Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
We seem to have two different opinions as to the intentions of the "family group" we met on our way out. It's ok to disagree, let's look at both sides here and apply some critical thinking.

You saw a cooler, so you say they were on a picnic, then later a cookout. I can understand the relationship with coolers and picnics and cookouts, so that's not altogether an invalid theory. But when we add in more factors like time of day, it was after sunset and getting dark. Why would someone take their family on a picnic at night? No grill either. So highly unlikely they had planned a picnic or cookout.

Alright, you saw a cooler, let's review what I saw and think about it for a moment. I saw 2 adult males, 3 adult females,and 1 infant in a stroller. The adult female (mid 20's) pushing the stroller had a small camera case on her left wrist very similar to my little Sony camcorder case, so I suspect she may have been carrying a Sony camcorder or similar in it. The stroller was a hard wheeled type and I felt especially bad for the infant having that very bumpy ride.

The other two adult females were not carrying cases though one had what looked like either a one strap backpack or a jacket slung over her shoulder and she appeared to have been in her teens. The other, late 20's to early 30's.

One of the adult males (late teens to early 20's) was carrying nothing that I could see, the other male (late 20's early 30's) was pushing a solid wheeled type two wheel dolly white in color. Strapped on that dolly was a blue cooler with a white lid. I suspect it was an igloo brand. I did not see the brand name
on it that night because on the top of the cooler was a large black/dark colored case about half the thickness of the cooler, on top of that case was a smaller case that resembled an older camcorder case. The two cases on top would have covered the "igloo" name but it was likely an igloo brand IMO as I have the exact same cooler. Also the adult male pushing the dolly had his left hand on the top case to hold it in place.

I also asked them if they were going where we went. The response was "Yes". I responded "It's a long way." After we walked further I told you I had asked them that to see if they would lie to me, and I told you they did.
They were almost at their intended destination when we met. The lie confirmed their true destination IMO. Think about it, could they have taken
that stroller and dolly over and under those downed trees we encountered and down and back up that hill we trekked? No way.

So, by my reasoning they were ghost hunters. They were misleading as to their true destination. The black cases contained some sort of equipment, possibly sound and or video equipment. The time of day they were there (night time) seals the deal IMO.

The cooler more than likely contained sodas, beer and ice for their Saturday night ghost hunt adventure. Oh and there was no reason for me to be concerned about those folks. Remember the large guy pushing the dolly? He was carrying a black/dark handled side arm, most likely a semiauto. Glocks are popular here, but by guessing by his appearance, I'd think it was likely a Taurus or low end. So there was really no need for you to feel embarressed for carrying. It's common here.

I know what you're thinking whether you will admit it or not, as you are now likely remembering more details. "How can someone remember that much in detail?" If you really knew me, you'd know how. I'm not trying to make you angry. All I ask is for you to think about what you actually saw a bit then give my opinion some thought.

About memory, I noticed the pic of the guy in the black jacket you posted and the comments in the post. That was funny but kinda misleading. When we
first met I was wearing an American Eagle OD green nylon jacket similar in looks to a field jacket and camo hiking boots. I changed into the ratty
black leather jacket when we arrived on site and I told you why then, because that's the jacket I was wearing when I had my previous sighting there.

I have no idea where you came up with the tennis shoes comment, not that it matters as I do wear tennis shoes almost daily, but not that day and not
when I'm trekking. The inaccuracies are uncalled for if intentional, if unintentional I can somewhat understand. If you want to poke fun at me please be accurate when doing so is all I ask.

If you like to poke fun about me stopping for the stump, that's fine. If you remember, I laughed about it too. I didn't claim it to be anything other than a stump though. I've never claimed to be super human or a rugged mountain man either, but I can track and hunt and fish and though you may be in better health than me, I believe my observation skills are fine. I stopped for the deer just like I did for the stump. You did see both. So as far as seeing things that aren't there, not so much as you would like others to believe for some reason.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

This, in common with your identifications of Bigfeet in your photos, demonstrates an amazing ability to see far beyond the visible facts, allowing you to construct a complicated and detailed explanation that would not be obvious to anyone else. I presume it gives your pleasure to construct and dwell on these stories, which are so much more interesting than the mundane world so many other people experience. I finally begin to understand why you don't want to test your "bigfoot saliva," in that results either way would make this exciting world much more concrete and boring.
 
tsig said:
The Mighty Munchin' Porcupines.:)
Click to expand...


Can I borrow that for the name of my new band?

We would Rawks and .. Hide Figboot bones. And stuff

Still working on my debut song.

Who's the resident poet again?

I'd like to steal the music from "Bridge Over Troubled Waters"

I find it a very apt tune when dealing with woo
 
Giordano said:
This, in common with your identifications of Bigfeet in your photos, demonstrates an amazing ability to see far beyond the visible facts, allowing you to construct a complicated and detailed explanation that would not be obvious to anyone else. I presume it gives your pleasure to construct and dwell on these stories, which are so much more interesting than the mundane world so many other people experience. I finally begin to understand why you don't want to test your "bigfoot saliva," in that results either way would make this exciting world much more concrete and boring.
Click to expand...

Without detailed observations there'd be alot of criminals walking around free men. I don't remember ever saying I had "Bigfoot saliva"....Someone's memory certainly is off and it's not mine. Chris B.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The Shrike said:
So it's popular for people to visit the approximate location of your bigfooty adventures at night and with sophisticated recording equipment?
Click to expand...
About halfway to that Bigfooty adventures location, it is.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree the first thing you said to yourself after you read The Shrike's post was <Ohh snap!> But in dedication to your never-ending 'job' of trolling literally everything written here, you think <A-ha, I got it, I'll confuse him with some halfway there remark. It's only a couple miles either way but he doesn't know that, he's just a denialist who demands evidence. I'll give him some evidence>.

"About halfway to...
 
ComfySlippers said:
I've made a post in an unrelated topic thread where I mentioned that, eventually it's time to ring that bell at the side of the boxing ring to signal that it's time for the game to end.
(If anyone can find my glasses I'll find the link :) )

Taking at face value is all we can do on the intertubes, but there comes a time to ring that bell.

Chris you have been called so many times over many many pages.
Your lies are, to be honest, akin to watching a train wreck,

From the categories that have been suggested I offer the following for perusal by others:

You're not experiencing Pareidolia.
: was that to be the case then you seriously need an eye test,

You're not BLAARGING.
: to invite someone to see the public park you play in a few times a year is, to be frank, odd.
: you still refuse to show your compelling evidence even though you have 15 seconds of HD Video of a family of magic monkeys. Plus a pretend NDA.you have mentioned that said has been broken, yet you do nothing about it. Ding Ding.

I can reach only of a few conclusions:

:Doctor Time. Sorry for saying that but I'm trying to be truthful.
Or
:A cursory, that's not actually true as I'm not familiar with the area so it was a bit more in depth. No biggy, I'm good at cursory search, unfortunately I'm damned good at doing the difficult research. However the area/state in which you live seems to be for tourist/financial benefit trying to cash in on the scam of figboot.

It would be a terrible shame on either account if you were
A: trying to cash in
Or
B: actually falling for it.
Click to expand...
Is there a question here or is this just another rant? What exactly have I lied about? If you'd be so kind.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Without detailed observations there's be alot of criminals walking around free men. I don't remember ever saying I had "Bigfoot saliva"....Someone's memory certainly is off and it's not mine. Chris B.
Click to expand...


Forgive the short hand: you stated that you had saliva that could be from Bigfoot, but that you didn't want to test it "until you were certain" (although you never explained how that would work in reality, given that you could never be certain unless you tested it, even if a second sample was obtained and authenticated).

If you reread my post, I never took anyone to task for the ability to make detailed observations. It is the conclusion that one can construct from these detailed observations that has limits, and if one doesn't realize this and exceeds these limits, one can send an innocent man to jail. in fact, it has been done fairly often (fiber, etc "evidence" before DNA testing). In fact, eye witness accounts ("I know what I saw") have been repeatedly shown to be particularly dicey. Knowing the limitations of what can be concluded from one's observations is very important.

It is important to remember that Sherlock Holmes is fictional and that what works in a story doesn't work so well in trying to convict the guilty of actual crimes.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Sorry, I went back and picked it up.



I don't bargain my well being on the good will of a wild animal. So I carry. I have seen large cats in the area, and others have seen them here as well. There has been one confirmed cat killed in KY. I'd likely still carry even without that threat though. It's not an issue either way IMO. Though I seem to be the only person here to receive any sort of ridicule for that practice. I will not apologize if it offends anyone. They'll need to get over it or die with it. I will either open or concealed carry as long as I choose to.

I will agree with your findings on Edmonson County and Nolin Lake. I spend alot of time at Nolin fishing and relaxing in the Summer. I've never seen a Bigfoot there though. But there does seem to be 5 sightings listed for Edmonson County at Charlie Raymond's site here: http://www.kentuckybigfoot.com/reports.htm

I know of a few more that weren't reported. So who knows?
Chris B.
Click to expand...
All those words simply to avoid the point. You claimed to take Cervelo out before dark due to deer season safety concerns. This was public land. I showed that such concerns are minimal at best given.

Keep playing, though.

ETA: You did not take him out before dark for that reason; you claimed most of your Bigfoot sighting areas were out of play for that reason. The same refutation appliesm
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Forgive the short hand: you stated that you had saliva that could be from Bigfoot, but that you didn't want to test it "until you were certain" (although you never explained how that would work in reality, given that you could never be certain unless you tested it, even if a second sample was obtained and authenticated).

If you reread my post, I never took anyone to task for the ability to make detailed observations. It is the conclusion that one can construct from these detailed observations that has limits, and if one doesn't realize this and exceeds these limits, one can send an innocent man to jail. in fact, it has been done fairly often (fiber, etc "evidence" before DNA testing). In fact, eye witness accounts ("I know what I saw") have been repeatedly shown to be particularly dicey. Knowing the limitations of what can be concluded from one's observations is very important.

It is important to remember that Sherlock Holmes is fictional and that what works in a story doesn't work so well in trying to convict the guilty of actual crimes.
Click to expand...

I have made it clear the sample is invalid. I do not know it to be from a Bigfoot but I keep it for good measure as there is that possibility as the collection method used was designed for that purpose. It will be tested with the next sample to be collected that I know is a winner.

Yes, I agree there are limits to perception. I have more detailed knowledge about ghost hunter's specific activities in the area than I have posted.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Is there a question here or is this just another rant? What exactly have I lied about? If you'd be so kind.

Chris B.
Click to expand...


I'm not ranting.
Why would I do so?
I'm simply trying, as most posters in this are, to ascertain what your motives are.

The topic of does magic monkey man exist or not is moot.
And will always be incredibly silly.
As has explained to you by people who are qualified to answer that.
Yet you persist in this embarrassingly childish game.
Why?
Tourism? BLAARGING?,
The kind folks here have been trying to ask.
So you have super secret evidence that you refuse to show... Why?
You have super secret evidence but won't show it. Why?
You have the first ever "HD" footage of a family..... A FAMILY of fig boots yet you refused to show it. why?
You accidentally moved onto a migration path of imaginary creatures but can't prove it. Why?
You're incapable of taking photos. why?

Ding Ding.
Time Out.
Your carpy story was carp from the start, but I do enjoy watching a train wreck.
 
Garrette said:
All those words simply to avoid the point. You claimed to take Cervelo out before dark due to deer season safety concerns. This was public land. I showed that such concerns are minimal at best given.

Keep playing, though.
Click to expand...

I do not go out at night because of safety concerns, nothing to do with deer season whatsoever. The area we went to during the day was the safest place to go to avoid the hunters. You are grouping 2 separate issues together.
Chris B.
 
ComfySlippers said:
I'm not ranting.
Why would I do so?
I'm simply trying, as most posters in this are, to ascertain what your motives are.

The topic of does magic monkey man exist or not is moot.
And will always be incredibly silly.
As has explained to you by people who are qualified to answer that.
Yet you persist in this embarrassingly childish game.
Why?
Tourism? BLAARGING?,
The kind folks here have been trying to ask.
So you have super secret evidence that you refuse to show... Why?
You have super secret evidence but won't show it. Why?
You have the first ever "HD" footage of a family..... A FAMILY of fig boots yet you refused to show it. why?
You accidentally moved onto a migration path of imaginary creatures but can't prove it. Why?
You're incapable of taking photos. why?

Ding Ding.
Time Out.
Your carpy story was carp from the start, but I do enjoy watching a train wreck.
Click to expand...
Again, what have I lied about? Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I have made it clear the sample is invalid. I do not know it to be from a Bigfoot but I keep it for good measure as there is that possibility as the collection method used was designed for that purpose. It will be tested with the next sample to be collected that I know is a winner.
Click to expand...

You really need to try harder to cover up your mistake of bringing possible bigfoot spit into this. The above is a rubbish excuse, which has been explained to you several times. It does not explain why you don't get it tested.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Yes, I agree there are limits to perception. I have more detailed knowledge about ghost hunter's specific activities in the area than I have posted.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

And I'd leave out the ghost hunters, as has been pointed out above, that's simply resulted in you admitting there's loads of people with recording equipment hanging out in one of your bigfoot areas.
 
Tolls said:
You really need to try harder to cover up your mistake of bringing possible bigfoot spit into this. The above is a rubbish excuse, which has been explained to you several times. It does not explain why you don't get it tested.



And I'd leave out the ghost hunters, as has been pointed out above, that's simply resulted in you admitting there's loads of people with recording equipment hanging out in one of your bigfoot areas.
Click to expand...

My sample, valid or not, is not on the table.


Perhaps you should reread my response to Shrike's post.
Chris B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom