Bigfoot - has anybody seen one? Part II.

[Castro]

I guess Chris is saying that if we can't tell a chimp from a gorilla then we are also not qualified to tell a blob from a squatch in his scenery pics.

I guess you missed the bigfoot in Chris' pics. It stands right between Santa Claus and Michael Jackson.

 

[Vortigern99]

This is a brief post to clarify that upthread, I posted a link to a wiki page which purports to contain a pic of a Cross River gorilla taken in 1906. I made the mistake of taking wiki's word on the claim, without examining the photo for myself. I glanced at the small pic, read the (now falsified) blurb and posted the link here.

My bad! I consider wiki as the beginning of research, not the end. This is one of the few times I've linked to something on the wiki site without first vetting it for myself.

I'll take it as an object lesson in critical thinking and the adage that one should always check one's sources.

ETA: The pic's file history says it came from this site about the Ibo of Nigeria. The words "Young gorilla (?) killed at Asaba, So. Nigeria, west Africa, 1906." are hand-written (apparently by an anonymous chronicler, possibly but not definitely the photographer) at the base of the photograph.

ETA2: Here's the page on the Ibo site that contains the pic. The author of that site does not claim the animal is a Cross River gorilla. The error, then, originates with wikipedia editor AdamFromTheVillage, who on Dec. 17, 2012 added the false description: "Igbo children with a dead Cross River Gorilla." -- whether by honest mistake or intentional fraud remains unclear.

ETA3: However, the Ibo site does attribute the photo to "R. L. Beard", which a quick yahoo search reveals is a joke internet name. For me this is where the trail runs dry, and with that I'll drop it.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

@BFF

There is no way possible to have an intelligent conversation about primate anatomy with folks that can't tell the difference between a chimp and a gorilla. I never said anyone was foolish. As a matter of record, I don't name call if someone doesn't agree with my opinion.



Bill Munns has put together a very informative presentation that addresses many of the skeptical issues with the PGF to my satisfaction. Yet the most common response on skeptic sites is to attack Bill's character or qualifications, and those of anyone that may agree with his findings.



Many claim to "see no movement" on the two specific frames used for the "shockwave" portion of the presentation. Well, I do see movement as does anyone else that views those frames. So the arguments otherwise to me seem dishonest.



So once again I will say, there is no way possible to have an intelligent conversation about primate anatomy with folks that can't tell the difference between a chimp and a gorilla.



Folks that argue Patty's muscle shape should be an exact match with those of humans,it's ridiculous. Possible resemblances may be noted, but not an exact match muscle shape per muscle shape of two separate species.



Bill's "shockwave" presentation concentrates on movement thru soft tissue which is fluid dynamics and as Bill has shown, these results are testable and repeatable. No need for an exact match of size and shape of the "vessels" thru which the shockwave travels, only the similar wave shape need be observed (or the lack of wave travel). Chris B.

Chris knew it was a chimpanzee the whole time, apparently. The fact that some members did not, is a matter of importance for Chris, he mentions it twice, but does not consider "gotcha" moments "productive".

Something I find rather typical is his dismissal of the arguments here because some "attack Bill's character or qualifications" .. sure let's seize on that, that's all people do.. have done.. in these threads is attack Munns' character. Someone might be "offended" by such attacks on Munns' "character" , but an honest person does not just run off at the slightest offense with their "victory" "card" like that. " Welp, most of the members there are mean to Bill, therefore I can dismiss everything everyone there has ever said! "

I think most know that Chris was never here to discuss the PGF, or discuss other possibilities to the Bigfoot phenomena that do not involve Bigfoot existing in modern Kentucky, as HarryHenderson points out here a couple of days ago :

The hilarity is you thinking you're trying to convince us of something. You're just trying to convince yourself. Why else come to this vast wasteland of Buzz Killington skeptics, known to have zero respect for your Bigfoot idol Bill Munns? And then make over 100 posts in less than a week's time defending him and Bigfoot? FTR I post less in an entire year. It's as if Bigfoot's cosmic license to exist depends solely on the amount of BIF™ (Bigfoot Intestinal Fortitude™) you can sustain in a hostile environment. That is, if you can endure the JREF hell and come out the other end perhaps scathed but still bleevin, then Bigfoot LIVES!

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Using the cross river gorilla as an example that animals can stay elusive is frowned upon, yet something as genetically different from Bigfoot like a wolverine is used as an example that animals can't stay hidden?

 

[The Shrike]

You're still missing the point about the gorillas. They are rare because people hunt them and destroy their habitat. If they were elusive like bigfoot is elusive then hunting would not affect them. If they could withstand habitat loss like Bigfoot does, then habitat loss would not be a problem for them. Cross River Gorillas are not like bigfoot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris how do you explain the existence of Bigfoot in modern Kentucky? Why do you think that is plausible? That picture of the "9 foot" "subject" .. there is nothing there. The problem isn't "the equipment" , the problem is that Bigfoot is not there..

I cannot explain the "how" or "why" they are here but they are. But I don't think anyone can give an honest answer to either question about any species on the planet.

The picture of the 9 foot subject is not proof I agree, but whether anything is there or not is a matter of opinion for everyone except the person that took the picture. Would you say the same about the family group video on youtube? The still on the top page of my site is taken from it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Exactly. You've got photos on your website that you claim to be bigfoots but you won't repeat those claims in the company of people who will question them. That's not cool. If you want to have a website on which you write stories about seeing bigfoots, go for it. But passing off photos of branches and shadows as photos of those bigfoots puts you in another category.

As for historical chimpanzee photos, I guess you are claiming that you had set a trap for us weak-minded meanie-heads at the JREF, but I don't think you had any idea that was a chimp until I pointed it out.

Color me skeptical that you've come here with a mind open to the slightest possibility that you could be wrong about Bigfoot.

Most of the photos on my site were failed attempts to capture good images of what I saw during those encounters. None, are acceptable as evidence of proof of Bigfoot. What is there to debate?

I know you want me to say "Bigfoot is real because of this or that photo." So you can tear me apart for making a ridiculous claim. I don't accept the creatures as proven to exist by a photo because neither does the scientific community. My best effort to date is the family group video but that's still not proof.

As far as the Chimpanzee photo. No I did not set a trap for anyone. In my experience I would guess it was likely someone of a skeptical nature that made that photo available on WIKI for whatever reason.

My point was and is that like Greg Long's book, many make the mistake of accepting something as fact without checking it out for themselves. That's not investigation and can get one into trouble. If you checked out that photo on your own accord and suspicions, my hat is off to you because you truly posses the "show me" aspects of a true investigator. Even if it took a hint to get you started (and only you would know this), then you still followed thru to investigate a suspicion and that's still a credit to your record IMO. We don't have to agree whether or not Bigfoot is real. We do need to agree on the method used to determine them as being real or not though.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

Would you say the same about the family group video on youtube? The still on the top page of my site is taken from it.

This?

Yes, I would say the same thing. I don't see a Bigfoot there Chris.. again.. why would you think that you are encountering Bigfoots in modern Kentucky? What makes that a plausible explanation for you?



At about 3:13 is where you start to describe a Bigfoot shelter you guys found... why? That is the least likely explanation.

 

[LTC8K6]

Using the cross river gorilla as an example that animals can stay elusive is frowned upon, yet something as genetically different from Bigfoot like a wolverine is used as an example that animals can't stay hidden?

Wolverines are rare and yet they are found anyway, photographed anyway, and found dead anyway, and they are small and hide easily.

An 800 pound 9 foot tall furry biped should be just a little easier to find, don't you think?

We can also see the signs left behind by a wolverine, even when we can't find him. We can tell where he's been, what he's been doing, what he's been eating, where he's been living, etc.

800 pound 9 foot tall biped? No verified sign of such a thing anywhere, ever. A few dubious footprints if you want to accept them. One very dubious movie shot in 1967 if you want to accept it. Numerous hoaxes and copious amounts of garbage "evidence".

 

[LTC8K6]

And now we see a claim that these giant furry people are roaming around Kentucky undetected.

It boggles the mind.

Let's substitute some gorillas for bigfoot.

If gorillas were living in Kentucky, would they be undetected?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This?

Yes, I would say the same thing. I don't see a Bigfoot there Chris.. again.. why would you think that you are encountering Bigfoots in modern Kentucky? What makes that a plausible explanation for you?



At about 3:13 is where you start to describe a Bigfoot shelter you guys found... why? That is the least likely explanation.

So do you see branches or a rock, or something living and moving?

As far as a structure discussion at 3:13 of the 2nd video, the area is not frequented by humans (other than our treks), the creatures have been witnessed there and within the structures, the structures begin small and increase in size with some additions such as logs that are too heavy to have been placed on the hillside by humans. There are also no tool marks on the materials used (no evidence of a saw or chainsaw being used)

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm sorry, but when were you at Alamogordo? I ask because your bio page at http://www.bfrpky.com/Chris.html makes absolutely no mention of you working at any primate research facility.

My bio is brief. And your point is what? It should list everything I've ever done?

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

So do you see branches or a rock, or something living and moving?

I see 15 seconds of (poor) video of some woods.

As far as a structure discussion at 3:13 of the 2nd video, the area is not frequented by humans (other than our treks), the creatures have been witnessed there and within the structures, the structures begin small and increase in size with some additions such as logs that are too heavy to have been placed on the hillside by humans. There are also no tool marks on the materials used (no evidence of a saw or chainsaw being used)

Ok, but Bigfoot doesn't exist in Kentucky.. or anywhere in North America. So what makes you think that you are seeing Bigfoot? Certainly there are better explanations for what you are encountering. They could include anything from homeless people to hallucination on your part.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Try the slowed down version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2gYk7StLfg

 

[dmaker]

Sorry but I don't see anything in your videos but scenery.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Scenery like what? Trees? Rocks? "Scenery" is a broad description, can you elaborate? What is your take on the dark object center screen?

 

[mustbeso]

Chris, are you saying you see movement in the slo mo video? I watched it twice and I am unable to detect any sign of movement in the entire 1:57. How far away were you from the subject and why not move toward it?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

And now we see a claim that these giant furry people are roaming around Kentucky undetected.

It boggles the mind.

Let's substitute some gorillas for bigfoot.

If gorillas were living in Kentucky, would they be undetected?

Since the same methodology was used from Gorilla studies to locate the home range of the Bigfoot creatures, I'd have to say it is likely gorillas would have been detected as well if they too existed in KY. But for what is known, Bigfoot may simply be a different species of Gorilla.

 

[dmaker]

Yes, I see rocks and trees. The dark object looks like a dark, stationary object. Perhaps a burnt tree stump, but it's impossible to tell for certain given the low Res. I do not detect movement at all. If there was movement after all, I would have to guess black bear given the general shape and colour of the blob in question?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, are you saying you see movement in the slo mo video? I watched it twice and I am unable to detect any sign of movement in the entire 1:57. How far away were you from the subject and why not move toward it?

Yes I see movement, I'm not alone in that. A close study is required to reveal movement of the large subject and a close study of his right shoulder, facing the camera, is needed to view movement of the individual behind him. It helps if you're looking for a "back rub" type movement.

We were approx 115 to 120 yards away. Persons present were myself, another researcher and his son. After recording the video, the best thing to do was to end the encounter. Any movement toward the creatures would have provoked a response. Since I didn't know what response they'd have and my friend's son was present, even though I was armed, I think we did the best thing.

As a matter of record, I wouldn't suggest you walk up on a wild Gorilla either. After studying methods used by Gorilla researchers, I modeled my observation methods very similar to theirs.