bigfoot is real I have the proof

[LTC8K6]

Don't forget that one of the B209 pilots Creek photographed that day has posted here that neither he nor his fellow pilots saw bigfoot that day, despite Creek's claims.

 

[LTC8K6]

A reminder that Creek claimed to have done some photo adjustments himself when he was told by a friend that it could not be done.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3141810#post3141810

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]

The chain of possession of your SD card is irrelevant.

I agree with everything you said but this.

Creekfreak claims his photo is genuine, yet can not accurately account for who had access to the SD card (sometimes he’s claimed to have control the entire time, other times that other folks had access to it).

This introduces, in my opinion, at least the chance that someone altered the original unbeknownst to Creekfreak.

 

[chillzero]

But any such changes will be timestamped.

 

[LTC8K6]

Creekfreak claims his photo is genuine, yet can not accurately account for who had access to the SD card (sometimes he’s claimed to have control the entire time, other times that other folks had access to it).

This introduces, in my opinion, at least the chance that someone altered the original unbeknownst to Creekfreak.

That isn't going to work... Creek knows who had the SD card and who enhanced the photos.

CF Quote:
After showing the pics to a freind of mine on the internet she pointed out there was 2 creatures clearly standing in front of one of the helicopters that was hovering .
CF Quote:
I did not see the bigfoot at the time I was takeing the pics all I saw was a black figure above the marsh grass I thought at the time it was just a stump . I did not realized what I had untell after looking at them on freinds computer . They where not overly great so we got a guy that works for the news paper to clear them up for us . From then on Ive been struggleing with this but I am just to tired to struggle any more I need money to keep going .
CF Quote:
we went home after that . It wasent tell I sent the pic to a girl I know on the internet just to show her the kind of places aligators hang out and made the comment if your luckey you may see a bigfoot in places like this also . She responed to me with a gosh did they get the thing out of there ! I then took a better look at them and realized what I had . this was all in a 24 hour time frame The next day I went back and took a series of pics of the area to show there was not any thing there . This is when I may have got another shot of them the guy that cleared them up for me said he sees them but with this damm thing I cant see them .
CF Quote:
I kept seeing something black but in my mind it was a stump .


TF Quote:
A short time after talking the photgraphs Creekfreak came to my home and asked me to upload them to my compurter. I viewed them and I could see something but wasn't sure what. What I saw was the small one beside the bush. I then talked to Creekfreak and told him that something was there but was by no means conclusive and he agreed.

 

[PetersCreek]

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 I explained to you before, the workflow I'm looking for is a list of all the steps you took, in order, to arrive at the final image. Any reasonably skilled Photoshop user should be able to take your workflow and use it to replicate the "enhanced" image you presented. A detailed editing history was not evident in the "enhanced" image you provided to me. If the image was edited using multiple layers, as you claim Russo said, you could also provide the multilayer file (.PSD, .TIF, etc.) with those layers intact. This could reveal at least some of the workflow, especially if adjustment layers were used.

As you said Chill I am not a photoshop person I dont know much about it .

Then what qualifies you to assess my abilities? Support your claim about them or withdraw it.

 

[Locknar]

That isn't going to work... Creek knows who had the SD card and who enhanced the photos.

Doh!

 

[Creekfreak]

I wont tell you again the card has never left my hands nobody has touched the card except me myself and I do you understand or do I have to explian it to you better then that ?
Ive been waiting for someone to bring up that so called pilot that showed up here if you would like I will prove his story to be false it is full of holes .
He dident even know what he was flying that day nice try that persons word holds no water .
PC just becouse you have taken some pretty pictures of the country side of your state and you know a little about photoshop doesent make you a photo expert .
I agreed to let you look at the photos but I never said or ever will say your word is final on this .
I am not trying to make you look bad its just that I need and others need more then your word on this .
I have no idea how to get those files off the picture if you would care to explain how to do it then I will make the effort to provide them .
I have a challange for you take the unenhanced photo and see if you can do what Russo did without adding anything to get the same effect as him by just adjusting the colors then I will beleave you know what you are doing .
If you are good as you say you are then you should have no problem doing this .
Chill I dont know what format it is I think it is jpeg but I am not sure .

 

[Locknar]

Ive been waiting for someone to bring up that so called pilot that showed up here if you would like I will prove his story to be false it is full of holes .

Ok...prove away!

PC just becouse you have taken some pretty pictures of the country side of your state and you know a little about photoshop doesent make you a photo expert .

You are simply making a false, and otherwise, dishonest arguement. Additionally, you have yet to state what type of credentials you would accept "expert" wise.

Must be to tough a question?

I agreed to let you look at the photos but I never said or ever will say your word is final on this .

True enough. Then again, there are folks that believe the world is flat in the fact of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I am not trying to make you look bad its just that I need and others need more then your word on this .

Guess you missed the analysis report he provided? Please...have your "experts" refute what PetersCreak, or others such as DK, reported.

Then again...I honestly don't see why you have an issue here, as you expect us to simply accept your word on all of this, and your other claims right?

I have no idea how to get those files off the picture if you would care to explain how to do it then I will make the effort to provide them .

And yet you question PetersCreek's credentials?

I have a challange for you take the unenhanced photo and see if you can do what Russo did without adding anything to get the same effect as him by just adjusting the colors then I will beleave you know what you are doing .
If you are good as you say you are then you should have no problem doing this .

Folks here have already played the "adjusting the color" game...to no avail, as no "BF" appeared no matter how the colors were adjusted - what are the odds!

Chill I dont know what format it is I think it is jpeg but I am not sure .

And yet you question PetersCreek's credentials?

 

[madurobob]

I have a challange for you take the unenhanced photo and see if you can do what Russo did without adding anything to get the same effect as him by just adjusting the colors then I will beleave you know what you are doing .
If you are good as you say you are then you should have no problem doing this .
Chill I dont know what format it is I think it is jpeg but I am not sure .

Creek, you keep trying to pass the burden of proof to someone else. Its not gonna work.

The burden to prove anything regarding your photo is yours and yours alone. period.

If you think you can recreate the doctored image from the original then by all means do it. Write down each step as you do it. This written documentation is your workflow. Post your workflow here and we will see if we can follow the steps you describe and get the same results.

I challenge you to post a workflow that recreates the doctored image without "adding" anything as you suggest. No more blabbering - just do it!

Chill: Creek posted the camera type very early in this thread. It creates compressed JPG image files on the card. About 3.2 mega-pixel max resolution and 10X digital zoom, if I remember correctly.

 

[chillzero]

Chill: Creek posted the camera type very early in this thread. It creates compressed JPG image files on the card. About 3.2 mega-pixel max resolution and 10X digital zoom, if I remember correctly.

Cheers. That's a shame - RAW would have helped his case somewhat.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Did Bigfoot steal your "Enter" key? It is the big key on the right-hand side of the keyboard. Most of the keyboards have the word "Enter" with some kind of "arrow" shape as well. On a normal keyboard it will be above the shift-key on the right-hand side.

After you finish a paragraph (a group of sentences with a common theme) press this "enter" key twice.

That should make your posts easier to read, and (in theory) easier to understand.

 

[LTC8K6]

The camera was a bushnell/meade captureview binocular cam. 8X optical magnification/3.2MP actual 4MP interpolated. jpg files.

Bigfoot appeared nowhere in the original file no matter what enhancements were tried, including suggestions from Creekfreak. There isn't even a stump in the spot that one could confuse with bigfoot. All attempts to reproduce the enhanced photo by several people, were unsuccessful.

Bigfoot was added to the photo after it was taken. This will be clear to anyone who examines the original and the original with bigfoot in it. This has already been shown to be the case by several people.

Creekfreak never provided a second photo of the spot for comparison. He provided more photos, but none were taken from the same spot as the alleged bigfoot photo.

One other photo had part of the spot at it very rightmost edge. It showed no sign of bigfoot or stump.

 

[PetersCreek]

He dident even know what he was flying that day nice try that persons word holds no water .

Please post the relevant quote. I remember him specifically identifying the type of aircraft he was flying.

PC just becouse you have taken some pretty pictures of the country side of your state and you know a little about photoshop doesent make you a photo expert .

Define "a little about photoshop [sic]". I've already explained to you that I use Photoshop extensively. I am, in fact, an advanced user with several years of experience, not only in Photoshop but in other raster-based graphics programs. In addition to enhancing photos using advanced techniques, I also routinely make composite images, and I perform photographic restoration of badly damaged images. In one of my earliest posts to you, I specifically told you that I'm not an expert in photographic analysis...that is, I don't routinely practice in that field. I do, however, have photographic expertise. Substantiate your characterization or withdraw it.

I am not trying to make you look bad...

Bull. That's exactly what you're trying to do, in order to more easily dismiss my assessment of your "enhanced" photo...since you have been unable to effectively refute the assessment itself.

I have no idea how to get those files off the picture if you would care to explain how to do it then I will make the effort to provide them .

I'm not asking you to get anything off of the picture. I'm asking you to provide a rundown of exactly what you and/or Russo did to "enhance" the image. For instance, "Step 2 - Created a Levels adjustment layer, increasing blue channel midtone slider to a value of +25", and so forth.

I have a challange for you take the unenhanced photo and see if you can do what Russo did without adding anything to get the same effect as him by just adjusting the colors then I will beleave you know what you are doing .

Have you forgotten so soon? I attempted to do exactly that and I determined that it could not be done as you described without very selective, localized, and drastic adjustments...so much so that they could not be justified as mere enhancements. The fact that you did not understand that says more about your abilities than mine.

If you are good as you say you are then you should have no problem doing this .

Oh, I can reproduce you image, all right. Unfortunately for you, the methods required will strongly indicate a hoax on your part.

 

[bruto]

I agree with everything you said but this.

Creekfreak claims his photo is genuine, yet can not accurately account for who had access to the SD card (sometimes he’s claimed to have control the entire time, other times that other folks had access to it).

This introduces, in my opinion, at least the chance that someone altered the original unbeknownst to Creekfreak.

I maintain that the chain of possession of the SD card is irrelevant at this stage, because nobody but Creekfreak has been able to come up with anything resembling an image of a bigfoot on the images that are on it. Only his photoshopped "enhanced" image holds any apparent sign of a bigfoot, and I consider that one disqualified owing to its unknown chain of modifications. If an independent researcher were able to find that image using honest and reproducible enhancement, then the history of the SD card would be an issue, but I'm surmising that that will never happen. I do not think anyone, including Creekfreak, can meet the challenge of reproducing the enhanced picture without adding spurious data. Until then, I think it's irrelevant whether his pictures of nothing at all are genuine or not. However, I do concede that if further evidence were to be found in the originals, then possession would be an issue.

 

[Ravenwood]

The pic on here was my coworker hovering low over a brackish creek picking up water with his bucket. I was in the larger aircraft not shown. We didn't see anything, but as we are very focused on the fire and flying, I can't say that I would not miss an animal near me. The guy that took the picture must have been fairly far off as that area would have not been accesable on foot.

Hmmm...seems he remembers exactly what helicopter he was flying that day...Care to retract that statement CF?

 

[Locknar]

I maintain that the chain of possession of the SD card is irrelevant at this stage, because nobody but Creekfreak has been able to come up with anything resembling an image of a bigfoot on the images that are on it. Only his photoshopped "enhanced" image holds any apparent sign of a bigfoot, and I consider that one disqualified owing to its unknown chain of modifications. If an independent researcher were able to find that image using honest and reproducible enhancement, then the history of the SD card would be an issue, but I'm surmising that that will never happen. I do not think anyone, including Creekfreak, can meet the challenge of reproducing the enhanced picture without adding spurious data. Until then, I think it's irrelevant whether his pictures of nothing at all are genuine or not. However, I do concede that if further evidence were to be found in the originals, then possession would be an issue.

[Homer Simpson]
Well yes, if you want to get all "technical" about it, throwing quantium physics and the interweb thingy into it then sure. Duh! That is what I was trying to explain.
[/Homer Simpson]

I was looking at it from a more generic perspective, in terms of “chain of control” of evidence/proof overall.

That is to say, when items are collected how it is handled, stored, who had access to it, etc. are all important to control and document.

Specific to this though, you’re right – does not matter. I was obviously off on a tangent and not the topic at hand.

 

[mikeyx]

You're not sure because it doesnt exist. Produce it or admit your hoaxing.....

 

[LTC8K6]

Creek, take the original photo and modify it to bring out the bigfoot.

As you do this, write down each step you take and what software you used.

When you are done, post those written down steps here.

If you cannot do it yourself, get the newsman to tell you what software and what steps were used and post his reply here.

If you are unwilling to say who did it, then don't. Just ask the person for the software and the steps and post the reply here without mentioning who did it.

 

[Creekfreak]

He said he was flying the larger of the 2 not shown that is not true the larger of the 2 is the one in front of the bigfoot .
I am not a helicopter expert but I know the size difference of the 2 I saw that day and the one he says he was flying was smaller them the one in the pic .
He was no where close to where the picture was taken I proved that in other shots that day of the one he said he was flying .
Granted he may have made a mistake by saying he was flying the larger choper but I dont think a real pilot would make that mistake .
Lock you sure switch over to your alter personality fast how many do you have ?
LT why do you have to lie about everything I did not add anything to anything the card has been untouched and the figure is on the card nobody added anything to it .
Cant handle the challange I see PC Russo was right you people know nothing about photoshop if you did then you could do what he did with no problem and you could lift the layers to see what he did .
Stop blowing your horn PC admite you are not good enough to do the task .