"Exclusive: Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs, Never-Before-Seen Photos"

Wow Woodwose! It's great to read the take of a knowledgable expert on these photos. Ya learn sumpin' new every day

Tim has a link to the original photos on his site so I had a look. There is a drop down for more information.








This shows the EXIF data for the photos. I excluded the dark picture that had been lightened or vice versa since both contained the same data.
Another interesting thing I noted was that text on the photo has her last name as "Hiebert", while the hosting site states "Heibert". How many people mispell their own last name? Never in my entire life have I spelled my last name incorrectly.
Why does this data not show that the photos went through photoshop? Text was added to the photos so they would need to go through a photo editor, would they not?







This is the data I got from the photos on Tim's site. This contains his logo so I'm assuming these were edited by Tim on June 4, 2012. On June 3 he asked the owners of the photo if he could post these pictures. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it seems reasonable that this is what occurred. If this is an incorrect assumption, then I would hope that Tim will correct me.



This is the rest of the data. Notice there is no camera information after the edit has taken place.



Good comparison with the Hoffman Bigfoot by the way.

Kel,

A lot of the things I've mentioned are actually quite easy to spot.

If you use PS then using Levels (sliding the mid tone and white point sliders to the left) makes artifacts and evidence of digital manipulation a lot easier to identify.....especially when it comes to elements that have been pasted into an image.

Doing this with the Temegami images (#1 & #2) also reveals more of the facial features, which start to appear more mask-like and somewhat similar to the Matine reconstruction suit. You can't do the same with the facial shot as they have introduced so much junk to image that that kind of detail has been lost.

Woodwose wrote:Kel,

A lot of the things I've mentioned are actually quite easy to spot.

If you use PS then using Levels (sliding the mid tone and white point sliders to the left) makes artifacts and evidence of digital manipulation a lot easier to identify.....especially when it comes to elements that have been pasted into an image.

Doing this with the Temegami images (#1 & #2) also reveals more of the facial features, which start to appear more mask-like and somewhat similar to the Matine reconstruction suit. You can't do the same with the facial shot as they have introduced so much junk to image that that kind of detail has been lost.

It's always great to have the input of people who deal with images on a regular basis. I noticed myself that the profile of the face looks very similar to the reconstruction suit from the Matine video. I was messing with the saturation levels when I noticed it.

SasquaiNation,

If all Tim did was add his logo, then the camera info should have been carried across to the new images. Not only is this info missing, but it is nowhere to be found in the Exif data when downloading the supposedly original images hosted with Panoramio.

The Exif data on Panoramio (not found in the actual images) only relates to camera settings, so there wouldn't be any mention of Photoshop. The data from the downloaded images does reference Photoshop............but that doesn't really say anything one way or the other about the legitimacy of the footage.

What does intrigue me is the fact that I own the same model camera and even on lower quality settings the results shouldn't be this poor. It's a solid semi-pro model that should be able to deliver very good images. The artifacts and pixelation doesn't match up with any photos I've taken with the camera.

Looking at the supposed camera information there another couple of factors that I find troubling.

Tim's account states that the Rebel XT was being used with a 300mm lens, yet the camera info references focal lengths (FL) of 300mm and 70mm. Either the information in Tim's article is wrong and they were using something like a 55-300mm lens, or the Exif data has been fabricated.

If the lens details in the account are wrong you would expect the long distance images to be closer to 300mm and the woodpile photo to be the one taken with a 70mm FL. In fact we get the opposite, where the longest distance image is said to have a FL of 70mm - you would have to be fairly close to get that kind of result. Photographing the woodpile squatch 10ft away with a 300mm FL (as is claimed) would give a superb full facial image.

It just doesn't add up. Honest mistakes, or evidence of a hoax?

I noticed that as well Woodwose and thought it was a bit odd. How is it that the data shows up in these screen grabs.
The date and time match up with the date the photos were taken and the edit date matches the posting date.
You're better at determining photo manipulation than I am so it's nice to have that information.
I'm not setting out to prove or disprove the photos, I just want as much information as possible. Why wait a month and a half to edit these photos and post them? If I thought I had a clear photo of Bigfoot, it would go up faster than you could say pancakes and bacon.

These were given to me by an anonymous person and they've been around for quite awhile. These photos have also been scrutinized in the past so this isn't a "first time ever" event. The person who gave me this wished to remain anonymous and I must honor that.





If the data is contained in these screen grabs from 2009, why is the data missing from the actual photos on the hosting site?
It's easy to change information after the fact, at least it was for me with Tim's photo information. Some info I couldn't change though.
I focused on the Exif data to see if any anomalies could be found.

Well, that Exif data is what I would expect to see in the originals (there is still the 300mm and 70mm anomaly). It is worth noting that you can import new camera data from a template or edit it directly using third party software. Another option would be to start with a real image with real camera data and then paste your hinky image over the top - that would be the smart thing to do if you were going to pass off a montage as the real thing.

Camera data is lost when you drag your image into a new file.........which is something you only tend to do when creating a digital montage. If you just wanted to add text or tone map the image you would do it to the original file and if necessary save a copy. In that situation the camera data would be retained.

I don't want to come across as a debunker as - like yourself - I'm just trying to learn as much about the images as possible. With so much hoaxing in the world of Bigfoot and Fortean phenomena in general, I think it's important to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Awesome thread!!

I have no idea what the hell any of you are saying, but it's still awesome.

So the pics are fake?

If the only problem was the Exif data, focal length anomoly and misspelled name* I'd say that it would be difficult to call it one way or the other.

*The image text could have been added by a third party and even close friends and extended family members get the 'i' and 'e' in my name the wrong way around.

The biggest problem for me is that I can see what appears to be clear evidence of image manipulation......so for now I'd say 'fake'. However, if someone can come up with a good alternative explanation for the problems seen in the images I would be more than happy to stand corrected.

Woodwose, would you be willing to post pictures to show these manipulations so we can view them?
I'm also leaning towards fake unless some good explanations come forth.
The account is also an almost mirror of the Ben Matine video in terms of details in the story. The Matine video apparently took place in Temagami as well. Too many coincidences, especially when it comes to Bigfoot.

Sure. I'll try and find time tomorrow to illustrate some of the issues I've mentioned.

Woodwose wrote:Sure. I'll try and find time tomorrow to illustrate some of the issues I've mentioned.

good stuff Woody, can you also check to see if they photoshopped all of the snow out of the woods? A quick check of Environment Canada records showed the area still had 4 feet of snow on april 15th, 2009.


HMMMMMMMMM

Can EXIFData take any photo and get the information out of it? Even GPS? I wanna download this software and play with it. Any locations to do so?

relic wrote:A quick check of Environment Canada records showed the area still had 4 feet of snow on april 15th, 2009.

Doesn't sound good for the credibility of the images.

Danny Squatchanini wrote:Can EXIFData take any photo and get the information out of it? Even GPS? I wanna download this software and play with it. Any locations to do so?

Exif data only contains info added by the image author or the camera that's been used. I've never heard of cameras (other than camera phones) that have built in GPS, but it might be possible. The camera supposedly used for these images definitely doesn't have GPS.

If you don't own Photoshop or something similar, you can use one of the programmes listed here to view the Exif data.

You would be wasting your time with these images as they contain hardly any information - not even the camera details listed on Panoramio.

I'm watching that Krazy Glue commercial where the guy is window washing with Krazy Glue connecting his harness of course with a safety line just in case. Can you do that with Krazy Glue?

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.

I can confirm what relic stated about snow being on the ground in that area. I found a sat image dated for April of 2009.



Source: Ottertooth

You can scroll to earlier or later dates as well. The image above is from April 16,2009.
This is the general area and there are other sat images that show snow closer to the photo location.

Something is definitely not right about this story.

Nice job on the analysis of photo #1. My untrained eye would have never noticed these things, so I thank you for the time you spent on this.
I tried to lighten photo #3, Bigfoot behind the tree, and came up with a similar image result. I had come to the conclusion that photo #3 had been darkened after the fact as well. Also, why would it be that dark at 2:30 in the afternoon in those conditions?
This is the great thing about forums. We can present data to show others and have a more meaningful discussion about a given topic.

You could get a dark image with the wrong exposure etc. The camera settings supposedly used should have produced a brighter image though.

I've had second thoughts about the 'original' image 3 being made from the brightened version. Whilst the foiliage in the brightened version is miraculously more detailed there are details in the 'original' (on the Squatch head and background trees) that have been burnt out and lost in the brightened version.

I think this indicates that there are further undisclosed images, or at the very least much higher resolution originals.

My overall view is that there are original high resolution photos of a figure wearing a costume in the woods. Details that would give away the hoax have been obscured by degrading the images and adding elements in post production which are amakes tended to make the images more believable.

In image 1 you can already make out what appears to be the elbow dissappearing into a sleeve or cowl. I suspect that in the original photos such details would be clearly evident.

Woodwose wrote: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.

Just posted an article about this thread. Thanks guys.

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/are-temagami-ontario-bigfoot.html

If you have any questions I will try my best to answer them.

I would like to say that when I hear someone saying "It's confidential or I can't disclose something" it does bother me but some things are confidential and can't be disclosed. Confidentiality is why we get most of our reports and it wouldn't be a good idea to breach any confidence our witnesses have in us. But I will try to answer any questions you may have.

Setting aside my concerns about doctoring, I would like to know if there are original high resolution images (with intact Exif data) that have not been made public.

I would also like to know what quality setting was used and exact details of the lens.