bigfoot is real I have the proof

[ThunderFoot]

With neither Creek or Thunder being "experts" I suspect they will simply refute fact with sillyness & claim you are wrong.

There is the off chance that Russo will chime in, via Thunder of course, saying that you have it all wrong but won't go into details.

No Lock, I am just ignorant to digital photography and I don't understand what is being said. I do need to educate my self in that area a little more, I just have never taken the time to do so. I just want to know from PC if he can tell if the orginal photograph # 001 has been enhanced or photoshoped in any way. I downloaded all of the photographs off of Creeks camera to my computer and nothnig had been done on my part to the photographs before I sent them to DW. I did also send the enhanced one to DW.

If it would help I can send him all 14 of the orginal photographs via e-mail or U.S. Mail for him to compare too. I know when you are working with film when you get into generations of the photographs they start getting grain and I am not sure what effect that would have on digital processing. I am not trynig to refute anyone I am just trying to understand, that is all.

 

[bruto]

Thanx PC for moving this over here. Although Lock was saying that we were out of thread he kept asking me my opinion about the photo on that thread so I gave up.

What I was wanting to know, has the orginal photograph been altered. I can e-mail you the photo or I can mail it via the post office if that would make a difference. Again my ignorance to digital photography is showing here.

I'm not that knowledgeable on digital photography either, but if the original which is posted as such has been altered, it was done by someone with a fair amount of skill, because digital cameras record certain information known as "EXIF" data, which can be recovered easily. Altering a photo alters or destroys that data. There are a number of programs available which allow you to manipulate the EXIF data, but I rather doubt that Creekfreak is aware of this, or bothered to do it. My impression is that his pareidolia in this case is so strong, and his satisfaction with the "enhanced" version so high, that he did not feel the need to go that deep. It's far from conclusive proof of anything, but as they stand now, the originals all show consistent times and dates in the EXIF data, while all data are stripped from the enhanced one.

Various programs can read the exif data. The standalone freeware program "irfanview" will do it on downloaded pictures, and if you run Firefox as your browser, there is a plug-in that will allow you, with a right-click, to read the data on any displayed image that still contains it.

 

[PetersCreek]

the work flow or history as I think you are talking about has allready been provided Dark unlocked that himself . John told me to tell you that all you have to do is reverse what he did and you will see the prosess he used . I dont know how to do it myself so I cant show you or tell you how to do it .

I don't recall seeing a detailed work flow posted here. Perhaps Dark posted it on the other board...but that's not where I've been participating in this discussion. No detailed editing history was present in the meta data of the images I received.

If John really told you that I should just "reverse what he did" without benefit of an exact workflow from which to work, then I have grave doubts about his expertise. Single-layer image editing doesn't work that way. There are many techniques that can be used to accomplish identical or similar effects so there would be no assurance at all that the methods I chose to "reverse" the alterations would match up with his. Additionally, if tools such as paint brush, clone stamp, and the like were used, then the original image's underlying information was destroyed.

Besides, your/his suggestion completely misses the point. There's no reason to see if I can take the altered photo back to original condition. I could make all kinds of extensive changes to approximate the original but that would be evidence of nothing, except for my skill. The real point is to determine if the claimed workflow...and only that workflow...will result in the altered image.

 

[LTC8K6]

I just want to know from PC if he can tell if the orginal photograph # 001 has been enhanced or photoshoped in any way.

What have we been comparing the enhanced photo to then? Are you saying that the original bigfoot001 that we have been comparing the enhanced photo to is not actually the original?

Has anyone claimed that the original bigfoot001, which does not have a bigfoot in it, was enhanced with photoshop?

 

[Locknar]

No Lock, I am just ignorant to digital photography and I don't understand what is being said. I do need to educate my self in that area a little more, I just have never taken the time to do so. I just want to know from PC if he can tell if the orginal photograph # 001 has been enhanced or photoshoped in any way. I downloaded all of the photographs off of Creeks camera to my computer and nothnig had been done on my part to the photographs before I sent them to DW. I did also send the enhanced one to DW.

If it would help I can send him all 14 of the orginal photographs via e-mail or U.S. Mail for him to compare too. I know when you are working with film when you get into generations of the photographs they start getting grain and I am not sure what effect that would have on digital processing. I am not trynig to refute anyone I am just trying to understand, that is all.

I am not sure what the confusion is; there is there cropped low-res "helicopter" photo...and then the high-res non cropped one.

There is nothing to suggest that the high-res photo has been altered...though that is not to say it shows a "Bigfoot" - it doesn't.

The low-es photo has obviously been altered, well beyond the simply "enhancements" that you've said Russo claims.

Just to clairfy things though, who is "DW"?

 

[Creekfreak]

The ‘enhanced’ cropped picture I originally received from Creek. This is the Exif information for it.

Filename : Big foot 001-corrected-enhanced.tif
Main Information
NewSubFileType : 0
ImageWidth : 1103
ImageHeight : 852
BitsPerSample : 8,8,8
Compression : Uncompressed
PhotometicInterpretation : RGB
StripOffset : 22744
SamplesPerPixel : 3
RowsPerStrip : 852
StripByteCounts : 2819268
XResolution : 1103000/10000
YResolution : 1103000/10000
PlanarConfiguration : chunky format
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : Adobe Photoshop 7.0
DateTime : 2007:08:18 18:25:25
XML Metadata : Offset:316 (4649byte)
AdobeResource : Offset:4966 (17778byte)
ExifInfoOffset : 2842016
Unknown (935C)7,2797320 : 2797320 Bytes
AdobeResource
Unknown (1061) : 16Byte
Unknown (1002) : 8748Byte
Macintosh print manager print info : 120Byte
DisplayInfo : 16Byte
Unknown (1062) : 14Byte
GlobalAngle : 4Byte
Global Altitude : 4Byte
PrintFlags : 10Byte
CopyrightFlag : 2Byte
Print flags : 10Byte
Color halftoning information : 72Byte
Color transfer functions : 112Byte
Layer state information : 2Byte
Layers group information : 4Byte
Grid and Guides information : 16Byte
URL List : 4Byte
Slices : 882Byte
ICC Untagged : 2Byte
Document specific IDs : 4Byte
ThumbnailResource : JPEG Format (Offset:15276Size:7398)
Thumbnail Type : JPEG
Thumnail Width : 128
Thumbnail Height : 99
Version Info : 86Byte
Sub Information
ColorSpace : Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth : 1103
ExifImageHeight : 852

 

[PetersCreek]

Thunderfoot, this image was represented to me as the original, unaltered version. Unless you're suggesting that it is not, I see no reason to waste time or postage on sending me additional versions.

The area of interest in that image is in deep shadow, at and/or beyond the limits of the camera's dynamic range, considering the camera's exposure setting at that time. In other words, all or most of the details in that area were darker than the camera was capable of recording with the particular shutter and aperture settings used to make the image. Additionally, the area is but a very small portion of an already low-to-mid resolution image, further limiting capture of detail. The area therefore does not contain sufficient photographic detail to support the assertion that a creature of any kind is present. Whether or not the original image was altered to present insufficient evidence strikes me as a moot point.

 

[PetersCreek]

The ‘enhanced’ cropped picture I originally received from Creek. This is the Exif information for it.

Filename : Big foot 001-corrected-enhanced.tif
Main Information
NewSubFileType : 0
ImageWidth : 1103
ImageHeight : 852
[SNIP]

Are you under the mistaken impression that information represents a workflow or editing history? Or did you post that for some other reason?

 

[LTC8K6]

We've had that info since Darkwing was here giving his opinion of the photos, Creek.

All we need is for the person who got bigfoot to appear to tell us how. That's it.

You've said it was easy and that you have done it yourself, yet no one else can seem to do it.

Why don't you take a copy of the original, repeat what you did yourself that was so easy, write down each step as you do it, and send the resulting photo and notes to PC so he can take a look at them?

 

[wahrheit]

There is nothing to suggest that the high-res photo has been altered...though that is not to say it shows a "Bigfoot" - it doesn't.

Did a quick and dirty check on that high-res one (2048x1536), didn't find anything that bothers me. Except the missing shutter speed.

 

[zenotter]

Very wonderful work, everyone. I'm a newbie to posting (first post, woot!) but I've enjoyed reading many threads on the JREF, and I have to agree that this is a hoax. With the original untouched image, I zoomed in on the area in question, set it to grayscale, inverted it to see if there was a corresponding bigfoot-ish shape amongst the foliage, and I saw nothing of interest. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Granted, I'm using old software (MGI Photosuite 4), but it works for my typical digital touchup needs (both global: very slight sharpening, occasional increased color saturation).

I would also think the men in the helicopter would've looked more agitated had there been an actual bigfoot 20-ish feet (no pun intended) in front of them. Maybe that's just me though, or perhaps I missed if anyone else posted the same thought. I will admit I skimmed through this thread somewhat from my brain glazing over...

 

[This is The End]

The ‘enhanced’ cropped picture I originally received from Creek. This is the Exif information for it......

.....but you're creek. So this is info from the enchanced pic you originally received from yourself? Having a bit of a mix-up are we?

 

[Schneibster]

I do a great deal of image processing, for both wildlife photography and astrophotography. I have a pretty good laptop screen, and excellent high-resolution monitors for my big box (under the desk), which I bought specifically for that purpose, along with a very heavy-duty graphics card (it was the hottest card on the planet at the time I bought it). I looked at the picture linked on the locked thread on SMM&T from ImageShack, at the highest resolution I could reasonably see individual pixels at (which fills the screen with the area surrounding the purported bigfoot's head) and not only can I see that the details that could be coaxed out of it that would yield the "eyes" and "nose" in the image are badly-rendered branches in the background, partly shadowed by the tree branches above them, but I can see the pixel color compression that JPEG uses, and that photo looks unmodified to me. At the precise correct zoom level, these did appear as image rendering artifacts as shown in the Peters Creek image, but at higher levels of zoom these image rendering artifacts disappeared and the real character of the light spots became clear. This is nothing but a concatenation of shadowed areas and partly-lit branches. Sorry guys, but there simply isn't anything to enhance there. I'm used to looking at very high resolution photos at extreme zoom and being able to tell what part of a picture I'm looking at, and figuring what types of deconvolutions and filters to apply, and there simply ain't nothin' there. IMHO, the Peters Creek picture that shows the eyes and nose has been photoshopped.

The camera it was taken with, BTW, has image flatness problems near the edges, and the JPEG compression algorithm it uses is a POS. Furthermore, the picture has been enhanced, probably with a sharpen filter and possibly with a brightness level adjuster. I would have stayed away from sharpen and tried deconvolution and unsharp masking rather than sharpness enhancement; you can see speckling from the edge detection algorithm of the sharpener along the branches of the brush in front of the chopper all across the middle of the picture. Whether that was done with a separate program, or in the camera, I cannot say- image file forensics is not my specialty. Someone who knows the image format could probably do a better job of that than I can off the top of my head; I'd pull down the EXIF and JPEG format documents and tease the file apart with a hex editor, but I'm too lazy and there are other people here who can probably do a better job of that than me.

To top it all off, bigfoot is standing twelve feet from the chopper and the guy in the right seat isn't even looking at him. No freakin' way. Not gonna happen. Not to mention how fast bigfoot would be running from the hrududu.

 

[ThunderFoot]

Thunderfoot, this image was represented to me as the original, unaltered version. Unless you're suggesting that it is not, I see no reason to waste time or postage on sending me additional versions.

The area of interest in that image is in deep shadow, at and/or beyond the limits of the camera's dynamic range, considering the camera's exposure setting at that time. In other words, all or most of the details in that area were darker than the camera was capable of recording with the particular shutter and aperture settings used to make the image. Additionally, the area is but a very small portion of an already low-to-mid resolution image, further limiting capture of detail. The area therefore does not contain sufficient photographic detail to support the assertion that a creature of any kind is present. Whether or not the original image was altered to present insufficient evidence strikes me as a moot point.

Thanx PC that helps. And yes that is the original photograph. Well other than to obvious overlay.

 

[kitakaze]

Normal Dude did a fine job of addressing that huge post of yours but just a couple points to add:

You have to understand I was tramatized by this I had never had any fear of being in the woods in my life I could lay down any where in the jungle and sleep without fear of any thing .
Then I walked up on this gaint creature in my back yard of all places and my world as I knew it changed 360 degrees. Seeing a bigfoot tends to change you brother !

So you are now saying that the bigfoot in your back yard was your first encounter?

In doing so I found there where forums about bigfoot the bff was the bigest so I joined .
I was so excited there was a place to talk about it I was haveing a great time untell someone asked about me and what I do with my time .
I told them I spend my time inventing and that I had invented a machine to wrap fishing poles .and other machines then jokeingly said I invented the weedeater and bungie jumping as a kid .
Let me explain that before we go any farther .
Right away I was band they never gave me a chance to explain my side of the story right away I was lieing just like what happened here .
I did not invent what is known today as bungie or the weedeater but they where pretty close for a kid that never watched tv or had any contact with the outside world .
In my mind I had invented them everybody was so fast to say its a lie and hes trying to pull a hoax .
Without being able to explain myself my reputation was gone allready just for inventing something to play with as a kid .

...(snip)

So you see all that was taken out of context my words where twisted and I was made out to be a kook .
Welcome to the internet forum jungle !

These are more bald lies from you. You didn't jokingly claim those things and then get banned without a chance to clarify. You have there, here, and elsewhere persisted in your inventing claims, going into detail, and never taking the opportunities to abandon and clarify your claims the countless times they arose. Your saying now it was just a misunderstanding and you know that's not true. Poor attempt at damage control and nothing else.

 

[sthomson]

.....but you're creek. So this is info from the enchanced pic you originally received from yourself? Having a bit of a mix-up are we?

He was quoting Darkwing from the mabfc (or whatever), who originally posted the EXIF data. Creekfreak doesn't like to use the quote button.

Creekfreak: As far as I know, EXIF data won't reveal if I took a photo, burned around the area that is bigfootish, and spot-brightened the area that is eye-ish and mouth-ish. Photo experts, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[LTC8K6]

I show a shutter speed of 1/280 for the original in the exif data. F2.8 ISO100.

 

[Creekfreak]

yes Brett I was under the impression this is what you where asking for . Folks the creature is visable I can even see it even runing windows 95 . Brett thank you for all your help with this thunder and I have talked and we feel this should be looked at by some more photography experts . No offence to you at least you took the time to give it a chance that is more then most have done . Lt I dont have photo shop on this computer I used a freinds all I did was jack up the blues and the eyes showed . As far as seeing the figure in the original you can plainly see the light reflecting off the side of the head it is there and so is the small one bending over in front of it . Shadows do not have eyes and faces we will get to the bottom of this one way or another . I am not just going to give up just becouse of a few on an internet forum says its a hoax .Just becose you say it is doesnt make it so you can scream hoax tell your blue in the face that still will not make it one .

 

[wahrheit]

Creekfreak: As far as I know, EXIF data won't reveal if I took a photo, burned around the area that is bigfootish, and spot-brightened the area that is eye-ish and mouth-ish. Photo experts, correct me if I'm wrong.

You can freely edit the EXIF data if you wish so. EXIF data can't be evidence for or against anything. But it is a helpful basis for further investigation.

In this example, I looked at other in-flight helicopter pictures I could find to see if the exposure time given in the EXIF (1/280) seems reasonable. And yes, it seems quite possible to get this kind of rotor blur with 1/280.

 

[LTC8K6]

Creek, the creature is not visible in the original photo, and brett did not validate your claims.

Stop the hoax talk for a second and Take the time to look at the enhanced photo of mama bigfoot with her young in front of her you cant tell me your heart does not go out to her .

Are you now claiming that the photo shows a mother and child bigfoot?