Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cervelo said:
The Bigfoot and baby eating apples....good grief...one would have to be a moron not to be able to tell that was a back of a bird very close to the camera.
Click to expand...
Well, with the blurring due to motion or being too close to the camera lens to focus (or both), it's understandable why someone might think it looks like fur. But that wasn't the point I was making. Bigfoot enthusiasts don't understand that there would be supporting evidence for something real; a track or photo or sighting in isolation is not evidence. In other words, this is a classic case of rejecting the whole to claim more significance for one small part.

You can see Chris making this assertion on bigfootforums.com

ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm certain there are alot of misidentifications, made up stories, and genuine hallucinations included in a database of 10k sightings. I think what Meldrum was trying to get across was exactly that. I'm not going to hazard a guess as to how many are accurate vs how many are bogus. There's absolutely no way to determine any factual numbers. The important thing to realize about the sightings database is that for these creatures to NOT exist, every single sighting report must be false. If only 1 sighting report is accurate, then presto we have a Bigfoot. Chris B.
Click to expand...
 
"Quote:
AnonymousSaturday, November 1, 2014 at 12:16:00 PM PDT

The JREF numbskulls are getting spanked on their own court by a poster named ChrisBFRPKY. It's fun to watch."

First: Hahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the best laugh of the day.

Second: Therein lies all the positive reinforcement one might need to become an active bigfoot proponent, whether an honestly duped person or a cynical BLAARGer.

Money, sex, and power are great motivators, but close behind them has to be the admiration of your peers. When those peers are a bunch of anti-intellectual mouth-breathers, then nothing brings out the backslaps and high-fives like the perceived sticking it to the scientists.
 
There is no telling who wrote that, including Chris or his Bigfooter partner. For the most part it smells like DWA but it could be almost anyone.

From what I can tell, that forum is a place where scum can feel comfortable and call a place home.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It seems to me in your post you're saying I'm the only one to ever witness a Bigfoot in KY. If you'll remember, some of my sightings include multiple witnesses present though, so I guess we were all mistaken multiple times in that case.
Click to expand...

Yep. You were.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Had you argued I had witnessed something briefly once that I had likely mistaken for Bigfoot, I would agree in that case that mistaken identity would be possible. However, the facts are I witnessed these things several times in 2010 and some of those occasions included several other people present. Observation times lasting between a few seconds to several minutes. More than enough time for a good long look.
Click to expand...

People claim the same thing about ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, and any number of other things.

We don't believe them. Or you.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
I know you hunger for evidence. You know why that is? Because I'll bet deep down you're considering "What if I'm wrong?" and you are.
Click to expand...

No. It's because you don't have any, and people are trying to get you to realize that.
 
barehl said:
I can think of a good example of the difference between a BFE and genuine science. There was a trail-cam picture that was taken back in 2010 that purports to show a mother bigfoot picking up apples with her baby hanging around her neck. http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/vermont-trail-camera-photo-analysis/

If you are a BFE then you will go over this image in microscopic detail because your mistaken belief is that any scrap of evidence adds to proof of bigfoot. This is false.

I don't have to scrutinize the image because it was taken in 2010. If it were real then there would be several dozen such images by now.
Click to expand...

I like this part best:
After obtaining the photo, Frank asked the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department what is in the photograph. They didn’t know, but suggested it was an owl. Thinking this was a ludicrous explanation, Frank later went to Steve Kulls, a New York-based bigfoot researcher who did his own investigation into the photograph . . .
Click to expand...
An owl is more ludicrous than a towering bidpedal ape that's been wandering NA for eons while evading all reliable confirmation. This is bigfoot science at its finest.

And the excellent conclusions from the equally excellent Steve Kulls investigation:
The question remains what exactly is photographed? There are several prevailing theories that remain:

1. An Owl - Dr. MacCabees Analysis,and our analysis rules this out.

2. A Man in a Ghillie Suit - Any reader, that has one that would like to assist us, please contact us, as we would like to test this theory as soon as possible as well.

3. An unknown.

We will continue the investigation to test some of these theories as more come up and keep you posted here as we get more results.
Click to expand...
Owl is right out. A later update also rules out guy in suit. This is all based on one blurry photo (of an owl) with no other corroboration. Well, other than missing apples. I mean, what sort of sneaky forest creature would make away with them? Has to be footie.

Good stuff.
 
Here's another great one from BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy Friends) care of swwasasquatchproject
who thinks these are Bigfoot tracks...whew!
 
LOL...no doubt this idiot thought a boot print was a "Bigfoot" track.
Tried to help him out but....you know the drill.
If your out Bigfoot'in you find what your looking for everytime!
 
Resume said:
Yeah, that guy's one of them fake scientists that frequent that site. Ain't BLAARGing great?
Click to expand...

That particular enthusiast is worrisome. He is now claiming that bigfoot are trying to communicate with him via glyphs and wards. It's alright, though, as one prominent enthusiast interpreted these runes and declared that the bigfoots in his area are pleased by his presence.

Not kidding.
 
The Shrike said:
Come on, Chris. Germ Theory could only be confirmed through careful experimentation in the 19th Century and advanced microscopy in the 20th. In contrast, we've had the technology to confirm bigfoot since the latter Pleistocene.
Click to expand...

The Shrike said:
Um, no. Those so-called scofftics of Germ Theory in the 19th Century lacked the ability to be shown those germs. Though I regret that the theory and the revolution it wrought in medicine didn't take hold as quickly as it should have, I can give a pass to people clinging to competing ideas before Pasteur, Lister et al. caught on for realz.

People who don't get a pass are those who think there are giant wood apes running around the marginally forested areas of a densely populated superpower in the year 2015. Again, there's no technological advance beyond a spear necessary to prove the reality of bigfoot.
Click to expand...

In both these posts you've pointed out we should have already found Bigfoot because we have the technology. That seems logical, but it's a misconception. Technology is limited by our ability to use it and other factors.

By making the statement "We would have already found Bigfoot by now because we have the technology." is exactly the same as claiming we have used our technology to find everything we were looking for previously. And that's simply not the case. We're unable to find stuff like crashed airplanes, people etc. Especially in cases such as Boggs and Begich:

"On October 16, 1972, United States House of Representatives Majority Leader Thomas Hale Boggs and United States Representative Nicholas J. Begich boarded an airplane in Anchorage en route to Juneau," read a few short paragraphs alongside photos of the congressmen. "The aircraft disappeared amidst turbulent conditions, and no trace of the men or the airplane was found." (The Washington Post)

Now this particular search utilized the combined resources of the US Government and even included SR-71 flyovers. Nothing found.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
In both these posts you've pointed out we should have already found Bigfoot because we have the technology. That seems logical, but it's a misconception. Technology is limited by our ability to use it and other factors.

By making the statement "We would have already found Bigfoot by now because we have the technology." is exactly the same as claiming we have used our technology to find everything we were looking for previously. And that's simply not the case. We're unable to find stuff like crashed airplanes, people etc. Especially in cases such as Boggs and Begich:

"On October 16, 1972, United States House of Representatives Majority Leader Thomas Hale Boggs and United States Representative Nicholas J. Begich boarded an airplane in Anchorage en route to Juneau," read a few short paragraphs alongside photos of the congressmen. "The aircraft disappeared amidst turbulent conditions, and no trace of the men or the airplane was found." (The Washington Post)

Now this particular search utilized the combined resources of the US Government and even included SR-71 flyovers. Nothing found.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, a race of man-sized apes living within a few miles of human settlements for centuries has never been clearly photographed.

Submerged planes are hard to find. Gorillas within spitting distance of humans? Not so much.

And yet there is not so much as one piece of evidence in favor of its existence. Nothing but photos of owls.

Funny, that.
 
How is the search for a single plane crashed in Alaska, and witnessed by no one, related to the search for a viable population of giants, "witnessed" by thousands, in the USA?
 
Last edited:
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Because...Bigfoot. Don't be so close-minded.
Click to expand...

Chris is really on his A-game tonight. In addition to the wet tissue-clad logic he displayed, there's this:

"Now this particular search utilized the combined resources of the US Government and even included SR-71 flyovers. Nothing found.
Chris B."

Do you see it? Not only does Chris skewer us skeptics with that post, but he gets to demonstrate that because HE has seen bigfoots on multiple occasions he outperforms the "combined resources of the US Government" including "SR-71 flyovers". Dang, he's GOOD!
 
The Shrike said:
Chris is really on his A-game tonight. In addition to the wet tissue-clad logic he displayed, there's this:

"Now this particular search utilized the combined resources of the US Government and even included SR-71 flyovers. Nothing found.
Chris B."

Do you see it? Not only does Chris skewer us skeptics with that post, but he gets to demonstrate that because HE has seen bigfoots on multiple occasions he outperforms the "combined resources of the US Government" including "SR-71 flyovers". Dang, he's GOOD!
Click to expand...


I can just picture him getting up in the morning, looking in the mirror, and in his best Ali impersonation, proclaiming: "Am the GRRREATEST!"

Float like a butterfly,
sting like a bee.
No'one can 'Squatch
like ChrisBFRPKY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom