bigfoot is real I have the proof

[Drudgewire]

Mike, I am sorry if my question was unclear. Do you have the abillity to prove or disprove the photographs are a hoax?

As another Mike, I'll tackle this.

There has been no definitive proof of Bigfoot. If someone wants to believe in Bigfoot, that's fine and dandy. But once someone says "it's real AND I HAVE PROOF" the ball is in their court to provide said proof.

Until or unless they can do that, there's nothing to be disproven yet. It's a given the picture, like every other piece of "bigfoot evidence" provided thus far, is fairly considered a hoax until it can be proven otherwise.

You know, like has been claimed from the very first sentence in the thread onward.

 

[mikeyx]

For some one that doesent have squat to say you sure have said a lot . go back to your lab student and let the men hash this out or just be quite for a change .

learn how to spell you hick

Attack the argument, not the arguer. If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[LTC8K6]

Creekfreak has already said that the photos have been authenticated by experts.

So, put them up. They are authentic photos of bigfoot taken by Gary Carlsen.

No more need be done except announce it to the press.

 

[Creekfreak]

I would like to know how you got a picture of my cat ! Pleased to meet you sir . Let myself and TF look at the agreement then we will go from there . See how easy that was people ? all I needed was a web site or some other form of imformation about this man . thank you PC I look forward to working with you on this matter .

 

[mikeyx]

Mike, I am sorry if my question was unclear. Do you have the abillity to prove or disprove the photographs are a hoax?

burden of proof, yours, not mine. This has devolved from scam, to hoax to travesty. Enjoy the ride

 

[LTC8K6]

Creekfreak already provided the photos to darkwing without any such written agreement, so it's clear that creekfreak does not need the agreement to release the photos.

 

[sthomson]

sthomson, ask the man who owns them. I have them but it is not my call to upload them. If creek wants them uploaded I will.

OK, are you willing to provide any documentation from Creekfreak's photography expert that these photos show no digital or mechanical manipulation, beyond an overall increase in the brightness or contrast?

I'm asking you because Creekfreak has been asked multiple times, with no results.

 

[LTC8K6]

Just in case TF doesn't get over to the mabrc:

Now for a description of the picture that was sent to me.

The tail number on the helicopter is partially obscured by the brush between the camera and the helicopter. The helicopter shows exhaust coming out of it, the vegetation is blurred behind where the exhaust is. The open area on the other side of the brushline where the helicopter is at, could be any size, and this helicopter could have enough room to land and take off from there. There is no sign of water beneath the helicopter, and no sign of a water bucket or cable hanging down beneath it.

The pilot appears to be more concerned with the gauges on his panel or viewing the height from the ground through the windshield on the bottom of the cockpit.

The 'purported' bigfoot in front of the helicopter shows no sign of eyes, as in the enhanced version, so they were placed on the 'purported' bigfoot face by the person who enhanced it.

The second 'purported' bigfoot in the picture is transparent enough to see a tree behind it through the right side of it.

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.

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.

By all that I have viewed on the original copy and the enhanced copy, I have come to the conclusion that the enhanced copy has been manipulated to the point that this picture is of no value to bigfoot research. Whoever manipulated it, has created a hoaxed copy of the picture, rendering the original of little value. Whether Creek has been a part of this hoax, I can't say one way or the other, but to continue to push this picture can only create the impression that he is a part of it.

My recommendation is that Creek allow the original and the comparison pictures be released to the general public, and cease trying to sell the pictures. They are worthless since they have been manipulated. By releasing them, specialists in digital photography can go through them better and perhaps something may be salvaged out of it.

But as it stands, hoax.
Darkwing

 

[Apology]

Mike, I am sorry if my question was unclear. Do you have the abillity to prove or disprove the photographs are a hoax?

No no NO. It's Creek Freak's burden to prove that the photographs are REAL. He has not even released the original photos in order for anyone to try to prove or disprove anything. PetersCreek has offered but has not received the photos. If Creek doesn't send the photos to PetersCreek then it suggests that he is "shopping" for a photo analyst that supports his claims rather than one who will simply analyze the photos. Address PetersCreek's offer before you attempt to find another analyst.

Or you could, you know, post the pictures here, and all the photo analysts on the JREF could analyze them at the same time. I don't claim to be a photo analyst but I have more than a passing fair knowledge of photoshop and how it works. I don't claim to be an expert because I see a difference between photoshopping restaurant menus and proving that another photo is a shop. Others on this forum have much more experience than I do, so I defer to their opinions. I'd be willing to give an educated opinion on the matter myself IF I HAD PHOTOS TO ANALYZE.

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I can send you a photo, but it won't be of bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, we would need the original photo, and an original photo showing the area where the alleged bigfoot were standing.

I wonder why no one asked for these before?

 

[PetersCreek]

PC send the agreement to me and I will get it to Creek

As I indicated in my post, I'm not inclined to send the agreement at this point. Given my currently low estimation of his credibility, I just don't see a compelling reason to further waste my time on it. In other words, I don't think sending it to him, you, or anyone else is going to get me the requested photo.

Mike, I am sorry if my question was unclear. Do you have the abillity to prove or disprove the photographs are a hoax?

Creekfreak is the one making the assertion that the photo is a genuine representation of a living bigfoot. Though some people may wish to undertake the challenge for their own reasons, no one is obligated to "prove" him right or wrong. The onus is on him to adequately support his contention. If the support he offers is insufficient...and bluster and obfuscation won't cut it...his argument fails.

To date, it fails miserably.

 

[Apology]

So, we would need the original photo, and an original photo showing the area where the alleged bigfoot were standing.

I wonder why no one asked for these before?

[sarcasm]To think that we could have saved ourselves at least 25 pages of this if we'd only thought to ask early on[/sarcasm]

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mike, I am sorry if my question was unclear. Do you have the abillity to prove or disprove the photographs are a hoax?

[nitpick]
The photos can be analyzed for their authenticity. That is to say, has the photograph been altered. Once the authenticity of the photograph has been confirmed, you can then begin analyzing the contents of what was photographed for evidence of hoaxery. Now, it may be possible to establish that what was photographed was a hoax (for example, finding a zipper, thus proving it a costume); but if no evidence of a hoax is found there the only statement that can then be made is, "These are authentic photographs of <describe contents of photograph> for which no evidence of hoaxery is contained in the photograph itself."
[/nitpick]

 

[Drewbot]

Creekfreak has already said that the photos have been authenticated by experts.

So, put them up. They are authentic photos of bigfoot taken by Gary Carlsen.

No more need be done except announce it to the press.

You forgot "and write a threatening letter to the Department of Forestry, demanding they give you a job or you will release the photos"

 

[Creekfreak]

I sent the photos to Dark becouse I trust him and have known him a long time . I told you from the start I did not know you but you would not give me any imformation about yourself . Except for a bunch of words about photography that could have copied off the internet for all I know . I dont think it is unreasonable to ask a few questions first . If I have offended you it is not my fault you should have been up front with me from the start .

 

[ThunderFoot]

As I indicated in my post, I'm not inclined to send the agreement at this point. Given my currently low estimation of his credibility, I just don't see a compelling reason to further waste my time on it. In other words, I don't think sending it to him, you, or anyone else is going to get me the requested photo.





Creekfreak is the one making the assertion that the photo is a genuine representation of a living bigfoot. Though some people may wish to undertake the challenge for their own reasons, no one is obligated to "prove" him right or wrong. The onus is on him to adequately support his contention. If the support he offers is insufficient...and bluster and obfuscation won't cut it...his argument fails.

To date, it fails miserably.

I can understand Creeks point on not wanting to send the photographs to just anyone. If you feel you can give some input and have the abillity to tell if the photgraphs have been tampered with then you should not have any problem sending an agreement. "That's all I'm gonna say about that"!

Well guys the time has come. Gotta go to work. I'll be back on about 11:30 CST,,, see ya

 

[LTC8K6]

A few monthes ago there was a forest fire not far from my land . Me and a freind of mine went to investigate becouse there was a chance it would come this way . We got to a site where the helicopers where scouping water out of the creek to put the fire out . I realized from where we where if any animals where fleeing the fire that would have to pass where we where . I dident have my camara with me so we went back to get it . When we got back I found a good vantage point where I could see anything that came out of the woods .

Does this agree with the location we have been given?

I think we should switch to the pics of the IBW that creek has. Maybe creek will show us those?

I know this may sound very far fetched to some but today myself and a buddie of mine may have watched an ivory bill woodpecker . He was the bigest woodpecker Ive ever seen the light was not very good so hard to see the color of his bill I did get a few glances and it looked to be white . I took about 10 pictures of it with a film camara and got close to 9 min of audio of his hamering of the tree he was working .

 

[LTC8K6]

I emaild the comm. of agreculture Charles bronson and told him what I have . I also told him that I have put the picture up for sale and that I have been made offers . In exchange for a job with the state to study this creature I would withold it from the public . I let them know that it could couse them problems in the future becouse there helicopter was in the photo they have not responded

Maybe the extortion attempt will bear fruit yet...

 

[LTC8K6]

I sent the photos to Dark becouse I trust him and have known him a long time .

Well, it looks like you only joined the mabrc in June, and DW lives in Oklahoma. Now you may indeed have known DW a "long time", but it doesn't look like it.