Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Resume]

Uh, yeah!

Yeah, it's like fast-forwarding to an unestablished conclusion. Kinda like . . .

In addition to our research activities, we also want to educate the public on sasquatches and their research in an effort to change the tongue-in-cheek attitude many people have toward this subject. To that end, we will be holding public expedition classes, educational meetings, and share articles on various aspects of sasquatch (bigfoot) biology, behavior, and other topics.

Sasquatch biology and behavior? According to whom?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

That's a good well thought out post and I enjoyed reading it. I can't agree with your opinion but you certainly get an "A" in expression.

Re: any video or pic evidence from my website. I just try to relay what I saw. That is impossible to do outside the witnesses as there were only 3 people there and those three are the only ones that really know what was there. Some have been able to discern a few features from the video but you are correct, it is not of any quality to prove anything definitive as has always been my claim. Thanks

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.


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.

I agree with you to a point. (except that it is fact that unknown species are still being discovered presently) I would like the answers to all those questions myself. I cannot defend the existence of Bigfoot as a whole but in my opinion it wouldn't be any different than defending the existence of that cute little snub nosed monkey rascal before a specimen was taken.

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.)

As above, I have tried to relay what I saw. I've never tried to claim that any video or pic would be definitive evidence that proves these creatures exist. Since I was there as the person that collected the video, I guess it's easier for me to pick out the motions behind the big thing's back and the emergence of a smaller object on the lower left of the blobby area. My website stands as is.

Yes it's 2014 and according to your argument we'll never find any new species ever again....You do realize that's what you're arguing for? I think the safe bet is that we have NOT discovered all the species Earth has to offer.

Dr Eugenie Scott said about the same thing a few years back in that Bigfoot presentation she gave, if I'm not mistaken, the snub nose monkey was discovered after her presentation. So in effect, that theory has already been proven wrong.

I saw this quote at the BFF and it reminded me of this exact situation:

“The public in general, and the scientific community more importantly, believe there can’t be any such thing,” says John Green, a retired British Columbia newspaper publisher who has researched Sasquatch for a half-century. “Some call themselves skeptics. How can you be a skeptic when you’re just trumpeting what everybody believes? They’re not skeptics. Skeptics are people like me who don’t accept what everybody believes.”

Chris B.

 

[Resume]

I agree with you to a point. (except that it is fact that unknown species are still being discovered presently) I would like the answers to all those questions myself. I cannot defend the existence of Bigfoot as a whole but in my opinion it wouldn't be any different than defending the existence of that cute little snub nosed monkey rascal before a specimen was taken.

But you see, it's very different. We're discussing a nine-foot bipedal ape with a claimed continent-wide distribution involving multiple habitats, many of which have been exploited to the point of near ruin, the fauna to near-extirpation or eliminated entirely. Yet, during all that, not one specimen, nor part of one has ever been documented. Nor has any biological evidence.

 

[Resume]

“The public in general, and the scientific community more importantly, believe there can’t be any such thing,” says John Green, a retired British Columbia newspaper publisher who has researched Sasquatch for a half-century. “Some call themselves skeptics. How can you be a skeptic when you’re just trumpeting what everybody believes? They’re not skeptics. Skeptics are people like me who don’t accept what everybody believes.”

Chris B.

What the hell else was he gonna say, "I wasted my life on this crap"?

And . . . No True Skeptic . . . again.

Tired of that one.

 

[Mudcat]

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."

It's debatable that there's even a creature in the picture at all, if someone showed you it with no context would you have said that it's a Bigfoot?

 

[bruto]

The Myanmar snub nosed monkey seems a poor example, given first of all that it is not out of place in its small habitat, and is one of a number of species of snub nosed monkeys that live in similar habitats, and that both its habitat and its numbers are extremely small. And, of course, the creature itself is small, secretive in ways that are common to its genus, and it's been shown actually to exist.

As I understand it, the monkey in question had not been sought by scientists for long before it was found. Local inhabitants had been catching and eating them for years, but the species had never been sought or identified. Once the hunt was begun, the species was found rather soon. Recently another small population of the monkeys has been discovered in China. Once it became clear that such a species existed, it was found again, and hair and scats subjected to DNA testing.

I have seen no evidence that Myanmar snub nosed monkeys were the subject of a centuries-long hunt, eluding dedicated seekers for generations.

 

[tsig]

That's a good well thought out post and I enjoyed reading it. I can't agree with your opinion but you certainly get an "A" in expression.

Re: any video or pic evidence from my website. I just try to relay what I saw. That is impossible to do outside the witnesses as there were only 3 people there and those three are the only ones that really know what was there. Some have been able to discern a few features from the video but you are correct, it is not of any quality to prove anything definitive as has always been my claim. Thanks



I agree with you to a point. (except that it is fact that unknown species are still being discovered presently) I would like the answers to all those questions myself. I cannot defend the existence of Bigfoot as a whole but in my opinion it wouldn't be any different than defending the existence of that cute little snub nosed monkey rascal before a specimen was taken.



As above, I have tried to relay what I saw. I've never tried to claim that any video or pic would be definitive evidence that proves these creatures exist. Since I was there as the person that collected the video, I guess it's easier for me to pick out the motions behind the big thing's back and the emergence of a smaller object on the lower left of the blobby area. My website stands as is.

Yes it's 2014 and according to your argument we'll never find any new species ever again....You do realize that's what you're arguing for? I think the safe bet is that we have NOT discovered all the species Earth has to offer.

Dr Eugenie Scott said about the same thing a few years back in that Bigfoot presentation she gave, if I'm not mistaken, the snub nose monkey was discovered after her presentation. So in effect, that theory has already been proven wrong.

I saw this quote at the BFF and it reminded me of this exact situation:

“The public in general, and the scientific community more importantly, believe there can’t be any such thing,” says John Green, a retired British Columbia newspaper publisher who has researched Sasquatch for a half-century. “Some call themselves skeptics. How can you be a skeptic when you’re just trumpeting what everybody believes? They’re not skeptics. Skeptics are people like me who don’t accept what everybody believes.”
Chris B.

A true skeptic has to deny reality?

 

[tsig]

What the hell else was he gonna say, "I wasted my life on this crap"?

And . . . No True Skeptic . . . again.

Tired of that one.

In order to be A True Skeptic you have to believe in bigfoot, ufos, dowsing, astral projection, ghosts, ect. ect. ect..

Believing your senses reflect reality is the only true woo.

 

[dmaker]

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.

Yep. Pretty much. Whatever ground there is there to be gained is not worth the spike in blood pressure that it takes to deal with people like DWA, WSA, et al.

Turns out that "inactive" means I cannot even browse threads. Meh, so much the better most likely.

 

[dmaker]

Yes it's 2014 and according to your argument we'll never find any new species ever again....You do realize that's what you're arguing for? I think the safe bet is that we have NOT discovered all the species Earth has to offer.


Chris B.

That is not at all what is being argued, and I suspect that you know that full well.

Be sure to put a pumpkin on that strawman, tis the season after all.

Do you have any more photos you wish to share? I do relish the whole "Hey, look at these pictures of ape like creatures. Now please tell me what they are, despite me just saying they are ape-like". Followed by the "Hey, I'm not saying these are definitive or anything". Waste of time.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Those pictures look approximately like what would come back if you gave an ape a camera.
But skeptics are "closed-minded" because they don't see the monster in the random capture of a brush piile.

 

[Correa Neto]

Lame arguments repeated ad infinitum... Not just lame but also built with errors and misrepresentations.

Finding bigfoot -assuming they are real- would NOT be equal to finding a new species. It would be finding a whole new megafauna genus. Got recent examples of such thing happening?

A new species of monkey or small deer in the far reaches of Asia or South America can not be compared with the discovery of a new genus of giant primate in North America, a place not exactly poorly studied.

Ignorance, blind faith, dishonesty - these are the reasons I can think to explain how people can bring such idea to the table.

 

[Resume]

Lame arguments repeated ad infinitum... Not just lame but also built with errors and misrepresentations.

Finding bigfoot -assuming they are real- would NOT be equal to finding a new species. It would be finding a whole new megafauna genus. Got recent examples of such thing happening?

A new species of monkey or small deer in the far reaches of Asia or South America can not be compared with the discovery of a new genus of giant primate in North America, a place not exactly poorly studied.

Ignorance, blind faith, dishonesty - these are the reasons I can think to explain how people can bring such idea to the table.

If I were just a tad bit more sensitive, I might find proponent's special pleading as to the elusiveness of their fantasy beast a bit insulting to my intelligence. But truthfully, I just can't muster more than wry amusement at their enthusiasm despite the utter lack of hard evidence in support of such a creature.

 

[Paul Holland]

Turns out that "inactive" means I cannot even browse threads. Meh, so much the better most likely.

I don't belong yet can browse most threads. A lot of the posted pictures are on their server and those are "forbidden."

 

[LTC8K6]

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

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.

It really bothers me that you claim the camera is exactly 51 feet away, and that despite that short distance, we have an indistinct blob, even though we can supposedly see "something" through the woods that might be a bigfoot. This makes no sense at all to me.

Given the lack of detail, if that were my sister just 51 feet away from your camera, yet visible among the trees, I wouldn't be able to tell she was human, much less recognize her as my sister. Yet we can supposedly make out something significant, such as a bigfoot.

How can that be?

Presumably, that could be a human being visible through the trees, just 51 feet from the camera, yet totally unrecognizable as anything familiar.

 

[Northern Lights]

If I were just a tad bit more sensitive, I might find proponent's special pleading as to the elusiveness of their fantasy beast a bit insulting to my intelligence. But truthfully, I just can't muster more than wry amusement at their enthusiasm despite the utter lack of hard evidence in support of such a creature.

Here is a presentation from Cliff Barackman showing all sorts of evidence.

Yes, yes, I know. It's long. Skip the first 7 minutes, because that is all introduction.

http://youtu.be/JS1KCc1oY2I?list=UUS9Z9Ij7Y1DkQh-oO0iuhAg

 

[Resume]

Here is a presentation from Cliff Barackman showing all sorts of evidence.

Yes, yes, I know. It's long. Skip the first 7 minutes, because that is all introduction.

I'm not going to watch all that. At what point does he offer verifiable biological evidence? You know, the stuff actual scientists might examine.
ETA: I don't give a **** about more campfire stories about campfire stories; I'm talking about objective evidence that can be vetted by outside observers.

 

[Northern Lights]

I'm not going to watch all that. At what point does he offer verifiable biological evidence? You know, the stuff actual scientists might examine.

How about starting at 24 minutes and go to 28 minutes.

 

[Resume]

How about starting at 24 minutes and go to 28 minutes.

I'm sorry but you don't understand a thing about what constitutes verifiable biological evidence. Those that attempt to fool you clearly understand that, and the fact that the gullible are willing to pay to be fooled.

Slides of alleged footie footprints offered with zero provenance and no verifiable chain of custody and no justifiable link to any biological entity are as laughable as any campfire story and in fact are just that, stories. As are everything bigfoot.

ETA: "These are footie-foo-foo footprints because I say so and I'm the awesome Cliff Barackman and I'm on TV and ****" doesn't mean ****. Just so you know.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

But you see, it's very different. We're discussing a nine-foot bipedal ape with a claimed continent-wide distribution involving multiple habitats, many of which have been exploited to the point of near ruin, the fauna to near-extirpation or eliminated entirely. Yet, during all that, not one specimen, nor part of one has ever been documented. Nor has any biological evidence.

I agree that it certainly seems improbable.

What the hell else was he gonna say, "I wasted my life on this crap"?

And . . . No True Skeptic . . . again.

Tired of that one.

The comment was probably due to frustration more than anything else. I don't think I would have lasted that long without a confirmed sighting under my belt.

It's debatable that there's even a creature in the picture at all, if someone showed you it with no context would you have said that it's a Bigfoot?

I agree the pic captured from the video is not much to go on, the video is somewhat more revealing than the frame capture. Especially when we watch the back of the big black thing and the lower left frame of the black things. But, it's not definitive evidence. I'm of the opinion there may be some useful info in the video, so I've left it up.

The Myanmar snub nosed monkey seems a poor example, given first of all that it is not out of place in its small habitat, and is one of a number of species of snub nosed monkeys that live in similar habitats, and that both its habitat and its numbers are extremely small. And, of course, the creature itself is small, secretive in ways that are common to its genus, and it's been shown actually to exist.

As I understand it, the monkey in question had not been sought by scientists for long before it was found. Local inhabitants had been catching and eating them for years, but the species had never been sought or identified. Once the hunt was begun, the species was found rather soon. Recently another small population of the monkeys has been discovered in China. Once it became clear that such a species existed, it was found again, and hair and scats subjected to DNA testing.

I have seen no evidence that Myanmar snub nosed monkeys were the subject of a centuries-long hunt, eluding dedicated seekers for generations.

The snub nosed monkey is a new primate which is actually a wow moment. It may be common to discover a new insect in the rain forest or a new lizard somewhere or other, but mammals and primates are of particular note. When a new primate is discovered, again, my main thought and likely the general opinion among scientists is wow.

Exactly how much effort has been put into searching for Bigfoot is debatable. I don't think anyone has received any major funding from any accredited source to study or find Bigfoot. I think the majority of researchers are simply self financed.

I realize everyone here would like the answer to the question. That much we have in common. For me, I'm beyond the "does it exist?" argument and now concentrate on finding and gathering info. Everyone must follow their own course.

A true skeptic has to deny reality?

I don't think that's what Greene said or meant. I think it was more like a true skeptic doesn't follow the crowd and makes up their own mind.

That is not at all what is being argued, and I suspect that you know that full well.

Be sure to put a pumpkin on that strawman, tis the season after all.

Do you have any more photos you wish to share? I do relish the whole "Hey, look at these pictures of ape like creatures. Now please tell me what they are, despite me just saying they are ape-like". Followed by the "Hey, I'm not saying these are definitive or anything". Waste of time.

I don't think it a straw man to point out an illogical opinion. Just because a new great ape has not been documented with a type specimen yet is not cause to conclude none ever will be. Better?

Those pictures look approximately like what would come back if you gave an ape a camera.
But skeptics are "closed-minded" because they don't see the monster in the random capture of a brush piile.

Nope, never accused anyone of being closed minded because they didn't see a monster in a random pile of brush. I merely asked the question: if it's not Bigfoot, what is it? Oh, BTW, the blinking gif of the brush pile hasn't been discussed.

Lame arguments repeated ad infinitum... Not just lame but also built with errors and misrepresentations.

Finding bigfoot -assuming they are real- would NOT be equal to finding a new species. It would be finding a whole new megafauna genus. Got recent examples of such thing happening?

A new species of monkey or small deer in the far reaches of Asia or South America can not be compared with the discovery of a new genus of giant primate in North America, a place not exactly poorly studied.

Ignorance, blind faith, dishonesty - these are the reasons I can think to explain how people can bring such idea to the table.

Well, exactly what they are is unknown, so instead of an entirely new something, we may just find it to be an already known something that we mistakenly thought extinct, much like the error of the ceolacanth.

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



It really bothers me that you claim the camera is exactly 51 feet away, and that despite that short distance, we have an indistinct blob, even though we can supposedly see "something" through the woods that might be a bigfoot. This makes no sense at all to me.

Given the lack of detail, if that were my sister just 51 feet away from your camera, yet visible among the trees, I wouldn't be able to tell she was human, much less recognize her as my sister. Yet we can supposedly make out something significant, such as a bigfoot.

How can that be?

Presumably, that could be a human being visible through the trees, just 51 feet from the camera, yet totally unrecognizable as anything familiar.

You seem to be concentrating on the crop of the possible male taken from the full image of the female. You know the one also on the same page with the "now you see her now you don't" comparison pics. Seems to me if you really wanted to discuss one of my pics, the blobby possible male crop is the smaller unintended subject of that pic, the female (I see) would be the better subject of that one wouldn't it? Is she also shadows or leaves or jst some blur artifact? Chris B.