StanCourtney

I recently gave a short interview to our local newspaper.

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x514811886/Dave-Bakke-Central-Illinois-man-on-watch-for-Bigfoot

Dave Bakke: Central Illinois man on watch for Bigfoot

Stan – Dr.Ciani contacted me by email and offered to evaluate the original digital copy. At that time I obtained from Phillips – Bilby an untouched copy. Below is his analysis of the Gamecam Photo, originally posted here on the 19th of April, 2010. And then below that is Dr.Ciani’s analysis of the untouched copy.

Anthony Ciani, PhD (aciani1@uic.edu)
Condensed Matter Physicist
http://wolfgang.phy.uic.edu/~tony

(Dr.Ciani’s thoughts on the posted photo of Gamecam Photo
of 19th of April, 2010.)

After reading this and seeing the original scan, it became clear what that person did. He tried to apply a sharpen or deconvolution filter to a heavily noisy image, which was already in focus. The result is that it creates a moire pattern, which hides detail. He then “cut” around the figure, and applied some type of level adjustment (probably a gamma filter) to attempt to brighten the subject. The end result was a low quality, distorted image, which appeared to be doctored.

[Stan – the original non-enhanced photo. For large scale image click link]

http://www.stancourtney.com/photo/untouched_large.jpg

(Dr.Ciani was supplied with the above untouched original photo which he then enhanced himself. What follows is Dr.Ciani’s analysis of that original photo of which Dr.Ciani enhanced himself and is posted below in both small and full scale.)

My analysis of the photo:

The digital image purports to be a scan from a developed photographic film, used in a game camera. The type of film is unidentified. The image contains EXIF data indicating it was made by a Noritsu Koki QSS-32_33, and saved by Noritsu’s image software. EXIF data can be faked; however, there are no indications that the image has been altered in any way, post scan. The Noritsu Koki QSS-32_33 is a low volume film processor, and the image was probably made directly from the negative; although the QSS-32_33 can scan images from prints. For simplicity, the term “film” will be used to refer to the scanned original, and “image” will be used to refer to the digital data.

The game camera (model unknown) is a flash photography model. The object of interest, hence forth referred to as unidentified humanoid shape (UHS), is just within the range of the flash, and is approximately as dark as the surrounding vegetation, and similarly hued. The intensity values in the image span almost the entire range, but there is no true black present in the image, which reduces the likelihood that there has been alteration of the image. UHS is within a darker region of the picture, and being dark itself, there is a substantial amount of dithering over UHS. This is typical when scanning dark areas, as noise in the electronic sensors becomes equivalent to the signal.

UHS appears to be a real object in the film. The camera flash and lens are not coaxial, which allows the lens to see shadows caused by the flash. These shadows should be offset in the same direction which the lens is offset from the flash. In this case, the lens would be below the flash. The distance between the shadow and the casting object should decrease as the object rises above the horizon. The shadows being cast on UHS appear to be consistent with this. UHS is also clearly in front of some limbs and trees in the background, which pass behind UHS. There is no indication of UHS being anything other than a real object in the scene, and there is no indication that any part of the scene is a composite image.

There is a substantial amount of noise around UHS, which can cause some details to become difficult to identify. Unfortunately, noise covers detail, and removing one removes the other.

[Stan – Dr.Ciani’s enhancement – For large scale image click link]

http://wolfgang.phy.uic.edu/~tony/bilby_enh.jpg

The above enhanced image has undergone several processing steps to remove noise (which adds blur), and then enhance the edges. This process was performed in the following manner. The image was copied into a new layer, and the color space was reduced to gray scale. A filter was applied to erode dark pixels. This filter increases the intensity of a pixel if it is of lower intensity than its neighbors. The effect is to remove noise over the lighter areas, identifying solid objects. The filter was applied with a 25% level (75% original gray scale, 25% filtered gray scale). A second gray scale layer was then enhanced using a difference of Guassians, to bring out edge detail, which created a light map, used to highlight continuous regions. The edge enhanced layer was then combined with the filtered layer to produce a light map which highlighted the branches and UHS. This light map was then applied to the original layer, to brighten the key objects. The result brings out the form of UHS and the trees, but removes the appearance of texture from those objects.In reality, it was the noise which destroyed the texture.

There is a caveat as well. If the noise is strong enough, this process can highlight objects which never existed. The only region with strong enough noise for this to occur is the area around or above the head of UHS. In the enhanced image, it appears UHS may have a highly domed head. This may be a result of the filter highlighting a random “pattern” in the noise, essentially, digitally enhancing pareidolia. The general form of UHS is certain. The noise is too low for pareidolia.

A scan of the film using higher exposure settings may provide additional detail for the dark regions of the film, while destroying detail in the empty area illuminated by the flash. Some of the noise may also be due to film grain, depending on the ASA speed and model of film. The limiting information seems to be pixelation, more than noise or film grain. The film should contain more information than this, and a higher resolution scan should yield significantly better detail. Even better if multiple, high resolution scans are averaged together, to remove noise.

Stan – Original untouched photo on left, Dr.Ciani’s enhancement on right.

The UHS object itself is interesting. There are three bright points on its figure. Two near the knees, and one between the left elbow and body. These might be reflective materials (e.g. mica), bare metal, or brightly colored objects. The two lower spots are very likely flecks of material. The object under the arm is different, and clearly being carried, with the left hand wrapped around it. It is also not a single bright point, and some details can be identified. The object is oval in general shape, darker than UHS, and may have color, perhaps blue or green. The bright spot is roughly in the center of the object, and is not perfectly round. The bright spot seems to have a darker spot in its middle. In this case, pixelation is the limiting factor, the noise is not substantial. Overall, the image appears to be an unaltered scan from a film processing unit. The film is likely a picture of a real scene. The limiting factors pertaining to detail in the image are the scan resolution, followed by the exposure level. It is suggested that the film be taken to a professional photographic shop, where it can be scanned using a higher end film scanner, perhaps with an optical resolution of 4000 dpi or higher. Film scanners with optical resolutions of 7200 dpi exist, and would be best. Ideally, a scanner with an adjustable exposure level or high dynamic range should be used to intensify the dark areas. Film is analogue, and so, such an optical intensification should produce a better scan.

Tim Baker

I’ve listened to the Illinois and Colorado howls a bunch, and there is definitely something odd about them. When I first heard the Illinois Howl, I thought “that’s just somebody’s dog”. But I started to notice some strange things about them. Then later, I heard the Colorado Howls. That peaked my curiosity even more, especially since, for the first time that’s been made public (that I’m aware of), some of the howls were recorded on four different recorders simultaneously. That made me decide to do some further analysis of the calls. So, I ran them through some spectral analyzing software trying to find a match for them, comparing them to lots of dog sounds. No match. Hmmmm…

The Illinois Howl – link to the discussion about the Illinois howl:

The Illinois Howl

Link to one of the sound files:

Illinois Howl -  4/4/2006

I also thought that the Illinois Howls might be a large domestic dog in love. My German Shepherd howled very similarly when one of his lady friends was in season and he couldn’t get to her. So, I analyzed a full repertoire of his “love songs”. Nope, not that either. And no match to the Colorado Howls, either. So, the next thing I thought was that it might be coyotes. But, after spending enough time running lots of coyote calls through the analyzer S/W until my wife got aggravated at me, and my dogs had worn themselves out howling and barking at the recordings, I have to agree with Stan that they do NOT match up to coyotes. And I was pretty sure I would find a match, especially from an older male. But, no. So, I ran wolf howls from various places around the country through the S/W and while a few were closer, it was still “no cigar”. And the calls are certainly NOT cattle.

The Colorado Howl – link to the discussion about the Colorado howl:

The Colorado Howl

Link to one of the sound files:

The Colorado Howl

A couple of friends and I tried to duplicate the calls doing them ourselves, with and without various megaphones, and in different places like large culverts and bathtubs, also through pipes of different sizes. And we are pretty danged good doing calls with our mouths. Even tried with a didgeridoo, elk bugle, and bull horn (real one, not the electronic kind). Nope. I’ve played a little with Mongolian throat singing over the years and sometimes can do it pretty well (if nobody’s looking at me…lol). That didn’t match either. There were several times that I thought we had nailed the sound ourselves or had found an animal sound that matched it, but when we ran it through the S/W, it was clearly different.

Conclusion:… I don’t know what in the hell made those vocalizations. And I personally believe that bigfoot exists. (And yes, I already know that some of you on here don’t believe they exist, but that’s an argument for another time.) And, I’ve also recorded what I’m pretty sure ARE bigfoot vocalizations, but none of them sound just like these particular Howler recordings. But some of the vocalizations I’ve heard DO contain the simultaneous and/or trilling high and low frequencies found in the Illinois and Colorado Howl recordings. And some of the vocalizations DO contain greater energy in the lower frequencies like these Howl recordings.

But like I said, I can’t say WHAT made those Howl vocalizations, and I don’t think that bigfoot made them, per se. I’ll discuss the reason that I don’t believe these are normal bigfoot vocalizations in a follow-on post. Now, if you do much investigating into bigfoot sightings, you come across references to “dog-faced” ones, or “long-snouted” ones, or “dog-men”, or ones that looked like werewolves, or loup-garou’s, or creatures like the Beast of Seven Chutes and the Beast of LBL, or as some Native Americans call them: the Nalusa Falaya. I’ve never seen one, but I’ve personally heard three first-hand reports of sightings of them, and two of them were from reputable, trustworthy, dead-serious folks. IF they exist, could these be some of their vocalizations?

Another interesting thing about the creatures that made the Illinois and Colorado Howls, as well as some of the howls recorded in other parts of the country is this: The vocalizations of the Howlers sound like they are solitary creatures – not part of the local coyote packs. They do the vast majority of their howling completely independently of the howling of the local coyotes. Only in a few of the recordings does the Howler start up after the local ‘yotes start howling, but even then, the Howler keeps going by itself after the ‘yotes have quit. In almost all of the recordings, the Howler starts doing its thing by itself, and then the coyotes join in and it becomes a cacophony of yelps, yips and howls, but when the ‘yotes finally tire of it and quit, the Howler keeps on going, by itself. And in the Illinois recordings, it is clear that the Howler is independent from domestic dogs in the area. The dogs respond to the Howler, but the Howler doesn’t respond to the dogs.

As further support of this solitary-and-independent theory, Stan was sometimes able to ascertain that the Howler and the coyotes were physically separated by some distance, often 200 to 300 yards or more. In fact, in Colorado, he was able to determine the locations of the Howler and the coyotes quite accurately. And they always stayed separated, except for one instance when a coyote and the Howler passed fairly close to each other in a meadow.

Now, from the Illinois and Colorado Howl recordings, I’ve been able to draw the following possible conclusions:

1) The Howler, in these cases, was not a standard canid such as a dog, coyote, fox, wolf or a cross of any of these, but it obviously is capable of producing a similar call.
2) The Howler was not a human, at least not a human using any easily portable sound producing or modification device of which I or others know.
3) The frequency range of the Howler’s calls does not match that of native canids, especially in the lower frequencies and there is more energy in the lower frequency ranges, which some believe indicates a larger animal.
4) The Howler is a possibly solitary creature which operates independently of the local coyote packs and even independently of the local domestic dogs.
5) The calls don’t quite match the ones that I believe are bigfoot vocalizations, but they have very similar or the same frequency range.

So, what kind of large creature can make calls that closely mimic canid vocalizations but contains the frequency range and acoustic energy attributed to bigfoot???

I have just listened to what Stan is calling the “Lake Howl, Illinois – 2010” and I have some definite ideas about that call, but I’ll discuss that in a follow-on posting.

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/

On the 9th – 11th of April, 2010 I attended the annual Nature recording Workshop presented by Naturesound.org in Seattle, Washington.

A short video of the workshop is available here: Workshop Video. And at the 1:58 mark if you look carefully you might spot the elusive Stan Courtney.

From the Naturesound.org website we find Martyn’s bio:

Martyn Stewart is an audio/naturalist specializing in location and field recordings, mostly for natural history documentaries.

Many of Martyn’s sounds have been included in over 150 feature films, radio and TV.

His nature sounds have also found their way to CD’s books accompanying Cd’s, bio-accoustic study data collection research and commissioned field work acquisitions.

INSTRUCTORS: Martyn Stewart, Mark Oberle and Curt Black

Classroom consisted of Basics of Sound Recording, Microphones, Recording techniques, Recorder and Microphone Choice,  Editing and metadata, Filtering and the use of sonograms.  We spent 3 hours each day in the field where we had a chance to try out different types of microphones and techniques.

It was a wonderful weekend being instructed by true professionals in the field of nature recording.  I was able to benefit from the one on one instruction and I am hopeful to be able to improve my own recording technique.

A big thank you to Alexia to allow me to record her Song to a Winter Wren.  Please give it a listen.

I would like to encourage anyone who is “serious” about their nature recording to consider attending this great yearly workshop.

Monday, August 19, 1968

10-foot-tall ‘what’s it’ reported seen

Carbondale Southern Illinoisan

There’s a “thing” roaming the woods near Chittyville several area residents have reported, but no one knows exactly what it is.

Tim Bullock, 22, of West Frankfort, said today his girl friend, Barbara Smith, 17, of Carterville, sighted the “creature” Aug. 11 while they were riding northeast of Chittyville, an unincorporated area north of Herrin.

About 8:30 p.m., “I felt dirt being thrown at me through the window and it seemed like somehting [sp] else, a “large object, was thrown over the car.” Bullock said.

His girl friend, “saw it, and she started screaming.” Bullock related. He said he did not see the “thing,” but Barbara described it as “huge,” about 10-feet-tall, with a head as large as a steering wheel.

It looked “black” Barbara told Tim, with a round, “hairy” face.

Tim and Barbara left the area and reported the incident to Herrin police, he said.

Bullock said he returned to the area the next day and found a depression in the grass, indicating a large animal had rested or slept there.

Residents in the area told him their dogs had been barking loudly and “carrying on” at night for two weeks.

Since this all took place Bullock said a carhop at a Herrin area drive-in restaurant told him someone else came to the drive-in “hysterical” and reported seeing the creature.

At least one other person said he saw “it” near Rt 148, Bullock added.

Curious area residents who heard the reports drove through the Chittyville area last weekend, but saw no traces of the “thing.”

Herrin police said residents reported sighting some type of strange animal several months ago. It turned out to be a stray Bull.