So you have no ability to place discoveries in context, is that what you're claiming Chris?
Do you understand that these species were all discovered by accident and subsequently described by Western scientists?
western lowland gorilla - skull presented to missionary
mountain gorilla - animals encountered and collected on first survey of the Virungas
saola - skulls brought to scientists on first survey of VuQuang
Myanmar/Burmese snub-nosed monkey - hunters brought skull to scientists in the area to do gibbon surveys
okapi - not found by accident but confirmed with physical specimen on first attempt to locate one
Here's how these discoveries work:
1) White guy goes someplace where few (or no) white guys have ever been.
2-a) White guy shoots something that no white guys have ever seen before, OR
2-b) locals provide white guy with a piece of something they know about but think the white guy might be interested in.
Would you characterize these examples as 1) exactly like bigfoot in south-central Kentucky, 2) kinda like bigfoot in south-central Kentucky, or 3) nothing like bigfoot in south-central Kentucky?
I'm a pretty firm #3, in case you're wondering.
I'm not certain I can agree with your take on things. You're leaving out several other factors. A few of which would be locals seeking answers to what they've seen. Local legends based on the unknown creatures being sighted, local names for unknown creatures, and I think the most probable factor in the success of early discoveries would be the locals fear of the unknown.
I believe many factors drive discovery. They all boil down to the local sightings of unknown creatures IMO. So to these locals, the creatures were not unknown, they were simply unknown to science. Of course I base my opinion mostly when the unknown creature seems to be manlike.
I'm not aware of any real financed time consuming effort of science to find and identify these creatures in question. The largest share of investigation seems to go to those individuals who actually had a sighting of their own.
Yes it is. It's missing the angle at which the first photo was taken that reveals a pareidolially-defined gorilla head-shaped shadow of some kind.
I didn't think shadows could live in direct sunlight. But if you don't see anything in the pic other than angles of shading, that's ok too. I was off by 45 minutes of the exact time of day. I wasn't of the opinion that a few minutes wouldn't make any difference since the subject is in direct sunlight exposure.
I looked at the pictures. What do you think is missing? Both show a dark spot, which is slightly different, perhaps because of slight angle differences, different wind, different JPG artifacting, or something or a combination of factors. I really don't see anything missing that could be identified as anything. If you think the dark spot in the first is a bigfoot, what is in the second? Half a bigfoot?
As above, the "dark spot" missing in the follow up pic was in direct sunlight in the first.
I'm skeptical that you're skeptical. Let's see who's right.
Really? Who wrote the following words?
Published on Jun 3, 2011
This is the video from March 30th 2010. It's blurry and not of much quality. You'll be able to see as I zoom back out, we were quite a distance from the subjects filmed and my little Jazz pocket camcorder was at it's limit. Researchers present were Scott Smith, his son Tommy, and Chris Bennett (myself) What are the animals shown in the video? This is the question. Upon several reviews It looks to me as if it's of a family group of primates living in the backwoods of Kentucky. The video seems to indicate to me, primates doing primate type things. You decide for yourself what is shown. If anyone learns anything from the footage great. If you feel it was a waste of time, well at least it didn't cost anything to look at it. Chris B.
I guess that you have a problem with the definition of "viable?" Or perhaps your memory is faulty.
You don't have "a confirmed sighting" under your belt. But you know that.
This is untrue. You claimed to see a "family group" of primates doing "primate type things."
More dishonesty. You claimed to see a "family group" of primates doing "primate type things." When others disagreed with your imagination or storytelling, here's how you responded. Let's see if you "merely asked the question," or if you defended your opinion about primates:
So, did you "merely" ask a question, or did you spend a lot of effort defending your bigfoot hypothesis? The latter. You're welcome for the correction.
The 120 foot foolishness is exactly like the 51 foot foolishness.
Since you are quoting me from multiple sites on the internet, I guess you can edit to make the conversation about any way you want it.
I don't think I've been misleading anyone. Is there anyone here that doesn't know my photos are my attempt to display what I have seen?
If none display a bigfoot in your opinion, I simply asked then what is it? Since they were brought up, I think it's a fair question.
I will entertain alternative reasonable explanations of course. But unreasonable explanations like "It was shadows" when the subject is in direct sun light will not work.
Why must the person be a white male?
I don't think anything racist was implied , it was likely an attempt to compare early discoverers to "The great white hunter" rather than any real scientific expedition.
Who said "must?" That's right, nobody.
I agree it probably wasn't meant as anything racist.
How is that responsive to my post?
It's just another attempt to convince me that a bigfoot was there...
It doesn't even contribute to the discussion.
I just pointed out you were not concentrating on the main subject in the pic. The male at 51' is only my opinion and a result of my study of the pic to see what else was going on.
The female (self identified and my opinion only) was the only one to move away a moment after the pic was taken. I was able to view her movements when she moved around behind us after the incident. That's how I knew I had captured a pic of her.
That's one problem with trying to relay what you see. Even though I was one of the witnesses to see the creature move away after the pic was taken, others here claim to see only shadows or angles, in the sun light. So unfortunately I guess we can go nowhere in the conversation with that level of investigation.
Chris B.
Added: It's not that I don't understand alternate opinions, I do realize that unlikely or impossible explanations here are certainly more likely than any agreement or acknowledgement that something different could be there.
Hence the problem with seeing cryptids. If you saw one, quickly snapped a picture and tried to relay that info here, you'd meet with the same ridicule. Clarity of the pic does not matter. Even though you know the pic is of what you saw walk away, you'd get similar comments and dismissals.
Regardless of how your pic is viewed, you'd still have your sighting, but unfortunately you can't visually relay that experience. Most will only accept a body or part to even admit the possibility there's something out there. I've come to realize that but unlike most proponents I'm fine with it.
It's funny that many "skeptics" are also hungry to see any pics or video of Bigfoot. Kinda confusing though? Pics and video aren't really scientific evidence , so why the eagerness to see them?
