(06-26-2011, 09:02 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: These are pretty cool, but the guy analyzing them is seeing a whole lot of things I don't. I guess maybe because he watches them so many times he can pick up on the subtleties?I agree. He's often got a lot more info to work with than he is relating, for example from talking to the witnessess themselves. Some of these are obviously a lot more compelling than others. But together they do seem to reinforce a consistent picture of form and behavior. I personally think the Patterson film is genuine.
(06-26-2011, 09:18 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: This is a great video that creates many opinions from me.I don't take everything the guy suggests or hypothesizes as an actual explanation for what's in the video either. One thing he does seem to do is to offer a reasoned analysis. And of course he personally talks to these videographers. You can tell he is doing his 'home work' on the subject, and I can respect that work. It's not always easy to do the editing and summarize what can actually be said of the subjects in an informative manner that is helpful to others that may want to learn about it.
The first one, with the teeth, looks transparent. I don't get that.
I could not be a video analyst. Without the yellow lines, I'm clueless.
That micro expression stuff is BS. Did you see him curl his lips in contempt as he told us it was for real?