Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The walk is right on. That smooth gliding stroll is exactly the same.

The head shape is wrong for a female. (here in KY) The female I witnessed had a rounded head. The male's head (here in KY) looks like Patty's , gorilla-like with the sagittal crest.

The nose is wrong. A slitted nose like a gorilla is what I've seen, BUT,this was on a male.

The female face (nose) was obscured by hair and distance. I'm not sure of her nose description because I could not see it clearly.
Click to expand...

For the love of Dog, why does no one ever have a camera with them when they observe these kinds of details?

RayG
 
RayG said:
For the love of Dog, why does no one ever have a camera with them when they observe these kinds of details?

RayG
Click to expand...

I did on several occaisions Ray. And I was unable to capture anything conclusive. Only adding to blobsquatchery with my poor attempts.

I still try though. I have better equipment now, just need the hairy ones to cooperate with another close up encounter.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
That kind of detail on camera would blow away the PGF :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

And yet(i), there is no such detail on camera even after all these years. One guy (who just happened to be making a Big Foot movie at the time) supposedly caught one on film, but none of the great white hunters has managed anything close to that since. It's almost as if the dang things don't exist.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
...But there are always new creatures being discovered, new primates to this day. You don't like the Cross River Gorillas, ok how about the snub nosed monkey. Creepy looking little rascal but relatively new to science.

To sit back and say "We have already discovered everything that's out there" is kinda irresponsible. There's no way to know that.
Click to expand...
:D The hilarity is you thinking you're trying to convince us of something. You're just trying to convince yourself. Why else come to this vast wasteland of Buzz Killington skeptics, known to have zero respect for your Bigfoot idol Bill Munns? And then make over 100 posts in less than a week's time defending him and Bigfoot? FTR I post less in an entire year. It's as if Bigfoot's cosmic license to exist depends solely on the amount of BIF™ (Bigfoot Intestinal Fortitude™) you can sustain in a hostile environment. That is, if you can endure the JREF hell and come out the other end perhaps scathed but still bleevin, then Bigfoot LIVES!

"If we can just get enough of us to say it, it's gotta be true."

Earlier you offered "...If you live nearby and wish to go out trekking let's go. I'm not for hire and I don't make deliveries. If you wanna solve the bigfoot mystery for yourself you'll need to put in the time and mileage trekking to do so. I have a great area available and you are welcome. Or you can sit by your computer and continue thinking someone should solve the mystery for you. I won't. But if you agree to put in say 18 months or so of effort there's a very good chance you'll solve it for yourself..."

Seriously? Are you just practicing your Amway pitch to a new audience? Apparently I'm unworthy of knowing the Bigfoot Truth™ unless I prove it by going through 18 months (not 6 or 12? Days?) of Bigfoot Monk rituals like driving in circles late at night yelling Bigfoot's name howl in vain whilst trying to capture actual Bigfoot farts with a fishing net and some Jim Beam? With a regular recitation of the Bigfooter's Pledge of Bigfoot Allegiance To Love This Bar thrown in for good measure? The question is, after 18 months of all that would I come back with a.) A whole body specimen, dead or alive, b.) Hair clippings? c.) A Real® Bigfoot Turd in a sealed glass jar? d.) Just another out of focus picture of a Real® Bigfoot turd in a sealed glass jar?

"The Letter D for $1,000 Alex."

Then you wrote, "...The easy way is to just deny everything and never make the effort to solve the mystery. If that's for you that's great. I'm of a different opinion."

Yes of course, how could I be so obtuse, it's me who's in denial.

So I'll ask again, do you have any ******* clue (or a regular clue too) how to genuinely shut us all up? That doesn't actually involve any of us and creepy late night Bigfoot Round-ups in rural Kentucky?
 
kitakaze said:
Good catch, Shrike. I should have looked closer. I was looking more at the stomach than the face.

Now going back to what Chris was saying...



Again I would like to ask, if I look at a photo of a dead chimp, gorilla, orangutan, or any known extant animal, and I have no problem as accepting it as such, but I look at an alleged photo of a dead Bigfoot and my first thought is to think photoshop hoax or something along that line, what is unfair about that and what is not right about those differing standards?
Click to expand...

Kit, I'll check in and say this. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about an unknown primate with those who don't even know the difference between a chimp and a gorilla. (Exception noted for member "The Shrike")

Given, it may have been obvious to me because of my years spent interacting with chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Research. There's no need for me to blow my own horn so I usually don't especially to individuals who hide who they are. But it is still funny that someone would accept that black and white WIKI pic without question. Skeptic(s) at that. That makes something else obvious to me.

Now, let me ask you something. You stated at the BFF you found the Patty suit and were working on a documentary. Was this statement true or untrue? Have you found "the" suit? The evidence shown in the Munns presentation makes this unlikely IMO.

But I have an open mind and if you have found "the suit", it would be a revelation for the Bigfoot community and skeptics alike. So, instead of posting links to blobsquatches, to invite another nonproductive pile on, I'd think most here would rather see a photo of that suit. As is so often asked of me, can you provide evidence of that claim? Even a blobby photo of the suit would be something, not much as evidence, but something.

side note for another poster:
The movie "Deliverance" was set in the state of Georgia, not KY. I guess fear of HillBilly interaction could be a valid reason to NOT search the Southern backwoods though.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Was there a question in there somewhere I missed? Did you want me to respond to this part?: "This is because you have no background in, or understanding of, primate physiology."


I read thru your post of course. If you would like to talk more about the Cross River Gorillas, I'm fine with that but you'll probably need to start a new thread.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought your post was meant to be educational aside from a little snarky remark in the beginning.
Click to expand...

It's considered courteous to acknowledge when one's interlocutor has made a fair point in a given debate. It's considered discourteous to ignore same.

Equating the assignment of a new taxonomic classification (Gorilla gorilla diehli) to an animal already known and studied (Gorilla gorilla) is not the same as "discovering" an entirely new, never-before-studied animal. Your attempts to equate the Cross River gorilla with bigfoot are disingenuous and factually incorrect.

Your continued neglect in addressing these points -- and many others in this and other threads -- reveals you as the kind of debater who does not acknowledge honest error. That's a strike against you, and will color all your future interactions on this site.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Kit, I'll check in and say this. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about an unknown primate with those who don't even know the difference between a chimp and a gorilla. (Exception noted for member "The Shrike")

Given, it may have been obvious to me because of my years spent interacting with chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Research. There's no need for me to blow my own horn so I usually don't especially to individuals who hide who they are. But it is still funny that someone would accept that black and white WIKI pic without question. Skeptic(s) at that. That makes something else obvious to me.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are grasping the point. If a see a vintage photograph of a dead extant ape, sure, it's possible for me to mistake a chimp for a young gorilla if I don't have a clear look. What I'm saying is that I have no cause to doubt that it is a real animal known to science vs a hoax of some sort. On the other hand, if you show me a shot of a purported dead Bigfoot, let's say from Kentucky or wherever, I will first think of photoshop or some other manner of hoaxing.

So what is unfair or representing double standards in that?

Now, let me ask you something. You stated at the BFF you found the Patty suit and were working on a documentary. Was this statement true or untrue? Have you found "the" suit? The evidence shown in the Munns presentation makes this unlikely IMO.
Click to expand...

True, and when it was something I could no longer pursue, I gave Munns all the information he needed to pursue it himself. All of that is information you've readily had access to at your leisure for quite some time now at the BFF.

I'm not sure why you would think of an invitation for a "nonproductive pile-on." Your website unequivocally states that your images are showing Bigfoots. Only here amongst skeptics are you frank about how bad they are. Amongst your fellow Bigfoot enthusiasts you're straight touting them as Bigfoot.

Why do you do that?

"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. "

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

Those are your words. What does forthrightness and honesty count for when it's only amongst people you already know aren't going to accept any claims about encountering Bigfoot in Kentucky, yet saying the exact opposite with believers?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Kit, I'll check in and say this. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about an unknown primate with those who don't even know the difference between a chimp and a gorilla. (Exception noted for member "The Shrike")
Click to expand...

Oh really ?

What is your excuse for not pointing it out before a Skeptic did ?
Given, it may have been obvious to me because of my years spent interacting with chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Research. There's no need for me to blow my own horn so I usually don't especially to individuals who hide who they are. But it is still funny that someone would accept that black and white WIKI pic without question. Skeptic(s) at that. That makes something else obvious to me.
Click to expand...

You think that is funny?

Here's funny:

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


Funny, is you arguing that a train wreck of a suit might be an undocumented North American Primate..

PattyTurningAG2.gif


It would appear that years spent interacting with chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Research doesn't always work for you ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Kit, I'll check in and say this. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation about an unknown primate with those who don't even know the difference between a chimp and a gorilla.
Click to expand...

Pretty ballsy, considering you needed help with that, too.
 
Yeah, Chris were you just sitting back and snickering to yourself that you knew it was a chimp and you were waiting to see how long it took the skeptics to figure it out? I don't get it.

Either way, it's immaterial to the reason we were talking about Cross River gorillas in the first place. You seem to think that because the species was apparently not filmed in the wild until recently that it's somehow "like" bigfoot. It's not. At all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom