bigfoot is real I have the proof

[LTC8K6]

Then she should look at the evidence before she makes statements like she has .

I have gone a few rounds with LAL and we have certainly had our disagreements. I'm certain that she took your evidence into consideration.

 

[madurobob]

Look at the picture again, folks. The helicopter is far behind the vegetation and the so called bigfeets. No way is the copter going to be down among those trees and vegetation nor would it be anywhere near them. They are nearly tall enough to clip a rotor blade. They are even taller than the "bigfeets".

Yup - I think you are correct - I've been looking for shadows on the landing rails that should be cast by the scrub trees if they were close... found none yet.

ETA: and, not surprisingly, I have yet to hear back from the regional HQ about whether the pilots saw a bigfoot that day. Maybe Fox "News" will have better luck!

 

[Creekfreak]

Well at least we are geting somewhere now . I will send it to Dark as soon as I can get the copy made . I can not do it on this computer it does not support the program so I will have to get someone to do it for me . this may take a while I have no transportation so its kind of hard to get into town to a freinds house so he can do it for me . I will call him and ask if he can come and get it today if not it will this weekend when I will see him at work . Now as far as showing it on the internet thats another story you have allready showed you cant be trusted so your just going to have to take Darks word for his findings . Fair enough ?

 

[darkwing]

Dark you seem to forget when this was posted in the members section of the mabrc they where complementing me . But then they turned on me becouse I went to the state and tryed to sale it . So really what they are saying now does not count they have not seen the original as I have stated before so everything is moot as of now . Untell you have seen the original then what they say means nothing .

Creek,
Send me the original copy, like you said you would, and lets get them compared. Otherwise, you are fighting a losing battle here and elsewhere.

I got dragged into this, and now my credibility and that of the MABRC has been questioned because of it. So if you think the world of the MABRC like you claim, send me a copy of the picture without any more excuses and let's compare them like I asked you to do several months ago. Everything is moot on this picture until that can be done. Sorry Creek, but you dragged me into this, and I didn't want to be.

 

[William Parcher]

The creature has a carapace or some sort of bizarre head shield. This is far more unique than a simple bipedal homonoid with a typical skull. It could be some new kind of giant insect or a hairy reptile. If this photo was posted on Cryptomundo we could hear all of the theories from the heros of cryptozoology. Creek should go ahead and submit the low-res photo to various invertebrate and vertebrate zoologists to hear about their ideas on this very unusual animal.

 

[Locknar]

Look at the picture again, folks. The helicopter is far behind the vegetation and the so called bigfeets. No way is the copter going to be down among those trees and vegetation nor would it be anywhere near them. They are nearly tall enough to clip a rotor blade. They are even taller than the "bigfeets".

I dunno....put a sharp edge on the rotars, it would be like the "Mach 5" from Speed Racer I'd think...just plowing down trees.

Joke aside, I agree with your assessment.

 

[Creekfreak]

Dark dont worry about your credibility I would not do anything to harm that . I am a man of my word what I am saying is true . You know I think the world of the mabrc I am not out to harm what you are doing there . but I will defend myself and if it takes going up aganst some of its members I will . I will send you the copy as soon as I can I promise

 

[Creekfreak]

And thanks Dark for comeing here I never intended for you to be draged into this but it happened I guess my chances of being a member there again are slim and none !!

 

[Locknar]

but I will defend myself and if it takes going up aganst some of its members I will .

Not to beat a dead horse....(as I take my riding crop and start beating a dead horse), the best...and really only...way to "defend" yourself is with established fact. That is to say, provide some level of proof/evidence that supports your claims.

Hearsay really just boils down to "he said"/"she said" in the end.....fact (ie. science) stands alone.

You've been asked lots of questions here...and honestly have provided little more then hearsay in response.

For example...you've claimed you've had photographic experts look at the original - who are they, when did they do this, can you provide copy of their comments? You've claimed that someone did some photoshop altering (to enhance the color/brightness only)...who was it?

I can understand not wanting to drag folks in...but if that is your reasoning behind not answering those kinds of questions....then you really have no business/reason for mentioning them to begin with.

I strongly suggest you check out a copy of a "research methods" book from your local library; this would help you out a LOT in terms of establishing control protocols, ie. establishing fact - the BEST (and really only) defense.

 

[kitakaze]

Excuse me while I catch up a bit. NSA duties and all.

It's close, but look at http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4425&hilit= this picture again.

The rear of the helicopter is cut off, there is no tail, Is it possible the helicopter was photochopped into the photo?

I disagree. The tail is there, it's just shiny green and hard to distinguish.

The copters are identical, imo.

OK- that's the chopper LTC. I was fooled by some paredolia. It is reflection off of the green paint.

Drew, I had pretty much a similar impression until taking a closer look at the photos. They are indeed identical.

 

[kitakaze]

I am a man of my word what I am saying is true .

Would you cut it out with that already? You just keep dodging this but here again is your artless lie:

These pitures have been analized by the leading photo experts in the country and have been proven to be legit .

 

[kitakaze]

I think the perspective is compressed due to the telephoto lens and the copter is fairly far beyond the trees and the bigfeets.

This would also mean that even if the bigfeets are there, they are not in front of the helicopter at all, and the pilots cannot see them as readily as the picture makes it seem.

The picture is misleading with regard to perpsective and depth due to the telephoto lens, imo.

The creatures in the photo, if real, are in fact nowhere near the helicopter at all. The helicopter is actually well behind them over the middle of a body of water. The body of water is obscured by the vegetation. There is nothing preventing the creatures, if real, from running away from the helicopter, since it is not blocking their path at all.

All imo of course.

Look at the picture again, folks. The helicopter is far behind the vegetation and the so called bigfeets. No way is the copter going to be down among those trees and vegetation nor would it be anywhere near them. They are nearly tall enough to clip a rotor blade. They are even taller than the "bigfeets".

Imo, this is a thin line of scrub trees near the bank of a body of water. The helicopter is out over the body of water filling it's bucket. The helicopter is well beyond the trees and the "bigfeets" in the foreground. The pilots are not in a position to see creekfreak's creatures, even if they are actually standing there among the trees, without looking to their right and behind them.

I think LTC is exactly right about this. From first viewing the image the layout as described by freak and the perspective encouraged by the alledged photoshop work does not make any sense.

 

[Correa Neto]

I think Creekfreak has not yet fully understood the problems regarding his picture.

First of all, even if the original EXIF file confirms that only contrast and brightness filters were applied, what he is interpreting as a bigfoot can be only a pareidolia trick. A burnt tree stump would be my guess. Ask the pilots "What have you seen?" and the answer would be "A tree stump". In other words, as evidence, its value is close to zero.

Second, his attitudes were a shot in his foot. He demolished his credibility.

 

[Apology]

Glad you're feeling better Creekfreak. Even though I disagree with you about Bigfoot, that doesn't mean I want something bad to happen to you.

Now, who are the leading photo experts who analyzed your footage? Was it the MABRC? Because they don't qualify as photo experts any more than we at the JREF do.

I'm sure a lot of people think I'm being too nice, but I'm still holding out for you having been tricked or having misstated yourself. If you could clear up the confusion about the photo experts analyzing the photo I'd be grateful.

 

[kitakaze]

My neutrality on this is being questioned, and quite frankly, that should not even be a consideration in this discussion. I gave you the opportunity to see the picture that Creek was talking about, that's all. No endorsement of the picture, and there are the posts of MABRC members who say it's hoaxed on the MABRC Forum. That alone should say enough for you where the MABRC stands.

Obviously there is bound to be "distrust", to some degree, between the "skeptic" and "Bigfoot" camps; that is the price of applying sterotypes.

For what it is worth, I think DK has been above board specific to this issue. He/MABRC has been very clear they make no endorsement of Creeks claims...and have called into question some of the same aspects "we" (ie. skeptics) have. As DK notes, and I agree, he has been exceedingly neutral...simply providing information "as is".

I agree with Locknar's assessment but FWIW I would like to ask darkwing what makes him characterize the low res crop he's seen as "fantasic" and "too good to be true."

 

[LTC8K6]

Creekfreak did indeed say that the photo had already been analyzed by photo experts.

So I have changed my mind. I am no longer interested in seeing the picture anywhere near as much as I am about what photo experts had to say about it.

I want to know who the experts were and what they said about the photo.

I'm certainly not a photo expert, and creekfreak isn't going to take my word anyway.

I want to hear what darkwing says, since he has been waiting for the picture the longest and that request was already in the works, but I want to learn about these experts and their opinions.

Now, that won't require posting the picture here at all, so there is no reason we can't hear more about the experts who looked at creek's picture.

So let's hear it.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think LTC is exactly right about this. From first viewing the image the layout as described by freak and the perspective encouraged by the alledged photoshop work does not make any sense.

It explains the absence of rotor wash effects on the trees and the grass as well.

 

[kitakaze]

Glad you're feeling better Creekfreak. Even though I disagree with you about Bigfoot, that doesn't mean I want something bad to happen to you.

Yes, that's true. I don't for a second believe any of freak's fabrications but I will caution him as many others have in the past to be careful with his Woods and Wildmen play.

Now, who are the leading photo experts who analyzed your footage? Was it the MABRC? Because they don't qualify as photo experts any more than we at the JREF do.

I'm sure a lot of people think I'm being too nice, but I'm still holding out for you having been tricked or having misstated yourself. If you could clear up the confusion about the photo experts analyzing the photo I'd be grateful.

Apology, in my humble opinion I strongly disagree. We can not allow him this out that he would surely take unprotested. There is no way he can validate or justify his fabrication as anything other than such. Under no interpretation can he be allowed to qualify the darkwing's bigfoot club as 'the leading photo experts in the country' but far more importantly he is flagrantly compounding his lie by adding the 'analised and proven to be legit' part. By darkwing's statement and his own admission it's an established fact that he has never provided the necessary information to allow proper analysis of his claimed bigfoot photo. He knew he was lying when writing his ridiculous extortion attempt to the Florida F&W Dept. These are the events we are told led to him being shown the door at his bigfoot club.

 

[LTC8K6]

Kit, you are correct. Creekfreak is stuck solid because no one we know of has seen the original photo yet.

He will either have to admit that he lied about the experts, or tell us who they are.

Well, he could run around in circles and complain like he has been doing...

 

[Locknar]

Creekfreak did indeed say that the photo had already been analyzed by photo experts.

So I have changed my mind. I am no longer interested in seeing the picture anywhere near as much as I am about what photo experts had to say about it.

I want to know who the experts were and what they said about the photo.

I agree. As experts, they would understand that science is based on peer review of work and would have no issue with their analysis being reviewed.

What say ye Creek? Can you provide their analysis reports/comments? If not, why not? You can not claim their analysis as credible unless it can be verified, or submitted to peer review.