Murray County

Lets see he got a picture and is willing to tell you about it but not show it. Sure he did.....

Here you go Unfortunately theres not much too see. I believe there are Bf in Murray county. I just wish people would'nt make such outrageous claims. :doh:

, Good Lord....I never made the connection between the BFF thread and that report. I remember that thread. You can clearly see the mother bigfoot, the nipple and the baby!!! NOT.

:yuck: :help:

Ok first time I looked at the pic I saw this. Now look under the arrows a little and you can see eye shine and the heavy brow ridge. I'm not sure if the little white horrizontal line is teeth or lip. but I see the eyes quite well. Am I seeing things???

What I see is an extremely pale person mooning the camera.

:willies:

I saw that too when I magnified it. It's really the only interesting thing I see in this picture. Though its too vague and too dark to try to make any conclusions.

The movie "Holes" doesn't have as many in it as that report does.

Hey, LOOK! I see some floating hair in the picture!!!!

come on no one sees the eyes and brow ridge??? It is obviously there. possible hoax attempt?? or you are looking at the eyes of a Real BF.

I see the eyes and brow line, but unless the creature is on all fours, there is a gaping hole in its torso...

Aren't we just the word smith.

appears to be a crouched over silverback? looks like the outline of one anyways?? shoulders too wide to be female gorilla, hence the reason "I" think it looks like a silverback?

This is the original photo

Original photo brightened in Paint shop pro. Nothing fancy, nothing enhanced except light.

This is the second photo, brightened a little more. There just isn't anything there.

I'm telling you, you can draw circles, arrows and squares until you are blue in the face and there still isn't anything in this photo. I got this photo off the original thread as a copy of the original photo. What was anybody thinking?

oops

These photos really confuse me. The first is called a control photo and we assume the second is taken from the same game cam from the same spot. If you look at the control photo, you can see an axe handle leaning on the chair. In the second photo, you can also see the axe handle and it seems to be going through the bright image. It is also in a different position when compared to the chair in the background. See pictures.

control with axe

Not enough to make out anything. When will someone come up with a great photo?

The glare at the left edge of the photo is the BF's right hand index finger very close to the camera lens. At first, this was believed to be a stick of firewood held up to the camera; not as a reaction to the flash but as an approach to the camera. If you hold your left hand up to the computer screen while viewing the photo you can match the shape of the glare by slightly bending your own index finger. For those of you having a hard time with this notion, I must say from here you appear to be using the wrong finger! The photo posted is no where near as clear as the hard copy. The hard copy shows the hair to be red. I wish GCBRO would scan their hard copy and post. I noticed someone thought to line up the test photo with the subject (female bigfoot) photo. You get the same result if you line up the left armrest of the chair in each photo. The left armrest is where the left thumb is visible. The test photo was not a true test photo in that we did not take the shot on purpose, something activated the motion sensor of the camera closer towards dawn than the time that the bigfoot photo was taken. Also, I drove from the Chicago area to the ranch in Oklahoma for a short stay and from there then drove to the Texas Conference. I realized the conference people would be busy conducting their conference, but since I was so close as Oklahoma I decided to try to show the photo to any who was interested. We have laughed our butts off at the comments and understand where these folks are coming from.

Just for reference here...........

I can see where you are so right Xjay, for me this photo that is shown rivals the clarity of the P/G film.

As for the "For those of you having a hard time with this notion, I must say from here you appear to be using the wrong finger!" Oh, believe me I am sure using the correct finger, it's the same one I used the other day to the Guy who cut me off while I was driving.

Please feel free to come back & post more photo's, these are the Best BF pictures, bar none.

Welcome to the BFF Xjay

I'm sure the hard copy, as you say, is much better than what we are seeing here, or you wouldn't have published it, maybe. But I don't see it. I downloaded the incredible magnifier and at 2x I can see what you are looking at. At 3x, some of the features actually change places and at 4x, the nostril winds up by the left eye, kind of Picasso like.

My wife pointed out that when she looks at the ceiling, she can see faces. I have subtracted and added pixels and it still looks like a blob/blur. Sorry

Mick

After putting that photo through all kinds of contortions in my editing software, I think the white diaphonous blob is not a solid. It may be the shine from something that is too well hidden within the blob to see, or it may be smoke very close to the lens.. or something very different, but in any case, it isn't a solid. The other solids you can see in the picture maintain their form under all kinds of manipulations, but the blob does not. It's very easy to make it give up it's shape and shrink it down. You can't really do that with the chair in the distance. Nor with the numbers printed on the photo.

In short, whatever we see in the white blob is very likely to be an optical illusion.

Umm..you have seen half the photos that permeate this forum and tother places right ?

I agree. This appears to be a reflection of something extremely close to the lens, certainly 24 inches and probably a lot less.

Notice the maybe?

There was no stopping you, was there 22. I think my comment went over your head. That's the wrong finger. As for clarity to P/G film, their's was shot during daylight, mine at night. Plus, I wasn't even there to aim the camera. When you get good at "Finding Waldo", maybe someone will take you bigfootin'. Provided, of cource, that it's O.K. for you to leave your house. I couldn't help but notice that you always seem to be lurking near your computer. O.K., now here comes your juvenile responce, and a few others will chirp in to say, hey, "it's only hard love, don't get upset, etc." I promise I'm not upset, it's just too easy to know the difference between hard love and sarcasm. Just so I know, do you consider the P/G film to be good evidence, or would you k-bash that also? That having been said, I'm ready to get past the BS and hopefully have some mature communications with some fine people. Also, I didn't publish the photo, someone else did. But I'm not upset about it. I just got this computer, the photo is the reason why. Now I need to learn how to use it, :blacknblue: so I can scan the photo myself and draw the lines where they should be. Yeah, yeah, I know. You're going to tell me where they should be.

I don't understand what you mean by hard copy". In order to post a photograph from film to the internet it has to converted to a digital image and the most common way to do that is to scan it, what else can they do?

Your picture was taken at night but doesn’t mean that it should suffer much in clarity; there is a flash after all. I honestly can say I don't see a thing, I can see everything in the background just fine, but I don't see anything resembling an upright bipedal animal.
It looks to me that what ever tripped the camera was too close to the lens and the flash to make anything out of it. It could have been just about anything. To be honest it doesn’t even make a good blobsquatch.

As far as discussions about the P/G film, take a look around here and you'll find a couple dozen threads debating its merits. I wouldn’t make too many assumptions about what or what doesn’t get discussed here until you look around more.


Now a little friendly advice; don’t start getting defensive and insulting people here on your second post to the board, it makes you look pretty suspicious, This is the type of thing that we’ve seen here a lot and it never turns out good . Judging from the responses you’ve received since this last post, I think people are ignoring you.

Myself can't see a thing other than whats there.. a Flash and some lawn chairs..

Belle

Hi Belle,
I wonder if that blob is the photographer's own left hand?

Thanks Xjay for pointing this out to me "As for clarity to P/G film, their's was shot during daylight, mine at night." I would of never known. thank you again.

1. "When you get good at "Finding Waldo", maybe someone will take you bigfootin'. Provided, of cource, that it's O.K. for you to leave your house."

I am not allowed out after 6:00pm by myself but if you can write a letter to my Mother that I will be with you to do some "honest to goodness Bigfootin'" then I think it should be OK.

2. "I couldn't help but notice that you always seem to be lurking near your computer."

No wonder I had that strange feeling, now I will pull the covers over my head at knight knowing you are watching me.

3. "Just so I know, do you consider the P/G film to be good evidence, or would you k-bash that also?"

Yes I do. I got it right from the person who was there., Bob Heronimush told me "can't ya tell it was me in the suit, come out in the parking lot & watch me do the BF walk & you will know it was me" then he asked me for the $1000 that Roger Paterson supposedly owed him. I told him the check was in the mail.

The GCBRO put up in detail what was supposedly in the photo:

"Description of Creature: The photo shows a red-haired female bigfoot. Her face doesn't have any hair on it. Her mouth is closed, lips together. She has a big round mouth like a monkey, but there's a deep phylum on the upper lip. The detail of the ear looks very human. The nose is hard to make out, but seems human-like. She has a beard both on and below her chin. Her breasts are small (one is hidden behind what she is holding up to the camera). The nipple is visible on her left breast and between the breasts is a clump of red hair. Her
left hand is resting on or clasping the arm rest of a metal chair, her thumb is clearly visible and has a black nail. The juvenile looks to have dark hair. It's round looking ear is at the tip of the adult's thumb in the photo. The juvenile is looking directly at the camera."

It seems to me there is suppose to be no kind of problem with all the detail that the photo supposedly shows. They even mention "her thumb is clearly visible and has a black nail." but so far the photos that have been shown, nothing is even close or in anyway resembles what's claimed.


"I just got this computer, the photo is the reason why. Now I need to learn how to use it, :blacknblue: so I can scan the photo myself and draw the lines where they should be."

If you have the original photo that supposedly has all this detail on it , why would you have to "draw the lines where they should be"??

OK Xjay, the ball is in your court, the talk is over, roll the dice, no BS, post the photo & lets see what ya really got.

Hello, Blackdog. You know anyone can read this site for years without registering to post. I'm well aware of the debate over the P/G footage. That was the jest of my comment. The scan posted here is from a CD I own. It was sent over the net to a few people via my local library's computer. I'm hoping a new scan will not have such a blue hue to it. Who ever posted the photo used that blue looking scan. Even a new scan isn't going to look perfectly clear, it's not a perfectly clear photo. When the photo was first developed I didn't know what it was either. I viewed it a few times and put it away. Then one day I was looking at all of the photos taken and realized there were some photos of the same back ground showing this empty chair against the outer wall of the cabin. By then all of the photos were jumbled together. When I found the photo with the blob-squatch I decided to try and draw an image of the image. The first thing I noticed was the ear at the top of the glare, and the rest jumped out. While viewing the hard copy, some people say, "Oh, my God!", and see the BF immediatlely. I didn't. I didn't post the photo either, but since it is, I am eager to post a new scan. This weekend I am hoping to get some help doing this. Please don't misinterpret my lack of appreciation for the sarcastic as being defensive. I am not insulted. It's just that some folks here are so predictable. Why do you choose to caution me. I simply don't see the need for all the sarcasm, but I truly appreciate your little friendly advice. P.S. They are not ignoring, they are waiting.

Notice you said the "hard copy may be better" and the "maybe" was placed at the end of "wouldn't have published it" ? Why would you be be sure the hard copy be better? That didn't leave much room for a "maybe" now did it ? You can read your own posts right?

Unless Xjay can get us some better resolution on this photo maybe this thread belongs on the Ghost Forum.

That maybe it, Hoos.

again:



Belle

My god, Jim, can't you read the posts as well?

I used a phrase "hard copy" as the original poster used it. I thought they were referring to a print and I was being sarcastic, ergo the comma and the maybe. When one makes a definitive statement that is followed by a non-definitive statement, in the north, that is usually construed as sarcasm.

blah, blah, yada-yada-yada. 10-4 big daddy, over and out, roger.

Xjay's photo report is put on The GCBRO Online Report Submission Form, reported by Confidential. The GCBRO gives a "detailed" report of what supposedly is shown on the photo. They will also " have our lead GCBRO investigator from Oklahoma attempting to contact the witness to do a follow up to this report"
Downloaded photo's are posted on the BFF. There are people out here & I think we can reasonably say they know their stuff when it comes to photo's. They brighten, work, twist, turn & do whatever is done using photoshop etc. etc. yet all we see is somekind of what I will call, flash of light. Nothing even resembling or coming close to the "detailed" report claimed by the GCBRO. Anyone with a reasonable mind & decent eyesight after looking at the photo's RED FLAGS would start to fly.

Even Xjay admits:
"Even a new scan isn't going to look perfectly clear, it's not a perfectly clear photo. When the photo was first developed I didn't know what it was either. I viewed it a few times and put it away."
"When I found the photo with the blob-squatch I decided to try and draw an image of the image."

Why would a person who has the original photo on a disk call it a "blob-squatch" and have to draw an image on the photo for everone to see when the GCBRO gave such a "detailed" report of what is on the photo??

This is a totally honest non-sarcastic question for Xjay. Did you give them all the "details" of what you see in the photo or did the person from the GCBRO write down what they claim to see in the photo, is it your's or their's??

The "It's just that some folks here are so predictable." rings so true but not the way it is being used here, cause over the years what is supposedly claimed & what is finally shown in photo's (remember the Revatex claim as an example) can only be described as "World's Apart"

I hope you are able to download the original photo from the disk everyone will be waiting.

Believe22.......BINGO !!.... Thassa Goodie !

Great post Believe22! I know xjay is passionate about what he believes he has and wants to defend his position, but the proof is in the pudding, or lack there of in this particular photo. If you were to take this photo to the media and put it out to the world as possible evidence of a bigfoot..........man o' man you think people get scrutinized, critiqued, scoffed at, laughed at, feelings hurt, and over questioned here. I hope the skin is real thick. Looked at what they have done with Patty over the years and for that fact, what we have done with Patty and it's a relatively clear film(that, by the way,IMHO is a testament to the character of Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson and how they handled the critics). We've analyized Patty right down to individual pixles and yet the debate still goes on, thread after thread, post after post, enhanced frame after frame. It probably will keep going.Sorry xjay, but photos like this is going to cause the reactions you got. If you can't stand the heat you should have never gone into the kitchen and fired up the stove.

Photo opps with BF are our near futile mission in the field.
But we keep clicking away..............

Mike2k1, I believe you are absolutely correct about one thing. There is no need to post this photo....not until it can be done in a way that matches the details of those visible in a hard copy. Scanning the photo just isn't going to cut it. I'm not even sure a CD from the negative can place some of the details on the screen. For example, all the detail of the outer ear is present in the photo. It matches that of a human ear. I wish the two BF organizations that have hard copies would put the photo under the same scrutiny and attention to detail that has graced the Patterson footage. I never posted the photo and still haven't, but I'm very willing to share it, so for a limited time only: just $9.95 plus S&H.....not really. It's my understanding that even at GCBRO the vote is split over the photo. I was really hoping that by now I could do this new post, but until something better happens with the means to do so I'll be content to stay on the front porch and watch the big dogs run (and it's far from the kitchen!).

"The GCBRO put up in detail what was supposedly in the photo:

"Description of Creature: The photo shows a red-haired female bigfoot. Her face doesn't have any hair on it. Her mouth is closed, lips together. She has a big round mouth like a monkey, but there's a deep phylum on the upper lip. The detail of the ear looks very human. The nose is hard to make out, but seems human-like. She has a beard both on and below her chin. Her breasts are small (one is hidden behind what she is holding up to the camera). The nipple is visible on her left breast and between the breasts is a clump of red hair. Her
left hand is resting on or clasping the arm rest of a metal chair, her thumb is clearly visible and has a black nail. The juvenile looks to have dark hair. It's round looking ear is at the tip of the adult's thumb in the photo. The juvenile is looking directly at the camera."



Xjay,
I again posted above the detailed "Description of Creature" from the report by the GCBRO of the alleged 2 Bigfoot in the photo. Who exactly came up with all of these "details"? Was it the GCBRO after they saw the photo or did you describe to them all of the details & they just wrote what you said or is it a combination of both? Can you help clear this up.

P.S... Have you contacted anyone on the BFF asking for help to post your original photo?

Yeah !

What he said !

My BS meter is pegging out on this thread :bs:

...

Sorry to say, ya got to agree with Mr. Blue & SkunkHunter looks like another one that ain't going to go anyplace. Then people wonder why a lot of questions are asked when a person makes an Extraordinary claim with photo's that show nothing. I just don't know. :help: