Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bigfoot goes where the tracks won't show?
 
jerrywayne said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't know? I have wondered if perhaps it was done in my case as a sort of territorial display so I'd leave the area? But, the Bigfoot the guys saw in the tree did not try to break it down, it was watching them. When its cover was blown it came down the tree and hit the ground running. So again, I don't know. From judging by the diameter of that tree, I concluded it would have been impossible for the creature to break anyway. The only benefit it had would have been the ability to observe them from an elevated position.
Chris B.
 
tsig said:
Bigfoot goes where the tracks won't show?
Click to expand...
It's quite a reach to conclude they're aware of the sign they leave. I have a difficult time doing that but the evidence shows they more than likely are aware of their sign.

There are many cases when they simply can't avoid stepping on something soft, but they tend to avoid these areas for firmer ground whenever possible. Smaller ones are even picked up in these soft areas, that reduces the number of visible tracks briefly, though I don't know if that's their intention or just coincidence.

To me, that demonstrates an ability of higher reasoning that other great apes lack. I could be wrong, they may be dumb brutes but I don't think so.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I don't know? I have wondered if perhaps it was done in my case as a sort of territorial display so I'd leave the area? But, the Bigfoot the guys saw in the tree did not try to break it down, it was watching them. When its cover was blown it came down the tree and hit the ground running. So again, I don't know. From judging by the diameter of that tree, I concluded it would have been impossible for the creature to break anyway. The only benefit it had would have been the ability to observe them from an elevated position.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

I was linking, perhaps unfairly, your comments with NAWAC's and some "eyewitness" account or two.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you have any ability at all to see below the surface of something? And if so, why not ACT LIKE IT once in awhile just to remind us you're not in fact the simple-minded fool you're hell-bent on convincing us you are?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I don't expect respect for my position here. But, I'm also not the complaint department for your frustrations about all footers though.
Click to expand...

First facts are opinions, then they're frustrations. That's okay, because I'm accustomed to this kind of evasion.

My complaint is very relevant to you, actually, because you go on and on about evidence that's not really evidence, which is exactly what I'm referring to.

You must know by now that we know that you've got nothing.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It's quite a reach to conclude they're aware of the sign they leave. I have a difficult time doing that but the evidence shows they more than likely are aware of their sign.
Click to expand...

Here's something you claim is evidence that's not really evidence.

"There's nothing there, so it's evidence that they hide it well." That's one good reason why bigfooter logic is commonly considered a joke.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why in the world would you need to hide them? Animals don't know about the concept of cameras and photography. You could attach a sign saying, "Warning: Game Camera in Use" and not a single animal would know what it said or what the thing was. And don't try to say that Bigfeet are wary of anything to do with humans. The alleged sighting reports contradict that trope.
 
Monza said:
Why in the world would you need to hide them? Animals don't know about the concept of cameras and photography.
Click to expand...

According to many believers, bigfoot are magical beings who are much smarter than we are, and capable of all kinds of super secret tricks that we couldn't possibly imagine. So don't even try to criticize anything ridiculous you notice about bigfoot claims.

Between you and me, though, you're absolutely correct.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If they walked in mud and soft soil routinely your theory may have some weight.
Click to expand...


I know you're not suggesting they levitate (I hope), but if they existed and moved around in the river bottoms as you claim, particularly along low-gradient systems like the Green and other Ohio River drainages, there is simply no way they could avoid soft depositional substrates that largely comprise these rivers' banks. Do they swim across the river to the steep side each time they encounter an outside bend and accompanying floodplain? I understand you have no choice but to claim they stick to the forested river buffer when traveling, because there isn't enough continuous forested land in rural kentucky for something like a bigfoot to move around unseen otherwise, but the soil in these buffers is about as good as it gets for making tracks. If bigfoot existed there, he'd be leaving tracks there. Clear tracks. Do you personally have examples of any clear tracks along the rivers? I would assume you must, otherwise why would you believe they travel along rivers?
 
Last edited:
I signed up for the BFF yesterday, but my account has yet to be approved. I wonder how long it takes.

Anyone a member there? Maybe PM the admin for me?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...

I feel like you're skirting some of the questions. Do you think they eat large animals i.e. deer and/or wild hogs in Kentucky?

Please tell me why you think there are no black bears in western Kentucky.

You just stated "The best areas here have plenty of food and cover" What food do you mean? What cover? What food and cover varies east to west seasonally in KY? What kind of fruit tree were you talking about that was stripped clean?

I'm trying to give your theories, explanations and opinions an opportunity without the "show me the monkey" stuff. In short, I'm trying to understand the overall picture of bigfoot as an animal in Kentucky as posed by you. BF proponents have said that BF skeptics don't evaluate claims, that they just brush them off, so I'm trying to have a rational back and forth. I've not asked you to show your vids/photos or divulge your research location or get your BF saliva tested. When it is all said and done, if BF is an animal in Kentucky (or anywhere) it has to have a complete, explainable life cycle. It has to eat, drink, poop, reproduce and die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom