Guest thelion Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Well regardless it's an awesome pic. Where did you find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I think we can confirm that BobbyO actually has no avatar. He has this pic as his profile pic, but needs to choose to also show it as his avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WIKayaker Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 The phil pics are 100% fake,and easly proven . I don't know how to post the pics the way I want, but if you take the 2 photos, bigphil and carol, and open them in a photo app , zoom in so they are around the same size, and go back and forth viewing them, or put the 2 pics in a slideshow set to the fastest setting. you can see that many details in the photos do not match,like the post of the building on the right are different distances from the tree, the building on the left shows boxes in , phil pic,there are no boxes in the carol pic, just for starters, and there are many more. they don't look like pictures more like artwork. soon as you compare them it is so easy to spot the differences, and there is no way to argue that they are real. These are a BUST ! My unsolicited opinion, after closer inspection with Adobe Photoshop image adjustments, and some logical analysis: http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/wi_06_notes_big_phil_images.asp … did anyone go here? Even though the photo has a fake look to it AT FIRST…the corroborating info can help validate that it is an un-retouched digital photo of a physical ‘something’. Not a digital illustration. The image does not show any inconsistent pixels or evidence of tampering. It is actually a color image too, not black and white by the way. -that’s not the moon, it is a post light -the camera was not necessarily in the exact same position when the guy photographed his wife in the location a few days later, so everything is not exactly in the same spot. -if someone were to try and fake a photo, wouldn’t they try harder to make it look “normal†for a squatch, with longer arms? (although it is obvious to me the arms are raised slightly, probably away from the camera, making them look shorter) -The other night photo, of his wife shows exactly the same lighting characteristics. The photo of his wife looks fake too. But is not of course. -notice the light on the little spindly twigs above it. Not likely to have been faked in if just an “illustrationâ€. At the BFRO site that was listed, there are other photos of the area in daylight, other night shots with a stand-in (stepped back, not standing on the footprints) and other footprint photos too, with a drawing showing the path it walked around the yard. Which backs up the story, beyond ‘just a photo’. (Notice too, the DY’s computer illustration capability in the “map†image of his yard.)Not high tech. It’s not just an anonymous pic posted. They guy has had many ongoing experiences with them, which is why he was loaned the camera. Sure, it could be a “dummyâ€, with hair, photographed, but the back-story points to and actual biggy. In my opinion. It’s really too bad it “looks†fake at first glance. ( 8{D} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I don't get offended easily anymore, Cisco. I just get sarcastic, because it kinda counteracts some of what I get thrown at me. I don't know here, whether you're being sarcastic or not, but if you are, you're good. And no, it wasn't an owl, a pothead, a dog, or a guinea. It was a bigfoot. We don't have a dog, & even if one was here, it couldn't have been up that high looking in a window. I have another picture of a smaller one with blue eyes, looking in the same window. And before everybody starts wasting their valuable time screaming for it to be posted, I already did. It was my avatar for several months, but like Bobby, nobody noticed, & "uncharacteristically" I forgot to constantly mention it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No sarcasm intended. I was just giving my opinion as to what I thought was in the photo. Also, I understand your point about the dog not being able to get that high. I turned the picture over and that's when I noticed it looked like a dog. The "lighter" edge, appears to be flooring or some other surface. Again, it's just my opinion and, since I was not there, I can't attest to what it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 My unsolicited opinion, after closer inspection with Adobe Photoshop image adjustments, and some logical analysis: http://www.bfro.net/...phil_images.asp … did anyone go here? Even though the photo has a fake look to it AT FIRST…the corroborating info can help validate that it is an un-retouched digital photo of a physical ‘something’. Not a digital illustration. The image does not show any inconsistent pixels or evidence of tampering. It is actually a color image too, not black and white by the way. -that’s not the moon, it is a post light -the camera was not necessarily in the exact same position when the guy photographed his wife in the location a few days later, so everything is not exactly in the same spot. -if someone were to try and fake a photo, wouldn’t they try harder to make it look “normal†for a squatch, with longer arms? (although it is obvious to me the arms are raised slightly, probably away from the camera, making them look shorter) -The other night photo, of his wife shows exactly the same lighting characteristics. The photo of his wife looks fake too. But is not of course. -notice the light on the little spindly twigs above it. Not likely to have been faked in if just an “illustrationâ€. At the BFRO site that was listed, there are other photos of the area in daylight, other night shots with a stand-in (stepped back, not standing on the footprints) and other footprint photos too, with a drawing showing the path it walked around the yard. Which backs up the story, beyond ‘just a photo’. (Notice too, the DY’s computer illustration capability in the “map†image of his yard.)Not high tech. It’s not just an anonymous pic posted. They guy has had many ongoing experiences with them, which is why he was loaned the camera. Sure, it could be a “dummyâ€, with hair, photographed, but the back-story points to and actual biggy. In my opinion. It’s really too bad it “looks†fake at first glance. ( 8{D} I don't know, it looks to me that the barn, bushes, trees, objects, etc.. do not match. even though the pics are different dates and the camera might have been in a slightly different position, I think there to many differences between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 At the time, I contacted DB Young and asked about the time/date stamp and he replied that the date was wrong (actually February 14th, 2007) but the time was right at 1730 or 5:30 pm. I checked the sunrise/sunset tables and on the 14th at Beloit,Wisconsin, the sun set at 1727 on the 14th. The image seems to me like it was taken in full dark, which would not occur for a while if the sun set 3 minutes earlier. The comparison photo is even earlier, several minutes before sunset and still looks to have been taken in full dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 16, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 16, 2011 I agree, it may have had to be as much as an hour later than sunset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Warbow Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 What I find strange is that all four camera shots are from different angles. I took the original Big Phil and overlaid each of the “recreation†shots. I can’t get any of them to line up with each other. Personally, I would have spent hours/days trying to line up the camera EXACTLY in the same angle and position. Maybe they were trying and that is why all the shots were different. But, I would never have posted the ones that didn't match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 16, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yes, I noticed that, but they did come close in some instances but they are not direct comparisons for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 16, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 16, 2011 Now i'm looking cool.. PS : I always thought i'd had that Picture as my avatar, it's only been 18 Months or so that i had thought it too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 At the time, I contacted DB Young and asked about the time/date stamp and he replied that the date was wrong (actually February 14th, 2007) but the time was right at 1730 or 5:30 pm. I checked the sunrise/sunset tables and on the 14th at Beloit,Wisconsin, the sun set at 1727 on the 14th. The image seems to me like it was taken in full dark, which would not occur for a while if the sun set 3 minutes earlier. The comparison photo is even earlier, several minutes before sunset and still looks to have been taken in full dark. That is very good investigative work, Indiefoot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Yep, can't argue with the earth's rotation, another one for file 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 19, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 19, 2011 This one though moired/pixelated out a little shows more detail despite the nagging overexposure. Somebody could take this to another level and tweak just a tad more out of it. Makes me now wonder if there was more info. in the original than heretofore previously presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I have a hard time believing anybody is sitting on anything. We go all these years with nothing but the PG film, and some footprint casts, and now, all of a sudden, people are sitting on a plethora of evidence? Highly unlikely. Totally agree It would be priceless and with the squeeze we all have these days, i don't think anyone has been sitting on anything butt there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Now i'm looking cool.. PS : I always thought i'd had that Picture as my avatar, it's only been 18 Months or so that i had thought it too.. If that picture were genuine, then it would more than likely be the picture that did it for me in terms of the ultimate proof, DNA, body, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts