FANDOM

­
1,377 Pages

  • Sasquatch101
    Sasquatch101 closed this thread because:
    Nothing new to discuss.
    03:11, April 23, 2018

    As I'm sure the entire GTA V hunting community knows by now, the Goatman has remained one of the most controversial pieces of evidence of all time. I've spent a lot of time showing how the Rockstar Social Club photos provided where hoaxed, but that couldn't completely disprove the myth. For a long time, even I considered that the original photo of the Goatman was un-debunkable and had to be true. That changed for me today...

    Just this week I had discovered the original source material for the North Yankton Creature hoax, found here. Today, out of curiosity, I returned to the same Google Images result and clicked on the "View More" tab for related images. As I scrolled down, I got instant deja vu from one of the photos:

    Goatman artwork

    A cropped version of the artwork "The Pope Lick Monster" that I found on a website related to cryptozoology.

    I realized that it looked extremely similar to the original photograph of the Goatman. The shape of the head, the light chest area, the dark area on the crotch, the position the beast was standing in. Almost everything seemed to match. This is no surprise to me, considering Boomer has made hoaxes in the past using common photos of monsters (like the North Yankton Creature shown above, or this photo for The Swamp Monster.)

    I opened up Paint.net and instantly began to experiment with different sizes, and I was shocked at what I saw. No matter what quality or size I would use to resize the image, each result would appear exactly identical to the Goatman spotted by Boomer. The only differences I could spot was the color (I admit, I could have deduced this myself, but because of how many different mini-versions of the Goatman I had made and the vast amount of possibilities for saturation and brightness/contrast changes, it's just too much work) and the horns of the creature.

    Goat recreations

    As you can see, the recreations are too similar for it to be a coincidence. Surely, I could have invested more time to get a more accurate color scheme, but I feel that's unnecessary as the similarities already show enough proof for a hoax.

    So what can we extrapolate from all of this? The Goatman photograph is a hoax, made using an image of the Pope Lick Monster with minor saturation changes and custom horns added by the hoaxer. Case Closed.

    Thanks to Indep for some minor help during this case.

      Loading editor
    • It's amazing how the Bureaucrats of a mythical website expect us to believe or at least have faith in myths, yet they go and do this. This gave me a chuckle. Nice discovery, Gunshow.

        Loading editor
    • Just to throw another piece of evidence against the photo, I have made a comparison

      Goatman-Comparison


      A thing Gunshow noticed is that the photographer was further away (just look at the position of that pole on the left) than me. As everyone knows, if something is further, the smaller it is... It is really hard to get the same angle, but The Goatman would be at least 8' tall.

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote: It's amazing how the Bureaucrats of a mythical website expect us to believe or at least have faith in myths, yet they go and do this. This gave me a chuckle. Nice discovery, Gunshow.

      First off lumping me and Boomer together as "they" and trying to act like I am a hoaxer is complete bullshit. I never was involved in the Goatman investigation this was solely Boomer's own findings, NOT MINE. Nevertheless, this "debunking" falls short in visual evidence and isn't very convincing. I do admit, there are some similarities in the figure Gunshow presents as so-called unwavering proofs, however his same figure also has completely different color composition and design. The discrepancies of the comparable creature are completely overlooked in Gunshow's thesis in favor of a slanted biased (which isn't surprising considering the author of this post has a long running obsession with discrediting Boomers findings). So putting personal feelings aside, lets critique what the creatures DON'T have in common. 1.) The original photo of Goatman shows dark non curvy horns; the other has light curled horns. 2.) The original photo of Goatman has the creature with thinner legs and a more slimmer build. 3.) The original photo of Goatman has dark hands; the other one has white hands. 4.) The original photo of Goatman has a slim, linear face; the other is round and squat.

      Given these inconsistencies, I'm not at all convinced we are looking at the same image. In summation, I think some users want this to be fake at all costs despite there being still no conclusive evidence upending the myths' existence. Monks comments are completely off topic and certainly not made in good faith. I have no issues with Monk, but short of calling Boomer and now ME! a couple of hoaxers I don't get his personal hostility towards the Bureaucrats on this wiki. The North Yankton creature image I recall was never passed off as legit and was just added to the page for visual appeal to the story since there was and still is no photos of the creature. There was no misleading which is what is implied in this post. The swamp monster I'm not sure about and you would have to ask Boomer but I personally think there is a good chance the swamp monster is real and the internet videos and forum investigations certainly are still active on the topic.

        Loading editor
    • which isn't surprising considering the author of this post has a long running obsession with discrediting Boomers findings

      1.) So what? I've debunked evidence from almost everybody, from minor wiki users to big league YouTubers. It doesn't matter who's saying it, what's true is true and what's wrong is wrong. Just because Boomer has authority on the wiki doesn't mean I'm going to turn my brain off and accept everything he says.

      2.)You say that I have a history of discrediting Boomer's posts but that is literally the opposite... the infamous Swamp Monster was debunked by The_Funktasm and LDmg, and the North Yankton Creature was disproven by none other than Sasquatch himself.

      1.) The original photo of Goatman shows dark non curvy horns; the other has light curled horns. 2.) The original photo of Goatman has the creature with thinner legs and a more slimmer build. 3.) The original photo of Goatman has dark hands; the other one has white hands. 4.) The original photo of Goatman has a slim, linear face; the other is round and squat.

      1.) Read the final line of the debunking. In fact, I'll put it here now: "So what can we extrapolate from all of this? The Goatman photograph is a hoax, made using an image of the Pope Lick Monster with minor saturation changes and custom horns added by the hoaxer."

      2.) The original Goatman's leg has a width of 3 pixels. The recreation has a width of 3 pixels, except on it's shins which are 2 pixels. I mentioned that this is the result of Paint.NET's resize mechanic, which couldn't let me recreate the image 100 percent (you also would have known this if you actually read the post.)

      3.) The darker color hands would have ended up that way as a result of the saturation changes, which AGAIN I mentioned in the finale of the post that I could not recreate 100 percent.

      4.) The faces of the Goatman have the same form. White down the middle with eyes and brown fur on the side. In fact, if you look at the farthest left recreation, you'll notice that the facial pattern is identical (in the shape of an upside down cross.)

      Here's a fact that is unrelated to Sasquatch's argument, but related to the editing that the photograph undertook. The original Goatman has a body hair color of 221B13 (this color) while the Goatman recreation has a body hair color of 251A0B (this color) Using the HSV (Hue, Saturation, Value) color system, we can see that these are variants of the same color, but the Goatman recreation has a saturation value of 70, while the original Goatman has a saturation value of 44. This just proves my theory that the Hoaxer edited the Goatman to make it seem darker than it really is.

      Given these inconsistencies, I'm not at all convinced we are looking at the same image.

      It's not the "inconsistencies" that make you not believe, it's the fact that your best friend made it that does. Same thing as the Swamp Monster: "I would say is 70% real." I guarantee that if a random new user had made either the SM, NYC, or Goatman photos, you would ride the wave of calling it a hoax. But I guess it's my fault for expecting some type of skepticism from a user that not only falls for the most blatantly obvious hoaxes, but also falls for complete wingnut craziness like Moon Landing denial.

      I think some users want this to be fake at all costs

      Good thing that I'm not one of those users, considering I actively tried to follow the development of the myth. In fact, a lot of the evidence leading to the Goatman has been my original work. The real life Goatman's Bridge connection, the Trestle Bridge at Catfish View and the real life Pope Lick Bridge, the connection to Panic in the Woods and Goatman sightings. And when I debunked the Social Club photos were debunked on the Goatman thread, I still never gave up and still thought the original photo was valid evidence. To say that I never believed in this myth is just nonsense.

      being still no conclusive evidence upending the myths' existence.

      No evidence for something means that it's false. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is critical thinking 101...

      The North Yankton creature image I recall was never passed off as legit and was just added to the page for visual appeal to the story since there was and still is no photos of the creature. [...] There was no misleading which is what is implied in this post.

      Boomer's original post said "A friend of mine (who also plays GTA and hunts myths) e-mailed me this picture." Nowhere in the thread did he even admit that it was a hoax. The North Yankton Creature page was only changed to say "An interpretation of the creature." when IntenCity999 changed the infobox on January 29, 2017, he did this because the comments at that time were mainly about the hoaxed photograph and there needed to be a reason for users to discuss the myth itself, thus it was changed to be an interpretation.

      The swamp monster I'm not sure about and you would have to ask Boomer

      I don't think anybody needs to ask him, because a quick Google search shows that it was just lazily copy and pasted from this image.

      the internet videos and forum investigations certainly are still active on the topic.

      The Swamp Monster discussion is kept alive not because of Boomer's evidence, but because of the bugged deer that DaviDustin found in his video, which quickly spread to normie gaming sites and clickbait YouTubers about how the creature was supposedly "found."

      Speaking of DaviDustin, isn't it just ironic how the user that this wiki hated so much ended up being right in hindsight? I bet if he browses this wiki, he's really getting a kick at this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Goatyevidence

      Some other possible candidates^

      Sasquatch pretty much summed it up. The photo that you are alleging to be the source of the Goatman myth has numerous inconsistencies with the original photo. The color is way off, the legs look totally different and the head does too. But of course, that doesn't matter because all of those differentiations were added by the hoaxer, right? Lol, you are so full of it. With your logic, any photo that somewhat resembles Goatman can qualify as being the source. You're grasping for straws Gunshow, give it up.

      This whole thread is a witch hunt, directed against me (& apparently Sas now) by using the Goatman myth's "debunking" as an excuse to discredit my image. Monk's snide commentary and you bringing up irrelevant Davidustin videos are proof of this. Not to mention the numerous inaccuracies you stated in you original post, like "This is no surprise to me, considering Boomer has made hoaxes in the past using common photos of monsters ". Anyone who does any research into this would quickly find out that TNYC and Swamp Monster's photos originated from a third party.

      This thread's purpose is far from an innocent revisiting of the myth, but rather a way to attack me, and incite drama. You have accused me of hoaxing and even alluded that Sasquatch is some wing nut. I don't know if GTA Myths Wiki:Civility means anything to you, But you should probably read it over.

        Loading editor
    • I understand Gunshow's skepticism and his desire to come to a resolution on the myth but the facts he presents are very subjective. Everyone will have their own opinion, but we as myth hunters should always give the benefit of doubt to the myth. All I see is a shrunk down image that looks similar, but NOT identical to the original image.

      Saying I am a wingnut conspiracy theorist is a little much. The moon landing was COMPLETE BULLSHIT and I stand by that, as well as almost half of this country. In my original post you agreed that the moon landing was a hoax. Comparing a shitty government hoax to a jumble of blurry pixels of a video game is ridiculous. You should try and enlighten yourself and scrutinize real world lies being fed to the public as the moon landing is the tip of the iceberg.

        Loading editor
    • I just want to add that you, Gunshow, bringing up that irrelevant bozo DavyDustan to "bait" Boomer into a fight is really uncalled for and is in bad faith. Acting like you have no dog in this fight is a joke as you have proven your contempt for Boomer with that Dustan comment.

      It's interesting how you are always on top of Boomers findings yet never scrutinize anyone else's.

        Loading editor
    • Boomer's Reply

      This thread's purpose is far from an innocent revisiting of the myth, but rather a way to attack me, and incite drama. [...] I don't know if GTA Myths Wiki:Civility means anything to you, But you should probably read it over.

      Ah yes, the classic Boomer8 debate tactic. Just say that whatever criticism comes your way is a personal attack so you can claim to be the victim and eventually delete the thread. I'm just surprised you haven't taken to calling me a racist yet or even a sockpuppet of X, Y, or Z user.

      Anyways, onto the post itself:

      The photo that you are alleging to be the source of the Goatman myth has numerous inconsistencies with the original photo. The color is way off, the legs look totally different and the head does too.

      I don't know if you actually read my reply to Sasquatch's rebuttal, but in it I clearly demonstrated how the recreation did not match 100 percent and that the hoaxer edited the photograph afterwards. When you say "The color is way off," take a look at this exact excerpt from the reply: "The original Goatman has a body hair color of 221B13 while the Goatman recreation has a body hair color of 251A0B Using the HSV (Hue, Saturation, Value) color system, we can see that these are variants of the same color, but the Goatman recreation has a saturation value of 70, while the original Goatman has a saturation value of 44. This just proves my theory that the Hoaxer edited the Goatman to make it seem darker than it really is."


      Goathoax Compression
      The legs, as I also mentioned in Sasquatch's reply, isn't as difference as you claim it to be. In fact, they are just a few pixels on feet difference. It doesn't matter thought, because the hoaxer used an "Add Noise" effect to better integrate the photoshop into the source photograph. This can be proven by using a service known as FotoForensics, which analyzes the compression of any photograph to determine whether or not it was altered. There are two areas in the photograph that show an abnormal amount of compression - the top of a telephone mast and the Goatman figure. Not only that, but FotoForensics also tells us that the photograph has 70 percent JPG compression (way below the 94 percent standard, and the 90-95 percent compression that the Rockstar Games Social Club uses) AND then it was uploaded to Wikia, which would have only compressed and lowered the image quality even lower than it originally was. This would only result in a blurry image and even more pixels not being in the correct position.


      Goathoax Compression 2
      AGAIN, we can use FotoForensics for help here. The compression is way too much on the image, even on flat colored surfaced. The best example is the trail that the player is driving on. It's mainly tan, so there wouldn't be much in the way of compression because it already consists of a single color. But on FF, the trail is an absolute nightmare with no areas consisting of pure black, but instead being a jumbled mess of pixels. I actually looked on the XBOX 360 Social Club snapmatic page for a similar photo to compare it to, in this case it was this. When I put it into FotoForensics, lo and behold, the trail area shows very little in the way of compression. That enough shows the Goatman photograph was edited to introduce more noise.

      Another fact related to the Social Club: all photographs taken on console have a resolution of 640x360 when looking at the raw image. The Goatman image is smaller at 639x359. The black bars on the side of the image, an optional border (seriously, if the user ran into a myth, why would he spend so much time picking a border instead of capturing as many photos of the monster as possible?), is balanced at a perfect 80 pixels wide on both sides of the image. On the Goatman, as a result of the smaller size, has 80 pixels on the left and 79 on the right. If the photo was taken directly from the Social Club, why would there be 1.) extra noise that isn't there when uploading to the site, and 2.) inaccurate photo sizes?

      But of course, that doesn't matter because all of those differentiations were added by the hoaxer, right?

      Yes, that is literally what happened.

      This whole thread is a witch hunt, directed against me (& apparently Sas now) by using the Goatman myth's "debunking" as an excuse to discredit my image. [...] bringing up irrelevant Davidustin videos are proof of this.

      For the DaviDustin references, I am willing to say that the way I worded it was a bit crass; not particularily bad, but still a dick move. But there's a reason that I included them, and this is why: Boomer's claims that I'm just trying to discredit his image. These videos show just one simple fact, and it's that Boomer's reputation is already long gone. I had nothing to do with it, (I even showed above that other users are responsible for debunking Boomer, not me. Need another example? See: Boomer's Bigfoot Experience, a photograph which Sasquatch tried to debunk that I defended!) Boomer brought the reputation upon himself by making these hoaxes and still defending them to the death when they are clearly false. For even more proof, there was even an article by the gaming journalism site "Now Loading" about GTA SA mysteries, which concluded by mentioning Boomer on Leatherface. (Sorry for the low quality photo, as Now Loading was purchased by another company, SuperNewsLive, sometime recently and now all articles redirect to the company's home page.)

      Not to sound overly smug, but if you don't want users to recognize you as a hoaxer, then don't publicize hoaxes. Enough said.

      "This is no surprise to me, considering Boomer has made hoaxes in the past using common photos of monsters ". Anyone who does any research into this would quickly find out that TNYC and Swamp Monster's photos originated from a third party.
      • Goatman: "I was playing GTA Online and I was talking to this guy I just met. He too, was a myth hunter so we were talking about GTA V myths when he told me he discovered a new one. [...] I asked him if it were okay to mention his usertag on ths wiki but he told me he "wants his privacy".
      • North Yankton Creature: "A friend of mine (who also plays GTA and hunts myths) e-mailed me this picture."
      • Swamp Monster: "A day ago a friend of mine on facebook sent me this picture."

      The reason why people always doubt this claim is because you never say who. On every single mysterious thing you have ever posted here, it's always some person you just met that wouldn't like their name published. There's a reason that type of story never gets believed: it's not accountable. Why is it not accountable? Boomer's point shows exactly why: "Well it wasn't me, it was just some random dude!"

      A third party is only useful as a source if they are willing to take the beating for the claims. Here's a good example by Sasquatch: Hogzilla. In the thread, Sasquatch names the person who sent him the photograph and then eventually recognized it as just a friend pulling a prank. That is much more admirable than Boomer's policy: deny, deny, deny.


      Your defense of the myth by saying the recreation doesn't match up 100 percent is already false, as mentioned at the top of this post, but the photo you provide as evidence isn't exactly doing you any favors. You say that any photograph could be used to hoax the myth, and yet you show a bunch of photos that clearly aren't the Goatman, even if extensive editing would be done to them. You just inadvertently added support that the "Pope Lick Monster" artwork is where you took the model of the beast.

      Sasquatch's Reply

      I understand Gunshow's skepticism and his desire to come to a resolution on the myth but the facts he presents are very subjective.

      Quite the opposite is true, In the above reply and this reply, I've shown statistics such as hex code colors, JPEG compression ratios, and pixel perfect numbers. These are just facts. In reality, the only subjective argument I make is that Boomer's previous history of uploading hoaxes severely damages the credibility of Goatman. By contrast, both yours and Boomer's arguments mainly rely on appeals to emotion (ex. declaring the entire argument false because one section was "incivil", essentially saying "He's wrong because he hurt my feelings"), shifting the blame (Boomer's main argument basically consists of "Monk is rude, Monk agrees with Gunshow, therefore he is wrong by association."), and (this doesn't even count as any type of argument, really) threatening me with a block (as Boomer has done) just to attempt to get me to stop disagreeing with him.

      Everyone will have their own opinion, but we as myth hunters should always give the benefit of doubt to the myth.

      That's just bad logic. When determining if something is true, then one must make sure the burden of proof (That something is true based on the fact that evidence is provided for it, and it is false if that evidence is not provided) is fulfilled. It's fallacious thinking to follow the logic of "This could be true because there is no evidence that it's not."

      Saying I am a wingnut conspiracy theorist is a little much. The moon landing was COMPLETE BULLSHIT

      Okay, now you're just contradicting yourself.

      In my original post you agreed that the moon landing was a hoax.

      All I have to say is go back to that thread and find the post where I agreed with you, and then click on the link that supposedly shows proof that it was a hoax... it might surprise you.

      You should try and enlighten yourself

      Oh boy...

      It's interesting how you are always on top of Boomers findings yet never scrutinize anyone else's.
      Laugh harder

      Laugh harder

      I only debunk Boomer's investigations? Wow, I didn't know Boomer had so many accounts on this Wiki:

        Loading editor
    • Even I have learned something with FF! This could be a very useful tool in the future.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:

      Ah yes, the classic Boomer8 debate tactic. Just say that whatever criticism comes your way is a personal attack so you can claim to be the victim and eventually delete the thread. I'm just surprised you haven't taken to calling me a racist yet or even a sockpuppet of X, Y, or Z user.

      Speaking of this, I was just making a mockery of how Boomer deals with these types of situations when I wrote it, but unbeknownst to me, he literally did try to close this thread before Sasquatch re-opened it; check the page history. The damage control is real, folks.

        Loading editor
    • I've already made my point known on what I think of the photo you put forth claiming to be the source of the myth. I don't feel the need to reiterate myself, but in regards to the FotoForensic "evidence", the R* Social Club photo you used for the comparison was taken in daylight; so obviously when looked at in comparison, there will be differentiations. Yet again, just another shady move to try and disprove the myth.

      However, I find it funny that you say you want to have a meaningful discussion about the myth, while at the same time attacking Sasquatch and I, by calling him a crazed wingnut, and by saying my reputation is mud. For the later, I find it hilarious coming from you, given that your previous account was globally banned across Wikia for racism and vandalism. You claim that you're such an unbiased source when in fact it is your reputation that discredits you. You are a self avowed neo-Nazi. How is any of your "evidence" credible? You try to get all intellectual on everyone here, when you probably attended that Charlottesville Rally, and admired that Vegas gunman. Lol, give me a break.

        Loading editor
    • (Heads up, I haven't read much of the argument because it's honestly way too long)

      Uhh, i'm pretty new here, but to be fair.. the idea of "goatman" in GTA doesn't sound too realistic.... there aren't goats in GTA V. Also, the picture quite frankly looks very pixelated, from what looks like a decent range, and he's pretty short. I'll do a side-by-side comparison tommorow with a human and about the same distance, at the same place. I understand that goatman may be taller, but uh, if he's shorter, then you know.

      Not taking anyones side here in the argument

      .. just wanting to do some research.

        Loading editor
    • ApocalypseRisingGuy13 wrote: (Heads up, I haven't read much of the argument because it's honestly way too long)

      Uhh, i'm pretty new here, but to be fair.. the idea of "goatman" in GTA doesn't sound too realistic.... there aren't goats in GTA V. Also, the picture quite frankly looks very pixelated, from what looks like a decent range, and he's pretty short. I'll do a side-by-side comparison tommorow with a human and about the same distance, at the same place. I understand that goatman may be taller, but uh, if he's shorter, then you know.

      Not taking anyones side here in the argument

      .. just wanting to do some research.

      hol' up... I already done that...

        Loading editor
    • I've already made my point known on what I think of the photo you put forth claiming to be the source of the myth. I don't feel the need to reiterate myself

      Alright, I don't know why I'm replying to this one because it's not even making an argument but nevertheless. You shouldn't have any problem with restating yourself, in fact you will notice that various times through the debate, I have directly copied and pasted from previous replies (mostly to show off information that you ignored in the original reading of it.) Why are you suddenly so hesitant to do this? Now it just seems less like "I don't want to restate this." and more like "I don't have any claims to defend this, so I won't."

      in regards to the FotoForensic "evidence", the R* Social Club photo you used for the comparison was taken in daylight; so obviously when looked at in comparison, there will be differentiations.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAjAyel3-9M

      And you accuse me of "grasping at straws." Your argument on this one is just so flawed that it's kind of astounding. If you aren't aware of how image compression works, it's merging together colors to reduce the color depth and thus reduce image size. In both your example and the social club photo, while they are indeed slightly different colors, the trail consists of a flat tan color with some darker areas representing erosion of the trail. In both situations, compression really won't affect the image because any algorithm would recognize it as the same/a similar color and not bother. That's exactly what the FotoForensics analysis shows - in the social club photo, it is shown that there is little in the way of noise on the trail except for where it meets the grass and the ramp onto the bridge; areas which would be recognized as contrasting colors. Meanwhile, for the goatman, there is just noise everywhere even though it's a similar greyish-tan color through out. The day and night cycle literally makes no difference, tampering will show up all the same.

      Yet again, just another shady move to try and disprove the myth.

      If even the most basic image analysis is considered a "shady" move, I'd really like to know what type of evidence you won't call shady.

      An entire paragraph calling me a neo-nazi

      Okay, now I know why are you refusing to make an actual argument in support of the photo. It's not that you "don't feel the need to reiterate" yourself, it's that you've lost the debate and need an excuse to close it. The whole paragraph, other than being a huge ad hominem as you argue that I am wrong because X. even I have actually adressed the point boom/sasq tries to get across and then include something crass as a side comment. For Boomer, I guarentee this is what the discussion will devolve into, just him going "hahah you're this and that" with my reply "no i'm not" to distract from the topic at hand. This is probably intentional, as Boomer went into damage control mode and closed the thread earlier for "divert[ing] from the topic and is at risk of turning into a flame war". Boomer is just making a self-fulfilling prophecy, derailing the thread himself as an excuse to close it.

      Bonus!

      You are a self avowed neo-Nazi.

      ahahahahaahahahah

      I honestly can't help but laugh. The page that you say is me admitting to being a nazi is literally a parody. Not only a parody, but a mockery of none other than you yourself, and the constant ad-homs about being a nazi that show up in every dispute with you. I even included the "RIP - Vandal Troll Skinhead" image you made. How does something like that go over your head?????


      I fully believe that in his next reply, Boomer's going to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of [random user], or vice versa, since we've already scratched off "Deleting the thread" and "Racism accusations" from the GMW bingo card.

        Loading editor
    • TheIndependent40 wrote:

      ApocalypseRisingGuy13 wrote: (Heads up, I haven't read much of the argument because it's honestly way too long)

      Uhh, i'm pretty new here, but to be fair.. the idea of "goatman" in GTA doesn't sound too realistic.... there aren't goats in GTA V. Also, the picture quite frankly looks very pixelated, from what looks like a decent range, and he's pretty short. I'll do a side-by-side comparison tommorow with a human and about the same distance, at the same place. I understand that goatman may be taller, but uh, if he's shorter, then you know.

      Not taking anyones side here in the argument

      .. just wanting to do some research.

      hol' up... I already done that...

      Oh, okay, sorry lol

        Loading editor
    • Still might aswell try it out for myself, because why not.

        Loading editor
    • So this whole post really wasn't a crusade to assassinate Boomers character??? That's hard to believe.

      When someone disagrees with your analysis Jim you try and personally discredit them. You are trying to draw conclusions based upon past myths Boomer has brought forward that you (and some others) believe to be questionable. You are not being objective here, instead you are throwing everything you can think of at Boomer to in your way prove why he could never produce evidence of a real myth.

      To be completely honest with you I don't have a clue what your talking about when it come to "noise" and technicalities. I am not a computer technician. I can only say that with what I've compared I do not see a match. Your whole theory rides on the alleged hoaxer altering and switching around some colors (i.e. horns, legs). There is no "smoking gun".

        Loading editor
    • So this whole post really wasn't a crusade to assassinate Boomers character??? That's hard to believe.

      Whoop there it is, the same argument Sasquatch and Boomer (I'm starting to believe in a collective consciousness on this wiki!) make whenever they get into a dispute: just claiming that the whole thing is some kind of personal attack, and ignoring everything else. I guess, following your logic, I better apologise to Indep, MHM, Hank, ulown00b, and all the others that I have shown to be incorrect? Because obviously, daring to say that somebody is wrong about something is classified as some horrible attack.

      Also, it's hypocritical to complain about character assassination in the same exact thread that your side's argument degenerates into "he's a nazi he's a nazi."

      When someone disagrees with your analysis Jim you try and personally discredit them.

      Pot calling the Kettle black. Boomer's entire argument has devolved into "Jim is a nazi," without raising any actual points, and I'm willing you will pull the exact same move in the future. Nothing more than the typical ad-hom attack that is so popular on GMW.

      You are trying to draw conclusions based upon past myths Boomer has brought forward that you (and some others) believe to be questionable.

      The North Yankton Creature is a hoax. The Swamp Monster is a hoax. It's not past myths that "some believe to be questionable," it's nonsense that most people are well aware that's fake. Boomer has a well documented history of making hoaxes, so it's not at all some type of overreaction to have a huge amount of skepticism when he follows the archetype of a hoax completely. Just look at the similarities between TNYC+TSM and Goatman:

      • Anonymous source of the image, "my friend story"
      • 1 single photo of the monster, when more could have been taken
      • "The monster disappeared after a few seconds"
      • Even the filenames are the same, TNYC uses "Goat.png" and Goatman uses "0goat.jpg"

      Now you should understand the skepticism when a known hoaxer makes an extremely extraordinary sighting with little evidence (remember this) that follows the exact same story to the point that it looks like a mad-lib.

      You are not being objective here, instead you are throwing everything you can think of at Boomer

      1.) As I mentioned before, I am the one that's providing actual numerical data such as hex codes, jpg compression ratios, and so on. You're the one who is being subjective here. One of your main points consists of "I don't feel like the recreation is similar to the Goatman." What you feel is subjective.

      in your way prove why he could never produce evidence of a real myth

      If he had produced valid evidence of a real myth, this thread wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

      To be completely honest with you I don't have a clue what your talking about when it come to "noise" and technicalities. I am not a computer technician.

      You don't need to be a hardcore computer guy to understand that images have static pixels on them (nor do you need to be a coding expert to look at every texture file in a game, but that's a whole other can of worms...) The "technicalities" you have such a disdain of are proof that the photograph was edited, so I assume that is why you are pretending not to understand?

      Your whole theory rides on the alleged hoaxer altering and switching around some colors

      Yep, finally for once Sasquatch isn't (intentionally?) misinterpreting my argument for once. That's exactly what happened. I mentioned in 2 posts now about how the Goatman and the Recreation have the exact same hair color, but with a lower saturation value (proving the photograph was edited.) I assume that you think it also takes a computer technician to preform a task that is included with every photo editing program?

      There is no "smoking gun".

      The Goatman photo is the smoking gun. It's just your fault for being in denial about the whole thing (because, as I have said 1 million times in this thread, your friend made it.)

        Loading editor
    • Boomer has a well documented history of making hoaxes...This flat out lie confirms what Sasquatch stated about this thread being used as a tool for you to assassinate my character. I previously said already that TNYC and Swamp Monster came from third party sources, but you choose to ignore this fact and continue to propagate your lies.

      Don't misinterpret my words. I brought up your racist past because I find it very ironic how a guy with a reputation of being a former vandal can chastise me as having a bad reputation. I just think that your past somewhat discredits your argument, because you still have unresolved issues with me, and therefore are a slanted source of information.

      The day and night cycle literally makes no difference Your claim that the test image being set in day not having any effect on the FF, is a total crock of crap. Even a colorblind person knows that colors change in darkness. And considering that this is a videogame, the night cycle and headlights are probably the cause to the static noise on the trail.

      ...the typical ad-hom attack that is so popular on GMW. Isn't it a little hypocritical how you call Sas a crazy wingnut and infer that I'm a fraud, yet when you are called out (with actual facts btw) you cry foul and act surprised. You surely can dish out the heat, but can't take it huh? You are a very passive aggressive person.

        Loading editor
    • Goatman Light

      My photo in its original state

      Goatman Light - FF

      My photo with FotoForensics

      Goatman Boomer - FF

      Boomer friend's with FotoForensics

      As far as I respect Boomer, I unfortunately had to run an analysis using FotoForensics.

      I am sorry to say that, but the original Goatman photo is whiter than mine. It just proves how this photo has way more noise than it should. The difference between day and night cycle actually exists, but isn't as extreme as Boomer says.

      Goatman Light - Michael

      Original Michael image

      Goatman Light - Michael FF

      Michael image with FotoForensics

      However, when I ran a FotoForensics analysis of the image where I stood with Michael, he had no noise around him at all. The fact that Goatman had many of the noise around him is kinda suspicious.

      I hope this solves the dispute.

        Loading editor
    • The amount of noise between day and night in a game should be no different when in a digital reality. Noise in real photographs is down to the sensitivity of the camera sensor (ISO value). Since we're talking about a game here, this doesn't apply, as the game doesn't have a physical sensor exposed to real light. The noise in the alleged photo is clearly down to mixed compression of another picture clearly edited onto the original RSC image. Gun is correct with his information regarding jpg compression which is evidenced in FF which clearly outlined the difference in noise created digitally through compression. In other words, it's edited. No specific area of any real or indeed virtual photograph should be more noisy than another unless the noise isn't visible due to large areas of the same colour, but even then, changing the contrast will bring out this noise. Noise is consistent across an image.

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote:
      No specific area of any real or indeed virtual photograph should be more noisy than another unless the noise isn't visible due to large areas of the same colour, but even then, changing the contrast will bring out this noise.


      And that's exactly what I've done now:

      Goathoax Noise Analysis

      Keep in mind that not only does the Goatman continue to show too much noise after the contrast was boosted despite the fact that it is standing in front of a solid black background. Even the telephone pole, a suspicious area in the original noise analysis, looks to be normal as the surrounding noise integrated into the deep black background. Why hasn't the same happened to the Goatman?

        Loading editor
    • 111111

      an example of how artificial light garbles the image

      Indep's post just proved my point about the FF. The artificial light coming from the headlights is what makes the excess static noise. You can see in his photo that the part of the trail in the headlights is significantly more garbled than the part not in the light in the bottom left corner.

      The reason why the Goatman picture is a little more garbled than Indep's, is because the original is more lit up. One can notice this as in the original the telephone post, entire bridge, and the hillside behind the bridge (you can even make out the trees and bushes) are easily visible due to the artificial light coming from the headlights. The truck used in the original must have had the high beams on and possibly mounted lights on the roof.

        Loading editor
    • Reply

      The artificial light coming from the headlights is what makes the excess static noise.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4

      Visual noise stays consistent throughout an image, even if it's digital. Seriously, just check out Monk's most recent reply, because (This might be the first time this has ever been said on GMW...) he is more knowledgeable in that area than I am.

      You can see in his photo that the part of the trail in the headlights is significantly more garbled than the part not in the light in the bottom left corner.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

      Either you are just flat out ignoring how concepts like image compression (explained many times in the thread by now) or somehow misunderstand it. The reason why, using FotoForensics, shows a difference between the illuminated and non-illuminated sections is because it's contrast between light and dark, leading to extra compression (exactly what FF shows.) Another factor is that Indep's photo has a larger area that is illuminated, using a vehicle's brights. The image Boomer uses (this) appears to have been taken on a motorbike or ATV, resulting in a smaller area of illumination, making more contrast (and thus making it easier to cherry-pick and special plead a reason for it to be that way.)

      The truck used in the original must have had the high beams on and possibly mounted lights on the roof.

      There are only 3 vehicles in vanilla GTA V single player that have fog lights on top: the Bodhi, and the Rebel (its Rusty variant as well.) The Rebel's fog lamps have a cover on them and thus are not functional, leaving the Bodhi as the only option. The Bodhi is already unlikely as only Trevor can access it without glitches. Assuming that the hoaxer got the Bodhi, as Michael there's even more evidence against it.

      • The Bodhi, even with brights turned on, doesn't extend as far as the photograph shows.
      • The hood doesn't match the shape of the Bodhi's hood when viewed in first person (not the first person included in the game's re-release, but rather the perspective that's used when the player uses Snapmatic inside a vehicle.) It's more angular than the Bodhi, and we would assume that more of the Bodhi's features (the body that's holding up the windshield, or even the large windshield wipers.) Any identifying info is gone from the photo.

      Most importantly of all, if you didn't make the image and it actually was from some super secret anonymous person, how do you know that it was specifically a truck used in the photo? That seems kind of shady to me.

      More Evidence

      The Missing Noise

      Goathoax Redneck Comparison
      Ironically enough, the "Noshadprof1" image Boomer links to provides more evidence against the validity of the Goatman. In it, there's a man at the center of the frame, deja vu. The redneck in the photo, upon a close zoom, doesn't have very many noise artifacts around him. In fact, he has normal levels of anti-aliasing (at least to the standard available on last-gen consoles) and integrates into the photo without any problems. Boosting the contrast shows the same; little in the way of noise around the redneck. Meanwhile, as shown in a previous post, Goatman contains a large amount of static that is still visible even after the image is changed.

      Contrast Changes

      While I was analyzing the image more, I have come to the conclusion that minor contrast/brightness were made to the image. Early, I had presented a theory that the Goatman was edited because of the color of my recreation, and the color of the original, were exactly the same except for the saturation value. From that I extrapolated that the goatman had it's saturation lowered during the production of the hoax. I have found more evidence now, and it appears that not only the creature, but the entire image, was subject to a contrast or brightness change.

      Firstly, as fotoforensics analysis shows, the entire Goatman image shows signs of alteration, especially because of the extreme amount of compression (explained a million times already as being the result of contrasting colors being brought together.)

      Next, there are a few portions of the image that are incredibly suspect:

      • The sky is a flat color background. Where are the stars? Even simple editing could remove them, and the lack of their presence doesn't make any sense.
      • The sky has an incorrect color. Using Indep's 2 images as a guide, we can see the sky at night has a range of colors from 1D2635 (this color) to 191D26 (this color) depending on time. Meanwhile, Boomer's image has a sky color of 001018 (this color). Looking at HSV, we see that this color has a higher saturation, but a lower value (aka Brightness) That enough is basically numerical proof that a change was made to the image's contrast
      • The upper middle of the photo shows an area of the hills raising out of the shot, except that the hills are a strange dark aqua-green color. When this aqua-green section meets the hills that are in shot, they meet with a thick navy blue border. As Indep showed in his 2 screenshots, the hills don't have a color like that naturally. A color like that could only come from editing the photograph's color.
      • The hood of the vehicle in the shot contains a huge section on the left that looks like a type of compression artifact. The way that it just juts out from the rest of the surface makes it appear to be an extreme example of such an artifact. It also has the same navy blue appearance that other areas mentioned have - quite unnatural.
        Loading editor
    • I hate it when people pretend to know a lot about something, when in reality they have no clue what they're talking about. I've already disproved your theory concerning the FF. I think the evidence speaks for itself. http://gta-myths.wikia.com/wiki/File:111111.png

      "...how do you know that it was specifically a truck used in the photo? That seems kind of shady to me." I don't know for a fact, it was a logical guess. But now I know you're grasping for straws. And there is more vehicles with rooftop lights than you claim. You forgot to include the Mesa and numerous other cars released through DLC.

      "Where are the stars?... The sky has an incorrect color." I'm not even sure if the old-gen GTA V has stars at night. But did it occur to you that there are multiple types of weather in the game (very sunny, smoggy, ect.) that have an effect on the visibility and composition of the sky? Again, you are grasping for straws.

        Loading editor
    • Boomer8 wrote:
      I hate it when people pretend to know a lot about something, when in reality they have no clue what they're talking about.


      50a

      hahahahaha this thread has ascended into something legendary

      And there is more vehicles with rooftop lights than you claim. You forgot to include the Mesa and numerous other cars released through DLC.

      A list of all cars with foglights and why they cannot be the one in our photo:

      • Bodhi - mentioned already
      • Brickade - GTA Online exclusive
      • Contender - GTA Online exclusive
      • Duke o'Death - Enhanced Version exclusive, the bug-catcher in the hood would also give it away
      • Gang Burrito - Different dashboard and hood view than what the photo shows
      • Insurgent - GTA Online exclusive
      • Merryweather Mesa - A rare vehicle that the photographer likely wouldn't have. Even if they did, the dashboard/hood view is still way to different than what the photo shows
      • Rebel/Rusty Rebel - already discussed
      • Roosevelt - technically not rooftop lights, the hood shape would give it away
      • Rumpo Custom - GTA Online exclusive
      • Sadler - rollbar lights are decorative only
      • Sheriff SUV - The window mounted lamps aren't as powerful as the photograph shows, and the image doesn't have any identifying features for the SUV (different hood shape, lack of wipers or mirrors, etc.)
      • Trophy Truck - GTA Online exclusive
      I'm not even sure if the old-gen GTA V has stars at night. But did it occur to you that there are multiple types of weather in the game (very sunny, smoggy, ect.) that have an effect on the visibility and composition of the sky?

      >very sunny
      >photo taken at night

      GTA V has the following weather conditions: Clear, Broken Cloud, Overcast, Hazy, Christmas, Smog, Fog, Rain, and Thunder. Simply looking at the image we can deduce that it must either be Clear, Broken Cloud, Overcast, Hazy, Smog, or Fog. Smog only happens in the Los Santos metro area, becoming fog as the countryside is entered. Fog also isn't an option, because it's nowhere to be seem in the image, same thing with a total lack of any clouds in the sky. Essentially, the only option left would be the photo to have been taking during perfectly Clear weather. This may seem as evidence for the myth if it isn't taken into account the color of the sky. As mentioned before, the sky has an incorrect color for the time and weather, appearing as a vibrant navy blue color (this). I will use Indep's photos as an example because the sky color in those, using similar time and weather conditions, is a much more muted color with gray tones (such as this). Another factor is that the sky color would become more and more muted the closer it arrives to the horizon line, in one of Indep's photos the top of the sky is 181C25 while the bottom is 191E24. Meanwhile, on Boomer's image, the color is quite flat and remains at a solid 001018 for about 90 percent of the sky with random sections of 011015, making no sense in their placement as these darker colors appear from nowhere instead of a logical progression of becoming more and more muted towards the horizon line as any other photograph shows.

      1 More Point

      The one final point I want to raise is that now Boomer is just essentially cherry-picking the weakest arguments and ignoring the rest. I wrote quite a long reply yet Boomer only chose to reply to the one-off comment about the truck, and the lack of stars in the sky. He's completely ignored the fact that I brought up more evidence that the Goatman picture is too noisy compared to a regular GTA V pedestrian, and any other argument about the sky color changes that are unrelated to stars. Not only is this kind of lazy, but is also just a bad argumentative move (cherry picking is fallacious for a reason.)

        Loading editor
    • I find it funny how you think Goatman is 100% fake yet gobble up the governments propaganda lies.

      I still don't think you've disproved the Goatman as you have not accepted any counter-evidence and only repeat your POV. I think deep down even you know this post was BS to bait Boomer and was never about "debunking" one of the most solid myths on this wiki.

      Fakegovplot
        Loading editor
    • I find it funny how you think Goatman is 100% fake yet gobble up the governments propaganda lies.

      hahahahahahahaha

      ahahahaha

      Hey wait a minute, I thought we weren't supposed to compare those two things? "Comparing a shitty government hoax to a jumble of blurry pixels of a video game is ridiculous." - quote from this exact thread

      I still don't think you've disproved the Goatman as you have not accepted any counter-evidence and only repeat your POV.

      bwahahahahaha

      Now you are just contradicting yourself...

      I think deep down even you know this post was BS to bait Boomer and was never about "debunking"

      There it is again, the same "everything against me is a personal attack" argument lmao

      one of the most solid myths on this wiki.

      The most solid myth on the website, which of course is why it has only been spotted thrice since the game released, one being a hoax in GTA Online, just a bird, and the original being a hoax from singeplayer. Very credible, really...

        Loading editor
    • I think that Gunshow20 refuted everything without me. However, I will intervene. One Russian Jew made an experiment and left main character to stand on the bridge until the end of the night. At the same time, the screen recording program was turned on. And what do you think? No one appeared.

      (P.S. the main character was Franklin, meaning he played for Franklin)

        Loading editor
    • I made a theory on my page

        Loading editor
    • So today I've been looking through some ymap data which pretty much defines every single thing that spawns in the entire game. I was quite interested to see all the different spawn positions vehicles have when it comes to random scenarios, cars driving in and out of houses, police cars patrolling specific areas, planes taking off and landing...but then I had this thought, "what about this alleged goatman theory?". So I got myself over to the area where this creature was supposedly sighted and wow, you won't believe what I found!

      ...

      Absolutely nothing. In terms of scenarios, a bicyclist might cycle up the road back towards mainland (WORLD_VEHICLE_BICYCLE_ROAD: : 07:00 - 15:00), and a station wagon of any random type may spawn driving towards the end of the road where the boatyard is (DRIVE: CARS_STATION_WAGON: 15:00 - 22:00). Some rabbits spawn on the hill just up from the bridge (WORLD_RABBIT_EATING: ANIMAL_RABBIT: 00:00 - 24:00), and...that's it.
      Goatmandebunked

      But I hear you, "what if it is a path", actually that's a lie, because you probably won't know what that is. A path is basically where things are allowed to freely roam. So lets say goatman allegedly spawns somewhere else and then proceeded to this location where he is apparently in the photograph. Okay, so lets look at paths shall we.

      Goatmandebunked2

      In this entire area, there's literally only one path and that's path 822.0. This path basically allows any car that has exited/canceled/been disturbed from its scenario to drive down here randomly. It's not a walking path either, so nothing can just walk around this area.

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote: So today I've been looking through some ymap data which pretty much defines every single thing that spawns in the entire game. I was quite interested to see all the different spawn positions vehicles have when it comes to random scenarios, cars driving in and out of houses, police cars patrolling specific areas, planes taking off and landing...but then I had this thought, "what about this alleged goatman theory?". So I got myself over to the area where this creature was supposedly sighted and wow, you won't believe what I found!

      ...

      Absolutely nothing. In terms of scenarios, a bicyclist might cycle up the road back towards mainland (WORLD_VEHICLE_BICYCLE_ROAD: : 07:00 - 15:00), and a station wagon of any random type may spawn driving towards the end of the road where the boatyard is (DRIVE: CARS_STATION_WAGON: 15:00 - 22:00). Some rabbits spawn on the hill just up from the bridge (WORLD_RABBIT_EATING: ANIMAL_RABBIT: 00:00 - 24:00), and...that's it.
      Goatmandebunked

      But I hear you, "what if it is a path", actually that's a lie, because you probably won't know what that is. A path is basically where things are allowed to freely roam. So lets say goatman allegedly spawns somewhere else and then proceeded to this location where he is apparently in the photograph. Okay, so lets look at paths shall we.

      Goatmandebunked2

      In this entire area, there's literally only one path and that's path 822.0. This path basically allows any car that has exited/canceled/been disturbed from its scenario to drive down here randomly. It's not a walking path either, so nothing can just walk around this area.

      Another proof, but its not going to do anything. Its been proven fake already, its only standing still because of the bureaucrats, and all the evidence given to them they'll either reply with "This is a personal attack" or "Moon landing was fake" which has nothing to do with the thread anyways. BTW Nice job on finding this.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah well, they seem to think things that aren't in the game files can still appear in the game.

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote: Yeah well, they seem to think things that aren't in the game files can still appear in the game.

      Not just them, most users think that the creature can be "hidden" in a game file and can't be found...

        Loading editor
    • whether they like it or not, the game files have been completely searched by now, as I've already explained, the game is more than 4 years old. Regardless of whether it is in the game files or not, there has to be some kind of data that actually makes it spawn, like it apparently has in the photograph, but that data doesn't exist. So the photograph is false, drawing a conclusion that, until this creature is "found", it doesn't exist.

        Loading editor
    • I don't claim to know the mechanics of the game or how R* hides content but I do know that everyone on here that shoots from the hip and trys to act all-knowing of GTA game files/development is just pushing an opinion. Monk has observations that are good and in some cases may actually apply to the game mechanics BUT he does not know 100%. Being an armchair critic is all fine and dandy but insisting that everyone adopt your theory/analysis and all other conceived possibilities are nonsense is an unfair demand. I for one do not believe there is an explicitly worded file out thete that proclaims GOATMAN. I believe like others that these secretive and intentionally hidded creatures are hidded as well in the game files, in perhaps an intentionally misleading file name as so to hide the myth from amature code hunters (if that's a thing). Saying this is only not labelled false because the Bureaucrats are protective/delusional is not fair and is a cop out.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • lol you guys are stupid hahah goat_marn dosen't excist until 2018 and gta 5 was only made in satan's year 2k13, but it excists In GTA sA i saw it and my uncle works at rokster (Not the erergi drink!!!!) i was really scered. 

        Loading editor
    • I don't claim to know [...] how R* hides content

      But Rockstar doesn't hide content in their games, like at all. If a different type of file was hidden in a different folder (the page Phantom Files gives a model in the sounds folder as an example) then it would already be known because every single file in GTA V has been analysed. Plus - why would the devs even do such a thing? It would only put a burden on them while doing basically nothing to minimize people from finding the files any sooner. And "Others argue that Rockstar can hide files from view entirely" is just not possible at all, and you don't need to be a superuser to understand this.

      I do know that everyone on here that shoots from the hip and trys to act all-knowing of GTA game files/development is just pushing an opinion.
      1. Nobody is acting all-knowing on how the game's code works. What Monk provided screenshots of is a free program that anybody who owns the game can use. It doesn't take a technical expert to realize either that he showed clearly that no paths exist in the game that could result in the story Boomer described.
      2. Excerpts from the game's code aren't an opinion, it's quite the opposite. There's nothing to argue in this regard - the photo shows that the paths don't exist. That's it.
      Being an armchair critic is all fine and dandy but insisting that everyone adopt your theory/analysis and all other conceived possibilities are nonsense is an unfair demand.

      That is quite ironic coming from the duo that has repeatedly tried to censor this thread and other debunkings on the original Goatman thread.

      Additionally, the burden of proof lies on the person who discovered it, not the critics. It's not really a case of us forcing people to submit to our analysis, but rather that it's either our proof that it was photoshopped and impossible in the game versus this guy managed to magically discover something that isn't in the game and then proceeded to magically behave in ways that aren't present in the game either. Basically zero evidence has been provided in favor of the Goatman other than "The horns are different on the source photograph," "What about Phantom Files," and "The person who posted this thread is a racist nazi."

      I for one do not believe there is an explicitly worded file out thete that proclaims GOATMAN. I believe like others that these secretive and intentionally hidded creatures are hidded as well in the game files, in perhaps an intentionally misleading file name as so to hide the myth from amature code hunters (if that's a thing).
      1. You're right that there is no file for Goatman named after him. The problem is that there isn't a file for him at all.
      2. As both Monk and I (and now Andrew) have mentioned, all the files in the game have been thoroughly searched. Using the statistics that Monk has on his profile, we would only need to seek 40 megs per day since release to have spotted every file in the game. A determined player can do 10 times that in a day. There's simply nothing left to uncover.
      3. "I believe like others"[citation needed]
      Saying this is only not labelled false because the Bureaucrats are protective/delusional is not fair and is a cop out.

      That is exactly what's happened. As an example, when Indep added this debunking to the page, Boomer reverted it because of the now infamous "unsubstatiative." A clear conflict of interest is there.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, I don't actually give a flying shit whether you believe in the myth itself or not, but would you care to explain how the figure in the photograph is actually there, when the game cannot possibly spawn it there without the file I have already pointed out? It's all fine you believing in the myth and dismissing any evidence thrown at you, but I haven't actually heard or seen you explain how you think it got in the photograph. I don't think you understand how the game works even though it has been explained to you 100s of times, yes I do know the game works, there are certain areas I do not, but there's no other way for anything that isn't the map itself to spawn without this file, so I'd like you to explain to me how you think it got there. 

        Loading editor
    • I absolutely don't think that calling Bureaucrats delusional is right for trying to prove you wrong. It is an interesting converstation between Gun, Indep, Monk, СнайперФ, Boomer, Unknowncommand, Sasquatch101 and the Bossking guy.

      Personally, I, like this myth a lot. It brings so much temper and trying to debunk it as fun as trying to prove it exists. Goatman belongs to my favorite myths on the web. I also love how this myth holds this wiki's active status and reputation.

      However, I think that Sasquatch made a great point right here:

      When someone disagrees with your analysis Jim you try and personally discredit them. You are trying to draw conclusions based upon past myths Boomer has brought forward that you (and some others) believe to be questionable. You are not being objective here, instead you are throwing everything you can think of at Boomer to in your way prove why he could never produce evidence of a real myth.

      I agree with Sasquatch here. Whenever someone is in an argument with Gunshow, he tries every non-suspicious way to just discredit them and make them feel inferior while using mistakes they did in very past. But the fact is that Gunshow, also made mistakes and bad things in the past.

      About the myth: I find it very interesting and cool. I won't say it's false, because who knows, Rockstar is smart and the game is big, Rockstar put a lot of effort into the game. Something can exist there.

        Loading editor
    • MilitiaForce
      MilitiaForce removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread
      14:12, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • I don't care about the argument. Let me ask you a question here: If many myths have been debunked through looking at their files, why are some myths still unlikely or possible?

      It's just that Gunshow, who thinks he can debunk anything and everything.

      Once, just to see how Gunshow would react in given situation, I have faked Bigfoot and photographed him from distance. It was also an modification. However, Gunshow acted way too quickly with his Debunking skills and said that it was a tree. Yes, he mistook literally an added creature with a tree.

      Not saying that I'm the right guy who just modded the myth, but I also don't think Gunshow is that impressive at all.

      Reading this converstation, I see that there is more evidence on the side Goatman is false then Goatman is real, but who knows? Kraken is also labelled as unlikely, that is my favourite myth in GTA V. It could be easily debunked right? Why do myth hunters try to hunt it?

        Loading editor
    • Before I even unpack what Mantiix has said, I want everyone to know that his reply was based on him being upset over the photo competition. That's right, he didn't change his mind because of any counter-arguments, but rather the fact that I had more votes than him on a CNB request. Only on the GTA Myths Wiki can you find in depth skepticism like this...


      I also love how this myth holds this wiki's active status and reputation.

      It certainly holds up the Wiki's reputation... it's reputation of being a denizen of crackpots and general nonsense. It upholds the reputation that GMW is filled with people that lack any skepticism. We can even see this effect in the users who contributed to this thread: Boomer's opinion poll is mostly negative. When a new user visits the Wiki and sees threads like these, he's probably going to believe "wow, these guys will believe anything." If you need another example, the YouTuber LeatherIceCream has a (great, in my opinion) series that's about mocking the dumbest stuff on this wiki. GMW has a reputation but it's certainly not a good one.

      Multiple paragraphs about Muh Reputation.

      Basically, Mantiix is arguing this: It's not Boomer's fault for publicizing multiple hoaxes in the past, but our fault for using these hoaxes as evidence when he has presented yet another hoax. Wow... somehow Mantiix has done the complete opposite of critical analysis.

      And I know Mant will bring this up. Literally everybody on planet Earth makes mistakes. (ahem ahem) The difference between a mistake and a hoax is the intent: the hoaxer maliciously tries to fool people into something that isn't real, while the mistake just happens as the result of the misunderstanding and people eventually comes to terms with it. What Boomer has done in malice, trying to get people to believe in the Swamp Monster, the North Yankton Creature, and Goatman when they are patently false. It isn't the result of some kind of misunderstanding, and that's why it's relevant.

      I won't say it's false, because who knows, Rockstar is smart and the game is big, Rockstar put a lot of effort into the game. Something can exist there.

      Argument from ignorance (applies to the whole thread really...)

      The game's files have been searched thoroughly. There's no Goatman.

        Loading editor
    • If many myths have been debunked through looking at their files, why are some myths still unlikely or possible?
      Kraken is also labelled as unlikely, that is my favourite myth in GTA V. It could be easily debunked right? Why do myth hunters try to hunt it?

      This has more to do with the wiki's policy on changing existence labels on the CNB more than the actual validity of the myth themselves (the example you listed certainly deserves a FALSE label.)

        Loading editor
    • This makes me think how long do the people who think this myth is true think it will actually take for people to have checked every single file. Is there a day they will ever think "all the game files are checked now". like, seriously? GTA V is one of the top games not only for how many people play it, but it has one of the biggest modding communities out there, one of the biggest technical research teams out there, OpenIV, and yet you still think not every file has been checked? Like, seriously? This game has been stripped apart and put back together by various modders, I'm pretty sure that requires every single file to be checked through. 

        Loading editor
    • Monkeypolice188 wrote: This makes me think how long do the people who think this myth is true think it will actually take for people to have checked every single file.

      I always found it funny the degeneration with this argument. First it's "the creature is in the game." And once that's called out, it's "the creature is in a different folder." And once that's called out, it's "the creature is a model hidden as an animation file"(???) And finally, once that one is called out, "the creature's file is entirely impossible to access at all." The excuses are kinda mind boggling on this point...

        Loading editor
    • Alright... regardless of the Goatman's existence status, this thread turned into personal attacks against B'crats.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:

      Monkeypolice188 wrote: This makes me think how long do the people who think this myth is true think it will actually take for people to have checked every single file.

      I always found it funny the degeneration with this argument. First it's "the creature is in the game." And once that's called out, it's "the creature is in a different folder." And once that's called out, it's "the creature is a model hidden as an animation file"(???) And finally, once that one is called out, "the creature's file is entirely impossible to access at all." The excuses are kinda mind boggling on this point...

      What if Goatman is in the Social Club files? We need to check them immediately!

        Loading editor
    • MilitiaForce
      MilitiaForce removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread
      14:12, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Gunshow20
      Gunshow20 removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread (okay, it is sort of)
      14:30, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • How are you so sure you know everything about the internal files of the game? I never really said that Goatman is 100% real. I'm also skeptical about the existence of this myth. Also I find it kinda funny how after I disagreed with some parts, you are know acting aggressively in FB over just a myth.

      I don't say that this myth is impossible. With internal files, we can find anything right? Then let's go and do the work, debunk every myth on the page. So according to you using them we can literally change several myth's existence labels to false. I'm sure there are some files that are entirely impossible to access.

      It's not neceassary to act passively aggresive about this or prove your pride over this myth.

        Loading editor
    • MilitiaForce
      MilitiaForce removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread
      14:12, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Shred N Slash
      Shred N Slash removed this reply because:
      What's right is right, I did derail this thread.
      14:10, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • How are you so sure you know everything about the internal files of the game?

      Nice strawman.

      I don't say that this myth is impossible.

      Three sightings in total of this myth - one's a GTA Online player, one's a seagull, and the original is a photoshop. It's impossible.

      So according to you using them we can literally change several myth's existence labels to false.

      This but unironically. If it's not in the game, it's false. This isn't a very hard concept to understand.

      I'm sure there are some files that are entirely impossible to access.

      No there aren't. Read the last... 10 or so replies on this thread. Files aren't in other categories, files aren't one type of file with a different filetype (that's literally impossible) and files haven't been made unable to be accessed by players (that's literally impossible too.)


      And for your last point, just look at both Andrew and Slash, who replied the exact same thing (collective consciousness confirmed?)

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20
      Gunshow20 removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread - drama.
      14:13, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • MilitiaForce
      MilitiaForce removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread
      14:11, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • MilitiaForce
      MilitiaForce removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread
      14:11, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • I will respect your rules of " I think it's not neceassery[sic] to try to connect things that are not linked to the myth." (Even though he mentions how Slash was blocked some time ago, even though I swear that isn't related to the myth at all...)

      Mantiix still argues for the existence of Phantom Files, even after all this debate. I don't want to write out another wall of text so I will just quote Hitchen's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. With Phantom Files, there is literally nothing to discuss. The discussion is not "This is real because A B C, it's false because X Y Z," but rather "It's real but I can't provide evidence because I can't access the files." Phantom Files aren't true, there is nothing more to be said on this.

        Loading editor
    • Shred N Slash
      Shred N Slash removed this reply because:
      What's right is right, I did derail this thread.
      14:09, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Shred N Slash
      Shred N Slash removed this reply because:
      What's right is right, I did derail this thread.
      14:09, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Mantiix has successfully achieved one thing: derailing the thread to be not about the hoaxed Goatman photo, but his interpersonal drama. The last resort of someone who is loosing the debate and needs an easy escape route. And it's not even us mentioned it as part of a post when it's relevant, but now Mantiix has made an entire post solely dedicated to such a thing (and Slash has done it now too.) If that doesn't indicate this debate is over, I don't know what will.

        Loading editor
    • MilitiaForce
      MilitiaForce removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread
      14:11, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • So Slash and Andrew have removed their replies replies not related to Goatman. I will do the same thing with Mant's and my own posts (just the one that was 100 percent drama, of course, even the mildest references to Goatman will stay.) This thread probably looks like a graveyard now, but this is what has to be done.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20
      Gunshow20 removed this reply because:
      Not related to the thread - drama.
      14:17, April 22, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • This is an example of a reply that consists only of drama to help derail the thread (and I assume, eventually get it closed so that it can be claimed as a victory.) This is why this thread had to be purged of posts in the first place.

      Mantiix's recent reply, saved for posterity. Funny how you say I started this drama. When literally, Altair (Slash who was blocked globally for racism, a sock account) tries to say how I'm bad guy or something.

      The only thing I left was an opinion about the Goatman. And there you go Altair the Rattlsnake now basically enjoys the drama. Wait, drama? I don't think it is drama at all.

      When someone leaves an opinion, no matter if it is correct or not it's an opinion, I also think that I'm right and you can't do anything about it.

        Loading editor
    • Apparently I thought this thread had died... I just read through every reply. Honestly, i'll state my opinion here. Gunshow and Monk have already said everything. The original photo was debunked to hell, there's very few "sightings" of goatman in GTA V, most have been disregarded as false, along with the fact that Monk couldn't find any path or anything for Goatman. In my opinion, it seems like it's honestly the final needle in the coffin for the myth. 

      There's no need to turn this debate over a myth into a hellfest of personal attacks, and good thing those posts were deleted. 

        Loading editor
    • Although I won't close the thread (just in case anyone would like to make a serious reply,) I have just posted a request on this myth's existence label on the CNB, as well as a small proposal on how we can improve the Goatman page itself. Feel free to vote on the request now.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:
      Although I won't close the thread (just in case anyone would like to make a serious reply,) I have just posted a request on this myth's existence label on the CNB, as well as a small proposal on how we can improve the Goatman page itself. Feel free to vote on the request now.

      Anyone can vote, right?

        Loading editor
    • .unknowncommander wrote:

      Anyone can vote, right?

      The voting requirements on CNB are having 100 edits and being on the wiki for at least a month. In your case, get just 3 more edits and you'll be all set.

        Loading editor
    • Gunshow20 wrote:

      .unknowncommander wrote:

      Anyone can vote, right?

      The voting requirements on CNB are having 100 edits and being on the wiki for at least a month. In your case, get just 3 more edits and you'll be all set.

      Aight

        Loading editor
    • Personally, I think the CNB request is pointless, it will be locked down to a BOV and the bureaucrats will vote no because of course they will.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.