Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Yes, those were mentioned in the story.....talk about faith.


I remember seeing a picture of Dyer and a Bigfoot too, twice.
I guess I'm too skeptical. Chris B.
Click to expand...

A contemporary news article supported with photos and--presumably--testable, physical evidence is faith based. But insisting that Daniel Boone shot a bigfoot based on a 200 year old story alone is skeptical investigation?

Mmmkay...
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's an interesting story. Why do you believe it's true?
Chris B.
Click to expand...

The evidence presented to support the claim is sufficient in my view. We know planes exist, we know planes crash, we know we can sometimes find these crash sites. I don't need much more than photographs and an article with a bit of the back story on the flight as the claim is hardly extraordinary.

If anyone has evidence that this is not true I would be happy to take a look at it and based on new information adjust my opinion of its veracity.
 
I'll accept it only after a dedicated careful image analysis carried out by Bill Munns, combined with a footprint study performed by Dr. Meldrum.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Where are these pictures of Dyer and a bigfoot?

I've seen pictures of Dyer and a prop, and Dyer and a doll, but never of Dyer and a bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Cervelo said:
Pretty lame Chris....and disappointing!
Click to expand...

The Bigfoot in the pics was "as claimed". Of course it wasn't real though the story said it was....I didn't accept that one as fact either based on a story.

The point is it's kinda odd "skeptics" would accept a story about a certain plane being found hook, line, and sinker without anything other than a few pics and a story as evidence. Further investigation is required by those "qualified" to determine "what" the mountaineers found or didn't. Chris B.
 
" I didn't accept that one as fact either based on a story."

You seem to have little problem accepting the Daniel Boone story.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The point is it's kinda odd "skeptics" would accept a story about a certain plane being found hook, line, and sinker without anything other than a few pics and a story as evidence. Further investigation is required by those "qualified" to determine "what" the mountaineers found or didn't. Chris B.
Click to expand...

1) Wow, this is rich!

2) Who said that further investigation wouldn't be warranted? From the first mention in this thread (post 1931):

"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Chilean mountaineers say they have found the wreckage of a plane that crashed in the Andes 54 years ago, killing 24 people, including eight members of a professional soccer team."

It's obviously a provisional report, as several of us indicated. We "skeptics" have even outlined what it would take for us to change our minds about the apparent veracity of the story. There was neither hook nor line nor sinker.

3) Show me a bigfoot story with an accompanying photo of the bigfoot as clear as the apparent plane wreckage in the photo.


I think the reason you're clutching at straws is that you're building an army of strawmen.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The Bigfoot in the pics was "as claimed". Of course it wasn't real though the story said it was....I didn't accept that one as fact either based on a story.

The point is it's kinda odd "skeptics" would accept a story about a certain plane being found hook, line, and sinker without anything other than a few pics and a story as evidence. Further investigation is required by those "qualified" to determine "what" the mountaineers found or didn't. Chris B.
Click to expand...

I will certainly be a lot more interested in your bigfoot claims if you provide 20 or so similar large clear pics of a bigfoot.

But you'll never provide them.

Somehow you think it's odd that I accept the story accompanied by evidence?

Really?

Do you really believe I would just dismiss similar pictures of bigfoot?

Well, you know exactly how to find out.

You can start with your close in HD footage of bigfoot.

You are the one witholding the type of evidence that the Chileans provided while simultaneously complaining.
 
"You seem to have little problem accepting the Daniel Boone story."

The Daniel Boone story was an example of historical reference of Bigfoot refuting a counter claim that no such references existed. Belief one way or another has nothing to do with the fact the story exists. Remember now?

Accepting without question that a specific plane has been found based only on a news story and a few vague pics from the internet is exactly the same as accepting 4 Bigfoot creatures were filmed chasing Buffalo in Yellowstone Park recently. Or is the burden of proof lowered for the plane story because you "know" that particular plane existed and you also "know" Bigfoot doesn't?

Many seem to raise or lower the bar of proof based on their own beliefs. I'm of the opinion that bar doesn't move. So oddly enough, it would seem I'm more skeptical than most. How about that. Chris B.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I will certainly be a lot more interested in your bigfoot claims if you provide 20 or so similar large clear pics of a bigfoot.

But you'll never provide them.

Somehow you think it's odd that I accept the story accompanied by evidence?

Really?

Do you really believe I would just dismiss similar pictures of bigfoot?
Well, you know exactly how to find out.

You can start with your close in HD footage of bigfoot.

You are the one witholding the type of evidence that the Chileans provided while simultaneously complaining.
Click to expand...
Yes, I really believe you would. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"You seem to have little problem accepting the Daniel Boone story."

The Daniel Boone story was an example of historical reference of Bigfoot refuting a counter claim that no such references existed. Belief one way or another has nothing to do with the fact the story exists. Remember now?

Accepting without question that a specific plane has been found based only on a news story and a few vague pics from the internet is exactly the same as accepting 4 Bigfoot creatures were filmed chasing Buffalo in Yellowstone Park recently. Or is the burden of proof lowered for the plane story because you "know" that particular plane existed and you also "know" Bigfoot doesn't?

Many seem to raise or lower the bar of proof based on their own beliefs. I'm of the opinion that bar doesn't move. So oddly enough, it would seem I'm more skeptical than most. How about that. Chris B.
Click to expand...

It is not an historical reference of bigfoot. It is an historical reference to a story about something. You choose to believe that the something is bigfoot while allowing for no other interpretation. If you did not believe that the something referenced in the story was a bigfoot, then why bother defending it as an " historical reference of Bigfoot"? Play any silly semantic games you want, Chris, but you have demonstrated that you believe the story to be about bigfoot. And without any supporting evidence beyond the story. Not so very skeptical after all, now is it?
 
Correa Neto said:
Hey, I got pics of bigfoot, too!
I can haz tales of it too!
Here's one sample; got more and better, under analysis. Its pretty easy to see the creature is not just a shadow.

Following your way of thinking, you should believe me.

So, Chris, are you ready to accept my bigfoot research is outstanding?

[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/sas1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
I would think your Bigfoot research is similar to your T-Rex research. Both seem to be photoshop or similar works.

About your earlier work, your T-Rex actually matches exactly with early Toyo pics of Godzilla, and not those of a T-rex. So if you're gonna start hoaxing, you'll need to do a better background on your subject pics for your photoshop.

The Shrike said:
1) Wow, this is rich!

2) Who said that further investigation wouldn't be warranted? From the first mention in this thread (post 1931):

"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Chilean mountaineers say they have found the wreckage of a plane that crashed in the Andes 54 years ago, killing 24 people, including eight members of a professional soccer team."

It's obviously a provisional report, as several of us indicated. We "skeptics" have even outlined what it would take for us to change our minds about the apparent veracity of the story. There was neither hook nor line nor sinker.

3) Show me a bigfoot story with an accompanying photo of the bigfoot as clear as the apparent plane wreckage in the photo.


I think the reason you're clutching at straws is that you're building an army of strawmen.
Click to expand...

The Shrike said:
^This. If the Chilean plane crash story cannot be confirmed I will cease to treat it as fact, sort of like this:

"When the story broke I assumed it was authentic based on the photograph. Now that the so-called mountaineers have been unable to provide physical evidence of their claim, I must conclude that I was wrong and the story was a hoax."

It's easy to change your mind about something based on additional evidence when you're not BLAARGing or going out of your way to shoehorn events to your personal whims.
Click to expand...

Based on your quotes above it seems you are now at least leaving yourself a backdoor for retreat in case your first impression is wrong. Clever move.

However, why assume one story is true yet assume another is false when viewing about the same evidence for both in the news? Shouldn't you assume both to be false until further evidence is presented? Curious. Chris B.
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
It is not an historical reference of bigfoot. It is an historical reference to a story about something. You choose to believe that the something is bigfoot while allowing for no other interpretation. If you did not believe that the something referenced in the story was a bigfoot, then why bother defending it as an " historical reference of Bigfoot"? Play any silly semantic games you want, Chris, but you have demonstrated that you believe the story to be about bigfoot. And without any supporting evidence beyond the story. Not so very skeptical after all, now is it?
Click to expand...
To be exact it is an historical reference to a creature matching the descriptions of Bigfoot exactly. I've already went over this previously as you know.
Chris B.
 
LTC8K6 said:
There are dozens of clear pics of the wreckage and a high definition video.

You are either a liar, or you haven't bothered to look, imo.
Click to expand...
No need for proposed name calling.

So there's lots of pics and a HD video. Hmm. Have you ever seen the Patterson/Gimlin film? Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
To be exact it is an historical reference to a creature matching the descriptions of Bigfoot exactly. I've already went over this previously as you know.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Which you accept at face value. You allow for no embellishment, inaccuracy, or influences from sources such as Swift. It has been pointed out to you that the reference could be entirely made up or could be a common animal such as bear or sloth. But you dismiss any interpretation other than bigfoot.

Nonsense aside, let me ask you this bluntly: Do you believe that Daniel Boone shot a bigfoot?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
No need for proposed name calling.

So there's lots of pics and a HD video. Hmm. Have you ever seen the Patterson/Gimlin film? Chris B.
Click to expand...

Now who is dismissive of evidence?

Not the original film, no. I know of no one who has seen it. At the first known showing that Sunday, it had already been edited.

I can't tell what the copies show, though, despite studying them until I'm sick of them, spanning numerous laborious threads.

So the PGF will have to remain the logical choice, a hoax, for me.

I can clearly identify an airplane wreck in the Chilean evidence, and I'm certain there are identifying numbers on those airplane parts. I have no problem with allowing the relatives to the site before publishing the location.
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
Which you accept at face value. You allow for no embellishment, inaccuracy, or influences from sources such as Swift. It has been pointed out to you that the reference could be entirely made up or could be a common animal such as bear or sloth. But you dismiss any interpretation other than bigfoot.

Nonsense aside, let me ask you this bluntly: Do you believe that Daniel Boone shot a bigfoot?
Click to expand...

I've never said Boone wasn't influenced by Swift's descriptions of a "Yahoo", in fact I've suggested that's how Boone related the name to what he claimed to have shot and killed. "Swift's Yahoo = Hairy, manlike , giant".

How can you argue Boone did not know what a bear looks like? Ridiculous. Does a sloth or a bear match the description of being a "hairy manlike giant"? I only suggest common sense be used in the comparison that the description of Swift's Yahoo matches that of Bigfoot exactly.

dmaker said:
In fact, Chris, in response to the comment that even Daniel Boone couldn't successfully shoot a bigfoot, you respond with:

"Actually, he did"

There is no ambiguity in your response. Please, tell us more how you are simply saying it is an historical reference and not something you believe to be true. Just, you know, being exact and all.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10398738#post10398738
Click to expand...

Yes, that was his claim. Could Boone's claim be accurate? Possibly.

LTC8K6 said:
Now who is dismissive of evidence?

Not the original film, no. I know of no one who has seen it. At the first known showing that Sunday, it had already been edited.

I can't tell what the copies show, though, despite studying them until I'm sick of them, spanning numerous laborious threads.

So the PGF will have to remain the logical choice, a hoax, for me.

I can clearly identify an airplane wreck in the Chilean evidence, and I'm certain there are identifying numbers on those airplane parts. I have no problem with allowing the relatives to the site before publishing the location.
Click to expand...

The soccer team plane story may turn out to be accurate, or after some investigation, it may turn out to be an altogether different plane or even a complete hoax/publicity stunt. Either way, it's too early to sign off on and that was/is my point.
Chris B.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom