Renowned Bigfoot Researcher Validates AI-Enhanced Patterson-Gimlin Film
In the world of Bigfoot research, practitioners are used to being questioned about how one can research something that hasn't
mysteriousuniverse.org
Researcher validates film
- Thread starter Debi
- Start date
mysteriousuniverse.org
I enjoy reading pieces like this where "experts" weigh in on the authenticity of various types of evidence. It reminds me of all the medical doctors, special effects types, historians, film experts, etc. who validated the alien autopsy film of the 90s. I well remember Bell's film historian/expert Bob Shell guaranteeing the authenticity of the autopsy film on C2C in 1995.
The "Astonishing Legends" guys have a multi-part show, better than fifteen hours total, on the Patterson-Gimlin film. There are a number of "dueling experts" throughout the series (anthropologists, primatologists, costume designers, special effects types, film analysts, etc) who give their considered opinions on the film. My favorite was the guy who has made a living in the film industry for many years playing various monsters, apes, cryptos etc., both in and out of costumes. He had some really insightful comments relative to Patty's gait.
This series is far and away the best podcast effort I've ever heard, going above and beyond to give all sides of the argument as to whether the film is genuine.
The "Astonishing Legends" guys have a multi-part show, better than fifteen hours total, on the Patterson-Gimlin film. There are a number of "dueling experts" throughout the series (anthropologists, primatologists, costume designers, special effects types, film analysts, etc) who give their considered opinions on the film. My favorite was the guy who has made a living in the film industry for many years playing various monsters, apes, cryptos etc., both in and out of costumes. He had some really insightful comments relative to Patty's gait.
This series is far and away the best podcast effort I've ever heard, going above and beyond to give all sides of the argument as to whether the film is genuine.
titch2k6
Truth Seeker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2020
- Messages
- 959
- Reaction score
- 2,291
- Points
- 133
- Age
- 52
- Location
- Nottinghamshire, UK
Again, it comes down to the fact that there have been so many claims that one has to wonder if there is actually something to the existence of the elusive Bigfoot (putting aside the obvious fakes out there).
The only little "cringy" thing I have in regards to this is the fact that AI algorithms were used to build up a clear image of this famous footage. AI algorithms have to be programmed in, initially, by someone. The AI autonomy has to be given a set of instructions of what to look for, what to do with information and how to output it. This is the basis of how deep fakes are built up. I do not question the capability of AI - I just question the human input associated with it all, especially when it comes to proving the existence of a creature that has yet to be proven from a scientific point of view.
In comparison, it would be like me using AI algorithms to prove that ghosts exist by looking at the photo of the Newby Church figure taken in 1963, or the famous Brown Lady of Raynham Hall, taken in 1936. Someone has to tell the AI what to look for and how to "deal" with it. To me, this would be influenced by outsider input, as someone would have to have a tinkering as to what they are initially looking to achieve, and what they hope to be seen on the output, and put it into those AI instructions.
It would be really interesting to see and understand the algorithms that were used in this instance.
The only little "cringy" thing I have in regards to this is the fact that AI algorithms were used to build up a clear image of this famous footage. AI algorithms have to be programmed in, initially, by someone. The AI autonomy has to be given a set of instructions of what to look for, what to do with information and how to output it. This is the basis of how deep fakes are built up. I do not question the capability of AI - I just question the human input associated with it all, especially when it comes to proving the existence of a creature that has yet to be proven from a scientific point of view.
In comparison, it would be like me using AI algorithms to prove that ghosts exist by looking at the photo of the Newby Church figure taken in 1963, or the famous Brown Lady of Raynham Hall, taken in 1936. Someone has to tell the AI what to look for and how to "deal" with it. To me, this would be influenced by outsider input, as someone would have to have a tinkering as to what they are initially looking to achieve, and what they hope to be seen on the output, and put it into those AI instructions.
It would be really interesting to see and understand the algorithms that were used in this instance.