Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[The Shrike]

Well, your pics are too ambiguous to tell exactly what is shown. Of course I could tell you what is shown and what is not, but that would be guessing and not any sort of valid finding. See how that works?

The way it works is pareidolia. My demonstration of the phenomenon illustrated that randomly taking photos in the woods easily produces the kind of images that fly as "bigfoot evidence" in certain circles.

I'm not into fallen limbs as evidence of Bigfoot. I don't see any relationship, can you elaborate why you think Bigfoot plays with sticks?
Any videos?

Those were for Jerrywayne's benefit. I told him several weeks ago that I'd go to some random location in the woods and find the type of stick structures that we was curious about, no bigfoot necessary. Bigfoot does not play with sticks because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I and others have had the same experience and it's because he plays by a different set of rules. BLAARGing rules. I've said it before, this place is his role, to confront the enemy however best he can. And being this is a forum he can be anyone he wants to here (as long as nobody actually gets hurt). Including the guy who never answers questions that would inevitably expose him further as just a Bigfoot gamer.

In truth though I call his a serious HONESTY issue given that he's yet to admit to the BLAARG.

Whoever you may be, I have no secrets about who I am. Can you say the same? Nope. In fact, I am myself here and everywhere else. You on the other hand use made up identities to hide who you are. You have no obligation to be honest because you are hidden, I do because I am not. So in fact, it is YOU that can be whoever you want but no matter where I go, I am always me. Isn't that interesting? Surely you can't be serious. Chris B.

 

[AdMan]

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.

No worries, Chris. I've come across a picture that's unambiguous enough to put on your website. It's clearly not tree branches or other vegetation or "scenery". Feel free to use it.

 

[AdMan]

After all, what good are pics or video without the subject or at least part of it for biological verification. Remember, what's shown in the pics or videos must also be verified conclusively with a biological sample. Otherwise, you may as well be watching the P/G film or "Harry and the Hendersons" Chris B.

So why are the pictures that you have put out so ambiguous they are much more likely examples of pareidolia than of anything else? How does that not just detract from any points or arguments you are trying to make? Why not show the best images and videos you have instead, if in fact you have anything better?

1) Who were the scientists who reviewed the footage?

2) How come you can get close enough to tell their gender, but you can't get close enough to get a clear picture or some quality footage?

3) How come the video you have, of "multiple creatures" of varying sizes and colours, isn't worthy of release?

I'd like to get the answers to these questions as well.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Whoever you may be, I have no secrets about who I am. Can you say the same? Nope. In fact, I am myself here and everywhere else. You on the other hand use made up identities to hide who you are. You have no obligation to be honest because you are hidden, I do because I am not. So in fact, it is YOU that can be whoever you want but no matter where I go, I am always me. Isn't that interesting? Surely you can't be serious. Chris B.

This is an interesting and somewhat telling comment.
I've seen this tactic being used so many times.
"I'm not hiding... so what have you got to hide?"

It's a routine used often by the hardcore CTist and, quite often, of people with paranoid tendencies.

Like many I've laughed heartily at today's gibberish whilst at the same time wondering what the heck is Chris's goal here.

To spice things up I offer the following for thought:
Did Chris initially, five years ago, set out to do a Rick Dyer but couldn't follow through?

 

[The Shrike]

As for anonymity on the Internets Chris, Bigfoot skeptics frequently make statements that raise the ire of people who are bat-crap crazy and/or highly unscrupulous. I prefer whatever veil of anonymity I can maintain between such people and my family.

 

[tsig]

The fact is you are threatened by my presence here because I am a Bigfoot proponent. You expect me to prove Bigfoot exists for you and I'm not interested in doing that. It seems that you're angry because I refuse to prove Bigfoot for you? Why is that? Am I required to work for you for free or something? Do you pay my bills? I think it must be related to a mistaken feeling of entitlement.

There are basically 3 types of people:

1. People who make up things happen.
2. People who wait for others to make up things happen.
3. People who wonder what the heck just happened.

Where do you fit in?

I've not asked you to accept my views on Bigfoot. I've encouraged everyone here to remain skeptical. Be content in your position on Bigfoot, I'm content with mine. Or do you need to tell me there's no Bigfoot in my pic again?

Chris B.

FTFY

 

[tsig]

So why are the pictures that you have put out so ambiguous they are much more likely examples of pareidolia than of anything else? How does that not just detract from any points or arguments you are trying to make? Why not show the best images and videos you have instead, if in fact you have anything better?



I'd like to get the answers to these questions as well.

They will be holding figure skating competitions in hell before that happens.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is an interesting and somewhat telling comment.
I've seen this tactic being used so many times.
"I'm not hiding... so what have you got to hide?"

It's a routine used often by the hardcore CTist and, quite often, of people with paranoid tendencies.

Like many I've laughed heartily at today's gibberish whilst at the same time wondering what the heck is Chris's goal here.

To spice things up I offer the following for thought:
Did Chris initially, five years ago, set out to do a Rick Dyer but couldn't follow through?

Evidently, you failed to read the post I responded to.

As for anonymity on the Internets Chris, Bigfoot skeptics frequently make statements that raise the ire of people who are bat-crap crazy and/or highly unscrupulous. I prefer whatever veil of anonymity I can maintain between such people and my family.

I wasn't pointing a finger your way. I merely responded to an off the cuff comment designed to get my goat.
I do not say anything to anyone online that I would not say to them directly in person. It's a good habit to practice. So, I'm not concerned with bat-crap crazies etc. I'm also not pretty enough to attract a stalker.

They will be holding figure skating competitions in hell before that happens.

Or when I finish my study, whichever occurs first.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

As for anonymity on the Internets Chris, Bigfoot skeptics frequently make statements that raise the ire of people who are bat-crap crazy and/or highly unscrupulous. I prefer whatever veil of anonymity I can maintain between such people and my family.

^^^

Ditto

Chris, I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say in person either. That is not the point. The point is that simply taking an opposite position to that of some bigfoot enthusiasts is enough to raise the ire.

 

[The Shrike]

So, I'm not concerned with bat-crap crazies etc.

In this context you don't have to be concerned, Chris. Here at the ISF, you're dealing with hyper-rationalists. In contrast, skeptics challenge the unhinged on a regular basis.

I'm only emphasizing this point because several times in this thread you have played the "I'm Chris but who are you" card, insinuating that you're somehow being more honest or forthright in your words and actions because you post non-anonymously. There's a false equivalency in the risk of public exposure that you either don't understand or choose to ignore.

 

[Cervelo]

Chris,
You know who I am and I've signed your NDA, how about letting me see a screen capture of some of the good stuff?
I'll report back here on what I see.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

As for anonymity on the Internets Chris, Bigfoot skeptics frequently make statements that raise the ire of people who are bat-crap crazy and/or highly unscrupulous. I prefer whatever veil of anonymity I can maintain between such people and my family.

I'm always happy to share whatever info people would like to know about myself, I've nothing to hide, but all of that is beside the point, imo.

To play the game properly, Footers NEED people to know exactly who they are, otherwise how could they get their accolades that they earn with each piece of nonsense they pass on as "evidence?" It wouldn't really work if people like Chris simply passed on the results of their "studies" anonymously, because then his "research group" wouldn't receive any high-fives or pats on the back from the other role-players out there. People need to be able to point and say: "Hey, that's Chris, he's a Bigfoot Hunter and he takes it seriously."

To be sceptical doesn't exactly require one to be visible, that's essentially just a decision one makes whenever he/she joins a forum. Imo, it's the Footers who want to play games that want the identity of their character to be known.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'd like to get the answers to these questions as well.

I imagine we'll have a to wait a little while longer for those answers...

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I wasn't pointing a finger your way. I merely responded to an off the cuff comment designed to get my goat. I do not say anything to anyone online that I would not say to them directly in person. It's a good habit to practice.QUOTE]

I'm more than happy to share whatever info you'd like to know about me, and I wouldn't say anything online that I wouldn't say in person. I'm certainly not worried about Footers, lol.

 

[William Parcher]

Chris,
You know who I am and I've signed your NDA, how about letting me see a screen capture of some of the good stuff?
I'll report back here on what I see.

Wouldn't the NDA prevent you from describing what you would see?

 

[Cervelo]

I don't think so...most of the NDA concerned revealing location.

 

[River]

Whoever you may be, I have no secrets about who I am. Can you say the same? Nope. In fact, I am myself here and everywhere else. You on the other hand use made up identities to hide who you are. You have no obligation to be honest because you are hidden, I do because I am not. So in fact, it is YOU that can be whoever you want but no matter where I go, I am always me. Isn't that interesting? Surely you can't be serious. Chris B.

You should know better than trying to call out someones real identity on a forum. That is why they give out handles for such things. If you want people to know who you are, cool. Don't expect everyone to feel the same as you about it. As for myself, everyone knows who I am and it's extremely easy to find me if you want to talk with me either online or in person at shows. (i record and perform with three bands currently) Seems like the only one with something to hide here is footy. He's a ghost

Your points here are vacuous excrement to be polite about things. Often you seem to enjoy thumbing your nose at folks who have sincerely tried to engage you. However, carry on please! I do enjoy the show at this point. (i do even have you in my sig! haha)

 

[HarryHenderson]

Whoever you may be, I have no secrets about who I am. Can you say the same? Nope. In fact, I am myself here and everywhere else. You on the other hand use made up identities to hide who you are. You have no obligation to be honest because you are hidden, I do because I am not. So in fact, it is YOU that can be whoever you want but no matter where I go, I am always me. Isn't that interesting? Surely you can't be serious. Chris B.

I have no obligation to be honest because I'm hidden? Be honest about what? By all means, please do even, point out every instance where you think I'm not being honest. I dare ya.

You know those forum rules that allow one to be as obtuse as humanly possible without fear of serious attack for it, and in fact remain in equal standing in the forum, they're the same ones that also allow a small measure of anonymity by allowing a nickname. The rules here do not require me to divulge my real name. Besides, you'd rather know the real names of the folks that regularly beat up on you instead of just their forum nick? Really? Stalker?

"Honey I just got my *** kicked again by Andy Drinkman and Bill Hooter and George Costanza and Woody Ellen and Ray Ray. Yes that's their real names, I checked their ID."

"But darling, doesn't giving them personal credit really only make THEM look good?"

"Hush now. Go to sleep."

You ChrisBFRPKY need to worry way more about the serious deficiencies in your entire Bigfoot program and a lot less about the perhaps ambiguous names of folks pointing those "serious deficiencies" out. At least that's what I think an intelligent, conscientious, concerned advocate for some serious heartfelt cause would do.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think so...most of the NDA concerned revealing location.

But what are the odds that the property mentioned in his bio is not the property? Most people could find the property mentioned in his bio.