bigfoot is real I have the proof

[LTC8K6]

The argument has been all along the eyes where added there you have it folks see how easy that was .

The "eyes" were indeed added of course, since there are no "eyes" in the original.

 

[Agent : Orange]

Y'know, the more I look at Creek's "enhanced" photo the more I think it actually provides more evidence that Darth Vader hangs out in the swamp, rather than Bigfoot. Look at the helmet shape and the glints from the eyes. Were there any lightsaber burns on that can of beans he ate?

 

[neltana]

There is no argument, its a hoax.

Re you maintaining that the enhancement is a hoax, or that the original image is a hoax?

In other words, pick on of the following:
1) The original picture is genuine, the enhancement is a hoax
2) the original picture is a hoax, as is the enhancement
3) the original picture is genuine, the enhancement was "over enthusiasm" on the part of a cartoonist
4) the original picture is a hoax, the enhancement was "over enthusiasm"

I'm maintaining either #3 or #4, largely because I think it would help us move the conversation forward. In other words, if we establish beyond a doubt the status of the original picture, there is no need to go any further.

 

[Spektator]

I'd vote for (3). Enlarging the original reveals that what look like a highlighted "brow" and "cheekbone" of a gorilla-like creature actually are merely twigs. The "eyes" are leaves, and the "chest" is another area where a curving branch gives the illusion of shape to what is shadow. Given the apparent width of the head, the "creature" would pretty much have to be standing in a five-foot-deep hole to have that much of it showing above the grass.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's already well established that it's #1, neltana.

The only person who can change that is Creekfreak, by answering questions about the photo, and he will not answer those questions.

I would like to remind everyone that Creekfreak has already stated that he was able to do the enhancement himself.

 

[PetersCreek]

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 .

Uh huh. More bluster, bluff, and hyperbolic BS to make yourself look like a bigshot. Seems to be a recurring theme. You seem to forget that I've lived, fished, and hunted in that part of the country as well as Louisiana and other parts of the South. I've spent a lot of time in the company of snakes, gators, and gar...and those who spin full-of-crap tall yarns about 'em, so I'm not impressed with yours. But let's get back to the subject at hand, shall we?

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 ?

Why can't you just hop in your car and drive to Barrow? Because you simply can't get there using that method alone. The roads don't go that far. Global adjustments do not fully account for the appearance of the image.

I dont have to read your analysis it means nothing unless you can take the same steps he did .

If you never read the analysis, you're arguing from a position of ignorance. In fact, since you claim to know nothing about Photoshop, you're also ignorant of what this Russo person actually did...aren't you? If he had employed selections, masks, or small adjustment brushes, you wouldn't have a clue. Or would you?

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 .

Because you are the one making the claims here about what was done and how simple it is, not "Russo". It is your job to support your claims. Still failing at that, I see.

I have won the battle...

"Winning" would require that you back up your assertions. Still failing at that, I see.

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 .

You still don't get the whole proving-a-negative thing, do you?

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 .

Adding ethics to the list of things you don't understand...check. As I said before, why should I bother with further attempts to replicate the hoax image? You rejected my first analyis out of hand, without reading/understanding it, simply because it disputed your claims. Why should anyone believe you won't do the same thing again with further work?

Look, it's really, really simple. Get the workflow from this Russo person and post it here. If it consists of the simple global adjustments you claimed and it conjures up a duplicate of your "enhanced" photo, I'll admit that I'm wrong.

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 .

Worng again, Freak. Here's what I wrote in my analysis:

"Additionally, no global adjustments were able to replicate the prominence of the "eyes" as presented in the photographer's alteration (right). Drastically increasing brightness in my replication revealed very subtle contrasting areas that correlated to the same locations but the contrast was simply too low in the original for the stark appearance of the photographer's altered version to be achieved by simple, modest global adjustments."

So, it's plain that my argument has never been that the features you call "eyes" do not exist. There are vaguely suggestive artifacts there...along with others that are consistent with image noise in a very dark area of the image. The problem is, they are simply too faint to be accounted for by your so-called simple adjustments. And that wasn't the only problem. Here's another:

"In fact, in [my globally brightened image detail][/i], there is a small area positioned roughly where a nose would be that is is similar in color and luminance to the unenhanced "eyes". If a broad adjustment was used to bring out the "eyes", then the "nose" would glow just as brightly. The alteration that enhanced the "eyes" alone would necessarily have to be very drastic and very localized."[/i]

In other words, if the adjustment used on your image to "enhance" the "eyes" had not been confined to just those features, we would have been looking at Bubba the Blue-nosed Bigfoot...and the rest of the image would have been a wreck.

 

[LTC8K6]

I tryed it myself on a freinds computer useing photoshop and I was even able to make the eyes show up without adding anything just by adjusting the blues .

Creek used photoshop on a friend's computer to make bigfoot appear in the photo. He was even able to make the eyes show up just by adjusting the blues.

Creek therefore knows how to get bigfoot to show up in the original photo by using photoshop.

 

[neltana]

Okay, here is a graphic that show, I think, what Spektator is referring to. I took the original image and just turned up the brightness +40. The inset on the right shows the image of the "face." The image on the left just shows the portions that may be the bush.

What do you think, Creekfreak? Are highlights on the brow and head shape perhaps actually leaves from the bush? The image on the left certainly seems consistent with a bush.

 

[neltana]

Let's focus on the evidence

It's already well established that it's #1, neltana.

Well, here's the thing.

I've asked several times if anybody thought the original picture was hoaxed. Nobody did. I wanted to make sure of this, so I even suggested that I suspected it was hoaxed...to encourage anybody else with a suspicion to some forward. Nobody did.

This is important, because, if nobody here even remotely suspects that the original picture is hoaxed, there is no reason to discuss Creekfreak's character, it is only relevant if the original picture seemed fishy.

Either the original picture shows a BF or it does not. And ideally, we would get everyone here, including Creekfreak, to come to the same conclusion about it. That would be the ideal outcome.

I default to assuming that Creekfreak's underlying intentions are good because he gave us access to the original image. A hoaxer would be unlikely to have done that, he could have claimed it was eaten by a gar or something. But in his heart, I think Creekfreak believes he took a picture of a BF.

Creekfreak, please don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be an individual with unique ideation. That is very difficult for some people to see past. However, I would ask you to set aside any of the side controversies that have dominated this thread and look at the blow up I presented above.

What do you think? Is it possible that the regions we perceive as being light portions of the face are actually leaves from the bush?

 

[Creekfreak]

the brightness on the side of the head is the sun shineing on it the reflection off the helicopter shows the same angle of sunlight this has never been a debate all have agreed the angle of the reflections are the same .
LT you really need to lay off the chemtrails now your saying I am a photo shop expert ?

 

[Creekfreak]

Brett he said the adjustments are simple for someone that knows photoshop that doesent mean he did not localize his work .He told me he did crop that area to work on he did not work on the whole picture .
I asked him for the work flow and he told me the work flow is in the history in the photos files and that anyone with knowlage of photoshop could retrive them .and that he left them becouse he knew there would be a debate over this .

Am I right on this or is he lieing to me ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I've asked several times if anybody thought the original picture was hoaxed. Nobody did. I wanted to make sure of this, so I even suggested that I suspected it was hoaxed...to encourage anybody else with a suspicion to some forward. Nobody did.

This is important, because, if nobody here even remotely suspects that the original picture is hoaxed, there is no reason to discuss Creekfreak's character, it is only relevant if the original picture seemed fishy.

Either the original picture shows a BF or it does not. And ideally, we would get everyone here, including Creekfreak, to come to the same conclusion about it. That would be the ideal outcome.

I default to assuming that Creekfreak's underlying intentions are good because he gave us access to the original image. A hoaxer would be unlikely to have done that, he could have claimed it was eaten by a gar or something. But in his heart, I think Creekfreak believes he took a picture of a BF.

I can only conclude that you have not read this entire thread and are unaware of the history of these photos and Creek's behavior here and at other boards regarding these photos.

Creek has been given every opportunity, and been treated more than fairly by this board and other boards.

Creek has already told different stories about the origin and alteration of the photos.

Creek deserves no more slack, imo.

 

[LTC8K6]

I did not see any animals comeing out of the woods so I disided to take some pictures of the chopers that where flying real close to us . 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 . After haveing them enhanced the face of the larger one was very clear and looks to be over 10 feet tall with a smaller one bent over in front of it . The picture is not that great so it needed to be enhanced to clear it up all that was done to it was the colors where brightend . I am sure with all the high tech stuff we have now it can be enhanced much better then the patterson film or any other photo I have seen so far .

In this version, 2 creatures were clearly visible in the original photo, neltana.

 

[Locknar]

Brett he said the adjustments are simple for someone that knows photoshop that doesent mean he did not localize his work .He told me he did crop that area to work on he did not work on the whole picture .
I asked him for the work flow and he told me the work flow is in the history in the photos files and that anyone with knowlage of photoshop could retrive them .and that he left them becouse he knew there would be a debate over this .

Am I right on this or is he lieing to me ?

Yet more claptrap as to why you can not, will not, provide credible proof of your claims. As it is so easy, your friend would have no problem providing such right?

As to the question on who is lying...your words and actions answer that question quite nicely.

 

[GT/CS]

Brett he said the adjustments are simple for someone that knows photoshop that doesent mean he did not localize his work .He told me he did crop that area to work on he did not work on the whole picture .
I asked him for the work flow and he told me the work flow is in the history in the photos files and that anyone with knowlage of photoshop could retrive them .and that he left them becouse he knew there would be a debate over this .

Am I right on this or is he lieing to me ?

Bolded mine. Finally, and it only took how many posts?

Creek, there is no way your friend can retrieve that data from a .jpg file, but he is correct in that the adjustments are very simple. Just use the pencil function and dot in some eyes.

 

[LTC8K6]

You'd think an experienced photoshop user would use the term "crop" correctly.

 

[neltana]

I can only conclude that you have not read this entire thread and are unaware of the history of these photos and Creek's behavior here and at other boards regarding these photos.

No, I've read the entire thread and the stuff over at BFF as well. Yeah, Creekfreak has been difficult to work with and is often his own worst enemy in this thread. He has unique ideas about the world.

However, if this thread has a point, it is to discuss the photograph, not something a person may or may not have control over.

If Creekfreak looks at the example I posted and says that he still thinks the highlighted portions of the "face" are due to sunlight hitting a BF, then I think we can wrap this up fairly quickly. Most, if not all the other posters in this thread probably disagree. Unless no new information comes to light, the thread can end.

I hope, of course, that Creekfreak will study the example I posted and put aside any preconceived notions he might have and come to the same conclusion as the rest of us. Then we only need to consider the possibility of a BF being behind the leaves and, once again, we are done.

 

[Locknar]

Creek, there is no way your friend can retrieve that data from a .jpg file, but he is correct in that the adjustments are very simple. Just use the pencil function and dot in some eyes.

Alas, we'll never get Creekfreak's claptrap excuses answers to this and other questions.....

 

[Spektator]

It looks very plain to me that the "highlighted portions of the head" are actually pine twigs. The "cheek" twig is roughly trident-shaped. The right-side bundle of pine needles on this particular twig are in a narrow bunch, crooked a little to the left about 1/4 the way up and splayed out a little at the very end. The middle bundle of needles is the thickest--it's actually a subsidiary twig, with a brush-like bunch of needles at the top end. The left bundle of needles is the hardest to see (perhaps shaded by the others). The dim top end can be seen as a faint line and the tip, I think is read as the "creature's" left eye. As I told Creek some time ago, the picture isn't a bigfoot, but it is a remarkably good example of pareidolia As for the sun's angle, it clearly illuminates similar pine twigs all around the area in a similar way, doesn't it?

 

[neltana]

As I told Creek some time ago, the picture isn't a bigfoot, but it is a remarkably good example of pareidolia As for the sun's angle, it clearly illuminates similar pine twigs all around the area in a similar way, doesn't it?

Yeah, I'm sorry he said that silly bridge thing, although I'm not sure this was the healthiest place for him to hang out.

I really hoped we might be able to get him, gently, to see that it was a bush. I think he had a lot emotionally invested in it not being one.

That's why I was trying to get the subject off of him, personally. I know, probably a futile effort.

The picture is a pretty good example of Pareidolia, though. I always amazes me how the brain does that!