Source of the analyzed “capture” is…
Posted by: Steve Kulls on May 6th, 2014
Okay gang, a lot of people were stunned at how I took apart “Blinky”.
Picture used for analysis.
ELA test indicating digital manipulation
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
But the few “Doubting Thomas’” out there kept saying things like, “How can the data be accurate? Todd keeps his originals close to the vest.”
One went so far as to accuse me of making things up…
“I think you’re full of crap. This “still” jpeg image was created from a single frame taken from a digital video source. Most likely an MTS file from an AVCHD capable camera. All you have to do is capture a screen shot of the original video, convert the captured image to jpeg format, and you can manipulate it and add all the “convincing” meta data yourself. Hackers do this kind of thing all the time. Technically, the process is referred to as steganography. Nice try. But it isn’t difficult to expose your so-called “analysis” as the real hoax here. Have a nice day.” – Tony Reusser, 4/26/14
These were programs and terms foreign to me. However it did give me cause to answer the question myself, “Where did the the photo I use come from, what was it’s source?”
About Steve Kulls
Steve had a lifelong fascination with the Bigfoot phenomena since an early age. In 1998 after reading "Monsters of the Northwoods", and learned that there were numerous sighting reports close to his residence in upstate New York. He began to investigate extremely skeptical but soon changed his mind. Squatchdetective.com was the creation of Steve Kulls, aka "The Squatchdetective" Steve launched Squatchdetective.com with a national outlook in December 2005. In September 2006 he created Squatchdetective Radio.
Steve has appeared on numerous local news programs around the country and national venues such as Fox and Friends, and interviewed in print in over 100 newspapers over the last ten years. Steve has appeared on the History Channel the National Geographic Channel, featured on several programs, and authored two book, "Fifty Large," and "What Would Sasquatch Do?"
Steve is a former Licensed Private Investigator, in New York, and a former retail investigator of 18 years, a Firefighter and Paramedic
Facts and proof are never going to mean anything in matters of belief.
Defending a stance against someone who wants to believe Blinky is real is going to make you old fast. Engaging them will only make them uppity.
You stated your results from a well done analysis. It was thorough and accurate, that is enough. Stand by your work, but don’t get drawn into arguments where facts don’t matter. My suggestion is that you have a martini and conserve your energy instead of contemplating wandering off the path into the territory of futility.
The best way to know when not to get drawn in is when facts are rebutted with the first salvo of a pissing contest, which is clearly the case here.
Breaking this down into minutia wasn’t necessary to define the camps. The big picture is it takes a special kind of person to swallow Blinky whole. When the hook, line, and sinker is already in their gullet, they are never going to believe there is a reel at the other end…
Cheers (and good work).
Steve,
Hey! I can’t tell you how many times I have analyzed photographs over the years, for one reason or another. And on some of them, I had to sign an NDA. I definitely cannot tell you or anyone about those because of the NDA.
The thing is, the analyzer is always going to have questions coming their way. If I did a photo analysis for court, either the prosecution or defense will inevitably question my analysis. So you always have to cross your Ts and dot your Is. It is what it is! You must always let your methodology and facts speak for themselves. Have faith in your work, methodology, analysis and conclusions. The bottom line is, someone is always going to be upset by your final conclusion. There are always vested interests in one camp or another. I have learned over the years, not to take this criticism personally. I will offer you that same advice. Don’t take it personally.
If you were objective in your analysis, let the chips fall where they may. And being questioned by people is not a bad thing. It can be irritating but there is a benefit. It makes you even more diligent in your next analysis so the same questions will not be asked again.
You pointed out one poster, Tony, that made some comments. One should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Tony actually was making a valid point. I came to the same conclusion as Tony. The only difference is, I would not have been as subjective and would not have any emotion attached when asking you the same question about the analysis. But Tony did make a good point, albeit an emotional one. He may in fact be correct.
And in that same thought process, I just recalled something. There have been many times when magazines or newspapers have taken digital photographs I sent them and manipulated them slightly. They may have cropped them. They may have adjusted contrast or decreased resolution or whatever the case may be. And yes, they have taken my originals and selectively sharpened or blurred them. It is irritating but it happens. And when it does, is that still my photograph even though they have changed it? Well, they should not have changed it without my permission but they did. If it was not a big deal to me and helped the publication, I really did not care. Oh well, I may or may not have written them a note on future photos I sent to them.
But what if? What if the newspaper took it upon themselves to manipulate Todd’s original digital image to enhance their accompanying story line? That happens too! And Tony was correct with what he was stating as well. So what if it is a capture from the video that Todd had sent to a newspaper and the newspaper editor manipulated it? That is not only a possibility but a probability. Todd may have had his hijacked photo manipulated by a newspaper editor. One can not cry foul on Todd or on the newspaper. These things happen! It could be the Todd sent a real photograph and because of the manipulation by others, it appears Todd faked a photograph. That may indeed be the case.
Also, there are a few other things going on with this particular image. The wooden branch in the foreground is definitely overexposed but the subject in partial shadow is pretty good as far as density correction goes. And some of the blurriness on the face on the subject is not from altering or different depth of fields in the same photograph. It is from some obstacle being close to the telephoto zoom lens of the camera. I have shot through fences before to get a shot of an animal. If the photographer puts a telephoto lens against the fence and focuses on something in the distant scene, you will not see the fence but you will see what looks like a blur or a partially out of focus subject.
My point is, you need to cover many things when doing objective photo analysis. You did a pretty good job. But as a devil’s advocate for the sake of argument, you have to answer some questions before they are asked. You have to cover all your bases. Or people like Tony will question you. And he has every right to question the digital image in question or it’s analysis. I hope that objective advice helps you out for future analysis.
Moving on, I do agree with Hoodoorocket. The post is spot on! Yes, engage Tony on an objective level for the possibility of a discussion of facts, etc. But engaging on a subjective level because Tony was subjective in his wording, is never a fruitful endeavor. Name calling just makes it look like the person who did the analysis is subjective too. Never fall for a bait! Actually, I really do not think in the case of Tony, that he was baiting you intentionally. He was merely pointing out, that there were other things to consider and since you did not take those into account when doing your analysis that your conclusion had shortcomings. And in reality, he would be correct.
With that being said, I tip my hat to you for at least doing an analysis of the image. Who else went that far? Just remember to remain objective and unemotional when questioned. Stay above the fray!
It was an interesting image. Not having done a full analysis of the image, I cannot say what it is or what it isn’t. But my gut feeling is that it just does not look right to me. There is something fishy about the photograph and I just cannot put my finger on it. So Steve, I agree with your conclusion–that in the least, there is something fishy about the photo in question. I say that not acting as a PhotoExpert but as PhotoExpert voicing an opinion based on experience.
Keep analyzing those photos! Misery loves company! And with that, I welcome you to my world. LOL Now go have that martini that Hoodoorocket was talking about! You earned it!
PhotoExpert: Good comments. And yes, there definitely seems to be something wrong with the picture. To me, it doesn’t fit with what I expect living, breathing beings to look like. It looks like it could be a mask, or part of a costume. But even more, it seems to be some sort of rudimentary, animatronic puppet-head.
And that’s what I think it is – some sort of puppet-head. It does nothing but blink a couple of times, to create the impression that it’s the head of a living creature.
Todd Standing is poison. Why Les Stroud would pick him to hang his beliefs on is beyond me.
Goodfoot–Thanks! Much appreciated!
Yes, I am basing my opinion solely on the photograph and blinking video. Forget who took the photograph. It could be the Pope that took it or Tom Biscardi. It makes no difference to me. But just looking at the photograph and video, something just does not feel quite right about it.
I definitely concur with your opinion–it does not look like a living breathing being to me either. Now whether it is a puppet, or animatronic puppet-head, digitally manipulated or CGI, it just looks strange. And when I get that gut feeling of uneasiness, I lean towards crying foul. But who knows, maybe that is a Bigfoot and they make you feel that way. LOL
You know Goodfoot, there has been a lot of hype on Todd Standing. He is questioned by many people in the Bigfoot community. Some really like him. Some think he has an agenda with his filming and trying to get Bigfoot approved as a protected species, etc. Guys like Rick Dyer and Tom Biscardi, well, no one questions their motives for being involved with Bigfoot. They leave little doubt because of their escapades and hoaxes. But a guy like Todd Standing has a decent personality. He is more reserved and tends to be less self promoting than hoaxers. It is almost as if you want to like him or think his intentions are good. So that leaves doubts both ways in the mind of the public. Unlike Dyer and Biscardi, there are people who like Standing. The coin lands on the edge for him and everyone is just waiting to see where it falls. I know of him but do not know of him well enough to make a comment either pro or con about him.
Now Dyer and Biscardi, well I do know enough about them and have commented on them in the past. But my grandmother always told me, if you do not have anything good to say about someone, then do not say anything at all. I will heed those words and not say anything at all about those two. (cough, hoaxers, cough)
Have great weekend Goodfoot!
PhotoExpert: I base my opinions on Todd Standing upon the “Sasquatch photos” he put out over the years that were clearly things like tree trunks, knots of foliage, etc. You could imagine a face there, but you just knew it wasn’t real.
So this photo/still/whatever looks and feels wrong on its own merit. As such, I don’t feel it advances my opinions of Todd Standing towards anything of a positive nature.