Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pterodactyl said:
Latests video "evidence" on my bigfoot news alert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnhzxrpIMU
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's Bigfoot. At least the Bigfoot we know and love like a lot. It's not an actual fire breathing ape, cause those don't exist, but it's the Bigfoot P&G and every wannabe Bigfoot noob since sees. A dark blurry shape, a movement, a glimpse, a fleeting moment, WTF, it's a gawd ****** Bigfoot. Probably in a Bert's Rentals™ suit¹, but it's Bigfoot. YAY!

ChrisBFRPKY must be just BEAMING today!


¹ Simply to give minor comfort to The Shrike in the wake of his recent ISF Network Comedy Special disaster (the "invalid joke" made it invalid), I wanna point out to him some of us suffer as worse fates here in anonymity. I've been telling Bert's Rentals jokes for over 8 years and nobody's once acknowledged the nauseating cleverness (curiously I was in a coma at the time) of the similarity between Bert's Rentals™ and, umm, Burt Reynolds. So there, take that Shrike! (The The has been omitted for clarity) :jaw-dropp
 
That's exactly the kind of clear footage that we all have been begging for! And it can't be a person in a coat because there are no people in this rural area! Except for the photographer...um... um, never mind.
 
Bigfoot skins would have been awesome. A whole one piece leather suit if you control the shrinkage during tanning.
 
Wolrab said:
Bigfoot skins would have been awesome. A whole one piece leather suit if you control the shrinkage during tanning.
Click to expand...
And he nails it. Definitive proof Bigfoot does not and has not existed in NA (or anywhere else). Such full body Bigfoot suits would have been sought like no other and would have been used as literal 'badges of honor' for many a white and Indian hunter back in the day. Yet there's never been any talk of one, Dead Sea scroll mention of one, vague description, hint or allegation of one. No Bigfoot here.

Although...

For African apes, who are similar in perceived ferocity and presence, white hunters with itchy trigger fingers weren't their predominant pursuer so they weren't hunted to extinction like the North American Bigfoot obviously was by white cavemen and that's why there's no Bigfoot left to get a decent cell phone picture of.

That darn cat ChrisBFRPKY wins again!
 
Northern Lights said:
Do you actually believe that anyone, and I do mean anyone, would fawn over that picture and even for the slightest instance, believe it could possibly be related to a squatch? Please
Click to expand...

some BFF Einstein said:
Also mystifying is the occurrence of small teepee/debris shelter type structures, that are barely big enough for a human 7 year old to get into curled up. Now you'd think if kids were making them, they'd make them big enough for them and a buddy. You'd also think that kids younger than about 7 wouldn't be building dens in the woods. These seem to occur solely in the same areas that get bigger teepees and suggestive breaks. They have lead me to speculate that if they are BF related at all, they might be "creche" or "crib" structures as it were, put the kid down for a nap, protect it somewhat from crows or gulls pecking it's eyes out or coyotes pouncing on it.
Click to expand...
From: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/...-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/page-18

Answers your question, doesn't it? You folks will buy nearly anything. And say nearly anything.*




*Hitchens once replied when asked if he ever tired of debating theists: "No, because you never know what they're gonna say next."

Applies here, I think.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Well, a thread about the Denisovans got started in the Science section...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289508

Thus far, Crickets from Chris.
Click to expand...

Resume said:
He got all tripped up in the toe thing, so much so that he didn't even understand his own point. BLAARging can be tough.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. You and others here now know the toe bone exists. You hopefully know it's relation to the Denisovan genome mapping and you also know the mystery DNA exists. Education achieved.

Since I have no Bigfoot evidence to present here, I've not been posting. It seems even when I'm off the forum for a few days, my name continues to be of discussion. Why on Earth would "I" be considered "Bigfoot evidence"?

I find it odd for me to be addressed in a post and then be asked "why are you here" or "stop derailing the thread" if I respond to that individual's post. Surely it's no different than calling someone on the phone and then complaining to that person because they actually had the gall to answer. "Why are you here?" Umm, because you rang......

I don't have any Bigfoot evidence to share here. So, please keep that in mind when addressing me. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Quite the contrary. You and others here now know the toe bone exists. You hopefully know it's relation to the Denisovan genome mapping and you also know the mystery DNA exists. Education achieved.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's that relationship that seemed to confuse you. You can't claim to educate anyone without first understanding yourself. You can't even articulate what this "mystery" in fact is.

Since I have no Bigfoot evidence to present here, I've not been posting. It seems even when I'm off the forum for a few days, my name continues to be of discussion. Why on Earth would "I" be considered "Bigfoot evidence"?
Click to expand...
You are evidence in regards to the behavior of bigfoot proponents

I don't have any Bigfoot evidence to share here. So, please keep that in mind when addressing me. Chris B.
Click to expand...
You have no evidence to share anywhere, which is always front of mind.

ETA: A side note on this evidence you won't be presenting. The photos from your website are very clear examples of something, and that something is pareidolia. There was a Brain Games re-broadcast on the subject just last night, explaining pattern recognition and short term intuition. When a cable TV show targeting the general public pretty much explains how shadows get turned into footie, you are correct in asserting you have no evidence to share. You'll need to up your game.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Quite the contrary. You and others here now know the toe bone exists. You hopefully know it's relation to the Denisovan genome mapping and you also know the mystery DNA exists. Education achieved.

Since I have no Bigfoot evidence to present here, I've not been posting. It seems even when I'm off the forum for a few days, my name continues to be of discussion. Why on Earth would "I" be considered "Bigfoot evidence"?

I find it odd for me to be addressed in a post and then be asked "why are you here" or "stop derailing the thread" if I respond to that individual's post. Surely it's no different than calling someone on the phone and then complaining to that person because they actually had the gall to answer. "Why are you here?" Umm, because you rang......

I don't have any Bigfoot evidence to share here. So, please keep that in mind when addressing me. Chris B.
Click to expand...

I thought you were fascinated by the Denisovan DNA topic, yet I don't see any posts from you in this thread in the science section. I guess you lost interest.

Do you really think that an Internet Forum on a given topic is like someone telephoning your particular phone number? Posting here is much more like you telephoning someone else. In either case, you have to end the conversation some time.

If you have no real Bigfoot evidence, I am happy for you to stop posting teasers that suggest that you do have evidence. Instead take the time to go out and find some true evidence that others will find convincing.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you are correct, can you please tell me the identity of the mystery DNA found at the Denisova dig? I've been wondering about that. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
Denisova hominins. There are many things that we do not know about them, but we know that they are an extinct species of human/human-like primates that are distinct from Neanderthals or modern humans, and this can be elucidated from their DNA alone.

This illustrates exactly the opposite of your posts: the DNA itself is very valuable even not knowing much (or anything else) about the creatures from which it came.
Click to expand...

The Shrike said:
I seem to recall that the DNA sequenced to describe the Denisovans came from one or more finger bones.

Bones found . . . DNA sequenced . . . new organism described. That's how it works when there's an organism to be described.
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
I will only repeat The Shrike's post- it covers all the points very clearly.

The DNA was enough to document that the Denisovans were a different species from modern humans and Neanderthals. And we have both the DNA and the bones it was extracted from. Bones that are different in their details from known hominids. Wouldn't either alone be pretty exciting if also established for Bigfoot? Given Bigfoot is supposed to be alive, one wouldn't even need bones to obtain and analyze the DNA (although the absence of bones is more than a bit disturbing. isn't it?). In fact, DNA is a lot more definitive in identifying new species than bones alone.
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
They aren't lost: they are extinct (although I believe that traces of their DNA can be found in certain modern humans). We know exactly where some of them were; where we found their bones. They have been named. They have been typed. And we know some things about them (including some aspects of how they looked). Did you look up anything about them before you posted?
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
I thought you were fascinated by the Denisovan DNA topic, yet I don't see any posts from you in this thread in the science section. I guess you lost interest.
Do you really think that an Internet Forum on a given topic is like someone telephoning your particular phone number? Posting here is much more like you telephoning someone else. In either case, you have to end the conversation some time.

If you have no real Bigfoot evidence, I am happy for you to stop posting teasers that suggest that you do have evidence. Instead take the time to go out and find some true evidence that others will find convincing.
Click to expand...

My main "interest" was in getting you up to speed on the mystery DNA. Regardless of the method used, I think I've achieved that goal. You're welcome.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
My main "interest" was in getting you up to speed on the mystery DNA. Regardless of the method used, I think I've achieved that goal. You're welcome.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

The Homo Erectus DNA? How is that a mystery?
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
My main "interest" was in getting you up to speed on the mystery DNA. Regardless of the method used, I think I've achieved that goal. You're welcome.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

The mystery DNA that dwarfs in importance to the fact that a new population of humans was found in the cave?

The mystery DNA that you said came from a Neandertal toe bone, which is not true?

The mystery DNA that you want so bad to be able to say "Therefore Bigfoot" after?
 
Drewbot said:
The mystery DNA that dwarfs in importance to the fact that a new population of humans was found in the cave?

The mystery DNA that you said came from a Neandertal toe bone, which is not true?

The mystery DNA that you want so bad to be able to say "Therefore Bigfoot" after?
Click to expand...
The mystery DNA does not "dwarf" the importance of the Denisovans being discovered. As I repeatedly said in my posts, those are two separate issues.

The mystery DNA was not found in the Neanderthal toe bone itself, that is correct and you are correct in pointing out my error. However, the finding of this mystery DNA would not have been possible without it. It was only by comparing the Denisovan genome with that of the high quality Neanderthal genome recovered from the toe bone that made this possible. The Neanderthal lady had an important role and she should not be dismissed as having contributing nothing or never to have existed.

I can't say for certain "Who" or "What" the mystery DNA belongs to. Neither can you. All we can do is speculate. It seems I have an advantage on my side of the fence though. Since we do have an unknown partial DNA sequence confirmed to have existed at some point in the past we know nothing about.

Isn't it amazing the amount of conflict and tactics required here simply to get across the knowledge that something commonly known to exist by science does indeed exist? Imagine the task for someone trying to get across similar knowledge about something not already proven to exist. Staggering, or impossible.
Chris B.
 
Uhm, let's see if I got this straight. Because you were confused and unable to articulate your point properly you are now attributing that to tactics and conflict? The very same nasty tactics and conflict that prevent you from properly proving that bigfoot exists? Something you have repeatedly stated is not your purpose here?

Do you just like to ramble?
 
No Chris it's actually pretty simple
Unknowns get reported, somebody looks and discoveries are made.
See below some notable fairly recent examples

There's not one scientifically verifiable piece of evidence to suggest anything on the scale of the above examples is anywhere on the NA continent.
Much less a monkey man roaming around Kentucky.
We await your evidence of anything that would suggest that Bigfoot is anything but a social construct.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Since we do have an unknown partial DNA sequence confirmed to have existed at some point in the past we know nothing about.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

We know nothing save it's probably Homo Erectus. Not footie.

You get zero points, and no soup, one year.
 
imagef9047.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom