bigfoot is real I have the proof

[GT/CS]

Not sure where TF is getting the info. There is indeed one CF claim thread with just over 1K posts and over 18K views.

Posters in this thread by number of posts:

Creekfreak 172
LTC8K6 133
Locknar 102
Normal Dude 52
kitakaze 44
mikeyx 32
madurobob 32
AudioFreak 26
Drewbot 24
Apology 24
Correa Neto 21
ThunderFoot 20
DrewD 19
William Parcher 17
PetersCreek 16
historian 15
chillzero 15
tsig 13
sthomson 12
darkwing 12
Michelle 12
slingblade 11
GT/CS 10
J. Arthur Hastur 9
fromdownunder 9
Snow 8
drapier 8
TjW 7
Belz... 7
Huntsman 6
TX50 6
Starthinker 6
Metullus 6
Aepervius 6
LAL 6
-Fran- 6
Zep 6
Babylon Sister 5
Crossbow 5
Z 5
grayman 5
SweatyYeti 5
firecoins 5
D'rok the Lacone 4
mangler 4
Diogenes 4
RayG 4
Spektator 4
Marquis de Carabas 4
Gord_in_Toronto 4
Biscuit 4
ChaoticLimbs 4
ben m 3
Ladewig 3
wahrheit 3
imjohn 3
Marcus 3
spc476 3
Cuddles 3
eir_de_scania 3
Kilgore Trout 3
athon 3
Jeff Corey 2
Drudgewire 2
In My Spare Time 2
Space_Ed 2
Alice Shortcake 2
Cainkane1 2
sinclairmcevoy 2
Czarcasm 2
Tirdun 2
Flo 2
CLD 2
Terry 2
Raja 2
B.S 2
Lynx2174 1
WDB 1
Diamond 1
Arkan_Wolfshade 1
Dazed 1
CptColumbo 1
Persiflage 1
The Atheist 1
Hindmost 1
Calcas 1
baron 1
WildCat 1
fagin 1
sackett 1
Cueshark 1
Skeptic Guy 1
Hokulele 1
Blue Mountain 1
Elizabeth I 1
lordofwaffles 1
PBTree 1
Zygar 1
Monza 1
NobbyNobbs 1
baron_army 1
autumn1971 1
Szin 1
Psi Baba 1
bruto 1
Dale 1
Lensman 1
Grimes 1
moopet 1
JoeEllison 1
vidiviciveni 1
Wowbagger 1
yitzhak 1
boojum 1
hmmm... 1
strathmeyer 1
tuc0 1

How did you do that?

 

[darkwing]

At this point I'm out of reasons to give Creekfreak the benefit of the doubt. I resign as apologist.

I'd like to thank Darkwing for his participation in this thread and say that I don't blame him or MABRC for this debacle. I think Darkwing handled the situation as fairly and objectively as possible. I know that MABRC members have expressed a concern that Creekfreak's behavior reflects negatively on all of them as a group, but I don't think it has. As a matter of fact, MABRC has shown more skepticism than I expected from a dedicated, pro-Bigfoot forum, so I personally see Bigfoot enthusiasts as a little less kooky than I'd imagined before I visited MABRC.

Thanks Apology.

 

[ThunderFoot]

I am talking to Creek and I think he may post all 14 photographs. Gary is a good guy and isn't trying to pull off some hoax. My only hope is that someone with the abillity to go through these photos can and will, and I also hope that someone will not take the photos and phot shop them and make this a bigger mess than it already is. That is what Gary has been worried about all along. But I will see him tonight and I will bring my biggest hammer and see if I can pound some sense into his head. He can be a hard headed goober simetimes, LOL. But he will come around I am sure of that. Just hang around the photos will come.

 

[ThunderFoot]

Darkwing, did you get the photo I sent last night?

 

[LTC8K6]

How did you do that?

The number of replies listed for each thread is also a link.

Click on it and behold.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think interest in the photos has waned. Whatever they are, few care anymore imo.

 

[Locknar]

I am talking to Creek and I think he may post all 14 photographs. Gary is a good guy and isn't trying to pull off some hoax. My only hope is that someone with the abillity to go through these photos can and will, and I also hope that someone will not take the photos and phot shop them and make this a bigger mess than it already is. That is what Gary has been worried about all along. But I will see him tonight and I will bring my biggest hammer and see if I can pound some sense into his head. He can be a hard headed goober simetimes, LOL. But he will come around I am sure of that. Just hang around the photos will come.

BOLDING mine

Humm....previously he (Gary) claimed he would not post the pics because he wanted to sell them; hence all the NDA talk (for example) w/PetersCreek. Are you suggesting that was all a smokescreen, and his real concern is/was as you've just stated?

I suggest this is nothing more then a planted out; if some looks at the pics and says "golly BF is there" Creek/TF will herald them as "genuine experts". If, on the other hand...folks look and say "nada is there", it is obviously because we (et all) are "unqualified experts" and have somehow altered the photos to remove the "proof".

Case in point...Creek heralded DK has "his expert", until DK could not find anything...then nothing but the equivalent of trash talk from Creek about how unfair, and wrong, DKs finding were.

How about posting the names/comments from the other "experts" that have looked at these pictures and judged them "genuine and unaltered" (to paraphrase)? This would allow for some type (though weak) historical bases.

 

[mikeyx]

Mikeyx - maybe he's dyslexic? Give him a break ... he's right when he says -

with all due respect my friend, he came here trying to perpetuate a hoax if not a scam, has more or less turned on one of his experts and frankly I don't feel he deserves much understanding at this point.

 

[mikeyx]

Snow, you didn't include all the junk on other forums, though. The wacky stories of bigfoot visiting him, the claims of inventing the weed eater and bungee jumping, the photos of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, etc.

CF didn't get started here. His fantasy motor has been going for a long time.



Somebody wake me when it's over.

what LT said, go check out his posting history on the Bigfoot fourms for greater insight to this individual before being so charitable in your opinion...

 

[LTC8K6]

TF, the photos have already been analyzed and authenticated by the top photo experts in the country, so what does it matter what anyone else says?

Gary is not a con-man, and that's what he said, so what is he worried about?

As long as he has the original photos with the authentication from the experts, it doesn't matter what anyone else photoshops in or out, because he has the authenticated originals, right? Gary can always produce them and the experts to counter any trickery, right?

 

[Marcus]

Yes I do.
I think you are enjoying this game you started.

Now, when you arrived I sent you a PM with links to a help file that explained how to use the Quote function, amongst other things. Read and learn - if you are sincerely participating.

What is it with the woos and their refusal to click the quote button? We went through this with David Farrant for months and he simply wouldn't do it.

 

[Creekfreak]

lal leave it alone your not makeing this any easyer Ive used photoshop one time in my life and that was for a very short time just to see if I could make the eyes show up . They did with not much effort on my part . Stop speculating folks I am not trying to pull something here . I have given permission to Dark to post all of the photos Like thunder has said maybe some one with much more experience then what we have will take the time and study them . Pc Thanks for the offer and the advise . In the mean time I plan to keep doing what I do and that is researching this fantastic creature .It really is not a bad way to spend your time . The ivory bill woodpecker is also on my list to study I have photos of that also yes they have made a come back there are not many but I do see and hear them from time to time . Its a jungle out there folks get out there and look for yourselfs you will be surprized what you will find spiders bears and bigfoot oh no !!

 

[mikeyx]

Having watched Creekfreak tap dance as his story unraveled like a cheap sweater, I'm sorry I expended any effort at all preparing a license agreement. That's a dead issue now. I'm still willing to evaluate the photo but within the limitations of Fair Use under U.S. copyright law.

That's your protection, Creekfreak. The moment you created that photo, the copyright belonged to you. U.S. intellectual property law provides that statutory penalties may be imposed on violators. Take a look at the case Corbis won just last year...$30,000 per image plus $2500 for each act. Total damages awarded: $20,000,000...yeah, that's right, twenty million dollars. But you can only sue for statutory damages if you've registered your copyright with the United States Copyright Office.

Um, you have registered your photo, right? If you're really serious about protecting your rights, that's step numero uno. You don't absolutely gotta register it but if you don't and you successfully take an infringement case to court, you can only recover compensatory damages, rather than statutory. The cost of filing is $45 and you don't need a lawyer to make it binding. Free info.

So, you've got some decisions to make:

1. You can take the out I just gave you and claim that you won't provide the photo to anyone until you register it. Interested observers can make bets on whether you'll follow through or not.

2. You can provide the requested photos to me for evaluation under the constraints of Fair Use. If you want a license agreement, you provide it. There are examples all over the Net. If I find it acceptable, I'll sign it. If not, keep your photo. No skin off my nose.

3. Peddle it somewhere else.

What the nice person may well be trying to point out AGAIn is that stamping copyright creekfreak all over your joke of a picture is legally worth a pile of cow excrement, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

not that that matters, this really seems like your waterloo, toughguy.

 

[mikeyx]

The comments on his spelling and syntax are not childish attempts to manipulate his anger. A careful reading of this thread shows that there are a number of places where Creek's writing becomes perfectly lucid. He is playing a game. Our pointing out that he is playing a game has nothing to do with "getting his goat." I, for one, will acknowledge out that that Creekfreak is an expert at this game. The post count is already over 1000. Creekfreak, you are a troll extraordinaire. Your kung-fu is the best. I bow to your wicked bitchin' troll skills, Creekfreak.

Since CF and you have an apologist for some reason I'll go one step further than above;

His illiteracy is inconsistent and suspect: As in: he's a scammer and if you're defending him, figure it out......

 

[Locknar]

lal leave it alone your not makeing this any easyer Ive used photoshop one time in my life and that was for a very short time just to see if I could make the eyes show up .

It is your conduct that casts doubt. Case in point, you've denied using photoshop...then talk about using it. Even if as innocent as you've indicated, your admission after the fact makes you appear less then being honest.

This is just one of a long list of inconsistent statements you’ve made, the sudden sex change of the person who did the photoshoping being another example. You claimed to MARBC is was a "she"...you maintained that here until suddenly it became a "he".

Rather then attempt to brush the issue off (which you've noticed, does not work), address it; if you made a mistake admit it, correct it, then you can move on.

Like thunder has said maybe some one with much more experience then what we have will take the time and study them .

And if we do not confirm your thus far unnamed experts? Again, this is making you appear less then honest; make their comments available before folks look at your pics; to do so after the fact, or never, makes them worthless.

If these comments do not exist (which I suspect is the case), now is the time to fess up. Sure, you'll look a bit foolish...but coming forward and being honest is always a good thing in the end.

 

[LTC8K6]

The ivory bill woodpecker is also on my list to study I have photos of that also

No you don't, because if you did, you would be famous for those alone.

Give it up already! No one believes any of your tripe anymore, nor will they ever. Every time you show up at a board in the future with claims, your reputation will show up too.

When you show up later and in other places, links to your crooked behavior will be posted. Your reputation is now that of a con-man and a scammer who cannot be trusted, and that reputation will be very difficult to get rid of.

You have traded your integrity away foolishly.

 

[PetersCreek]

I am talking to Creek and I think he may post all 14 photographs. Gary is a good guy and isn't trying to pull off some hoax. My only hope is that someone with the abillity to go through these photos can and will

Just a reminder that photos posted at typical web resolution (that is, resized/resampled to a smaller size) will not suffice for meaningful evaluation. Images submitted need to be faithful copies of the original images as they were captured by the camera, without sebsequent alteration.

 

[AudioFreak]

I'm sorry... did he just say SPIDER BEARS?!?!?!

ROTFLMAO

 

[AudioFreak]

Not sure where TF is getting the info. There is indeed one CF claim thread with just over 1K posts and over 18K views.

Posters in this thread by number of posts:

Creekfreak 172
LTC8K6 133
Locknar 102
Normal Dude 52
kitakaze 44
mikeyx 32
madurobob 32
AudioFreak 26
Drewbot 24
Apology 24

I'm ashamed to be in the top 10 here....

 

[Locknar]

The ivory bill woodpecker is also on my list to study I have photos of that also

Photos that you have taken? No...you don't; nobody does.

Of course...I assume you've shown these pictures to experts, say actual ornithologists that have verified them as real? Dr Geoff Hill at Auburn University would be the one to talk to.....

BEFORE you contact him, I strongly suggest you get a book on professional/business writting...or have someone help you.

Though all that said...no, you don't have any such pictures; Magic 8-Ball says "No", and it's never wrong.