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.
Stan,
We cannot thank you enough for all the effort (and forebearance) you've given to this project.
The upshot of these events is perhaps the next time the so-called "experts" at places such as BFF, MABRC, et. al. decide to jump out and play "gotcha guy expert" they'll decide to employ actual due diligence before rendering an unqualified postulation based upon evidence they have only the slightest grasp thereof.
It does however serve to illustrate such behavior as one of the primary impediments to any real progress in this field. People should get over their own egos first and maybe then they'll be able to "see" a UHS in the forest and get past all the "trees".
Regards,
John Phillips
John, and others,
It is true that there are quite a few "arm chair researchers" at BFF and MABRC, but I do not believe their skepticism originates from ego. There are a LOT of hoaxes, and some of them rather good. One might say that the people on those forums have been hoaxed into scoffticism. That is, they cry hoax at the slightest incongruity. I believe the exact same thing happened when the Myakka photo was first released. Eventually, someone's wife said, "that's a well known costume," and suddenly everyone else just said, "hoax." Problem was, the costume apparently existed, only in her imagination. I think Coleman still has the high-res scans of that photo, and I hope he posts them sometime, because I have heard the detail is quite good. But alas, the scofftics have gotten him down, and I think he feels no motivation to restart Myakka.
I certainly hope the 35mm film of this UHS can be taken to a photo shop which has an optical enlarger and uses photographic print paper. I think the film may have substantially more detail than the Photo CD scan. Unfortunately, almost all film processing has moved to digital.
The greatest let down; if better detail is recovered, it might only provide some researchers additional insights. The truth is, without some significant corroborating evidence, a photo is just not convincing proof. For all we know, that could be a real photo of butchykid624.
Also, I hope that a photographic enlargement might reveal the identity of the object carried in the left hand. My first impression was that it might be an opened soda can, but the shape does not appear to be round. Given its color, and what can be discerned of its structure, I think it is a man made object.
Stan,
Thanks for posting the update with Analysis.
Bob
Dr. Ciani,
Kindest thanks again for your (unsolicited) efforts regarding the photo.
Thom Powell appears to be spot on in his book "The Locals" when he describes the "turf war" mentality endemic among many so-called BF researchers. It's almost a carbon copy of how gangs operate in both mentality and actions.
Even though I have never (personally) claimed the image in question is eiher a "this" or a "that" there are those now alleging I'm an admitted hoaxer. Their apparent logic in arriving at such a conclusion is a mystery to rival the trinity and illustrates the paredolic paranoia and groupthink mob mentality epidemic within this subset of individuals.
I have thick skin however, the behavior of some of these persons is rather disturbing to the point of wondering if they are a danger to others personal safety. A couple even have such documented troubled backgrounds that the idea of "going postal" may well be within their inventory of options.
And they say life isn't a circus.
Thanks to Dr. Ciani and John Phillips. This is a very good analysis.
I appreciated your reply to me in the original article John. I think it's fair to say that although I wasn't able to use the correct terminology, my opinion of the other pictures was accurate. Maybe if I had posted as "Dr. Ryan"…? haha And like you said, as more analysis came out, I might have a different perspective. Definitely more curious now than I was before..
"Keep on keepin' on" everybody! It's only a matter of time..
So, the picture may be real, but of what ? Now comes the fun arm chair speculation. To me, it looks like a human wearing some sort of Camo, need not be a hoaxer, just a hunter getting his pix taken on a game cam.
Of note is the fact this immediate area is also the scene of several (alleged) UHS sightings by several hunters, BFRO field investigators as well as several MABRC members. Of course, this history doesn't preclude that possibly some of those individuals with knowledge of the particular area might have been tempted to conduct some ad hoc "research" on an "unauthorized basis" ?
I certainly hope that isn't the case but such cannot be 100% ruled out as a possibility.
Solid brown or gray "camo", and walking around barefoot?
There is enough light to show color, and the color of whatever it is, is clearly that icky brown-gray color. I guess it *could* be a dirty green. There is very little green in the scene, for comparison, but that seems unlikely. The color in the shiny thing it is holding comes out fairly well, as do the leaves beneath its bare feet.
Looking at the feet, the front part appears to have the splayed width sometimes seen in suspected BF footprints, not the narrowness of a human foot.
If it is not a BF, then I doubt it is an accident, or a misidentification. That is to say, I am certain enough about what is contained in the image to say BF or hoax. Every other option seems extremely unlikely.
Stan,
Thank you so much for having a professional review the photo. I know that there was no doctoring of the original photo as I was privy to the photo as it was found. There will always be confusion and as Dr. Ciani said, further photos can only enrich the evidence. Hopefully, grant money might be found in order to obtain the needed equipment to do more photographic research and survaillance. Further documented photos will then lend to the validity of this subject.
If I havent already done so, I will take this time to thank Dr. Ciani, for his work on this photo. It is extremley important photo for the bigfoot world, and the Academic institutuions and the Academic world as a whole. Dr. Ciani, is right on with his work on this historic photo.
This photo was taken 11/20/09 by a game camera of our`s (John Phillips and my self, Doug Bilby) AKA bullet maker.
If everyone hasn`t already, alot of the picture in question is described on Stan`s Forums, in General Discussion. then go to (Game Cam Photo). I tale the best I can of the photo and how it was taken. The film used to take the picture was 35MM film. The time is unknown, but it was pitch dark. The date is on the film, at the time that type of camera would only post time or date, not both.
Folks,….it is what it is, a real creature, not a human. If anyone would like to e-mail me or call me or John, we would be happy to answer all questions if you so desire to.
Again I want to thank Dr. A.J. Ciani for his great work on the photo.
My above post is my opinion only.
Thank you.
I would like to make some comments about the picture, Dr. Ciani's analysis of it, and some of the commentary that has been offered.
1. The picture was taken by a game camera put in place by John on Doug's place on Spenser Creek near where it runs into Oolagah Lake. (If you go there without an invitation, be aware that Doug has a 45.70 for which he makes his own loads.) When developed, it showed a dark figure–an UMS–in the darkness outside the circle of light that resulted from the flash. I was shown a print and viewed the image on a disk. I asked John, just recently, what had been done to the picture. He replied that it had been "lightened" and that that was all that had been done to it.
2. John, and Doug, initiatially, did not want to go public with the location or their identity. I foiled their intent there–I guess. The immediate response from some posters was that it was a fake–that it had been put together using photo programs that I don't even understand. I ain't no expert. John has not made any claims about what this photo shows. To label it a fake in a knee-jerk manner is…. Well, I can understand why John reacted.
3. When I looked at the print and the disk at Doug's, I found the image to be intriquing: It was clearly an UHS and did not appear to me to be anything other than an actual photo. I first, after looking at the print, thought that it was a hunter with his hands in the pockets of a jacket with a zipper down the front. After looking at the disc, and zooming in, I realized that what I thought was a zipper was a limb in front of the UHS and their were no pockets. The right arm was dropped down that side. The left arm was bent at the elbow so that the forearm crossed the body. I thought the arms were unusually long and didn't look like those of a man. I could see what appeared to be a bare foot with five toes–countable on the disk. I could see what appeared to be facial features: eyes and forward-pointing nostrils.
4. I saw the three white spots but figured that they were caused by something like water droplets on the camera lens–or something else. (I've seen white spots of that sort on pictures any number of times.) I failed to note what appears to possibly be black straps leading to the white spots on the legs. It is curious to me that they are both on the right sides of the two legs, not on the outside of each leg as boot buckles would be.
5. Ciani said, the "UHS is also clearly in front of some limbs and trees in the backgroud, which pass behind [the] UHS." True. And there are also some limbs and trees which pass in front of the UHS. This allows an almost exact locating of the place the UHS was standing when the photo was snapped. One such was what I thought, at first, was a jacket zipper.
6. These limbs and trees in front of the UHS raises a real question in my mind about how the image could have been added to an empty, except for trees and such, photo. I am convinced that that did not happen, and no one has responded to my invitation to produce such a fake so that we could compare a known fake with the image.
7. Several have mentioned that the UHS seems to have been outlined. I raised a question about this: If this UHS had hair/fur, would not there have been an area around the critter where the hair would not have been backed up by the body–which area might have photograped differently from those areas where the hair/fur was backed up by the body? No one has responded to this.
8. Ciani says, speaking of the larger of the white spots, "The object under the arm is different, and clearly being carried, with the left hand wrapped around it." I do not want to be argumentive, but the object, if it is an object, is not being carried in the left hand: the left hand is at the right side of the UHS and the spot is in the crook of the elbow. If it is an object and not just a spot caused by something else, it might be attached to the left side of the UHS and just visible through the crook of the elbow. In one of the above pictures, this larger white spot appears to have a spot in the center. This has been mentioned, but no one, as I recall, has said anything about the three lines that extend from the center to the outer edge–with symmetry!
9. I am bothered by the angle and placement of what appears to be a foot with toes.
I see things in this photo–things about the UHS–that suggest that it is not a person: The long, slender arms that appear to end in smallish fists, the facial features, the foot…. I see things in this photo that suggest that it is a person: If those two spots on the legs are attached to what appear to be straps, which would indicate that they are some kind of buckle, and if that one spot is something man made being carried by, or attached to, the UHS, I think hunter or prowler.
Beats me! I ain't no expert.
John, re: point #7. No. Fur or hair would not create the effect that myself and others are referring to.
In the original pictures made available for download, the entire subject was "traced" around and then filled in with a greenish tint to try and highlight it. It's very obvious when you zoom right in. I posted links to examples in the original article. It's nothing that can happen "naturally", and Dr. Ciani confirmed this in his analysis.
The pictures that have been posted since, however, do not have this same effect.
Sorry, that was a reply for Ray, not John. 🙂
Let me add one thing: I do not think that I have any different reaction to the photo as I first saw it–the print and the disk–and as I see it in the original and as Ciani analysed it above. And I have no argument with his analysis. He's the expert. I ain't one.
Hey
I want to thank Stan and Dr. Ciani for taking a special interest in this photo; goes to show that the Bigfoot community has a lot of so-called experts that really know very little about photo analysis, much less about being objective in their research before coming to conclusions. Clearly everyone wishes it was closer, showed more detail and was a pefect picture, but we use what we have and make due with it. My hats off to Doug and John for sharing the photo in the first place and being open and honest about it as it is. Maybe this picture will prove once and for all to the nay-sayers, that Doug really does have activity on his property. Having been there and found evidences myself (3 consecutive footprints w' a 5 foot stride)
All I can say is keep up the good work and I hope you guys get another one.
Pete Wilson
Ryan, Pete:
People are going to see what they see and say what they're going to say. Sometimes based upon emotion and/or bias while others may take a more professional approach using a rigor and process that endeavours to render a more tangible result.
Dr. Ciani and others have recently engaged in further examination as well as even more in depth analysis will be forthcoming pending additional lab work now in process.
On a side note, at our daughter's softball tournament this past weekend I had the opportunity to visit with the father of one of the other players who happens to be a CSI for the TPD.
He's basically the team photographer (as that's an intregal part of his profession) so I received a mini-class in such areas. It was rather illuminating with some of the gist gleaned from our conversations being that 35mm film (although going the way of the dinosaur) should render a very good platform for evidence in situations such as the one we're dealing with here. He spoke about what you can do (post shot) with film versus digital and how each has it's strengths & weaknesses, etc..
One thing I did walk away with was how the difference in lenses (exposure time, etc,) makes a huge impact in the quality of the finished product. Basically, game cam lenses are in the realm of photo quality 101. As such, deriving credible conclusions from images taken can be a herculean task however, 35mm apparently gives you the better odds for attaing such a result when using equipment of that type.
The upshot seems to be that unless you have digital equipment in the 15+ megapixel range (most IR gamecams are 1-6 MP) it may be almost impossible to get an image that could pass muster of professional scrutiny.
The irony of this event is that the image was captured over an area I had set up with a mineral lick and (new type) feed substance in an effort to attain pictures of what deer (if any) were using this scenario.
Also, the number of so-called "BF Expeditions" that have occurred on this property (since a certain group's expulsion therefrom) has been nada, zero, zilch, none. Which leads to the possibility that all that running around in the woods in the dark only provided cheap entertainment for the inhabitants thereof as it sure didn't furnish any evidence of consequence.
Ryan,
No sweat on getting John and I mixed up. You would never do that if you could actually see us: he is better looking, better dressed, smells better, has more money….
Thanks for responding to my question–which was just a question, not a contention. Thanks for letting me know that the outline is not in subsequent posts.
In my above post–the one with nine numbered points–I mentioned that the largest of the white spots appears to have a dark center connected to its outer edges by three lines that appear to have symetry. This in the third post of pictures from the beginning of this discussion. This in the two side-by-side pictures identified as the "original" and "Ciani's enhancement."
On closer examination of the images in general and the spot in particular, I think that those lines are a small, forked limb overlying the spot and with less symetry than I had thought.
I was never a professional photographer, and I have been left behind in the science of photography and computers, but I did do a stint or three as a newspaper man with camera. I have seen such white spots as appear on this image on photos any number of times. They usually result from something reflecting all, or most, of the light spectrum back to the camera at a specific point. I have already suggested water droplets as one possibility among several that occur to me. The more I see of this image in different posts that show these spots, their size and shape, and their placement, the less inclined I am to believe that they are reflections from something being worn or carried by the UHS. Small and wet leaves still clinging to the small limbs between the camera and the critter have been suggested to me by one person–and I accept that as a possibility. But I ain't no expert.
I also mentioned that the foot–the foot on which I can count five toes–appears to be at an unusual angle. On closer examination, again, I have concluded that there is a definite possibility that I have been mistaken as to which leg is advanced toward the camera. I had thought that the UHS's right leg was advanced as in a step. I'm thinking now that it is the left leg that is advanced. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
I would have to agree that it is probably the left leg which is advanced. I first thought that was a weird angle, showing some sort of strange gait, but as I thought about the dynamics of a gait, I realized that the right foot is in the process of being raised and brought forward.
As for the left fore arm and hand. I'm really not sure where they are. The left elbow appears to be bent, and at an angle that would put the fore arm somewhat across the body, either in front or behind. It could be that the arm is pointing almost straight at the camera. The difficulty is that there is a branch casting a shadow on, and a tree immediately behind the left arm, making it difficult to pick out features, but I think that may be the left hand, half-covering the left side of the hip.