Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[dmaker]

Hey Cervelo, long time. Nice to see you here.

 

[Cervelo]

D-man!!
Finally made it thru the gauntlet that is/was to join here.
I guess they heard I got banned at BFF so they knew they had to take me LOL!
Thx for the welcome my friend!

 

[The Shrike]

The Saskeptic welcomes you too, Cervelo.

 

[comncents]

Chris,

"As to how I determine the wheat from the chaff, that's based on my own personal research and findings."

So what is your opinion on NL's Good-N-Plenty incident...do you think it was BF???

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Thanks. That may explain the breaks, but it can't rule out a Bigfoot hoax.

Maybe both. There are thousands handy. Ones that hunters left, ones a hoaxer legally shot himself, or whatever.

It occurs to me that one of the most important reasons for keeping these locations secret is that they are in control of hoaxing. So they can't be embarrassed later by the guy showing photographs of himself placing deer bones down to entrap them.

Hi Cervelo and welcome. I don't know personalities on these other fora but yea - bigfoot fantasy game. We've been calling it Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Gaming. BLAARG. BLAARGing.

 

[The Shrike]

Yes the follow up revealed there was nothing there the next day. A 4" diameter cedar tree had been freshly broken off, turned upside down and leaned against another tree in the area.

So the cedar branches are NOT what registers as the dark blob in your "Hillside Video"? You're saying - Scout's honor - that the blob on the video was in no way there the next day?

There was also alot of flattened leaves in the area where the black things were sitting and many small flying insects like gnats flying around the ground where the black things had been seated and laying. Over the course of the next year this spot became the site of a brush pile type structure with many additions added weekly. Some additions were tree limbs and brush while others were dead logs approx 14' long. None of the new additions showed any tool marks ie chainsaw cuts etc.

So probably not cows or hogs; still coulda been a bear. Why not one or more people? I've come across some weird stuff in the woods - some people go to great lengths to hide from their mom that Penthouse magazine they got ahold of, though no matter how good the lean-to looks it's never quite weatherproof enough - so I've been told.

I guess the good news is that because you knew you had a site that the bigfoots were using again and again that there must be some great photos from the cameras you deployed in the area. Can't wait to see those! Also the matted leaves from where a couple of bigfoots were giving each other reach-arounds must've been a gold mine of authentical bigfooty hairs . . .

 

[dmaker]

D-man!!
Finally made it thru the gauntlet that is/was to join here.
I guess they heard I got banned at BFF so they knew they had to take me LOL!
Thx for the welcome my friend!

Glad you made it through the registration process. My transition from JREF to ISF was very smooth, but I know Squatchy said he was having an issue or two.

Sorry to hear when you were banned from the BFF. I just sort of quit actually. Yesterday I asked the chief admin to put my account on "inactive" That is as close as they will go to deleting an active account. It means I can lurk, but not post. It was completely voluntary. My warning bar was at zero for the first time in a long, long time. I just can't participate there any longer and maintain my sanity.

I do believe that a vocal, skeptical presence there can serve a purpose. I think some people wander over there out of curiosity, and listening to both proponents and skeptics can possibly save someone from the rabbit hole. But it's just not something that I want to do, or have the patience for any longer.

Sorry for the derail...back to seeing cryptids.

 

[Cervelo]

Thx Sas, ABP!
Dmaker it was fun while it lasted there's a few left at BFF but not many.
I've always thought the best choice was that some sort of flying reptile might still be around.

 

[bruto]

So let me get this straight, now.

Earlier we were treated to a black spot in a hedge, and told it was taken from exactly 51 feet away, of a creature that stands 12 feet tall, and is 6 feet tall when sitting.

Now we're told there's a site where a suspected sasquatch has been seen, and that evidence points to its frequent return and use of the site. Our correspondent knows exactly where this site is. Our correspondent can get not only within view of this site, but actually into it, without great difficulty, and has returned more than once. Our correspondent is also of the opinion that this creature is twelve feet tall. And that is all the picture we have? You couldn't go there and take a picture of the nest or whatever it is you're reporting? The broken stump? You couldn't go there again with a decent camera, perhaps with remote control, perhaps with a blind, perhaps a game camera on a pole, and stand a chance of seeing a twelve foot monster twice the size of a large man coming or going?

If veracity is not at issue here, then competence surely must be.

 

[Resume]

If veracity is not at issue here, then competence surely must be.

Could be both.

 

[bruto]

Could be both.

For sure, but it's hard to find a scenario with neither.

 

[HarryHenderson]

So let me get this straight, now.

Earlier we were treated to a black spot in a hedge, and told it was taken from exactly 51 feet away, of a creature that stands 12 feet tall, and is 6 feet tall when sitting.

Now we're told there's a site where a suspected sasquatch has been seen, and that evidence points to its frequent return and use of the site. Our correspondent knows exactly where this site is. Our correspondent can get not only within view of this site, but actually into it, without great difficulty, and has returned more than once. Our correspondent is also of the opinion that this creature is twelve feet tall. And that is all the picture we have? You couldn't go there and take a picture of the nest or whatever it is you're reporting? The broken stump? You couldn't go there again with a decent camera, perhaps with remote control, perhaps with a blind, perhaps a game camera on a pole, and stand a chance of seeing a twelve foot monster twice the size of a large man coming or going?

If veracity is not at issue here, then competence surely must be.

You just need to open close your mind mister. Never mind pesky things like facts and reality TV. I mean reality and TV. And don't forget facts. And pesky. Quit looking for something more. Accept that just a glimpse of Bigfoot nothing is all you're not gonna get. The man with the tale has, umm, told his tale and it's a 12' Bigfoot, 6' sitting, 4' ********. Sheesh! We really need to get rid of this stupid requirement there be "evidence". It's so much funner without it. Can I get an amen?

© BLOGing BLAARGing™ United Partners LLC​

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You just need to open close your mind mister. Never mind pesky things like facts and reality TV. I mean reality and TV. And don't forget facts. And pesky. Quit looking for something more. Accept that just a glimpse of Bigfoot nothing is all you're not gonna get. The man with the tale has, umm, told his tale and it's a 12' Bigfoot, 6' sitting, 4' ********. Sheesh! We really need to get rid of this stupid requirement there be "evidence". It's so much funner without it. Can I get an amen?

© BLOGing BLAARGing™ United Partners LLC​

I don't remember claiming the pic was any sort of viable evidence. In fact I simply asked: What is it? So far a few guessed: "It's just a blob", "It's nothing" "It's a bear" etc, but whatever the answer the general conclusion here seems to be : "It's definitely NOT a Bigfoot."

Really? I find the guesses are based mostly on a presupposition that Bigfoot does not exist therefore it's anything other than a Bigfoot rather than any actual attempt of investigation. That's very interesting.

This reminds me of a comment from the owner of the Texas museum of the weird. (The guy that bought the MN Iceman attraction) He said some of his visitors were so skeptical that they even proclaimed his Peruvian mummy was fake, even though the mummy was 100% legit. I wonder. Might we be placing too much emphasis on presupposed "facts" rather than what we actually see?
Chris B.

 

[Paul Holland]

I just sort of quit actually. Yesterday I asked the chief admin to put my account on "inactive" That is as close as they will go to deleting an active account. It means I can lurk, but not post.

I'm sorry to read that. You, Squatchy, and very few others make those threads readable. Or should I say "entertaining."

I guess it gets tiresome responding to posts that always end with "Case Closed," "Checkmate," or some such fantasy game-ending delusion.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris,

"As to how I determine the wheat from the chaff, that's based on my own personal research and findings."

So what is your opinion on NL's Good-N-Plenty incident...do you think it was BF???

I'm not gonna comment on NL's methods or experiences. NL's research area is too far away from mine to make any comparisons. If the creatures in his area accept candy it wouldn't be outside the possible as it is documented that primates seem to desire sweet tastes.

Let's wait and see if Sykes is correct before using this as an example.



In both these cases the locals were well aware of their existence (and that includes that asian deer thing, and the coelocanth).
No such luck where you live.

These don't do you any favours either. The gorilla was "discovered" in, what, mid-19th century? If you can't tell the difference between mid-19th century central Africa and anywhere in the modern US...

In short, yes. There would be a dead one loooong before now.

OK, we'll wait for some other findings that verify Syke's study.

The coelacanth doesn't really qualify, as science did know of their existence but wrongly supposed they were extinct.

Ah, but there ARE reports from the locals about Bigfoot here. Oh, that's right, those aren't considered as evidence. You can't have it both ways.

Poor comparison. Yet another proponent that has no idea of the rapine environmental exploitation of NA.



Billions and billions of man hours spent hunting for food, clothing and market and not a single footie ever collected.

So you argue there's not enough wildnerness in the US? Hmm I don't think I can agree with that.

And there wasn't a single snub nosed monkey collected before the first one recently, right?

Sure, we don't know exactly how a long-dead, seal-eating, bear, from thousands and thousands of miles away, was found in the Himalayas. But I'm betting one of the least likely reasons, is that they actually exist there.

Until someone shoots one and brings it in as evidence, I guess we'll never know for sure. Perhaps the sample submitted was a prank? Would explain why one hasn't been shot.

I see we're back to the standard stuff here.

The existence of things that have been proven to exist somehow or other supports the existence of things that have not.

Because doubters would doubt a good picture, bad ones are just as good.

My bolded. Well I would say the continuing appearance of new species verifies that the World has not revealed all its unknowns yet. Difficult to argue against my version.

Bolding mine. How do we know one has not been? We have no type specimen, so we do not know what they look like. Perhaps their morphology is not different enough to scream different species at anyone who kills one?

The reverse of this argument does not apply to bigfoot, however. No hunter in North America is going to kill something and then go "huh, looks like a giant hairy ape" And then mosey along on his business.

That's a good point. The yeti bear could look like any other bear. Maybe Sykes should have a DNA collection done from all local bear kills? Kinda like a game check in station here in the US. (If he hasn't already done so.)

As far as the "I shot Bigfoot" claims, there are hundreds if not thousands of those types of claim submitted but never a body..... That's why I said I'd have to see it to believe it.

I don't have the answer as to why we don't have a body on file for Bigfoot. One could conclude that the reason is because they don't exist. But, as I said above, since we are continuing to find new species, even primates, I don't think it would be wise to rule out a North American primate. Chris B.

 

[bruto]

I don't remember claiming the pic was any sort of viable evidence. In fact I simply asked: What is it? So far a few guessed: "It's just a blob", "It's nothing" "It's a bear" etc, but whatever the answer the general conclusion here seems to be : "It's definitely NOT a Bigfoot."

Really? I find the guesses are based mostly on a presupposition that Bigfoot does not exist therefore it's anything other than a Bigfoot rather than any actual attempt of investigation. That's very interesting.

This reminds me of a comment from the owner of the Texas museum of the weird. (The guy that bought the MN Iceman attraction) He said some of his visitors were so skeptical that they even proclaimed his Peruvian mummy was fake, even though the mummy was 100% legit. I wonder. Might we be placing too much emphasis on presupposed "facts" rather than what we actually see?
Chris B.

The fact that ignorant tourists were wrong about a Peruvian mummy does not make bigfoot exist.

But what did you actually see? You've said yourself you don't know what it is. Nothing in the pictures suggests that it is a heretofore undocumented creature. I think the greatest likelihood is that it's an artifact of poor photography and image compression, showing a stump or a void between trees, or a coincidence of shade and color. I will be kind and not put intentional deception on the list. Other possibilities exist, and far far far down the line, just above leprechauns and space aliens, is the possibility that, even though it looks like a myriad of other unproductive pictures of nothing worth note, it's actually a picture behind which lurks a twelve foot tall monster that nobody after generations of diligent searching has proven exists at all. It's true enough that we cannot say with absolute, dead certainty that a bigfoot is not back there. But it is also true that we can say with dead certainty that this is not good evidence of a bigfoot, and we can thus say that whatever it's a picture of is of no importance. It would be of no importance even if bigfoots were proven to exist. It's still not a picture of a bigfoot any more than it's a picture of a bear or a stump, things that are known to exist. If you can't figure out what it's a picture of, it's a picture of nothing.

 

[Resume]

So you argue there's not enough wildnerness in the US? Hmm I don't think I can agree with that.

Actually, that's not my argument, there are plenty of wild places on this continent; it's just that there isn't the howling, trackless, unexplored fastness that proponents postulate. See, you guys need this canard to promulgate the footie fantasy, but the truth is, the naïve notion that ole foo is wandering around in a pristine ecosystem in Kentucky, or any other state, is to overlook the systematic exploitation of the these environments. Lots of boots on the ground from Maine to Alaska for eons. No footie anywhere.

And there wasn't a single snub nosed monkey collected before the first one recently, right?

Not the NA, poor comparison; not a nine-foot bipedal ape wandering third-growth woods so shot out all the large game animals had to be reintroduced by the humans that extirpated them in the first place.

Remember, the brown bear, the symbol of California was completely wiped out in the Golden State, including the modern birthplace (Bluff Creek)of all this nonsense, yet not one bigfoot was ever reduced to possession.

 

[The Shrike]

Chris, your website is where you claim those photos (video stills) contain one or more bigfoots. I've now twice shared directs quotes from the captions. If you're not sure what the dark blob is, then fix the info in your website.

Next, I can't believe you're still parading out the old canards of gorillas and coelocanths, etc. It's 2014, man! Do you need me to explain to you how every example, from gorillas to okapis to saola fail the cryptid smell test, or can you look that up on your own? (Hint- those are examples of creatures described based on accidental discovery or successful collection on the first try. The first try.)

 

[Resume]

I'm sorry to read that. You, Squatchy, and very few others make those threads readable. Or should I say "entertaining."

I guess it gets tiresome responding to posts that always end with "Case Closed," "Checkmate," or some such fantasy game-ending delusion.

Yeah, the report reader is gonna get all giddy and **** when he learns these guys won't be posting to point out his daft nonsense.

 

[Northern Lights]

I guess it gets tiresome responding to posts that always end with "Case Closed," "Checkmate," or some such fantasy game-ending delusion.

Uh, yeah!