bigfoot is real I have the proof

[chillzero]

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 .

Was the other helicopter farther away from teh one you photographed?

But if you have other pics to show - why not show them?

 

[Ravenwood]

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 .

You certainly are not a helicopter expert, otherwise you would know that the B209 (civilian model of the cobra) is 53 some odd feet long.The bell jetranger in your pic is 31 some odd feet long. the B209 is the bigger helicopter CF...How exactly do you know which helicopter he was in? I would say that since he is the pilot, he would know more than you as to which helicopter he was flying. In fact he does, since he accurately stated that he was flying the larger helicopter, the B209 (like his SN "B209 pilot")

 

[Creekfreak]

Thunder posted all the pics I dont know what happened to them sence then but all of them where posted on the mabrc site but I dont know if they are still there or not .
I would have to down load them from the card to retrive them again I dont want to mess with the card but I will if you like .
Yes the other one was not close enough to see it unless he flew over the area when I was gone .
Other then that I have some questions I could ask him and if he cant answer them he is lieing .

 

[Creekfreak]

holy crap ! I downloaded from the card and it looks like there is one still there close to where it was the day before . I am going to have to go back to the location to be sure damm it here we go again !

 

[LTC8K6]

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 .

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2419&p=3715

There are the images. The B209 (Cobra) is indeed the larger of the 2 helicopters, so Creekfreak is incorrect. The original photo is the first one, the altered photo with bigfoot added is the last one.

Original:

http://www.postimage.org/aV1XJ070-9e5052440f1ec6d74fedb2ec19bdda97.jpg


Altered to add a fake bigfoot on the right:

http://www.postimage.org/PqQ_px9-9e5052440f1ec6d74fedb2ec19bdda97.jpg

 

[Locknar]

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 .

Hummm...being a "real pilot" yourself, I can see were you can claim "I don't think a real pilot would make that mistake". Right....

Needless blather and deflection in an attempt to shift the conversation from your inability to prove your point/claims.

Lock you sure switch over to your alter personality fast how many do you have ?

Personal attack does nothing to advance or otherwise prove your point/claims.

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 .

Personal attack does nothing to advance or otherwise prove your point/claims. This is the second time you have accused someone of lying...without providing any proof mind you. Lack of proof seems to be a continuing theme when it comes to you (Creekfreak) supporting your claims.

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 .

Personal attack does nothing to advance or otherwise prove your point/claims. Additionally, your inability to provide the work-flow that PetersCreak asked for and then question his credentials is nothing more then dishonest.

Why haven't you provided the work-flow that was asked for? Where are the "expert" reports/analysis you once claimed you had? The list of questions to which you continue to dodge is staggering.

Due to your lack of proof, or coherent discussion, there is only one possible and reasonable conclusion - unable to honestly defend/support your claims, you are now resorting to dishonest tactics (lies, personal attack, deflection)...your claims are false and otherwise without merit.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.postimage.org/aV1XLZbJ-9e5052440f1ec6d74fedb2ec19bdda97.jpg

That is the only other photo which shows the spot, and it only shows the very edge of the spot on the right hand side where you can see a little curved tree that was used to help form a bigfoot "shoulder" in the altered photo.

 

[PetersCreek]

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...

Gibberish, bluster, bluff, and false accusations. My work stands as evidence that I am quite adept with Photoshop. But hey, if all of this is so dead-bang simple, why have you been so hopelessly unable to meet my earlier challenge? Prove your claim that only the simple adjustments you described were used to come up with your "enhanced" photo. If we really don't know how, it should be a snap for Russo to show us how it's done, and make us look quite silly in the process. C'mon...show us the steps. I say you can't.

...and you could lift the layers to see what he did .

If you had even the faintest idea of what you're talking about, you would know that the JPEG format does not preserve layer information. In order to "lift the layers", those layers have to be intact and separate in a file such as Photoshop's .PSD format. Once a .PSD (or other multi-layer file) is saved as a JPEG, all layers are merged to single layer and are no longer separable in that format.

Stop blowing your horn PC admite you are not good enough to do the task .

And yet another baseless accusation. Your impotent protestations do little else but highlight the fact that you cannot effectively refute unfavorable analysis of your hoaxed photo. So, you attack the critics instead of the critiques.

 

[William Parcher]

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

B209pilot's co-worker was inside that photographed chopper, equipped to hold water, and dump it on fires.

Have a look again, Mr. Freaky Jnugle.

 

[Locknar]

C'mon...show us the steps. I say you can't.

Heck, I know he can not and will not...because of course he would simply end up proving himself wrong.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Enhancements look fishy...

OK - I did a bit of analysis, and here's what I found:
http://www.kennesawgroup.com/doctoratlantis/images/da_enhance_creekfreak.jpg

And in case anybody wants to check my work, here's the PSD file:
http://www.kennesawgroup.com/doctoratlantis/images/da_enhance_creekfreak.psd

And no it is not a bigfoot lemon party.

My only observations at this point are that Creekfreak's "enhanced" picture is not a simple brightness adjustment. There is a face-like shape there, but I'd say it is more along the lines of the Virgin Mary Toast than (for example) the Jacob's Photos.

In short, it looks like leaves and shadows to me. But I like the helicopter. (Detailed tech specs on the copter here.)

 

[davefoc]

I have followed this intermittently thread for awhile but before the last few posts I wasn't able to find exactly what people were talking about with the images. Thanks to LTC8K6 et al that reposted links to them and described what was going on with them.

Thanks to doctorAtlantis for what looks like a pretty reasonable analysis of the image.

Before I saw doctorAtlantis' post I did a little comparison of the two images of my own. But I didn't think of trying to figure out how big the head would have been for the enhanced big foot. Assuming a 15 inch wide head and scaling similar to a human this bigfoot would be something like 18 feet tall and would weigh around 5000 pounds. Not, I guess, completely implausible. Big grizzlies get over 1500 pounds. So this would only be about three times as big. Still, it seems like there might be pretty good evidence of a 5000 pound creature foraging and/or hunting through the forest.

One thing I noticed was that near the enhanced bigfoot I saw my own unenhanced bigfoot. There were two bright spots that could have been eyes and the head was somewhat smaller than the enhanced bigfoot's. The biggest problem for my bigfoot was that the top of its head wasn't defined. But, I think with a little creative photo enhancement that problem could be fixed.

 

[PetersCreek]

My only observations at this point are that Creekfreak's "enhanced" picture is not a simple brightness adjustment.

Pretty much the gist of my analysis, too.

 

[zooman63]

Creek,...now is the 18' tall, 5000 lb. bigfoot the small one, or the big one that comes's into your backyard?

 

[zooman63]

Couldn't resist that last post.. Davefoc, I agree that your estimate of the creatures comparative size is pretty much on track. I reiterate, why are we wasting time on this obviously hoaxed photo of his? Not to mention EVERYTHING else Creek has claimed..
How long will this continue? Granted the entertainment value is high, but seriously guys...

 

[Creekfreak]

Its so funny to me how you people make fools out of yourselfs when you think your so smart .
No the one in the photo is not 18 feet tall but she looks to be around 12 feet compared to the trees that you have not seen first hand.
should know what your talking about before you makeing asumtions about something you know nothing about .
Keep it up it only makes me look better for all the mistakes youve made and will keep makeing becouse of your lack of knowlage .
As far as proveing anything I dont have to prove anything to anyone I know what I know and that is more about bigfoot then any of you will ever know .

I have offered to share and I have with honesty I did not have to come here I did you a favor by doing so .
Out of respect for Bigfoot research I will be ignoreing any negative comments from here on out .
I have no problems answering any questions about research anything other then research questions will fall on a deaf ear .
Its about time for you people to wake up and take a look at the world around you if you dont your just hurting yourselfs .

 

[Locknar]

As far as proveing anything I dont have to prove anything to anyone I know what I know and that is more about bigfoot then any of you will ever know .

You are the one making claims, you are the one that needs to support them.

Typically "woo woo" tactic, you can't provde credible proof so now the "I don't have anything to prove" card.

I have offered to share and I have with honesty I did not have to come here I did you a favor by doing so .

You have been, time and time again, intellectually dishonest in your comments.

Out of respect for Bigfoot research I will be ignoreing any negative comments from here on out .

As you can not defend or provide credible proof to support your claims you are going to stop trying?

I have no problems answering any questions about research anything other then research questions will fall on a deaf ear .

I see...so then, how does one have "BF" all over their yard, in their home eating canned beans, and not get a picture, video, or audio of this?

How does one see "BF" so frequently yet never come up with credible proof, witnesses, etc.?

Research wise, how is that work-flow chat coming; you know, the one that PetersCreak (and others) have asked for time and time again? Were are your "experts" reports/analysis, and their credentials for that matter?

These are all real "research" questions that you have rasied.

Its about time for you people to wake up and take a look at the world around you if you dont your just hurting yourselfs .

Right..... Another typical "woo woo" tactic, blame everyone else for their failure.

 

[Maldon]

As far as proveing anything I dont have to prove anything to anyone I know what I know and that is more about bigfoot then any of you will ever know .

Well, you made the claims, so you do have to prove something..
Remember where you are. You should know the rules by now.

I have offered to share and I have with honesty I did not have to come here I did you a favor by doing so .

Come on! No one invited you.
You came in here and wanted to talk about your personal passion for big apes.
We don't owe you anything IMO.

Out of respect for Bigfoot research I will be ignoreing any negative comments from here on out .
I have no problems answering any questions about research anything other then research questions will fall on a deaf ear .

Very well, then. Have you started to keep a written protocol of your work?

 

[neltana]

Thanks to LTC8K6 for posting the links. This is the first time I have managed to see the pictures. All the other links have been dead (quite frustrating).

In the picture referred to as the "original" (image.php?v=aV1XJ070), I can see the same "eyes" and "head shape" as in the "enhanced" picture. I have to turn the brightness way up, but I can see them.

While I agree with PetersCreek that the "enhancement" isn't using any photoshop operation I'm familiar with, there are light spots in all the right places. Is it possible that, rather than a hoax, we just innocently have somebody crossing the line from enhancing a picture to drawing in what they want to be there?

The original looks pretty good at first glance if that is what you want to see.

 

[PetersCreek]

Its so funny to me how you people make fools out of yourselfs when you think your so smart .

Project much?

I have offered to share and I have with honesty I did not have to come here I did you a favor by doing so .

Intellectual honesty requires that you provide evidence for your assertions. Intellectual honesty also requires that you respond to substantive challenges to your assertions. Intellectual honesty requires that acknowledge when your arguments are no longer tenable. Your failure on these points is profound.

I will be ignoreing any negative comments from here on out .

No doubt, like you've ignored uncomfortably effective rebuttals to your claims. If you intend to ignore valid criticisms of your claims, I will consider your claims abandoned.
I have no problems answering any questions about research anything other then research questions will fall on a deaf ear .
Its about time for you people to wake up and take a look at the world around you if you dont your just hurting yourselfs .[/QUOTE]