Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[The Shrike]

For anyone keeping score, here's what I found in 16 random photos I took today:

7 bigfoots, each one with facial features at least as detailed as those Chris has shared
1 donkey face
2 skulls
1 set of "Slenderman" arms
1 Virgin Mary

With each photo, I simply zoomed in a bunch and then looked around for some kind of recognizable pareidolia face or bigfooty body. I found all of the above with just about 1 minute invested in poring over a random zoomed-in section of each photo.

Note that I have not simply mocked Chris' technique by inserting a cartoon or shoehorning something outlandish. My attempt here was to duplicate Chris' method to see if my random shots through the trees could produce "bigfoots" at least as convincing as in his photos. I'd call the demonstration rather conclusive: it took surprisingly little effort to find multiple bigfoots in the photos.

As for the four stick structures that not only look put together but actually look to be sending some kind of message with their X-A pattern, I found all four in the same 1/4 acre or so patch of that woodlot, just by looking around. All were natural formations of misshapen and/or fallen trees. Again, it was ridiculously easy to find such things.

I'd say that my entire time devoted to this demonstration totaled about 5 minutes taking the photos in the field, and another 1/2 hour to blow them up and find something interesting through the magic of pareidolia.

Wanna BLAARG? If you've got a digital camera, a local park, and an afternoon you're in!

 

[William Parcher]

I'm just amazed that replies to Chris are more than one-liners.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Trust me, any frustration we might have is aimed solely at the notion that things we hold important - like reasoning, common sense, intelligent thought, honesty - mean something completely different to you than they do to us.

The fact is you are threatened by my presence here because I am a Bigfoot proponent. You expect me to prove Bigfoot exists for you and I'm not interested in doing that. It seems that you're angry because I refuse to prove Bigfoot for you? Why is that? Am I required to work for you for free or something? Do you pay my bills? I think it must be related to a mistaken feeling of entitlement.

There are basically 3 types of people:

1. People who make things happen.
2. People who wait for others to make things happen.
3. People who wonder what the heck just happened.

Where do you fit in?

I've not asked you to accept my views on Bigfoot. I've encouraged everyone here to remain skeptical. Be content in your position on Bigfoot, I'm content with mine. Or do you need to tell me there's no Bigfoot in my pic again?

Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

The fact is you are threatened by my presence here because I am a Bigfoot proponent. You expect me to prove Bigfoot exists for you

Wrong on both accounts, Chris. I find your comments and assertions amusing at best. Threatening? Not in a million years.

And no, I do not expect you to prove bigfoot. You cannot prove bigfoot, since bigfoot does not exist. Why on earth would you think anyone expects you to do this?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

The fact is you are threatened by my presence here because I am a Bigfoot proponent. You expect me to prove Bigfoot exists for you and I'm not interested in doing that. It seems that you're angry because I refuse to prove Bigfoot for you? Why is that? Am I required to work for you for free or something? Do you pay my bills? I think it must be related to a mistaken feeling of entitlement.

There are basically 3 types of people:

1. People who make things happen.
2. People who wait for others to make things happen.
3. People who wonder what the heck just happened.

Where do you fit in?

I've not asked you to accept my views on Bigfoot. I've encouraged everyone here to remain skeptical. Be content in your position on Bigfoot, I'm content with mine. Or do you need to tell me there's no Bigfoot in my pic again?

Chris B.

E.T.A.

4: People who pretend to hunt for fictional creatures and get upset when they're rumbled for doing so.

5: People who rumble the people who pretend to hunt for fictional creatures.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Wrong on both accounts, Chris. I find your comments and assertions amusing at best. Threatening? Not in a million years.

And no, I do not expect you to prove bigfoot. You cannot prove bigfoot, since bigfoot does not exist. Why on earth would you think anyone expects you to do this?

Then why the need to try and pull me into a "show me the monkey" debate? Did you run out of debate topics? Nope, you and others simply retreated to the safety of assigning homework, mistakenly forgetting I'm not your student. It requires much less effort and thought on your part though. But isn't that silly? It certainly is beneath you, or is it? Chris B.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Then why the need to try and pull me into a "show me the monkey" debate? Did you run out of debate topics? Nope, you and others simply retreated to the safety of assigning homework, mistakenly forgetting I'm not your student. It requires much less effort and thought on your part though. But isn't that silly? It certainly is beneath you, or is it? Chris B.

Why do you, a grown man, feel the need to invent stories about Bigfoot to gain acceptance from other people? Like others have stated, you're not even trying to fool us anymore, lol. It's embarrassing.

 

[dmaker]

Then why the need to try and pull me into a "show me the monkey" debate? Did you run out of debate topics? Nope, you and others simply retreated to the safety of assigning homework, mistakenly forgetting I'm not your student. It requires much less effort and thought on your part though. But isn't that silly? It certainly is beneath you, or is it? Chris B.

First of all, I ask to see the HD footage you mentioned because you mentioned it in the first place.

Also, in case you didn't notice, people here are interested in evidence. No one cares about your flights of fancy or what you think you saw. If you can't show it, then I don't care. So when you come here and simply say what you saw, you are going to be asked to "show the monkey" to support it. If you don't like that, then I suggest that you keep to forums like the BFF.

Bemoaning being asked to show evidence to support your claim is a victim card that does not have much currency around here, Chris.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

For anyone keeping score, here's what I found in 16 random photos I took today:

7 bigfoots, each one with facial features at least as detailed as those Chris has shared
1 donkey face
2 skulls
1 set of "Slenderman" arms
1 Virgin Mary

With each photo, I simply zoomed in a bunch and then looked around for some kind of recognizable pareidolia face or bigfooty body. I found all of the above with just about 1 minute invested in poring over a random zoomed-in section of each photo.

Note that I have not simply mocked Chris' technique by inserting a cartoon or shoehorning something outlandish. My attempt here was to duplicate Chris' method to see if my random shots through the trees could produce "bigfoots" at least as convincing as in his photos. I'd call the demonstration rather conclusive: it took surprisingly little effort to find multiple bigfoots in the photos.

As for the four stick structures that not only look put together but actually look to be sending some kind of message with their X-A pattern, I found all four in the same 1/4 acre or so patch of that woodlot, just by looking around. All were natural formations of misshapen and/or fallen trees. Again, it was ridiculously easy to find such things.

I'd say that my entire time devoted to this demonstration totaled about 5 minutes taking the photos in the field, and another 1/2 hour to blow them up and find something interesting through the magic of pareidolia.

Wanna BLAARG? If you've got a digital camera, a local park, and an afternoon you're in!

Well, your pics are too ambiguous to tell exactly what is shown. Of course I could tell you what is shown and what is not, but that would be guessing and not any sort of valid finding. See how that works?

I'm not into fallen limbs as evidence of Bigfoot. I don't see any relationship, can you elaborate why you think Bigfoot plays with sticks?
Any videos?

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

First of all, I ask to see the HD footage you mentioned because you mentioned it in the first place.
Also, in case you didn't notice, people here are interested in evidence. No one cares about your flights of fancy or what you think you saw. If you can't show it, then I don't care. So when you come here and simply say what you saw, you are going to be asked to "show the monkey" to support it. If you don't like that, then I suggest that you keep to forums like the BFF.

Bemoaning being asked to show evidence to support your claim is a victim card that does not have much currency around here, Chris.

Nope, I didn't "mention" that here at all.

I'm not here asking anyone to believe what I saw or not, now am I.

I'd like to be able to comment and debate here as well same as you, not be backed into a corner with "show me the monkey". I don't have a monkey to show you , so how far can that go? Really now. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why do you, a grown man, feel the need to invent stories about Bigfoot to gain acceptance from other people? Like others have stated, you're not even trying to fool us anymore, lol. It's embarrassing.

And once again, a display of a complete inability to do anything other than ridicule. If that's the best you have to offer, I agree, it's embarrassing.
Chris B.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

And once again, a display of a complete inability to do anything other than ridicule. If that's the best you have to offer, I agree, it's embarrassing.
Chris B.

On the contrary, I've asked you many questions here, and you've avoided answering a single one. You clearly leave yourself open to ridicule by being a grown man who chooses to play pretend, mate, but I digress. Care to address why you've yet to release literally anything from your apparent abundance of material from 2010?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

On the contrary, I've asked you many questions here, and you've avoided answering a single one. You clearly leave yourself open to ridicule by being a grown man who chooses to play pretend, mate, but I digress. Care to address why you've yet to release literally anything from your apparent abundance of material from 2010?

My study is incomplete. Why do you feel the need to be insulting? Does it make you right? Curious. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

I'd like to be able to comment and debate here as well same as you, not be backed into a corner with "show me the monkey". I don't have a monkey to show you , so how far can that go? Really now. Chris B.

No one has a monkey to show Chris; sort of the whole point. As a matter of fact, it's the only point concerning the bigfoot fringe belief. So in essence, the bigfoot hypothesis is a non-starter in every sense of that term, always has been, forever shall be so.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

And once again, a display of a complete inability to do anything other than ridicule. If that's the best you have to offer, I agree, it's embarrassing.
Chris B.

"Then in 1980 his interest in the subject peaked when his family purchased and moved to a farm in rural KY that by chance happened to be on a migration/gathering path for the creatures."

And Chris has nothing to show for this migration path, nor does he even explain how he came to even know that it was a migration path.

"Since then, Chris and the BFRP have collected multiple sighting reports, screams, Photos, Film Footage and both large and small bipedal footprint info. All have become a welcome addition to the credible evidence of these creature's existence to science."

And yet he has none of this "credible evidence" whatsoever, and even agrees that it is ambiguous at best, as opposed to being "a welcome addition to the credible evidence" of Bigfoot.

"I can judge who's female and who's male because I get to see the creatures up very close at times"

And yet he has nothing to show for his amazing ability to get close to the rarest being on earth, close enough to know whether they're packing Jimmy D's or not, but not close enough to snap a Kodak moment. Truly amazing.

"There will also be at least 3 videos upcoming for release to the public. Videos are currently under review by Scientific professionals with an interest in Bigfoot/Sasquatch. "

No mention of who those scientists were, and a total lack of the purported "3 videos" that were going to be released 5 years ago.

"The videos will show multiple creatures, a family group, many different sizes and colors. Release date will be decided after all reviews of the material are complete. More than likely, the info of what will be released will be announced in the near future on an upcoming internet radio show "The Squatchdetective."

Such bold claims here, and still no cigar. It's almost like all of this is totally fictional, Chris

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

My study is incomplete. Why do you feel the need to be insulting? Does it make you right? Curious. Chris B.

LOL, your underhanded insults haven't gone unnoticed on here, mate, so save the act. I haven't asked about your "study," I've asked about the footage/pictures from 2010. It's been 5 years, what's the hold-up?

 

[HarryHenderson]

On the contrary, I've asked you many questions here, and you've avoided answering a single one. You clearly leave yourself open to ridicule by being a grown man who chooses to play pretend, mate, but I digress. Care to address why you've yet to release literally anything from your apparent abundance of material from 2010?

I and others have had the same experience and it's because he plays by a different set of rules. BLAARGing rules. I've said it before, this place is his role, to confront the enemy however best he can. And being this is a forum he can be anyone he wants to here (as long as nobody actually gets hurt). Including the guy who never answers questions that would inevitably expose him further as just a Bigfoot gamer.

In truth though I call his a serious HONESTY issue given that he's yet to admit to the BLAARG.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I and others have had the same experience and it's because he plays by a different set of rules. BLAARGing rules. I've said it before, this place is his role, to confront the enemy however best he can. And being this is a forum he can be anyone he wants to here (as long as nobody actually gets hurt). Including the guy who never answers questions that would inevitably expose him further as just a Bigfoot gamer.

In truth though I call his a serious HONESTY issue given that he's yet to admit to the BLAARG.

I totally agree, and I just wonder what on earth he does when he gets up from his computer chair... Does he fist-pump the air and go: "Whooo! Another day well spent, I'll show them naysayers." Does he put his head against the wall and weep uncontrollably?

I honestly don't get what he's after here. Nobody believes a word he says, for good reason. He's not "winning the internet" in any civil debate, nor is he even willing to debate in a proper manner, although he'll lambaste anyone else who isn't willing to entertain his nonsense.

If he's here for the hell of it, I have to wonder what on earth his condition is, it goes beyond BLAARGing and into a totally new, weird, Norman Bates kinda direction.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

"Then in 1980 his interest in the subject peaked when his family purchased and moved to a farm in rural KY that by chance happened to be on a migration/gathering path for the creatures."

And Chris has nothing to show for this migration path, nor does he even explain how he came to even know that it was a migration path.

"Since then, Chris and the BFRP have collected multiple sighting reports, screams, Photos, Film Footage and both large and small bipedal footprint info. All have become a welcome addition to the credible evidence of these creature's existence to science."

And yet he has none of this "credible evidence" whatsoever, and even agrees that it is ambiguous at best, as opposed to being "a welcome addition to the credible evidence" of Bigfoot.

"I can judge who's female and who's male because I get to see the creatures up very close at times"

And yet he has nothing to show for his amazing ability to get close to the rarest being on earth, close enough to know whether they're packing Jimmy D's or not, but not close enough to snap a Kodak moment. Truly amazing.

"There will also be at least 3 videos upcoming for release to the public. Videos are currently under review by Scientific professionals with an interest in Bigfoot/Sasquatch. "

No mention of who those scientists were, and a total lack of the purported "3 videos" that were going to be released 5 years ago.

"The videos will show multiple creatures, a family group, many different sizes and colors. Release date will be decided after all reviews of the material are complete. More than likely, the info of what will be released will be announced in the near future on an upcoming internet radio show "The Squatchdetective."

Such bold claims here, and still no cigar. It's almost like all of this is totally fictional, Chris

LOL, your underhanded insults haven't gone unnoticed on here, mate, so save the act. I haven't asked about your "study," I've asked about the footage/pictures from 2010. It's been 5 years, what's the hold-up?

Some stuff from 2010 has been released.
After a lengthy discussion with people I trust and respect, and some recommendations made by those professionals who reviewed my materials, I decided another avenue would be the best way to go. When I collect what I need to finish, I'll share the lot. After all, what good are pics or video without the subject or at least part of it for biological verification. Remember, what's shown in the pics or videos must also be verified conclusively with a biological sample. Otherwise, you may as well be watching the P/G film or "Harry and the Hendersons" Chris B.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Some stuff from 2010 has been released.
After a lengthy discussion with people I trust and respect, and some recommendations made by those professionals who reviewed my materials, I decided another avenue would be the best way to go. When I collect what I need to finish, I'll share the lot. After all, what good are pics or video without the subject or at least part of it for biological verification. Remember, what's shown in the pics or videos must also be verified conclusively with a biological sample. Otherwise, you may as well be watching the P/G film or "Harry and the Hendersons" Chris B.

1) Who were the scientists who reviewed the footage?

2) How come you can get close enough to tell their gender, but you can't get close enough to get a clear picture or some quality footage?

3) How come the video you have, of "multiple creatures" of varying sizes and colours, isn't worthy of release?