Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Ambermae

A New Bigfoot Pic

Recommended Posts

Crowlogic

Well for me there's one good thing about this latest photo mess. I get to say it yet again.....Emery has got nothing now, he had nothing then, and he'll have nothing in the future.

I love the way the so called squatch is just standing there posing against a high contrast background. Its like a perfect photo made to order. And the best Emery could do with that thing just standing there was the idiotic photo we're being assailed with. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Well, there are alot of large same-color pixels in the pic. To me, that likely indicates the pic has been worked on in a paint or other photo program. There's just too much solid color in many of those pixels to clearly make out the subject. I guess that it may have been an unsuccessful attempt to enhance the photo? I'd like to review the original untouched pic. Even the process of saving a pic with a paint program can cause very poor resolution and increased pixellation.

Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Moderator

Not again.... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The only thing that this picture tells me is that there isn't a bigfoot in it.

If it aint obvious, it aint evidence.

Now where did I hear that saying? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I've got to ask, why on earth would anyone put a picture of such poor quality on a public forum as a representation of anything? Emery has got to be kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grazhopprr

NO MORE BLOBSQUATCHES !!!

Wonder if the BFF can ban all blobsquatches from the forum, hehe. If not,,,,read below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajciani

Well, there are alot of large same-color pixels in the pic. To me, that likely indicates the pic has been worked on in a paint or other photo program. There's just too much solid color in many of those pixels to clearly make out the subject. I guess that it may have been an unsuccessful attempt to enhance the photo? I'd like to review the original untouched pic. Even the process of saving a pic with a paint program can cause very poor resolution and increased pixellation.

Chris B.

Congratulations! You win the cookie!

Indeed, the image has almost certainly been altered. Probably even assembled.

The image below is a convolution of the image posted on Bigfoot Ballyhoo and its quality difference map. It's a little technical, but JPEG uses block-based compression, in which the image is segmented into blocks, transformed into Fourier space, and then the least prominent frequencies are discarded, up to the point that the desired quality is reached. If an image is uniform (e.g. original from a camera), then all of the blocks will have approximately the same quality. If you re-compress the image at a lower quality, then all of the blocks will loose an approximately equal amount of information. This image is the original Ballyhoo image mixed with a map of the quality difference.

post-148-097767200 1283581783_thumb.jpg

You can see that the largest quality difference was around the text "Property of Bill Emery". The next highest differences are the blue squares, seen in the gaps between the trees, followed by the yellow squares on the "mound", surrounding the "figure". The "figure" shows very little quality difference, indicating that it started out with a very low quality. The original image is almost certainly composited from multiple images, or started as a real image, and was "Photoshopped" to create the "mound" and the "shadowy figure". I prefer the composite, as the background has a noticeably higher quality than the foreground, even to the naked eye.

Also, I have tried to look up information on this "Bill Emery", in relation to bigfoot research. Everything I have found online (and I have not found much) traces straight back to the Ballyhoo blog. I find it highly likely, that neither the blobby shadow figure nor "Bill Emery" actually exist, and are totally fictional.

I also find the reason for the delayed publication of the image, copyright registration, to be suspiciously contrived. I am rather familiar with copyright, and registration is only necessary for certain legal recourses, a pending registration still affords those protections, and a digital image can be registered online in less than an hour. Even if copyright was an issue, such "ground breaking" images could have been published two weeks ago with pending registration, and full protection of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

ajciani

Wow, it looks like you have alot of experience with this kind of thing and i really appreciate the work you have done. I don't know anything about this stuff myself but you have explained it very well. Thank you :)

I have to admit that i can't find out anything about Bill Emery either but i did run across someone saying that he has been caught faking a photo in the past, i have no idea if that is true though and as there was no proof provided with that statement, it could just be made up.

Does anyone else know anything about him or the photo he may have faked in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gershake

Well for me there's one good thing about this latest photo mess.  I get to say it yet again.....Emery has got nothing now, he had nothing then, and he'll have nothing in the future.:wacko:

And why is that a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

Nice analysis aj, of course, I liked thinking the mound was actually Devil's Tower with BF hulking next to and over it! My dream is crushed. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gershake

 

I find it highly likely, that neither the blobby shadow figure nor "Bill Emery" actually exist, and are totally fictional.

****. The more I look at this Ballyhoo blog the more I fear you might be right. :| 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have been following this episode on BHoo and had hoped that this "expedition" and photos were legit. But with the copyright thingy dragging on unnecessarily and now this, my hopes have crashed upon the rocks. I don't know about Oregon but here in Northern CA its still dark at 05:30 (supposedly when the pic was taken). I would imagine that it would be even darker in the woods at 05:30 with all of the trees in the way. IMO the dark blob in the middle may have had it's picture taken at 05:30 but the background was photographed later in the day. I doubt now if we will ever see the "really good" pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have been following this episode on BHoo and had hoped that this "expedition" and photos were legit. But with the copyright thingy dragging on unnecessarily and now this, my hopes have crashed upon the rocks. I don't know about Oregon but here in Northern CA its still dark at 05:30 (supposedly when the pic was taken). I would imagine that it would be even darker in the woods at 05:30 with all of the trees in the way. IMO the dark blob in the middle may have had it's picture taken at 05:30 but the background was photographed later in the day. I doubt now if we will ever see the "really good" pics.

King Kaiju I just looked up the sunrise for their location and the reported date, it's right around 5:15 AM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajciani

From the height of the sun, I would have guessed somewheres around 10am or 5pm, which would fit about right for early-mid August.

The photo, the story, everything, complete fiction. The 1962 Columbus Day event, bogus. Bogus news citations, bogus newspaper names, pure fiction. The file numbers, completely invalid, not even close to what USFS file identifiers look like. I talked to the DoI archivist, and he thought the numbers were bogus. The location of the records? Wrong. They should be in College Park, not Denver. Classified? In the DoI? Ridiculous. No such thing. Where's the redacted report? Nowhere. The limping bigfoot frequently seen by loggers? Only ever mentioned on Ballyhoo. It's fiction. The special that CNN was supposed to do? Never happened, and as far as I know, never planned to happen. Every single thing in that "blog" is pure, unadulterated fiction, maybe even the comments as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×