Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Big Phill

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Big Phill

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:00 pm

http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/wi_06_notes_big_phil_images.asp

So what is the story on this one Anyone know more about it?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  BurdenOfProof on Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:30 pm

yet another ambiguous could be anything photo:(
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  SasquaiNation on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:19 pm

I'm almost positive that Shawn posted this before. If not, then I saw it somewhere else.
At best, this is inconclusive. The picture is just too dark overall to determine anything one way or the other.
I also know very little about the witnesses.

SasquaiNation

Posts : 200
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  Woodwose on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:24 pm

Yes, it's ambiguous, but that's no reason to discard the image. Even if it turns out to be fake, further analysis will help to determin how to identify whether other bigfoot footage is credible or not.

That in itself is a valuable exercise.

The image strikes me as being odd - I can't put my finger on why that is as I've only seen it on my tablet. I'll take a proper look when I get back in the office.

Things like the position of the shoulders, width of the head, convenient composition of the shot and lighting on the right arm look odd to me, but that's just a superficial impression.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:41 pm

The arms look odd to me.
The length doesn't work with other discriptions of the creature
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  Woodwose on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:00 pm

It's not the proportions of the arms that look odd to me - variation can be accounted for because of misperception or variation within the species - its the way the light bleeds through the fur.

It looks like something added to the image (notice how the human stand-in only has light bleeding around the head) or a fake effect I normally see applied to CG models.

Some aspects look genuine and others don't.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  SasquaiNation on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Woodwose wrote:It's not the proportions of the arms that look odd to me - variation can be accounted for because of misperception or variation within the species - its the way the light bleeds through the fur.

It looks like something added to the image (notice how the human stand-in only has light bleeding around the head) or a fake effect I normally see applied to CG models.

Some aspects look genuine and others don't.

Quite a few people mentioned the exact same thing Woodwose. Like I said, I can't remember where I saw and read this, but I know CG was mentioned.

SasquaiNation

Posts : 200
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  DPinkerton on Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:19 pm

I saw it referenced as a "statue" somewhere and that is what I think of. Bigfoot in my experience is always captured doing something or in motion. That image conveys no motion whatsoever and that is what seems odd to me.

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I hate to say it.

Post  sbizkit38 on Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:09 pm

I hate to say it, but this looks like the "perfect specimen", almost to perfect. As far as someone saying that because the Bigfoot in the picture didn't seem real because it was just standing. I would just say Sasquatch, more than any creature, are probably pretty good at just standing perfectly still, as not to be seen. But I will tell you what bothers me about this picture. All I have heard is that the only explanation behind the reason of Sasquatch's apparent "good luck" to not have gotten his picture on the front page of every major news paper in the country, is because they can sense the camera waves, or can hear the cameras inner workings, or can see the camera from far away. But why then does this picture show up? Why did this particular Sasquatch slip and get "busted" on camera? He, or she, does not seem to be a sub-par specimen, so what then, is this the only creature out there that does not have the before mentioned skills to avoid a trail-cam? I wish that when someone hands out a trail-cam from this moment on, that they are putting them in the hands of someone that knows how to set them properly (the flash!) If the flash was on, then we are having a very different conversation. Either we could see enough of the creature in the photo to know it was a fake, or we would have some pretty awesome pics of a living, breathing, real creature. I suppose under the circumstances, we have to toss this out. Even though it quit possibly a great photo of a real Sasquatch, its just to inconclusive....Like I wrote in the title, I hate to say it!

sbizkit38

Posts : 4
Join date : 2012-08-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  Woodwose on Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:27 am

I've had another look at the image and can't find anything to support my initial doubts and the image stands up to ELA analysis. My doubts do however remain.

Here are few additional concerns I have when looking at the image:



1) - You can see background branches through the head

2) - With the light coming from above and to the left there should be strong light bleed on the left shoulder. As it stands the figure looks more like it is being illuminated from the bottom right. See the comparison image of Carol to see what I mean.

3) - The sharp edge on the right arm could indicate some tampering. This could however be due to compression.

Overall I still think that the physiology somehow looks wrong and some aspects make me think that the entire image could be CG (based on a real location) or a CG bigfoot rendered using a real location image as a backplate - which would explain the ELA analysis, lighting inconsistencies and the crisp edges on the arms. I admittedly can't back up these observations.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:33 am

I see the light being more directional and it looks to be hitting the creature about the chest area when you look at the woman's picture that is where her head is about.
I haven't downloaded the original yet to look at.
This is of course already been manipulated in PSD they messed with the contrast to see it better i would love to have the hi-res raw orginal dark image to play with.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  Woodwose on Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:09 am

Yes the light could be coming from somewhere in line with the chest of the figure, but that wouldn't correspond with the position of the flood lamp. The lighting on the woman's head is what you would expect given the position of this light.

Also look at how the light illuminates the branches above the bigfoot head, which shows how high the light is being distributed from the flood lamp. At the very least you would expect more ambient light to land on the left shoulder.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Big Phill

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum