Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[John Nowak]

We'd have the monkey.

Oh, certainly. It's sort of a back-of-envelope thought exercise on my part. Basically, what kind of photographic evidence would you need for Bigfoot to be "unhoaxable?"

To pass on a Bigfoot site all you really need is a Chewbacca mask, but let's pretend the audience is a bit more sophisticated than that.

The real answer is, it's impossible, because any digital photo could theoretically be hoaxed. But just to play with the idea, you'd need a sequence of shots, probably taken in drive mode, that showed some motion on the part of the subject.

So then the idea of hoaxing that with a life sized (so you can bring people to the site and show them exactly where it stood), stop-motion figure came up. If we're talking about a digital camera taking stills you'd get perhaps 3-5 FPS, which would be a lot easier to animate than full speed video. Then go back and edit the EXIF data to make the time and date stamps match the claimed scenario.

I'd go in with a big zoom lens because my story is that I was birding, which would explain the closeups and why you can't see the entire animal and the rig supporting it.

Bigfoot does a bluff charge and runs away. I don't want to follow it, because I'm concerned the animal is terrified and might turn on me. That might be a bit more plausible than the usual "I went home because I was bored" scenario. Or I stumble across a juvenile and get out of there because Mom shows up and she's not happy. Whatever.

I'm sure an expert could poke holes in this, but they'd need to work a little.

 

[John Nowak]

Wouldn't it be a great ad campaign, for a point and shoot digital camera, to have a BIGFOOTIN' GUARANTEE Commercial? Voiceover: We promise that your photos of Bigfoot will not come out blurry because of our camera...

The problem is that wouldn't distinguish your camera from any others on the market...

 

[Drewbot]

The problem is that wouldn't distinguish your camera from any others on the market...

It's the guarantee that would set it apart.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So far, all chris has presented is a low resolution tree. He continues to claim to have Hi-res at a range of 15 ft no less, of a family figboot group. Please. I could take better photos of my shoe. My kids do better.

ORLY?


So why exactly were you explaining for pages the reasons for not releasing that video at 15 ft range for more than a few pages?

Are you now saying you don't have it at all?

If so, why did you spend so many pages refusing to release what you don't have?

If not, are you confirming that you do indeed have it?

Many posters asked for even a single frame from the 15 ft footage and you declined them all saying it would all be released when your "study" was complete.

What game are you really playing?

Oh. BLAARG. Right.

I'm glad you now see I never said that. I've made only one video of the family group and it has been released. Do I have the "wack a mole" video in HD? certainly. Does it show one creature's face in HD detail from roughly 15 feet away? Yes it does. I've already confirmed this many times before and the answer to if you can see it. Yes you may when I'm done, but not until for reasons previously outlined. It is not definite proof of Bigfoot, it is supporting footage of behavior for my study and is not on the table for further discussion as that's really all I have to say about it.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

"I do so have a girlfriend, but she lives in Canada so you can't meet her"

 

[abaddon]

I'm glad you now see I never said that. I've made only one video of the family group and it has been released. Do I have the "wack a mole" video in HD? certainly. Does it show one creature's face in HD detail from roughly 15 feet away? Yes it does. I've already confirmed this many times before and the answer to if you can see it. Yes you may when I'm done, but not until for reasons previously outlined. It is not definite proof of Bigfoot, it is supporting footage of behavior for my study and is not on the table for further discussion as that's really all I have to say about it.
Chris B.

So never.

Understood.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, this is just another example of making excuses for bigfoot. If bigfoot was a real animal, it would not be a mysterious task to collect scat. Particularly when you claim to be on a migration path or to have observed them feeding in an area. If bigfoot was a real animal, and the rest of your claims were true, you would have gathered reliable, testable evidence long before now. Instead you have empty pockets and even emptier excuses as to why bigfoot "research" yields zero results.

What you're doing is dismissing the entire premise of Bigfoot instead of trying to work out where to find their scat. I'll admit it's much easier and requires less thought to go your route. But the problem is I know the animals do exist, therefore they must leave scat somewhere.

I'm not "making excuses for Bigfoot" by saying I don't know where they leave their scat. I'm admitting I don't know where they leave it and I haven't found any yet. Simply because I've not found any yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're doing something different from the other animals in the forest and the job is figuring out what that is. Chris B.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dude, I asked a question. Like this one: Is "equivocation" your word of the day or something? You may actually wish to check out the definition before applying it to me.
Chris B.

"Dude", you are pretending that the legends of Iskander fighting, or looking for, wild hairy natives in is an iteration of the "Yeti meh-meh" myth.

You are taking two things that are not the same, and pretending that they are, in fact, the same; "calling them by the same name" as it were, "dude".

Not to mention the etymological problem of lexichronology, "dude".

Now, about those pictures...?

 

[Resume]

Do I even remember? Certainly I remember, the truth is easy to remember. The difficulty in memory seems to be among skeptics as evidenced above when they're making things up. Don't expect me to simply stand by while others put their words in my mouth. I know full well what I've said and what I haven't.
Chris B.

Never mind. A skeptic helped you defend yourself against someone who slightly misremembered your campfire story.

 

[dmaker]

What you're doing is dismissing the entire premise of Bigfoot instead of trying to work out where to find their scat. I'll admit it's much easier and requires less thought to go your route. But the problem is I know the animals do exist, therefore they must leave scat somewhere.

I'm not "making excuses for Bigfoot" by saying I don't know where they leave their scat. I'm admitting I don't know where they leave it and I haven't found any yet. Simply because I've not found any yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're doing something different from the other animals in the forest and the job is figuring out what that is. Chris B.

No, that is not what it means.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"I do so have a girlfriend, but she lives in Canada so you can't meet her"

I think I'm dating her.

 

[CORed]

The problem is that wouldn't distinguish your camera from any others on the market...

Which has never been an obstacle to advertising a feature of any product.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Never mind. A skeptic helped you defend yourself against someone who slightly misremembered your campfire story.

Great team effort. Should be simple for you as you are many, I am one. Seems to me if I can remember and respond to the posts of the masses here, the masses should be able to show me the same courtesy. After all, you're only responsible for remembering the posts of one member vs many.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

I'm not "making excuses for Bigfoot" by saying I don't know where they leave their scat. I'm admitting I don't know where they leave it and I haven't found any yet. Simply because I've not found any yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're doing something different from the other animals in the forest and the job is figuring out what that is. Chris B.

They're doing everything differently then all the animals in the 40 acre wood forest.

No bones. No fossils. No hair. No scat. No DNA. No pieces of one. No whole ones, alive or deceased. No pieces of one ever found in the stomach or **** of any predator. After 15,000 years of sharing the same continent, we have none of these things, when there should necessarily be some of these things.

We have stories. Oh, and excuses.

 

[Resume]

Great team effort. Should be simple for you as you are many, I am one. Seems to me if I can remember and respond to the posts of the masses here, the masses should be able to show me the same courtesy. After all, you're only responsible for remembering the posts of one member vs many.
Chris B.

BooRah

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

"Dude", you are pretending that the legends of Iskander fighting, or looking for, wild hairy natives in is an iteration of the "Yeti meh-meh" myth.
You are taking two things that are not the same, and pretending that they are, in fact, the same; "calling them by the same name" as it were, "dude".

Not to mention the etymological problem of lexichronology, "dude".

Now, about those pictures...?

Nope, I'm not and have not. Chris B.

 

[Giordano]

"I do so have a girlfriend, but she lives in Canada so you can't meet her"

I do too, although she is a bit hairy. But she is beautiful, rich, owns a house, yacht, and helicopter, and adores me. She also buries her scat so that she doesn't take up time in the bathroom,, leaves no hair in the drain, and for some reason is very difficult to photograph clearly. I do have one amazing photo of her, but for a variety of reasons I am not going to make it available to anyone else until I am done with it. I also have some spit that I think might be hers, but I don't want to discuss it further.

 

[Giordano]

Simply because I've not found any yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're doing something different from the other animals in the forest and the job is figuring out what that is. Chris B.

Yep, they are doing something different from the other animals in the woods alright. And I think that I figured it out. The other animals exist.

 

[Drewbot]

I'm not "making excuses for Bigfoot" by saying I don't know where they leave their scat.

I'm admitting I don't know where they leave it and I haven't found any yet. Simply because I've not found any yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're doing something different from the other animals in the forest and the job is figuring out what that is. Chris B.[/QUOTE]

BOLDING is classic Bigfoot of the Gap argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nope, I'm not and have not. Chris B.

"Dude", how sad.

...The only thing I related is that the Yeti goes back to at least 326 BC and Alexander the Great had "requested" or "demanded" to see one making him the first Westerner to want to see a Yeti, according to the National Geographic site info.

...and all you would have had to do would have been

...remember[ing] the posts of one member vs many.

..."dude"...