Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Chris, why aren't there any Black or Muslim Bigfooters in America? It's because the hoaxers are too busy coming up with fake stories instead of faking the various possible cultures of eyewitnesses. Bigfootery isn't just a folk myth - it's one for a particular race, religion and culture. Bigfootery is not an equal opportunity belief because the whole thing is fabricated and predominantly perpetuated by a particular subculture of white guys.

For the most part, Bigfootery is about the beliefs of Christian whites guys and the wives/women that live in their homes. It has spread to other common folk but they need to understand the roots of where Bigfootery came from and where it's concrete foundation lies.

America.
The Holy Bible.
Bigfoot.
Tradition.
Values.
Freedom.

Blessed be the Lord. Go outside and see a Bigfoot and be a proud American.
Click to expand...
It's interesting to learn your research has led you to these findings. I wasn't aware Bigfoot was only sighted by Christian white guys.

I'm sure this conclusion is just as accurate as your other conclusions about Bigfoot though. Chris B.
 
HarryHenderson said:
That's nice, "no hard feelings" for us pointing out your pics only show what your hopes and dreams would be in stick form. And it's true that we always refuse to look at any pics that have an actual Bigfoot in them. They're not near as fun as the real fake photos. Or is it the fake real photos?! I forget.

Just so it's clear, you're only "agreeing" to "admit" you're "wrong" in this one instance. Additionally, the only thing you're agreeing to is they're not good evidence of Bigfoot, not that they're not of Bigfoot. No?

And then you pretty much take back that one meager concession in a subsequent post.

So what you're saying is for skeptics slackers somebody to be truly "qualified" to "ridicule" your pics, they have to have Bigfoot work experience? For how long? Eyesight and general knowledge of what is and what isn't a big hairy monster isn't enough? Ask an eight year old what's in your pics. I bet it's not Bigfoot. Luckily for you he's not gonna be qualified either.


:biggrin: So funny true!
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't aware it was my pics that were being ridiculed in the post I responded to, seems to me something else was the target. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
Chris B.
 
The Shrike said:
"Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Chris, is there a living, breathing bigfoot visible in the above photograph that Harry linked from your website?"






Wait, so now you think your photos don't show bigfoots?
Click to expand...

The pics failed to capture an unambiguous representation of what I witnessed walk away. So, I can only expect you to have a different opinion of what is shown in them. These are my findings:

http://www.bfrpky.com/newcrop50.jpg No Bigfoot same area next day

http://www.bfrpky.com/newcrop42.jpg Bigfoot

AdMan said:
You really didn't understand that sentence? I'll try to be clearer:

You're demonstrating you don't understand who has the burden of proof when you take other people to task for not doing research to disprove your own (badly supported) extraordinary claims.

In other words, it's up to you to prove your Bigfoot claims, not up to others to spend any effort to disprove them.
Click to expand...
Yes I understood the meaning, I questioned the intent. The problem is, I've not presented any conclusive evidence for Bigfoot yet. When I present evidence to prove my claim, I will. For now, I haven't. Please wait until I do so before taking me to task about it.
Thanks, Chris B.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
It's interesting to learn your research has led you to these findings. I wasn't aware Bigfoot was only sighted by Christian white guys.



I'm sure this conclusion is just as accurate as your other conclusions about Bigfoot though. Chris B.
Click to expand...


Movie critic and conservative radio host Michael Medved is Jewish and he believes in Bigfoot.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'll try, of course that's not a guarantee of success, but it's more effort than some put into solving a mystery.
It's funny though, many do nothing other than ridicule other's findings without ever having presented any findings or research of their own. Free ride I suppose.

To ridicule other's work without ever having done any similar work or investigation of your own? You're opinion is not qualified. That's a fact.
:) Chris B.
Click to expand...

I've done plenty of similar work, Chris. I am outdoors in the woods all the time. In fact, I am leaving to go back country nordic skiing in about 15 mins. What I don't do, however, is take pictures of shadows and leaves and call it bigfoot.

That is a fact.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Nope, I don't claim to have any good evidence to present here. The pics certainly are not anything worthy of discussion.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

The for Pete's sake, why post them on your bigfoot website? You make no sense. On the one hand, you want to say these are pictures of bigfoot; while, on the other hand carve a backdoor for your ridiculous claim by saying, but I'm not saying they are good evidence of bigfoot. It's not very congruous, Chris.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The obvious difference is that Bigfoot is not faith based since it can be witnessed as a biological being.
Click to expand...

No, it cannot. Please demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps something like clear footage in HD taken very close to a subject. Yeah, that might do the trick. If only someone had something like that...

Naw, much better to go with empty claims.
 
Chris I would suggest your pics have captured something very unambiguous

A tree!
 
That's how pareidolia works, Chris. If you change the angle of the viewer, the light, etc., you also change the image. When one is anomaly hunting in a blurry photo, there are multiple things that could be interpreted as a wood ape, a Palestinian virgin, and aging rock star, or whatever you like. In this case, you're looking for something vaguely apelike that you would expect to blend in well with the background, and there are multiple candidates in such photos equally good or better than the one you're trying to pass off as a bigfoot.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The problem is, I've not presented any conclusive evidence for Bigfoot yet. When I present evidence to prove my claim, I will. For now, I haven't. Please wait until I do so before taking me to task about it.
Thanks, Chris B.
Click to expand...

Fine. But what then are you doing here, and on your blog, in the meantime? It sure seemed to me and other people that you were trying to claim that you had significant evidence, and would soon have convincing very strong evidence.

In fact, as explained by others here, your current photos indicate, if anything, that you mis-identified a conglomeration of shadows and tree branches as Bigfoot. But even if these blurs were indeed Bigfoot (which would be remarkable given how much of the pattern remains when you re-photograph on a day when you claim Bigfoot has left), then the evidence you have presented is not simply "not-conclusive," it is not even suggestive either.

So, given these photos have inspired you to work harder on this project, I say okay, if it is something you enjoy. Come back after and if you succeed. But you will need very clear, very close photos of Bigfoot, and ideally some physical artifacts, to be convincing in the manner you seek. But do you think anyone would be criticizing you if you hadn't chosen to present your photos and ideas first, prior to having this convincing evidence?
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
As is plainly evident, there are no simpletons lined up to buy into this Kentucky bigfoot ********. What would really be cool is if Chris would be our BLAARGing insider, our footie deepthroat, allowing us insight into this very odd North American subculture. But alas, I think that we'll be waiting for that about as long as for actual bigfoot evidence.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine what isn't available to the general public that would be available to him. I'm active on a couple of footer forums though, what exactly are you looking for? It's the same general nonsense as it's always been...blobsquatches, shaky and out of focus videos, second-hand stories and the ever present "natives have all these names for them so they must be true." There are a lot of congratulatory pats on the back and a general consensus that Bigfoot's discovery is just around the corner. There's also the "I know for myself so I don't need to prove anything to anyone." I'm tolerated as a skeptic in a few places because I used to be a Kool-Aid drinking believer and I made some friends.
 
It is not often useful to invest a lot of research on something that doesn't exist. So I don't understand the idea behind "I've done a lot of research to prove Bigfoot, but you haven't done the same to disprove Bigfoot, so you can't legitimately respond to my posts." What kind of research could disprove Bigfoot? If anything, the large number of people who are doing research to try to prove Bigfoot, and the shockingly disappointing results that they have been able to show so far, are pretty convincing that there is no Bigfoot. Remember the hair DNA results once analyzed by real scientists? The blurry pictures? The hoaxes? The simple questions of the missing evolutionary source of Bigfoot, the lack of corpses, and the lack of sufficient food in most places?
 
tsig said:
Looks like ole blurrfoot all right.
Click to expand...
Of course: that is why some believers in Bigfoot propose that he is a multi-dimensional being that apparates into "our" world from time to time. Perhaps all the pictures are taken while Bigfoot is shifting dimensions?
 
From my cross country skiing today. See, Chris, I can post pictures of bigfoot too, and I'm out there doing the "work".

20150214_125527-L.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom