Moderated Continuation: Latest Bigfoot "evidence" Part Two

skeptichaggis said:
The conclusion must be that bigfoot does not exist-period. It is tragic that so many people have knowledge of the bigfoot myth but lack any real knowledge of real actual primate and hominid evolution,which in my opinion is a far more amazing than any myth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the most sad part. Replace "Bigfoot" with "I like to wander randomly around forests, take pictures of cool looking stuff, and then learn about them" and you'd have the basis for a hell of an interesting website.

A couple of weeks ago I took a picture of a dead fish on the sidewalk, shared it with my friends and co-workers, and we had a wonderful time figuring out what sort of fish it was, and how it got there.

Much more interesting than hallucinations about nine-foot apes.
 
Cervelo said:
Opps on the above post that's not what I intend to post...
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/99D33E1F-6A5A-48AF-91A2-8E0FFBE1D70C.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Well in the two cropped pics you have posted from my site, obviously the "tree welder" as you referred to it before is shown in the left pic. The right pic was made the next day and is the comparison pic, It shows the exact same area, notice the twisty trees and other features that match exactly, and obviously in the comparison pic, the subject is not there. Where did the "stump" go? Was it the magic of David Copperfield? No, it walked away and is shown doing so in the video footage I took of my family immediately after this pic was made.

Now, the two pics from my post both show the "tree welder" subject. The pics have been lightened to different degrees to easier separate the tree and the subject. The subject is much darker than the trees it is standing in front of. That's all. If you don't see it, that's fine. The original image is a fairly high quality still image but the crop and zoom-in of this small section of it makes it too pixellated for any good to come out of it. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Well in the two cropped pics you have posted from my site, obviously the "tree welder" as you referred to it before is shown in the left pic. The right pic was made the next day and is the comparison pic, It shows the exact same area, notice the twisty trees and other features that match exactly, and obviously in the comparison pic, the subject is not there. Where did the "stump" go? Was it the magic of David Copperfield? No, it walked away and is shown doing so in the video footage I took of my family immediately after this pic was made.

Now, the two pics from my post both show the "tree welder" subject. The pics have been lightened to different degrees to easier separate the tree and the subject. The subject is much darker than the trees it is standing in front of. That's all. If you don't see it, that's fine. The original image is a fairly high quality still image but the crop and zoom-in of this small section of it makes it too pixellated for any good to come out of it. Chris B.
Click to expand...

I've never referred to this pic as "tree welded"....tree squatch maybe!
Have you posted the hi-def pic?
 
I thought my original post was clear in specifying a photo as detailed as the one of the rare pika. I assume that anyone looking at that image would agree that it is a real animal. There are only 2,000 of these in the wild. So, where are the equivalent images of bigfoot?

dmaker said:
Or do you mean documented, reliable report? If that's the case, then bigfoot has zero of those, ever.
Click to expand...
Does anyone doubt that the picture of the pika is real? That is the scale we are talking about.

Northern Lights said:
I think you were trying to say there is only one film or video since 1967, which is also incorrect. There are hundreds of videos, many of which are very good, but acknowledging that seriously hurts your premise.
Click to expand...
Show me any picture or video since the Pattysuit video in 1967 that is as clear as the picture I linked to of the pika. Obviously the Pattysuit video is only a fraction of the resolution.

RayG said:
Regardless of how many claims of bigfoot sightings there are each year (thousands if we are to believe proponents), there has never, ever, in the history of the world been a clear and in focus image presented that can be easily identified as a bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The claim that bigfoot is rare is empty when someone can produce a clear picture of another very rare animal.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Well in the two cropped pics you have posted from my site, obviously the "tree welder" as you referred to it before is shown in the left pic. The right pic was made the next day and is the comparison pic, It shows the exact same area, notice the twisty trees and other features that match exactly, and obviously in the comparison pic, the subject is not there. Where did the "stump" go?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in the left pic that's not in the right pic. I see that it could be the same spot, but the angles don't match all that well, and the dark thing on the left is blurrier and closer than the dark thing on the right. By "dark thing" I mean the tree. I mean, for crying out loud, it's obviously a tree.

Trying to pass this off as a photo of bigfoot is not very impressive, to put it kindly.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Well in the two cropped pics you have posted from my site, obviously the "tree welder" as you referred to it before is shown in the left pic. The right pic was made the next day and is the comparison pic, It shows the exact same area, notice the twisty trees and other features that match exactly, and obviously in the comparison pic, the subject is not there. Where did the "stump" go? Was it the magic of David Copperfield? No, it walked away and is shown doing so in the video footage I took of my family immediately after this pic was made.

Now, the two pics from my post both show the "tree welder" subject. The pics have been lightened to different degrees to easier separate the tree and the subject. The subject is much darker than the trees it is standing in front of. That's all. If you don't see it, that's fine. The original image is a fairly high quality still image but the crop and zoom-in of this small section of it makes it too pixellated for any good to come out of it. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Can you see the subject in this bigfoot picture?

lll.jpg
 
Cervelo said:
I've never referred to this pic as "tree welded"....tree squatch maybe!
Have you posted the hi-def pic?
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, the term "tree welder" was first proposed by RayG here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10476285#post10476285

Sorry for the misplaced accrediting of the term, my mistake, that goes to RayG.

The full size image is available on my site here:

[IMGW=600]http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0042UECOPY.JPG[/IMGW]

I snapped the photo just after I had noticed a slight movement. Sound familiar? After a brief review of the area and no further movements spotted, I turned to my wife and son and made a brief video of them, the subject moved behind them and to their left, I think it walked out behind them to get a better view of us after my attention was taken away from it's known location in the first pic.

This abruptly ended the "fun family outing" accordingly and then it turned into a "let's maintain a calm disposition but get the family out of here as quickly as possible without alerting them that we are under observation and also not alerting the hairy observer I know they are there" sort of thing.
Chris B.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you were the only one privy to the presence of the "hairy observer" during this encounter with your family. Has anyone else in your family ever claimed to have seen a bigfoot in your area?

The thought of someone trying to sneak their family away from imaginary threats in the forest is a bid disturbing to be honest. The only threat was in your imagination ( if even there). That cannot be a healthy situation.
 
Wow. You are really trying to mess up a day in the woods for your wife and kid.

You are willing to ruin your kid's day in the woods, because you have tendency to see things Footish?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Yes you are correct, the term "tree welder" was first proposed by RayG here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10476285#post10476285

Sorry for the misplaced accrediting of the term, my mistake, that goes to RayG.

The full size image is available on my site here:

[IMGW=600]http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0042UECOPY.JPG[/IMGW]

I snapped the photo just after I had noticed a slight movement. Sound familiar? After a brief review of the area and no further movements spotted, I turned to my wife and son and made a brief video of them, the subject moved behind them and to their left, I think it walked out behind them to get a better view of us after my attention was taken away from it's known location in the first pic.

This abruptly ended the "fun family outing" accordingly and then it turned into a "let's maintain a calm disposition but get the family out of here as quickly as possible without alerting them that we are under observation and also not alerting the hairy observer I know they are there" sort of thing.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Yes it all sounds familar just like most Bigfoot stories that indicate to me someone has little to no experience in the woods or encounters with wildlife.
It also has all the dramatic flair to paint yourself in a heroic savior light which is particularly interesting, but hey it's your story you can make up whatever you'd like!
In your case you have submitted pictures of trees so maybe you need to focus on your inability to distinguish between trees, leaves, stumps ect and animal life.
Again another pretty good indicator of your inexperience in the woods...classic footer stuff...Bigfoots everywhere in the woods beware!!!
So you just keep sitting on the "good" evidence and we'll keep taking out the trash for ya!
 
dmaker said:
So, you were the only one privy to the presence of the "hairy observer" during this encounter with your family. Has anyone else in your family ever claimed to have seen a bigfoot in your area?

The thought of someone trying to sneak their family away from imaginary threats in the forest is a bid disturbing to be honest. The only threat was in your imagination ( if even there). That cannot be a healthy situation.
Click to expand...

He's packing large, too.

Just imagine what will happen when he imagines that bigfoot is coming toward his family...

He'll probably shoot at nothing, with rounds going who knows where, or shoot at some poor dude in the woods.

Fortunately, he probably won't hit the person.

It's really hard to hit anything with a Blackhawk held gangsta' style. :D
 
dmaker said:
So, you were the only one privy to the presence of the "hairy observer" during this encounter with your family. Has anyone else in your family ever claimed to have seen a bigfoot in your area?

The thought of someone trying to sneak their family away from imaginary threats in the forest is a bid disturbing to be honest. The only threat was in your imagination ( if even there). That cannot be a healthy situation.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you only assume it was imagination because you were not there. What you really mean to say is you hope and pray it was only my imagination because the alternative is too incredible to comprehend.

My son is no longer taken into any Bigfoot areas, he was at this one by accident as I had no idea the creatures were there beforehand.

My wife was present with me on another trek when I filmed the "Eating Video" so perhaps it runs in the family? Perhaps we and everyone else that witnessed them here are "disturbed". But again, maybe we're not.

Drewbot said:
Wow. You are really trying to mess up a day in the woods for your wife and kid.

You are willing to ruin your kid's day in the woods, because you have tendency to see things Footish?
Click to expand...

After viewing the pic and video at home, the wife agreed I did the best thing for the situation. She started going out with me after this and had her own sightings of real, living, eating, walking, Bigfoot creatures of differing sizes. She's particularly fond of the toddler sized creature and has a nice pic of him. Her support of me is 100%. She knows why I trek and what I'm after and the end goal. You should be so lucky.
Chris B.
 
I don't think I've really looked at the whole picture before, that the stump-squatch cam from.
But that "Big foot" is (as said by others I believe) quite clearly part of a tree.

Just looking up from where the blurry blob is you can trace the line of the tree all the way up.

I always felt it was a rubbish example, but in context it's patently absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom