's always easy to apologise after the fact. Point is, the 'fact' has consciously gone on over a period of days & the damage done. Not just a single statement, but a sustained series of personal attacks on yourself & anyone else not actively trashing that film/those stills. The apologia took a few minutes to write & post, the preceding provocations a whole lot longer. Forgive me if I'm not impressed. Stu Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: Brad posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 5:51pm  No apology was forthcoming when he again entered Chat last night. Incorrect. I clearly said that I "apologize to those who found me offensive" in the chat. Stoosh, no more shouting matches coming out of me. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: Stu posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 1:18am  Okay, fair dues Brad. Am done shouting too. Scott, no problem. My hackles are a bit lower now the sun's up. Stu Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: scmarlowe posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 10:38pm  Stu, I know about the chat room, but that doesn't matter in the face of his apology. If cryptozoology is to attain the level of acceptance it deserves in the mainstream, we must all learn to work together -- and police our own ranks. This has happened. I wouldn't be inclined to forgive betrayal. But Brad's error appears to have been born out of passion and competition out of control -- That isn't the same thing. We're pretty much agreed now to take Tom's video at face value and see what turns up -- despite his past faux pas -- for the possible benefit of the science. Can't we show the same respect for one of our own who made a social mistake and owned up to it? Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: Brad posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 5:55pm  Brad, I accept your apology and, if you are willing, extend a hand of friendship. Your input is valuable to the site and while we may not agree all the time, I would like to hear your viewpoints as long as we can agree to disagree on those subjects without resorting to personal attacks or competitive lapses in professional decorum. Thanks, Scott. I'll take a little break for the time being. If I need something I can email you like I've done in the past. You offered me good advice before about starting up continuing education classes. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: scmarlowe posted Tue, Jul 10 2007, 10:29pm  Brad, not that you need my permission to stay, but you should. The site is stronger with you than without you and your opinions (albeit it more tactfully expressed) are of great value because you help us see all sides of an issue. If we can give Tom the benefit of the doubt are you not deserving of any less courtesy? Please don't leave. Subject: Re: Scott, with all due respect ... - apology From: /PJ posted Wed, Jul 11 2007, 1:59am  I agree with all 3 of you. The damage is done, the appology accepted, and maybe we should all remove ourselves from the situation a bit. When something like this turns into a personal shouting match, and one side or the other cannot agree to disagree, something's gone wrong somewhere. Time to back up and re-examine what's really going on. (I went through a similar thing with the Bobby Clarke footage) With that said, I say examine the video and leave personal feelings out of it. Let the video speak for itself.

Close Window