Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[MikeG]

Poor old Robert Pershing Wadlow wasn't the best of movers, but this does re-iterate the point that almost all reports of BF come in within the human height range. There'll be a good reason for that....

 

[Monza]

Poor old Robert Pershing Wadlow wasn't the best of movers, but this does re-iterate the point that almost all reports of BF come in within the human height range. There'll be a good reason for that....

But as we are currently learning on the PGF Pt 4 thread, BF has an entirely different physiology. Apparently you can't make any comments regarding anatomy based on knowledge of other primates. I think Patty's Diaper Muscle helps her move that massive frame with the grace of a gazelle.

 

[dafydd]

But as we are currently learning on the PGF Pt 4 thread, BF has an entirely different physiology. Apparently you can't make any comments regarding anatomy based on knowledge of other primates. I think Patty's Diaper Muscle helps her move that massive frame with the grace of a gazelle.

You have an odd definition of the word 'learning'.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wow, blobs!

There's a poster at the R&P forum using similar things as evidence of fairies. He once claimed to see twenty or so fairy faces at a picture...

That's it. Bigfoots or fairies? The Great Debate.

 

[dafydd]

Wow, blobs!

There's a poster at the R&P forum using similar things as evidence of fairies. He once claimed to see twenty or so fairy faces at a picture...

That's it. Bigfoots or fairies? The Great Debate.

Fairies, Bigfoots and you better believe it.......sorry Ozzie.

 

[Apology]

Wow, blobs!

There's a poster at the R&P forum using similar things as evidence of fairies. He once claimed to see twenty or so fairy faces at a picture...

That's it. Bigfoots or fairies? The Great Debate.

I thought Bigfoots ate fairies, so...probably not many fairies left by now.

 

[eerok]

Latest bigfoot sighting:

http://geekologie.com/2013/08/yeah-you-did-monkey-face-back-of-the-hea.php

 

[Monza]

Latest bigfoot sighting:

http://geekologie.com/2013/08/yeah-you-did-monkey-face-back-of-the-hea.php

Let's all make a pact to get one of those if/when Bigfoot is found.

 

[kitakaze]

Moving a bit of OT discussion from the PGF thread to here for proper place to discuss Chrisbfrpky's Kentucky Bigfoots...

Try the slowed down version

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

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

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

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 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?

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.

Thank you for your honest interpretation. So to recap, the dark object looks stationary like a burnt tree stump, you didn't see any movement and if you had it could likely be video of a black bear. But it's impossible to determine given the low res anyway. Well said.

The kindest thing possible is for me to admit the video is inconclusive due to the quality. But I do think it is worthy of study because to some, that bear is getting a back rub.

For those that couldn't view Chris' video, here is a still of "a family of primates doing primate-type things." I have circled the primates in red.

Very nice capture but a little misdirecting though. The better still cap is here and needs no circles of red.

 

[LTC8K6]

What's the point in discussing a disingenuous person's photos/movies?

We've been through this too many times already, imo.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

One would expect less blobsquatches in this day and age with the technology that's available now (people can now get cameras that record above full HD)., So I think blobs can be kinda suspicious, but nothing that screams hoax given the elusiveness of the animal in question.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot knows when a camera is pointing at them and becomes blobby. Obviously it can't prevent photos but it can prevent clear images. It doesn't flee but becomes indistinct. That is a form of elusiveness I guess.

Also Bigfoot seems to never show itself to nonbelievers who would easily obtain a specimen. Instead it only shows itself to believers who do nothing much other than tell other believers about it because they are the only ones who believe the story teller. Then after they have heard a Bigfoot story it's their turn to tell one.

But really a rational person would not expect fewer blobsquatches in modern times.

 

[LTC8K6]

"There was a bear 40 meters from me in direct sunlight. There are not many leaves on the trees. This is the best pic I could get."

And then you get a pic like the one we have been shown.

Does that make any sense at all?

 

[eerok]

I think blobs can be kinda suspicious, but nothing that screams hoax given the elusiveness of the animal in question.

What animal in question do you mean? Keep in mind that over the past few hundred years the Spanish, French, Dutch, and English crawled all over North America in order to exploit the hell out of it. No bigfoot. Not one.

And more recently, notwithstanding the explosion of population and technology and the utter greedy seriousness of exploiting every wild fart and twig, there's still no bigfoot. Not one.

"Elusive," you say. Actually impossible.

 

[River]

One would expect less blobsquatches in this day and age with the technology that's available now (people can now get cameras that record above full HD)., So I think blobs can be kinda suspicious, but nothing that screams hoax given the elusiveness of the animal in question.

My bolded. Yes, humans are pretty elusive. Bigfoot phenomenon has time and again been proven to be humans, playing jokes/pranks, or silly humans making up grand stories, or just plain ole imagining it. The "animal" in question is us. I can prove many times over what has created bigfoot prints, films, photos, stories. It aint no monkey.

That is your bigfoot. Thats who makes the footprints, the films, the photos, the imagined crap. Humans.

 

[LTC8K6]

Chris why is the resolution different?

PICT0042UECOPY is supposedly the full resolution image. It's 3840X2880 2.1MB

I have decided to release the full unenhanced raw image for study and review. The full image is 8.1 MP and a bit over 2 MB in size This one has not been lightened and is a first generation copy of the original raw pic taken.

PIC42COPY is supposedly the lightened version. It's 4334X2880 3.6MB

The full image is 8.1 MP and a bit over 3.5 MB in size This one has been lightened.

 

[Resume]

One would expect . . .

One would expect a specimen by now. If we were talking about an extant species. Which bigfoot is not.

 

[Castro]

One would expect less blobsquatches in this day and age with the technology that's available now (people can now get cameras that record above full HD)., So I think blobs can be kinda suspicious, but nothing that screams hoax given the elusiveness of the animal in question.

Actually, the internet technology is a blessing for hoaxers/liars/jokers/storytellers or whatever the name you call them. Nowaday, all they have to do is to make a cheap site to tell their story, to post a few blobsquatches presented as evidence and to wait for gullible believers to take the bait. Peanuts compared with the equipment used and the actions undertaken by Patterson and Gimlin at Bluff Creek for example.
Bigfoot is an imaginary animal perfectly adapted to the Internet virtual world (it's everywhere but nowhere) and I think we can expect more blobsquatches in the future.Blobs are mostly unrelated with camera technology, IMO.

 

[GT/CS]

A bigfoot website without photos is just a bunch of boring text so it looks to me like Chris just took a bunch of photos of trees, hoping some of them would have blobs he could post on his site. Blobby videos are even better so he took some of those, too.

It's apparently just an attempt to be recognized in the bigfoot world.
IMO all bigoot websites are a plea for attention.

 

[Castro]

Bigfoot knows when a camera is pointing at them and becomes blobby. Obviously it can't prevent photos but it can prevent clear images. It doesn't flee but becomes indistinct. That is a form of elusiveness I guess.

Also Bigfoot seems to never show itself to nonbelievers who would easily obtain a specimen. Instead it only shows itself to believers who do nothing much other than tell other believers about it because they are the only ones who believe the story teller. Then after they have heard a Bigfoot story it's their turn to tell one.

But really a rational person would not expect fewer blobsquatches in modern times.

Yep, no stories no game and no game no fun for footers. Of course some story tellers are better than others, some can even be really boring.