Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[LTC8K6]

I really want to know why bigfoot has to carry logs half it's own weight long distances and up steep slopes?

Read along in the stick structures thread.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/591-stick-structures/

 

[JoeMorgue]

I defended my pics and video through several pages of pile ons.[

No you have not. You have excused away your pics and video through several pages of people pointing that they are far, far too insufficient to count as evidence.

Come down off the cross.

I've agreed they were not evidence as unfortunately they are absolutely too ambiguous to make the subjects out with any certainty.

1. If you knew they weren't evidence why did you bring them up?
2. You are (rather dishonestly) leaving out all the times you claimed to have solid, irrefutable evidence that you can't show us because of... reasons.

The saliva sample is invalid, (as in I don't know if it came from a Bigfoot

The (supposed) saliva sample is invalid because you know very well it doesn't come from Bigfoot because you know very well there isn't a Bigfoot and your increasingly out of touch with reality excuses as to why you don't just validate it to know for sure just shows that it's just a game to you.

 

[Garrette]

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.



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

In fact, he took video of this event.



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.

He was that close to a bigfoot chewing a log but couldn't collect a saliva sample that he would consider valid enough to submit for testing?

I'm afraid that the little patience I had for this intentional silliness is wearing quite thin.

 

[dmaker]

Scaring away a bigfoot in mid snack is just not how Chris does things. And then, alas, a storm whipped up and kept our intrepid researcher at bay until all evidence was washed away.

Sad.


As if that little isolated event represents the sole evidence collection opportunity. If there is a family of bigfeets stomping around dragging branches and munching on pine bark in plain sight for a married couple to just stumble upon then methinks evidence collection would be a fairly simple thing. Given when it's not stormy and all.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

My samples will be tested. Whatever gave you the idea they won't?

Scaring away a bigfoot in mid snack is just not how Chris does things. And then, alas, a storm whipped up and kept our intrepid researcher at bay until all evidence was washed away.

Sad.


As if that little isolated event represents the sole evidence collection opportunity. If there is a family of bigfeets stomping around dragging branches and munching on pine bark in plain sight for a married couple to just stumble upon then methinks evidence collection would be a fairly simple thing. Given when it's not stormy and all.

When observing a wild animal, you won't have much chance at a repeat observation if you charge in and give chase every time you see one. There's plenty of opportunity to collect samples later after the fact without upsetting or spooking the subjects of your research.

Do you honestly believe those researchers studying Gorillas in Africa would scare one away to collect a DNA specimen from a chewed plant? I don't think so. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Researchers studying gorillas in Africa have produced photos, footage, specimens, etc, etc. They don't just stand there and watch. They would go in after the fact and collect evidence.

You? Not so much. It was raining after all.

 

[Resume]

Can't harp enough about quality rain gear. Keeps you out in the field, instead of back in your car.

 

[Giordano]

My samples will be tested. Whatever gave you the idea they won't?

Because you haven't already. I've asked repeatedly what you are waiting for- what would need to happen, short of the DNA sequence test itself, that would "validate" your sample enough to justify its DNA testing? A second, "validated" sample would not add any extra "validation" to this sample: it is either Bigfoot or it is not independent of if a separately collected sample tests positive or not.

And please don't reply. "I've already answered this." You haven't. If you have, just cite the post.

 

[Giordano]

Do you honestly believe those researchers studying Gorillas in Africa would scare one away to collect a DNA specimen from a chewed plant? I don't think so. Chris B.

As already pointed out- these researchers studying Gorillas (a rare mammal) in Africa have produced lots of clear videos, pictures, samples, and even live Gorillas (which I have seen in person at zoos). Bigfoot=0. This should be an important clue to you as to the existence of Bigfoot.

 

[Garrette]

My samples will be tested. Whatever gave you the idea they won't?

Ah. So you did not mean it when you said the following (the first is in response to the dual offers to have it tested for you; there are more posts like this):

No thanks. Not interested. Chris B.

It's unworthy of testing at this time as it's not a valid sample. I did not actually see the Bigfoot deposit the saliva so it remains invalid. The circumstances under which it was collected warrant keeping the sample for later testing. Before I put my name to anything submitted for testing at this point it will have to be known to me as a 100% valid sample. And even then I'm not mailing anything out to anyone. Evidence for any submission will be hand delivered by me as chain of custody is very important in these matters. Chris B.

And here you say that you will not test it until you know it is a "100% valid sample," yet you have refused to answer questions about what would make it valid, nor is there any way you could make it "valid" without the DNA sequencing.

You're playing games.

When observing a wild animal, you won't have much chance at a repeat observation if you charge in and give chase every time you see one. There's plenty of opportunity to collect samples later after the fact without upsetting or spooking the subjects of your research.

Do you honestly believe those researchers studying Gorillas in Africa would scare one away to collect a DNA specimen from a chewed plant? I don't think so. Chris B.

The fact that you cannot imagine a method short of "charging in and giving chase every time you see one" does not mean we cannot. Perhaps you are not the appropriate person to be conducting this research if your imagination is limited to this, particularly since your family home is on an established migration path.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Because you haven't already. I've asked repeatedly what you are waiting for- what would need to happen, short of the DNA sequence test itself, that would "validate" your sample enough to justify its DNA testing? A second, "validated" sample would not add any extra "validation" to this sample: it is either Bigfoot or it is not independent of if a separately collected sample tests positive or not.

And please don't reply. "I've already answered this." You haven't. If you have, just cite the post.

When I collect a sample I know to be from a Bigfoot creature that will contain a good DNA specimen, I'll have my samples tested all. Testing unknown samples at this time is not going to benefit my study in any way.

You can argue otherwise, but it won't change the facts. As of now I'm simply dismissed as chasing an imaginary creature around in the woods of KY. I can do so unhindered and without much competition. However, if I were to produce a sample that contained unknown primate DNA and news got out. I would certainly have my share of company in the woods of those looking to cash in on my findings.

As already pointed out- these researchers studying Gorillas (a rare mammal) in Africa have produced lots of clear videos, pictures, samples, and even live Gorillas (which I have seen in person at zoos). Bigfoot=0. This should be an important clue to you as to the existence of Bigfoot.

Ah. So you did not mean it when you said the following (the first is in response to the dual offers to have it tested for you; there are more posts like this):



And here you say that you will not test it until you know it is a "100% valid sample," yet you have refused to answer questions about what would make it valid, nor is there any way you could make it "valid" without the DNA sequencing.

You're playing games.



The fact that you cannot imagine a method short of "charging in and giving chase every time you see one" does not mean we cannot. Perhaps you are not the appropriate person to be conducting this research if your imagination is limited to this, particularly since your family home is on an established migration path.

I'm not interested in turning over any samples to anyone else, that's correct. When the time comes any samples will be turned over by me personally to a reputable lab for study.

If you have a better method of research, by all means please do. My methods may indeed be flawed. I've questioned them repeatedly since I've not had another good sighting since 2010, but others have had good sightings in these same areas. So I'm of the opinion "luck" or "by chance" has something to do with the equation as well as time of year.
Chris B.

 

[Garrette]

When I collect a sample I know to be from a Bigfoot creature that will contain a good DNA specimen, I'll have my samples tested all. Testing unknown samples at this time is not going to benefit my study in any way.

You can argue otherwise, but it won't change the facts. As of now I'm simply dismissed as chasing an imaginary creature around in the woods of KY. I can do so unhindered and without much competition. However, if I were to produce a sample that contained unknown primate DNA and news got out. I would certainly have my share of company in the woods of those looking to cash in on my findings.

So if you've visually verified it's from a Bigfoot, the results will come back "Unknown Primate," and there will be no one rushing into the woods with you, but if you haven't visually verified it's from a Bigfoot, the results will come back "Unknown Primate," and there will be people rushing into the woods with you?

Sure.

I'm not interested in turning over any samples to anyone else, that's correct. When the time comes any samples will be turned over by me personally to a reputable lab for study.

See above.

If you have a better method of research, by all means please do. My methods may indeed be flawed. I've questioned them repeatedly since I've not had another good sighting since 2010, but others have had good sightings in these same areas. So I'm of the opinion "luck" or "by chance" has something to do with the equation as well as time of year.
Chris B.

Correction: Others have claimed to have good sightings.

And, no, I am not interested in doing your research for you; that doesn't mean I am obliged to remain silent on obvious flaws in your methods.

But it is as I have said before: Very few people here mind sincere belief or sincere efforts, even if flawed. I certainly do not mind. What we mind is prevarication regarding those beliefs, that research, and the treatment of purported evidence resulting from the research. Your comments, I am afraid, lean more to the prevarication side than to the "I may be making mistakes but I sincerely want to do real research" side.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fossil-just-rewrote-timeline-human-191753901.html

A 2.8 million-year-old jawbone fossil unearthed in the desert of Ethiopia, and another 1.8 million-year-old jaw that has been digitally reconstructed, have just completely changed what we know about the origin of modern humans.

The fossil is the oldest known representation of the genus Homo and could belong to a new species within the lineage, according to research published on Wednesday in the journal Science. The additional study of the 1.8 million-year-old jaw was published in Nature.

Previously, scientists thought the Homo genus didn't split off from the more primitive Australopithecus species — which the famous "Lucy" fossil belongs to — until about 2.3 million years ago. This new fossil pushes that date back to at least 2.8 million years ago.

This is strengthened by the study of the younger jaw, which suggests that the more advanced Homo habilis had a surprisingly primitive jaw, and so may have originated earlier than once thought.

...

But still not bigfoot, and still no bigfoot...

 

[captain koolaid]

When I collect a sample I know to be from a Bigfoot creature that will contain a good DNA specimen, I'll have my samples tested all. Testing unknown samples at this time is not going to benefit my study in any way...

I'm still lost, Chris. Once you have the "good" sample, what's the point of the mystery one?

...You can argue otherwise, but it won't change the facts. As of now I'm simply dismissed as chasing an imaginary creature around in the woods of KY. I can do so unhindered and without much competition. However, if I were to produce a sample that contained unknown primate DNA and news got out. I would certainly have my share of company in the woods of those looking to cash in on my findings...

Don't Bogart that squatch, man.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm still lost, Chris. Once you have the "good" sample, what's the point of the mystery one?

Don't Bogart that bigfoot, man.

The invalid sample can be tested at a later date along with a good valid sample. I will have this done.

If the unknown sample does contain Bigfoot DNA that'd be 2 samples of DNA likely from 2 different individuals and that'd be wonderful. But, if it turns out to be an animal already on record, at least I have the one good DNA finding from the known valid sample submitted with it.

It's not worth the financial risk by rolling the dice on an unknown sample by itself. Though, I'm sure to have it tested with another valid sample just in case.
I'm not interested in accepting "help" to identify the unknown sample. People tend to do weird things when Bigfoot DNA is the subject of interest. I have no wish for the results to come out before I'm finished in the woods.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Chris will never be finished with his study and that nothing will ever be released and no DNA samples will be ever be tested.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that no DNA sample even exists to be tested and that "the study" consists entirely of BLAARGing.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Chris will never be finished with his study and that nothing will ever be released and no DNA samples will be ever be tested.

If by chance you're wrong, would you agree to eat a bug?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that no DNA sample even exists to be tested and that "the study" consists entirely of BLAARGing.

Same question? Chris B.

 

[ComfySlippers]

If by chance you're wrong, would you agree to eat a bug?



Same question? Chris B.

If either are wrong can I eat a bug too please?
Or a porcupine sandwich.
Or both.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If by chance you're wrong, would you agree to eat a bug?

Seeing as how you haven't put up any of your statements for falsifiability, that's pretty rude, even for you. You seem to have a knack for holding other people to much, much higher standards of evidence then you hold yourself and now to add a grade school dare sorta puts in a new category.

But it is so hard to write a compelling BLAARGing character.

Even given the fact I am taking nothing you are saying seriously and have zero faith that you are being anything resembling on the level in this thread you have somehow still managed to achieve the phenomenon described in the middle of my sig, so I'm gonna leave you to your fantasy land.