Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a photo of what ChrisBFRPKY claims to show both a 9+ft female Bigfoot and what is thought to be a 10-12 foot male Bigfoot sitting in the woods of Kentucky...

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0042UECOPY.JPG

Crop of alleged female Bigfoot...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P2YYB9zzGb0/S-fHYPzxrWI/AAAAAAAAAHs/y5hAdq0Bg7k/s320/kybf2.jpg

Crop of alleged male Bigfoot...

http://www.bfrpky.com/BIGBOY.jpg

Website with photo explanation and comparisons...

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

Three questions...

1) Where exactly is the male?

2) Were you aware you were recording Bigfoots at the time?

3) You say the sun is shining directly on the female and therefore can not be shadow and light, yet in the photo the sun is shining from the left at what looks to be late afternoon and the area is thickly wooded. How do you know the sun is shining directly on what you say is the female Bigfoot?

ETA: Any other people who want to ask Chris questions about these images, feel free to do so. I would only ask that they not be asked disrespectfully.
 
Last edited:
I see three indistinct blobs and the fourth photo looks like what might be a black bear.

What am I not seeing?
 
That fourth link is the page the photos came from and the top photo is unrelated. Scrolling down will show the first three images and explanations of them.
 
<*rolls up sleeves, dives in, disregarding all instincts not to*>

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

Chris, the only thing I see definitively is the footprint. Any more found nearby that are in approximation of a supposed BF gait?
 
Last edited:
I didn't come here to post blob squatches Kit. My poor attempts to collect video and stills are just that and I know it.

I would like to add though, the video of the family unit was taken during a multiple witness encounter. So I'm not the only person that saw what was going on. It does have some cool music and a back rub.
 
s4zando said:
<*rolls up sleeves, dives in, disregarding all instincts not to*>

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

Chris, the only thing I see definitively is the footprint. Any more found nearby that are in approximation of a supposed BF gait?
Click to expand...

lol that's understandable. I know it's crappy work.

RE: the footprint, yes there was a trackway across the road. I thought it was neat because only one foot was placed in center of the road. So whoever or whatever had stepped from the outside to the center, then the other side. Probably 5 foot stride given it was a one lane road.
 
So, if I understand correctly, there were 3 steps crossing perpendicular to the road? One on the side of the road, one in the center, and one on the other side? Each an approximation of 5 feet apart?
 
Last edited:
There was only one track in the center of the road. The trackway continued on the left and right sides of the road but the spacing was not as far apart. Almost like it had intended to "stretch it out" only when crossing the gravel lane.
 
I'm sorry Chris, but I don't have much charitable to say about folks who post photos of branches they try to pass off as bigfoots. I guess if you can pretend that you see bigfoots in these branches then it's more understandable that you think you can see all manner of things in the PGF.

If you are correct that you have bigfoots in these locations and in these photos, then you have demonstrated three things. First, your bigfoots are perfectly happy to be waltzing around in broad daylight. Second, your bigfoots are not at all elusive if they allowed you and "multiple witnesses" to approach them this closely in the crunchy leaves of an Appalachian forest floor. Third, your bigfoots in Kentucky seem to hang out in some pretty rank young forests. These sites seem to have been cut over (maybe even farmed) until pretty recently. They look to be on the order of about 30 years old.

Thus, proving your bigfoots should be a relatively simple matter of putting up some game cams in these areas. If you've got a family of bigfoots nearby, then one will eventually wander in to have its Polaroid taken. Until then, I'm sorry but it's not looking too good here . . .
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
There was only one track in the center of the road. The trackway continued on the left and right sides of the road but the spacing was not as far apart. Almost like it had intended to "stretch it out" only when crossing the gravel lane.
Click to expand...

I see, kind of like a hop. Any pics of these footprints leading to and from the road?
 
The Shrike said:
I'm sorry Chris, but I don't have much charitable to say about folks who post photos of branches they try to pass off as bigfoots. I guess if you can pretend that you see bigfoots in these branches then it's more understandable that you think you can see all manner of things in the PGF.

If you are correct that you have bigfoots in these locations and in these photos, then you have demonstrated three things. First, your bigfoots are perfectly happy to be waltzing around in broad daylight. Second, your bigfoots are not at all elusive if they allowed you and "multiple witnesses" to approach them this closely in the crunchy leaves of an Appalachian forest floor. Third, your bigfoots in Kentucky seem to hang out in some pretty rank young forests. These sites seem to have been cut over (maybe even farmed) until pretty recently. They look to be on the order of about 30 years old.

Thus, proving your bigfoots should be a relatively simple matter of putting up some game cams in these areas. If you've got a family of bigfoots nearby, then one will eventually wander in to have its Polaroid taken. Until then, I'm sorry but it's not looking too good here . . .
Click to expand...

I completely agree on my failed attempts to capture video and still pics. There is nothing to qualify those as evidence and I would have never posted them here to be considered as such. Kitakaze is to thank for your blurry viewing pleasure. I did mention that he had forgotten the video and listed the link for that one though. It's not evidence either.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I completely agree on my failed attempts to capture video and still pics. There is nothing to qualify those as evidence and I would have never posted them here to be considered as such. Kitakaze is to thank for your blurry viewing pleasure. I did mention that he had forgotten the video and listed the link for that one though. It's not evidence either.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by particularly the underlined statements because this is put out there to the public on your own website and the statements about what is in the photos are definitive and not ambiguous in any way.

This is from the page I linked on your site where those photos are shown...

This pic is a crop from a larger pic below that I made about 30 minutes after the track pic at the bottom of the page. This crop is a much lower resolution than the 8.1 MP full pic below. The subject is exactly 120 feet from the camera. You'll notice the Sun is shining directly on the subject. For anyone that tries to say it's a trick of shadows and light, sorry, the Sun is shining directly on the creature so there's no possibility of shadows in direct Sun light.......It's the first week of March so leaf growth has not happened yet. The trees are mostly bare with the exception of a few pine trees, they have a few green needles of course. More details of the creature are visible in the high resolution full pic below.
Pic was made 03-06-2010 by me. Undisclosed location.
Measurements made on the tree the next day confirmed a height of over 9 feet of this "subject". This pic is being listed here as part of a release of information and is being made available to allow study of these creature's differing types of physical build. I can affirm that this individual in the pic and the rest of the group are some sort of unknown North American Primates that exactly match descriptions of the creatures known as Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Most Researchers are very afraid when presenting any evidence to the public, they will NOT say "IT'S BIGFOOT" for fear of being wrong or for fear of an honest misidentification. This is not the case with myself. I know what I have seen and captured on film and video and I know what I continue to observe in the KY backwoods, I have collected pictures and video of these creatures, behavior notes as well as what they're eating. For any reporters reading this, NO INTERVIEWS period. I don't do interviews, especially with closed minded reporters shirking grins or winking at the camera as they ask comical questions, I don't have time for nonsence. For all others, enjoy the pics being released.

Best, Chris Bennett
Research/Observation
Bigfoot Research Project of Kentucky.
Click to expand...

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

The descriptions are clear that the photo is said to show a 9ft+ female Bigfoot "Big Girl" and a male Bigfoot that sitting is 6 ft tall and may be the 10-12 foot male Bigfoot you have seen.

Your description of the crop of the alleged male Bigfoot...

This is another crop from the full image. This is right of the center and is "Big Boy" He's sitting down watching "Big Girl" for any reaction to me I think. He's exactly 51 feet away from the camera. The area where his cheek and brow ridge are showing thru the brush is about 6 feet exactly from the ground. So sitting down he's a bit over 6 feet tall. If this is the same one we've seen since, he's somewhere between 10 and 12 feet tall when standing. (Think about that if you decide to carry nothing but bear spray with you in the woods.) Some of these things are truly giants. Standing next to a creature this size, the average height person would be comparable to a 5 year old human child standing next to his adult Mom or Dad. That's why I'm armed when I'm in the woods. I don't think the creatures are normally violent but they're wild animals and I won't gamble my life by relying on the good will of a wild animal. Do as you will when you go into the woods, as for me, I'm packin' large. Feel free to right click on the pic and save on your desktop for review. Windows Photo Gallery works well for zooming etc. Please respect the copyright on this material and use it for nonprofit use only. Any other use must be licenced of course. Thanks and enjoy, Chris Bennett
Click to expand...

I asked before but I was unable to make out anything, let along a 10-12 foot male Bigfoot sitting down.

How were you able to determine the sex of these massive creatures?

And again, were you aware you were getting these creatures on camera when you took these shots or was this something you discovered later upon examining the images?

Just so we have a size reference here, this is what 12 feet tall looks like...

Arctotherium+reconstruction+largest+bear+ever1305749042.jpg
 
Chris, I appreciate you recognizing the nil evidentiary quality of the images you've posted on your website. Nevertheless, outside of here and amongst the company of believers of Bigfoot, your claims as to what the pictures depict are definitive and unambiguous in telling people they are images of massive Bigfoot between 9 and 12 ft tall. To that end in support of those claims your website features photo comparisons taken of the same area in an attempt to show believers why your image isn't simply shadow and light. I would like to address that so that we can be quite clear, there is nothing at all in those images beyond trees and brush, and certainly not gargantuan wood apes looking back at you.

The claims on your site come from a type of pareidolia that is rampant throughout Bigfoot and has been for years. It's something we've seen countless times at the JREF. You may or may not have been familiar with the Bigfoot enthusiast from Florida known on various forums as Creekfreak. Creekfreak came here back in 2007 with the following doctored image claiming it was Bigfoot in the Everglades watching a helicopter pick up water for a forest fire...

thum_343472627505f8b2.jpg


That is from his thread here bigfoot is real I have the proof.

I'm sure you'll remember BFF member indiefoot and his large collection of similarly themed "Bigfoot" images from shadows and leaves such as the following video...



That brings us to your comparison photos attempting to support your claim that it shows a female 9ft Bigfoot.

This alleges to show the creature (dark spot in the middle)...

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

And this is where it is said to no longer be...

http://www.bfrpky.com/newcrop50.jpg

From the description on your site...

"The subject is exactly 120 feet from the camera. You'll notice the Sun is shining directly on the subject. For anyone that tries to say it's a trick of shadows and light, sorry, the Sun is shining directly on the creature so there's no possibility of shadows in direct Sun light.......It's the first week of March so leaf growth has not happened yet. The trees are mostly bare with the exception of a few pine trees, they have a few green needles of course."

You note on your website that the photos are taken approximately 45 minutes apart from the same time of day on two consecutive days (March 6th and 7th). What you seem not to take into account when insisting it is not possible to shadows and light is how much of a difference 45 minutes can make for fading daylight, particularly in something as busy as a young growth wooded area. Even just a slightly different angle will have and impact on the play of shadow and light when you take the images, yet you insist that the dark area was a 9ft creature in direct sunlight. Both shots look to be taken in the late afternoon with the "no Bigfoot" shot taken the next day looking to be taken earlier in the day. Both have the sun shining low from the left. The "Bigfoot" photo has deeper shadow amongst the boughs and branches throughout the shot and if you look carefully, you can see a number of dark spots that are not present in the "no Bigfoot" shot taken earlier the next day. In particular, in the upper right there is a somewhat large dark spot under the long dark branch crossing the photo in the foreground. If I were so inclined, I could as easily as you claim Bigfoot saying that is the top of the head of an extra gargantuan 14 foot Bigfoot.

So if darker spots appear then disappear in other areas of your photos that you are not claiming to be Bigfoot, what necessitates that you are not wrong when ruling out shadow and light?

Also, earlier I asked what made you able to determine the sex of the alleged creatures in the photo you took. I came across the answer for myself after googling the images...

I can judge who's female and who's male because I get to see the creatures up very close at times and they have very different "features" between the male and female. My thoughts about this one being a female come from the shape of the head,face and oh yeas, the breasts.
Click to expand...

I would ask where exactly in the crop of the alleged female are you seeing breasts?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I completely agree on my failed attempts to capture video and still pics. There is nothing to qualify those as evidence and I would have never posted them here to be considered as such. Kitakaze is to thank for your blurry viewing pleasure.
Click to expand...

So you're completely happy to post this information to your website with your assertions to the photos' authenticity but you would never post them and make such statements here where people will actually call you on the nonsense? Ouch. You don't see an alarming lack of integrity in proclaiming the veracity of something in one context but not another?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
There was only one track in the center of the road. The trackway continued on the left and right sides of the road but the spacing was not as far apart. Almost like it had intended to "stretch it out" only when crossing the gravel lane.
Click to expand...

So the beast was intentionally making the track more obvious?

That's what generally happens when you do that.
 
kitakaze said:
Just so we have a size reference here, this is what 12 feet tall looks like...

[qimg]http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads18/Arctotherium+reconstruction+largest+bear+ever1305749042.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


For an even better comparison, here is a bipedal primate standing at just under 9 feet tall.
ez29SEN.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom