Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think they may have a large home range rather than migrating for the Winter.

Yes, they likely use the banks of the waterways. Great Apes don't seem to like deep water as they normally drown.

A few years ago we had a 24 hour video and sound recording project there. It was up for awhile but was not as productive because it relied on a by chance encounter. The review time was also time consuming, even on FF and the tapes and DVDs were another expense. I've thought about rekindling that project with a hard drive recorder. Gam cams are out though. A pic does not say 1000 words in this day and age.

At any rate that area is on the back burner for now as more productive areas are available.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

You skipped my question on if BF eats large and/or small animals or just plants.

Based on your other answers, is seems reasonable to conclude that the area around your central KY location that is bounded by the Mississippi, Cumberland, Ohio, Tennessee and probably the Green river would probably be the maximum range for individuals in your location. So, seasonal migration ( and therefore seasonal sightings) is not a very logical conclusion since there is no major difference in the flora or fauna from one side of that range to the other.

I'll have to disagree with your conclusion on game cams even if they were just for your own info.

What kind of indicators are you using to determine that one area is more productive than another? Is it tracks, sounds, siting reports, available food or something else?
 
comncents said:
You skipped my question on if BF eats large and/or small animals or just plants.

Based on your other answers, is seems reasonable to conclude that the area around your central KY location that is bounded by the Mississippi, Cumberland, Ohio, Tennessee and probably the Green river would probably be the maximum range for individuals in your location. So, seasonal migration ( and therefore seasonal sightings) is not a very logical conclusion since there is no major difference in the flora or fauna from one side of that range to the other.

I'll have to disagree with your conclusion on game cams even if they were just for your own info.

What kind of indicators are you using to determine that one area is more productive than another? Is it tracks, sounds, siting reports, available food or something else?
Click to expand...
Chris has no interest in this, of course. See below:


Garrette said:
At the moment this is more humorous than working.

Think of it in terms of force. Then try calculating the force required to impart the torque necessary to snap the healthy two foot diameter tree NAWAC reported as Bigfoot snapping. Then use your weight idea and see how to apply it to create that torque. How heavy does your Bigfoot have to be?

If you're feeling really energetic, move on to comparing the force to snap a tree to the force required to topple it at the roots. See which is more likely.

Not interested in doing that? Then you're not interested at all. This is the real work that real researchers do. Otherwise you are exactly as claimed here: a teller of stories around the campfire.


And more speculation to avoid the topic. You've earned your BLAARGer merit badge a dozen times over.


"More productive area?" So you know how productive Area A is and how productive Area B is. Excellent. You can, of course, present the data which both defines those areas and shows the calculations regarding relative productivity?

Or are we still at the campfire?
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Oh, possibly you mean the study area I took cervelo, yes that would be 2 or 3 times per season to that one area especially on the anniversary of the video.

Of course that has nothing to do with my time spent elsewhere. During the peak seasons like now, I'm out 3 times per week in different areas. Perhaps you are confused and thinking the area I took cervelo is the only area I go. That's not the case.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
You go there on the anniversary of the filming, is there cake?
 
Well, bigfoots are know for throwing candies at footers. Bring a cake to an area where bigfoots roam and you'll get a slapstick comedy.

Which, by the way, is a rather good description of bigfootery.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Not exactly. The difference in our opinions of Bigfoot is mostly related to a sighting you have yet to have. That's about the only fact you can apply. Anything else would be speculation.
Click to expand...

You want skeptics to respect your experience, but our experience is that people commonly make mistakes or pretend things are real that are not. If we were to use the word "evidence" as sloppily as footers do, we could put paid to the whole thing. However, we'd prefer to see evidence that's actually evidential.

You can't shrug all this off in the postmodern manner. This isn't a mere matter of opinion. Reality is testable, and if bigfoot were real, there'd be something to test.
 
dmaker said:
Chris, I simply cannot take you seriously. You claim more than one visual encounter with bigfoot in your area. You claim you are conducting an ongoing study. Then you say you only get out 2 or 3 times per year.

The pot of gold at the end of the bigfoot rainbow is considerable. You cannot be bothered to go out more than a few times each year. What, exactly, are you studying?
Click to expand...

This isn't anomalous. This is the standard. Look at the Bigfoot forum and compare the number of posts in the sections pertaining to their outdoor activities to the other parts of the forum: if 'footers were outdoor enthusiasts this would be the biggest section of the forum, heavily laden with pictures. It is the opposite.

Naturally, the story changes when called on this point. Then it's three times a week, except such an activity level would result in good physical conditioning rather than wheezing on a short hike.

That is why we call it Alternate Reality Gaming.
 
Last edited:
Hey Chris, shot any more of those bears that make you "sleep like a baby"? I'm needing an update. I've personally checked the parking lot at Mammoth Cave and the ranger there said he was sure the state government doesn't want you shooting endangered Kentucky bears to sleep better. So you better be more careful next time you shoot one to get to sleep. The feds could be watching. You've been lucky so far, but that luck could run out.

Anyway, good luck with your sleep problem that can only be cured by killing endangered species of bears. You outta try Ambien™. It's better at keeping you out of jail. Or mostly. Just don't carry too many pills with you when you get stopped for killing endangered animals or they'll find them and then you'll need even more endangered bears to kill while in jail. And they don't ship endangered Kentucky bears to prisons. Too messy. Although in an emergency you could call for Borat and his bear I guess. He wants him dead anyway.

Once again, good luck.

Harry B. Henderson
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Not exactly. The difference in our opinions of Bigfoot is mostly related to a sighting you have yet to have. That's about the only fact you can apply. Anything else would be speculation. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

That's John 20:29.

29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Click to expand...

Figboot is a religious belief? Really?
 
Pterodactyl said:
If this were the case, we'd have thousands of well defined tracks in the soft soil along creek and river banks. The fishing forums online would be rife with clear photographs of giant, human-like tracks, even if the animals were rare. Fishermen, like birders and perhaps even moreso, are prone to wandering well away from marked trails and easy access, in the search for dumb, unpressured fish. Canoes, jet boats, kayaks, are plentiful now, and capable of going pretty much anywhere. People with cameras use them to explore constantly.

The vague gravel scuffs being presented as bigfoot tracks in this thread aren't indicative of anything other than a vivid imagination in my opinion.
Click to expand...

If they walked in mud and soft soil routinely your theory may have some weight.

The gravel scuffs pic you saw with the mountain dew bottle for scale, I guess you missed my response to that. If so, I had said it was not a track. It was gathered by a member who wanted other opinions about it as he thought it could be a possible track and so maybe worthy of a pic and a question.

Since it was a single and there was not a trackway to go along with it, it was obviously nothing noteworthy. Chris B.
 
comncents said:
You skipped my question on if BF eats large and/or small animals or just plants.

Based on your other answers, is seems reasonable to conclude that the area around your central KY location that is bounded by the Mississippi, Cumberland, Ohio, Tennessee and probably the Green river would probably be the maximum range for individuals in your location. So, seasonal migration ( and therefore seasonal sightings) is not a very logical conclusion since there is no major difference in the flora or fauna from one side of that range to the other.

I'll have to disagree with your conclusion on game cams even if they were just for your own info.

What kind of indicators are you using to determine that one area is more productive than another? Is it tracks, sounds, siting reports, available food or something else?
Click to expand...

I really don't know if they eat small game animals or not. I think they do. I would, but I've not seen anything that would confirm this.

There are sighting reports listed in the Summer as well, but those seem to be considerably less #'s than Spring and Fall. I disagree with your assessment of my conclusion of course. KY has a wide diversity from one side to the other. In Eastern KY you'll find mostly mountainous terrain and the flora and fauna that flourish there, Western KY is completely different terrain. As an example I can point out Black Bears. They flourish in the Eastern part of the state but are not found in the Western regions. When you consider why that is then you'll understand why I reach my conclusions.

I've based my theory on seasonal activity/sighting reports. As I said I'm not confident of a North/South migration now but more things kinda point to a ranging activity for some purpose. I think food is the driving factor but it could be something else. The best areas here have plenty of food and cover and have the most variety of track sizes. Chris B.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
This isn't anomalous. This is the standard. Look at the Bigfoot forum and compare the number of posts in the sections pertaining to their outdoor activities to the other parts of the forum: if 'footers were outdoor enthusiasts this would be the biggest section of the forum, heavily laden with pictures. It is the opposite.

Naturally, the story changes when called on this point. Then it's three times a week, except such an activity level would result in good physical conditioning rather than wheezing on a short hike.

That is why we call it Alternate Reality Gaming.
Click to expand...

You're gaming for certain. I've already said when I go out and how many times a week during those times. If you care to review, you'll see nothing has changed. Chris B.
 
eerok said:
You want skeptics to respect your experience, but our experience is that people commonly make mistakes or pretend things are real that are not. If we were to use the word "evidence" as sloppily as footers do, we could put paid to the whole thing. However, we'd prefer to see evidence that's actually evidential.

You can't shrug all this off in the postmodern manner. This isn't a mere matter of opinion. Reality is testable, and if bigfoot were real, there'd be something to test.
Click to expand...

I don't expect respect for my position here. But, I'm also not the complaint department for your frustrations about all footers though. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I don't know why they do it Drew. I thought before they didn't. But one of our members here saw one in a tree, (confirmed there were 2 witnesses there both saw the same thing) then I had a few encounters with falling trees when I was out in this particular area. It's not often you'll hear a tree fall when you're in the woods but to hear 2 the same day? That's some long odds. A little investigation of those downed trees led me to believe they do climb trees for some reason.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

It wasn't too long ago that the idea of Bigfoot in trees was virtually never mentioned by field researchers, eyewitnesses, or in the literature on Bigfoot. Now it's becoming an essential storyline in Bigfootville. Growing occurrences of Bigfoot in trees accounts sound like a developing cultural myth in action.

What would be the survival value in the behavior of apes bringing down trees while they are still up in the trees?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Chris seems unaware that game cams do HD video now, with sound.
Click to expand...

I am aware of this fact. If you review you'll find I have been considering starting up the 24 hour project again. Pics from low end game cams are not an option though, I would likely go with the high end cams with HD sound and video in some areas if I do decide to reopen that project. There are several other factors to consider though. Game cams are not easy to hide from view but the smaller night vision cameras are. A few fake "rocks" would be a likely solution.
Chris B.
 
HarryHenderson said:
Hey Chris, shot any more of those bears that make you "sleep like a baby"? I'm needing an update. I've personally checked the parking lot at Mammoth Cave and the ranger there said he was sure the state government doesn't want you shooting endangered Kentucky bears to sleep better. So you better be more careful next time you shoot one to get to sleep. The feds could be watching. You've been lucky so far, but that luck could run out.

Anyway, good luck with your sleep problem that can only be cured by killing endangered species of bears. You outta try Ambien™. It's better at keeping you out of jail. Or mostly. Just don't carry too many pills with you when you get stopped for killing endangered animals or they'll find them and then you'll need even more endangered bears to kill while in jail. And they don't ship endangered Kentucky bears to prisons. Too messy. Although in an emergency you could call for Borat and his bear I guess. He wants him dead anyway.

Once again, good luck.

Harry B. Henderson
Click to expand...

You have a healthy imagination. For some reason you seem to be able to take my answer to a hypothetical situation posed by William Parcher and twist that into past reality. Barring miscomprehension of that post, I can only assume you have a difficult time separating the two. Chris B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom