LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There's nothing there to have any eyes. This is the original image in negative.
bigfoot is real I have the proof
- Thread starter Creekfreak
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Just more excuses on your part. It is your claim, why the refusal in providing the requested work-flow?
PetersCreek has posted his (comprehensive) analysis of your pic on line for all to see.
What I've not seen is any legitimate rebuttal from you as to flaws in his analysis. Rather, all you've done is post excuses, intellectually dishonest comments, and other assorted claptrap.
No you have not. Your failure to provide the requested work-flow is proof enough as to the falseness of this claim.
More excuses as to your failure to provide any credible proof to support your claims.
More excuses as to your failure to provide any credible proof to support your claims.
And of course, yet more excuses...this time as to why you won't be providing any credible proof to support your claims.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Altered image in negative.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
You make this intellectually dishonest claim of anyone that disagrees with you....how sad this is the "best" rebuttal you can come up with.
Your pic has conclusively been shown to be a hoax; your inability to understand this or provide any meaningful rebuttal to the analysis of folks like PetersCreek and DK, does not change the facts.
You could, of course, join any of the photography forums that exist, post your pic, and engage them in discussion...but you won't, because you know what the outcome would be. That is to say, that like everyone else they would conclude your pic is a hoax.
doctoratlantis
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 186
Burden of Proof
I think this whole "burden of proof" thing might be a hang up for you. But in general, and I'm not sure where it comes from originally, but I learned about it in High School Debate - the idea is that it is up to the person making a claim to provide proof of the veracity of that claim.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
In a famous case discussed briefly on another thread here at the JREF, the PG film is presented as proof of Bigfoot. But, film alone is not considered definitive proof because when the film was made it was technically possible to make a comparable film with a person in a suit. (Let's not derail here - just using this as an example.)
Photographs aren't proof. In fact, unless the chain of custody can be absolutely demonstrated, they might not even be evidence!
In the case of your photos, the picture with the most detail has been "enhanced." I think we can all probably agree on that. (Hopefully.)
If you could say for example, take the original photo and adjust the contrast up by 20% and the brightness by 38% and you'll see the same results it would at least show that what you're pointing out is actually "in" the original image.
But in order to get the results of the enhanced photo, it looks like various aspects have been altered at different rates - which can be used to create things that aren't really there at all...
For example, here is the original Mona Lisa Image:
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/monalisa.jpg
And here is my enhancement - using only brightness adjustments:
Have I discovered a mysterious tree-creature hidden in the Mona Lisa? No.
But all I did was adjust the brightness - in various areas of the photo in order to artificially create a face-like image.
(Here's my PSD File.)
The points I'm trying to make:
1) You have the burden of proof if you make a claim.
2) The most reasonable position in the face of such a claim is "skepticism".
I hope you do find bigfoot. Ideally you'd take a gun and shoot one and haul its carcass to town and sell it for several million dollars and open your own oyster shack.
I think this whole "burden of proof" thing might be a hang up for you. But in general, and I'm not sure where it comes from originally, but I learned about it in High School Debate - the idea is that it is up to the person making a claim to provide proof of the veracity of that claim.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
In a famous case discussed briefly on another thread here at the JREF, the PG film is presented as proof of Bigfoot. But, film alone is not considered definitive proof because when the film was made it was technically possible to make a comparable film with a person in a suit. (Let's not derail here - just using this as an example.)
Photographs aren't proof. In fact, unless the chain of custody can be absolutely demonstrated, they might not even be evidence!
In the case of your photos, the picture with the most detail has been "enhanced." I think we can all probably agree on that. (Hopefully.)
If you could say for example, take the original photo and adjust the contrast up by 20% and the brightness by 38% and you'll see the same results it would at least show that what you're pointing out is actually "in" the original image.
But in order to get the results of the enhanced photo, it looks like various aspects have been altered at different rates - which can be used to create things that aren't really there at all...
For example, here is the original Mona Lisa Image:
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/monalisa.jpg
And here is my enhancement - using only brightness adjustments:
Have I discovered a mysterious tree-creature hidden in the Mona Lisa? No.
But all I did was adjust the brightness - in various areas of the photo in order to artificially create a face-like image.
(Here's my PSD File.)
The points I'm trying to make:
1) You have the burden of proof if you make a claim.
2) The most reasonable position in the face of such a claim is "skepticism".
I hope you do find bigfoot. Ideally you'd take a gun and shoot one and haul its carcass to town and sell it for several million dollars and open your own oyster shack.
Creekfreak
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 796
Read this you might learn something Lock http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3801
Spektator
Is that right?
Very nice! LTC, I think you've shown definitively that the shape does not exist in the original.
PetersCreek
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 549
Read the analysis again. I addressed that very point, and demonstrated that simple, modest, commonly-used adjustments did not account for the appearance of your "enhanced" image. The "enhancements" were necessarily very drastic and very localized. The "eyes" themselves were taken from nearly black to nearly white, while the surrounding area remained nearly black. This cannot be accounted for by broad adjustments alone.
How would you know? You yourself said that you're no expert. I don't think you'd know an expert (or what an expert is capable of) if he was hairy, 8 feet tall, and ate a can of beans out of your pantry.
Some of us have a problem with people perpetuating myths. Cottonmouths are not actually known to frequent trees very much and then, not the higher branches. On the other hand, non-venomous brown watersnakes do and are frequently confused with cottonmouths by those not very familiar with the differences.
Similarly, Alligator gars are not documented to have purposefully attacked humans. There are reports of people having been bitten on hands or feet being dangled in the water...presumably mistaken for small fish by the gar...but nothing approaching the ferocity you bragged about earlier. Your claim that they "rip" people apart is nonsense on its face. Gar lack the teeth necessary to tear at flesh in such a manner. While they are needle-sharp, a gar's teeth aren't serrated like a shark's or piranha's. They're best suited for catching and holding fish they can swallow whole.
While not exactly relevant, these stories of yours are further indication to me of your reckless disregard for honest and accurate discussion.
As I said before, I could certainly reproduce your "enhanced" image but the methods necessary would strongly contradict your claims that the adjustments were so simple. I don't think you really want to go there. Besides, why should I waste my time? I don't think your honest enough to accept the results. Just as with the analysis, if I do refute your claims, you'll dismiss it with a handwave and yet more Argumentum ad hominem.
So remind us again why you didn't support your own claims first?
By your own logic...to use the term very, very generously...your fight was over long ago because you couldn't back up your claims.
Creekfreak
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 796
Brett I have had one attemp to attack me so dont tell me they will not attack and ive had cotton mouth snakes drop in my boat from high branches your imformation is incorrect my freind .
I have killed thousands of cotton mouths in trees dureing floods its a kind of sport down here if you dont beleave me come on down when the water is high and bring plenty of shells .
Lets get this right you say you can reproduce the enhanced image why cant you do the same as russo did with out adding anything ?
Are you saying your not good enough to do it the same way he did ?
If not then you have just made my claims that much stronger that your not the expert that you say you are .
I dont have to read your analysis it means nothing unless you can take the same steps he did .
If you dont have the skill to do it just say it and we can move on .
I will give you this much he even asked me if I added the eyes becouse they showed up with out much adjustment if it is that easy why cant you do it ?
you know I am not a photoshop person so why do you keep asking me to provide a work flow and such things you know I cant provide ?
I gave the photos for the world to see now it is up to you to prove without a dout they are a hoax .
Ever think becouse they are not hoax that is the reason you cant prove they are ?
I have won the battle Brett no one has proven them to be a hoax all you or anyone else has done is give there opinon and that is not good enough .
You say I cant back up my claims you have not backed up any of yours I say it can be done you say it cant .
Why dont you contact adobe and see what they say ?
I know the truth so its up to you to prove me wrong go ahead ask the real experts they are the ones that invented the program .
I dont see you doing that becouse by your own hand you would be proveing me right that would be aganst the secptics code of ethics .
And that is every one is wrong becouse we say they are if anyone proves us wrong they are lieing .
I have killed thousands of cotton mouths in trees dureing floods its a kind of sport down here if you dont beleave me come on down when the water is high and bring plenty of shells .
Lets get this right you say you can reproduce the enhanced image why cant you do the same as russo did with out adding anything ?
Are you saying your not good enough to do it the same way he did ?
If not then you have just made my claims that much stronger that your not the expert that you say you are .
I dont have to read your analysis it means nothing unless you can take the same steps he did .
If you dont have the skill to do it just say it and we can move on .
I will give you this much he even asked me if I added the eyes becouse they showed up with out much adjustment if it is that easy why cant you do it ?
you know I am not a photoshop person so why do you keep asking me to provide a work flow and such things you know I cant provide ?
I gave the photos for the world to see now it is up to you to prove without a dout they are a hoax .
Ever think becouse they are not hoax that is the reason you cant prove they are ?
I have won the battle Brett no one has proven them to be a hoax all you or anyone else has done is give there opinon and that is not good enough .
You say I cant back up my claims you have not backed up any of yours I say it can be done you say it cant .
Why dont you contact adobe and see what they say ?
I know the truth so its up to you to prove me wrong go ahead ask the real experts they are the ones that invented the program .
I dont see you doing that becouse by your own hand you would be proveing me right that would be aganst the secptics code of ethics .
And that is every one is wrong becouse we say they are if anyone proves us wrong they are lieing .
PetersCreek
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 549
Where's that work flow, Creek?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
You keep saying this, and you keep being just plain wrong. If you want to demonstrate anything at all in a convincing way you must either provide a work flow for the enhanced picture, or find some other person able to reproduce the enhanced picture with a known work flow. The enhanced picture is worthless, because even the most cursory analysis suggests very strongly that it is faked, and the unenhanced pictures remain tentatively worthless because there is no known way to obtain the image of the enhanced picture using them. This has nothing to do with proving that anything is or is not a hoax. You're jumping the gun. You simply have not given convincing evidence that there is any bigfoot in your original pictures. You will never make any progress at all here unless you realize that fundamental first point: the enhanced picture is worthless. Without a record of how it was enhanced, it will remain worthless. If there is a way to obtain that enhanced image without faking, it is your responsibility, and yours alone, to demonstrate how it might have been done. All else is hearsay, assumption and wishful thinking. All worthless.
CF, you could easily put this matter to rest by posting Russo's work flow (just ask him exactly what he did) Then, anyone should be able to replicate the 2nd photo by following his work flow. Without that work flow, we can only assume it is a hoax because using just color and contrast adjustment, you cannot bring out that creature in the picture. in fact, if you look at the negatives of your photo that LTC8K6 posted, you can see that it looks like it has been locally modified/manipulated, and that makes it very suspect. There are some serious smoking guns here that this is a hoaxed photo & the fact that you refuse to provide the very simple steps to refute that make it even more suspect. Your Actions speak louder than words, CF
neltana
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 337
Your adjustments are far too localized...
Creekfreak, I don't think the issue is that the "eyes" aren't there. The issue is that you can't make the eyes in your enhanced picture look as they do without localizing the adjustments to just the eye region.
Here is an example.
I took your original picture and used the Image|Shadow/Highlight adjustment (shadow: 50%, width 50, radius 30) to bring your "BF" out of the shadows. Now, my "eyes" are still much darker than yours...and look what it did to the surrounding colors!
Any global adjustment that would bring out the eyes that much would have thrown off the rest of the colors.
Yay! I'm finally posted enough to be able to include links!
Creekfreak, I don't think the issue is that the "eyes" aren't there. The issue is that you can't make the eyes in your enhanced picture look as they do without localizing the adjustments to just the eye region.
Here is an example.
I took your original picture and used the Image|Shadow/Highlight adjustment (shadow: 50%, width 50, radius 30) to bring your "BF" out of the shadows. Now, my "eyes" are still much darker than yours...and look what it did to the surrounding colors!
Any global adjustment that would bring out the eyes that much would have thrown off the rest of the colors.
Yay! I'm finally posted enough to be able to include links!
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Actually, your pic has conclusively been shown to be a hoax...in part due to you and your efforts/comments. Well done.
Other then that, your post is just one giant admission that you can't provide credible proof to support your claims. I just say I'm shocked, given you have a "documented hot spot", they stand in your yard...they even enter your home for canned beans. I'd think you could take as many credible photos as you want.
Creekfreak
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 796
Well thank you neltana I like yours better then russos ! The argument has been all along the eyes where added there you have it folks see how easy that was .
neltana
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 337
So, can we at least agree that the original enhancement was a little "over ambitious," at least for the purposes of this investigation? You now have a picture you are happy with and a documented workflow which has all of 1 step (I'm using Photoshop CS2, BTW).
Now we just need to answer the following questions for the original image:
1) Is there any evidence of tampering?
2) If the original shows no signs of tampering, do any of the other images of the scene show this spot from another angle and show what else might explain the image (somebody mentioned earlier there was a tree stump there)?
3) if the image hasn't been tampered with and other angles of the scene show nothing there, is the image we see consistent with what a BF would presumably look like in that position?
I think that, if we could answer those three questions to everyone's satisfaction, we could wrap this one up once and for all and go get a beer I'm sure Creekfreak is as interested as anyone in getting to the truth of the matter.
Does this sound like a good plan to everyone?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
captain koolaid
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 538
Creek, why do you suppose that all these Bigfoots are hanging out at your place? Are they harassing you? Do they love you? Are they under the impression that your superior intellect and understanding of all things Bigfoot sets you apart from the riff raff of humanity? Do they recognize your awesome mastery of the wild? Are they fascinated by your unique skills as Captain of the Bigfoot swamp vessel? Why your place and not the neighbours?
mikeyx
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,568
There is no argument, its a hoax.