bigfoot is real I have the proof

[Creekfreak]

I am doing the same thing he is freak I am treading in areas nobody has walked in over 100 years . Ive still got the hair norm a lot of it as a matter of fact more then what has ever been collected before as far as I know . its not just a strand its like a long dreadlock all matted together with ash from the fire and other matter . And yes it stinks it took a long time to get the smell out of the house . It still stinks if you open the paper it is wraped in but not as bad as it was .Wana know what a bigfoot smells like ? come on down and getcha a wiff of it !

 

[Creekfreak]

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?

I dont but john has if he contacts lock back I am sure he will set this straight with PC . I will stay out of any tech questions I have said before this is not my area of expertize . Have you ever told a lie morm ? come on now tell the truth

 

[Apology]

I am doing the same thing he is freak I am treading in areas nobody has walked in over 100 years . Ive still got the hair norm a lot of it as a matter of fact more then what has ever been collected before as far as I know . its not just a strand its like a long dreadlock all matted together with ash from the fire and other matter . And yes it stinks it took a long time to get the smell out of the house . It still stinks if you open the paper it is wraped in but not as bad as it was .Wana know what a bigfoot smells like ? come on down and getcha a wiff of it !

Creek, the difference is that my pal has a college degree, his findings are backed by the Forest Service, and he hasn't found any evidence of Bigfoot, not even a hair.

 

[Normal Dude]

I am doing the same thing he is freak I am treading in areas nobody has walked in over 100 years . Ive still got the hair norm a lot of it as a matter of fact more then what has ever been collected before as far as I know . its not just a strand its like a long dreadlock all matted together with ash from the fire and other matter . And yes it stinks it took a long time to get the smell out of the house . It still stinks if you open the paper it is wraped in but not as bad as it was .Wana know what a bigfoot smells like ? come on down and getcha a wiff of it !

So what are you waiting for, wasting your time here with a dubious picture? Get the hair analyzed!

 

[darkwing]

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 .

So I am no longer considered an expert after 20 some-odd pages of saying I was by you. Just because I don't see a bigfoot in the original pic?

There was something added to the enhanced pic, 2 blue eyes that do not exist on the original. Even doing the blue adjusting does not bring them out as what was on the enhancement. They were deliberately added on there for effect Creek.

Discredit? Creek, you did that to yourself on page one of this thread. You don't need no help from me. And as far as protecting my site, you dragged me, the MABRC and my site into all this. And we didn't want nothing to do with this pic.

As far as me saying 'wow' when I first seen it, as stated everywhere, that was my initial impression, I then started working to either debunk it or authenticate it. I also tried to keep you from running around everywhere trying to get money for it, and you wouldn't listen.

Game over. The photo may have shown something there, but the minute you showed an 'enhanced' version of it, that killed any chance of it being credible.

I hear something now that you've approached the BFRO with it. Oh well, it's all downhill from here.

BTW, PC, my hat's off to you, that was some dang good analysis.

 

[PetersCreek]

I can only state facts the way I know them to be.

So far, you have made assertions. You have not adequately supported these assertions as fact. It has been explained many times in this thread, by myself and others, that it is your responsibility to provide effective support for you claims. You're not right until proven wrong. You have to "bring it" and you'd better be on your A game. A competent researcher would and should understand this.

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 .

You represented your photograph as irrefutable evidence of the existence of Bigfoot in Florida. You claimed it was vetted by experts. I offered my assessment with the goal of determining whether or not the image conformed to your assertions. The fact that you don't understand the terms of my analysis is not my problem. I wasn't writing in Latin.

Come to think of it, the fact that you do not understand my assessment, fairly demonstrates that you cannot effectively refute it on a rationale basis. Just saying I'm wrong without providing any support is the argumentative equivalent of saying "Nuh-uh!" and sticking your fingers in your ears and while singing, "la-la-la-la".

But john on the other hand can so any tech talk will have to be directed to him and not me .

John didn't present this photograph to the forum. You did. John did not tell us the subject in the photograph is a living Bigfoot. You did. John is not here. You are. Until John comes here and fends for himself, I will address my comments to you and you statements.

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 .

I've provided pretty thorough support for my assessment. John has not, nor have you on his behalf. But you go right ahead and believe him. It's up to you to pick your poison. Just don't confuse your opinions and willful beliefs with fact.

Oh...and for the record, since I don't think I've mentioned it before now...

I would absolutely love to see a bona fide photograph and other evidence of the creature's existence. I wouldn't be worth my salt as an outdoor/nature photographer if I didn't have a healthy sense of wonder in the natural world. I find the prospect of cryptozoology fascinating and discovering an honest-to-gawd Bigfoot sure would be a wondrous thing. Doesn't mean I'm a sucker, though. I also wouldn't be worth my salt as a photographer of any kind if I couldn't look at images critically...either my own or others. Yep, I'm a skeptic.

 

[PetersCreek]

BTW, PC, my hat's off to you, that was some dang good analysis.

Kind words, DW. Thank you! I'll return a tip of the hat to you and your assessment. I thought it was fair and more than sufficient and I think it's a shame that it was not taken as such.

 

[Creekfreak]

No I have not aproched them and you know that .Would you like me to tell all the people how the bfro is envolved Dark ?

 

[PetersCreek]

If you had the audacity to take this to court I would be there soley for the free entertainment. The smart money would be on the Tee shirt concession.

I'll take the "Leading Expert" t-shirt in XL, please.

 

[ChristineR]

Well, I have better ways to spend an afternoon, but I'm of the opinion that there is something there...

I downloaded ImageJ a Java based Image Processing Applet, which has tools way beyond what's in Photoshop (not that I could dig my way out of Photoshop with a shovel). I smoothed the image (to remove pixel sampling noise), converted it to HSB (Hue, saturation, brightness), filtered it to remove all but the low saturation stuff (i.e., I removed all that green and yellow foliage) and did an edge detection on what's left, and here is what I got:

Conclusion: there's something big and dark back there, and although it does have two little bright spots in the middle, it is not particularly Bigfoot shaped. It appears to be pyramidal, i.e., a pile of dirt.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's pretty clear that there is nothing there, imo.

If there were a stump or a mound of dirt there, creekfreak could have gone back and taken a picture of it long ago and gotten out of this jam.

 

[LAL]

Creekfreak, I made a mistake about the lake and I owned it. I should have checked it out before I posted, but I did check it out and I corrected it. That's the sort of thing honest people do. It's okay to be mistaken, but it's not okay to go on defending a mistake once the mistake has been discovered.

Now, while we're waiting to see what results the e-mails bring,why don't you tell us about Bigfoot and the Bible? Bigfoot is the nephilim; am I getting that straight?

 

[Marcus]

Dark was my bigfoot expert is that so hard to understand ?

Yes, I understand now. Darkwing is one of the leading photo experts in the country, and he has proven that your bigfoot is real. But, but...you have disavowed Dark's expert status, and he doesn't agree that your bigfoot is real.

 

[mikeyx]

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 .

no, researchers conduct research, showman promote stuff, you seem to have the two confused and I'm being kind, sport

 

[kitakaze]

Conclusion: there's something big and dark back there, and although it does have two little bright spots in the middle, it is not particularly Bigfoot shaped. It appears to be pyramidal, i.e., a pile of dirt.

ChristineR, If you check the image comparisons that were done, particularily by LTC8K6 and PetersCreek, you can see that it is simply a patch of darkness behind far closer shrubbery in the alledged bigfoot image that was later doctored to enhance a pareidolic observation. IMO, it makes little sense given the context, location of the shot to propose stump, dirtpile, solid pbject, etc.

 

[pookums]

Creekfreak, I made a mistake about the lake and I owned it. I should have checked it out before I posted, but I did check it out and I corrected it. That's the sort of thing honest people do. It's okay to be mistaken, but it's not okay to go on defending a mistake once the mistake has been discovered.

Now, while we're waiting to see what results the e-mails bring,why don't you tell us about Bigfoot and the Bible? Bigfoot is the nephilim; am I getting that straight?

LAL...When Creek first mentioned this on the other forum, I was intrigued enough to PM him and ask for an explanation...he said Jacob and Esau proved that BF was Nephilim, when I suggested that re-interpreting the bible to fit ones personal beliefs was a bit over the top....he assured me that wasn't the case, he was pretty good with the bible and he had several freinds who better and they agree'd with him....

The man can pull "experts" out of his ass at the drop of a hat...it's an amazing thing!

 

[Locknar]

No I have not aproched them and you know that .Would you like me to tell all the people how the bfro is envolved Dark ?

I'd love to hear a bfro story; please do tell.

ETA: Sorry about that CZ; you are of course 100% correct.

 

[chillzero]

I'd love to hear a bfro story; please do tell.

No. Please do not.

I have already advised that personal issues with other forums should not be pursued here, and such comments should not pass moderation review.

 

[AudioFreak]

I dont but john has if he contacts lock back I am sure he will set this straight with PC . I will stay out of any tech questions I have said before this is not my area of expertize . Have you ever told a lie morm ? come on now tell the truth

Everybody has lied at some point. The important part is to come clean about it and display some integrity.

So if your "expert" says there's no bigfoot, and PetersCreek says there's no bigfoot, and you can't name anyone else who is credible to back you up, and you admit that you have no expertise in these areas, how in the hell do you think you're in a position to confirm or deny any a hoax on your enhanced image (unless you KNOW for sure it was done)?

 

[LAL]

LAL...When Creek first mentioned this on the other forum, I was intrigued enough to PM him and ask for an explanation...he said Jacob and Esau proved that BF was Nephilim, when I suggested that re-interpreting the bible to fit ones personal beliefs was a bit over the top....he assured me that wasn't the case, he was pretty good with the bible and he had several freinds who better and they agree'd with him....

The man can pull "experts" out of his ass at the drop of a hat...it's an amazing thing!

Not to mention friends; they're in high places.

Did the friends explain how the nephalim, which were supposedly around before the deluge, managed to get a mention after the deluge?