Spencer Creek Photos

[#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.

The strip of negatives are a total of 3 different locations that the camera was sit up at. --- The 4 ? I think negatives before and after the picture that your discussing, was all of the creek bottoms of where the camera was placed. ---It took probably 3 weeks? before the total negatives of the film (25 negatives in a roll of 35 MM film). was taken up.--- Henceforth, the pictures of interest or of course of the one showing the 3 bigfoots. (momma, daddy, and baby). The 4 negative before that one was taken show`s the empty creek ,--- the 3 or 4 negatives after that picture of the three bigfoots, show the empty creek bottoms, except where a crane, had walked in front of the camera, as it walked down the creek.

    You can go over to M.A.B.R.C. site, and look for (Bullet makers Den)....then scroll down to the format that says ....(three bigfoots in a picture). After doing that you will see the negatives of the after picture of the bigfoots....The before negatives of the bigfoot are just like the  negatives that I posted .....after the bigfoot pictures. So I couldn't see duplicating the pictures, since they looked the same.

Without the actual negatives (in uncut, sequential order) there is absolutely no possible way to definitively say any such photos were from the same negatives as the infamous photo.

     The fact of the matter is .....either you see it or you dont...If there is not a bigfoot in that picture...John (t.g.s.), wouldn`t have a picture of it framed sitting on his desk at his office.  I understand that when a client comes into his office, He ...John asked.....(what do you see in that picture?). That was from Preacher Ray...that told me that. ....Now thats OK, I`m not knocking that...It just seems to me, that if John, thinks it is a beaver., then why put it on his desk for people to guess what it is. ?.....and thats ok too.

The pictures on my desk are of my son in his military dress uniform, on deployment in Iraq (on his tank) and my daughter in her softball uniform...again, making oncorroborated statements can sometimes leave henfruit on one's face.

Bottom line is.....it is a bigfoot....not only that but it is the back of momma ,  ....I say momma, ....because its got the baby on her right shoulder.....But heck....it could be daddy carrying junior.? Dunno....but it is defentely a bigfoot, or.......a creature that has never been seen before, except in the Patterson film.....Which by the way...I still think mine is better than the Patterson, cause there are three of them in mine.

IMHO, the Patterson film has basically stood up to rigorous scrutiny...yours, on the other hand doesn't even have enough ancillary evidence to begin such a rigor and process...only unsubstantiated claims of authenticity.

Oh :oI used spell check this time....so Bill wouldn`t make comments about my spelling again.


bullet maker

IMHO, BM's "photo" is somewhere between an accidential discharge (during recovery of the camera by Kenny) of a picture or an outright fabrication.

[#59]

tg. Then you are saying that you do NOT have that pic on your desk??? If the camera is 5 ft off the groung then that would have to be the biggest beaver in the world. POWDERMAN. 

No Charlie, I do not have it displayed on my desk...never did...Dr. Wallace had me print him a copy on one of the laser color printers and made an off-hand comment about me having it waiting (on my desk) for him when he came by to pick it up and I reckon that's where BM got confused?

The camera was not 5' off the ground when it was affixed to the tree...more like 2'...but the picture in question couldn't have been snapped while it was still attached to the tree because the lateral oak tree root system was ~18' to the north of it and there's no way (short of some serious alterations) it would be so prominently displayed in the photo w/o being ~6' from the lens when the shutter clicked.

[#59]

tg. Then you are saying that you do NOT have that pic on your desk??? If the camera is 5 ft off the groung then that would have to be the biggest beaver in the world. POWDERMAN. 

No Charlie, I do not have it displayed on my desk...never did...Dr. Wallace had me print him a copy on one of the laser color printers and made an off-hand comment about me having it waiting (on my desk) for him when he came by to pick it up and I reckon that's where BM got confused?

The camera was not 5' off the ground when it was affixed to the tree...more like 2'...but the picture in question couldn't have been snapped while it was still attached to the tree because the lateral oak tree root system was ~18' to the north of it and there's no way (short of some serious alterations) it would be so prominently displayed in the photo w/o being ~6' from the lens when the shutter clicked.

Dont believe him Powderman, it was 5ft. and Ray told me tgs had a picture of it on his desk.  So I guess now that T.G.S. is calling a preacher a liar, 

bullet maker

If you re-read the post I said Dr. Wallace made an off-hand comment that you took (somewhat predictably) out of context and ran with it...what else is new.

The camera is where I said it was...otherwise, explain the prominence of the lateral oak tree root system in the photo as it is ~18' from the tree it actually was affixed unto and even a good 12' from the one you (currently) allege it was attached unto...no negatives...no cigar.

[#59]

excuse me.... ...I`m the one that put that camera in that tree.  And so therefore, I should know how high I put the camera... It was 5 ft like I have always said. 

Where do you come off saying how high off the ground it was?.....You wasnt there ....I was.


bullet maker

 Offline

Posts: 151


    Re: Spencer Creek Photos

[Bill]

I've viewed that pic many times and can see what Doug refers to as 3 seperate creatures. They are not clear, but I can see a basis for thinking that. My screen is not good, my monitor will not lighten up and some pics are a bit too dark to see clearly. I don't believe any reprint is ever as clear as the original. I really hope they are bigfeet. I'm not a believer, nor a disbeliever. I've just never seen any personal evidence to convince me they exist, but I hope they do. I've read every story I can find here, and mabrc and know there are a lot of folks that have had real experiences that I can not explain. I do not believe that Doug would knowingly falsify a pic or a story for anybody. In the mean time I'll keep reading and hopefully learn more and possibly have my own experience some day. POWDERMAN. 

I on the other hand am much less sure than you that he wouldn't fake it however I'm not saying by any means the image is faked. To the contrary I suspect it's not faked but then I also don't believe it's of any creature personally.

I tend to think it was some freak situation caused when the camera was being removed. I can't provide any evidence of that anymore than Doug or anyone else can provide evidence it wasn't. I also don't agree with the Class two (whatever the heck that is) definition. I don't think the image is clear at all but rather out of focus as to the object in question at least. I'll post it again in this post without the others and that way it can be scrolled right-left and up-down as needed which for some reaon it can't be in the original post.

I'm on a 32" wide screen monitor with very high definition and on it and when holding the 8x10 in hand I see nothing that resembles an animal beaver or bigfoot in it.




Anyone truly believing they see an animal much less multiple animals in that image is mostly kidding only themself in my opinion.

[#59]

Perhaps, this will provide some insight?

[#59]

BILL. Out of focus is a good description, like the object was too close. My screen is too dark to see the pic clearly anymore and I can't tell what tg posted a pic of. POWDERMAN. 

Charlie...double click the photo.

[#59]

In our phone conversation of ~1 week ago, you specifically told me it was Kenny (your cousin) that removed the camera after I had mentioned to you about the batteries apparently being dead as it didn't snap a photo when I walked up to it (in the creek) that morning.

IMHO, (per the pic I posted) this "photo" has become more of a "monkey on your back" than anyone ever probably imagined. 

[pattymac]

I stay so confused and a day late.

[#59]

There appears to be a groundswell of critical questioning emerging (from new(er) members on a couple of other sites) regarding this picture with the apparent consensus it ain't a BF.

Time has begun to tell how durable the claims are that have been made and it possibly looks like some cracks are appearing in the clay feet.

[#59]

Now...for a price you too can have a copy of the picture...suitable for framing. 

I knew it was only a matter of time...wonder how many kool-aid imbibers will bite on that one?

Even the most enthusiastic true believer would likely have a stretch in saying it was bearly a BF  although black bear have been sighted/darted within 12 miles of that location within the past 15 years.

[#59]

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.....

Interesting comments for if you take a look at Ray Ford's 2007 reference photo's (above) there does appear to be somewhat of an image of possible fungus growth on the right side of the tree's root system....hmmm.

[#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.

The strip of negatives are a total of 3 different locations that the camera was sit up at. --- The 4 ? I think negatives before and after the picture that your discussing, was all of the creek bottoms of where the camera was placed. ---It took probably 3 weeks? before the total negatives of the film (25 negatives in a roll of 35 MM film). was taken up.--- Henceforth, the pictures of interest or of course of the one showing the 3 bigfoots. (momma, daddy, and baby). The 4 negative before that one was taken show`s the empty creek ,--- the 3 or 4 negatives after that picture of the three bigfoots, show the empty creek bottoms, except where a crane, had walked in front of the camera, as it walked down the creek.

    You can go over to M.A.B.R.C. site, and look for (Bullet makers Den)....then scroll down to the format that says ....(three bigfoots in a picture). After doing that you will see the negatives of the after picture of the bigfoots....The before negatives of the bigfoot are just like the  negatives that I posted .....after the bigfoot pictures. So I couldn't see duplicating the pictures, since they looked the same.

Problem with those is the sequential coding numbers of the actual pictures (not negatives) you posted do not appear to be in proper order thus suggesting they are not the real before & after photo's.

     The fact of the matter is .....either you see it or you dont...If there is not a bigfoot in that picture...John (t.g.s.), wouldn`t have a picture of it framed sitting on his desk at his office.  I understand that when a client comes into his office, He ...John asked.....(what do you see in that picture?). That was from Preacher Ray...that told me that. ....Now thats OK, I`m not knocking that...It just seems to me, that if John, thinks it is a beaver., then why put it on his desk for people to guess what it is. ?.....and thats ok too.

Dunno where you got that from as it's totally false.

Bottom line is.....it is a bigfoot....not only that but it is the back of momma ,  ....I say momma, ....because its got the baby on her right shoulder.....But heck....it could be daddy carrying junior.? Dunno....but it is defentely a bigfoot, or.......a creature that has never been seen before, except in the Patterson film.....Which by the way...I still think mine is better than the Patterson, cause there are three of them in mine.

Oh :oI used spell check this time....so Bill wouldn`t make comments about my spelling again.


bullet maker