bigfoot is real I have the proof

[Creekfreak]

Lt of all people you have the nerve to say I am lieing you are so misguided .
Yep thats what I said Lock he is a hobbiest nothing more .
Dont need a chain of custody Lock it has been with me the whole time nothing has been done to the card except to download the pictures off it .
I am not the makeing the excuses it is you people that are I came here with a photo I say is of a bigfoot and none of you have proven me wrong and you wont becouse this is real .
I have offered to let a real expert look at the sd card and that said expert if he or she is an expert he or she would be able to enhance the photo them selfs to see nothing was added or take the layers away to see nothing was added ,
What is so complicated about that scared to be made a fool of Lock ?

 

[Drewbot]

Creek,
Do you understand why 'Real' Bigfoot researchers keep you locked up in the woodshed?
Because you do the impossible, and sink their reputation lower on totem pole of research credibility.

 

[Creekfreak]

Your grasping Lock why do you need any witnesses ?
What difference would that make ?
If you would like to get into a court battle about this then I would be more then happy to produce witnesess but I dont see a need to ask anyone to come here or post any names here .
This is my fight not anyone elses .

 

[Locknar]

Just becouse I am an honest man I am willing to let a real photo expert look at the sd card and make a final judgement but you will have to find that expert that everyone can agree is an expert .

Define "real photo expert"; what exact qualifications would you accept? For example...you readily accepted DK as your expert, up until he said the photo had been altered.

Secondly, something you don't seem to grasp is your photo/SD card is worthless because of your mishandling. You can not account for its chain of custody, who had access to it, etc.; this means anyone could edit or otherwise manipulate any information on it. Sure, maybe your "friends" claim they didn't do anything...but without established protocols, chain of custody, etc. you can't say with 100% certainty they didn't can you?

If your honest, you'll admit that the possibility does exist that someone has altered information on your SD card.

If you dont then I am right you have not proven it to be a hoax I say I am right prove me wrong or are you not up for the challange ?
I dont think you are prove me wrong .

I almost believe that you believe this....almost. But then I'm hit with your constant shilling for money over the years, on other sites, here, or on your myspace page; that just seems rather dishonest.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lt of all people you have the nerve to say I am lieing you are so misguided .

The only one misguiding people is you, creekfreak.
All of your untrue claims are still available for everyone to see and judge.
There is little point in you trying to pretend you haven't been lying.

 

[Creekfreak]

Creek,
Do you understand why 'Real' Bigfoot researchers keep you locked up in the woodshed?
Because you do the impossible, and sink their reputation lower on totem pole of research credibility.

Nobody has me locked up Bud I do what I want when I want I am an independent researcher .
I do not follow anyones codes or metheds of research becouse there are none for this feild .
If you care to show me some real standerds set forth by your so called real researchers then go right ahead you will be spining your wheels there are none .
There are levals of expertize but there are no standerds for any bigfoot research .
If anyone says they are the experts then they are crazy no one is an expert in this feild not meldrum or anyone .
Yes I am doing what some say is impossible something other so called real researchers with PHD s dont have the guts to do .
This in no way brings others down becouse of it I am just as right as anyone when it comes to bigfoot research .
If you have a problem with that then that is your problem if you think you can do better then come on down and get ya some .
Its easy to sit there and say I am wrong but it means nothing unless you can back it up .
You have not been in my back yard so you cant say one way or the other if I am not doing what needs to be done .

 

[Locknar]

Dont need a chain of custody Lock it has been with me the whole time nothing has been done to the card except to download the pictures off it .
I am not the makeing the excuses...

Not making excuses? Funny...because that is just what excuses look like.

So the card has been in your posession the whole time, except when it wasn't (that is what you just wrote). Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

I have offered to let a real expert look at the sd card and that said expert if he or she is an expert he or she would be able to enhance the photo them selfs to see nothing was added or take the layers away to see nothing was added ,

To be clear, you claimed you had experts review your photo...so where are their reports/comments? The one expert that you endorsed that did come here, agreed with the rest of the planet and said your photo had been altered...

Anything on your card could have been altered/manipulated; what exactly would your fantasy "expert" prove? You've doged the question...exactly what creditentials would you accept "expert" wise?

If you want an "expert" to review your proof/data - then get one (though you claimed you alread did); nothing stopping you other then your lack of effort.

What is so complicated about that scared to be made a fool of Lock ?

Dang it! I surly wish I understood gibberish better...I'm sure the comedy value of this statement would be greatly enhanced.

Your grasping Lock why do you need any witnesses ?
What difference would that make ?

Oddly enough, because that is the way that science works (duh!). You do something, document it, others recreate, etc. In astronomy...you observe something, you document it, others observe it, etc.

Thus far to support all of your absurd claims we have...only your word. You've failed to provide any support of any of your claims; from your bible quote, to "BF", to the "IBW", to the whole bungee cord/jumping thing.

If you would like to get into a court battle about this then I would be more then happy to produce witnesess but I dont see a need to ask anyone to come here or post any names here .
This is my fight not anyone elses .

Spoken like a hoaxer with something to hide.

 

[zooman63]

Poaching? You have me confused with someone else apparently..Don't waist (sic) everones time Creek. I joined here observe, and to learn some FACTS. And to add some feedback at times. Your incompetence is overwhelming and your ignorance is unprecedented. SHOW US PROOF OF YOUR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS!

 

[chillzero]

Creek, what sort of image does the SD card have on it? Is it a RAW image, or a JPEG?

 

[manofthesea]

Creek,
Do you understand why 'Real' Bigfoot researchers keep you locked up in the woodshed?
Because you do the impossible, and sink their reputation lower on totem pole of research credibility.

I think Creekfreak has as much chance as anyone to solve this mystery.
He's produced evidence, albeit indefinite. His typing may be lacking, but he's trying to understand and debate this, not hide with some self professed secret.

The majority of bigfoot skeptics on the PGF have admittedly spent decades searching and studying and have produced squat.

Who's reputation could sink lower? Names please. If you mean bigfooting in general, I doubt that it could 'sink' lower. This is just a hobby for most people. Like stamp collecting.

 

[Locknar]

I think Creekfreak has as much chance as anyone to solve this mystery.

Given his methods/process this seems unlikely though I certianly wish him luck.

He's produced evidence, albeit indefinite. His typing may be lacking, but he's trying to understand and debate this, not hide with some self professed secret.

To be clear, he has produced (key word here, as in manufactured) a single picture; he has claimed lots of other evidence that thus far has been unseen and undocumented.

In fact, what we get is a lot of excuses as to why there is not more evidence; "BF" are all over the place, standing in his yard, entering his home, etc. and Mr "BF" Researcher can't even get a picture? No video? No audio? No witnesses?

Granted, you have a valid point in that he (Creekfreak) has hung around and engaged in the debate...but the "cause I said" (my paraphrase), his favorite tactic, is weak at best.

He would be much better served to actually listen to what folks are saying, and go about improving his research/collection techniques...but that ship has sailed; he obviously won't.

 

[bruto]

Zoom I dont recall ever posting a picture of the boat with camo you must have me mixed up with someone else .
There is nothing Collapseable on this boat its rock solid with all the safety equipment needed .
Yes you can use it on land as a observation platfrom as well as in the water a poachers dream in your case .
And BTW that is no she cat that is a man cat the war lord of northern wettapo creek .


So now bruto your saying the EXIF files are not on the photos ?
If that is so then everything that has been said about these photos is null and vold .
Like Ive said all along you have not proven anything .
Just becouse I am an honest man I am willing to let a real photo expert look at the sd card and make a final judgement but you will have to find that expert that everyone can agree is an expert .
If you dont then I am right you have not proven it to be a hoax I say I am right prove me wrong or are you not up for the challange ?
I dont think you are prove me wrong .

Holy Smoke, Creekfreak, you seem to be having difficulty understanding this. Of course I have not proven anything. Nobody needs to prove anything but you. Let me state it one more time. If you do not understand it, read it again, and then read it again until you do.

To begin with, I believe I am a little less stringent about some of these issues than some other skeptics here. I am starting from the basic presumption that your original photos are honest. So let us start once again, and see if we can get it straight this time.

All of the original photos you posted contain EXIF information which, although a skilled person might be able to fake it, suggest, at least, that the photos are just what you represent them to be. I, at least, am willing to make that assumption, that the original photos are unmodified. Got that? The EXIF info is in those photos for anyone to read. And not to put too fine a point on it, I don't think you're either smart enough or skilful enough to have manipulated the EXIF data on those files, so let's assume for the moment that you did not. It doesn't matter, though. Those photos also have been examined by many people, and enhanced in many ways, and nobody has been able, using honest enhancement, to replicate what is shown on your enhanced photo. It is the enhanced photo that is dubious, not the originals. The enhanced photo that you submitted lacks EXIF information, and thererfore also lacks any record of what was done to modify it, when and by whom. It appears to those who have examined it to contain added information that was not present in the original.

The chain of possession of your SD card is irrelevant. The modified photo, which seems to show a bigfoot, is not present on your SD card, is it? It is modified. It lacks EXIF information, and all who have examined it have concluded that there is no way simply to enhance the original photos to arrive at that point without adding information. Since the process used to achieve your enhancement is not recorded, it is not useful as evidence. However you arrived at that photo, honest or dishonest, is lost, and thus cannot be taken seriously. If you want your photos to be taken seriously at all, you must discard that enhanced photo, and, starting with one of the originals - the ones which have not yet been modified - perform whatever enhancements you think are required, and record every step of the process so that it can be repeated and checked for accuracy.

I repeat: I do not have to prove anything. You have to prove that any of your original photos contain the added information that appears to be present in the enhanced photo, and to do that you must be able to show what operations were performed to bring it out. If it cannot be done, then one can only conclude that the added information go there through dishonesty or error.

I hope that's clear enough.

 

[Locknar]

Nobody has me locked up Bud I do what I want when I want I am an independent researcher .

I believe was being kind, and refering to the fact you've been booted from most of the "BF" sites.

I do not follow anyones codes or metheds of research becouse there are none for this feild .
If you care to show me some real standerds set forth by your so called real researchers then go right ahead you will be spining your wheels there are none .

Really? There are no established standards for field research? STOP THE PRESSES and alert the media! This has to be one of the most absurd things you've written.

You are simply offering excuses to explain your exceedingly poor collection methods, lack of protocols, lack of documentation, lack of record keeping and all around poor/non-existent science.

Yes I am doing what some say is impossible something other so called real researchers with PHD s dont have the guts to do .

And what is that? Conduct field research...seems there are many PhD types that do that. Researching bears...there are folks that study them to. Most folks, though, don't have time to waste "researching" something that does not exist.

Implying that researches lack "guts" is just another excuse, to explain why you can't attract any legitimate researchers.

While on the topic of legitimate, note that you've continued to dodge the question I've asked wrt "expert" credientials that you would accept...I wonder why that is, but lets not worry about that now.

How about you do something for us in terms of proving your "BF" pic claim. Take PetersCreak analysis/report, and you point out the errors in his analysis...or have one the many "experts" you claim to do the same.

 

[PetersCreek]

Yep thats what I said Lock he is a hobbiest nothing more .

Are you deliberately lying now? I previously cited my qualifications and credentials and I'm sure they exceed those of the average hobbyist. If you need a reminder, I use Photoshop...extensively...in the conduct of my part time photography business. In connection with that business, maintain a "pro level" website, three domain names, e-mail service, and membership in the National Association of Photoshop Professionals...all bona fide non-hobbyist business expenses. Are you sure you want to stick to your falsehood?

Regarding the manipulation of you "enhanced" photo, perhaps you've also forgotten my challenge. If you want to demonstrate that you only used simple adjustments, then post the workflow. Provide us with the simple steps necessary to reproduce your "enhanced" image. Put up or shut up.

 

[Creekfreak]

The card has never left my posession Lock I dont know where you got that from .
And no I am not hideing anything I have been forth right and honest the whole time something you cannot say yourself .
Chill the card has the original picture from the day it was taken it will prove that the photo was really taken by the camara I said that took it .
All the files are on the card any expert worth his salt would want to see the card and the files on it .
Just as if it was taken with a film cam you would have a negative from the film the card is the negative in this case .
It is proof that this is not a hoax but some just cant seem to understand or grasp that they might just be wrong for once in there lifes .
I cant help it none of the experts on this forum can understand how to use photoshop to enhance a photo without adding anything that is there shortcomeing not mine .
I will prove this is not a hoax then be on my way I am not enjoying this as much as some of you may think Ive got better things to do then to argue with closed minded people .
And btw what makes you think I am imcompetent zoom ?
I would be willing to bet I can trap just as many different creatures as you maybe more care to have a contest ?
You know nothing about me or what I am capable of or what I have done before .
And thanks mano you are one of the few that has any idea what they are talking about .

 

[chillzero]

Chill the card has the original picture from the day it was taken it will prove that the photo was really taken by the camara I said that took it .

Yes? And? ..... what format is the photo? Is it a jpeg? Is it a raw image? It was one of the easier questions you've been asked, CF.

All the files are on the card any expert worth his salt would want to see the card and the files on it .
Just as if it was taken with a film cam you would have a negative from the film the card is the negative in this case .

I don't need any fancy edikatin' on photography, btw.

It is proof that this is not a hoax but some just cant seem to understand or grasp that they might just be wrong for once in there lifes .
I cant help it none of the experts on this forum can understand how to use photoshop to enhance a photo without adding anything that is there shortcomeing not mine .

Several of us are clearly better with photography and photoshop than you are, so what you should do is answer questions, and accept the information so many of us are providing you. We do know that Photoshop can be used for enhancing without trickery, however, your problem is that if you wish your image to be taken seriously, the unedited version needs to be reviewed. Seriously - think of it this way - maybe a little scenario will help...

Imagine that someone comes here and tells us that they wrote "Harry Potter" two years before JK Rowling. They come here and start a thread "My book of Harry Potter was the original, and I have the proof". We ask for evidence, and they send us a printed batch of papers with the entire Harry Potter story, word for word. We tell them - there's no timestamp available on that paper - can you provide any electronic evidence? They say "Why yes, I typed it all on my pc at home". So we ask to see the original files, and they send us a huge MS Word document called "story.doc", but the timestamp says that although it was indeed first created 2 years before JK Rowling wrote her book, it was edited last week. "Oh, no - I sent it to a friend of mine for verification, and he felt it should have the chapter headings underlined - that's all - it was just a minor enhancement". Why would anyone believe that this person had not just copied and pasted the content of the bestseller into an old blank document? Why would anyone (including a court) not want to see the original file, unedited since a date before anyone might have seen JK Rowling's writing? If the person couldn't provide that, they would have zero cerdibility.

 

[Locknar]

The card has never left my posession Lock I dont know where you got that from .

I’d say I got “that” from what you’ve said in the past. Clear as mud now; you’ve either had the card the entire time or you’ve not (since you’ve claimed both).

And no I am not hideing anything I have been forth right and honest the whole time something you cannot say yourself .

Mighty big claim there...back it up. Show one example where I have been dishonest in discussing your claims...or anyplace else on this forum for that matter.

You are simply making more excuses and trying to defelct the conversatoin away from you and your inability to produce any credible proof, or attract any credible researchers.

Chill the card has the original picture from the day it was taken it will prove that the photo was really taken by the camara I said that took it .
All the files are on the card any expert worth his salt would want to see the card and the files on it .

Without established protocols, chain of control, etc. all we have is your word on this. Without any supporting credible documentation/proof, your word is simply not good enough.

You continue to dodge the question when it comes to "experts"...please define the credentials you would accept as "expert". Where are the experts you claimed already reviewed your pic; where are their comments, reports, analysis?

Just more excuses on your part.

It I will prove this is not a hoax then be on my way I am not enjoying this as much as some of you may think Ive got better things to do then to argue with closed minded people .

Excellent! I for one am eager to see you do this. When can we expect this?

And btw what makes you think I am imcompetent zoom ?

Sadly, the MA prohibits me from answering this question; though I think the answer is blatantly obvious.

I would be willing to bet I can trap just as many different creatures as you maybe more care to have a contest ?

What does this have to do with your proving "BF"? Just more blather and excuses.

You know nothing about me or what I am capable of or what I have done before .

What does this have to do with your proving "BF"? Just more blather and excuses.

 

[Creekfreak]

Ok fair enough you say you need the work flow I thought all along that you had seen that I was under the impression the exif files where the work flow .
As you said Chill I am not a photoshop person I dont know much about it .
I have no problem providing what you ask for except I wouldent know a work flow if it bit me on the ass .
Just tell me how to retrive it and I will .

 

[Locknar]

Are you deliberately lying now? I previously cited my qualifications and credentials and I'm sure they exceed those of the average hobbyist. If you need a reminder, I use Photoshop...extensively...in the conduct of my part time photography business. In connection with that business, maintain a "pro level" website, three domain names, e-mail service, and membership in the National Association of Photoshop Professionals...all bona fide non-hobbyist business expenses. Are you sure you want to stick to your falsehood?

Regarding the manipulation of you "enhanced" photo, perhaps you've also forgotten my challenge. If you want to demonstrate that you only used simple adjustments, then post the workflow. Provide us with the simple steps necessary to reproduce your "enhanced" image. Put up or shut up.

Perhaps I'm mistaken...but I think you outlined your credentials once before & Creekfreak accepcted as an "expert", or at least qualified to provide analysis on his pic?

DK was another one Creekfreak accepted as "expert" (heck, DK was Creekfeak's expert).

Funny how, after you both concluded his pic had no "BF" in it, given his vast experience in photographic analysis he suddenly decided you both were amateurs.

It is nothing more then blather and excuses on his (Creekfreak's) part.

 

[chillzero]

Ok fair enough you say you need the work flow I thought all along that you had seen that I was under the impression the exif files where the work flow .
As you said Chill I am not a photoshop person I dont know much about it .
I have no problem providing what you ask for except I wouldent know a work flow if it bit me on the ass .
Just tell me how to retrive it and I will .

Good grief. This particular question doesn't even have anything to do with photoshop!! I never even mentioned workflows!

You have an image on your SD card, that was put there when you took the photo with your cameras. Right?

OK, well... when you want to view that photo you move it to a pc. What is the name of the file? It will say picture.jpg, or picture.csr or something like that. It's the letters after the '.' I am interested in.