This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.

Bilby-Phillips Gamecam Photo, Part 1

//Bilby-Phillips Gamecam Photo, Part 1

Bilby-Phillips Gamecam Photo, Part 1

Recently I was sent this photo Bilby – Phillips who had taken the picture with a gamecam.  The distance from the gamecam to the subject was about 18 feet and measurements taken later led the owner to believe the subject’s height was between 7 and 8 feet tall.

The full hi-res 14 mb file can be downloaded here:

Hi Res Photo # 1

The full hi-res 10 mb file can be downloaded here:

Hi Res Photo # 2

The owners request inclusion of an admonishment to webmasters of the specific stipulations of Title 17 in US Copyright law. Specifically, a reference to the actual and statutory damages as well as possible criminal prosecution resulting from infringement thereof. Webmasters should be advised to seek guidance from counsel especially if their website IS NOT registered with their respective Secretary of State’s office as a non-profit organization.

In other words, if you’re selling anything or raising money on a commercial basis you probably are not exempt under Title 17. A link to the actual law is included: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

By | 2010-04-19T20:24:03+00:00 April 19th, 2010|Uncategorized|44 Comments

About the Author:

44 Comments

  1. Rayford Wallace April 25, 2010 at 6:01 am

    I have seen the picture posted here. I have also had an opportunity to view it from a computer disc where I could zoom in on it. I regard it as the most interesting picture of its type that I have seen.

    When I looked at the print, I thought that it was most likely a person in camo who had walked up on game cam. There was a line down the front that appeared to be a zipper, and it looked as though the "critter" had his hands in pockets on either side of the zipper. The feet looked a little odd.

    When I looked at the computer image and zoomed in, it became clear that the line that I thought was a zipper was actually a small limb and that there were no pockets. The left arm was bent at the elbow across the front of the "critter"–extending all the way across the body and ending in what might have been a fist. The right arm was dropped straight down and ended in a similar "fist." The body did not have a camo pattern and appeared to be, on the computer image, just slightly diffferent in color from the surrounding trees. I could count five toes! On the face, I could see what appeared to be two eyes and a nose. The nost had nostrils that pointed out, not down?

    I'm sorry that the image posted is so dark. The actual picture is much clearer.

  2. stancourtney April 25, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Thanks for your comments.

    It is difficult to take a picture file of 5 MB and convert it to a smaller file and post it here and not lose the detail.

  3. Chris B April 25, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Interesting photo for sure, Stan…

  4. Linda Hamm April 25, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Very interesting. I too thought perhaps someone in chamo. Glad the info from Mr. Wallace was included

  5. Pat Hutchinson April 25, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    I think that the figure is walking away. If you look at his right foot….it seems to be lighter, like maybe the bottom of a shoe.

  6. Jerry Madison April 26, 2010 at 2:39 am

    If you look at his right foot, you can count the toes, thats because he is walking toward the camera. The lighter side of his foot is the bottom of his foot.

  7. Jerry Madison April 26, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Correction, it would be his left foot, it would be the right foot as we look at the picture.

  8. Rayford Wallace April 26, 2010 at 6:44 am

    In addition to the toes, and the arm across the front of the body, what appears to be a face is looking directly at the camera.

  9. Rayford Wallace April 26, 2010 at 6:50 am

    In response to Pat Hutchinson: You picked up on an important point that I did not mention. The "critter" was walking and one foot was raised–but walking toward the camera.

  10. Scotto April 26, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Interesting….but looks like someone dressed in the "Realtree" type camo coveralls or something, but hard to tell for sure.

    I'd like to see it 'zoomed in' as Mr. Wallace has seen it.

  11. Linda Willcockson April 26, 2010 at 9:04 am

    No one mentioned the white splotches. There are the two on the legs that look like some kind of clips, or buckles connected to distinctly BLACK straps. Then there is the big white spot that appears to be some kind of metal and BLACK gear tucked under the left arm. And . . . there do appear to be camo-like splotches all over this, "thing."

  12. stancourtney April 26, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Scott:

    The 2 hi-res photos are now available. Just click on the links and you can download the large file.

  13. woody April 26, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Did anyone look at the 10MB full-res version?

    Sadly, the image is completely fake.

    If you look at the edges of the silhouette, you can see the selection lines extremely clearly. It appears that the creator of this image simply took an empty gamecam inage, opened it in an image editor, selected a very rough humanoid silhouette, then bumped up the brightness inside the selection. The viewer's imagination does the rest.

    This isn't someone in camo, or a misidentified animal, or anything else. It's photo manipulation, and not all that great a job at that.

  14. Dean April 26, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    The border around the edges of the subject are suspect of some sort of manipulation.

    If this isn't a fake/hoax, did the owner try some sort of highlight to increase the subject contrast?

  15. Rayford Wallace April 26, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    When I zoomed in on the image, there was no camo pattern–no mottling. It appeared to have a consistent color that was similar to, but somewhat different from, the black/gray of the trees.

    I saw nothing that indicated that the three bright spots were attached to anything. I'm not sure what would have caused them. Perhaps simple light reflections.

    The picture did not appear to have been manipulated in any way. There were limbs and such behind the "critter" which his body blocked out and limbs and such in front of the "critter" which were visible. By reason of that, it is possible to identify the approximate spot where it was standing–or walking.

    If this picture is a fake, Woody, it was not faked in the way that you suggest. It IS, IMO, an actual picture of something walking up on that game camera. That something has some distinct characteristics that intrique me.

  16. Denny Filbert April 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    When you look at the hi-res you can see the outlines pretty clearly. They just outlined a shape and simply changed the color slightly. There's no way that it is anything but a digital manipulation. My only question is:

    Who is the guilty one?

  17. John Phillips April 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Woody, Sam, Denny, et. al.

    How strongly do you feel this is a fake/hoax?

    Strong enough to put some money where your collective mouths are?

    Stan has an original copy of the CD and I have the hardcopy evidence of it's chain of custody from the time I dropped it into the UPS overnight box outside my office until it was delivered to his door in Illinois.

    I also have the original 35mm negatives from which the CD(s) were made.

    So…go to the bank first thing in the morning and get a cashier's check for one thousand dollars ($1,000.00USD) made payable to the Salvation Army.

    Send it to Stan for safekeeping.

    When all of you accusers have done so I will overnight my cashier's check for $1,000.00 (payable to the Salvation Army) to Stan along with the negatives (if he so chooses) and I will pay for the expenses to have an independent laboratory to certify the evidence.

    It is what it is and the facts will be self-evident.

    I or no one else involved in this event have stated what we think this image is for we do not know (forensically) any more than any of y'all.

    I DO know it isn't a fake nor has it been doctored as you say.

    I do know some of you are apparently technically incompetent by virtue of your declarations based upon "evidence" that does not exist.

    What will it be…is $1,000.00 to "Rich" for your blood or are you afraid the entire world will see your incompetence for what it truly is?

    The Salvation Army will be the winner in any event.

  18. Samuel Rich April 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    I don't have any personal beef with you John. As a matter of fact I'm willing to offer my assistance.

    If you're still near the Tulsa area there are at least two different photo shops that can scan negatives. If you'd like to meet one afternoon or weekend I'd be willing to foot the very small fee to have the negative scanned so that it can be posted here along with the other images.

  19. Jerry Madison April 26, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    I don't know that that would be such a good idea. John issued a challenge to all of these people accusing him of photoshoping and being a faker etc. I think that if they are sure enough to accuse someone then they should meet John's challenge and put their money where their mouth is.

  20. Joppa April 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Very interesting. I don't see any sign of photo manipulation, but alas, it is still a blobsquatch. Thanks for sharing it. Hope you can get more.

  21. John Phillips April 26, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    It really isn't about scanning negatives so they can then be bandied about by people willing to put forth assertions w/o any basis thereof.

    The negatives and original CD will be verified and certified by an independent laboratory to prove there was no fakery or hoaxing.

    I wasn't going to post anything about them…just let the chips fall and lay but when Dr. Wallace outed us (after I asked him not to) some (BFF) people took it upon them selves to make it a basis for personal attacks. That's why I decided to call them/you out.

    Actually, as a case of somewhat unintended consequences the events thus far have lent themselves to illustrate precisely what is wrong in the world of bigfootery. Egos, politics and a cult mentality probably play primary roles in why the scientific aspect of this endeavour has remained the real "mystery". This is further validated by the recent exit from this scene (or in some cases, op eds of their philosophical lamentations) by people heretofore regarded as some of the more serious types.

    Sam, I bear no ill will to you personally either but the antics of the stalwarts on BFF regarding this situation only illustrate the endemic ignorance and cultlike groupie mentality that have made that site a very diminished entity compared to what it used to be. I mean how long did it take for them to figure out LTPE was a blowhard chicken farmer from Carolina after fawning over him for so long. I called him out for what he was ~3 years ago and Ms. Doster banned me for doing such. More's the pity.

  22. Marc S. April 27, 2010 at 1:27 am

    There's little question in my mind that the outline of the "creature" is unnaturally sharp… the crispness of its silhouette far exceeds the original grain of the film, and the light levels appear to have been enhanced considerably. For those that doubt that assertion, just look at the limbs of the trees as a point of comparison. You don't need to be a photo analyst to notice that this has been tinkered with somewhere along the line. However, I'm not necessarily sure that proves it's a fake, in fact, the more I look at it the more I'm beginning to wonder if it hasn't been enhanced in an effort to draw attention to what otherwise would be a difficult to discern outline. Up near the left shoulder area, there appears to be a pattern in the film grain that sticks out past the artificial, digital outline but roughly follows its contour. It almost looks as if whoever outlined it didn't outline it exactly. It's so hard to tell, though, as the manipulation plays with the eye and mind, and I could just be seeing things.<