Author Topic: Bigfoot Picture (Read 3177 times)

bullet maker · « **on:** March 30, 2006, 03:58:31 AM »

Hey guys

Here is the short and long about the picture. As you know their is a picture that was posted on the other sites with out my permission. I want to answer some of your thoughts about the picture.

Yes that is the picture of mine, however, it is not the picture, rathers words, it is a very poor quality of the orginal.

The reason I cant release any information about what M.K. Davis is finding on the negative I sent him, is because he doesn`t want me to, until he`s done with the picture. Thats fair enough.

I dont know how long it will take till he is through with it.

No, the picture is not being altered in anyway, it is being studied exactly as the negative shows.

So when the picture is finished, it will be the same, only through the new state of film inspection, it will (hopefully) be much clearer, to bring out detail, not any alteration will take place.

thanks

bullet maker

FOsteology · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:45:08 PM »

BM,

Once M.K. is through with your photo, are you going to post it here on GBO as you previously stated, or have you recanted?

powderman · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2006, 03:10:27 PM »

BM. I'm looking forward to seeing it. POWDERMAN.

bullet maker · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2006, 02:14:09 AM »

Quote from: FOsteology

BM,

Once M.K. is through with your photo, are you going to post it here on GBO as you previously stated, or have you recanted?

Yes I will post here when its finished, but It will be posted on another site first----A wonderful little site call squatchdetective.com , I promised them first,--- for 2 weeks of the picture---they like this GBO, will not put up with any abuse of members. I had made them the promise 2 weeks ago, so they get first pick.

I salute Bill for starting this site---I think their will be some serious true stories finally, with the person`s telling of their encounters, not being afraid they will be made fun of.

bullet maker

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2006, 04:11:18 AM »

Quote from: bullet maker

Quote from: FOsteology
BM,

Once M.K. is through with your photo, are you going to post it here on GBO as you previously stated, or have you recanted?

Yes I will post here when its finished, but It will be posted on another site first----A wonderful little site call squatchdetective.com , I promised them first,--- for 2 weeks of the picture---they like this GBO, will not put up with any abuse of members. I had made them the promise 2 weeks ago, so they get first pick.

Make sure their server is up to it (posting the pic) as I tried to post one there a couple of weeks ago and the message came back the server capacity couldn't handle it.

I salute Bill for starting this site---I think their will be some serious true stories finally, with the person`s telling of their encounters, not being afraid they will be made fun of.

bullet maker

jpred1 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:31:17 PM »

Ok ,what is Mk s direction with the photo?Doctor it or what.When will actual photo be on here for us to decide for ourselves?I still want to believe BM has a real pic of BIGFOOT.

bullet maker · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:37:48 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

OK John and Dennis I now have the e-mail from MK Davis and have read what he said regarding the directions he has for the photo. You are now released to ask the question you have been wanting to ask. But do so politely and within the site rules but it's a fair question in my mind at this point.

Bill I havent checked my personl messages till a few minutes ago, 18:15 hrs. I had sent you an P.M. back, and one of the questions was where did you get an e-mail from M.K., but now I see where you got the e-mail from (John and Dennis).

I want John and Dennis to post the e-mail here on this site so I also, can see it. Or Bill if you have it post it on here so I can read it.

bullet maker

WmRoy · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2006, 05:40:37 PM »

:cb1: :cb1: :cb1: :cb1:

Graybeard · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2006, 06:10:10 PM »

OK I'm gonna try to put this one to bed. The copy I had when I posted the above was a forward of a message from MK to another person who's name I don't recognize and it was in response to a question on the photo.

But I wrote to MK myself and he has replied to me. My questions to him were:

Quote

Do you have the photo? Are you under any restrictions from Doug on evaluating it and giving the world your honest opinion of what it represents? Are you supposed to do an Â“enhancementÂ” based on DougÂ’s guidance? If so, what exactly does Â“enhancementÂ” mean in this specific instance.

MK's reply to me reads:

Quote

Hey Bill. I do have the photo, and by enhancing, I mean clarify it, with known methods. I won't be adding or taking away anything, and it was my decision not to get involved with any interpretations. I am simply going to apply some methods to clear it up, as much as I can, and then give the results back to Mr. Bilby, with no opinion of mine attached. Whatever he says about it will be his own opinion, as I will be done with it. I'm doing this at no charge. Just trying to help. Thanks for the invitation to your forum. I've been working on a major project with the Patterson Gimlin film, and it takes a lot of my time lately. Regards, M.K.

So as far as I'm concerned this is now a dead issue. MK says it was his idea not BM's that he would offer no opinion of it. He also has said he will add nothing and take away nothing in it. So for now I consider it a dead issue as to what directions if any BM gave MK regarding the photo. It will still have to stand or fall on it's own merit whenever Doug decides to post it.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2006, 06:56:29 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

OK John and Dennis I now have the e-mail from MK Davis and have read what he said regarding the directions he has for the photo. You are now released to ask the question you have been wanting to ask. But do so politely and within the site rules but it's a fair question in my mind at this point.

Email from M.K. Davis on 3/25/2006 @ 18:25 HRS:

Don't know him (BM) personally. He has asked me to enhance the photo, which I have agreed to do. It is with the understanding that I will offer no interpretation at all, one way or the other. I've been around for a while. Photo's come and go. We'll see on this one. Thanks for the heads up.

M.K.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2006, 07:04:43 PM »

Quote from: bullet maker

Hey guys

Here is the short and long about the picture. As you know their is a picture that was posted on the other sites with out my permission. I want to answer some of your thoughts about the picture.

Yes that is the picture of mine, however, it is not the picture, rathers words, it is a very poor quality of the orginal.

The reason I cant release any information about what M.K. Davis is finding on the negative I sent him, is because he doesn`t want me to, until he`s done with the picture. Thats fair enough.

This statement is why we were asking questions as it appears to be a 180 from the original instructions to M.K.

I dont know how long it will take till he is through with it.

No, the picture is not being altered in anyway, it is being studied exactly as the negative shows.

So when the picture is finished, it will be the same, only through the new state of film inspection, it will (hopefully) be much clearer, to bring out detail, not any alteration will take place.

thanks

bullet maker

D.G. · « **Reply #11 on:** April 01, 2006, 03:30:12 AM »

Knowing and respecting M.K. Davis, there was no question that the phrase "enhancement " meant clarification.
M.K. would not alter a photo if his life depended on it.
This whole debate started with the bogus claims of the photo being better than the Patterson film.
If the photo has to be clarified by ANY means it is not a clear photograph and certainly not better than the Patterson film, it is on par with or inferior to several photos taken by Mary Green. That are blobsquatch at best.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #12 on:** April 01, 2006, 07:41:30 AM »

Quote from: D.G.

Knowing and respecting M.K. Davis, there was no question that the phrase "enhancement " meant clarification.
M.K. would not alter a photo if his life depended on it.
This whole debate started with the bogus claims of the photo being better than the Patterson film.
If the photo has to be clarified by ANY means it is not a clear photograph and certainly not better than the Patterson film, it is on par with or inferior to several photos taken by Mary Green. That are blobsquatch at best.

DITTO!

bullet maker · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:18:57 AM »

MK's email to Graybeard states exactly what I had been saying all along. I would not ask him or anyone else to compromise their principals. Anything more than what I have asked Mr. Davis to do would also make my picture no good also. I am glad that it has finally been proven that what I have said all along about my instructions to Mr. Davis is the case.

Bullet Maker

Graybeard · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:26:36 AM »

But you see myself and many others who were posting to the topic on the Strange things seen forum do not know MK Davis and really know little of his reputation. For us there was some questions which his e-mail reply to me has now cleared up.

While I think it is understandable that we all questioned what the heck was going on when we saw the original e-mail quoted above by John it was a misinterpretation by us. MK has cleared that up by saying it was HIS IDEA not Doug's that he do no interpretation of it. We just assumed it was at Doug's direction and we were wrong.

Now as to the comment

Quote

This whole debate started with the bogus claims of the photo being better than the Patterson film.
If the photo has to be clarified by ANY means it is not a clear photograph and certainly not better than the Patterson film, it is on par with or inferior to several photos taken by Mary Green. That are blobsquatch at best.

that is one Doug likely feels borders on a personal attack. Perhaps BUT Truth is a defense and to be honest that is the opinion of all of us other than Doug that I know personally who have viewed it.

So I'm gonna rule that NOT a personal attack but agree it walks a thin line. The second part of the statement is the qualifier to the first which I cannot disagree with based on my own visual observation of it.

It will be interesting to see what an "enhanced" view of it shows and I'd sure like to know what photographic methods are used to "enchance" it. If only changing the light/dark ratio or color balance then I can agree that adds or takes away nothing. Still to me it looked like blobsquatch. But then I'm not one who is yet convinced the Patterson view is genuine either so I'm a real skeptic and that's a fact.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2006, 06:28:07 PM »

Especially when our original understanding was that M.K. was going to offer an interpretation/analysis based partly upon his expertise in this area.

What hasn't been mentioned until this post is BM was advised (by both D.G. & me) to send the picture to M.K. over a year ago! It's also my understanding that BM contacted M.K. and was asked (by M.K.) to send it to him but (BM) refused to do so until now.

So, instead we're going to get an "enhanced" version which will in all likelihood simply result in those who haven't seen anything remarkable in the original version continuing to be of the same impression as well as those (mainly, BM) who claim to "see" something significant continuing to maintain that position.

Until a critical analysis is performed the status quo will be in effect which IMHO contributes NOTHING to resolving the question. Of course, if you are fearful that critical analysis might not yield any flattering results the status quo might be your best option.

Graybeard · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2006, 07:21:21 PM »

True enough. It would have been nice if he had sent it some while back. If he had it is even possible an analysis would have been done. BM told me that the negative comments here at this site and perhaps at others was a part of the reason for him not wanting to do the analysis. I dunno as MK didn't mention that in his e-mail to me.

bullet maker · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:08:42 PM »

Quote from: Telahnay's g'son

Especially when our original understanding was that M.K. was going to offer an interpretation/analysis based partly upon his expertise in this area.

What hasn't been mentioned until this post is BM was advised (by both D.G. & me) to send the picture to M.K. over a year ago! It's also my understanding that BM contacted M.K. and was asked (by M.K.) to send it to him but (BM) refused to do so until now.

So, instead we're going to get an "enhanced" version which will in all likelihood simply result in those who haven't seen anything remarkable in the original version continuing to be of the same impression as well as those (mainly, BM) who claim to "see" something significant continuing to maintain that position.

(Of course, if you are fearful that critical analysis might not yield any flattering results the status quo might be your best option).

There you go again john , you just cant help yourself can you. like the above statement. (OF COURSE, IF YOU ARE FEARFUL THAT CRITICAL ANALYSIS MIGHT NOT YIELD ANY FLATTERING RESULTS THE STATUS QUO MIGHT BE YOUR BEST OPTION) How do you think that sounds?

Let me tell you again, I already proved you guys wrong, when M.K. e-mailed and told exactly what I said he said and I said, Did I get an apology from any of you?------NO---I dont have to prove anything to anybody. And then you-all start saying ---well----we actually wasn`t meaning that he said it was better than the patterson film. So now we well take him to task on that comment. Well it is better than the Patterson film. Mr M.K. had to enhance that one also to bring out more detail. So whats the difference with him doing the same way with mine?

I hope I made my point to everyone here. That is I`m just as anxious as the rest of you-all to get the best picture done. So it can be presented in the best light and every detail can be brought out. Fair enough?

bullet maker

Until a critical analysis is performed the status quo will be in effect which IMHO contributes NOTHING to resolving the question. Of course, if you are fearful that critical analysis might not yield any flattering results the status quo might be your best option.

bullet maker · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:17:56 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

True enough. It would have been nice if he had sent it some while back. If he had it is even possible an analysis would have been done. BM told me that the negative comments here at this site and perhaps at others was a part of the reason for him not wanting to do the analysis. I dunno as MK didn't mention that in his e-mail to me.

Well guys, if I had sent it to MK. back then, it would still be done the same way that he is doing it now. There ain`t nothing gained or lost, except time. I got off the phone with him tonight, and all he can do, is try to add different colors to the photo, to see if it brings out more detail. Thats what he is doing now. He will not give any critque about the picture, his idea not mine. Maybe he just wants to stay neutral. Rather words, let the picture stand on its own merit. I thank thats a good idea anyhow.

Thanks

bullet maker

bullet maker · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2006, 08:53:21 PM »

John wrote

Quote

Especially when our original understanding was that M.K. was going to offer an interpretation/analysis based partly upon his expertise in this area.

What hasn't been mentioned until this post is BM was advised (by both D.G. & me) to send the picture to M.K. over a year ago! It's also my understanding that BM contacted M.K. and was asked (by M.K.) to send it to him but (BM) refused to do so until now.

And my reply is yes they did tell me over a year ago. But I did talk to mr. M.K. shortly have John and Dennis, told me, by phone, and I just wasnt ready yet, didnt know the guy that well, seen his work, but didnt know him. So I called him long distance, had a nice talk.
Year and a half latter sent the picture. He doesnt charge a dime, but with attorney fees, long distant phone calls, etc, it`s not cheap. YOu guy`s wanna donate? :-D :-D just kidding?

bullet maker

[/b]

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #20 on:** April 02, 2006, 06:26:34 PM »

Would BM have ever sent the picture to M.K. unless he had been pressed to validate his claims after the original copy version was published on various sites?

Why has he taken exception with everyone that failed to concur with his opinion of what the photo actually is?

I truly hope this "enhanced" version offers some clarification but fear (as in the case of GIGO) we'll simply wind up with an enhanced photo of something which either cannot be distinguished or an amplification for those who are content to read into the picture whatever they want to read into it.

I personally wish no harm to BM however, his entire reputation (in the realm of BF research) is on the line with this one. And as I was reared concerning such things...listen very politely to what folks have to say BUT pay dang close attention to what they do!

Graybeard · « **Reply #21 on:** April 02, 2006, 06:47:35 PM »

I too wish him the best of luck with the outcome of it. If he made a million bucks on it I'd be happy as can be for him. But sadly I don't see it happening. I know what I saw or didn't see in it and I just don't think any money is gonna come from it enhanced or not. And BM I hope you prove me wrong on that. I'll celebrate with you if I'm wrong.

jpred1 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2006, 03:39:52 AM »

Well BM,get you a 100 buck digi game cam and go out there and get some better pics.If I understand this right,those pics are over an year old.I know you havent gave up on getting more.If there were any bigfeet around here ,Id have 10 cameras set up everywhere.The digi cameras will pay for themselves in less than 2 weeks compared to price of film and developing.

jpred1 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2006, 03:44:47 AM »

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43cc8edazfe4642a6/1d32/__sr_/7b00re2.jpg?phosSMEBjtVI8uP0

bullet maker · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2006, 03:59:54 AM »

Quote from: Telahnay's g'son

Would BM have ever sent the picture to M.K. unless he had been pressed to validate his claims after the original copy version was published on various sites?

Why has he taken exception with everyone that failed to concur with his opinion of what the photo actually is?

I truly hope this "enhanced" version offers some clarification but fear (as in the case of GIGO) we'll simply wind up with an enhanced photo of something which either cannot be distinguished or an amplification for those who are content to read into the picture whatever they want to read into it.

I personally wish no harm to BM however, his entire reputation (in the realm of BF research) is on the line with this one. And as I was reared concerning such things...listen very politely to what folks have to say BUT pay dang close attention to what they do!

I would like to thank you John and graybeard for your well wishes.

I hope that I never took exceptions to anyone that disagreed! :idea: that is ones that disagreed with out the personal attacks.
I think I have a wondeful reputation as a bigfoot hunter, and My reputation is still intact. I get P.M.s daily with well-wishes, and keep my chin up from all the personal attacks. And they continue on to say, how well informed I keep everyone. So I am not worried about anything, and only wish the best to all.

Bullet Maker

[/b]

jpred1 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2006, 04:03:00 AM »

These are the largest creatures I have behind my house,I HOPE.Good luck BM and keep up the chase.

Graybeard · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2006, 04:07:31 AM »

This back and forth sniping is doing no one any good. I want that to be the LAST post on this subject unless and until such time as something NEW is available to post on the subject of the photo. Arguing over who said what to who when is of no value.

It has been established that the photo was taken on a game camera put out by BM. It shows something. BM thinks it's an adult and baby. Everyone else I'm personally aware of who's seen it thinks it's blobsquach. A poor copy has been posted and like what several of us noticed in the original we can see nothing. The photo is now in the hands of MK Davis who will do some sort of photographic enhancement and after that BM has promised to post it first on some small site and then elsewhere. Until then let the subject lie dormant.

Ray Ford · « **Reply #27 on:** April 05, 2006, 02:46:24 PM »

A while back, I stated that I would not offer an opinion of Bulletmaker's picture even though I had seen the original 8x10 and had seen the location. I've canged my mind--not to perpetuate the acrimonous back-and-forth postings, but to further Graybeard's effort to "lay it to rest."

1. The photo was taken by a game cam affixed to a tree on a creek bank with a bungee cord: the cord was stretched around the tree and held the camera firmly to the tree in a horizontal position. It pointed toward the creek--I believe.

2. When the photo was shot, the camera had apparently been skewed: although the lens was still pointed at the creek, one end of the camera had been raised so that the camera was at an angle to the horizontal. This caused the picture to capture sky and tree limbs on one side of the image and creek bank on the other side.

3. The 8x10 was reasonably clear: it was not out of focus, and the image was clearly visible. Although the 8x10 was clearer, I do not think that there is much difference to be seen between it and the ones posted.

4. I do not believe that "enhancement" will make the picture show much more than I saw in the 8x10. Radical enlargement might bring out detail.

5. The image has a curved conical shape--if that makes sense. No clearly defined head or arms were visible. If it is the image is of a Big Foot, it shows the torso from about mid-section up. If a head is visible, it merges into what would be the shoulders of the torso without a discernable neck. The hair/fur appeared to belong to whatever creature was photographed.

6. The first duty of any objective investigator is to ask all the possible questions. The first question that I asked was, "What could have been photographed so as to produce this image?" I asked further, "Could this be the high-arched back of a feral Russian Hog?" I don't know. I then asked, "Could this be a Beaver?" I don't want to rile Bulletmaker, but the shape is similar to that of a beaver photographed from the back. Could a Beaver have gotten up on the tree to the camera, skewed it, and triggered the camera as he turned away? I don't know. I then asked,
"Could this be a raccoon?" Again, the shape is similar to that of a 'coon photographed from the back. Could a 'coon have skewed and triggered the camera? I don't know. I then asked, "Could this be a Bear?" A bear could have skewed the camera, but would a bear, photographed from the back, have produced this image? I don't know. I then asked, "Could this be a hoax?" Could a neighbor, or someone else, have played a joke on Bulletmaker? I doubt it, but I don't know. My last question was, "Is there enough in this photo to identify the image with any degree of certainty?" I don't think that there is. Can I say that it shows a Big Foot? No. Can I say that it does not show a Big Foot? No.

My suggestion to Bulletmaker is that he file this photo for the time being and try to obtain another one: put the cameras out and hope that whatever creature was photographed in the first picture will pass by again. Document the placement of the camera before and after it is triggered, and do some examination of the scene for supporting evidence. No photo, one without supporting evidence, will ever convince skeptics of the existence of Big Foot. Photography is too subject to manipulation and subjective interpretation.

Let's be friends and go huntin'!

Graybeard · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2006, 05:37:29 PM »

Now those comments make me wonder even more.

If the camera was skewed at an angle with the right side up and left side down why is the "creature" upright in the photo? Would he/she/it not have had to be leaned at precisely the same angle as the camera for that to happen? I'm gonna hafta go back and take yet another look at the photo in light of what you've just said regarding the camera and it's postition relative to the earth in this photo.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #29 on:** April 05, 2006, 06:36:19 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

Now those comments make me wonder even more.

If the camera was skewed at an angle with the right side up and left side down why is the "creature" upright in the photo? Would he/she/it not have had to be leaned at precisely the same angle as the camera for that to happen? I'm gonna hafta go back and take yet another look at the photo in light of what you've just said regarding the camera and it's postition relative to the earth in this photo.

That's why my inclination is to label the picture that of a beaver. At the time of the photo being snapped the creek level was within ~3 feet of the camera lens and as such it is entirely within reason that a large beaver (BM has them all over his place) could have reared up on the tree trunk and in the process nudged the camera/lens to an almost vertical position and then proceeded to disengage with the sensor being triggered and photo snapped as the camera recoiled (from the bungee cord tension) across the beaver's back.