bigfoot is real I have the proof

madurobob said:
This looks like yet another "hey look what I found on that photo I took last month!". Kinda hard to believe it was taken as described in creek's narrative.
Click to expand...
No, no. That's exactly what it was. I pointed this out before. Check freak's original narrative:

I did not see any animals comeing out of the woods so I disided to take some pictures of the chopers that where flying real close to us . After showing the pics to a freind of mine on the internet she pointed out there was 2 creatures clearly standing in front of one of the helicopters that was hovering . After haveing them enhanced the face of the larger one was very clear and looks to be over 10 feet tall with a smaller one bent over in front of it . The picture is not that great so it needed to be enhanced to clear it up all that was done to it was the colors where brightend . I am sure with all the high tech stuff we have now it can be enhanced much better then the patterson film or any other photo I have seen so far .
Click to expand...
 
Also...you're probably not supposed to use a made-up screen name for copyright purposes. Just a guess.
 
I have not given permission to post this photo on this site my name is Gary carlsten AKA Creekfreak this photo belongs to me . Take it down or face leagle charges . Thank you have a nice day . But one last thing before you ware a blister on your hands pating your selfs on the back . All that was done to this picture was the colors brightened . One person has only worked with it . I challage anyone to prove it to be faked or photo shoped to add or take away . You cant and you havent just by saying it is . Slow down puppy dogs this anit over yet .
 
Better watch out guys, he means business... I'm not sure what "leagle charges" are, but it does not sound fun! ;)
 
freak, you have no proof. Your hoax is pantsed.
Creekfreak said:
I have not given permission to post this photo on this site...
Click to expand...
Did you give permission to darkwing to post it on MABRC today?
my name is Gary carlsten AKA Creekfreak this photo belongs to me .
Click to expand...
You can keep it. I don't think Josh Duhamel fan will be pretending to be hillbilly hoaxer anytime soon.
Take it down or face leagle charges .
Click to expand...
Knock yourself out. Don't forget to mention the extortion attempt.
But one last thing before you ware a blister on your hands pating your selfs on the back . All that was done to this picture was the colors brightened . One person has only worked with it . I challage anyone to prove it to be faked or photo shoped to add or take away . You cant and you havent just by saying it is . Slow down puppy dogs this anit over yet .
Click to expand...
Hit it with your purse, Alice. Proove your bad photoshop is a bigfoot. You can't and you haven't just by saying it is.

You're so busted.
 
What a joke.

I challage anyone to prove it to be faked or photo shoped to add or take away .
Click to expand...

You will never give us the original, so your words are hollow. We will never have the opportunity to show what a fake it is, becaue you will never show the original.

Know why?

Because the original does not have the 2 sasquatches in it.

That's why we will never see the original 3.2 MP photo containing the Bushnell Captureview metadata in the file.

You sir, are a fraud.
 
Creekfreak said:
I challage anyone to prove it to be faked or photo shoped to add or take away .
Click to expand...
You will of course facilitate this possibility by providing the original unaltered image to darkwing as you stated here:

Creekfreak said:
Hey Dark welcome to the ghetto ! Your idea of posting it on the mabrc did inter my mind but I was not sure where I stood with you guys . If you remember my last email to you I did offer to still send you the unenhanced copy but you must have over looked it . I will still send it to you I just havent been able to . As you know I am on dial up and runing 95 so I cant do it from here and the fact I broke my cd rom trying to pry it open with a screw driver kind of ended me from even looking at the picture . I will email you today so we can work this out so every one can see it .
Click to expand...
 
Creekfreak said:
I have not given permission to post this photo on this site my name is Gary carlsten AKA Creekfreak this photo belongs to me . Take it down or face leagle charges . Thank you have a nice day . But one last thing before you ware a blister on your hands pating your selfs on the back . All that was done to this picture was the colors brightened . One person has only worked with it . I challage anyone to prove it to be faked or photo shoped to add or take away . You cant and you havent just by saying it is . Slow down puppy dogs this anit over yet .
Click to expand...

Of course its fake, for all the reasons folks have mentioned. Naturally if you want to prove us all wrong, just show us the "original"...you know, the one that does not have the photoshoped Bigfoot in it.

As to the posting of your photo, I suggest you contact Darkwing directly vs posting notes about "leagle charges" (what ever those are).
 
Creekfreak was referring to a post which had the image shown on this forum. It has been removed, partly because of the stated lack of permission, but also, it has been linked to on the site that has permission to hold it.

Please don't re-post the image here, and interested people can view it on the links given.
 
I am not sure if I am seeing things or not, but there was something which looked strange in the picture. My brain kept saying me "something is not right on the right side of the photo". At start I could not place it, and it could be very well my brain making it up, but it looks like the "bigfoot" is clearer than what is in the foreground, as if the camera was focused on it. But stuff in the center of the photo is unfocussed from zero to infinity...

I might be totally wrong but it looks like this "precision" might be an hint at a cut & paste job of a higher res stuff onto a lower res background, without adapting the res of the pasted object.

There is no way to be 100% sure without seeing the originals 3.2 mps from the photo, but I would tend to strongly think of hoax.

ETA: but it could be an artifact of jpeg transformation, as the helico give me the same feeling.
 
Last edited:
Thanks chill . You people have a lot of nerve asking to see the original . Well there you have it this photo is real I give my word that it is . I am willing to show it to the worlds best photo experts . Find them and I will show it to them if not then all you are doing is running your mouths about something you cannot prove to be fake . My challange still stands show me the experts prove me worng .

Please remember your Membership Agreement, and remain civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is the one holding back here? YOU, Creek, are the one who is refusing to provide sufficient evidence. You say you have it but that you're holding back. Bottom line, your picture looks fake. The only reason you're being given any concession is because it's low resolution and therefore a bit harder to make the determination. It's still, however, a pretty blatant fake.

Don't go around bashing people for not displaying their credentials before commenting on your picture. This is a web forum. If you want nothing but professional commentary, take it to the professionals. What credentials do YOU have? Are you a zoologist? What college did YOU graduate from? Just like you don't need a diploma to spot a bigfoot, I don't need a diploma to spot a fake.

You don't stand up and say "Okay experts, I'm here! Come disprove me!" It doesn't work that way. When you make a finding, you present it to the professional community and it gets reviewed and tested. What you're doing is trying to extort money for handing over a fake. You're gonna have to pony up the goods before you get a dime. YOU are the one making a claim. You don't make a claim, post it on a SKEPTIC forum and tell them to disprove it especially when you're not releasing the picture for examination.

Your reluctance to show a high-resolution image without "enhancement" is clearly indicative that this is a bogus image. You want to be taken seriously? Then put your cards on the table.
 
Creekfreak said:
Thanks chill . You people have a lot of nerve asking to see the original . Well there you have it this photo is real I give my word that it is . I am willing to show it to the worlds best photo experts . Find them and I will show it to them if not then all you are doing is running your mouths about something you cannot prove to be fake . My challange still stands show me the experts prove me worng .
Click to expand...

The pic is a fake, a obvious photoshop job, for the reasons I (and others) have said. Even Darkwing said his folks found stuff in your pic that looks wrong (which is supported by the two user comments posted there by MABRC folks.

It is up to you to prove your claim, not us...find your own "worlds best photo experts." Why not give the MABRC folks the original, and answer their quesetions wrt enhancements you've made, chain of custody, witness information etc.

Heck, you would not even say when you took it (though it is time stamped as APR 2007) or where it was taken...yeah, the mark of a true researcher to withhold such simple (yet significant) information.

Wonder why that is...maybe because the background/grasses look wrong for APR? Of course, this is just specualtion as you won't say were it was taken...and thus there is control point of reference.
 
kitakaze said:
No, no. That's exactly what it was. I pointed this out before. Check freak's original narrative:
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Histo is right - memory cannot be relied upon! I should have re-read the OP before I said that.

Not sure where I got the idea that Creek saw bigfoot and then snapped a shot.. I guess I was remembering the running back to get a camera bit.
 
Hmm. Zooming in reveals at least five (actually more) rectangles. One begins to the left of the head and goes straight across under the eyes, then up to a point above the crown of the head and back across to the left. A narrow one under that runs across to the cheek, then up to the point under the eyes and back across. A very narrow strip runs down the right side (looking at it as an image, not from a figure's point of view) down just a little way and abruptly cuts off. The figure appears to have no left shoulder (looking at it from the figure's perspective now). Just right of the center of the spot beneath the narrow horizontal rectangle is almost a little square with what looks like a person's eyes and nose in it, though that may well be a trick of the light. Yet another nearly-square rectangle shows the right shoulder of the figure (from its point of view again) but cuts off about where the upper arm would be so it's just a sharp vertical drop.

It definitely looks odd.
 
Spektator said:
Hmm. Zooming in reveals at least five (actually more) rectangles. One begins to the left of the head and goes straight across under the eyes, then up to a point above the crown of the head and back across to the left. A narrow one under that runs across to the cheek, then up to the point under the eyes and back across. A very narrow strip runs down the right side (looking at it as an image, not from a figure's point of view) down just a little way and abruptly cuts off. The figure appears to have no left shoulder (looking at it from the figure's perspective now). Just right of the center of the spot beneath the narrow horizontal rectangle is almost a little square with what looks like a person's eyes and nose in it, though that may well be a trick of the light. Yet another nearly-square rectangle shows the right shoulder of the figure (from its point of view again) but cuts off about where the upper arm would be so it's just a sharp vertical drop.

It definitely looks odd.
Click to expand...

I have heard that such odd rectangles appear around bigfoot when he starts to disappear into his own dimension. Obviously, bigfoot's buddy was in a later stage of his phase change when Creekfreak snapped the picture.

Hey, Historian, can you back me up on this one?
 
lock I have offered to send an unenhanced copy to the mabrc and I will . I am not trying to hoax any of you people that is not in my nature I take pride in my honesty . That is something very rare these days . There is nothing being held back just a lack of proof by you before you said out right this is a fake . You have not proven anything so you are worng and I am right its that simple . Yes it will take an expert to prove this I say it is real and you say it isent your word is no better then mine without an expert confirming it .So I guess you will never know if your right or worng untell you take the effort to prove it . I know I am right but your going to have to go through life not being sure if your a fool or not . Welcome to the jungle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom