Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ChrisBFRPKY]

My bold.

Chris, do you forget there is a search function here and some of us have memories? When you first mentioned this DNA sample, you said:

" I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot..."
(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223659&page=61)

You introduce it as possible bigfoot DNA and then accuse everyone else of doing so and with ulterior motive.

Try a little more honesty please.

Here's my statement in full:

"Well not necessarily. Sykes didn't test any Bigfoot samples, only samples that were thought to have been Bigfoot. Common collection error. Samples were presented that were not valid. I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot but since I didn't actually see the creature leave the sample, it is still an unknown and therefore unworthy of testing at this time."

And the problem is? Chris B.

 

[Garrette]

Here's my statement in full:

"Well not necessarily. Sykes didn't test any Bigfoot samples, only samples that were thought to have been Bigfoot. Common collection error. Samples were presented that were not valid. I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot but since I didn't actually see the creature leave the sample, it is still an unknown and therefore unworthy of testing at this time."

And the problem is? Chris B.

The apparent contradiction. Why do you keep it as a sample?

 

[Giordano]

Here's my statement in full:

"Well not necessarily. Sykes didn't test any Bigfoot samples, only samples that were thought to have been Bigfoot. Common collection error. Samples were presented that were not valid. I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot but since I didn't actually see the creature leave the sample, it is still an unknown and therefore unworthy of testing at this time."

And the problem is? Chris B.

When will your sample be worthy of being tested? What event, short of DNA testing itself, will make it worthy?

And again, Sykes's samples were perfectly "valid," they just weren't Bigfoot. None of them. Despite all the enthusiastic collectors who believed that they were. Gee, that might represent an interesting clue that allows drawing a likely hypothesis.

 

[dmaker]

Here's my statement in full:

"Well not necessarily. Sykes didn't test any Bigfoot samples, only samples that were thought to have been Bigfoot. Common collection error. Samples were presented that were not valid. I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot but since I didn't actually see the creature leave the sample, it is still an unknown and therefore unworthy of testing at this time."

And the problem is? Chris B.

The problem, Chris, is your posturing and victim whining. You are in the bigfoot evidence thread. You are quite aware of this as it has been pointed out to you many times. Twice now you have mentioned that you have ( or possibly have ) game changing evidence that is not on the table for discussion. And then, of course, discussion ensues. And why would it not in the bigfoot evidence thread?? You claim to possibly have bigfoot DNA and then expect no follow up discussion?

I have to question your motive for bringing it up in the first place. Clearly you have no scientific interest in the sample since you have declined very gracious offers to have it sequenced. So you either know it did not come from a bigfoot, or you don't care if it did or did not. In either case, again, why bring it up in the first place? You mention possibly game shattering evidence in an evidence thread and then accuse everyone else of speculating due to ulterior motives. But the speculation was all yours. You are the one who introduced the sample as possibly bigfoot. No one else here did that, you did. The speculation is all yours.

You do a lot of double talk, Chris. Just like the I'm not saying porcupines ate all the giganto bones, but porcupines ate all the giganto bones. And then the absolutely perfect irony of you claiming that words mean stuff and that you always say exactly what you mean.

Yeah, right....

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The apparent contradiction. Why do you keep it as a sample?

When will your sample be worthy of being tested? What event, short of DNA testing itself, will make it worthy?

And again, Sykes's samples were perfectly "valid," they just weren't Bigfoot. None of them. Despite all the enthusiastic collectors who believed that they were. Gee, that might represent an interesting clue that allows drawing a likely hypothesis.

The problem, Chris, is your posturing and victim whining. You are in the bigfoot evidence thread. You are quite aware of this as it has been pointed out to you many times. Twice now you have mentioned that you have ( or possibly have ) game changing evidence that is not on the table for discussion. And then, of course, discussion ensues. And why would it not in the bigfoot evidence thread?? You claim to possibly have bigfoot DNA and then expect no follow up discussion?

I have to question your motive for bringing it up in the first place. Clearly you have no scientific interest in the sample since you have declined very gracious offers to have it sequenced. So you either know it did not come from a bigfoot, or you don't care if it did or did not. In either case, again, why bring it up in the first place? You mention possibly game shattering evidence in an evidence thread and then accuse everyone else of speculating due to ulterior motives. But the speculation was all yours. You are the one who introduced the sample as possibly bigfoot. No one else here did that, you did. The speculation is all yours.

You do a lot of double talk, Chris. Just like the I'm not saying porcupines ate all the giganto bones, but porcupines ate all the giganto bones. And then the absolutely perfect irony of you claiming that words mean stuff and that you always say exactly what you mean.

Yeah, right....

I claimed only to have an invalid sample, such as the ones submitted to Sykes. The reason for keeping the sample is that although unconfirmed, it has the possibility to be from a Bigfoot as this was the goal used for the collection method.
Chris B.

I've already covered this.

 

[Giordano]

I've already covered this.

Okay, I'll bite (pun intended). Would you please cite the specific post, or repeat it, as to when your saliva sample will become worthy of DNA testing? Specifically, what event, short of DNA testing itself, would need to transpire for you to be willing to do this?

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Sighs*

It doesn't matter what (you claim) you claimed.

You brought up "mystery DNA" in a thread called "Latest Bigfoot Evidence."

What did you think was gonna happen?

 

[Garrette]

Sorry, but you have not.

Contrary to how it must seem, most posters in both this forum and this thread are very tolerant of sincere belief. What most annoys and causes barbs to come out is prevarication. Perhaps you do not think you have prevaricated, but the appearance is that you have done so a lot. It was summarized quite well a bit earlier. You arrived, made claims, defended them poorly, and -- when it became apparent the game was up -- stopped defending them while acting as if you never had to begin with.

The sample is simply the most obvious aspect of that behavior. The ONLY possible value it has will come from having it sequenced for DNA. Whether it comes back as known primate, unknown primate, or something else, information will have been added. Keeping it untested for no reason prevents that information being added, and bringing it up then refusing to discuss it when called on it adds to the appearance already discussed.

Why are you keeping the sample?

 

[HarryHenderson]

Everyone needs to take note again of how truly rude ChrisBFRPKY is to this forum. And I'm not talking about cursing or name calling or other nonsense. I do those. I mean regularly using blatant dishonesty in deliberately misstating others' previous posts/positions/notions in his posts then belligerently and rudely refusing to (re)address the specifics when called out on it.

Or more recently, his fascination with taking phony credit for something he had no actual hand in, e.g. about the Denisovans he says something akin to 'at least you all learned something and that was my goal.' Really? That was his goal? He not only doesn't want to learn an iota of anything from us, he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO, yet he's all warm and cuddly and so 'fulfilled' that we (supposedly) learned something from him. Yeah we learned something alright.

He probably cracked from the relentless pressure from that one man think tank ThinkerThunker to be a good Bigfooter and prove all us know nothing naysayers wrong ~ blurry pictures of sticks. I think Resume said it best, "BLAARGing can be tough." It really can.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Sorry, but you have not.

Contrary to how it must seem, most posters in both this forum and this thread are very tolerant of sincere belief. What most annoys and causes barbs to come out is prevarication. Perhaps you do not think you have prevaricated, but the appearance is that you have done so a lot. It was summarized quite well a bit earlier. You arrived, made claims, defended them poorly, and -- when it became apparent the game was up -- stopped defending them while acting as if you never had to begin with.

The sample is simply the most obvious aspect of that behavior. The ONLY possible value it has will come from having it sequenced for DNA. Whether it comes back as known primate, unknown primate, or something else, information will have been added. Keeping it untested for no reason prevents that information being added, and bringing it up then refusing to discuss it when called on it adds to the appearance already discussed.

Why are you keeping the sample?

I defended my pics and video through several pages of pile ons. (the worst pic I have seems to be of the most interest here BTW, but I agree even the hillside family group video is too ambiguous to make out the subjects in great detail. Some see movement some do not. Some never see the movement of the small creature in the lower left frame or any motion behind the large one either) I've agreed they were not evidence as unfortunately they are absolutely too ambiguous to make the subjects out with any certainty.

The saliva sample is invalid, (as in I don't know if it came from a Bigfoot) but will be kept until I have collected a good sample that I know to be valid (one I'm sure came from a Bigfoot) at which time both will be tested and the results released with the rest of the study when I'm done. I covered the sample in the post below as to why I've kept it. I'm not certain why there would be any interest in it? After all it most likely came from something in one of those pics of leaves or shadows. Chris B.

I claimed only to have an invalid sample, such as the ones submitted to Sykes. The reason for keeping the sample is that although unconfirmed, it has the possibility to be from a Bigfoot as this was the goal used for the collection method.
Chris B.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Maybe it's porcupine spit.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It could be.

 

[AdMan]

It could be.

Since you refuse to submit it for testing we know you don't actually believe it could possibly be Bigfoot.

 

[Garrette]

Since you refuse to submit it for testing we know you don't actually believe it could possibly be Bigfoot.

This.

Sorry again, Chris, but your inconcistency regarding the value of identifying the DNA if an unknown primate undermines all this.

 

[Tolls]

I think there may be other "suggestions" about an identity too, but nobody knows for sure do they?

What's you accepting the author's speculation have to do with Bigfoot? To me, it has to do with being gullible.

There's a massive difference between the theory that the new DNA is likely to be from Homo Erectus, something we know existed and have specimens for, and a possibility it comes from a Bigfoot, for which we have no specimens of any sort, either fossilised or actual.

So I know where I would place the gullibility marker...

 

[Craig4]

I defended my pics and video through several pages of pile ons. (the worst pic I have seems to be of the most interest here BTW, but I agree even the hillside family group video is too ambiguous to make out the subjects in great detail. Some see movement some do not. Some never see the movement of the small creature in the lower left frame or any motion behind the large one either) I've agreed they were not evidence as unfortunately they are absolutely too ambiguous to make the subjects out with any certainty.

The saliva sample is invalid, (as in I don't know if it came from a Bigfoot) but will be kept until I have collected a good sample that I know to be valid (one I'm sure came from a Bigfoot) at which time both will be tested and the results released with the rest of the study when I'm done. I covered the sample in the post below as to why I've kept it. I'm not certain why there would be any interest in it? After all it most likely came from something in one of those pics of leaves or shadows. Chris B.

Okay, why can't you make them out in detail? Photographic technology has come a long way. I've taken lots of pictures of animals in the dense brush and don't seem to have the difficulties you obviously do. Why is it that you constantly can't take the quality of pictures your equipment should allow?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/4986-observed-behaviors/

Okay, Chris saw a bigfoot sitting down and eating the bark from a large pine tree branch.

The creature was sitting down and it had a limb in its hands about 8 feet long and about 3 inches in diameter. It was very readily eating the bark from the limb and licking the yellow pine underneath with great enthusiasim after the bark was eaten. It was like it was enjoying something that was very delicious. I also noticed it's tongue was very long as it licked the limb.

Chris was close enough to see details, such as the tongue.

In fact, he took video of this event.

Actually , I did shoot 1 minute and 2 seconds of blobby video. My little Jazz pocket camcorder was zoomed in beyond it's ability to record decent images.

How can he be close enough to see what he saw so well, yet so far away that his camcorder cannot even show us a bigfoot holding an 8 foot long tree branch?

IMO, the Jazz camcorder is capable of useable video of the incident, given what Chris could see with his eyes.

Zooming in to digital oblivion makes no sense at all.

Even a distant video would be of interest.

This story makes no sense. He's close enough to see and describe in detail, but his video is useless.

 

[dmaker]

And then conveniently storms keep him away from the area to collect evidence.

oki doki....

 

[LTC8K6]

Why would bigfoot carry a 400 pound log up a steep slope anyway?

Is he stupid?

Imagine the tracks of an 800 pound biped carrying a 400 pound log.

Chris's claims are just not believable.

 

[LTC8K6]

And then conveniently storms keep him away from the area to collect evidence.

oki doki....

It's no good asking to see the video, which wouldn't have started off at maximum zoom...