 |
| Credit: Woodwose via our forums |
Oh, boy. The photographs may be too good to be true for many people. Some are even calling it a hoax and comparing it to other footage like the Harley Hoffman creature and Ben Matine footage. A flood of analysis hit the fan as soon as Tim D Erick sent us the photos to publish three days ago. Erick is the investigator who, after multiple interviews with the witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. D Heibert, was finally able to get permission from the couple to release the images.
The photographs were allegedly taken in April (the middle of spring and end of winter) in the Temagami area and according to SasquaiNation from our forums, the area definitely had snow on the ground and he provided this satellite image dated for April of 2009. The couple's photograph is dated April 2009 (with no snow) but the satellite history shows that there was snow on the ground. "Something is definitely not right about this story," he wrote.
Another odd detail about the photos is the appearance of it being doctored with the Adobe Photoshop program. Forum member, Woodwose, wrote an extensive analysis of several of the "original" images and here's what he thinks:
I've only had time to put together my analysis of image No.1.
Before looking at the problems in the image I have a couple of basic observations. The image resolution is very low and I would expect to see a much higher quality photo from the camera supposedly used. The original image could have been re-sized and compressed after the text was added. Also, with the camera settings supposedly used I wouldn't expect the image to be so dark.
Here is a brighter version of the image with my own note markers added:
A: The arrows are lined up with diagonal lines found in the background foliage. These indicate movement blur and only occur naturally when either the subject or camera is moving when whilst taking a photo with a relatively slow shutter speed. If the camera was moving the entire image would be subject to the same kind of blurring. A strong wind could cause the foliage to move enough to cause movement blur. The only problem is that the movement blur is evident on the tree trunk in the background, which cannot move to the degree that would cause this kind of blur.
For these reasons I think that the blur has been added in Photoshop (PS).
B: The background motion blur also overlaps with the foreground - another indicator that this is a PS effect. The area circled is on the same plane as the fallen log and should be as focused as the log is.
C: The tips of the arrows indicate areas where the edges of the log that are unnaturally sharp. This is an indicator that the log has been pasted into the image. Also the right side of the log is much more focused than the rest of the objects in the same plane of view. The squatch and ground cover should be as focused as this area.
The fact that the left side of the log is out of focus is also a red flag. The focus should be uniform.
D: Within the circled area you should be able to make out pixelation that is blocked into grid like pattern. These artifacts can occur when an image has been opened and re-saved many times, or as a result of compression. However they are often an indicator that an image has been doctored.
E: This is a somewhat subjective observation, but the foliage looks like it is in front of the squatch (overlapping the hand slightly). There is no foreground foliage in the wider photo (No. 2).
Image No.3
I haven't had time to do a rundown of Image No.2 or No.3 (I can do this later in the week if anyone is interested). I have however brightened the 'original' version of No.3.
As you can see it looks nothing like the brighter version that has been presented. Note the large number of areas that are made up of flat blocks of colour. These are areas where there is no image data/detail to enhance - where did the detail in the 'brighter' version come from. This lack of detail suggests to me that the darker version was made after the 'brighter' version in order to lend credibility to the story.
Before looking at the problems in the image I have a couple of basic observations. The image resolution is very low and I would expect to see a much higher quality photo from the camera supposedly used. The original image could have been re-sized and compressed after the text was added. Also, with the camera settings supposedly used I wouldn't expect the image to be so dark.
Here is a brighter version of the image with my own note markers added:
A: The arrows are lined up with diagonal lines found in the background foliage. These indicate movement blur and only occur naturally when either the subject or camera is moving when whilst taking a photo with a relatively slow shutter speed. If the camera was moving the entire image would be subject to the same kind of blurring. A strong wind could cause the foliage to move enough to cause movement blur. The only problem is that the movement blur is evident on the tree trunk in the background, which cannot move to the degree that would cause this kind of blur.
For these reasons I think that the blur has been added in Photoshop (PS).
B: The background motion blur also overlaps with the foreground - another indicator that this is a PS effect. The area circled is on the same plane as the fallen log and should be as focused as the log is.
C: The tips of the arrows indicate areas where the edges of the log that are unnaturally sharp. This is an indicator that the log has been pasted into the image. Also the right side of the log is much more focused than the rest of the objects in the same plane of view. The squatch and ground cover should be as focused as this area.
The fact that the left side of the log is out of focus is also a red flag. The focus should be uniform.
D: Within the circled area you should be able to make out pixelation that is blocked into grid like pattern. These artifacts can occur when an image has been opened and re-saved many times, or as a result of compression. However they are often an indicator that an image has been doctored.
E: This is a somewhat subjective observation, but the foliage looks like it is in front of the squatch (overlapping the hand slightly). There is no foreground foliage in the wider photo (No. 2).
Image No.3
I haven't had time to do a rundown of Image No.2 or No.3 (I can do this later in the week if anyone is interested). I have however brightened the 'original' version of No.3.
As you can see it looks nothing like the brighter version that has been presented. Note the large number of areas that are made up of flat blocks of colour. These are areas where there is no image data/detail to enhance - where did the detail in the 'brighter' version come from. This lack of detail suggests to me that the darker version was made after the 'brighter' version in order to lend credibility to the story.
I know someone who has had experiences not far from Temagami, but I'm afraid these photos aren't real.
ReplyDeletelol they are reaaaallllll
DeleteGhillie suit, as obvious as the Hovey hoax
DeleteAnonymous 1:15 depends on what you mean by "reaaaallllll".
DeleteThey look real to me but even in the pic heavily obscured by branches and saturated in green you can clearly see a clear distinction between long neat tidy brushed shiny chestnut coloured human head hair and wild chaotic short possibly synthetic dull black 'fur'.
Some years ago in the now defunct News of the World they had a feature about wolves/alsatians/huskies being hung up by their throats and tortured until their fur stood on end at which point it was harvested to make coats which very much resembled the one this guy's wearing.
@anony 1:15 you mad bro?
ReplyDeleteI thought Woodwose did a great job with this photo. The story the old couple gave Tim must be a ruse in my opinion. I certainly don't think Tim is a party to this.
ReplyDeleteYesterday I was undecided but after a lot of digging, I think these photos are hoaxes.
There may be Bigfoot in this area but I doubt this is one of them.
I also provided a link with the sat image. Anyone can scroll through to see different images. There is one image dated April 10, 2009 that shows an image more north westerly. I think this is closer to the area where the photos were allegedly taken.
I wonder if Tim spoke to these people, or if they only exchanged emails.
you too!
DeleteI do appreciate the analysis but I would have to say that a lot of assumptions and even stretching is being done to justify the "feeling" they are hoaxes.
ReplyDeleteThe satellite image shows snow on the lakes. Not on the ground. Similar images were used by ourselves during our investigation.
This isn't our first Rodeo.... It's our second! LOL
Don't get me wrong we love the input. It feels like we have a even larger pool of talent to investigate these photo's and report.
DeleteWe all need to work together just like this to ever have a chance at solving the mystery.
Tim, with all due respect, the images do show snow on the ground. If you go to the main site where I got the image from you will see photos from other people that show snow on the ground.
DeleteDo you have a link? I can't find it.
DeleteHere is the link Tim. You can scroll as early as April 10, 2009 and you can select different months.
DeleteFrom the link I put here,click April then scroll down until you see "SATELLITE PHOTO". Clicking that takes you to sat images.
http://www.ottertooth.com/Temagami/News/newsbriefs-090.htm
Just for the record, I do not think YOU are a hoaxer. I'm a curious guy and tend to dig for things.
If you haven't done this, compare the Matine story and timeline to this one. The resemblances are uncanny.
Thanks
DeleteYou are right Tim. As a State Trooper, (I am retired now) I once had a man sue me for illegal search and seizure of his home. The search was conducted in the summer. During the "Discovery" phase of the process, the plaintiff hired experts and brought them into town to disprove the pictures that I had taken to establish probable cause. I look at all of this high-tech analysis and it reminds me so much of my case that I have to laugh.
DeleteEssentially, I had taken a picture of the accused home/property in order to obtain a warrant. The "Experts" argued that based on weather reports, satellite imagery, blah-blah, my report had been fabricated and the pictured were cropped. They argued that I received the warrants for the plaintiff's home in summer and the pictures that I had submitted with the search warrant detailed the plaintiff's home during the summer BUT the original photos that I had used "clearly showed snow on the ground." Because of this, they whole-heartedly believed that I had been conspiring to "frame" their client and I had went as far to photoshop pictures, etc. to "get" him.
Here is the funny part of the story; the buffoons failed to realize that they had been faxing photos back and forth to each other and faxed pictures are black and white. The sun shining on the ground due to summer sun shine looked just like snow in a black and white photo. The hillarious thing about the entire fiaso was that they were willing to stake their entire professional name on the pictures and their results.
We have to step back sometimes and ask ourselves; What would two elderly people have to gain (or for that matter have the technical knowledge) to create these pics? I'm just saying here. Maybe they are fakes, but it seems like a lot of effort and hardship to go through for someone to gain nothing from it and be riduculed and harrassed.
Archer1
Archer1 - there's something fishy about your tale. Where's the proof?
DeleteArcher 1 sounds more legit than u asshole!
DeleteDead right Archer1, I can't believe how far peole move from simple logic.
DeleteThey are so closed minded. They just cannont except they exist!
Or jealousy?
@SasquaiNation
DeleteYou do realize that even when there is snow on the ground in April that doesn't mean every square foot in the woods will be covered in snow. I see bare patches; areas not covered in snow out in the woods this time of year (anytime during the winter) ..especially after warm spells and melts. Even with those pictures on that site you provided show signs of warmer weather and melt. Now, if there was a claim of absolutely no snow anywhere in this area, they would be factually wrong. This doesn't validate that this picture was taken at this time and area in April 2009.
case closed....next set of hoaxed photos please.
ReplyDeletelazy, can't close this case until several things have happened.
Delete1. the orginal RAW files are released
2. the apature and other settings are released
3. someone does a site visit and replicate the shot with a stand in.
Suit yes, Photoshop no.
ReplyDeleteI've done alot of photo manipulation and those aren't photoshopped IMO.
To Timothy D. Ervick
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that the face of the peeking Bigfoot looks just like the drawing of the Bigfoot on your OWR website home page. Perhaps there are other/more pictures(from other sources) of very similar Bigfoot/Sasquatch that look like that? ;)
Sorry Blondie but the image on our site isn't the one in the photo. That manipulated one for the logo was created originally from Paul Willison's original artwork. From Michigan Bigfoot.
DeleteAwwww I was intrigued because it does resemble it to me.
DeleteI think your image is unique and P.Willison's artwork is great.
Thanks Tim.
I'm not sure they're Photo shopped definitively at this point but its looking that way. What I do know is that the images are staged which means the supposed Bigfoot is fake. Therefore this is all a hoax. This Timothy guy at best has been duped by the people who contacted him or at worst is directly involved in the hoax himself. I'd like to think the former is the correct answer. There's just too many things about this story and the images that raise immediate red flags. Then you have the weather conditions thrown in raising more flags. If I was Timothy I would separate myself from this matter ASAP or forever be labeled a hoaxer. Because let me tell you, the investigation into this story and evidence is just getting started and it WILL.... IN THE END be exposed as a hoax. I guarantee it.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, its time to move on to the next set of hoaxed or pareidolia induced images.
DeleteThis is the "Adirondacks Image 2.0" from about 2 months ago. These are definitely doctored images and the entire thing was staged. Timothy had better be getting to work shaking down the supposed people who contacted him or he may forever be.labeled a hoaxer. The examination of the evidence is only getting started and its not going to end the way believers want it to. A hoax is a hoax and this is just another in the long line.
DeleteNot disagreeing with you but do you have proof?
Deletehas the apature setting been published? If on then all of this talk about blur and foreground/background is speculation.
DeleteSupposed camera settings are discussed in the original forum thread. They were taken into account during my analysis and don't have any bearing on my observation regarding motion blur......if the tree trunk has motion blur it can only come from the camera moving and all of the image should be subject to that kind of blurring.
DeleteIf someone can show an alternative explanation for the diagonal striations then I'll happily revise my opinion.
Woodwose.
Let me tell you now. I have a wealth of knowledge with Photo Shop and I can tell you after looking at the orginals that these are images are beyond a shadow of a doubt doctored. The breakdown the guy did on these is 100% accurate and convincingly exposed these as a hoax. Now, the real question is whether Timothy himself was involved? Not involved in making them per se but did he have knowledge that these were a farce from the beginning but chose to bring them into the spotlight as evidence anyway?
ReplyDeleteSo with all due respect if you're knowledgeable about Photo Shop and seem to be stating your comment as an expert opinion why wouldn't you post with a name?
DeleteJust curious?
I am a professor of Photography at a highly accredited institution and I can assure everyone that these pictures are not photoshopped/doctored. Those of you who are claiming that they are simply are wrong. You are using asumptions and attempting to call an assumption a fact. Did I mention that I am also a brain surgeon, a heart doctor, a humanitarian, and I have been alive for over 300 years? You get my point? Some of you need to quite pretending that you know more about photography and photo break downs etc. than you really do.
DeleteYep! Pick a name, any name will do. That automatically gives you enhanced credibility.
DeleteHow about Dr. Anonymous? LOL
DeleteWhat apature setting was thsi shot with? What speed/ISO?
DeleteYou can't call this doctored until you know the facts about the exposure. If you can't answer those questions, then your analisys is worthless.
It's 'aperture.'
DeleteThe photos are of a guy in a suit, with the same mask used in the Matine hoax. All of the photos have been Photoshopped to some degree, the worse one is the face shot; it has been completely blurred out in Photoshop in order to hide the fact it is a mask. It has been totally debunked on the BigFoot Forums. Go to the forums, and find the Temagami 3 photos thread. Done deal.
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with using PS to enhance an image to make it more appealing, or clearer.
ReplyDeleteI feel this is a REAL photoshopped image of a person in a suit.
Duh !! Bigfoot was always a hoax ! What has changed ?
ReplyDeleteWho has ever proved one real ? There has always been proving all the hoaxes . You guys need to get out and see what nature is really like .. Iv lived in the wilderness for 50 years as a explorer for the us government .its funny how you see Bigfoot as real but miss all the important things the government has out there.
Ok, what would those important things be that we have missed?
DeleteAre you talking about the National Forest Parks?
Anon 2:47 - Because YOU never saw one it's a hoax? I've never seen a cougar 40 years of remote hiking and hunting therefore cougars are myth made up by cat-lovers who want to believe in giant tabbies. I've never had fillet o' coelancanth either - clearly science is yanking our chains.
DeleteWell you are in good company because 99.96% of US citizens will not see Bigfoot in their lifetimes ... I did the math. Many of us don't experience many truths in this world - that doesn't make them all false. So don't be so short-sighted, *especially* while touting other things you have seen but so few others. Got hypocrisy?
Agree they area hoax! The tens of thousands of footprints are all fakes. The people who say they have seen a critter are all liars. The hairs sent for DNA analysis are all manmade fibre. That all convinces me they are fake.
DeleteIf you don't see something it means it might exsist ?
DeleteUr an idiot . We know what is real and is fantasy . You beleave in fiction that's fine
Ingnerance is bliss
Ignorance is bliss and there is plenty of that floating around this site. Armchair critics mostly, who probably think that the Curiousity landing on Mars was actually real and not done in desert on Earth. Hell, it was on TV so it must be real. Stunning logic all round.
DeleteWith all due respect Mr. Ervick, these photos were taken in the same area as the Matine photos. They resemble the Matine photos even down to the head hair color. The story is similar to the Matine story. The Matine Bigfoot looks a little more groomed. These photos look like what happens when you store an old wig or haloween costume for a few years, it becomes ratty looking especialy if it was not stored layed out real nice. I think you are being taken for a ride Mr. Ervick. No offense to you meant but that is my take on this.
ReplyDeleteI agree and I'm sure they're not photoshopped.
DeleteI'm no expert on manipulated photos, so I can't speak to that. I can say that it dosen't matter if they are manipulated or not. If, indeed, these are the same as the Matine photos but with a difrent story, the only logical conclusion is hoax.
DeleteIt's pretty simple: These don't even look like real photographs. Photoshop or not, some art software program was used.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the poop?
ReplyDeletepoop, poop everywhere as a mad b*stard used to say.
Because Blondie, Anon is disingenuous. Of course the image was doctored - it didn't come ready made with text and logo. It is not raw, it is a jpeg and it's been re-posted, likely several times - the original RAW camera image --> saved to jpeg and sent to Tim --> Tim posts --> posted image re-posted here. At least. Who knows how many copies in the interim all introducing artifacts. No one here can claim 100% certainty because we are never privy to the original RAW image.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate Woodwose's analysis, I'm not sure visually analyzing for anomalies is wholly accurate. The issues stated, particularly blur, can be *naturally* created if the user selected auto-focus - a common digital camera feature - it depends on what data element is the focus point. I take stock images of forest and swamps - many are like this where a portion is focused and the rest blurry. In this image it appears that the center diagonal log is the focal point (because it is so sharp). There are fur elements that are blurry too. Digital images in data-rich environments (like forests) are inherently faulty - the algorithms for most standard digital cameras are not designed to render such detail accurately. Remember this was 2009 too... Three years in the tech world is a long time.
That said, I'd rather let a PC perform the analysis - I rely on Error Level Analysis to determine authenticity:
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=7146b419ce8d9c893e7749989af9bc5e20069718.694155
This is an analysis of the original image posted a few days ago. Please take in the caveats mentioned above about RAW vs jpeg and copies. See the bright edge of the back side of the 'animal'. However the front edge of the animal - as well as the bulk of the animal - blends into the background image. The creature is NOT on a separate layer (else the entire edge would be bright) so that element is not Photoshopped. But the image WAS manipulated - the background appears brightened, presumably to make the animal more visible. Given this sample image, I'm 80% certain the background was enhanced and not the animal because of the bright pixelation in the lower right corner and everywhere whites shine through - the whites in the image have been brightened or the original sky (perhaps gray) was replaced.
I don't believe the creature was added to the image. That said, it can still be staged - a costume for example. Plus we have no sense of scale - so it could be a model.
Here's the deal - stand-alone digital media will NEVER be proof. So all these one-offs we see are meaningless. Media with results replicated by independent parties can be proof. But how often do we see that? It may exist, but it's not published.
GuidedByPandas
You make some good points and I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm fallible and have a tendency to over analyse things (it comes with working as a 3D CG artist).
DeleteI would however like to clarify and expand upon a few things - for instance, I agree that the figure hasn't been pasted into this image (the log and possibly the foreground or foliage to the left of the figure are another matter).
Given the limitations of the comments format, would you mind re-posting in the forum where we can discuss this further?
Woodwose
These are hoaxed photos, created from elements of the Matine 06 hoax. the only questions is are the bigfoots shopped in or were the photos created in 06 and is Evrick part of the hoax.
DeleteSorry bout grammar and spelling...hard to correct things when typing on these iPads...
DeleteAt last, some sense in this debate. The telling point is that you cannot definitively declare these as fake or not. It would be nice to see another identically framed shot taken at the same time and day of year. Then at least you have a little more data.
DeleteWoodwose - I'm actually working now - well procrastinating right now - but will try to make time to set up in Forum. In short, no way was I inferring that your analysis was false. I just think for photo content, ELA is a better method of authenticity since it is used in forensics too (and wanted to introduce here since it is likely under-utilized).
DeleteGuidedByPandas
Thanks GuidedByPandas for your reply!
DeleteI think it's obvious Ervick is trying to sell OWFR merchandise. He gets directed to a panaoramia account, gets permission to use photos, slaps his logo on there and sends them to umpteen different blogs. All this without actually talking on the phone to the alledged witness or checking to see if they actually exist. Well done Tim!
DeleteI have to wonder if this was possibly not a hoax, but someone (well-meaning perhaps, just clueless) did alter the background and do some things to it to make it look "better" without realizing they were corrupting it's use as evidence at the same time. Could be, for all we know!
Deleteno shit sherlock! you needed 7 paragraphs to state the feckin obvious
DeleteWoodwose is right, those are Photoshopped images of a guy in the Ben Matine suit. Woodwose, use Curves and really lighten up the profile image and you will see the mask revealed, with the same terrible balding rocker hair in the Matine mask. Same mask, no question.
DeleteNo Photoshop needed. This image has no scale and is stationary. Whats below it is another tree branch. The object is elevated and may only be about two feet tall.
ReplyDeleteFor a field researcher who wants to hoax (which I despise) , this is called EXPLOITATION OF A SITUATION. Find clumps of grass, hair, twigs, bark and stuff twisted on a tree branch, and use your zoom to throw of scale, now you have an eight foot tall Bigfoot.
Create a backstory about why you COULD NOT get more then three images and you just got another 500 subs for your channel. I know this because I have seen these formations often. Wind, snow and rain can work magic. Just hike long enough you'll find it.
The next time kevin and I go out we'll show you how its done.
Spend some time in the woods folks. No Photoshop needed.
Mr. Fasano - if all you do is provide more still images and video, you aren't providing proof. You either need to (1) identify a spot where you can bring an independent party such as an USF professor and guarantee he/she can document and verify in writing or (2) you need to capture one alive or (3) you need to find a dead specimen.
DeleteThat's not my criteria of proof, that's scientific criteria. If you want to be known as the discoverer of Skunk Ape you gotta have science confirm it.
Otherwise, you just have a channel full of entertaining videos. That's more than I have. But is that all you want?
The USF Connection begins with a good trail cam image and a visit to the Bigfoot village along the river. It is difficult to convince scientists about Bigfoot. Our project is designed to provide that.
DeleteA picture will not prove anything !
DeleteThe only thing it proves that your
as dumb as your big lard ass !
Stay off the blog, go hang out with your buddy Rick "the little dick" Dyer and try to figure who has the larger pile of BS!
BYE BYE, LARD ASS!!!
He's right, though. You don't need Photoshop to make a hoax photo, and while this is an interesting image, something about it doesn't seem right, and it's not that it possibly was altered digitally. It's the angle, the places that are concealed, the methods of concealment. It just seems off in some suspicious ways.
Deletewhy would fasano show his thoughts to others in the BF community. You are concidered a chancer who is highly aggressive and has hoaxed numerous pics. By your own admination. You have no cred, you are a fat tosser who needs to feck off.
Deleteyou and people like u,squatchmaster,dy3er etc...need to find anotther area to pollute with your self promting nonsense
Hoaxer... shut yer hole.
DeleteSorry Fasano but you're not just gonna go on a couple of month hiatus and come back to find that everyone forgot that you are a hoaxer. Palmetto Monster, enough said! Don't say its a burnt tree, its not, its a Bonobo pic (and a well known one) that you used as your Palmetto Monster.
DeletePeice of pi*s to upload the original RAW or jpeg footage with exif data. I'd prefer RAW as very few people can mess with that.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, give us a link to the RAW file, send someone out to get a scale shot and then we can do some real analysis.
DeleteI second the agreement. This is just common sense, though I suppose people may not realize it. Don't filter the data or explain, let's just see the raw image and people far more knowledgeable about this stuff will have the best possible information to work with.
DeleteYep, agreed!
DeleteOh sorry.. this site explains Error Level Analysis:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.errorlevelanalysis.com/
Here is analysis on Image 3:
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a1dd99d34425f16094b0e758686340e84350007f.571654
It completely blends into environment. Creature not added via layer - not a Photoshop. Not saying it is real, just saying that it doesn't appear photoshopped.
GuidedByPandas
again upload RAW image.
DeleteThe RAW image alone will not prove authenticity, only level of manipulation. No stand-alone image is proof, RAW or not. The image presented - with all the flaws inherent to jpegs copied how many times - doesn't show that the subject was added as a new layer. So no reason to believe the RAW will show otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't mean the subject was a living unknown animal.
Images with the same result by independent parties is a form of proof. A body - living or dead - is the best proof. -GbyP
Photoshopped or not, they're worthless as evidence.
ReplyDeleteSadly true. It's just not enough.
DeleteAgreed!
DeleteEXIF information can be manipulated fairly easy from jpegs or other images. RAW however is an images based on the voltage from the sensor and very very hard to f*ck with. THEREFORE if your camera shoots RAW do so and then upload this.
DeleteTHe benefit OR downside is, you have to post process the RAW in the camera or software afterwards. Either way RAW images are very, very, very difficult to hoax.
SO AGAIN upload the RAW image.
As is your contribution to a rational debate.
ReplyDeleteI love these pictures for many reasons. Thick coat at the end of the season, witness story to back it and the clear picture. I have a freind who lives not far from this site and he confirmed what Tim said about snow cover. We had warmer than normal temps this year.
ReplyDeleteSince I have no experience with Photoshop I have this question. If the guy attempted to add the text in a couple different spots before settling on the final spot, could that cause the "proof" of ps? Since the text obviously has to change the image, would moving it cause the blurs, etc. As for snow satellite images, they are great for general reference, but snow does melt faster in some areas than others. Hilltop are blown clean and exposed to more Sun than sheltered spots. Not trying to say the analysis is wrong, but just want to state the flip side of the coin.
ReplyDeleteBig Jim Jr - adding text will not alter the source image. In Photoshop, you add new objects on separate layers. You can 'flatten an image' - compress all the layers to one - but this won't alter the integrity of the source - it won't blur it. The blurs were present.
DeleteRead my posts at 3:58 and 4:08. The analysis shows that the subjects were not photoshopped into the image, especially the 3rd image. But that doesn't prove/disprove the subject as real Bigfoot. A photo can be crystal clear but without a basis for size comparison or identical results from a independent source, a stand-alone image won't provide scientific proof. -GbyP
Photo does not look natural.It looks like a lot of effort went into this,if the face was clearer I think more people would buy into this as the Real thing!Not sold on this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think you could have a crystal clear photo of a real Bigfoot holding up today's newspaper standing beside a man and very few people would believe it.
DeleteThis set of photos and the Hovey pic are suspicious for the same reason... no clear pic of the front/face. That just feels like someone is deliberately trying to hide it. If you saw a clear face image of bigfoot, you'd KNOW if it was real or a costume. The eyes and other small details could not be hoaxed convincingly close up in good resolution. Now, maybe bigfoot purposely turns it's face from people when it wants to hide, but we can't know that, so these all seem like they are fakes, instinctively.
DeleteHoveyhoax was just that, and that, this is a douche in a ghillie suit.
DeleteYou skeptics are grasping at straws when it comes to high resolution photos like these.
ReplyDeleteWhen the DNA evidence comes out you are all going to look like biggers fools that you think bigfoot whitnesses are now! LOL.
The nice part is the whitnesses will have the last laugh, LOL!
Chad W
These images arn't high resolution.
DeleteThe DNA study HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THESE ARE REAL OR NOT. You trying to connect those two things tell me you're a a waste of time to talk to. Theres just no way anyone should waste their time trying to have a logical debate with you. Its just not going to happen.
DeleteI mean seriously, that's all you got in regards to these?
I wasn't connecting the images with the DNA study. I was just pointing out your error in describing the images as being high resolution.
DeleteNothing more, nothing less.
People have been waiting for some proof for a long time,hope we have better than this photo!and IF THE DNA evidence was strong it would have been out by now,the delays seem to make it weak.
ReplyDeleteim sadened and hrrified to think there are people who actualy try and full people into belkievibng this is a BF when its photoshopped nonsense. hy would individulas do tgis.
DeleteThen again if people didnt do it the BF community would have NOTHING to look at. Since every BF photo is a guy in a suit, optical illusions etc...There arent BF families with 10ft 600/800pd apemen walking aout USA?Canada Im afraid
Live Hovey pic which turned out to be in the Nat History Musem exhibit taken with a cropped editing done to it.
People actualy bveliev thatr was a trail cam shot. why would u set up a trail cam to face a bush!? wtf
utter nonsense
Natural history museum? You have a link to an image of the supposed figure in the museum?
DeleteSpecimen. Think specimen.
ReplyDeleteForget photos or footage. If you're trying to prove the existence of bigfoot with a photo or footage, you are wasting your time. It will only result in debates like those in this article.
The only thing that bigfooters should be focusing on is getting a specimen. That's it, nothing else.
Here's the bottom line guys. You have the classic sighting report where the people involved have problems taking pictures, again classic when it comes to these accounts. Then you have the classic "couldn't get a clear shot of the face" . There's alwaus something blocking it out for good reason. That reason is because if it was a clear shot then the people would be able to tell its a costume, so the people submitting the story can't make the mistake of showing a clear shot of the face, again, classic. Then you have the images that look staged, doctored, and just have huge questions in general. Why not submit the original images? The bottom line is these are real doctored pictures of a guy in a suit.
ReplyDeleteYou bet its photoshopped. Not quite yet the average person fool a good human eye. It begs the question why a person would feel its necessary to do something like this.
ReplyDeleteI love the butchykidd videos though.
Idiot
DeleteWhat happened to Timothy? Has he stopped commenting?
ReplyDeletePS - Some cameras don't have RAW file capability.
ReplyDeleteAll they will put on the SD card is JPEG.
Even high end cameras need to be specifically set to take RAW images only. Some shoot RAW + JPEG at the same time.
If your camera is capable...set it to RAW when tramping around the woods. Then upload only the RAW format picture.
If the RAW or JPEG is not the true original file from the camera with EXIF metadata...forget it. You can't even have a debate.
So...Bigfoot sites...stop posting these non original pics all over the net. They should be considered a hoax right off the bat. End of story. I encourage all readers to say "Hoax. Till I see original pic file...no exceptions".
Don't settle for less.
Here is another *great* tool.
ReplyDeleteJPEG Snoop
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop-identify-edited-photos.html
I tested it. Works perfect.
It will tell you with close precision if the image file came direct from the camera or from an editing application.
Mr. Ervick...where is the *original* JPEG file from her camera?
It must be uploaded somewhere for the public to access. Anything besides the original camera file means this stuff must necessarily go in the hoax bin.
If the public has access to a copy of the original file...then the debate can continue. Otherwise it's just a nice comedy picture on the internet.
The images are of a faked bigfoot, a hoax. The suit is the same one used in the Ben Matine mockumentary video on Youtube. The head shot in the forest is intentionally darkened up and blurred out in the face so it won't be recognized as the same mask. Tim is likely part of the hoax, not an innocent victim like he will end up saying. This is advertising for his expeditions for pay. He was most likely behind the Ben Matine story too. Hoaxers coming from dead center of the bigfoot community, amazing!
ReplyDeleteI think you are EXACTLY right!! Timothy is a hoaxer! He's finished!!
DeleteYou guys are nuts.Even when someone put the real thing in front of your face you still denyed it.
ReplyDeleteThe Ben Matine story has nothing to do with a movie.
ReplyDeleteIt was a documentry about Ben and Jim as well as the OPP,MNR,RCMP cover up.
It was only deamed a hoax by 1 single little group of bloggers who were being played as fools on line by students volenteering for a Toronto production company during the bumbling Biscardi event.
The 2 students were charged and sued by the production company for steeling confidential data.
The Ben Matine Jim Jardineau event is truth.
100%
Ben Matine has been missing back in Lady Evelyn PP since 2008 with no trace of him anywhere. He had no next of kin or anyone other than the documentry crew and Jim Jardineau to look for him. The OPP did not. You people need to wake up and stop being arm chair bigfoot hunters not one group of people from the public have ever investigated the Tamagami area and there are some strange events that happen there.
1 Balls of light that appear out of no where
2 Massive appearing vortex water pools
3 Magnectic eruptions
4 Strange powerful underground thumpings
5 Missing people
6 wheather blocked anomylies
7 Bigfoot siteings
The MNR, forestry and OPP flatly avoid any and all conversation regarding strange events or bigfoot in that area of Ontario.
It is a magic place the worlds second biggest magnetic anomylie, full of under ground caves, gold and dimonds.
There is an under ground cave system that runns 247 miles west to Lake Wanatapi and is 6 miles deep in spots. The OPP and other milatant style groups have been conducting research and odd emergency searches there for some time now, there is also alot of missing people back in there, 20 since 1930, 6 in the past 5 years.
I think what you are seeking lives under ground and in cave systems, and only surfaces when needed.
You will see as time passes that the Matine Jardineau event happened and you have miss read the entire event, SHAME ON YOU ALL.SHAME ON YOU ALL !!!!!
Do not trust the MNR at all ever, most of them guys are everyday bar hounds, pot smokers and jokers. Goverement pay hounds who do very little. The OPP cant be trusted either, so just remember what i said.
FOOLS.
Send the 4 photos to Adobe photoshops develoement department and i will guarentee they have not been touched by photoshop at all, other than the TEXT.
ReplyDeleteThe original meta data is still in them.
As well its obvious the auto focus caught the log and fore ground rocks as the focal point
And this woodwose wingnut is out to lunch 100%, BS
Yes! Finally someone writes about walked.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my web page ... best diet
Also see my web site: Best Diet To Lose Weight Fast For Women
Who can provide me with details of the missing:
ReplyDelete"...there is also alot of missing people back in there, 20 since 1930, 6 in the past 5 years." Our son Daniel is missing since Nov. 3, 2011 believed to be in the Temagami backcountry. Also, any specifics about caves in the area would be beneficial, thanks.