bigfoot is real I have the proof

[William Parcher]

If you saw the face on the small one I saw you would never want hurt one of these things . It was so cute I wish you all could have seen it then you would understand why I am going through all this trouble to prove it and to protect it . I have put it all on the line for these creatures hear what your heart is telling you stop trying to hurt them and try and help them.

And yes I do think there could another one I havent told any one this before about 10 years ago A freind and I where camping out here I had built a fort useing tar paper wraped around some trees with a parachute hung from a limb we where just hanging out when some thing ran into the side of the tent it was very dark and what ever it was did not see the tar paper it started feeling its way around tell it came to the door then stagered in it was a hairy creture that stude about 3 ft tall on two feet it had big eyes he looked up at us with a look of surprize turned around and walked out we both saw the same thing but never talked about it again . Untell last week I did say something to the bfro guys that where out here and he said it could have been a baby I had never thought that it could have been a baby bigfoot but it could have very well been one I am going into town today and I am going to ask the guy that was with me that night what he remembers who knows the big one I saw could have been the baby grown up like I said that sighting was 10 years ago

Huh?

 

[Ravenwood]

yes Brett I was under the impression this is what you where asking for . Folks the creature is visable I can even see it even runing windows 95 . Brett thank you for all your help with this thunder and I have talked and we feel this should be looked at by some more photography experts . No offence to you at least you took the time to give it a chance that is more then most have done . Lt I dont have photo shop on this computer I used a freinds all I did was jack up the blues and the eyes showed . As far as seeing the figure in the original you can plainly see the light reflecting off the side of the head it is there and so is the small one bending over in front of it . Shadows do not have eyes and faces we will get to the bottom of this one way or another . I am not just going to give up just becouse of a few on an internet forum says its a hoax .Just becose you say it is doesnt make it so you can scream hoax tell your blue in the face that still will not make it one .

OK, I have to ask this, because 1.) I followed what you claimed to do (crank up the blues with PS)-this did not replicate the effect in picture with the alleged bigfoot & 2.) I showed it to a couple of friends (one graphic artist & one CGI artist) & they both failed to replicate the effect as well as saying that based on the original, that the enhanced photo is highly suspect. So, that being said, CF, What is it that will take you to admit that you are wrong about this photo? Will you just continue to ignore analysis of this photo that says you are leaping to an incorrect conclusion? That is a sign of a poor researcher...

 

[ben m]

Lt I dont have photo shop on this computer I used a freinds all I did was jack up the blues and the eyes showed .

When any of us "jack up the blues", no eyes show. In the original, there is absolutely nothing different in the "eye" pixels than the rest of the "face" pixels. There is absolutely nothing different in the "face" pixels than in the "forest" pixels just to the left.

If you had "jacked up the blues" enough to make two dots visible on the "face", that whole patch of forest would have been blue, along with half of the face. I know because I've tried it..

As far as seeing the figure in the original you can plainly see the light reflecting off the side of the head it is there and so is the small one bending over in front of it .

I can see three stripes---you're calling them "reflections", but they're (a) the same color and width as the tree branches in the foreground, and (b) they're contiguous with a tree in the foreground. I also see a stripe that you're identifying as "bigfoot's shoulder/arm"; the bright element of this stripe has the same color, width, and irregularity as a tree branch, and the darkness to the right of the stripe has the same colors (I mean, exactly the same colors: hex RGB 000008 to 05050f and thereabouts) as the rest of the dark forest.

What aspect of the original photo is inconsistent with some light tree branches in front of some dark forest?

 

[PetersCreek]

Folks the creature is visable I can even see it even runing windows 95 .

Non sequitur. What does Windows 95 have to do with the (non)visibility of your alleged Bigfoot?

Brett thank you for all your help with this thunder and I have talked and we feel this should be looked at by some more photography experts .

Translation: I'm going to shop for "experts" until I find one that agrees with me.

Lt I dont have photo shop on this computer I used a freinds all I did was jack up the blues and the eyes showed .

False. You didn't just "jack up the blues". Obviously, if you had applied such an adjustment to the entire image, the color balance of the entire image would have been affected. So the adjustment must have been constrained to a specific area.

The problem is, there is a lot of blue channel noise in the subject area, near or at the same level as the features that you claim are eyes. Simply increasing blue would not brighten just those "eyes" without also brightening the surrounding noise. So, the adjustment must have been constrained to just the "eyes".

Many folks in this thread have tried to duplicate the technique you vaquely described and none have yielded the results you claim. If you disagree with my conclusion, provide the exact workflow that you used to acheive the effect, and your reasons for using those techniques. For instance, why did you decide to "jack up the blues" only? Why not greens, reds, or magentas? Why not all RGB channels?

As far as seeing the figure in the original you can plainly see the light reflecting off the side of the head it is there and so is the small one bending over in front of it .

Pareidolia. I and others see features that are consistent with tree branches. But for the sake of argument, even if we were to grant that those features are highlights reflected off of a dark object, there isn't enough additional detail that can reasonably support your conclusion that it's a Bigfoot.

I am not just going to give up just becouse of a few on an internet forum says its a hoax .Just becose you say it is doesnt make it so you can scream hoax tell your blue in the face that still will not make it one .

Projection. You are the one insisting it's a Bigfoot until you're "blue in the face"...and you've done so without providing one scintilla of credible evidence. Rebuttals to your argument have by and large been dispassionate, rational, and effective. Your argument is based on wishful thinking, hand waving, bluster, bluff, and gross misunderstandings and misstatements of fact.

 

[Locknar]

As far as seeing the figure in the original you can plainly see the light reflecting off the side of the head it is there and so is the small one bending over in front of it . Shadows do not have eyes and faces we will get to the bottom of this one way or another . I am not just going to give up just becouse of a few on an internet forum says its a hoax .Just becose you say it is doesnt make it so you can scream hoax tell your blue in the face that still will not make it one .

I think a fair question to ask is, when would you give up on this photo quest of yours?

Thus far, EVERYONE that has looked at the "high-res" original agrees there is nothing there. At one point you were adamant you've had "experts" review the high-res photo, that supported your position; this latest post seems to indicate this has not happened.

In any event, how many "experts" need to review this photo and tell you "there is nothing there" before you'd believe them? 5, 10, never?

As to the "low-res" version of the same photo; it has obviously been heavily edited...your continued denials only reinforce the "hoax" comments you've received.

 

[sthomson]

In this thread, wahrheit provides a complete and detailed analysis, independed of PC's (I believe), that proves in my mind that the enhanced photo creekfreak provided could not have possibly been created by changing the contrast, brightness, or color balance.

 

[Creekfreak]

Creek, the creature is not visible in the original photo, and brett did not validate your claims.



Are you now claiming that the photo shows a mother and child bigfoot?

Yes .And I never said Brett validated my claims but I did say that more experts will be looking at this photo . Thanks for diging that up bill now I wont have to explaine it again . And yes bill before you even ask I could have reached down and grabed it and we would not be here discusing if bigfoot was real or not . If I ever see a baby again you can bet your ass I will not hesitate to grab it . In case your wondering what it looked like its whole body was covered with different colored hair redish , black, blond and white streeks . The hair looked clean and the creature looked well cared for not unhealthy . It had large dark eyes long skinny arms and was standing bent at the knees on 2 feet . Just like a skinny human kid but covered with hair . Folks I cant help it ive been blessed to have been so close to these creatures . If anybody is to blame its God not me all I am doing is trying to show the world what they have been missing . Run my name through the mud if thats what you must do it doesent matter to me I know what Ive seen and no one can tell me any different . So when it comes right down to it I owe none of you any explination for my actions for bringing this forth . I am doing you a favor by showing you the real world if you cant handle the truth then thats your problem not mine .

 

[Creekfreak]

All I was trying to achive was to bring the eyes out becouse a freind of mine would not beleave it could be done . I did this by turning the blues up and I probly did more then that but I do not remember all that I did to tell you the truth . But I did achive what I set out to do and that was just to show that the eyes could be brought out by just adjusting and not adding . This has been shown on another thread that the eyes can be brought out without adding anything . I will be moveing this conversation somewhere else most likley on my space where posts can be added without interference . Its furitless trying to answer questions posted the day before .

 

[Locknar]

Yes .And I never said Brett validated my claims but I did say that more experts will be looking at this photo . Thanks for diging that up bill now I wont have to explaine it again . And yes bill before you even ask I could have reached down and grabed it and we would not be here discusing if bigfoot was real or not . If I ever see a baby again you can bet your ass I will not hesitate to grab it . In case your wondering what it looked like its whole body was covered with different colored hair redish , black, blond and white streeks . The hair looked clean and the creature looked well cared for not unhealthy . It had large dark eyes long skinny arms and was standing bent at the knees on 2 feet . Just like a skinny human kid but covered with hair . Folks I cant help it ive been blessed to have been so close to these creatures . If anybody is to blame its God not me all I am doing is trying to show the world what they have been missing . Run my name through the mud if thats what you must do it doesent matter to me I know what Ive seen and no one can tell me any different . So when it comes right down to it I owe none of you any explination for my actions for bringing this forth . I am doing you a favor by showing you the real world if you cant handle the truth then thats your problem not mine .

BOLD is mine
Given the level of contact that you claim with "Bigfoot", why is the photo at the center of the discussion the only evidence you have? Surly, if you can attract BF by cooking bacon, or he enters your home to eat your canned beans you have had ample opportunity to get irrefutable photographic/video evidence?

As to the BOLD part of your post; you are not doing anyone any favors. One that makes claims here is expected to back them up with evidence/documentation....if you want to make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up with more then just your word.

Speaking of the "truth", at what point will you accept that your photo does NOT contain any image of "Bigfoot"? Certainly if it was that obvious, folks like DK, PetersCreek, LTC, myself, and others would see it...the fact is nobody sees it because it is not there and nobody ever will.

 

[Creekfreak]

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&indicate=1 I will answer any questions you have here

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippety> Folks the creature is visable I can even see it even runing windows 95 .

That rune-based Windows 95 was quite a rare release. I'm surprised to hear that's what the bigfeets are using, and more so that you can see them doing it. They can has laptops?

 

[PetersCreek]

All I was trying to achive was to bring the eyes out becouse a freind of mine would not beleave it could be done . I did this by turning the blues up and I probly did more then that but I do not remember all that I did to tell you the truth . But I did achive what I set out to do and that was just to show that the eyes could be brought out by just adjusting and not adding .

You're story just doesn't wash. If it was so simple to do, you'd have no trouble giving us a repeatable workflow. You do understand that's a core concept of scientific inquiry, right? Your results have to be repeatable in order for your claim about the adjustments to be taken seriously.

But, it's clear that you just don't get it. I could take the original photo and select just the "eyes" with the marquee tool and crank up them up to a ridiculous level...OR...I could use a similarly shaped adjustment brush (like the dodging tool) to lighten to do the same thing...OR...I could paint the same ridiculous eyes with a soft-edged brush. These are all distinctions without a meaningful difference. By preferentially and radically adjusting those features, you added "eyes" that you wanted to be there.

And please, you didn't do it just to show a friend it could be done. You presented the image here and elsewhere as "proof" of a Bigfoot. Any real researcher who pulled a stunt like this would be figuratively tarred and feathered.

 

[kitakaze]

So when it comes right down to it I owe none of you any explination for my actions for bringing this forth . I am doing you a favor by showing you the real world if you cant handle the truth then thats your problem not mine .

freak, read the title that you gave this thread.

All I was trying to achive was to bring the eyes out becouse a freind of mine would not beleave it could be done . I did this by turning the blues up and I probly did more then that but I do not remember all that I did to tell you the truth .

Various people with excellent qualification have proven this to be a hoax, freak. You said you duplicated the eyes in image just by turning up the blues, now you are changing your story as is typical when you have been caught being dishonest.

Note to the moderator reviewing this: Cuddles or Chilly or whoever is reviewing my post, please go ahead and delete this request of mine but I would like to ask that consideration be given to possibly removing the moderated status of this thread sometime soon. The reason I ask is that it is my opinion that people will behave appropriately. I appreciate the time you're taking with this thread and regret that it became necessary. KK

 

[AudioFreak]

All I was trying to achive was to bring the eyes out becouse a freind of mine would not beleave it could be done . I did this by turning the blues up and I probly did more then that but I do not remember all that I did to tell you the truth . But I did achive what I set out to do and that was just to show that the eyes could be brought out by just adjusting and not adding . This has been shown on another thread that the eyes can be brought out without adding anything . I will be moveing this conversation somewhere else most likley on my space where posts can be added without interference . Its furitless trying to answer questions posted the day before .

Are you now saying it was YOU who did the "enhancement"? I thought you said you couldn't do this type of stuff on your computer, nor were you qualified to make such assessments. Did John do the enhancement? Or did you? Or a female? Or are you really a woman with GID named John Russo? C'mon man, come clean.

 

[Locknar]

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&indicate=1 I will answer any questions you have here

Good luck with your blog; I can only hope its success is reflective of the honesty and integrity you've shown here.

 

[chillzero]

Note to the moderator reviewing this: Cuddles or Chilly or whoever is reviewing my post, please go ahead and delete this request of mine but I would like to ask that consideration be given to possibly removing the moderated status of this thread sometime soon. The reason I ask is that it is my opinion that people will behave appropriately. I appreciate the time you're taking with this thread and regret that it became necessary. KK

We'll make that decision when we have evidence that your opinion is correct.

Currently we (or rather, other mods apart from me) are still deleting posts.

 

[Creekfreak]

At this time no one has proven this photo to be a hoax and you will not prove it to be a hoax becouse it is not .
I just want to give you some advice in the future you may want to consider that every thought you have may not be correct .
I know it must be hard for some of you to consider this thats just the way it is folks your not perfect and your not experts on everything .
I am even man enough to say sure this may not be a bigfoot but I will never say the photo itself is a hoax becouse it is not .
If it is not a bigfoot then what is it thats the question .
I do know for sure its not a stump a shadow a bear or a man in a suit .
Sure I want to beleave its a bigfoot and I will keep beleaveing it is becouse that is what it looks like to me and many others .
I will be leaveing this thread but not the forum I do think some of what is posted here is worth reading and beleave it or not I can agree with some of you on some subjects .
Not this one of course so its a lets agree to disagree thing for me if you cant accept that I am sorry .
I am not going to waist my time or your time arguing back and forth with you people .
All I can do at this point is get back out in the field and try to get some better shots of this creature with a better camara .
I may not have proven bigfoot is real with this photo but that doesent mean I am going to stop trying to get better photos of this creature that I know to be real .
I will consider this thread a learning experience and move on with a pure heart and mind .
For all the paranormal folks out there I had a dream about geting a 12 mp cam last night if that is a sign then look out !
I am a positive proactive person I cant deal with nagativaty I never could .
I dont sit around talking about it I do it so I dont have to sit around someday saying I should have done this or that in my life .
I dont have to be the first person that proves bigfoot is real my ego is not that big that I have to be the first .
Just being the best I can be in this feild of research and haveing fun doing it is good enough for me .
I really cant say thats good enough I do want to get the best shots anyone has ever seen but that is not ego that is a challange to myself to strive to be better .
I dont need fame I really dont want it but I do feel a need to share what I have seen with others shareing is not a bad thing .
Thanks lock I kind of like the blog thing its like haveing my own forum to myself and its a great way of keeping a record of my research also .
Some of my freinds are allready puting the pressure on me about it beleave it or not some people want to know what I am doing .
Well folks its a great day in fla to nice not to be out on the water I am going fishing .

 

[kitakaze]

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&indicate=1 I will answer any questions you have here

Have fun with that. I can't say I feel the slightest motivation to address your claims away from the place you initiated them. If you don't like the thread being moderated then you should be more mindful of your contributions to it getting there.

 

[kitakaze]

We'll make that decision when we have evidence that your opinion is correct.

Currently we (or rather, other mods apart from me) are still deleting posts.

My apologies and I hope I didn't come off as being presumptuous as it was not my intention.

I see that my opinion was incorrect and it's unfortunate that posts are still being deleted, especially if due to incivility.

I've been hoping to see some progress regarding the provenance of freak's photo enhancements.

I have to agree with LTC8K6's earlier assessment that if Russo is responsible for the 'enhancements' then the paper he works for would not be pleased to be implicit in such a ridiculous fraud attempt.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&indicate=1 I will answer any questions you have here

That is the wrong link. For someone logged into myspace it points to their own blog.