Leroy, did it ever occur to you that "what can be seen" may not be the truth either? The eyes can fool you, the mind can play tricks on you, the imagination can take over. It is well known that perception is relative. It is an approximation to reality. Photos are even more subject to interpretation, as there are the issues of blur and perspective and context to consider.
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins
Here's how. My responses below in capitals.
What I found.
I found and show two frames that shows another man hat."
NOPE, YOU PERCEIVED A TOTALLY UNLIKELY BLOB THAT AT BEST LOOKS LIKE A CARTOON OF A HAT, AND MOVES "INTO" AND "OUT OF" THE FRAME MUCH MORE QUICKLY THAN ANY HUMAN MOVES
"I found and show Bob Gimlin standing behind the brush."
THIS IS PURE PAREIDOLIA, AS GIMLIN WOULD HAVE TO BE HUGE TO APPEAR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SIZE AS THE CREATURE WHILE SITTING SOME APPRX. 40-60 FEET BACK INTO THE BRUSH. PLUS, IF IT WAS HOAXED, WHY WOULD THEY RUIN IT WITH A GUY IN THE BUSHES? I ALSO "FOUND" AND "SHOWED" TO YOU HOW THERE IS ANOTHER "GUY" SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF GIMLIN, AND THEN A BUNCH OF TINY DANCING BABY BIGFOOTS ALL AROUND HIM. ARE THESE ALL TRUE THINGS, THEN?
"I found and show the Bigfoot stopped 9 time in the footage."
HUH? I SEE A CREATURE MOVING QUITE NATURALLY THROUGH THE WHOLE FILM. HOW DID YOU "PROVE" THIS?
"I found and show two other men images taken out of the footage."
AGAIN, WHY WOULD THEY BE THERE? LOOK AT THE OTHER FRAMES AND YOU WILL SEE THESE ARE JUST BLURRED WOOD DEBRIS OBJECTS. IF THEY WERE REALLY MEN THEY WOULD ALSO BE AS BLURRED AS THE WOOD ON THE GROUND. ALSO, PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS COMPLEX TECHNIQUE OF BLURRING SOMETHING OUT WHILE LEAVING SHADOWS BEHIND, YET LEAVING THEIR WATCHES VISIBLE.
"I found and show the Bigfoot was a man in a suit."
OH, SO BY REVERSE ENGINEERING YOU COPIED SOMETHING. THAT PROVES NOTHING. IF, JUST MAYBE, THE FILM SUBJECT IS REAL, THEN YOU HAVE ONLY COPIED SOMETHING WITH AN IMAGE OF IT, JUST AS AN ARTIST PAINTS OR SCULPTS A REASONABLE APPROXIMATION OF REALITY. THE ARTISTIC PRODUCT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH REALITY. JUST BECAUSE A MAN CAN FIT IN YOUR SUIT DOES NOT MEAN THERE WAS A MAN POSING IN A SUIT AS THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT.
"I found and show the film was filmed by someone right handed and left handed."
HOW IN THE WORLD DID YOU PROVE THIS? AND ARE YOU SURE OF WHICH HAND PATTERSON FAVORED? THE MINUTE SHIFT FROM ONE SIDE OF THE HEAD TO THE OTHER WOULD MAKE NO NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL VIEW AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE FILM.
"I found and show the film was part taken out from Roger Patterson documentary."
YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING OF THE SORT. YOU HAVE ONLY SHOWN THAT PATTERSON MADE FILMS ABOUT BIGFOOT, WHICH WE ALREADY KNEW. ONE WAS A PROJECT MADE EARLIER (AND KNOWING PATTERSON, PROBABLY ABANDONED FOR NEW THINGS), THE OTHER A FILM OF A SUBJECT ON AN EXPEDITION TO FIND SUCH A SUBJECT. PERHAPS PATTERSON HOPED TO INCLUDE THE FOOTAGE OF SCENERY AND BIGFOOT HUNTING IN THE DOCUDRAMA, BUT AGAIN, HE FILMED LOTS OF OTHER STUFF ON HIS TRIPS THAT WAS NOT STRICTLY OR AT ALL A PART OF THAT PROJECT WITH GIMLIN AS AN INDIAN GUIDE, ETC. IF THE PGF FOOTAGE WERE FOR THE DOCUMENTARY, WHY WAS GIMLIN NOT WEARING HIS INDIAN WIG??? ALSO, THERE WAS A SIMPLE *INFLUENCE* OF IDEAS BETWEEN PATTERSON'S ORIGINAL PLANNED FILM AND THE ONE OLSON EVENTUALLY MADE.
"I show the test I did."
YOUR "TESTS" ALL FAIL KNOWN HISTORICAL AND SCIENTIFIC METHODS, IN MY OPINION. IT SEEMS, RATHER, THAT YOU COME UP WITH A THEORY FROM YOUR IMAGINATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF BLURS AND BLOBS IN THE FILM, AND THEN MAKE UP STORIES TO SUPPORT IT. I COULD PROBABLY SAY THAT THERE IS ANOTHER NOAH'S ARK THERE ON THE FILM SITE, AND "PROVE" IT, IF ONLY I "LOOKED" HARD ENOUGH.
"I even made a copy of the suit they claim no one can make.
This is what I found and did."
AGAIN, THIS PROVES NOTHING. TO ME YOUR SUIT LOOKS JUST ONE SMALL STEP UP FROM THE COMMON CRUD RELEASED AS CHEAP GORILLA COSTUMES FOR HALLOWEEN. LOOK AT THE PHOTO PARCHER POSTED ABOVE, IN FRONT OF THE BRICK WALL--IT LOOKS UTTERLY FAKE AND RIDICULOUS. ALSO, IF YOU REVERSE-DESIGNED A UFO, WOULD IT FLY? YOU CAN MAKE A THING THAT *LOOKS* LIKE A REAL ALIEN SPACECRAFT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN FLY. ALSO, I HAVE YET TO SEE A *MOVING* IMAGE OF YOUR SUIT IN ACTION. A POSE IS ONE THING; AN EXTENDED MINUTE-LONG FILMED WALK IS ANOTHER. WHY WON'T YOU RESPOND TO MY REPEATED QUESTIONING AS TO THIS? DOES A VIDEO/FILM EXIST OF YOU WALKING OVER ROUGH GROUND IN THE SUIT FOR ABOUT A MINUTE?
Words, critical and contextual thinking, knowledge of the historical record and facts, and basic literacy and patience of mind are all beneficial and good, and are the tools of a mature mind. Language is, after all, the basis for your thought and ascription of meaning to things. Your disparagement of "words" leaves me feeling highly suspicious that you have a bias against their proper use, against the process of rational thought, perhaps tainting your image-based pareidolic research.