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:
The full hi-res 10 mb file can be downloaded here:
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/
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.
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.
Interesting photo for sure, Stan…
Very interesting. I too thought perhaps someone in chamo. Glad the info from Mr. Wallace was included
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.
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.
Correction, it would be his left foot, it would be the right foot as we look at the picture.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Scott:
The 2 hi-res photos are now available. Just click on the links and you can download the large file.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stan, is this exactly how the print arrived? Any information on the film speed? Did they say this was a print from the original negative?
Any chance of getting standard issue human to stand in the same location under similar conditions using the same camera for comparison?
Sorry I "outed" anyone. Just didn't think that mentioning that I had seen the photo, and disc, would lead people to automatically identify the source of the photo as John…. I do have other associates with game cams. I guess my problem is that I just don't always think before I write–or speak.
This will probably be my last post on this matter, but I would be interested in Woody, or someone else, "faking" a similar photo so that I could compare the know-to-be faked photo with the one that I saw. I can just barely type on a keyboard and know next to nothing about handling photos on a computer. I'm technologically challenged and I know it. But I did not see the evidences of manipulation that have been set out. If you want to see images that are "unusually" sharp and clear, you need to see the photos of the coyote and the 'coons that were shot at the same scene. I quoted that word "unusually" because I could show you another photo from my nephew's game cam on our place in Alfalfa County, Oklahoma, of the most beautiful tom turkey that you ever laid eyes on, and it too is "unusually" sharp and distinct.
Doug l has an interesting suggestion. That is something that I personally attempted with Dilby's picture some time back–the one I called "the Spenser Creek Image." Incidentally, I don't think that the story has been fully told on that image.
What I regret most is that such pictures cannot be discussed in objective, civil terms.
BTW, it should be noted that this "critter"–perhaps "thing" would be a better designation–is walking barefoot in NOVEMBER with one foot raised so that five toes can be counted easily. And–perhaps this is a matter of perspective–but that raised foot seems to me to be unusually wide at the toes.
I see very clearly the outline that some people are referencing. If you download the high res photo, open it with your default program (in my case – Windows Photo Editor), and then zoom right in, there's a clear color difference around the edge of the whole creature. It's like a greeny color. I used the windows snipping tool to point it out, and saved to photobucket. You can see what I mean here (this is just the head and shoulders area):
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q165/ryan_birc…
Even more clear around the feet area:
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q165/ryan_birc…
So what are you saying Ryan???
I guess what I`m trying to say is, what do you think it is Ryan.
I know that I said that I probably wouldn't post on this again, but….
In Ryan's first picture above, perhaps because I've seen an original print, I THINK that I can see the eyes and nose with the nostrils pointing forward, not down.
I don't know: I ain't no expert on anything.
Hey Ray, I agree with ya, I see the same thing, and those eyes are really wild looking. Hey we love to hear your opinion, so dont you give up. Keep posting, cause I think you and I see the same thing in here, just to bad that the other bunch rather try to find hoaxing going on which there aint none. Its sorta like there throwing the baby out with the bath water, as my granny use to say.
Linda,
Maybe a little bit of an apology. I don't remember seeing that those white spots were connected to anything black in the print that I saw; however, I have carefully looked at the above pictures and can see what you are seeing. It does look like two black straps. I'd like to look at that print again, but since John blames me for outing him on this picture, I'll probably not get that chance–unless that other guy shows it to me. (He keeps "outing" me as a doctor, but don't take that too seriously. I'm neither a Ph.D. or an M.D. I have a D.Min. That is a preacher's degree. But keep in mind that preacher's learn a lot about a lot of things.) But again, I don't know: I ain't no expert.
My problem(s) with the white spots is that they are pure white. Would a buckle on a boot throw back 100% of the light spectrum to the camera? And if they were buckles at the top of boots, would they both have been somewhat to the left of center on the leg? And if they were boot buckles, how come I can count five toes across the front of that raised foot?
You don't reckon this was a lady Bigfoot wearing garters with silver buckles?
Seriously, I still like my idea of water droplets, or some thing of that sort, on the camera lens. Are we still friends, Linda?
Thanks, Jerry.
The fact that the figure is virtually the same color as the adjacent trees raises the suspicion that it might be someone wearing archery or turkey camo (but, then, grey and "silverback" BF have been reported . . .). And since it's all but impossible to see the figure's feet, getting an accurate estimate of height becomes somewhat problematic. Still, it's an interesting and worthwhile offering — thanks.
Stan told us to have a thick layer of skin before the photo was posted.
I'm somewhat astonished that all of the FE's (frazzlin' experts) that have come out of the woodwork with all sorts of pontifications about the fraudulent nature of the picture. What's more astonishing (well, no it really isn't given the character of some of them) is the basis upon which they arrived at such conclusions. I sincerely hope that they do NOT work for any forensic laboratory where their "work" could mean the difference in someone's guilt or innocence.
Having just gotten back from being out of town for a few days I will (first thing Monday) have the original 35mm negatives certified as genuine and unaltered. Then, I will have the same done to one of the copies of the original CD made from them. Stan has one of the original copies from whence the above photo originated. I would also ask for him to have his copy (at my expense) authenticated at the laboratory of his choice.
When these are all published what all the FE's will then know is their "work" has all the relevance and credibility of a politician's campaign promise.
It will end up being a life lesson for them as well as those that desire to follow in their footsteps.
3 times now I've started to type a response, and then just deleted it because I don't want to get into a pointless argument. This is all I'm going to say:
To answer your question Jerry, I don't know for sure. However I strongly feel that these two photos (the ones that we all can click on and download) have been altered digitally. Whether it's by someone trying to be helpful, and trying to brighten the image to make it easier to see, I don't know. That being said, I'm just an IT guy. I'm not an expert with photography/photo software by any means. I would love to hear the opinion of someone who works with/examines photos on a daily basis.
For the record, I'm not pointing fingers and calling anybody names, nor am I a person who is part of a "bunch trying to find hoaxing going on, when there aint none". I know sasquatch exist, in fact, I had my own personal encounter just last summer.
And to John Phillips, I think you need to re-read all of the comments again. If anybody is making personal attacks, it's yourself ("technically incompetent", "frazzlin experts", "not surprising given the character of some of them", etc.)
I understand being somewhat "defensive" because the pictures are yours, but people are trying to offer other opinions and you're coming across as being very close minded with your replies. And I offer my sincere apologies if you take that as another personal attack.
Ryan,
I meant no ill will toward you as my dander got a bit up when the usual crowd at BFF went on their feeding frenzy and all civility was lost.
I respect your opinions and that's just what was hoped for in making this public instead of the vitriolic response elicited from some quarters when they learned who was involved.
When Stan has the negative copies that have been authenticated maybe some people like yourself will gain an additional perspective. I look forward to your comments.
Regards,
John
I probably should not do this, but….
Let me say a couple or so things:
l. I would still like to see someone take an open game cam picture and insert a bipedial figure into it, as it was suggested had been done in this picture, and see if they can reproduce a similar photo. I would like to compare a known fake with this picture. This is the second time that I have made this suggestion. I have gotten no response from the first time.
2. I am intriqued by the face that I see.
3. I am intriqued by the toes that I can see.
4. I am intriqued by the arms that I see. One arm is bent at the elbow from the critter's left and extends all the way across the body. The other is dropped down on the right side of the criter. Both appear to end in curiously small-looking fists.
5. I am bothered by the white dots that, on the legs, appear, in the above pictures, to be connected to black straps. I don't RECALL noticing that in the print that I looked at. And I still have that question about what would have reflected the full, or almost full, spectrum of light and produced the nearly pure white spots.
6. As for the outline of the critter that some see, I am wondering if that might not be the result of the hair or fur. What I mean is this: The light reflected from the hair/fur where the hair/fur is backed up by the body might produce a different color than the hair/fur on the side/edges of the criter where the light from the camera is hitting only fur/hair not backed up by the body. Am I making sense?
I wish that there was a way, when someone submits a picture that they or their game cam produced, to raise questions about the picture without implying in the ensuing discussion that the person who took the picture "faked" it. I'm not sure that there is a way. And that means that Stan's warning about being "thick skinned" needs to be taken seriously by anyone submitting a picture. John had attempted to submit the picture without his identity being known. To the extent that I thwarted his efforts to do so, I'm sorry.
But I would still like to know about that face.
I have watched many of these BF forums over the years, and studied many of these pictures ad nauseum. I have never felt the need to post before, but this picture is interresting to say the least. I believe that this photo is better than 99% of those submitted to various forums, as most are totally indistinguishable. As to this photo itself, I do not know if it is truly a BF or not. I tend to think that it probably is. I am willing however, to go on record as saying that I don't believe at this point that the picture has been "doctored" in any way. After having studied Dr. Ciani's credentials, I believe that he is a much better judge of whether it has or has not been manipulated than I or probably anyone else criticing this photograph.
The venom that has been spewed out over this photo on many of the forums is a perfect example of why many people have not posted their findings. In some cases I feel as though jealousy plays a large part of the reason. I am very sure that some have posted their venom as part of a personal vendeta. It is a real shame that this type of activity takes place due to the fact it prevents large amounts of information and evidence from being made public. What a loss.
I've looked at the photo and looked closely at the "outline" I can see where someone had used a photoshop tool to maybe enhance the figure from the surrounding background. not saying there isn't a figure there but it doesn't take a specialist to see the hard edged outline around the figure. all you had to do was select/inverse/ and darken up the background to achieve that effect. my issue isn't with that its with the bright spots on what look like the knee's and hand. it looks like reflectors like joggers use to be seen by cars. has anybody talked about these yet?
gone back and looked again at the comments and pic. I think what you have here may be a pic of a hunter coming or going into the woods. judging from the date on the pic. Nov.20th that would put him right in the middle of deer season. where was this pic taken? if you check with the local hunting regs. and seasons you may just have another option to think about. as far as seeing toes goes, the photo I'm looking at is far to grainy to see toes, it could very well be the lighter bottom of a packboot, like a maine hunting boot where the sole is lighter than the top and made of tan rubber (popular with hunters because the rubber sole prevents scent from being transferred to the ground) it looks like there may even be a bow or gun barrel above the shoulder. if there could be a "clear" high res picture we could better see if these details if they're there or not.
Mike,
High resolution scanning has been done and an analysis of it is presently being completed as well as even more additional analysis of the negatives. The results will be posted up as soon as they become available.
The date of this photo falls outside of firearm deer season in Oklahoma.
Also, the foliage (limbs, ice storm ground debris, etc.) is so dense that it would be extremely hazardous to travel in this area during darkness w/o any means of illumination. Having hunted that spot extensively (during bow season) the only way I ever walked to/from the tree stand (~20' east of the image location) during darkness was with a LED headlight due to the conditions described above.
Examination of the photo (to-date) has revealed no evidence of illumination or even NV type devices.
Also, with reference to the hunting (i.e., L. L. Bean Guide boots) boots the appearance of toes (they are much more evident when viewing the CD in person) makes for an interesting observation.
The results of the professional analysis (being done by several individuals) may help clarify some of the speculations being floated by various individuals.
To cap onto the above comments:
The reason for the camera in that particular spot was to determine how many deer were regularly using the location and if it was worth placing a ground blind there.
As I'd hunted there from the hanging tree stand multiple times during bow season and often heard or glimpsed deer, I never was able to get an arrow shot off due to the density of the foliage. So, the feasibility of a ground blind set-up was being explored when the photo image was captured.
Also, this particular location had never been previously hunted during the ~30 years the landowner has been there.
Mike,
There are two posts on this picture: this one and the one higher up. Can't remember exactly where, but I've mentioned the arms, and hands, and the white spots before. When I first looked at the disk at Doug's and zoomed in on the image, it is quite clear that the right arm of the UHS/critter is dropped straight down his side while the left arm is bent at the elbow and crosses the front of the body to its right side. The larger white spot is not in, or near, the left hand. It is in the crook of the elbow.
Mr. Phillips,
It has been almost a year since you posted the following:
"I will (first thing Monday) have the original 35mm negatives certified as genuine and unaltered. Then, I will have the same done to one of the copies of the original CD made from them. Stan has one of the original copies from whence the above photo originated. I would also ask for him to have his copy (at my expense) authenticated at the laboratory of his choice."
So, where is the authentication and does Stan also had his copy authenticated?
Which labs did the authentication?
Thanks.
KC Photography in Tulsa.
I do not know if/where on Stan.