Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you have some evidence for Bigfoot to present for discussion, please do so. I'd be happy to comment. Chris B.
Click to expand...
Do you? I don't know of any other current poster here who has been supporting the existence of a Bigfoot.

Or are you saying that you are done "contributing" to this thread?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
One way it has to do with Bigfoot was posted by another member. It seems DNA science is now perfecting a method for DNA recovery from tracks.

Of course though without a type specimen any unknown DNA to be collected will be quickly disputed or dismissed as not being specifically from Bigfoot. After all, there's no way to prove it came from a Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Do you think the highlighted is an honest assessment? Do you think that novel primate DNA is going to be handwaved by anyone here? Novel, not contaminated, as those are two different things, even though Dr. Melba Ketchum(DVM) doesn't understand the difference.

I think that some (myself perhaps included) would ask for further data if someone brought forward the above mentioned DNA, including provenance, chain of custody, methodology, etc. This would only be proper.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you have some evidence for Bigfoot to present for discussion, please do so. I'd be happy to comment. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Errrrr you're the one that has made the claim that you know Bigfoot exists, that you have seen one as pretty much point blank range. I'm pretty sure it's your job to provide the evidence for your claim.

I'm not exactly sure how you came to the idea that it is my job to provide you evidence for your claim. I'm not even sure exactly how that would work.

Ohhh... I got it. You send me that HD Close Up Video you have of Bigfoot. Once I receive it I will be happy to present it for discussion.

I don't have any evidence for Bigfoot. There is no evidence for Bigfoot. Because there is no Bigfoot. And we both know that.

Hopefully your "BLAARG: Fake Evidence For Bigfoot Expansion Pack" will arrive in the mail soon, because this game has stalled out while we wait for you to get it. You should be proud you had a good run with the "BLAARG: Just Stall, Distract and Delay Starter Set" but I think to level up anymore you're gonna have to expand your character sheet a bit.
 
Lets get back to some real evidence shall we...here's a close up of the pic Chris submitted as evidence but refuses to discuss further.
Is this the head of Bigfoot? Could this be the source of the drool Chris refuse to submit for analysis?
 
My budget last Gen Android phone that I got free with my service plan can take 4K video and auto-stabilized 13 megapixel pictures.

How is it that every shot of Figboot looks like someone vomited a hairball on a bird's nest and took a picture of it with a potato and every video looks like it was taken with a 1990s era Webcam being held by a person with Parkinsons during an Earthquake.
 
Chris, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is a thread to discuss the latest bigfoot evidence. You constantly state that you do not wish to present any bigfoot evidence. When asked why, then, are you here--in the evidence thread--you respond with to point out holes in skeptical challenges to bigfoot.

I humbly suggest that you open a thread for that purpose. Please open a thread and list your top flaws that you perceive in skeptical responses to the bigfoot claim. For example, how you explain the lack of a fossil record, or lack of physical evidence, lack of trail cam photos, the lack of,well, anything beyond anecdotes. I can assure you that thread will have a high participation rate and you will no longer need to explain that you are not here to show the monkey.

Sound good?
 
dmaker said:
Chris, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is a thread to discuss the latest bigfoot evidence. You constantly state that you do not wish to present any bigfoot evidence. When asked why, then, are you here--in the evidence thread--you respond with to point out holes in skeptical challenges to bigfoot.

I humbly suggest that you open a thread for that purpose. Please open a thread and list your top flaws that you perceive in skeptical responses to the bigfoot claim. For example, how you explain the lack of a fossil record, or lack of physical evidence, lack of trail cam photos, the lack of,well, anything beyond anecdotes. I can assure you that thread will have a high participation rate and you will no longer need to explain that you are not here to show the monkey.

Sound good?
Click to expand...
I think it would be wise for us to establish the type of bigfoot to which he ascribes as well. Nail it down. Pan-North American? Restricted to PNW, or some holler in Kentuck, or coulee in Eastern Minnesota? Supercalafragilnormal? Invisible?
 
Cervelo said:
Lets get back to some real evidence shall we...here's a close up of the pic Chris submitted as evidence but refuses to discuss further.
Is this the head of Bigfoot? Could this be the source of the drool Chris refuse to submit for analysis?
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/F0DFAEF0-7C58-4521-BCBC-2D5E09DA53F2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
As has been previously suggested by you and others here:
1.It's a "tree welder"
2.It's "shadows" (that seem to exist in direct sunlight)
3.It's "leaves" (that seem to be on the trees in early March at about the 37th parallel)

Based on the ambiguous nature of this particular pic and without further release, I'm inclined to agree it's not evidence for Bigfoot although I do find some of the counter explanations entertaining.

Since we've already had this discussion here on this particular pic, I can't help but wonder about your intentions of revamping it? Without further release, it certainly is the worst evidence I've collected. I freely admit that, you win.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
As has been previously suggested by you and others here:
1.It's a "tree welder"
2.It's "shadows" (that seem to exist in direct sunlight)
3.It's "leaves" (that seem to be on the trees in early March at about the 37th parallel)

Based on the ambiguous nature of this particular pic and without further release, I'm inclined to agree it's not evidence for Bigfoot although I do find some of the counter explanations entertaining.

Since we've already had this discussion here on this particular pic, I can't help but wonder about your intentions of revamping it? Without further release, it certainly is the worst evidence I've collected. I freely admit that, you win.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
What in the world does "without further release" mean?
 
dmaker said:
Chris, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is a thread to discuss the latest bigfoot evidence. You constantly state that you do not wish to present any bigfoot evidence. When asked why, then, are you here--in the evidence thread--you respond with to point out holes in skeptical challenges to bigfoot.

I humbly suggest that you open a thread for that purpose. Please open a thread and list your top flaws that you perceive in skeptical responses to the bigfoot claim. For example, how you explain the lack of a fossil record, or lack of physical evidence, lack of trail cam photos, the lack of,well, anything beyond anecdotes. I can assure you that thread will have a high participation rate and you will no longer need to explain that you are not here to show the monkey.

Sound good?
Click to expand...

Huzzah!!! Hey Chris, why not quit derailing the thread?
 
dmaker said:
Chris, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is a thread to discuss the latest bigfoot evidence. You constantly state that you do not wish to present any bigfoot evidence. When asked why, then, are you here--in the evidence thread--you respond with to point out holes in skeptical challenges to bigfoot.

I humbly suggest that you open a thread for that purpose. Please open a thread and list your top flaws that you perceive in skeptical responses to the bigfoot claim. For example, how you explain the lack of a fossil record, or lack of physical evidence, lack of trail cam photos, the lack of,well, anything beyond anecdotes. I can assure you that thread will have a high participation rate and you will no longer need to explain that you are not here to show the monkey.

Sound good?
Click to expand...

I freely discuss/speculate on Bigfoot related evidence like some others here. By your own definition, you seem to be out of place here as well. If this topic is only for the presentation of Bigfoot evidence, you have not done so either.

Perhaps it would be more productive for you if you participated in the various evidence topics that have been under discussion instead of constantly being on the attack. A quick review of your postings is very telling.

The "show me the monkey" retreat is as obvious as the reasons for it.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The "show me the monkey" retreat is as obvious as the reasons for it.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Actually, not.

The only folks retreating in bigfootery are the bigfooters of the gaps. Problem is, no gap big enough for their 9-ft monkey.

Bigfooters make huge claims for themselves, claims which are never backed up. Don't want to be asked to show the monkey, quit talking about the monkey as if it were real.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I freely discuss/speculate on Bigfoot related evidence like some others here. By your own definition, you seem to be out of place here as well. If this topic is only for the presentation of Bigfoot evidence, you have not done so either.

Perhaps it would be more productive for you if you participated in the various evidence topics that have been under discussion instead of constantly being on the attack. A quick review of your postings is very telling.

The "show me the monkey" retreat is as obvious as the reasons for it.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no, this is not what you are doing. You merely hint to something, like the mysterious DNA, but do not come out and clearly state you think it is evidence for bigfoot. You prefer to be vague and call things interesting or mysterious. When caught in a contradiction, you just clam up and blow some more smoke about something unrelated.

Where, exactly, do you think you are discussing recent bigfoot evidence in this thread? Other than of course your own which you refuse to share?
 
I am happy to present all the evidence I have in favor of Bigfoot below in this very post for Chris to discuss:




Please go ahead.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rthal-genome-incest-archaic-ancestor-science/

"Data obtained from a Neanderthal woman's toe bone points to incest and inbreeding among early humans, an international genetics team reported on Wednesday.

The fossil's genetic map, or genome, reported from Denisova cave in Siberia's Altai Mountains dates to more than 50,000 years ago. The cave was home at separate times to both Neanderthals and the so-called Denisovans, two sister families of now-extinct early humans. (See also "New Type of Ancient Human Found.")

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

At this point I feel you don't even realize what you're arguing. It is frustrating to see such zeal demonstrated of simply refusing to acknowledge scientific facts of a known find that are published and on record.

I don't hold it against you in any way of course as it seems common to dispute most anything I post, but let's take a closer look at what you are arguing against.

The Neanderthal toe bone I've referenced is a very significant find. It has nothing to do with the Denisovan type specimen finger bone. That is a separate issue. The Neanderthal DNA mapping of the toe bone is what led to the earliest discovery of the unknown archaic DNA in discussion. That same archaic DNA was also found in the Denisovan type specimens but that again is a separate issue.

If this is still confusing, I would suggest you ask The Shrike to better explain it to you as this is the last time I will attempt to do so. Chris B.
Click to expand...

If The Shrike said the same thing you are saying, he would be wrong as well.

The Neandertal Toe Bone wasn't even FOUND until 2010, the journal NATURE, which published the DNA Paper on the Finger and Tooth in 2010, didn't even have the Toe Bone yet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html

You are so confused, and digging yourself so deep into a pond full of self-righteous Bigfoot-Hope, that I don't think you will ever be able to admit your complete lack of understanding of this topic.

From the 2010 Paper in Nature:
Using DNA extracted from a finger bone found in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia, we have sequenced the genome of an archaic hominin to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals. This population was not involved in the putative gene flow from Neanderthals into Eurasians; however, the data suggest that it contributed 4–6% of its genetic material to the genomes of present-day Melanesians. We designate this hominin population ‘Denisovans’ and suggest that it may have been widespread in Asia during the Late Pleistocene epoch. A tooth found in Denisova Cave carries a mitochondrial genome highly similar to that of the finger bone. This tooth shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthals or modern humans, further indicating that Denisovans have an evolutionary history distinct from Neanderthals and modern humans.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is all working out the way Chris wants. He is in full control. Skeptics ask, beg and demand and Chris can deny them anything he wants and in any way that he wants. They can even make new threads for him to use and he can completely avoid it.

Watch the skeptics run around and bang their heads. The joy of causing and controlling that spectacle. It's nothing but WIN for the Bigfooter - while the Skeptic sees it as nothing but LOSE.
 
^^ Agreed.

For Chris, it seems to be all about the manipulation. He has no real interest in the Denisovan DNA. He just wants to use it as smoke and mirrors in this thread. If he was truly interested, you'd think he might participate in a thread dedicated to that topic where relevant experts can contribute.

Discussing anything with Chris at this point, in this thread, is a waste of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom