bigfoot is real I have the proof

[mikeyx]

Yes he does take a good photo Ive got to hand it to him there . I wish he would have been there that day with cam in hand . As for his assesment of the photos he has not given a discription of the files that have proven anything was added to this photo. audio I did disclose my expert and yes Dark was considered an expert to me at one time no he has not discredited me all he has done to this point is protect his site .

He's disavowed any dealing with you, you tried to extort from him and he isnt having it. You burned a friend and for that your character is on record as such. Now learn how to spell.

 

[mikeyx]

How much does it pay ?

noone's paying you anything, your welfare check will have to tide you over, liar, extortionist and all around charlaton

 

[Locknar]

I hope to clear my name lock I dont want to die with people thinking I am some kind of crack pot .

Sadly, at this point given your current body of "evidence" that is not possible.

On a tangent...when Russo contacts me back and does a "what in the world are you talking about??" and denies any/all involvement (which I strongly suspect is what will happen)...what will be your fall back? That he too is out to get you, just as apparently everyone else? That he knows BF is in your pics but he's denying to protect his job, paper, his house plant?

Really....where does it end?

 

[chillzero]

Thread has been set to moderated status.

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

 

[Biscuit]

I told you kit john is the person that enhanced it he is not a bigfoot expert and never claimed to be hes a photo expert . Is that so hard to understand ? Dark was my bigfoot expert is that so hard to understand ? John will verify if I ask him to but at this time I have not asked him . why should I ask him this forum has not proven in any way shape or form that he has added anything to this photo to make it look like a bigfoot . I dont think you want to go up aganst John hes what you would call a big gun . You wouldent like it if he came here he would make you all look like fools all the way across the country .

1. WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT REFUTES THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF PETERCREEK'S?

2. IF JOHN IS NEITHER A BIGFOOT EXPERT NOR PHOTO EXPERT WHY WERE THE PHOTOS GIVEN TO HIM TO ENHANCE? WHAT SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE DOES HE POSSES THAT WOULD MAKE US LOOK LIKE FOOLS?

3. FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, WHO IS YOUR PHOTO EXPERT(S) THAT VERIFIED THE AUTHENTICITY AND EXISTANCE OF BIGFOOT IN THIS PICTURE AND WHERE IS THEIR ANALYSIS?

 

[Locknar]

It's easy to get John Russo's email address off the net.

Has anyone here sent him a polite, gentle e-mail informing him of this thread?

Just wondering. It doesn't have to be CreekFreak that does it.

Yepper, did that this morning...just waiting to hear back; that is assuming he does not read it and ditch it as total nonsense.

And to be honest...how many of us, if we got an e-mail that made mention of photos, BF, etc. would not just pitch it outright?

 

[Normal Dude]

3. FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, WHO IS YOUR PHOTO EXPERT(S) THAT VERIFIED THE AUTHENTICITY AND EXISTANCE OF BIGFOOT IN THIS PICTURE AND WHERE IS THEIR ANALYSIS?

He admitted a page or two ago that he exaggerated the expertise of the couple of people who had seen it.

 

[Atomicmutant]

Thanks, Locknar. You do make a good point. He may know nothing about all of this. We'll wait to see.

 

[AudioFreak]

Sadly, at this point given your current body of "evidence" that is not possible.

On a tangent...when Russo contacts me back and does a "what in the world are you talking about??" and denies any/all involvement (which I strongly suspect is what will happen)...what will be your fall back? That he too is out to get you, just as apparently everyone else? That he knows BF is in your pics but he's denying to protect his job, paper, his house plant?

Really....where does it end?

Hey, you never know... he might admit involvement or even a prank on Gary.

 

[kitakaze]

He admitted a page or two ago that he exaggerated the expertise of the couple of people who had seen it.

Yeah, Dude, I was keeping that in mind too. Especially when it shown that one never endorsed his image and the other was contradictingly stated by freak to have never said anything concerning a bigfoot in the image but also that he would be able to support freak's claims of it being a legitimate image of bigfoot.

And, then there's this statement one page later from freak going back to playing up his guy's expertise.

It really is hellishly, nightmarishly, exasperatingly, a giant pain in the ass trying to keep track of what freak's claiming. One minute you're trying to keep track of who said what and then BAM... (paraphrased) "I have better images than the one I'm already calling proof."

???

yes I do lock untell the evidence has been proven worng none of you have a leg to stand on . Who is the expert you have provided ? All ive seen is a guy that has a photography hobby that has posted a few photos on a nice site . This does not make him an expert . On the other hand my person makes his liveing working with photoshop and other photo programs and is well known to the public . Who are you going to beleave ?

 

[Creekfreak]

Yes I did exaggerate a little but that was to get the attention it desearves . I would not be much of a researcher if I did not promote my claims .

 

[Normal Dude]

Hey, memory has escaped me, but what happened to the hair samples?

he photo are not all I have I have hair samples also . If you would care to pay for dna testing by an expert Ill be happy to send some of it to anyone you choose fit to do the job

Also, this may be going over old ground, and may have been answered before, but you stated:

It cannot be denyed it is a photo of a bigfoot creature
and that the state forestry helicopter pilots saw the creatures right in front of
there faces . If you dont beleave me contact them and ask them .

I'll be sending an email to the forestry guy you emailed.

Creekfreak,

Give it up. Please. It's over, the plane has crashed and burned. All of the hollow threats and insults are hitting a brick wall.

 

[Creekfreak]

Thank you norm I look forward to there responce .

 

[PetersCreek]

As for his assesment of the photos he has not given a discription of the files that have proven anything was added to this photo.

It would seem that you missed my comments on the side-by-side images where I explicitly described certain details in your "enhanced" image that are (1) not recoverable by global adjustments and (2) not present in the original image at all.

For instance, there are some very faint, low-contrast features in the original that roughly correspond to the "eyes"...but they don't become even barely visible until brightness has been increased to about +30 and at +100, they still aren't nearly as prominent as in your "enhanced" version. Well before this point, the rest of the image washes out so that it no longer resembles your "enhanced" version. To get the "eyes" as you've presented them, one would have to apply adjustments just to those features and none of the surrounding image.

Now about the Bigfoot...or Bigfeet, since you've recently claimed there are two. By the way, I'm using those terms solely for the purpose and convenience of discussion, just to be clear. Take a look at the "head" of what I'm assuming is the smaller Bigfoot in front. In your "enhanced" image, the left side of his "head" (viewer's left) is clearly distinguishable from the background. This detail is not present in the original image. This detail is not recoverable by global adjustments to brightness, contrast, levels, curves, or through the use of shadow detail recovery algorithms. Nor is this detail recoverable by broad localized adjustments of the same.

This detail can only be replicated by preferentially lightening and/or darkening specific small areas to create the edge seen in your "enhanced" version. This could have been accomplished by a number of methods such as an adjustment brush, adjustments of areas constrained by the selection tool, masking of an adjustment layer, etc. Creation of such a feature is completely arbitrary since there isn't enough source detail there to suggest its existence.

Now to correct a previous statement of yours. Photography is certainly a hobby of mine but it's not just a hobby, as you seem to have characterized it. It's also a part-time profession. While my primary area of interest is outdoor scenic photography, I also shoot weddings and location portraiture. I was also hired to design the promotional materials and signage for a local business. My clients view and order prints via my website. I'd say that by conventional definitions, that makes me more than just a hobbyist.

And the primary program I extensively use for all this paid work? Photoshop...version CS2 to be exact. Hence, my qualification for membership in the National Association of Photoshop Professionals. And my experience is not limited to just Photoshop. I used Paint Shop Pro for many years, beginning in its shareware days. I was even a registered beta tester for one of its releases. So, by the time I made the switch to Photoshop, I was certainly no stranger to the principles of photographic enhancement, retouching, restoration, and composition. If you wish to challenge my qualifications, I would insist that you do so accurately.

Speaking of accuracy, if I am so wrong as you claim, you should have no trouble refuting my assessment on a rational basis, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Hand waving won't cut it. "Anyone can see..." won't cut it. "Because I say so" won't cut it. My assessment isn't just a case of "I say so". I've explained my methods and reasoning and subjected them to community review and critique. To refute my conclusions, you'll have to do the same.

 

[GT/CS]

Yes I did exaggerate a little but that was to get the attention it desearves . I would not be much of a researcher if I did not promote my claims .

Creek, a researcher should never, never, never exaggerate his or her claims for reasons you have just experienced. As you have discovered all such claims will be thoroughly checked for accuracy, and if found to be inaccurate the researcher will called to the carpet.

No, a researcher does not exaggerate but certain other types of people do.

 

[AudioFreak]

Yes I did exaggerate a little but that was to get the attention it desearves . I would not be much of a researcher if I did not promote my claims .

Correction: You are NOT much of a researcher since you do not support your claims.

Researchers rarely make claims, they discover and present evidence.

 

[Apology]

Creek, I know a man who works for the Forest Service here in California. His territory is in the heart of California Bigfoot country. His job is to visit remote wilderness areas in the state and bring back anything unusual or not known to them. He has brought back plants and insects that were previously undiscovered. He was involved in locating a "lost waterfall" that existed on some of the old maps from the early 1900's but had not been seen in modern times. Never did he find a Bigfoot, a Bigfoot track, or a Bigfoot hair. Those Florida Forest Service guys in the helicopter would have been among the first to demand an investigation if they had seen something like Bigfoot.

If my friend did see Bigfoot, he would be ecstatic. That's his job, finding previously undiscovered flora and fauna. He would be the first to say that Bigfoot existed if there were any reason to believe so. He says Bigfoot doesn't exist. (Occasionally, as a joke, he says he IS Bigfoot, and that he's leaving the tracks himself for unwary hikers to find, or that Bigfoot footage is just pictures of him, he forgot to shave that week.)

Thus far, the closest he's come to an undiscovered species was when he found a really ugly coyote that had both mange and a skin condition. He was hoping that its hairless warty appearance was a genetic change, but it was not.

The point of telling you all this, Creek, is that my friend is an expert on undiscovered species. He has a vested interest in finding them, as it is job security for him. Since he is a well-qualified expert who has searched areas that the majority of people have never visited and do not have access to, I'm more likely to take his word that Bigfoot doesn't exist than your word that it does.

 

[Creekfreak]

I can only state facts the way I know them to be . As far as being an expert in photography I am not or ever claimed to be . as far as argueing with you about something I have no idea what you are talking about I cant and you know that . But john on the other hand can so any tech talk will have to be directed to him and not me . I have simply stated what he has told me to be true and that is nothing was added to the enhanced photo . You say there was he says there wasent so whos is right here john or you ? I am going with john untell he says your right .

 

[Normal Dude]

Thank you norm I look forward to there responce .

Selective response as usual, I see. What about the hair samples?

And don't thank me. I can almost promise that after that last email you sent them, they won't have anything to say that will be helpful to you.

PetersCreek is right. All of your recent (or all?) rebuttals have been along the lines of a sixth graders "No it isn't!" and "You're wrong!" responses. Do you have anything concrete that shows methodological flaws in Peter's analysis? Why should we believe you, when you have been proven to lie?

 

[Creekfreak]

http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/[email protected]