bigfoot is real I have the proof

[Creekfreak]

ever heard of the dead lakes well it was within 20 miles of them . You should not have a problem finding it

 

[spc476]

Given the information that Creekfreak has given, and using only publicly available websites, I've determined that the photograph in question was taken within a mile of the following location: 30.032244N, 85.313473W (I'd post a link to directly to Google Maps, but I've not posted enough to do that. Easy though, just go to maps.google.com and type in "@30.032244,-85.313473" in the search field).

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Not to worry, madurobob. Such things are bound to happen when confronted with gargantuan textburgs of incoherent drivel.

 

[Locknar]

That Picture was made for me by talented artest named paul this is true and given to me as a gift . That is my creek that he superimposed it in . As far as alterations we where going to work together to see if we could come closer to what I saw this is close but not exactly like what I saw . The hair on the one I saw was a tangled mess with leaves and twigs in it and much longer . In the photo I took the bigfoot is not visible enough to confirm it is the same one . I personaly dont think it is becouse I feel this one is a female becouse of the young one with her . the one I saw face to face was a big male and yes you can tell if it is a male when you have been as close as I have been to one .

Just to clarify, what picture are you talking about in the above? Is it the same helicopter we've been discussing or is is a different one.

lock that last quote you made of mine ment that my way of wrighting is better then yours and I am doing my part for global warming . the link is my research page read and you will see most of the answers to the questions you have asked me .

I read all 7 pages; specifically what post in the thread you mentioned gives a location, time of day, or any of the other information you've been asked for?

Additionally, I've searched for fires in the Dead Lakes/Wewahitchka area that were burning on April 16, 2007 and could not find any mention. Other then your memory/claim, do you have a reference that could support your claim?

 

[Aepervius]

Aepervius I see you are a mod on a bigfoot discussion forum . Do you allways make it a habbit of takeing peoples photos without there permission then posting them on your site ? As far as kids spiting on my name what do you think they will do to yours for haveing a reputation of being a photo theif ?

1) I am not a MOD
2) I don't remember having posted on a bigfoot forum. But I don't exclude that I might have, since I posted on a few forum with weird claim.
3) now the funny things is, show me where I posted a photo copied from anybody about a bigfoot.
4) EVEN THEN, If it is available on a public forum, then it can be downloaded and shown for public discussion as long as non commercial usage is done for discussion / academic purpose. Fair use in other word, unless I misunderstood the academic exception of fair use.

ETA: 5) and what make you think I am the only one which use Aepervius as username in the world ?
6) oh and it is T-H-I-E-F. And No, they would not accuse me of being a "photo thief" because at most even if I did indeed post such a photo (which I repeat I think I did NOT) this would be copyright infringement even if I am wrong on the academic fair use. So.... You are nearly wrong on all side in your post.

 

[Drewbot]

Well I'm glad you put that photo up Creek.
Now we know we are dealing with a visible bigfoot. Note: Neil has been awfully quiet now that we have proof that bigfoot is indeed visible.

 

[Spektator]

Given the information that Creekfreak has given, and using only publicly available websites, I've determined that the photograph in question was taken within a mile of the following location: 30.032244N, 85.313473W (I'd post a link to directly to Google Maps, but I've not posted enough to do that. Easy though, just go to maps.google.com and type in "@30.032244,-85.313473" in the search field).

Not all that far from Tate's Hell, then. I know someone who thinks he saw skunk apes in there, but they were, he says, little critters, no more than four feet tall, and the babies were much smaller.

 

[chillzero]

I believe the figure that is supposed to be behind the main one (the main one being hte one with the 'eyes') is actually shadows in the grass and ferns around the treeline behind the figure. I am undecided as to whether the main figure is photoshopped, or a rock or something similar that has been mistaken.

 

[madurobob]

Given the information that Creekfreak has given, and using only publicly available websites, I've determined that the photograph in question was taken within a mile of the following location: 30.032244N, 85.313473W (I'd post a link to directly to Google Maps, but I've not posted enough to do that. Easy though, just go to maps.google.com and type in "@30.032244,-85.313473" in the search field).

Dayum, google maps has excellent satellite images of that area! You could darn near search for bigfoot with just google maps. Where I live google maps says "Sat image not available" when I try to zoom in significantly.

FWIW - assuming this is the correct area, I can see the creek, houses, cars and trailers.. I think I even see some people outside their houses.

 

[Locknar]

Dayum, google maps has excellent satellite images of that area! You could darn near search for bigfoot with just google maps. Where I live google maps says "Sat image not available" when I try to zoom in significantly.

FWIW - assuming this is the correct area, I can see the creek, houses, cars and trailers.. I think I even see some people outside their houses.

Interesting to note...no apparent evidence of "major fire" at either the coordinates or around the Deak Lakes/Wewahitchka areas. I'm not saying a fire didn't happen...but I don't see any burned out places.

Can you help fill in the gaps Creek? Any local news stories that mention this fire on April 16, 2007? I've looked and can't find any...of course living there I'm sure you'd know exactly where to look to find say a news story that reported it.

 

[Ladewig]

... seeing what I have on your site nice try .why dont you post the rest of what I sent you before you tryed to twist my words.

If you can't even follow your own made-up punctuation rules, why should we trust you to follow your own made-up investigation rules?

 

[Ladewig]

Given the information that Creekfreak has given, and using only publicly available websites, I've determined that the photograph in question was taken within a mile of the following location: 30.032244N, 85.313473W (I'd post a link to directly to Google Maps, but I've not posted enough to do that. Easy though, just go to maps.google.com and type in "@30.032244,-85.313473" in the search field).
spc476

spc? Sock Puppet of Creekfreak?

 

[kitakaze]

I believe the figure that is supposed to be behind the main one (the main one being hte one with the 'eyes') is actually shadows in the grass and ferns around the treeline behind the figure. I am undecided as to whether the main figure is photoshopped, or a rock or something similar that has been mistaken.

chilly, I'm trying really hard to see a second anything but I got nothing. Somebody's gonna have to bust out the red circle. I'm confused too because you're talking about something behind and the main one has eyes but check this description by freak:

I am going asume its a female becouse of the young one with her that is bent over right in front of her . You can see its eyes it is looking at me and not the choper . But she is looking at the choper standing there just as pretty as can be blue eyes in case your wondering .she looks to be over 10 feet tall I wont know for sure untell I measure the tree she was standing beside I will need the boat for that .

Huzzah???

 

[Locknar]

spc? Sock Puppet of Creekfreak?

Possibly, though a real researcher with nothing to hide would not have to resort to such things, would then?

SPC476 - How did you arrive at those coordinates? The most specific I've seen Creek provide is the Dead Lakes reference.

 

[Locknar]

chilly, I'm trying really hard to see a second anything but I got nothing. Somebody's gonna have to bust out the red circle. I'm confused too because you're talking about something behind and the main one has eyes but check this description by freak:

I can do that when I get home if nobody beats me to it, and PM to you.

If you look at Shinny Eyes, going straight down you'll see a brownish patch of stuff where the mouth would be. If you look long enough (and it took me a LONG time) you begin to see what could be eyes, face featues....or as CZ suggested (and I agree), it's just brush that looks funny or has otherwise been altered.

Think "Star Trek" (the "Man Trap" episode) the creature M-113 that ate salt...that is what the brownish patch kind of looks like.

Again using Shinny Eyes as a point of reference....if you view (say one body width worth) to the left, you see a darkish, rather featureless blob...about the same size as Shinny Eyes. However, I think this is more a artifact of cutting/pasting around Shinny Eyes, and natural shadow.

Hope that helps....

 

[kitakaze]

Aepervius I see you are a mod on a bigfoot discussion forum . Do you allways make it a habbit of takeing peoples photos without there permission then posting them on your site ? As far as kids spiting on my name what do you think they will do to yours for haveing a reputation of being a photo theif ?

1) I am not a MOD
2) I don't remember having posted on a bigfoot forum. But I don't exclude that I might have, since I posted on a few forum with weird claim.
3) now the funny things is, show me where I posted a photo copied from anybody about a bigfoot.
4) EVEN THEN, If it is available on a public forum, then it can be downloaded and shown for public discussion as long as non commercial usage is done for discussion / academic purpose. Fair use in other word, unless I misunderstood the academic exception of fair use.

ETA: 5) and what make you think I am the only one which use Aepervius as username in the world ?
6) oh and it is T-H-I-E-F. And No, they would not accuse me of being a "photo thief" because at most even if I did indeed post such a photo (which I repeat I think I did NOT) this would be copyright infringement even if I am wrong on the academic fair use. So.... You are nearly wrong on all side in your post.

1) Josh Duhamel fan Creekfreak is reaaally disappointed with hillbilly hoaxer Creekfreak.

2) This is not the first time freak's gotten English lessons from someone who is not a native speaker.

 

[Michelle]

I believe the figure that is supposed to be behind the main one (the main one being hte one with the 'eyes') is actually shadows in the grass and ferns around the treeline behind the figure. I am undecided as to whether the main figure is photoshopped, or a rock or something similar that has been mistaken.

The 2nd one's supposed to be that thing that looks like a branch giving the shape of a figure? If so, then we have proof right there that Bigfoot can be semi-transparent because I see the tree trunk right through it.

 

[kitakaze]

Hope that helps....

Thanks, Locknar. That does help.

Now then, to quote The Skull from Monster House:

"You make me want to vomit into tinfoil then eat it!"

OMG, run into a tree, give me a noogy. I'm disgusted. That is the dumbest... *thinks of Beckjord* ...one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. It's a bush, freak! What are you doing to me? You're killing me here. And doppleganger? Doppleshadow.

 

[chillzero]

Here is a zoom and screen capture.. I will have to leave it up to you to locate this crop within the image.. ( far right - about middle vertically )

We have #1, #2 and what is obviously a teddy bear ( #3 ) being held by #2 ..

I can't imagine how this violates fair use, but the mods may want to take the side of caution and convert this to a link...

I was referring to item 2 here as 'the main one', and item 1 as what I believe to be shadows. I hadn't initially seen anything in the area noted here as 3, however I believe it is also shadows in brush or grass.

 

[Correa Neto]

I think the second pareidolic bigfoot is at the left of the "gorilla face" (photoshoppically enhanced) tree stump. Setting my pareidolic generator to max, it vaguely looks like a baboon face.

As for Google Earth imagery not showing signs of fire, well, gotta first see the date of the imagery... At this issue, we've gotta conceed creekfreak the benefit of doubt - IF the satellite image is from before the fire or after the vegetation recovered from it.

But if there are no records of the fire at the propper authorities, it will become more fishy. A record of a training at the site, with the right date, perhaps would be enough, since he may have confused an excersize with the real deal...

The image is fishy, almost the whole tale is fishy. And I'm sorry, but whoever claims to have investigated it deeply and says the chopper is a Huey has not done a good job. Whoever investigates it and keeps a crack in the door open for the possibility that it may be a bigfoot after knowing the wole tale- refusals to sent detailed data, attempts to get money, an attempt to bribe the state of Florida- is being very naïve at best.