Go to the new website
Where Light Meets Dark    
Examining the evidence for rare fauna.

 
Dedicated to Steve Irwin
 
Trail Cameras
Buy trail cameras at Wildlife Monitoring
Australia's best value trail cameras!

Thylacine Sightings

Support WLMD

Sponsored links

Search Wiki

Log In
Username

Password






Facebook All new updates are posted to my Facebook page (Open in new window)

Georgia Rickmatt Bigfoot
Print View |
Georgia_bigfoot_analysis_1.jpg

An initial comparison between the Georgia Rickmatt bigfoot and a known bigfoot costume. Click to enlarge.


Introduction

In August 2008 news broke that Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer of Georgia, USA were claiming to possess the body of a bigfoot (otherwise known as sasquatch). They claim they saw a number of living bigfoots when they discovered the body somewhere in north Georgia.

Apart from running a website promoting bigfoot sighting tours, the pair has approached notable bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi who supports their claim that the body is genuine.

Some online commentators have pointed out that Biscardi has been responsible in the past for production of bigfoot sculptures and that he is also responsible for at least one bigfoot documentary.

The body is reputed to be under guard in an undisclosed location, awaiting investigation by a number of unnamed scientists or other experts.

Evaluating the backstory

Given the above it would be easy to assume this is a hoax - every key person involved has a vested interest in perpetuating the belief that bigfoot is an undescribed primate that lives, breathes and eats in North America.

At the same time, perhaps it should not be surprising that key players in the cryptozoology field should be the ones playing part in this story as it unfolds.

Securing the body and withholding details from the public until all media rights are resolved makes sound financial sense and may in fact also aid in ensuring an unbiased analysis is made on the body.

That said, it's also exactly the sort of behaviour to promote conspiracy theories and the belief that this is all a hoax.

In a nutshell, there is not much we can conclude about the story as it is given, to date.

Examining the evidence

Again, one of the earliest comparisons made with the Georgia Rickmatt bigfoot is with a bigfoot costume as shown here. This seems the obvious place to begin with a systematic investigation of Whitton and Dyer's claims.

Method

  • The left image of the costume was acquired from the web and remains unaltered.
  • The centre image of the alleged Georgia bigfoot was also acquired from the web and remains unedited.
  • The right image of the alleged Georgia bigfoot is a copy of the centre image, but Microsoft Photo Editor was used to raise the brightness from a level of 50 to 65.
  • All three images were then enlarged by a factor of x2.

The enlargement mentioned above results in noticable pixelation in the images. The original images were quite small in size, particularly of the Georgia bigfoot. The pixelation and small source image size both reduces the reliability of the estimates calculated below.

The yellow lines were added to the image using Microsoft Excel 2002 on a Microsoft Windows XP system. Excel provides width and height measurements for the lines which, using pythagoras' theorem, allows the length of each line to be calculated.

The line lengths are measured in units which are meaningful only within Microsoft Excel; however the aim of this analysis is to compare relative ratios of the spacing of facial features between specimens.

For the costume (left image), measures of the yellow lines were calculated as follows:

Line Height Width Calculated Length
Across nose 0.05 0.53 0.53235
Across eye 0.13 0.37 0.39217
From eye to mouth 1.22 0.00 1.22
From temple to mouth 1.56 .021 1.57407

For the alleged bigfoot specimen (right image), measures of the yellow lines were calculated as follows:

Line Height Width Calculated Length
Across nose 0.11 0.42 0.43417
Across eye 0.11 0.29 0.31016
From eye to mouth 1.24 0.05 1.24101
From temple to mouth 1.53 .026 1.55193

At this point, a number of shortcomings with this method should be noted:

  • The low resolution does not allow for accurate placement of the starting and ending points of each line
  • Further, each line could reasonably start and/or end a few pixels above, below, left, and/or right of where these measures were taken.

A comprehensive analysis, which may be conducted at a later date, should seek to explore these same concepts using maximal and minimal positioning for the start and end points of each line.

Given that a world media announcement is imminent, such an analysis may not be required if the bigfoot is shown either way to be genuine or a hoax by other means.

Therefore, continuing with these limited data...

The ratio of the measurements, between pictures, is as follows:

Measure Ratio Description Ratio
Nose Costume / Alleged specimen 1.22615
Eye Costume / Alleged specimen 1.26442
Eye to mouth Costume / Alleged specimen 0.98307
Temple to mouth Costume / Alleged specimen 1.01426

The test here, is to see whether any ratio differs significantly from any other. If it does, it would imply that the size of the features measured is relatively different between the costume and the specimen.

Ratio Description Ratio
The ratio of the Eye measures / The ratio of the Nose measures 1.03121
The ratio of the Eye-to-mouth measures / The ratio of the Nose measures 0.80175
The ratio of the Temple-to-mouth measures / The ratio of the Nose measures 0.82719
The ratio of the Eye-to-mouth measures / The ratio of the Eye measures 0.77749
The ratio of the Temple-to-mouth measures / The ratio of the Eye measures 0.80216
The ratio of the Temple-to-mouth measures / The ratio of the Eye-to-mouth measures 1.03173

Interpretation of results

What do the above data mean?

The range of final ratio calculations is 0.777 to 1.032.

In order, the measures are within 3%, 3%, 17%, 20%, 20% and 22%.

These come from, in order:

  1. the eye relative to the nose (within 3%)
  2. the temple-to-mouth relative to the eye-to-mouth (within 3%)
  3. the temple-to-mouth relative to the nose (within 17%)
  4. the eye-to-mouth relative to the nose (within 20%)
  5. the temple-to-mouth relative to the eye (within 20%)
  6. the eye-to-mouth relative to the eye (within 22%)

Two of the measures were predominantly vertical. The other two measures were predominantly horizontal. This is intentional because it is clear by inspection that the specimen has been rotated to its right, relative to the costume.

This means that horizontal measurements can be expected to appear relatively different between images (if the costume and specimen are actually in similar proportions).

Contrawise, the vertical rotation (i.e. on a horizontal axis) of the two heads appears comparable between images.

This means that vertical measurements can be expected to appear relatively identical between images (if the costume and specimen are actually in similar proportions).

The results can be broken into two distinct groups:

Group 1 - within 3%. This result occured when the vertical measure was compared with the vertical measure, and when the horizontal measure was compared with the horizontal measure.

If the head had not rotated between images, this would imply that relative to each other, the two horizontal elements (nose and eye) are in similar proportions between images. Given the head has rotated (and that the two horizontal measures are not on the same vertical plane) it must be concluded that either they are different in proportion, or the rotation is so minor that it has not affected the measurements.

This group also implies that relative to each other, the two vertical elements (eye-to-mouth and temple-to-mouth) are in similar proportions between images.

Group 2 - within 17% to 22% (approximately 20%). These results occurred when a vertical measure was compared with a horizontal measure.

This would be expected for two objects which are actually similar in proportions but which have been rotated.

Arrow marks

Aside from the ratios described, two arrows have been added to each image.

On the costume (left image) these point to areas appearing to depict grey hair and which certainly depict areas of tonality which differ to the background fur colour.

On the specimen (right image) these point to an area appearing to depict hair protruding from the face (left arrow) and an area of tonality which differs to the background fur colour.

Conclusion

Five out of the six ratios measured are consistent with the two objects being similar in proportions, but rotated with respect to each other.

The only anomalous ratio with regards to this result is that the width of the eye is not proportionally similar to the width of the nose between images.

Explaining this by concluding the rotation had no effect nullifies the first conclusion that the heads are rotated with respect to each other.

It is perhaps more likely explained by the limitations in the measurements (discussed earlier), especially given these are the two shortest measurements and thus most prone to error.

Taking into account the similarity between the apparent facial hair indicated by the arrows, it is this author's opinion that more likely than not the photographs depict two objects which are proportionally similar but which have been rotated slightly - to the extent that might be expected if both were images of the same object.

In simple terms, this author believes the two images most likely depict exactly the same object and that must be the known bigfoot costume.

There is a small possibility they are two different, but nearly identical objects.

It should also be noted that (not shown here) the costume shows a bare chest whilst the specimen shows a hairy chest. The specimen photo is not very clear, however.

Therefore - as with any analysis of digital images - no firm conclusion can be drawn about the authenticity of the claims being made by Whitton and Dyer; however the two heads depicted in the photos are very likely to be proportionally identical.

Disclaimer

The author is not trained in any way relating to forensic analysis of computer images and makes no warranty about the accuracy or merit of the analysis discussed on this page.

This analysis has been made in good faith.

Copyright notice

The (composite) image on this page is copyright Where Light Meets Dark.

The bigfoot specimen photo used in the composite image is reproduced from Cryptomundo where it is credited as being copyright Bigfoot Global LLC.

The bigfoot costume photo used in the composite image is reproduced from Cryptomundo where it is credited to Ryan Thrash.


Links to related information...

Comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.

Sponsored links



 
a