Will this new technology help find Bigfoot?

I doubt it. It’s not lack of tech that’s the problem. It’s far more fundamental than that.

But will this new technology help spot a hoax quickly? That would be useful.

Can MIT Help Solve the Mystery of Bigfoot?

Matt Knapp thinks that Bigfoot research is a mess right now.

Knapp blames the setbacks on the digital age, and the amount of misinformation being spread in the form of photos and videos online. That, and the fact that more people seem to be trying to cash in on what they claim are legitimate Bigfoot sightings. “Self admittedly, up to this point, we have not had anything worth presenting as real evidence of this creature’s existence. If we want scientists to get involved, we have to go by their standards, not our anecdotal ones,” he said.

To help filter out the phonies and fakes all trying to make a quick buck on something he believes in, Knapp is asking those vested in Bigfoot research to rely on technology built out of MIT to prove that the truth is out there.

EVM* is essentially a software that allows users to break down videos to reveal things in them that are invisible to the naked eye. This includes visualizing the blood pulsing behind someone’s cheeks and face, or capturing changes in body behaviors that the average person is unable to detect just by simply staring at someone. EVM does this by “homing in on specific pixels” in a given video, according to the New York Times, and then amplifying those pixels by up to 100 times using complex algorithms.

*EVM = Eulerian Video Magnification.

Bigfoot research sure is a mess but it’s not for lack of technology more so than amateurs pinning their beliefs on their sleeves instead of asking the right questions. This does tend to amplify the hoaxing and false claims. I’ve stopped looking at YouTube videos or blurry photos. They are totally useless as evidence since hoax is clearly a viable option. Mistakes are even more common. The lack of good Bigfoot videos is NOT why there is little scientific interest in Bigfoot.

A major problem to me seems to stem from the lack of data in the image itself. You can’t create more pixels or improve film quality to the point where you can find new information under what already is there. You reach a limit of what can be done with the Patterson-Gimlin film, for example, which has been analyzed to DEATH. Any further examination is manipulation which can skew results.

While this tech can be useful, I don’t see it helping the current state of Bigfootery.

COMMENTING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SITE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE. READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT POLICY BEFORE SUBMITTING. NONSENSE IS NOT PERMITTED.

  8 comments for “Will this new technology help find Bigfoot?

  1. Lowell
    March 26, 2014 at 3:42 PM

    “Self admittedly, up to this point, we have not had anything worth presenting as real evidence of this creature’s existence.” There is a good reason for that Mr. Knapp.

    • March 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM

      I’m the one spoken of in this article. I’d like to remind you that this is an article. Not everything I said was used. The quotes are in fact mine, but there was a lot more to it than that. If you actually read my original article that this is based from, you would see the points I was trying to make about using the technology to prove if a video is hoaxed or not. This is helpful because it would put to rest a lot of the debated nonsense. Also, if there were to be an authentic video, information could be gathered with the use of this software. Software which is free, which is why I suggested using it for these applications. Of course it wasn’t designed with these purposes in mind, and there are a million other far more useful reasons to use the software that could really help people. Which I also stated clearly. Technology not being used properly, or at all, and misinformation were only a small portion of the reasons I gave that the bigfoot research field has not made any progress. There are numerous other reasons the field is a mess, at the top of that list being the people involved and the methods being used.

      • March 26, 2014 at 10:22 PM

        Matt, I understand that the media may manipulate your intent. Please note this is not personal against you.

        I also agree there are numerous reasons the field is a mess, I’ve been watching it for 20 years now. It’s never been this ridiculous. Thank you TV and internet.

      • Lowell
        March 27, 2014 at 11:32 AM

        Even if your plan works out as you hope, it won’t prove anything. You may be able to say that a video clip was not an obvious hoax, but so what? That will just tell what the video isn’t, not what it is. The best result you could possibly have is inconclusive. You’ve got enough inconclusive evidence already. In fact, that’s the problem. If the very best evidence collected over the past 50 odd years can only be described as inconclusive what evidence do you really have?

      • seesdifferent
        March 27, 2014 at 3:40 PM

        Matt,
        you seem to be quite enthusiastic about this software, invented by scientists at MIT and made available free to the public. Do you think that “Science” is conspiring to suppress or prevent the discovery/proof of the existence of bigfoot?

  2. ryan
    March 26, 2014 at 9:53 PM

    As you point out the major problem with this is that it’s entirely built around the biggest misconception about recorded media. Behind all the static, over exposure, bluryness, etc. There isn’t any information or greater fidelidy to be recovered or discovered. All of those quality issues represent the loss of information. There’s nothing there to recover, you can mitigate but or remove flaws, but the information lost is not coming back.

  3. Phil
    March 28, 2014 at 6:37 AM

    There is stabilized footage of the Patterson film on the web. Please run the software and show the results. We would love the see. But let us be honest, 50 years later and that’s all there is. Not a good sign. More people with more cameras should mean more sightings not less. A new species of Hominid would be most exciting. Science awaits.

  4. Bishop
    March 31, 2014 at 10:13 PM

    How is it possible that a creature as large as what a bigfoot is said to be has remained undetected all these years? How can we spot stars millions of miles away but not a large, hairy, humanoid creature in our own backyard? With the technology we have today it is inconceivable that we wouldn’t have spotted this creature already. We have aircraft that can read a license plate at 70,000 feet, how can we not spot a bigfoot? If there was any real credence to this it would have been mined by now. If any corporation saw anything to be gained by this they would have looked in hopes of cashing in. It’s the American way.
    Discover something, catch it, cage it, then make money off it.

Comments are closed.