Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[William Parcher]

Besides the use of the term work (for any effort that promotes Bigfoot), you will also often see a Bigfooter call a male Bigfooter "sir". The use of sir is a cultish codeword for a man who has done good Bigfoot work and is preserving and promoting the folk myth of Bigfoot. Calling another Bigfooter sir is bound to be a reciprocal act and the one who is called sir may be expected to return the designated act of respect at some point in the future.

It's kind of fascinating to me because I've never seen people ceremoniously call each other Sir to the extent that I have seen within Bigfootery. It was at a peak on BFF 1.0 under Bipto but it still exists.

 

[Resume]

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?

I'm looking for a BLAARGer to admit to BLAARGing, and perhaps a little backstory.

BLAARG=Bigfoot Live Action Alternative Reality Gaming.

 

[The Shrike]

Part 1 of 3

All right, it's time I come clean with you guys and share what I really think about bigfoot. Like most you, I used to be a skeptic, but then I experienced some things in the field that I just couldn't explain. So I started conducting my field work through new eyes and, once I let the bigfoots and other woodland spirits into my soul, it was amazing what they revealed to me. Here's just a sampling from one of my favorite local sites. I've had some wonderful interactions there in the past, but today was a doosie!

First, here's what I found when I first got there. This is a squatch I've known for a while. He's the leader of his family group and I call him "Big Daddy". The other members of his family are Troll-squatch, Shrek-Squatch, Indian-squatch, an unnamed female, and "Old Grey."

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

Where did he say that?

RayG

First hilite: Inquiry as to why there are no Black or Muslim Bigfooters. There are.

Second hilite : Bigfoot is for a particular subculture of White guys.

Third hilite : Even the suggestion Bigfootery in general is about the beliefs of Christian White guys. That may be more accurate though as Bigfootery is the study of people in the Bigfoot field.
Chris B.

 

[The Shrike]

Shrike Comes Clean, p 2 of 3
Here's Troll-squatch and lastly, you need to meet Shrek-squatch. In this case, when I saw him this morning, he was obviously in the midst of some serious co-mingling with the wood-spirits, and they had a message for both of us.

 

[The Shrike]

Part 3 of 3 - the Shrike Comes Clean

In addition to my bigfoot friends, there was some other weirdness today. I found these four stick structures - somebody find Jerrywayne. Every one of them had an X and an A. I tried to figure out what it might mean but then I got really freaked out when I saw that XA is the symbol for the neo-fascist Golden Dawn group in Greece!

Then there was this Slenderman like thing reaching out for me but luckily I was saved by the Virgin Mary in her magic turnip.

The super-amazing thing is that I only took 16 photos today - and I was able to capture all this!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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?

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

 

[Macgyver1968]

From my cross country skiing today. See, Chris, I can post pictures of bigfoot too, and I'm out there doing the "work".

[qimg]http://dmaker.smugmug.com/Misc/i-pfHqNvJ/0/L/20150214_125527-L.jpg[/qimg]

You're not much of a footer, are you? That's way too in focus and clear to show bigfoot. Let me help you:

 

[Resume]

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

There's no bigfoot in any pic.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

So why were you alluding to all of this supposed HD footage you had, which apparently showed all kinds of Bigfeet, of all shapes, sizes and colours? Someone here posted a quote from you in which you state, fairly clearly, that you had some stuff you were keeping hold of, this was in 2010...so what happened?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

"Since then, Chris and the BFRP have collected multiple sighting reports, screams, Photos, Film Footage and both large and small bipedal footprint info. All have become a welcome addition to the credible evidence of these creature's existence to science."

You, or whoever typed that nonsense, is obviously of the opinion that your evidence is not only "credible," but it is an "addition" to the other "credible evidence" of a creature that has absolutely no credible evidence.

You can't seem to make up your mind about what you have. I suggest that this is due to the fact that you don't have anything whatsoever. Hence, the saga will continue for as long as you keep playing.

 

[William Parcher]

Is this correct for the Bigfoot body that we can't see behind the few leafless twigs that are blocking our view?

 

[dmaker]

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

Chris, no one has ever said that you portray your pics as conclusive evidence of bigfoot. So why do you keep repeating that? That straw man is good and beaten by now.

The problem is that you claim that there is a bigfoot in your pics. Pics that contain nothing more than scenery. No one is saying you are claiming proof with these pics. But you do claim they contain bigfoots. Can you not understand that nuance?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Oooooo! Photographing Photoshopping bigfoot is fun!

 

[HarryHenderson]

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

Trust me, any frustration we might have is aimed solely at the notion that things we hold important - like reasoning, common sense, intelligent thought, honesty - mean something completely different to you than they do to us.

Part 1 of 3...

Shrike Comes Clean, p 2 of 3...

Part 3 of 3 - the Shrike Comes Clean...

"Here's a newcomer to the BLAARGing scene. A former skeptic who just couldn't keep his feet on the ground so he reached for the stars. He's instantly shot up the BLAARGing #100 Charts to land at #3 this week. If this hot potato keeps it up, there's gonna be an entire nation of BLAARGers throwing a lot more than just their panties his way."¹ - Casey Cussem


¹ Yes, that's a warning.

 

[dmaker]

At least this thread makes me chuckle today rather than roll my eyes

 

[Giordano]

Like you, I'm here to read and comment. I don't have a blog. The pics currently being passed around are from 2010 and this has all happened many times before. It's a favorite go-to when the skeptics get frustrated at me for being here, believing as I do and all. Someone always likes to bring up those old pics for ridicule. But the funny thing is, I've already agreed the pics are not conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? So what's the motive for bashing them or me? The fact is if you need to go back to these pics again and again claiming you cannot see a Bigfoot, something is wrong somewhere as I have already agreed the pics are too ambiguous to be conclusive evidence of Bigfoot.

Watch the next few posts. Someone is gonna say something like "There's no Bigfoot in that pic"
Chris B.

I would be flogging a dead horse if you simply said: there is no Bigfoot in that pic. But you said: it is too ambiguous. Okay, then, I reiterate, the photos are not of Bigfoot at all; they are conclusive. They are not even poor evidence.

Obviously it is possible to read posts without commenting (as I often do),but I only know you are on the Forum at all because of your comments. Do your comments go beyond the prediction that one day we will have conclusive evidence of Bigfoot? If that is the extent of it, I would think that it would be best, and would avoid most of the criticism, if you just got to work to obtain such evidence. What useful can be said in support of Bigfoot in the absence of such evidence?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, no one has ever said that you portray your pics as conclusive evidence of bigfoot. So why do you keep repeating that? That straw man is good and beaten by now.

The problem is that you claim that there is a bigfoot in your pics. Pics that contain nothing more than scenery. No one is saying you are claiming proof with these pics. But you do claim they contain bigfoots. Can you not understand that nuance?

Ambiguous is the word. Open to different opinion and interpretation. You have your opinion and that's perfectly fine. Why do you feel the need to suppress mine? Even if it's wrong, in your opinion, it's still my opinion. Geez. The pics are obviously not clear enough for you to make such a claim that they "contain nothing more than scenery" either, that's your opinion, not mine. Don't you realize that?
Chris B.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Ambiguous is the word. Open to different opinion and interpretation. You have your opinion and that's perfectly fine. Why do you feel the need to suppress mine? Even if it's wrong, in your opinion, it's still my opinion. Geez. The pics are obviously not clear enough for you to make such a claim that they "contain nothing more than scenery" either, that's your opinion, not mine. Don't you realize that?
Chris B.

Speaking of not realizing things, do you not realize that you claimed to have footage, HD no-less, and various pictures of more than one Bigfoot? This was in 2010. What happened? Do you still have footage, or did it never exist? Is it not as good as you'd previously thought, and now you're disregarding it?

I just want to know what has happened in the 5 years since you collected this evidence, that was apparently good enough to be added to the already "credible" evidence for Bigfoot.

 

[Giordano]

Ambiguous is the word. Open to different opinion and interpretation. You have your opinion and that's perfectly fine. Why do you feel the need to suppress mine? Even if it's wrong, in your opinion, it's still my opinion. Geez. The pics are obviously not clear enough for you to make such a claim that they "contain nothing more than scenery" either, that's your opinion, not mine. Don't you realize that?
Chris B.

That is my point. You believe the pictures may show Bigfoot. You have every right to put forward that interpretation. But then don't claim that your position can't be criticized because you no longer state that they are conclusive evidence. Your position is clearly that the pics provide some weaker level of evidence. I and others have the right to analyze the pictures and explain the reasons that we disagree with even your "non-conclusive but" interpretation.