Spencer Creek Photos

[Bill]

OK Ray as requested here are the photos in a new thread under the subject you asked for:

[Ray Ford]

Bill,

Thanks for putting up this thread with these pictures.  The size and clarity of these postings will, I believe, enable a better discussion of the "Spencer Creek Image" that was taken be a game cam on Spencer Creek and of the pictures that I took at the site.  I plan to do some posting about these pictures and would like to not have other people post here until I am finished doing that--which will not be tonight.

[#59]

Bill,

Thanks for putting up this thread with these pictures.  The size and clarity of these postings will, I believe, enable a better discussion of the "Spencer Creek Image" that was taken be a game cam on Spencer Creek and of the pictures that I took at the site.  I plan to do some posting about these pictures and would like to not have other people post here until I am finished doing that--which will not be tonight.

Ray,

With all due respect, one major factor that has to be included into the equation is the credibility of the author of any publication.

Case in point, the "author" of the picture in question has a history of being banned from a particular website for (allegedly) perpetrating a hoax in posting an encounter that was contended to be fraudulent in nature.

Also, he was exposed on another website for claiming authorship of a photo (which was actually not his to begin with) and making claims of subject matter contained within said photo that was shown (with before & after reference photos) to be inaccurate in content yet still maintains said original claims.

Therefore, how could any prudent person not consider the veracity of such a person's claims (on other items) as suspect from the get-go?

[Ray Ford]

Telahnay's G'son doesn't mind me very well.

To recapitulate:

Some time ago, Telahnay's G'son--we had some business with each other--asked me, as I recall, if I had heard about Bigfeet and if I had any interest in looking for them.  (That isn't the exact wording of his query.)  He then invited me to join him and some others in doing that.  Since I generally enjoy getting out into the fields and woods, and since I am generally open to the possibility of there actually being Bigfeet, I accepted his invitation.  I subsequently went with him on several occasions to different places--but most often to Bulletmaker's area at Spencer Creek near where the creek flows into Oolagah lake in Rogers County, Oklahoma.  We were in B.M.'s home two or three times--including the time that we, T's.g., D.G., and I went there to view a picture that had been captured by a game camera placed on the west bank of Spencer Creek where the creek crosses B.M.'s land.  (At that time, everyone, as far as I knew, were friends.)  That picture, which I saw at B.M.'s home as an 8x10, is the photograph posted at the beginning of this thread.  That evening at B.M.'s, everyone there seemed to be interested in, and taken by, the image--which image I have labeled the "Spencer Creek Image."

Shortly thereafter, hostilities between T's.g. and D.G. and B.M. broke out.  That had something to do with the picture.  Just exactly what that something was, I have never really known.  I asked parties on both sides, but I've never really gotten a really good answer.  I understand that D.G. took exception to B.M.'s statement that the picture was on a par with the Patterson film.  I do not know personally if it is true that he took that exception.  It has been suggested to me that B.M. became angry when T's.g. would not back him up in his assertion that the picture was that of a Bigfoot.  B.M. told me that he really didn't remember exactly how the hostilities started.  I tried to stay friends with both sides, but, like Graybeard told me that it wouldn't, that didn't work too well.  (Graybeard told me that I would wind up with both sides angry with me--which may or may not yet come true.)

At any rate, I took exception to the picture being labeled a blobsquatch: it did not fit my definition of a blodsquatch. The photograph that I saw that night at B.M.'s place contained, not just a blob of light and dark, but a clear and distinct image of something.  Although I have made some suggestions, I have never been comfortable in saying that the something either is, or is not, that of a Bigfoot. 

I don't like to use the term "Bigfoot researcher."  To me, given my understanding of what research is, that is a little pretentious.  (I have posted in other places on that subject.)  I like to use the term "investigator."  I say that to say this: I determined, if possible, to investigate the photograph as much as I COULD, and what I saw that I COULD do was to attempt to duplicate the picture, not with a Bigfoot, but with a person.  I talked to Bulletmaker, and he invited me to his place to do that--to go to the location on his place on the bank of Spencer Creek and take photos that might give some information about the way the game camera and the critter were situated when the image was captured.

A question had been raised about the sky being visible to the right side of the critter and not visible on the left side. My first suggestion, in response to that question, was that the game camera could have been tilted with one end of the camera higher, and catching the sky, and the other end lower, and capturing the bank of the creek.  Graybeard had an issue with this: he pointed out that, if the game camera was so tilted, the critter would not have been upright in the picture--which it is.  I agreed.  After some thought and investigation, and after looking more closely at the photograph, I concluded that there was a possibility that the dark area to the left of the critter was not creek bank but a large oak tree growing out of the bank.  For this to be true, the game camera would have had to be pushed some 90 degrees from its original eastward orientation toward the creek to a northward orientation--an orientation that would allow the capturing of the tree on one side and open sky on the other.  That is what may have been the case.  The game camera was attached to a small oak tree with a bungee cord.  If something pushed against it, as in walking past, it could have rotated around the tree but otherwise stayed in place.

Why do I believe that the dark area to the left of the critter is the large oak tree?  The area, it seems to me, shows striations that match the striations in the bark of the tree. 

When I went to B.M.'s place, with my digital camera, I met a friend of his who, at that time, had the user name Fireman.  I believe he now posts on another site under the user name Driveroperater.  The three of us went to the location of the game cam, and I took a number of photos.  It was very cold, and I had the notion that my camera was not functioning properly, so I did not get as many shots as I perhaps should have.  Back at home, I plugged the camera into my computer and was surprised at the good quality of the pictures that I had taken.  Six of those pictures are posted after the original picture above.

I emailed those pictures to Bulletmaker.

In the meantime, the hostilities--hostilities which had something to do with this picture--escalated to the point that Bulletmaker and Fireman were banned from the Graybeard site.  And Telahnay's G'son was banned and listed as a "trouble maker" on the MABRC site.  After I registered on that site, and after I took issue with certain posts and other activities there, I was also "permanently banned" and most of my posts were taken down--along with the posts I had taken issue with. 

Then, a thread was started under the Strange or Unusual Experiences in the Outdoors forum on www.graybeardoutdoors.com.  The thread was/is entitled "Is there anywhere" and was started 7/22/07.  The thread started as an inquiry as to where one might view B.M.'s picture--where one might see the Spencer Creek Image.  Graybeard posted the image on that thread.  I then posted several of the pictures that I had taken at B.M.'s place and discussed them in some detail.  If you are interested in this image/picture, I suggest that you view/read that thread.

Some time later, Bulletmaker took me to task on his new haunt, www.mid-americabigfoot.com, for, as near as I understand his post, coming to his place, taking up his and F.M.'s time, but never sharing the pictures that I took with him!  I responded by arranging for the pictures that I had posted on GBO to be posted on MABRC.  There, I did another evaluation of the original and subsequent pictures.  The thread there is "Ray Ford's Spencer Creek Picture Evaluation" under the "Independent Researchers" forum.  If you are interested in that evaluation, I suggest that you view/read that thread.  (This thread has now been moved from "Independent Researchers" to "Bullet Maker's Den."  It is one of only two, I believe, of my several posts that have not been removed from MABRC.)

I will make some additional comments on the above pictures in subsequent posts.


   

 

[Ray Ford]

Bill,

Thanks for putting up this thread with these pictures.  The size and clarity of these postings will, I believe, enable a better discussion of the "Spencer Creek Image" that was taken be a game cam on Spencer Creek and of the pictures that I took at the site.  I plan to do some posting about these pictures and would like to not have other people post here until I am finished doing that--which will not be tonight.

Ray,

With all due respect, one major factor that has to be included into the equation is the credibility of the author of any publication.

Case in point, the "author" of the picture in question has a history of being banned from a particular website for (allegedly) perpetrating a hoax in posting an encounter that was contended to be fraudulent in nature.

Also, he was exposed on another website for claiming authorship of a photo (which was actually not his to begin with) and making claims of subject matter contained within said photo that was shown (with before & after reference photos) to be inaccurate in content yet still maintains said original claims.

Therefore, how could any prudent person not consider the veracity of such a person's claims (on other items) as suspect from the get-go?

While I do not want to here make, and will not here make, any judgments about anyone's veracity in the past or in the present, I do think that I see the GENERAL point that you are making: anytime anyone reports an encounter, comes forward with evidence, or produces a picture of, in this case, a Bigfoot, the credibility of the person is a factor to be considered in the investigation of that encounter, the evidence, or the picture.  I believe, however, that, if the circumstances allow, the best approach to the report of an encounter, to evidence, or to a picture is to evaluate them as objectively as possible and as unencumbered with our necessarily sujective apprasials of the person reporting the encounter, coming forth with the evidence, or producing a picture.

To come at the issue in a different way, what if we doubted the encounter, didn't look at the evidence, and dismissed the picture of a REAL Bigfoot because we had more or less objective reasons to doubt the credibility of the person?

[#59]

Bill,

Thanks for putting up this thread with these pictures.  The size and clarity of these postings will, I believe, enable a better discussion of the "Spencer Creek Image" that was taken be a game cam on Spencer Creek and of the pictures that I took at the site.  I plan to do some posting about these pictures and would like to not have other people post here until I am finished doing that--which will not be tonight.

Ray,

With all due respect, one major factor that has to be included into the equation is the credibility of the author of any publication.

Case in point, the "author" of the picture in question has a history of being banned from a particular website for (allegedly) perpetrating a hoax in posting an encounter that was contended to be fraudulent in nature.

Also, he was exposed on another website for claiming authorship of a photo (which was actually not his to begin with) and making claims of subject matter contained within said photo that was shown (with before & after reference photos) to be inaccurate in content yet still maintains said original claims.

Therefore, how could any prudent person not consider the veracity of such a person's claims (on other items) as suspect from the get-go?

While I do not want to here make, and will not here make, any judgments about anyone's veracity in the past or in the present, I do think that I see the GENERAL point that you are making: anytime anyone reports an encounter, comes forward with evidence, or produces a picture of, in this case, a Bigfoot, the credibility of the person is a factor to be considered in the investigation of that encounter, the evidence, or the picture.  I believe, however, that, if the circumstances allow, the best approach to the report of an encounter, to evidence, or to a picture is to evaluate them as objectively as possible and as unencumbered with our necessarily sujective apprasials of the person reporting the encounter, coming forth with the evidence, or producing a picture.

To come at the issue in a different way, what if we doubted the encounter, didn't look at the evidence, and dismissed the picture of a REAL Bigfoot because we had more or less objective reasons to doubt the credibility of the person?

Point well taken although my assertions may be comparable of that of how a jury might feel hearing the testimony of a felon (on the witness stand) and therefore weighing the credibility of said testimony especially if the witness' prior convictions involved the commission of dishonest actions.  At the very least it casts a shadow of possible doubt particularly when the person espousing the authenticity of such an article is known to have ulterior motives. 

The upshot of all this situation is I couldn't give a tinker's damn about what happens on a certain 80 acres in the bottoms of north Spencer creek.  What I will not run from is bullying, harrassment and intimidation from those that take umbrage and would try to stop me from hunting (legal game) in the area just because I have access to the ~400 acres of private land + ~3000 acres of public land surrounding it.

[#59]

There is also one other distinct possibility especially given the author's history regarding such matters.

What if the picture was not snapped while the camera was affixed to the tree?

Remember, the camera was only ~2 feet off the ground when it was bungee'd to the tree (the larger tree ~12 feet to the left of Harrington in the photo where he's pointing to a small tree while holding a photo) on the day I walked up to it which was the day before it was "retrieved" from the location.

After all, he cannot seem to furnish the before and after reference photos much less the negatives which would show said sequence by virtue of simply being attached together.

That would go a long way in explaining your difficulty in obtaining a frame of reference for the oak tree root system.

[Ray Ford]

...a continuation of my January 2 post above.

A brief statement of what is shown by each of the above pictures:

No. l -- This is the original "Spencer Creek Image."  It is a photograph reportedly taken by a game camera attached to a small oak tree on the bank of Spencer Creek where that creek crossed Bulletmaker's land enroute to Oolagah lake. 

No. 2 -- This is the first of the pictures that I took at the site.  It shows Bulletmaker with his back to the camera and looking down into the creek.  I am standing, with my camera, on the primitive road that comes from the black-topped road into B.M.'s place and circles around what T's.G. has called the "hidden bean field"--which field has been the locale of reported bigfoot activity.  At this point, as the road goes north, the "hidden bean field" is on the west and the creek, with timber, is on the east.  Note the large oak tree to B.M.'s left and the smaller trees to his right.  The bank here does not drop off to the creek: it is shelved.  Below where B.M. is standing, there is a shelf.  Beyond that, the bank drops to the creek bed.

No. 3 -- This is the second of the pictures that I took.  It shows Fireman pointing to a small oak that was identified by B.M. as the tree on which the camera was mounted with a bungee cord.  This tree is located where the bank shelves down from where B.M. is standing to where the bank drops sharply into the creek bed--which creek bed will be shown in the next picture.

No. 4 -- This is the third of the pictures that I took.  It shows the creek bed below where F.M. was standing in picture No. 3.  This, if what I was told about the orientation and location of the game camera was true, is what the game camera was pointed toward as it was mounted on the small oak tree.  The intent was to capture pictures of whatever came down the creek bed.

No. 5 -- This is the fourth of the pictures that I took.  It shows the base of the large oak tree which can be seen to B.M.'s left in Picture No. 2.  Note two things:  (1) the striations in the bark of the tree and (2) the large root which extends downward from the right/east side of the base of the tree.

No. 6 -- This is the fifth of the pictures that I took.  It shows F.M. standing by the large oak and was taken with my camera in the approximate position, as I was told, of the game camera that captured the original image.  This DOES NOT duplicate the original image, but it does approximate it and is an important shot: it shows how the original could have had the darkness of the tree to the left of the image and the open sky to the right of it while the image itself is upright--is vertical to the horizontal of the picture.  And this, excepting some suggestions that T's.g. has made, is THE perspective from the camera tree wherein this is reasonably possible.

No. 7 -- This is the sixth of the pictures that I took.  It  is similar to Picture No. 6, but, to take this picture, I moved away from the camera tree toward F.M. so as to make his image take on the size in the picture that the image in the original had.  This, like Picture No. 6, DOES NOT duplicate the original.

I will make additional comments on the pictures in subsequent posts.

January 25th modification to the above.  No. 8 -- This is an enlargement of a section of Picture No. 5.  It was added by Graybeard/Bill and better shows the large root extending out and downward from the base of the large oak tree.

 

[Ray Ford]

Let me note a couple of things about the above posts:

First, the image posted above does not show the large area of sky to the right of the critter that is in the original 8x10.  I don't understand computers and the process of posting pictures well enough to know why, but, as it is posted here, it appears cropped.  I suggest that you go to www.graybeardoutdoors.com to "Strange or Unusual Experiences in the Outdoors" and and look at the "Is there anywhere...? thread.  In the picture posted there, you will see what I am talking about.

Second, the image of the base of the large oak tree posted above does not show the large root extending downward on the right side/east side of the tree.  As this picture is posted here, it also appears cropped.  A more complete image, one showing the root, is also posted at the location given above--at the Graybeard site.

If I scroll down from here, as I post, to those pictures, they appear less cropped than they do if I just open the thread.  I've GOT to read my book about computers!

January 25th modification to the above:  For some reason, my computer is casting the above pictures to right.  Since making this post, I have discovered that, if I move them to the left, they are fine and do not appear to be cropped.  You do not, therefore, have to go to another place to look at them. As I said, I've GOT to read my book about computers.

[Ray Ford]

...another continuation of my January 2 post.

In the No. 2 picture above, Bulletmaker is standing on the bank of Spencer creek.  At that point, he is on a level with the primitive road and the "hidden bean field."  In the No. 3 picture above, Fireman/Driveroperator is standing on a shelf very close to where the bank drops sharply down some three or four feet to the creek bed--the creek bed shown in Picture No. 3.  One of the things that I noticed at the site is that there is a natural cut-back route up out of the creek bed to the road and the bean field.  If bigfeet are as large and agile as reports from sightings indicate that they are, it would be no problem for one in the creek bed to step/jump up onto the shelf near where F.M. is pointing to the tree.  From there, the critter could walk north past the tree to which the camera was affixed and toward the large oak.  On reaching the large oak, it could circle west around the large oak and walk back south to where B.M. is standing--to the level of the road and bean field.  I walked this natural cut-back several times.  It is easy to do.

Now then, assume that a bigfoot did follow this route up out of the creek to the "hidden bean field."  Now assume, as the critter walked past the small oak tree to which the camera was affixed with a bungee cord, that it pushed the camera 90 degrees around the tree, moving it from its eastward orientation toward the creek to a northward orientation toward the large oak.  Now assume, as the critter walked away from the camera tree toward the large oak, that the camera was activated and the shot taken.  The resulting photograph COULD have captured an image of the critter's humped-over back with the darkness of the tree to its left and the bright sky to its right.  A plausible sequence of events?

There is one large problem with this reconstruction.  I mentioned in my January 2 post that I believed that the dark area to the critter's left might be the large oak tree because the striations in that area match the striations in the bark of the tree.  The problem is this: in the original photograph, the "Spencer Creek Image," the striations in the dark area to the left of the critter angle downward at about a 45 degree angle.  The only place on the base of that large oak where the striations in the bark angle downward at about a 45 degree angle is on that large root on the east side of the tree.  This is a problem because, if the critter was standing next to that root, it could not have been more than about 24 inches tall--it could not have been larger than a large beaver!  Is a beaver what the game camera photographed?

I showed a copy of the "Spencer Creek Image" to a life-long outdoorsman and hunter and asked him what he thought that it was.  He looked at the photograph and said, "The a__ end of a grizzly bear."  I pushed the question, asking, "Could it be a beaver?"  He studied the image a few minutes and more seriously replied, "Yes."  He went on to say that the hair would match that of a beaver.

I did not, and still do not, want to jump to the conclusion that the image is that of a beaver.  It has occured to me that the problem with the size of the critter relative to the size of the root on the tree might be a problem with perspective: sometimes two elements in a photograph can appear to be the same size when they are not because they are at different distances from the camera.  For this to happen, the smaller element has to be closer to, and the larger element farther from, the camera.  If this image is the photograph of a larger bigfoot and a smaller tree root, to appear to be somewhat the same size, the tree root would have had to have been closer to the camera than the bigfoot.  That is not the case: the critter is obviously between the camera and the root--if that dark, striated area is the root at the base of the large oak tree.

I will make additional comments on the pictures in subsequent posts.

 

[Ray Ford]

...yet another continuation of my January 2 post.

A beaver is not the only possibility that has been suggested:

A wild hog.  I had been told that there were wild hogs that frequented B.M.'s land--something that has since been questioned.  I briefly considered the possibility that the image was that of a hog taken from above and behind the animal.  I rejected this for two reasons:  First, the hair/fur did not look to me like that of a hog.  Second, the shape did not seem to me to be that of a hog.

A bear.  I more seriously considered this.  Bears are known to wander into areas in Oklahoma where they normally aren't seen.  (My cousin has a farm south and east of Morris, Oklahoma, through which a creek runs.  A bear has been sighted there.  Marjorie, my cousin, threatened me with mayhem if I shot "her bear.")  But I rejected this also: it just didn't look like a bear to me.

A raccoon.  I considered this even more seriously.  There is a 'coon population in B.M.'s area, and the possibility that one of the animals had wondered up/down Spencer Creek, climbed up to and pushed around the camera, and then had his picture taken as he walked off was good.  Despite this, I doubt that it was a 'coon.  A beaver seems a more likely possibility.

A bird.  Some posters on the MABRC site seemed to be convinced that it was a shot of a bird that might have checked the camera out as a possible bird house--a possible place to build a nest.  I see nothing in this game camera photograph that would suggest a bird to me.  I am curious, however, to know if game cameras regularly/occasionally capture pictures of birds which mistake the lens for a nesting hole???

And there remains the possibility that the image is that of a bigfoot.  I remain open to this possibility.

There also remains the possibility that the photograph is a hoax.  I am forced to remain open to this possibility, but I am not at all ready to assert that it IS, or IS NOT, a hoax.

There also remains a mediating possibility: an accidental shot of something somewhere while the game camera was being transported, set up, or taken down.  Seems unlikely, but....

I will make additional comments on the pictures in subsequent posts. 

[Ray Ford]

...yet another continuation of my January 2 post.

I mentioned three possibilities about the "Spencer Creek Image:"

The possibility that the picture is an accidental shot of something somewhere while the game camera was being transported, set up, or taken down.  This, as I said in my last post, seems an unlikely possibility--but still a possibility.

The possibility that the picture is a hoax.  All along, in my investigation of this picture, I have chosen to NOT believe that B.M. would put a hoax on the people who hunt for bigfeet.  (It is possible to choose to trust and believe another person--even when trust and belief might not be warranted.)  But a hoax has to be listed as one of the possibilities.  Which raises the question, How was it done?

How could it have been done?  Simply.  A person with the appropriate shape could have put on a fur coat and posed in front of the camera in a humped-over, head-down position.  This would have allowed the arms to be discernible.  I have two problems with this:  First, the hair on the critter in the picture does not look to me like the fur of a coat made for a person.  Second, I doubt that some of the detail would have been there with a person wearing a fur coat.  If you study the image in the photograph closely, and in a good copy, you can discern a backbone channel and the shape of the muscles over-lying the shoulder blades and bulges in the lower back.  This is the principal thing that leaves me, personally, with the third possibility.

The possibility that the picture is actually one of a bigfoot--just possibly!  But I still lean toward the conclusion that the image is quite possibly that of a beaver.

As for what B.M. sees as the partial face of a baby primate peeking around the side of the critter in the picture, I don't know.  Sometimes, things in pictures appear to be something that they are not.  Elements closer to, and farther from, a camera can sometimes combine to produce an image of something that is not there.  I will say that it looks like a baby primate's face.  I will not say that it is a baby primate's face.

As for what B.M. sees as the profile of a--perhaps another--primate to the upper right of the critter in the photograph, I don't know.  I see what he is looking at, but....

The investigation of this game camera photograph, and of what it shows, would be aided if the unseparated strip of negatives was available.  I suspect that the negatives have been cut apart, and have doubts that those before and after the "Spencer Creek Image" were preserved: they have never been produced.  I will repeat what I have said before:  If a person thinks he has a picture on his game camera, he/she should treat the area like a crime scene.  Are there tracks, hair, or scat?  What is the exact location and orientation of the camera?  What was the time frame?

It would be a great loss if this is a picture of a bigfoot and if it is not seriously examined.  I've tried to do that.  If it is a hoax, I've wasted my time and yours--unless I've demonstrated how such a picture can be examined. 

   

[Ray Ford]

...a continuation of my above posts.

I would be remiss to not mention Telahnay's G'son's assertion in his post of January 3 that the tree to which Fireman is pointing in Picture No. 3 is NOT the tree to which the camera was affixed.  He indicates that the larger tree to F.M.'s left and close to the bank of the creek is the proper tree.  He also says that the camera was not at the height that F.M. is indicating.  His recollection is that the camera was at eye level to him as he stood down in the bed of the creek.  This would place it only a couple of feet above ground level at the location of the tree.

The interesting thing about T's.g.'s assertion is that, when we visited the site right after the picture was taken, I seemed to remember that I was pointed out a tree that was larger and straighter standing than the one B.M. identified--the one to which F.M. is pointing.  AND, on the day that I tried to replicate the picture, B.M. seemed a little uncertain about which tree it was.

And the distance of the camera above the ground could speak to another problem that I have had with my suggestion that the image might be that of a beaver standing beside that big root with the downward sloping bark striations.  If the camera was 5 or so feet above the ground, and shooting at a downward angle to capture the beaver and the root, I do not think that the sky would have been in the picture.  If the camera was 2 or so feet above the ground, and shooting on a level or slightly below the beaver and the root, I think that the sky might have been visible.

Well, I've said all that I intend to about this "Level 2" photograph.  It is a relatively clear and distinct photograph that shows a relatively clear and distinct image of something--but not an image that can be CERTAINLY IDENTIFIED.  The only way I'll post more is in response to a post be someone else.

[Bill]

Does anyone have a copy of the ORIGINAL image? The one I saw at Doug's house was an 8x10 and may or may not have been made that size after being cropped. The thing I still want to know is if the image shown is what was actually captured or is it cropped to make it look the way it does? If cropped I tend to call it a hoax to be honest.

[#59]

Does anyone have a copy of the ORIGINAL image? The one I saw at Doug's house was an 8x10 and may or may not have been made that size after being cropped. The thing I still want to know is if the image shown is what was actually captured or is it cropped to make it look the way it does? If cropped I tend to call it a hoax to be honest.

I never took a copy (felt it was a dud at the time...still do) but do know the guy that has D.G.'s original copy (given to him by Bilby) who scanned and posted it (originally) over on the KBR website after Dennis had given it to him...will see if he is willing to post it over here as well.