bigfoot is real I have the proof

[LTC8K6]

He has told me that nothing was added and that he did not have to do much to it for the eyes to show up

Why wouldn't bigfoot's eyes show up in a photo taken in broad daylight?

Why would anyone have to do anything to make them appear?

If a gorilla were standing in the spot, it's eyes would be plainly visible.

Now you are insulting DW with your silly explanations and evasions.

One thing I will agree with dark on is he has not said that the creature was added so his reputation is still safe .

DW said he had not been given a picture that would allow him to compare the spot with and without the alleged bigfoots. He has no "after" picture of the area.

The comparison pictures cover a large panoramic view of the area, but is missing the key area where the 'purported' bigfoot is supposed to be standing.

 

[LTC8K6]

Other facial features are missing from the face area, that is only apparent in the enhanced copy. Cheekbones and a nose are missing from the original, even with brightening and contrasting, nothing stands out.

DW says a lot was added, actually.

 

[Normal Dude]

The funny part, Creek, is that this was over the moment you first posted here.

ETA: deleted some info based on a mistaken impression.

 

[Creekfreak]

he has the after picture he is just mistaken . and as you all know this was taken with a 3 mp cam so it needed to be brightened to see the eyes . I said it was good not the best it needed to be enhanced to show what is there . no hoax just makeing it better I dont see anything worng with that

 

[Creekfreak]

They are missing becouse he has not done what I said needs to be done to see them pretty simple I can even do it .

 

[LTC8K6]

It looks like DW just did not list the exif data from one photo, which must be the original.

We have a photos labeled 001, 008, 009, 010

Where are the others in the sequence?

Edited to correct some confusion...

 

[LTC8K6]

and as you all know this was taken with a 3 mp cam so it needed to be brightened to see the eyes

It's 3.2 and that is a load of horse manure. Plenty of good digital pics were taken long before cameras got past 3.2MP.

 

[PetersCreek]

Sorry Dark but your assesment is worng

Now, wait a minute. Before, you said:

As for dark being an expert in this field he has most likely seen more bigfoot photos then any one on this earth so I would say that makes him an expert .

and

I am still waiting where are your experts . Mine is Dark of the mabrc who are yours ?

So, not only did you claim that DW is the expert of experts but that he was your expert. How can you summarily dismiss his conclusion when he's "seen more bigfoot photos then any one on this earth"...including you, presumably...only when it disagrees with what you want us to see? It couldn't be that you quantitatively and/or qualitatively rebutted his arguments. You have so far not demonstrated any ability to do so, at all.

Let me give you a second opinion...this time, using the unaltered photo. Cherry picking an "expert" who agrees with you out of the many who don't will not make you look good...not good at all.

 

[Normal Dude]

To my understanding, Darkwing is one of the experts that creek mentions in his letter to the forestry to have proven the photo legit. It's pretty obvious DW does not share that sentiment.

So how bout it Creek? Was that an outright lie, or are there other experts we don't know about?

 

[LTC8K6]

I think DW was the expert all along. I think Creek meant DW when he said the photo had been called legit.

Otherwise, Creek would have to get this other expert over here to correct DW's mistakes.

I'll bet we never hear of or from this other expert because Creek was using DW all along.

It was DW's initial opinion of the cropped photo that Creek was referring to re "legit", imo.

 

[LTC8K6]

CF: After haveing them enhanced the face of the larger one was very clear

DW: Other facial features are missing from the face area, that is only apparent in the enhanced copy. Cheekbones and a nose are missing from the original, even with brightening and contrasting, nothing stands out.

What a coincidence!

 

[PetersCreek]

as you all know this was taken with a 3 mp cam so it needed to be brightened to see the eyes . I said it was good not the best it needed to be enhanced to show what is there . no hoax just makeing it better I dont see anything worng with that

A 3.2MP image 2048 pixels wide by 1536 pixels high (4:3 aspect ratio) will produce the following hard copy prints:

6.82 x 5.12 inches @ 300 dpi
8 x 6 inches @ 256 dpi
12 x 9 inches @ 170.667 dpi

Considering the sizes and resolutions available from that sort of image, why would it be so necessary to brighten the image simply because of its pixel count? Answer: it wouldn't be. Brightening detail that isn't there because there aren't enough pixels to capture it, gets you brighter detail...that still isn't there.

Now, in a scene with lots of mid tones that also includes some bright highlights and dark shadows, detail can be over and under exposed (respectively) in those bright and dark areas when the camera is set to accurately expose for the mid tones. In very dark areas of an image, digital sensors are notorious for rendering noise...tiny electrical variations experienced by the individual photosites on the sensor...as random speckles that may have the false appearance of detail. While noise often exhibits subtle, random variations in color and brightness, it can also have an overall color cast, such as magenta, violet, and blue. This false detail and color cast can be grossly magnified by heavy-handed adjustments to brightness, saturation, etc.

The foregoing is offered for informational purposes only, about no photograph in particular, since I have not had the opportunity to evaluate CF's image. I have deliberately refrained from closely examining the image posted on MABRC because at the resolution offered and with the enhancements described, it is simply inadequate for meaningful study.

 

[LTC8K6]

PC, that camera can also produce a 4mp interpolated image. Don't know if that feature was in use or not, though.

 

[PetersCreek]

According to the EXIF data provided for the presumably uncropped "after" images provided, interpolation was not used for them, at least.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, you're right. DW will hopefully post the exif data from the actual photo.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bushnell.com/general/binoculars_imageview_11-8325.cfm?section=yes

Hey creek, upgrade to 5mp so we can all see what you see...

 

[PetersCreek]

Why oh why did we have to have similar user names? Whenever someone mentions his hooey and says "Creek", I find myself flinching.

 

[LAL]

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=14330#p14330

I am giving a link to a post by washskookum over at mabrc because I think it needs to be said here and she said it perfectly. I hope she does not mind.

Also:

Lu, we don't think all of you are crazy.

Why thank you, if you meant to include me in that.

 

[Correa Neto]

Darkwing, thanks for the time and the information. Sorry for the troubles it gave you and congrats on your investigation and position.

OT note:
No, we don't think all bigfoot proponents are nuts. We just think the evidence and reasonings presented so far are not enough to back bigfeet as real creatures. Or, if you preffer, the odds of bigfeet being real, in our opinion, are very small. I understand this position can be frustrating (specially after looooong debates) for some enthusiasts and generate sweeping (and erroneous) generalizations such as the one previously mentioned. And yes, similar errors are also made on our side of the line.

We reserve the "nuts" classification for people like Historian, Beckjord and the PIGI guy.

 

[tsig]

Who would even think about bigfoot dingleberries? That's not normal.

Do invisible dingleberries smell?