|
|
Ohio’s
White Bigfoot Video, the Analysis
Brief History of the VideoAt around 6:30PM on August 2, 1992, Don Keating, an Ohio Bigfoot researcher, inadvertently captured about 1 second of video of what many think is a large, white Bigfoot. About 16.5 months later, Don Keating discovered the video segment during a routine review. The video was first publicly shown to the attendants of an Ohio Bigfoot Conference in 1994. Since then, Mr. Keating has made several amateur video documentaries of the video segment and his supposed supporting evidence, and sold them to anyone interested. The video, filmed in Coshocton County, Ohio near a dirt road off County Road 6, has created much interest in further local research by many Bigfoot enthusiasts. The video has also been reported as being seen on some local news programs and cable TV shows. The video, by Mr. Keating’s own complaint, has never been thoroughly analyzed to prove what the object in the film is. Therefore, the object in the film has remained a mystery for over 7 years. See the Scaled Scene Drawing for a typical view of the event.
Claims
Made by the Filmmaker
1) A light gray to white object was accidentally video-taped on August
2, 1992 with a GoldStar, 8:1 VHS camcorder, and was later discovered on
December 21, 1993, which is said to be 17.5 months later. 2) The filmmaker
was filming scenery in an area of possible Bigfoot activity, and claims
repositioning was required for a better filming angle. During this period, the
camera swung around to the side and recorded the light-colored object unknown
to him at the time. 3) Virtually
everyone who has viewed the film believes the object is a Bigfoot, and the
filmmaker and others believe that the film is second only to the Patterson
film. 4) References are
made to other instances of light-colored Bigfoot creatures filmed or seen in
the region to add credibility to the 1992 film. 5) The object in
question appears to be 8 to 10 feet tall based on: comparison to a 12-foot
bush across the road, its waist appearing even with posts that he measured as
49 inches tall, and that it would not be as visible if it was any smaller. 6) The object
travels 28 feet in anywhere from 1.3 to 2.0 seconds; the 28 feet traveled is
said to consist of four 7-foot steps, and the object just passes 3 posts
during the time it is visible. This feat is thought to be nearly impossible
for humans to reproduce. 7) The object in
question was on the far side of the roadway at a distance of anywhere from 262
to 292 feet from the camera, and filmed at 1:1 zoom.
8) No one has
proved that the object is not a Bigfoot. Goals of this AnalysisThe goal is to
apply scientifically acceptable reasoning to the analysis of the film to
arrive at a factual and reproducible conclusion. Although the film is brief
and badly blurred, there is a sufficient amount of relevant information that
can be extracted for analysis. These results, which are not subject to the
optical illusions of a human viewer, will provide accurate information and
assessment of the claims made by the filmmaker. If the claims cannot be
validated, then alternative explanations will be presented. The reader will
therefore be properly informed and not subject to inaccurate information,
opinions based on errors in analysis, or being forced to guess the identity of
the tiny white blur on their TV screen. It is not our goal, nor would it be
possible, to enhance the image for instant identification due to the
resolution of the film. Improved images made from the film for analysis will
not be included in this report due to copyright protection by the filmmaker.
Another goal is to keep the presentation of this information brief and results
oriented to avoid needless detail, length, and time expended in preparing the
report. Therefore equations, derivations, intermediate data, and further
elaborations will not be included. We will retain enough information to allow
readers to understand the methods used to derive the results. Analysis
Methods Used
Three different video documentaries of Don Keating were obtained: his first
from 1995, the 1998 version, and the latest 2000 version. After an initial
familiarization period watching the films, the actual film site was visited to
make measurements and film the area for other relevant information. The
clearest video footage of the event was then selected from the different
documentaries. Note, we did not ask for the original tape due to the extreme
unlikelihood of obtaining permission to use it. The clearest video clips were
a zoomed clip from the 1995 version and an un-zoomed clip from the 2000
version. The video clips were then captured and saved on a computer. Each
frame was then numbered for reference and saved as a high-resolution image
file. For future reference, the frames were numbered such that frame #36 is
where the object just completely disappears from view at the end of the main
sequence. Since VHS frames are almost exactly 0.0333 seconds apart, accurate
time measurements are also easily obtained. The images were then imported into
Corel Photo-Paint to uniformly enhance the contrast, brightness, and intensity
of each frame. Points of references were defined from the image files, and X,
Y measurements were made within Corel Photo-Paint for the relevant object
positions in each frame. Trigonometric calculations based on site
measurements, satellite photos, camera optics, complex filming angles, and
camera movement corrections were made on the measured data. The resulting data
was then imported into Microsoft Excel for scaling and to prepare graphs of
the object’s progression on the roadway. Accurate body size measurements
were performed by importing the clearest frames of the zoomed images into
AutoCAD 2000. AutoCAD’s rulers and ability to increase resolution by
interpolating pixels simplified accurate measurements of the highly zoomed
images. The dimensions were then correlated to actual physical body size.
During the image manipulations, the scaling factors were carefully maintained.
The tools used made the task much easier and were more than adequate for
completing the analysis. The analysis is based on measurements and
mathematical relationships of 3-dimensional space, and therefore not highly
dependant on image quality. A picture certainly contains at least a thousand
words and even more opportunities to calculate unnoticed information. Analysis Method DetailsThis section will
step you through the basic process and reasoning used to obtain the stated
results. Comparisons, to the information claimed by the filmmaker, will also
be discussed.
2) Actual site
measurements were used to confirm the above data and prepare size and
positional information of the trailhead gate, posts, utility pole and other
landmarks in the area. The location of the camera as stated by the filmmaker,
of 282 feet from the 12-foot bush opposite the parking area, was located and
the general view seen on the documentaries confirmed. The original camera
position and time of filming stated by the filmmaker is considered accurate,
and can be verified by combination of the following: the angle of the trail
visible in the documentary, the angle of sunlight shadows of nearby bushes,
the apparent size of the utility pole when filmed with the stated camera, the
general view of the pond at this location, the view across the pond of a
utility pole and tree in some of the video clips – allowing triangulation,
and the general view of the roadway landmarks such as posts and poles. The
distance from the camera, in the direction of the object in question, to the
far side of the roadway will therefore be = 282 feet for further calculations;
however, an error of 10 feet here only affects the object size by a few
percent or 2 to 3 inches. Incidentally, present day measurements, of the fence
posts along the roadway and partially visible in the film, do not all agree
with the 1992 positions even when rotated to the proper viewing angles.
Either, at least one post has been altered in the last 8 years or what appears
as a post is the film is really a result of poor resolution. Other more
suitable objects were chosen for size reference due to the questionable
accuracy of the post positions in 1992. It is indicated in the documentaries
that some alterations have been made to the soil surrounding the posts to keep
out ATVs. 3) The exact position of the object in question can be located by agreement of the following deductions. See the illustration of the Cross-Sectional View of the area. Note, the sun altitude is only 23°, the 12-foot bush that the object is stated to be adjacent to will therefore cast a shadow 28.2 feet long across the roadway. Since the object is obviously being illuminated by sunlight (see section 4) below) from at least the waist up, the stated 8 to 10 foot tall Bigfoot cannot possibly be closer than 16 to 20 feet from the bush. When the shadows of taller trees on the hillside are accounted for, their height calculated by reference to the utility pole and the known hill slope, and also viewable onsite, the shadows extend a minimum of 40 feet across the roadway. The observed object’s lighting conditions then place it at a minimum of 30 to 40 feet from the far side of the roadway, which is in the parking area. Of course, the exact shadows are not the same as in 1992, but the general figures obtained from the film make it impossible to place the object at the far side of the roadway. Additionally, the zoomed images clearly reveal that the side of the individual is seen and that it had to turn to look in the direction of the filmmaker. Referring to the illustration of the Top View Drawing, it is easy to see that the individual would reveal a much larger frontal profile if walking at the oblique angle of 54 degrees on the roadway. In contrast, the area near the posts is perpendicular to the filmmaker resulting in the side profile evident in the video. The individual would be about a foot taller if it were located on the far side of the roadway instead of at the posts. The accuracy of the size measurements indicated in section 7) below add even more certainty that the object is located by the posts in the parking area. We will therefore use 225 feet as the distance from the object in question to the camera in further calculations; again noting that a 10-foot error would only result in a 2 to 3 inch size error.
4) Video quality
is another important issue to discuss. The type of camera used cannot
horizontally resolve better than about 3 to 4 inches at a distance of 225
feet. This is due to the limited video bandwidth and CCD imaging device used
at the time. The vertical resolution at the same distance is also limited to a
few inches due to the number of scan lines used in the VHS format. With the
resolution of the individual being such and also in motion, there is little
point in attempting to see more detail by using image enhancement techniques.
VHS camcorders also have a dynamic range for contrast of less than 40dB; this
means that dark to light ratios of only 100:1 can be resolved at best.
Brighter levels simply remain white and darker levels remain black. To further
complicate matters, the camera will adjust its average brightness to
compensate for the light available. When filming a darker area the lighter
regions will become white, making it impossible to judge the absolute
brightness or color of these regions. The darker shadow visible in the videos
near the object in question is a result of overshoot in the video amplifiers,
as the image makes a transition from white to dark. In order to avoid these
problems, the human eye has evolved vision with much more dynamic range.
Therefore, the fact that the object on the video is white has no relationship
to the actual color, but only indicates that more sunlight is reflecting off
it relative to the background lighting conditions. The approach taken in this
analysis was selected because it is not subject to these issues, and the
blurring only results in a minimal and known measurement error. 5) The next
important step, after all object positions have been deduced and verified, is
to find a way to correlate the object size and position on the video images
with actual physical dimensions. This requires a known-sized object that can
be identified on the film, unless the original camera used is available for
inspection. The selected object should be as large as possible to avoid errors
in measurement due to blurring of the video images. The blur or edge
definition based on the specifications of the camera in use at 225 feet is 3
to 4 inches. A 35-foot long
object would be required to obtain 1% measurement accuracy. The height of the
viewable portion of the utility pole, up to the top insulator, which is
gleaming in the sunshine, was selected. A viewable distance of 43.0 feet was
measured while onsite; this was also verified with our onsite video recordings
made from the position of the filmmaker – using a technique based on camera
angle. After a few calculations including a correction for viewing angle
error, the scale factor of our captured images is 0.04418 inches/foot at the
poles distance. As a quick check, the pole diameter of 12 inches at the height
compared to on the video agrees very closely with this figure. At the 225-foot
object distance, the scaling factor is 0.05341 inches/foot. Now it is easy to
zoom the captured image as needed, and use the computer tools to measure the
object in question and the distance it moves. Since the images were digitally
captured, the aspect ratio is perfectly maintained and not subject to the
height and width adjustment uncertainties of a TV or monitor. Another
technique that can work almost as well is to make a few calculations when the
camera’s viewing angle is accurately known. Although the original camera was
not inspected, the viewing angles that correspond are very typical of video
cameras of their class. For example, our latest Sony has a 34°H and 26°V as
measured for reference right off a wall with a tape measure.
6) Most of the raw measurements made above will require some additional
processing before actual results are available. Some of the data was taken
from the zoomed portion of the documentary as mentioned above, so it was
necessary to find the magnification used during the process. Simply by taking
a visible reference from a zoomed and un-zoomed frame, this can be calculated
to be = 2.1428 for future reference. Incidentally, the un-zoomed portions of
the documentary were actually filmed at a zoom of 12%; this becomes evident
from viewing the end of the last un-zoomed clip in the ’95 version. All
object positional data was referenced to the insulator on the utility pole;
this prevents camera motion from causing optical illusions and errors in
measurement. The furthest point away from the camera is also always the best
reference point; nearby objects will move with the camera position creating
optical illusions. In addition, the image data points were corrected for
camera rotation from frame-to-frame. The center of the objects head was used
as the measurement point to best determine its position. The center is best
due to the blurring associated with the edges. The distance the object
traveled must also be corrected for the angle difference between the objects
path and the camera’s viewing direction. In this case all evidence indicates
this angle is less than 10 degrees and only a 0.5% error results if the effect
is ignored. It should be pointed out, that by carefully plotting the scaled
data on a large sheet of paper, and graphically solving by making measurements
directly off the paper, one could avoid many of these calculations and not
require computers or training in mathematics. Now, the objects path can be
transferred to the map that was prepared onsite of the area. It is now evident
that the calculated results agree perfectly with the view from the filmmaker’s
video. This important test can reveal a calculation, deductive, or measurement
error if agreement is not obtained. When your deductions and data agree with
the viewable information, the hypothesis is thus confirmed.
See the illustration of the Object Path in the Top View Drawing. 7) Another
important value that can be determined from analysis is the object’s size.
The object size was determined by making careful measurements of the various
body parts visible in only some of the zoomed frames. The measurements
possible were head height, head width, upper arm length, body side width, head
to shoulder, and head to wrist. Care was taken to avoid measuring the blurred
regions, but this proved to be difficult in all but one type of measurement.
The best data points would normally be those that span the greatest distance.
In this case, only the head-to-shoulder measurements were considered accurate
due to the blur cancellation they afforded. Human anthropometric data from
several sources were compared for accuracy, and then used to form scaling
factors for converting the body segment lengths to overall body height. Note,
that the use of Ape or other data would result in a much smaller height due to
the proportionally longer arms and head. Also note, the head position relative
to the shoulder is consistent with human values. The data was then imported
into an Excel spreadsheet for scaling and statistics. As an indication of
measurement accuracy, the standard deviation was also calculated for each body
part from the multiple frames. The height of the post where they intersect the
body of the individual was also used in the body height calculations, using
the proper anthropometric data. The post-intersection technique resulted in a
slightly taller individual, but the method was more prone to error. The true
post heights, referenced to the parking area soil, were previously measured
onsite. Based on the above data, if the object is incorrectly located on the
far side of the roadway, it would be a foot taller as noted in section 3), but
then the head would still just barely protrude above the post tops. The posts
appear about 6.3 feet high when projected to the far side of the roadway, due
to the camera’s up-hill line of sight. Since the waist level, in the video,
is in line with the post tops, the 7-foot tall creature would have legs almost
6 feet long – ridiculous proportions. Note, the upper body proportions are
not abnormal in the film and agree closely with normal human proportions. The
only other possibility is that the creature is over 10 feet tall, but the
measurement accuracy obtained cannot support that possibility. The head of a creature that large would be almost twice as
wide as the utility pole when blur is accounted for, which is not evident in
the film; other body parts would likewise appear much larger. These
observations are more very good reasons to exclude the possibility that the
object is on the far side of the roadway; this can also be demonstrated
onsite. See the Cross-sectional View for illustration of these effects.
Placing the object beside the posts in the parking area avoids all of these
types of contradictions.
8) Another observation with potential merit was made by watching the film clip
before and after the object was seen. On most versions, the film was clipped
before one can ascertain what the filmmaker was doing before and after the
event. On the 1995 version of the documentary and for sure on the original, on
the last un-zoomed clip, the video continues for an extended period of time.
As stated by the filmmaker, just before filming the object, he backed up for a
better view of the pond. This is evident in about 6 seconds and about 6 steps
of movement for an estimated 15 feet of travel to the S-SW. The distance of
travel can be confirmed by triangulation and agrees with simply counting the
steps taken. On the single video clip mentioned above, it is revealed that the
filmmaker returns, in about 6 seconds and 8 steps of travel, to essentially
the same location and view and continues filming the pond – what happened to
the better view. During these time intervals, the camera would normally follow
the forward direction of the upper torso; this indicates that he was looking
in the direction of the object in question for a period of 2 to3 seconds. For
a little over 1 second, when the object is centered and in perfect view, there
is little change in the camera’s position, as if the filmmaker is intently
observing something. Although the camera cannot resolve the individual, a
normal human eye would have little difficulty identifying them.
Analysis
Results
This section will present the analysis results and also compare them to the
claims made by the filmmaker. Over
a period of almost exactly 1.00 second, the object is seen to move into
viewable position from the right side, behind the foreground bushes, and
proceed to the left until becoming obscured by roadside brush. After 0.33
seconds, the object reappears at the same location for an additional 0.166
seconds until the camera is rapidly moved away from view. About half of the
time the object is visible, the camera motions causes considerable blurring.
The object is very small and appears white when viewed on a TV screen; a
27-inch TV will produce an image about 0.55 inches tall. During the period of travel, the object moves a total distance of 9.4 feet at a distance of 225 feet from the filmmaker. The path of the object is nearly perpendicular from the camera’s view as illustrated in the Top View Drawing and also graphed. The position of the object allows it to catch the direct sunlight accounting for the white color. These positions are in disagreement with Claim 7) of the filmmaker for reasons discussed above in section 3) and 7); the camera was also at a zoom of 12%, not 1:1 as stated in Claim 7). The average velocity is therefore 9.4 feet per second or 6.41 miles per hour. The velocity is also graphed, but appears perturbed, due to the short intervals between frames, camera movement, and motion of the individual’s head. These velocity variations seen in the graph do not affect the accuracy of the average velocity, depicted in the graph by a straight red line. Claim 6) of the filmmaker, concerning the object moving 28 feet in 4 steps at a speed nearly unobtainable by humans is completely incorrect. The actual speed, which is also downhill, is a fast walk or slow jog – about a 9 to 9.5 minute mile in jogger’s terminology. The only guess of how the 28 feet was arrived at, may be related to another error made by the filmmaker in calculating the elapsed time since filming: The filmmaker continually states as in Claim 1) that 17.5 months elapsed, but 16.5 is obviously the correct value. The filmmaker also considers the apparent posts in the film to be 9 to 10 feet apart and the object is said to just cross 3 posts. Is he making the same mental error, 3 posts X 10 feet each = 30 feet, instead of the correct answer of 20 feet in this example? Try this, often confusing issue, on a piece of paper to better understand the point being made. However, the apparent posts visible in the video are not 10 feet apart, but more like 5 feet apart to further confuse the issue. This is why a proper reference object was carefully selected in part 5) of the Analysis Details section.
The size of the
individual seen in the documentary, based on the techniques of section 5), 6)
and 7) above is in the range of 64 to 73 inches tall, head-to-foot, with all
error factors accounted for. A height of 5-foot 9-inch is the mean value and
is a very good fit for all the techniques used. Incidentally, 5-foot 9-inch is
also representative of much of the adult male population. Claim 5) of the
filmmaker, that the object appears 8 to 10 feet tall, is also incorrect. The
69-inch tall object, in the position stated in our results above, will appear
105 inches tall, due to the camera’s up-hill line of sight, when projected
across the roadway onto the bush. Of course, the projected image is not a
valid measurement. See the Cross-sectional View for illustration of the
effect. The 12-foot bush is very difficult to see properly, not a good
reference, and therefore not used in this analysis; there is also much doubt
of its height in 1992. Claim 5) also states that the waist of the individual
is even with the 49-inch post tops, and therefore about twice as tall or 8
feet; Anthropometric data has the waist or elbow region at more like 0.64 not
0.50 of the body height – measure yourself with shoes on for a quick check.
The post height claimed as 49 inches is either the wrong post or not
referenced to the ground properly, further exaggerating the height of the
object. For another quick check, one can look at the film and note that the
individual’s head is not any wider than the posts. The posts are 8 to 9
inches across and subject to the same blurring as the individual’s head –
the size of a person’s head.
Summary
The white object
in the documentaries cannot be considered to be a Bigfoot based on this
analysis. There is nothing evident in the film of the white object that an
average sized person with normal skills could not account for. The individual
in question is about 69 inches tall, and walks about 9 feet at a slightly
hurried pace, near the posts for 1 second. The claims made by the filmmaker
cannot be supported by proper analysis, in other words the filmmaker’s
values cannot be made to correlate with the observations. The large number of
errors made in the filmmaker’s claims does not contribute well to his
credibility either. A more plausible scenario is as follows: Someone arrives
in the parking area which is just out of view of the camera, see the Top
View Drawing; many frequent this popular public fishing, hunting, and
walking area. The filmmaker hearing them arrive, maybe expecting someone,
walks over to see who it is; the new arrival does the same, walking across the
parking area in order to see towards the pond. After the filmmaker sees who it
is and decides the individual requires no immediate attention, he returns to
his original position and resumes filming. After 16.5 months when the film was
reviewed, all this was accidentally or maybe even deliberately forgotten.
Refer to section 8) in the Analysis Details for more information on this
issue. It remains bothersome, why the filmmaker would edit these clips to
exclude this important detail; a complete disclosure would help to eliminate
this type of scrutiny. Claims 3) and 8)
of the filmmaker are no longer valid, as a result of this analysis and those
who choose to read and understand it. The viewer should not be expected to
reach a correct conclusion when not provided with accurate information, nor
can a correct analysis be made by simple visual inspection. As made evident in
Claim 8), there also appears to be an incorrect, underling opinion that the
burden of proof is upon someone other than the person purporting the said
evidence. The supporting
evidence, of other Bigfoot activity in the area as in Claim 4), is
questionable and requires some additional comments. In the 1998 version of the
documentary, a white dot is shown on a cliff over a mile away. The filmmaker
has made contradictory claims of this film, at first saying someone else
filmed it and later that he filmed it – all in writing. The cliff is said to
be inaccessible and is incidentally confused with another cliff in the area.
When the wrong cliff was once approached, yet another, dubious Bigfoot video
was made by a member of their group. Anyway, at the time the white dot was
filmed, an oil well was being installed nearby on the ridge, and workers
frequented the area. The area was easily visited with a SUV, and the cliff is
then just a few-hundred-yard walk from the trail – a nice view for anyone in
the area at the time. This barely visible, white dot is certainly not
supporting evidence. Another example of a tendency to exaggerate multiple
witness sightings is found in the 2000 documentary; an alleged sighting of a
large white Bigfoot is referenced from 1985. The filmmaker again stated that
“an individual” saw the Bigfoot; however, it is well known that the
filmmaker was the witness. To our knowledge, the filmmaker’s group has
presented no scientifically credible evidence, despite numerous claims made
over the years such as: the Piney Lake video in 1995, footprint finds, odd
sounds, the Christine Chapel cemetery shadow video in 1991, and more. To the
contrary, we have observed and been informed of considerable confusion and
misidentification by their group. Another example of misidentification is a
rude joke made about another researcher in the 2000 documentary. The filmmaker
heard what he mistakenly thought was a turkey in the woods, and said the other
researcher must be nearby because he hears a turkey. However, even the
extremely common call of an Eastern Chipmunk, which is audible in the video,
was mistaken for a turkey – how can more difficult identifications be made
properly – maybe this habit of misidentification contributes to the Bigfoot
“evidence” being found in the area. Closing Comments
If there is a Bigfoot creature in the region near Coshocton, Ohio, much better
evidence needs to be obtained. Time would be better spent finding new
conclusive evidence, maybe even in other areas, than attempting to convince
others with the current questionable findings. Continuing on the present
course will likely damage the credibility of the filmmaker’s group and
eventually other researchers as well. Any contrary analysis to these results
should be presented in writing, using similar format and detail, for review by
those concerned. References
The above information is based upon deductions and calculations and
information from the following sources:
Fitting The Task To The Man, 1988 Etienne Grandjean: Human segment sizing.
Ó2001
Ohio/Pennsylvania
Bigfoot Research Group, All rights reserved.
Since 2002:
|
