I just came acroos this pic the other day. It was said that it was shot by Cliff crooks and thats all I know.

Does anyone know when this photo was taken and where?

Ive looked at this one and campared it to the colored photo of Crooks swamp bf,
it seems to be the same model used in two different location only this(black&white) one only seems to be half of the model!!!!


P.S. Sorry if it has been posted before!!! I tried the search and came up with nothing.

That one was taken at North Cascades, Washington in 1992 I believe, IM not sure if Cliff Crook took the photo though. It's a blob squatch for sure, no definite ID. Some think it a bear or a stump.

Maybe there should be an award for "Blobsquatch of the Year"? Every Jan. 1 candidate photos (or links) would be posted and members would vote (after two weeks to allow all photos to be located and posted) on their favorites, using a poll. The winner would be announced Feb. 1--or maybe voting shouldn't be closed until Groundhog Day.

Cliff's name says all you need to know.

THAT"S supposed to be a bigfoot?! Looks like a morbidly obese bear sitting on its ass.

Yeah I know Crooks' work cant be trust. Here is the colored swamp bf, and here again the black&white.

This time I put a square where I think the head is showing eye socket, nose, and mouth.

Then I put some crappy lines showing the shoulder, top part of the arm, elbow, forearm, then the hand rest flat on the dirt.

Now can you see any resemblance between the two?Or im I just seeing things?

you know it also looks like someone blew up a small piece of dynamite and that cloud is the dirt raising up.

Justin,
I have had many years of experience dealing with altered photographs and fractal images. (identifying authentic vs counterfeit makers stamps on antique saddles). Anyway, I have found that when a photo has been fabricated or embellished using Photoshop or a similar program the falsified areas look very different then natural areas when the image is embossed. Below are both photos completely unaltered by myself with the exception of their sizes, cropping the first one, and using the emboss filter on both. This reduces the image to it's high and low regions very much like a relief map. The areas that have been "drawn in" using a paint program brush will appear completely smooth and drawn lines will appear as distinct line impressions, as opposed to areas that are natural to the original photograph, which will show surface texture. The photo of the alleged Bigfoot may have started out as a front view of the second photo, but has been almost completely altered using a photoshop program. You can tell this easily by the creatures "border" that shows a distinct depressed "line" and by the entire lack of texture on the surface of the "creature". The second photo in the next post is quite different, showing actual texture on the surface of whatever it is. My guess, just by looking is that it is (or originally was) a large rock or mound of something that was blurred to appear "hairy" but absolutely did not have a hairy surface texture originally.

Photo #2

I saw on an A&E big foot document I rented from blockbuster, that this picture has been proven to be a hoax. That is what the video said anyway.

Many thanks, Califb. I've been upholding the position for a long time here that sophisticated analysis techniques can detect most digital forgery, especially in videos (as opposed to single shots), and especially at the amateur level. (Maybe the KGB could pull off something that would fool most experts.)

I think people have drawn an unjustified conclusion from the statement that "with digital trickery you can create an undetectable forgery." What was meant when that statement was first made, I think, is that the forgery was undetectable by looking at it. The author didn't mean, that more advanced techniques mightn't detect a phony, or anyway didn't consider the possibility. He was just swept away by how impressive the new photo manipulation tools were.

(There's also been a press release or article a month or so ago by a prof. at Dartmouth who's come up with a neat phony-digital photo detection method.)

Baldsquatch

Not only that. It was also stated that it was a bear.


Belle

One handy little tool that I couldn't live without is called Virtual Magnifying glass... You can adjust the amount of magnification from 2x to 16x, adjust the width and height of the window, and remove the window border completely, among other things. It sits in the tray at the bottom and to activate it all you do is click on the icon and it appears, then click anywhere on the screen and it goes away. It moves wherever you move your mouse pointer.. And best of all, it is FREE. The download is small (less then 200k). I've used it for a couple of years to examine online photos. (It is especially great to use to examine items listed on ebay). Below is a screen shot I just took showing it in use at the 2x magnification without the window border...

Here is the link to the download:

http://magnifier.sourceforge.net/

Wow, I've installed it and it is weird! It does look like it would be useful sometimes, especially in examining "thumbnails." One just left-clicks the icon in the tray to bring it up, moves the mouse to position it, and left-clicks to make it disappear.

Jump on in, the water's fine (so far)! Choose the AZ site to download from; I couldn't find it on the MN site.

Whoa!!! This is really cool! Especially between 2x and 4x magnification!

Thanks Califb!

sorry i just dont see it. it looks like a giant compost pile to me. why would anyone go to the trouble of hoaxing that ?

Some people are really stupid, that's why.

One thing I've noticed about the magnifier is that, after I activate my PC from its period of hibernation (when the disk is stopped), it takes almost ten seconds longer for the first screen to become live--probably because there's a delay while the utility is loading from disk. But I have a bare-bones system, so other people who already have utilities that delay the first screen becoming live wouldn't notice any extra slowdown.

It didn't do that on either of the systems I have it on, (an AMD Athlon 800 with 512 RAM and a Presario 500 with 152 RAM) but I don't let it start up automatically when windows starts. I put a shortcut to it... well here, look below... So it's handy right there under the Start button when I want to run it. If you right click on the icon in your system tray make sure the option "Start Magnifying Glass when you log on" is not checked... You might also go to the Run command under the Start button and type in msconfig and choose the Start Up tab and make sure it isn't checked to run at system start.