A Set of Pictures

[#59]

Initially, we were going to stay quiet about this photo but after Dr. Wallace outed us things took a nasty turn as illustrated here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29427

And so, I responded here:

http://www.stancourtney.com/wordpress/2010/04/19/gamecam-photo/#comments

The end result is going to be the "outing" of all the so-called experts (as illustrated on the BFF thread) for what they really are...a bunch of egomanical cult leaders/followers that have nothing better to do than go off half-cocked with claims that have no basis in fact.

We have never said the image is a "this" or it's a "that" but simply wanted honest critical analysis not the load of venon as spewed from the BFF pit.

Finally, another consequence of their actions will be the casting of a cloud upon just about everything else they have ever said or published about anyone else or anything else.

In other words, their "credibility" is about to take a major hit from a storm of their own making.  

Like one of my uncles back in Tennessee used to say, "they've sheiat and fell back into it."

BTW, the BFF site does not appear to qualify for exemption under Title 17 by virtue of their commercial operations.  That may also turn out to be a source of grief for the principals and participants.

[Bill]

I guess I don't understand your point here John. I read the comments at the link and have viewed the image. I guess people see what they want to see in such images. I see three reflectors of some sort and nothing more really. What the reflective surfaces are I have no clue. What the image represents I have no clue.

How is this going to "out" these folks? Be less cryptic and if you have something to say just come out and say it so the rest of us not in on the joke can understand.

[Ray Ford]

I see three reflectors of some sort and nothing more really. What the reflective surfaces are I have I have no clue.

Those "reflective images" have not been explained--here or elsewhere--but they could be a number of things.  Not all of those things would involve reflection.  I believe that such white spots can be produced by specks of dust, or droplets of water, on the lens of a camera.  At the moment, I don't believe that they are, in fact, reflections from the image.  The assertion that they are connected to "black" straps and are buckles (Courtney site where the picture can be seen), does not, if my memory serves me right, hold up on examination of the actual print.  I may be wrong.  Every time I've turned around lately I have seemed to step in Bigfoot scat.  I think Ill just stop turning around.

Cordially, the "Outer"

[#59]

I guess I don't understand your point here John. I read the comments at the link and have viewed the image. I guess people see what they want to see in such images. I see three reflectors of some sort and nothing more really. What the reflective surfaces are I have no clue. What the image represents I have no clue.

How is this going to "out" these folks? Be less cryptic and if you have something to say just come out and say it so the rest of us not in on the joke can understand.

Bill,

The point is not that people see what they want to see as the reason for allowing it to be posted in the first place is for critical analysis and discussion by anyone that chooses to do such.

The problem came about when some began to make allegations of hoaxing and fakery using half-arsed assumptions as a foundation and even smearing people's names associated with this photo.

The "outing" will simply be a validation process that proves their allegations baseless thereby making them out to be the buffoons they are as well as leaving any possible credibility they had in tatters.

In other words, if you're going to accuse people of wrongdoing you'd better damn well have the evidence to back up your claims.

[Bill]

OK I more clearly understand now.

Being a total disbeliever in the existence of any such creature as bigfoot I certainly do not think it is one of course. What it is a photo of I have no clue whatsoever.

I will say that the attempts to "blow up" the image as some did at that link you gave seems silly to me. About all I see in those are pixels and have no clue what if anything more they see in them.

I make no assumptions as to what it is or anyone's motives in their posts. I have observed that the folks who generically fit into the classification of "bigfoot community" meaning those who believe they exist or at least want them to exist are one vicious lot as a whole.

It seems any image not from a member of that particular group is automatically a fake/hoax. Of course in reality it seems far more than that are either fake/hoax or just plain old blobs totally unrecognizeable by anyone.

Ray I have found that making more than one circle when turning tends to make me dizzy and I do some times fall down. They say weebles wobble but they won't fall down. Me I tend to fall down a lot so I try not to turn around at least not fast or more than once.

BTW I think the warning is more BS than anything else. Anyone can use any image posted to the internet so long as they are doing it for educational or discussion purposes and are not making a profit on it. This site sure fits into that category since so far I've not made one single cent of income from it. I've sure spent a lot of both time and money on it however. Still I have no reason to repost the original or any of the other versions here. I just don't see it as a big deal. I never will see any such blob as a big deal.

[Ray Ford]

OK I more clearly understand now.

Ray I have found that making more than one circle when turning tends to make me dizzy and I do some times fall down. They say weebles wobble but they won't fall down. Me I tend to fall down a lot so I try not to turn around at least not fast or more than once.

I could not find "weebles" in either of my dictionaries.

I intended, as I'm sure that you know, "turning around" as a metaphor.

[#59]

Just got back from Nebraska this PM (limited on turkeys (3) in 48 hours) and in time to see the circus as MABRC has joined the BFF circle jerk.

What I find amusing and a bit ironic is Darren Lee (aka; darkwinglh) labelling me a hoaxer given his track record.  To that end consider the OP in the following thread on this site:

http://www.bigfootstudy.com/forums/index.php/topic,207.0.html

Mr. Todtkaufman authored this thread which was later proven to be a hoax as the figure in the tree on the hill was photoshopped into the original.

Now....Mr. Todtkaufman and Mr. Darren W. Lee share the same ISP addy(s).

IMHO, that would either make Mr. Lee one of the following;

1. If he is indeed actually Mr. Todtkaufman (as he's boasted to past & present MABRC members) then he is a hoaxer.

2. If he is a co-worker with Mr. Todtkaufman (as he once alluded to) then he is either a co-conspirator or accomplice and therefore, a hoaxer.

3. If he is actually not Mr. Todtkaufman (aka: Mr. Garrett) and somehow ignorant of the hoax then he is an incompetent as a so-called BF "researcher".

In any of these instances it looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[darkwinglh]

And once again, where is your evidence of all this about me and Todtkaufman?  Screen captures, e-mails, PMs?  Nothing but false accusations as always.

You and Bullet Maker posted the pictures out there for everyone to view on Stan Courtney's blog, then you claim the two of you have not claimed it's a bigfoot.  Well, according to Bullet over on Stan's forum, its a Bigfoot, as good as the PGF.

No one will ever take you two serious ever again.  You can lay accusations all you want John, but you made your bed on this one and got caught red-handed.

[#59]

And once again, where is your evidence of all this about me and Todtkaufman?  Screen captures, e-mails, PMs?  Nothing but false accusations as always.

Re: todtkaufman
John it's been almost a year since any activity at this site by that user name. I can't be sure how current the IP address used here by them might be but it was 12.149.186.138 which translates to AT&T. It is the same IP adddress most commonly used by username darkwinglh tho he has also used 71.29.243.190 and perhaps others. Darren hasn't posted under his primary username since April when I banned him. That last post was from 98.16.210.159 so as you can see he posts from a variety of IP addresses. He has also used 98.16.221.35 and 98.16.209.37 and perhaps others.


You and Bullet Maker posted the pictures out there for everyone to view on Stan Courtney's blog, then you claim the two of you have not claimed it's a bigfoot.  Well, according to Bullet over on Stan's forum, its a Bigfoot, as good as the PGF.

No one will ever take you two serious ever again.  You can lay accusations all you want John, but you made your bed on this one and got caught red-handed.

I cannot speak for what Doug says or does as he is his own man.  However, you are going to be the one caught red-handed as the facts are coming out in short order.  IMHO, you wouldn't know a hoax if one bit you on the arse as this incident is most assuredly about to do so.

[#59]

And once again, where is your evidence of all this about me and Todtkaufman?  Screen captures, e-mails, PMs?  Nothing but false accusations as always.

You and Bullet Maker posted the pictures out there for everyone to view on Stan Courtney's blog, then you claim the two of you have not claimed it's a bigfoot.  Well, according to Bullet over on Stan's forum, its a Bigfoot, as good as the PGF.

No one will ever take you two serious ever again.  You can lay accusations all you want John, but you made your bed on this one and got caught red-handed.

BTW, if you're so adamant that Todtkaufman is in fact a separate person then by all means tell us exactly who he/she is?
 

[darkwinglh]

And once again, where is your evidence of all this about me and Todtkaufman?  Screen captures, e-mails, PMs?  Nothing but false accusations as always.

Re: todtkaufman
John it's been almost a year since any activity at this site by that user name. I can't be sure how current the IP address used here by them might be but it was 12.149.186.138 which translates to AT&T. It is the same IP adddress most commonly used by username darkwinglh tho he has also used 71.29.243.190 and perhaps others. Darren hasn't posted under his primary username since April when I banned him. That last post was from 98.16.210.159 so as you can see he posts from a variety of IP addresses. He has also used 98.16.221.35 and 98.16.209.37 and perhaps others.

And pray tell, what does this mean?    Another copy and paste job that we are supposed to believe is something someone sent you?  And if truth be told, that IP address is a common IP address that is used for this area.  The others are shared through the ISP in this area and is handed out through DHCP.  Still nothing proved.  This proves nothing except you are great at typing things up in red.

You and Bullet Maker posted the pictures out there for everyone to view on Stan Courtney's blog, then you claim the two of you have not claimed it's a bigfoot.  Well, according to Bullet over on Stan's forum, its a Bigfoot, as good as the PGF.

No one will ever take you two serious ever again.  You can lay accusations all you want John, but you made your bed on this one and got caught red-handed.

I cannot speak for what Doug says or does as he is his own man.  However, you are going to be the one caught red-handed as the facts are coming out in short order.  IMHO, you wouldn't know a hoax if one bit you on the arse as this incident is most assuredly about to do so.

I'm the one caught red-handed?  For a hoax you are committing with Doug?  That's funny.  Any person with enough knowledge to zoom into a picture will see the hoax you and him created.  Here is a crop of what I'm seeing along with everyone else.



You've been busted on this by everyone, only the kool-aid drinkers that see bigfoot in every picture will believe this picture has any merit.  The lines show where you or Doug modified this into the picture.  It's on the original you had posted on Stan's blog.  Now he's implicated in complicity in this hoax with you and Doug.

And if I remember right, Doug stating something is bigfoot is what led you two to the falling out you had in the first place.  And that falling out pretty much destroyed this forum as a saleable asset to Bill, since it's so permeated with the hate and bile that you spewed here for several years.

As for Todtkaufman, I'm not going to make it easy on you and tell you who he is.  He's gave you plenty of clues to find him, heck, he's even been to your office on several occassions and you shook hands with him as a potential customer.  He's been that close to you John, and you didn't even realize it. 

[Bill]

You two will either stop the bullshit NOW or I will ban you both from this site. You two are not going to drag it down again with your bullshit feud. There will be no further warnings. Any more past this point and you will be banned.

[#59]

A poster going by the alias of Bobto has posted (BFF & NABF) his findings counter the assertions of the naysayers;


"...That happens with any image. The thing to NOTE is that there are shadows under the
branches where you darkened the subject. That means the shadow is being cast onto
that subject. Also there is NO camoflauge on the subject. Get the good image/images 14 mb
and enlarge them. You can, as I have, trace every branch and shadow back off the edge
of the subject to the branch it originates from.
Another thing I recall is that with some programs you hi-lite or mark a section, then
adjust the brightness for just the object and not the image and you will get the same
tell-tail edging. I believe painter 4 even rough outlines when you just click on a subject.
The white marks I am still not sure what caused them. Rain drops? I zoomed in and the
top looked to be dogwood blossoms but it's the wrong time of year. I verified the date with
the photo owner, as November. Still trying to figure the white marks out but believe they
are closer to the camera than the branches or the figure behind the branches.
I've worked on four of these images and am awaiting another to be posted.

This still needs some work to figure some things out but there definately is no camo here..."

I'd hafta say he appears to be spot on and the certified original 35mm negatives will bear him out.  This will indeed cast a cloud of doubt upon the veracity, motives and competency of the others.  As Paul Harvey says...

[#59]

Stan Courtney has a set of the originals and is having someone with expertise in photographic analysis examine them.

He is supposed to render an opinion upon both the veracity of the originals (aka: have they been altered) as well as his opinion of what the subject may actually be.

[Bill]

I played around with the image a bit in Photoshop by changing contrast and brightness and yeah there clearly is a figure of some sort there. To my eyes it looks to be a human perhaps in camo and maybe even a ghillie suit. I sure can't say what it might be as the photo was taken a far too low a resolution for any clear definition of the object. The supposedly "hi res" version are also only 96 pixels resolution and are really only super large not high resolution. As a result trying to expand the image only brings on blur.

Perhaps some day we'll be told who/what is really in the photo. Being a bigfoot skeptic I'd never agree such a poor image is of one. I'm still waiting on someone to produce an image that has decent clarity and resolution so we can see it is not a hoax or someone caught on camera. So long as all anyone produces is blurred low resolution photos the world will have to keep wondering what it is and why all the folks claiming to see them so often can't produce evidence of it.