Author Topic: Picture of bigfoot (Read 4151 times)

bullet maker · « **on:** October 16, 2006, 03:56:30 AM »

O.K. guy`s here is the long waited for-- the picture of bigfoot-- or I should say their are three bigfoot`s in this picture. A friend of mine, (wildphotographer) was kind enough to put them on a link. Here is the link--- s

The pictures were authenticated by a primatologist from a very prestigious zoo. He phoned me immediatley after receive the disc, and said that it is the best evidence he has ever seen of the true existence of a bigfoot, other than the Patterson film. He could not give his opion on paper for fear of being fired from his job.

Here`s what happened/ the camera was placed in a tree 5ft above the ground, pointing down into a creek----the camera was strapped to the tree, using a bungee cord. I had set a dead carp, as bait--- the carp was placed up in a tree,--the carp was taken, and a bigfoot track was found beneath the tree limb, that I had placed the carp on---the tree limb, was about 7ft above the creek bed-- I placed the camera as described above, and the bigfoot didnt walk in the creek as I thought it would, but instead walked on the creek band, as it did, it brushed against the camera, forceing the camera upward, which then took the picture.

Hope you enjoy,--- and if you have any questions, ask me. This is probably the only authentic picture you may ever see of a bigfoot---other than the Patterson film. Hope I can get some more, time will tale.

bullet maker

bullet maker · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2006, 06:43:15 AM »

I would like to add this comment from wildphotographer, had to say about my photo

I wanted to add what he said, in light of being ridiculed by former, bigfoot hunters// in the past.

Doug,

I used just the one photo and one close up crop. My web space is at a premium and the pictures take up space. I think you will be pleased with what I have done. I deleted your name from the photos but left the copyright. I’ll post it to the GCBRO forum as soon as I hear from you.

Congratulations Doug. I think you actually nailed one!

bullet maker

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2006, 10:01:45 AM »

Some Last Thoughts About The Picture I Posted
by Wildphotographer
Now that the thread has gone cold, I will make one more comment about that picture and pictures in general. Although I believe that the picture I posted for the owner (444) was, in my opinion, quite possibly the backside of a squatch, I must also say that pictures such as that should remain filed away until better, clearer pictures are obtained. I must also say that, until game cams are treated as the instruments they are and set up with consideration given to secure mounting, the direction of the sun, height and downward angel, we will continue to get inconclusive pictures. Before you set up a game camera, check that it is above the reach of the average person. Secure it to a tree that doesn't sway in the breeze. Make sure the lens is CLEAN as even a slight smudge can turn into the Asian Haze when the sun hits it. And, always load it with the slowest film (200 is what I used) so that enlargements do not have grain the size of concrete blocks, which in turn creates pixilation that will fail the sniff test. Better yet, go to digitial game cams. I recently purchased two at Walmart for $99 a piece. They are 1.5 megapixel and will run rings around any film game cam out there. Take one of these to your favorite squatch playground. It will definitely help in the fight to eradicate the Blobsquatch!

Just my opinion...but a learned opinion.

Posted on Oct 4, 2006, 7:10 PM
from IP address 65.32.43.84

THIS is what Wildphotographer last posted (10/04/06) on GCBRO about this picture.

bullet maker · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2006, 10:43:13 AM »

Thank you T.G.S.

I agree that the new digatal, camera`s are way ahead of what I have to use, and would love to afford one some day, but all I have is what I have, and I have to live, with what I have.

LOL, that was a mouth full.

Wildphotographer, is also right about the lower speed film, he and I talked about that, and from now on, I am using the 200 A.S.A. speed. The reprints, are alot better, or rather words, they make better copy. The camera, MFG. suggested the 800 A.S.A. so that`s what I normally use, but like Wildphotographer, said they dont make could copy. And he`s right.

My first post of his e-mail to me, is what he really said, in that he can see the bigfoot back, and baby, but most people may not. human nature.

thanks for you opinion.

bullet maker

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2006, 10:50:44 AM »

Quote from: bullet maker on October 16, 2006, 10:43:13 AM

Thank you T.G.S.

I agree that the new digatal, camera`s are way ahead of what I have to use, and would love to afford one some day, but all I have is what I have, and I have to live, with what I have. LOL, that was a mouth full.

Wildphotographer, is also right about the lower speed film, he and I talked about that, and from now on, I am using the 200 A.S.A. speed. The reprints, are alot better, or rather words, they make better copy. The camera, MFG. suggested the 800 A.S.A. so that`s what I normally use, but like Wildphotographer, said they dont make could copy. And he`s right.

My first post of his e-mail to me, is what he really said, in that he can see the bigfoot back, and baby, but most people may not. human nature.

thanks for you opinion.

bullet maker

Just quoting what the man said, after he'd had time to reflect upon the deal. Nothing more, nothing less.

bullet maker · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2006, 12:27:52 PM »

That`s fine T.G.S. ---but that is old new`s, the one I first posted is what he sent me-- by way of P.M.--which is the correct content.

But thank you for trying to keep things in order

just thought I`d sit the record straight.

Nothing more, nothing less.

bullet maker

jpred1 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2006, 03:47:05 PM »

Whats the odds of you having a pic without the creature in it.Same camera angle and all.Im having an extremely hard time figuring out the background.A little more evidence and Ill send you a darn good digi game came.

powderman · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2006, 04:14:42 PM »

BULLETMAKER. I really wish ya had a really good camera. I couldn't dispute your conclusions. Very possible. POWDERMAN.

bullet maker · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2006, 04:17:19 PM »

Hi jpred1

Well I could take a picture of the same area, but the leaves are still to thick right now. Once the leaves have fallen off, I could take a picture of the area however. The orginal direction of the camera was pointing due east, but down into a creek. Rather words, the camera was 5ft up strapped on a tree, the tree was on the bank of the creek, and the camera was mounted 5ft up the tree off the ground. When the creatures, walked by the camera, and brushed the camera, as they walked by, the camera, got twisted and tilted upward in a north direction, when the picture took. The hugh hairy back, I`m assuming is the mom. the grey wall to the left side of the picture is a tree. I`ll probably have the picture made over, and put the three negatives before and after the creature, passed by the camera. But all the photo`s showed was the bottom of the creek with nothing in the picture except the creek.

The baby is on the mothers, right shoulder as you are looking at the picture, the baby is looking to the south, all you can see is the baby`s head. Dad is above the baby`s head, and he`s looking to the east. To the east where he is looking at is a house across a little country road about 200 yards away.

bullet maker

bullet maker · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2006, 04:22:07 PM »

Quote from: powderman on October 16, 2006, 04:14:42 PM

BULLETMAKER. I really wish ya had a really good camera. I couldn't dispute your conclusions. Very possible. POWDERMAN.

Thanks Powderman,

I`m hopeing old santa, can bring me one of those new dixital ones, by Christmas time. LOL One of the other bigfoot hunters that was with me on the last hunt, had one, and boy they are nice. The pictures from that camera, is clear as cold ice water. Not only that, but it will take a 10 frame video. He didn`t get any footage of bigfoot , but some really nice deer.

bullet maker

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2006, 06:17:46 PM »

Quote from: bullet maker on October 16, 2006, 12:27:52 PM

That`s fine T.G.S. ---but that is old new`s, the one I first posted is what he sent me-- by way of P.M.--which is the correct content.

But thank you for trying to keep things in order just thought I`d sit the record straight.

Nothing more, nothing less.

bullet maker

That's fine by me, BM as I was simply furnishing what the man said on a public forum as opposed to your paraphrase of what he (allegedly) said in a PM.

Good luck and I hope you get an Olan Mills quality pic next time!

Graybeard · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2006, 06:23:34 PM »

Aargh, not again with the same old blobsquatch.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2006, 06:37:00 PM »

Quote from: Telahnay's g'son on October 16, 2006, 10:01:45 AM

Some Last Thoughts About The Picture I Posted
by Wildphotographer
Now that the thread has gone cold, I will make one more comment about that picture and pictures in general. Although I believe that the picture I posted for the owner (444) was, in my opinion, quite possibly the backside of a squatch, I must also say that pictures such as that should remain filed away until better, clearer pictures are obtained. I must also say that, until game cams are treated as the instruments they are and set up with consideration given to secure mounting, the direction of the sun, height and downward angel, we will continue to get inconclusive pictures. Before you set up a game camera, check that it is above the reach of the average person. Secure it to a tree that doesn't sway in the breeze. Make sure the lens is CLEAN as even a slight smudge can turn into the Asian Haze when the sun hits it. And, always load it with the slowest film (200 is what I used) so that enlargements do not have grain the size of concrete blocks, which in turn creates pixilation that will fail the sniff test. Better yet, go to digitial game cams. I recently purchased two at Walmart for $99 a piece. They are 1.5 megapixel and will run rings around any film game cam out there. Take one of these to your favorite squatch playground. It will definitely help in the fight to eradicate the Blobsquatch!

Just my opinion...but a learned opinion.

Posted on Oct 4, 2006, 7:10 PM
from IP address 65.32.43.84

THIS is what Wildphotographer last posted (10/04/06) on GCBRO about this picture.

fireman · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2006, 07:18:45 PM »

well now, i was at bullets place for the 2 week research and hunt, one afternoon he recieved a documentary in the mail from wildphotographer. we watched the dvd and it was good. and i read the email to bullet about the photograph. so tg you can make snide remarks about the email being ALLEGED if you like. and everyone on this forum knows you will take this forum down again and again with the moderators blessings. even though it has been curtious and civil for a few days. wildphotographer said he thinks it is possibly a bigfoot in the picture.... but it troubles you to leave it at that doesn,t it? lets just talk about bigfoot and our experience out in the field! why must you continually try to subtly dredge up all the negativity you can muster? is there anybody else here tired of it?
after the gentleman says he believes it could be the back of a squatch, he then says it should be filed away until a better picture comes about. now why would he say that? maybe because until a picture comes out of the woods of a bigfoot doing a tapdance with a top hat, people like tg will take over all these threads and run everyone off who he decides he doesn't like that week. well when the moderator allows tg to run rough shod over everyone with out having to adhere to the rules himself, this place becomes a real lonely place to visit.
Fireman

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2006, 08:06:02 PM »

Last I heard the same rules of conduct that apply to anyone else also apply to ME.

IF, you took the time to read BM's initial post (first sentence) it alluded to a new picture(s) being presented not the same old tired ink blot photo. And yes, I saw the "enhancements" Wildphotographer made to it and IMHO if one has to resort to connect the dots style of enhancement to try and wrestle an image off the picture, therein lies the problem.

Also, BM says he (Wildphotographer) phoned him to convey his belief in the authenticity of the pic but couldn't put it in writing for fear of losing his "job". Now, y'all are saying there actually exists written confirmation of said which is in direct contradiction to the last sentence of paragraph two of BM's initial post. IMHO, most reasonable persons would have a problem with the inconsistencies inherent within BM's story(s).

As Paul Harvey says, "now for the rest of the story" all I was doing was illuminating the fact that the man (Wildphotographer) has his doubts about the picture and published them in a public setting.

IF you have a problem with that then maybe you're simply frustrated with trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's (BM's pic) ear?

fireman · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2006, 08:12:44 PM »

your funny tg, i just re-read the post .... and no! i can't see where it says "new picture" maybe you should re-read it before trying to run you gums without really saying anything!
fireman

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2006, 08:21:41 PM »

Quote from: fireman on October 16, 2006, 08:12:44 PM

your funny tg, i just re-read the post .... and no! i can't see where it says "new picture" maybe you should re-read it before trying to run you gums without really saying anything!
fireman

O.K. guy`s here is the long waited for-- the picture of bigfoot-- or I should say their are three bigfoot`s in this picture. A friend of mine, (wildphotographer) was kind enough to put them on a link. Here is the link--- http://www.grendelfilms.org/newsite/bfimages.htm

May I suggest reading comprehension 101?

Key words: "long waited for" & "three BF's in this picture"

Dancing upon the head of that pin can be a mite challenging.

fireman · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2006, 08:25:03 PM »

all i hear is gums smacking!
you did not say" new "this time. did you forget already?heres a hint... its three posts up! maybe if you change the subject and redirect more drivel, you might not have to answere why you can't or refuse to get your facts straight!! it reminds me how a while back you slandered bullet by saying he lied about cattle being killed in his area.you said "there are no cattle being killed '. so i contacted a man named brownlow from tulsa who had land around there,i asked him if he had lost any cattle, and he said that he had lost six steer just that summer. so just like then.... you slander and make accussations with little or made up facts. so ....once a liar mr.tg, always a liar. so tg, dancing on the head of that pin.... not near as hard as you telling the truth!

bullet maker · « **Reply #18 on:** October 17, 2006, 04:32:07 AM »

Tele.g.son. why dont you stay on your own site: http://www.gbofreeforums.info/Bigfootstudy/, your one and most important rule on that site, is no harrasment, and something to the effect, for the serious bigfoot hunter only. Well you sir, are harraseing, the people on this site , and me, again. I request sir, please stop your insane, rehtoric.

If you cant add, or be nice, please dont post on here. I refuse to go into detail, over some of the things, that you are suggesting here, but please stop the bickering. If you have to get the last word in. Then say it and be nice. We are also serious bigfoot hunters on this forum. Maybe we dont all agree, and that`s O.K., Some people dont see the monkees in the photo. Yet some do. It doesnt offend me, one way or the other. Its like I`ve always said before, in that, when you are in the woods, that big old 12 point 4 year old buck, dont just step out in-front of you, you have to make out his detail, as he is standing in the thick brush or woods, and slowly, you then make out his legs,--head---horns--ears---all of a sudden their he is.

I posted what is three bigfoots, and I expect to have disagreements. And thats OK, also. I posted them---that is a new post for this site, from me. Yes the pictures, have been over on the G.C.B.R.O, but this is the first time here. So, maybe thats what you mean by allenging, that I said they were new pictures. I never said new, but, there again thats picking the pepper our of the fly dung.

thanks you for your statements, but they are noted, so now is the time to be still, and let others , comment.

thank you

bullet maker

We respect you as a human being, and your right to disagree. But make you note, and then sir, please be still.

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #19 on:** October 17, 2006, 05:23:46 AM »

BM,

We disagree about the pictures' content and have ever since that evening (in your home) when you showed them to D.G., Dr. Wallace, Todd & myself. Even Graybeard has seen them firsthand and is apparently of the same opinion. The fact you've had to cart them around the country to various "experts" for a series of "enhancements" lends little credibility to establishing exactly what is in the photo. Heck, some folks could probably make out the Virgin Mother in it if they stared at it long enough!

The fact that I disagree does in no way constitute "harrassment" unless said is defined as anyone who doesn't subscribe to your viewpoint. This appears to be what killed our friendship as I refused to "back you up" on the claim the photo was definitely a BF. I regret that situation but will not go against what I see and what I believe to be accurate as our friendship may well have been one of convenience instead of the real deal.

Matt · « **Reply #20 on:** October 17, 2006, 05:31:47 AM »

Quote

Tele.g.son. why dont you stay on your own site: http://www.gbofreeforums.info/Bigfootstudy/, your one and most important rule on that site, is no harrasment, and something to the effect, for the serious bigfoot hunter only. Well you sir, are harraseing, the people on this site , and me, again. I request sir, please stop your insane, rehtoric.

BM first you have no authority to tell anyone where to post let alone Tel's g'son so here is my take on this. We have all seen your pictures and most do not see what it is you wish us to see so drop it. Secondly you post these pictures on a web site with all kinds of BS to make people think that they have merit when in fact federal law gives me the right to repost those same pictures as long as I am not attempting to profit. But why the hell would anyone want to copy them. So I say to you run along and play and maybe it is you that wishes to find somewhere else to post.

fireman · « **Reply #21 on:** October 17, 2006, 05:35:09 AM »

but it is cute how wild photographer says he see's a possible bigfoot, i can see it and there are others who see it. yet tg you seem to make it your personal mission to make everyone know your stance on this picture. look back in the forums, you are the only consistant source of needling and bickering about it. you are the common denomenator in every thread that has been locked or taken out. ( i am sure everyone else can see that too) remember the first time you saw the picture? you were salivating at the mouth and just had to have a copy, so one was photo copied for you. did you go through that and spend all this effort and time on the forum for a blobsquatch ? no, you know its possibly a bigfoot, that is why you are still making regular trips to spencer creek, even though you are telling people "there is so much building up in the area, bigfoots have moved on" why would you keep going to the area? people should be able to read between the lines.
and matt, did you go to tg's short course on reading comprehension? bullet said" please don't post and, and why don't you stay on your own site?" both look like questions to me. but i am sure it was just an over sight on your behalf right?

bullet maker · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2006, 06:19:10 AM »

Quote from: Matt on October 17, 2006, 05:31:47 AM

Quote
Tele.g.son. why dont you stay on your own site: http://www.gbofreeforums.info/Bigfootstudy/, your one and most important rule on that site, is no harrasment, and something to the effect, for the serious bigfoot hunter only. Well you sir, are harraseing, the people on this site , and me, again. I request sir, please stop your insane, rehtoric.

BM first you have no authority to tell anyone where to post let alone Tel's g'son so here is my take on this. We have all seen your pictures and most do not see what it is you wish us to see so drop it. Secondly you post these pictures on a web site with all kinds of BS to make people think that they have merit when in fact federal law gives me the right to repost those same pictures as long as I am not attempting to profit. But why the hell would anyone want to copy them. So I say to you run along and play and maybe it is you that wishes to find somewhere else to post.

Hello Matt----I didnt tell him ---I asked him----I now have a request ----I want the link to the pictured deleted from this site starting immediatley--Its causing too much dissent, from the same people, and too much bickering. So I hope you accept my request to delet the link to the pictures, I was hopeing for a more gentlemen results, and conversations. I didnt expect it to cause such an uproar---

thank you in advance

bullet maker

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2006, 07:17:31 AM »

Quote from: fireman on October 17, 2006, 05:35:09 AM

but it is cute how wild photographer says he see's a possible bigfoot, i can see it and there are others who see it. yet tg you seem to make it your personal mission to make everyone know your stance on this picture. look back in the forums, you are the only consistant source of needling and bickering about it. you are the common denomenator in every thread that has been locked or taken out. ( i am sure everyone else can see that too) remember the first time you saw the picture? you were salivating at the mouth and just had to have a copy, so one was photo copied for you. did you go through that and spend all this effort and time on the forum for a blobsquatch ? no, you know its possibly a bigfoot, that is why you are still making regular trips to spencer creek, even though you are telling people "there is so much building up in the area, bigfoots have moved on" why would you keep going to the area? people should be able to read between the lines.
and matt, did you go to tg's short course on reading comprehension? bullet said" please don't post and, and why don't you stay on your own site?" both look like questions to me. but i am sure it was just an over sight on your behalf right?

Fireman,

You're being "hotheaded" about this.

1. BM already had the copies made (of the pic) for distribution to us that very evening. Yes, I took one as a favor to study and try to see what he was seeing in it. Not happening as IMHO, it's likely a beaver or a hoaxer. A quick perusal of previous threads/posts clearly reveals I'm not the only one with this impression. Even Wildphotographer DOES NOT feel strongly enough about the pic to put an endorsement in writing.

2. My "trips" to Spencer creek the past nine months have been hunting/fishing trips except for one. It has turkey and deer but now appears to be somewhat "monkeyless" as our experience has been the activity moved north & westward quite some time ago.

3. The record also shows that you were the one starting a squabble over on BFF that got the thread shut down. Don't throw stones until your own back porch has been cleaned up.

4. BM knew this thread would be inflammatory and is simply desperately vying for attention on a horse that died a long time ago.

Graybeard · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2006, 07:37:38 AM »

BM you're the one who posted it, it's in YOUR post so if you want it gone just remove it. You can delete your own messages.

I dunno why all of a sudden you and fireman think you need to come back here after both saying you'd never post here again and try to stir up such a mess but you're both walking on thin ice here.

No one anywhere to my knowledge has "seen" anything in those photos except folks on small sites trying hard to get noticed in any way they can. When you're tiny and hoping to get noticed ANY attention is better than none and so controversy is good as it gets folks to visit and read. Only those type sites have seen anything in your photo.

There are lots of us who have held the photo in hand and looked at it even with aid of magnification and there just ain't nothing there that can be identified. Anyone who claims there is merely hopes to piggy back and gain some recognition for a site of theirs. It's at best blobsquatch, nothing more.

Now you two need to either stop your attacks and stop the wild claims or go away. Which is strictly your call. GBO is now almost ten years old, we've got almost 18,000 registered users and get visits weekly from 50,000 to 60,000 unique visitors. I don't need your little BS gamesmanship to get us noticed. You're welcome here but only as long as you can follow the rules, you two not TGS are the ones doing the attacking. He is merely pointing out the obvious about the photo and what has been said by the "expert witness" you claim to have about it on other sites. That's NOT an attack it's a revelation of facts you two seem to want to cover up.

I don't care if you have your photo here or not. I do care that you keep on claiming it's something it's not. Just post it and let folks judge for themselves what it is or isn't. IF it was so great we'd all be able to see it.

bullet maker · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2006, 07:56:54 AM »

The fact that we disagree about the picture is no big deal! The problem (as I see it) is that any disagreement can not be done in a gentlemanly manner without trying to put someone down or call names or trying to make them look like an idiot

. I have said from the beginning that I don't expect everyone to see what I do and that is just fine and it is also fine that anyone voice their disagreement, I was just hoping that since we are all grown adults, that it could have been done in a calm and courteous manner

. This business of you shoot me down and then I shoot you down back and forth is redidculous, and produces nothing but hard feelings. No one (you, me or anyone else) on this thread can accomplish anything due to the bickering.

As to our friendship being one of convenience. Who gained from our friendship

. Not me. You and your friends gained a place to BF hunt, and you learned a lot out here. You were able to hone your research methods, and skills, And you had many encounters ( sighting and sound, and tracks) out here. So I would say that if our friendship was one of convenience it was on your part not mine. My home, and property was always open to you all 24/7 to use as you liked. Over a year ago we handed over to you large hair and skin sample that we found because you said that you could get it analized, we had no idea what it was, but it was worth checking out and we have heard nothing nor has the sample been returned

. We can only make our own assumptions on that. Like I said I didn't gain anything. So friendship of convenience not on my part.

Thank you

bullet maker

Telahnay's g'son · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2006, 08:06:35 AM »

BM,

You're welcome to have the hair/skin "sample" back...as I mentioned to you previously it was examined by people with expertise in the field and their assessment was coyote hair or at the least, canine in origin. Let me know and I'll get it to you ASAP.

Take care.

bullet maker · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2006, 08:14:29 AM »

Quote from: Telahnay's g'son on October 17, 2006, 08:06:35 AM

BM,

You're welcome to have the hair/skin "sample" back...as I mentioned to you previously it was examined by people with expertise in the field and their assessment was coyote hair or at the least, canine in origin. Let me know and I'll get it to you ASAP.

Take care.

OK, we want it back,---send it to me.

bullet maker

Graybeard · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2006, 09:03:16 AM »

Quote

The fact that we disagree about the picture is no big deal! The problem (as I see it) is that any disagreement can not be done in a gentlemanly manner without trying to put someone down or call names or trying to make them look like an idiot

I'm sure not gonna disagree with you on that statement.

BUT from my original reading of this thread AND a new reading of it from the beginning just now it was you and fireman who have gone on the attack. Feel free to disagree with that but that's my reading of the thread.

As to the question asked about another image from the camera before this one the answer is YES it exists. I'm sure Doug had it also. I think it was Dennis I was talking to some time back and he was supposed to send me a copy of it but his computer went out of whack and we lost touch and the photo was never received on this end. John and Dennis don't one or both of you have copies of an image taken from that camera before this one? Doug I'm betting money you should.

Glanceblamm · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2006, 10:43:24 AM »

Powder man wrote: I've been on quite a few boards, and have read lots of threads. I've seen lots of flames, and those who cause them. I got to admit thouigh that telaghanys son is one of the best when it comes to baiting. Very subtle, yet effective

Fireman wrote:
everyone on this forum knows you will take this forum down again and again with the moderators blessings. even though it has been curtious and civil for a few days. why must you continually try to subtly dredge up all the negativity you can muster? is there anybody else here tired of it?

Glanceblamm wrote:
This forum has been deader than a doornail since last June. I would only hope that all could get along as some new posts are greatly needed to breath some life back into it. I thought that this thread was doing ok and was about to breath a sigh of relief untill you brought up the rules and regulations.
We all know of course that you only posted this in the intrest of what is best for BM.
Don’t We?
-------------------

I am usually a very low maintenance member but have to disagree with whom is being attacked and who is attacking due to the above entrys. My own made little sence because
Two paragraphs in TG’s second post had mysteriously disappeared in his second post of
The Creature Of Spencer creek.

I will admit that I thought Bullet Maker got started off on the wrong foot on his first post since he has returned, but has been a complete gentleman in all of his post since.
T’sG is informative and interesting but has the knack for subtle and effective baiting and
Knows how to push buttons. He does know how to look for that speck of pepper (as BM put it) and is quick to point it out even though It Does Not Affect Him Nor Is It His Problem.
It does charge the thread with needless negativity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graybeard Wrote:
BUT from my original reading of this thread AND a new reading of it from the beginning just now it was you and fireman who have gone on the attack. Feel free to disagree with that but that's my reading of the thread.
----------------------------------------
Graybeard, They did attack just like you have claimed. They just got pushed to far is all.
You can only stand a fly buzzing around your head for so long till you have to wave it off or swat at it. Please review all post (there is only four) and see if I have made any valid points. I have been wrong before but am merle pointing out my observations as a reader.

Fireman Wrote: this place becomes a real lonely place to visit.>end

We have been there since last June, sure do hate to go back.