Spencer Creek Photos

[Ray Ford]

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.

The only real way that I could see to determine if this photograph was cropped would be to compare the picture with the negative.  I've seen the original 8x10 print--when Telahnay's G'son and D.G. and I went to Bulletmaker's place.  What I have NOT seen is the negative of the original.  And I have NOT seen the rest of the negative strip.  As I stated above I have a feeling that the negative strip was cut apart and I doubt that the other negatives, ones that might show before and after shots, still exist.  I don't KNOW that the negative of the "Spencer Creek Image" still exists.  Bulletmaker says he has these, but he has not, as far as I know, made them available for examination--for "peer review."  (See my post of January 25 about research and peer review on "Habitchation at BFRO.")

It remains a fact, I think, that nothing is stopping B.M. from posting pictures and/or text on this site--and as long as he isn't attacking someone, I don't believe that he will be deleted.  Not by me.  That is no guarantee that what he says will not be examined rigorously.  Even by me.  But, as I said in that post noted above, rigorous examination of research results should be expected by a real researcher.

[Ray Ford]

In a message to me, Bill raised a question about the intervening brush in the photo of the base of the large oak tree.  He said, "I noticed that in the more recent photo there are a lot of brush grown up around the base of that tree that wasn't there back at the time of the infamous photo assuming it is even the same tree."  Good observation.

The reason that I know that it is a good observation is that I have made, although I did not include any discussion of it in my above posts, that same observation.  Since a considerable period of time, including one growing season, had elapsed between the original shot and those that I made, I assumed that they had grown up there during that time--assuming that the tree is what we see in the "Spencer Creek Image" and that the orientation of the camera was toward that tree.

In an above post, Telahnay's g'son has raised the possibility that the picture was not taken where it is said to have been taken.  T's.g., however, was aware that a camera was at, or very near, this location--which is why he questioned whether the tree identified by B.M. as the one on which the game camera was affixed was the correct one.  It is also why he questioned the height of the camera above ground level.  (See above posts.)

[Bill]

I think it likely that at least three or more likely four years have elapsed since the original photo was taken. I'm not sure when the rest were taken by you but I'm assuming last year (2007). It was June of 2005 I believe when I was at Doug's house and saw the 8x10 hard copy version of this image. He made no offer at that time to produce the negative or negative strip.

I am still somewhat leery that he cannot or will not produce the negative or negative strip. IF it's a valid and not a hoax image then showing the negative and the ones before and after it should be very revealing of the validity of it. But if it's a hoax they would also be very revealing of that fact.

[Ray Ford]

I think it likely that at least three or more likely four years have elapsed since the original photo was taken. I'm not sure when the rest were taken by you but I'm assuming last year (2007). It was June of 2005 I believe when I was at Doug's house and saw the 8x10 hard copy version of this image.

I just did what I should have done before now: I checked back through my several "Standard Diar[ies]" and found an entry showing that I went with Telahnay's g'son to Bulletmaker's on March 19, 2005.  I believe that would have been the evening that T's.g., D.G., and I were shown the 8x10 of the "Spencer Creek Image."  I also determined, by way of a later entry, that I took the series of photographs above on February 11, 2007.

Assuming that B.M.'s game camera photograph was taken shortly before the three of us viewed it at his house, there would have been a 2-year interval between it and the pictures that I took.  My judgment is that the small saplings in my picture of the large oak tree could have grown up in that interval and were not there at the time of the original photograph.

[#59]

Ray,

You've hinted at what I suspected all along in that the photo in question may well be a hoax.  When BM's "BF Crossing a Creek" photo was debunked (as I have the sequential negatives that illustrated his assertions were total fabrication) coupled with his history of making unsubstantiated claims as well as playing loose with facts and history in total, how can any prudent person not arrive at any other conclusion that anything he claims has a 99.44% chance of being untruthful.

I think it was Charlie (Powderman) that once posted (over on GBO) that "once a liar, always a liar" and that shoe seems an awfully comfortable fit in the above mentioned cases just as "once a felon, always a felon?" may be appropriate as well.

[NONYA]

Another great pic of a black,unfocuse blob,why the hell so much drama over this crap?

[Ray Ford]

Another great pic of a black, unfocused blob.  Why the hell so much drama over this crap?

That this picture is "crap" is your opinion, not mine.
I didn't think that I was being dramatic in my discussion.
The image doesn't fit the correct definition of a blob:  "Something of vague or indefinite form."
The picture isn't unfocused.
And I'm not sure the color is actually black.  It does look that way and probably is.

I would say more, but I've said all that I want to, at this time, about Bulletmaker's picture--the Spencer Creek Image.

Wish someone else would come up with a different picture that I could talk about.

But thanks, Nonya, for posting.  Good to hear from you.

[archdlx]

This is my first post here....know no one here, I don't think I do anyway.
I am not what you would call hardcore, or lightcore for that matter. I am
interested because a friend of mine believes he saw B.F., S.F. or what ever you wish to
call them. And I truly believe him.
Someday I may have time to spend with wife and horses looking for clues. But for now
am willing just to learn what TRUTHS I can about this fantastic creature.

Now to the "Spencer Creek Picture".....
Above the outline of the 'figure', the whitish 'stuff', for lack of a better word-description,
looks to me a lot like a large fungus that grows on trees in damp, shaded areas.
As for the 'figure'...only the picture taker knows for sure. And if he was any kind of
stand up fellow, he would show the pre and post pictures from that camera.

just archdlx's two cents.....

[Bill]

I suspect the owner of the image really has no more idea than the rest of us what is "really" in that photo. It's just not clear enough to identify as so many of us have said so many times. I do agree that if he really wanted to help clear up the matter he'd show the shot before and after that image.

But then what he really wants is to get rich off the photo and even tho it's very clear he will not he still isn't willing to admit that there is really nothing there that anyone can tell what it is. He is getting his bit of fame by taking it from site to site and the sites willing to boost his ego get to have their five minutes of infamy as well from it.

[Ray Ford]

This is my first post here, and I know no one here. I don't think I do anyway.  I am not what you would call hardcore, or lightcore....  I am interested because a friend of mine believes he saw B.F., S.F., or whatever you wish to call them. And I truly believe him.

Now to the "Spencer Creek Picture:"  Above the outline of the 'figure', the whitish 'stuff', for lack of a better word-description,
looks to me a lot like a large fungus that grows on trees in damp, shaded areas.  As for the "figure,"only the picture taker knows for sure. And if he was any kind of stand-up fellow, he would show the pre and post pictures from that camera.

Just archdlx's two cents.

Arch, I shortened your post in my quote.  Hope that you don't mind.

Glad to have your "two cents" worth.  I think that me, Bill, you, and a lot of other people consider the failure of Bulletmaker to produce those before and after frames rips the ground out from under him when he contends that the "Spencer Creek Image" is actually a bigfoot.  I have concluded that he doesn't have them.  He may have lost or discarded them. 

Everyone who sets up a camera in the woods should take a lesson from this.  In this case, a case wherein film was in the camera, the frame showing the critter should not have been clipped out of the strip: the entire strip of film should have been maintained for examination.  Digital cameras are another problem.  I would like to think that this image is of a bigfoot, but there are some things about this picture that make me very hesitant to say that it is.  As you have no doubt read, I have suggested that it is a beaver.   

It is my belief, and I believe it to be a fact, that that which you think might be fungus is some large oak leaves.  I, the times that I was at the identified location, saw no fungus.  Another person thought that it was bird.  Everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

You raise a matter for discussion--you may not have intended to--that is, I think, more important than further discussion of the above picture:  you said that your friend had told you that "he believes" that he has seen a bigfoot and that you "believe" your friend.  I think this is a situation in which many people find thmselves.  Someone that they hold to be credible tells them they have seen a bigfoot.  It is difficult to NOT believe someone that you know to be reliable.  And the person who told you of the sighting is also in a situation.  He knows what he saw, but he can't prove it.  I suspect that there are a lot of people in the situation of your friend who just do not take the risk of telling anyone--the risk of not being believed.

Look forward to hearing more from you.

[Ray Ford]

I suspect the owner of the image really has no more idea than the rest of us what is "really" in that photo. It's just not clear enough to identify as so many of us have said so many times. I do agree that, if he really wanted to help clear up the matter, he'd show the shot before and after that image.

But then, what he really wants is to get rich off the photo and, even tho it's very clear he will not, he still isn't willing to admit that there is really nothing there that anyone can tell what it is. He is getting his bit of fame by taking it from site to site, and the sites willing to boost his ego get to have their five minutes of infamy as well from it.

Bill,

Bulletmaker, as you suggest, may not know what is really in that picture, but, as I suspect, he may know very well what is in that picture.  I don't KNOW, although I have my ideas, what is really in that picture.

I think you are right about there being a money angle.

I just can't absolutely for sure and entirely erase the possibility that the Spencer Creek Image is actually a bigfoot.  I say that in spite of the fact that I had one thing happen while I was at Bulletmaker's place that, in my mind, raised the possibility that the picture is a hoax.  This is the first time that I've said anything in a post about this.  I did mention it to Telahnay's G'son once or twice, but....  Mind you, I haven't said that it is a hoax: I said something raised, in my mind, that possibility. 

[Bill]

Last I checked Lyre was a musical instrument, that you definitely are NOT. 

No permission from you is needed to post the image here. You posted it on open internet and anyone in the world anywhere may now copy and post it where ever and when ever they wish so long as they are not trying to make a profit from it or pretend it is their property.

As to the monkey on there well I'm aware of no one in the world but you who has seen it. You might want it to be there it's there only in your imagination in my opinion. The photo is there for all to see and decide for them selves if they agree or disagree. So far I've heard no one agree.

[#59]

Last I checked Lyre was a musical instrument, that you definitely are NOT. 

No permission from you is needed to post the image here. You posted it on open internet and anyone in the world anywhere may now copy and post it where ever and when ever they wish so long as they are not trying to make a profit from it or pretend it is their property.

websites such as MABRC, KBR, GCBRO, BFF, et. al. may have a problem in that department as it's my understanding they're engaged in commercial (selling stuff) endeavours.

As to the monkey on there well I'm aware of no one in the world but you who has seen it. You might want it to be there it's there only in your imagination in my opinion. The photo is there for all to see and decide for them selves if they agree or disagree. So far I've heard no one agree.

During yesterday's phone conversation Doug also disclosed that it was his cousin (Kenny) who retrieved the camera which might help explain his (Doug's) confusion as to exactly which tree it had been affixed unto.  Again, IMHO the more this is examined the more it appears the actual photo was snapped whilst the camera was not affixed to the tree which would go a long way in explaining the correlation of the lateral oak tree root system to the "subject" contained in the photo especially now that Doug was so adamant (again, per our phone conversation) the picture has never been cropped or otherwise modified....hmmm.

[Bill]

I've long wondered if that photo had been cropped when it was enlarged and printed but don't recall if I asked Doug when I was at his house or not. I have asked it many times online since and don't recall ever getting a response since then. It is also the first time I've heard that someone other than Doug retrieved the camera. I'd still like to know if that was the last image taken on that roll or if there were others that followed.

If it was the last then it's not impossible that his cousin Kenny who retrieved it accidentally took that image as he was taking the camera down. I'm not saying that's the case but it would certainly have been possible and would much better explain what I believe I see in it.

I'd still like to see the entire strip of negative produced and the images both before and after that one if in fact there were before and after images on the roll. That would go a LOOONG way in convincing me it's a genuine image taken with camera on the tree and not while taking it off the tree by Kenny.

I'd love to believe in Bigfoot like many of you guys do really I would but I need an experience of my own or at least a decently clean image of one to be able to believe. I've seen better images of ghosts and space aliens than I have of Bigfoot so far. BTW I don't necessarily believe in ghosts or space aliens either but then I don't disbelieve in them either.

[#59]

I've long wondered if that photo had been cropped when it was enlarged and printed but don't recall if I asked Doug when I was at his house or not. I have asked it many times online since and don't recall ever getting a response since then. It is also the first time I've heard that someone other than Doug retrieved the camera. I'd still like to know if that was the last image taken on that roll or if there were others that followed.

If it was the last then it's not impossible that his cousin Kenny who retrieved it accidentally took that image as he was taking the camera down. I'm not saying that's the case but it would certainly have been possible and would much better explain what I believe I see in it.

I'd still like to see the entire strip of negative produced and the images both before and after that one if in fact there were before and after images on the roll. That would go a LOOONG way in convincing me it's a genuine image taken with camera on the tree and not while taking it off the tree by Kenny.

I'd love to believe in Bigfoot like many of you guys do really I would but I need an experience of my own or at least a decently clean image of one to be able to believe. I've seen better images of ghosts and space aliens than I have of Bigfoot so far. BTW I don't necessarily believe in ghosts or space aliens either but then I don't disbelieve in them either.

Bill,

Many of us have long contended the (unbroken) strip of negatives would certainly add to the veracity of the claims made surrounding this issue.  Until then, the vast majority of disinterested parties have very little in the way of concrete evidence to help validate the situation.