Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, just go to the source material for those discoveries and it will be clear to you. Instead of reading what cryptozoologists say about Myanmar snub-nosed monkey, read the actual paper that describes the discovery. In it you'll find that some scientists were in that remote valley doing surveys for a gibbon. While they were there, some locals showed them a skull that turrned out to belong to a species heretofore unknown to science.

The only way this story would be analogous to Bigfoot would be if the Mandan, for example, had provided a Bigfoot skull to the Corps of Discovery.

It's perfectly clear and I agree with you somewhat. If you'll look back at the thread you'll see I have said I do not agree with all the cryptozoologists assertions on these newly discovered species.

Chris, at your website, you are clearly sure the subjects are bigfoot, yet here at ISF, you back off of that surety.

Why?

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

You seem to be trying to deflect our questions by acting as if you aren't sure, and haven't claimed anything, and therefore you don't have to defend any claims.

Yet it's clear that you do believe you have photographed bigfoot when we read this page.

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

Why the two different attitudes?

Well now, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have always maintained the pics and videos are my attempt to relay what I saw. Is there anyone here that doubts I think these are Bigfoot? However crummy they are, I saw what walked away from them with the exception of the "male" subject, that is an opinion based on my study of the enlarged pic.

My assertion is if it's not Bigfoot, then what is it?

Anything on this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=...&feature=player_detailpage&v=K2gYk7StLfg#t=78


What are the bluish/greyish objects/artifacts that suddenly appear in the video at about 1:20?

That's the slowed version of the Hillside encounter. The raw footage is also available on my channel.

Yes I maintain the video is of a family group witnessed by myself and two others. And that movement can be seen at the large object's back and also at the lower left of the objects. I simply asked if you maintain it is not a family group then what is it of?

As before, the artifacts of color appear when I zoomed out and the camcorder completely lost all focus. I'm not sure if the flash of color is there on the raw footage or not. I don't think there is anything to be gained from the zoom out point on.

Of course you are welcome to download the raw footage and work with it yourself. Maybe you have better video software than i do? Enlarge it, slow it down, see for yourself. Maybe you won't agree with my account but you may see something that would seem to support my findings if you keep an eye on the large one's back. Chris B.

 

[Cervelo]

Chris,
This may be buried somewhere in all this but my question is
Did you see these creatures clearly?

 

[LTC8K6]

My assertion is if it's not Bigfoot, then what is it?

It doesn't work that way, and you know it.

If it wasn't the Tooth Fairy, then what was it?

That question is just as valid...

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Oh, I say we know exactly what they are – a modern myth. But it doesn’t matter, you conveniently skipped my point: Nothing of comparable size and so different from known animals has been recently discovered, so snub-nosed monkeys do not keep an open door for bigfoots being real undiscovered animals.

Finding real bigfoots would be even bigger than finding living saber-toothed tigers, because at least we know they existed (we have their fossils to prove that). Can’t be compared with a monkey or a small deer and arguments from ignorance and moving goalposts will not change this.

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.

You want us to accept it would take a dedicated scientific project to find a population of 3m tall apes living in North America, including some folks’ backyards?

Wow, those USAians and Canadians biologists must be quite a bunch useless and incompetent people… They can’t even place a decent camera trap. Not to mention bigfoots never are smashed by trucks, killed by hunters, caught in traps, die at someone’s property...

We seen this lame excuse before, countless times. Next?

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?

It is funny that so many “believers” keep bringing back to the table the same invalid points, distortions and false statements.

Tell me, if pictures can not be scientific evidence, why are they so common at scientific peer-reviewed journals? If pictures can not be scientific evidence, why are we spending billions of dollars with things like the Hubble Space Telescope? Why lots of spacecraft and the rovers in Mars have them? Why biologists take pictures of living and dead things?

 

[dmaker]

It's perfectly clear and I agree with you somewhat. If you'll look back at the thread you'll see I have said I do not agree with all the cryptozoologists assertions on these newly discovered species.


.

Chris, you are being very obtuse. Just which assertions, exactly, do you disagree with in regards to the discovery of new megafauna in North America today when comparing it to the collection of, let's say, the mountain gorilla in 1902?

Do you understand some of the key differences such as the locals, in the case of the mountain gorilla, actually had physical evidence to confirm their stories? Do you agree that this single fact alone makes your comparison with bigfoot untenable? You must also acknowledge that the gorilla was successfully collected, correct? I am not sure how you think you can draw a valid analogy to a similarly size creature in modern North America that has provided no biological evidence nor has ever been captured.

 

[carlitos]

... creatures ... creatures... creatures ... creatures ...unknown creature

... these creatures.....

You are cracking me up, man.

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.

1 - I only quoted words from this thread.
2 - You in no way responded to my points.

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.

It's hilarious that you assigning genders to blobs on a camera. Fantasy.


Self-identified? The female bigfoot told you that she was female? Maybe a pink ribbon in her hair? Again, dude, you are cracking me up. You are telling tall tales, and you suck at it.

 

[tsig]

Chris, at your website, you are clearly sure the subjects are bigfoot, yet here at ISF, you back off of that surety.

Why?

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

You seem to be trying to deflect our questions by acting as if you aren't sure, and haven't claimed anything, and therefore you don't have to defend any claims.

Yet it's clear that you do believe you have photographed bigfoot when we read this page.

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

Why the two different attitudes?

From the link:
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.

They just don't make 10 foot mammals as opaque as they used to be.

You have to admire the courage of one who, with nothing but a camera confronts a 12', pig throwing, hog crunching animal that can leap at least 45', one bound and bigfoot is in his face. Where do we find such men?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris,
This may be buried somewhere in all this but my question is
Did you see these creatures clearly?

Only as clearly as one can see them at that distance. This is the same family group I was able to get closer to.

It doesn't work that way, and you know it.

If it wasn't the Tooth Fairy, then what was it?

That question is just as valid...

Not really, you say the burden of proof is on me, I provided some pics of what I saw. I'll need a little more info rather than "it's not Bigfoot". If it isn't Bigfoot what is shown? Rocks? Leaves? Bears? Or is it nothing you can discern except for sure it's not Bigfoot? Why?

Oh, I say we know exactly what they are – a modern myth. But it doesn’t matter, you conveniently skipped my point: Nothing of comparable size and so different from known animals has been recently discovered, so snub-nosed monkeys do not keep an open door for bigfoots being real undiscovered animals.

Finding real bigfoots would be even bigger than finding living saber-toothed tigers, because at least we know they existed (we have their fossils to prove that). Can’t be compared with a monkey or a small deer and arguments from ignorance and moving goalposts will not change this.



You want us to accept it would take a dedicated scientific project to find a population of 3m tall apes living in North America, including some folks’ backyards?

Wow, those USAians and Canadians biologists must be quite a bunch useless and incompetent people… They can’t even place a decent camera trap. Not to mention bigfoots never are smashed by trucks, killed by hunters, caught in traps, die at someone’s property...

We seen this lame excuse before, countless times. Next?



It is funny that so many “believers” keep bringing back to the table the same invalid points, distortions and false statements.

Tell me, if pictures can not be scientific evidence, why are they so common at scientific peer-reviewed journals? If pictures can not be scientific evidence, why are we spending billions of dollars with things like the Hubble Space Telescope? Why lots of spacecraft and the rovers in Mars have them? Why biologists take pictures of living and dead things?

You know, you want me to explain to you how they could exist and how is it possible they could go undetected by science for so long. I get it. The answer is I don't know. But because I don't know the answers to these questions does not mean they do not exist, it means I don't know.

Pictures of species may be acceptable for those that are already on file but not for Bigfoot. It'll take a body or part.

Chris, you are being very obtuse. Just which assertions, exactly, do you disagree with in regards to the discovery of new megafauna in North America today when comparing it to the collection of, let's say, the mountain gorilla in 1902?

Do you understand some of the key differences such as the locals, in the case of the mountain gorilla, actually had physical evidence to confirm their stories? Do you agree that this single fact alone makes your comparison with bigfoot untenable? You must also acknowledge that the gorilla was successfully collected, correct? I am not sure how you think you can draw a valid analogy to a similarly size creature in modern North America that has provided no biological evidence nor has ever been captured.

To be clear, I said I do not agree with all cryptozoologist's take on the discovery of species. In particular I pointed out the ceolacanth , which was not a new find but a simple rediscovery of a known species that was mistakenly thought extinct. I'm of the opinion we may find Bigfoot to be a similar case. Why? Because they look alot like Giganto.

I'm not interested in a comparison of two species or a break down of their probability of discovery versus that of a modern Bigfoot. How likely? Who knows and who can say. Only speculation can come of it.

If you take nothing else from my comments remember this: If you stick with the argument of "It's 2014 and we have discovered everything there is to discover" be ready for a let down.

You are cracking me up, man.





1 - I only quoted words from this thread.
2 - You in no way responded to my points.




It's hilarious that you assigning genders to blobs on a camera. Fantasy.


Self-identified? The female bigfoot told you that she was female? Maybe a pink ribbon in her hair? Again, dude, you are cracking me up. You are telling tall tales, and you suck at it.

Was there a question here?

From the link:
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.

They just don't make 10 foot mammals as opaque as they used to be.

You have to admire the courage of one who, with nothing but a camera confronts a 12', pig throwing, hog crunching animal that can leap at least 45', one bound and bigfoot is in his face. Where do we find such men?

In Kentucky.
So what's shown for both "subjects" in that pic? If it's not Bigfoot, what is it? Did you wanna add an opinion or no?
Chris B.

 

[Correa Neto]

 

[Resume]

If you take nothing else from my comments remember this: If you stick with the argument of "It's 2014 and we have discovered everything there is to discover" be ready for a let down.

No one has said this. To keep repeating it makes you look dishonest.

 

[dmaker]

If you take nothing else from my comments remember this: If you stick with the argument of "It's 2014 and we have discovered everything there is to discover" be ready for a let down.




Chris B.

My, you are fond of that strawman, aren't you? I am not saying that, in fact I doubt very strongly that anyone here is saying that. It does suit your purpose, though, to desperately try to shoehorn that argument into our mouths.

I am saying that large, undiscovered megafauna, such as the alleged bigfoot, are extremely unlikely to exist in the reported range and frequency of bigfoot. And by extremely unlikely I believe there is a better chance of it raining skittles tomorrow than a bigfoot being discovered anywhere in North America.

Yes, new species are discovered regularly. They are not, however, large apes in well explored and settled areas where there hitherto had been no apes at all. Sometimes, yes, larger new species are discovered, even in North America, but they are almost always a sub-species of a known species. There is no commonly known, classified and encountered North American ape that is being confused for bigfoot.


ETA: It looks a lot like Giganto? How do you know what Giganto looks like? We don't even know if G.Blacki was bipedal, but you've already got it locked into looking like bigfoot?

 

[LTC8K6]

I provided some pics of what I saw.

You provided some pics.

I'll go that far.

I have yet to see anything definite in the pics, save for the trees, and certainly nothing matching anything you have described.

If I say I provided some pics of an elephant, but you can't see an elephant in my pics, it's your fault? You have to tell me what I took a picture of "if it wasn't an elephant"?

Does that make any sense?

No, it doesn't.

You are trying to influence the testimony with leading questions, imo.

"If my picture doesn't show a sasquatch, then what does it show?"

"If my picture doesn't show an elephant, then what does it show?"

"You can't answer that can you?"

Ridiculous method of trying to make your case...

"If you didn't rob the store, then who did?"

 

[comncents]

"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." - ChrisBFRPKY

What about Tom Slick and Peter Byrne ( From Byrne's website)
"Acting under Slick's directions, Peter flew to the Pacific Northwest and set up a base in in what at that time appeared to be the heart of activity of the phenomenon, Trinity County, in Northern California. There, at a tiny settlement named Salyer, near the town of Willow Creek, he assembled equipment that included four-wheel-drive vehicles, all terrain, heavy-duty motorcycles, cameras and binoculars and all-weather camping gear. He set up an office with staff and recruited an outdoor team of men and women with backgrounds of experience in the heavily forested terrain of the mountains. Once ready, he set about what he named The Great Search, for something which, if eyewitnesses were accurate in their descriptions, was a giant, unclassified, hair-covered, bipedal, man-like primate that might well have as its ancestor an equally enormous primate that at one time lived in Asia - in fact in the region from which America's Native Americans originated - a huge beast known to scientists as Gigantopithecus.

Commencing in early 1960, Peter's search continued for two and a half years, until October, 1962 at which time, in a most unfortunate accident, his friend and the project sponsor, Tom Slick, died in the crash of small plane."

and later...

"Soon after the group returned to the U.S., Ransburg contacted Peter and asked him if he would be interested in designing and operating a new project and a new search for the mysterious Bigfoot; if so, he would sponsor it. Peter promptly said yes and so was born another search, Bigfoot Research Project 111, one that lasted for five years and that, although one of the creatures was not found and documented..."

How about Erickson???

"Sasquatch The Quest
Privately funded for five years, The Erickson Project has studied Sasquatch at various habituation sites throughout North America. The only goal of Adrian Erickson and his team is to finally have the sasquatch officially recognized as a species or sub-species. " of course, that produced a picture of a wookie suit!

How about Melba's benefactor or Sykes study?

Footer's belief that no time or money has been spent on finding the big guy is wrong, but they always put this up as Excuse #34 of why ol' footie hasn't been found. Sorry Chris, based on the number of sitings across the country, a pack of Cub Scouts on a weekend camping trip should be able to bring in the proof needed.

 

[Dinwar]

If you take nothing else from my comments remember this: If you stick with the argument of "It's 2014 and we have discovered everything there is to discover" be ready for a let down.

I've discovered new organisms. So this strawman is pretty much nonsense.

The issue is the quality of the evidence. Your data simply are not sufficient to justify the conclusions you are drawing. There's no shame in that, really; I fully acknowledge that I tend to be ready to accept a tentative working hypothesis based on less data than I probably should (though I tend to adopt multiple working hypotheses to compensate). Where you devolve into crackpottery is in refusing to acknowledge the criticisms of your data and in refusing to systematically gather higher-quality data. When I describe new species there is NO question of what the photographs show--they are high resolution, taken in a professional set-up, and if someone wanted they could always ask to see the original specimens or casts thereof. The fact that people can't identify your pictures means that they ARE NOT of sufficient quality to be used to justify naming a new species, or to use as proof of a new species. Again, no shame there; all research starts somewhere. But you're stalling out at the start, and that IS a problem.

ot really, you say the burden of proof is on me, I provided some pics of what I saw.

That does not discharge the burden of proof. It's sufficient to say that you're not actually being dishonest--and sorry, but with as many frauds as are in the bigfoot community that IS a legitimate first step in these discussions for your side--but it's hardly sufficient to justify saying it's bigfoot. Your job, if you choose to play the role of a researcher, is to provide enough evidence that it is perverse for us to reject your conclusions. In science, you start off wrong by default. A picture that is not clearly of the organism in question is insufficient to demonstrate said organism's existence.

You know, you want me to explain to you how they could exist and how is it possible they could go undetected by science for so long. I get it. The answer is I don't know. But because I don't know the answers to these questions does not mean they do not exist, it means I don't know.

See, here's where you just get lazy. You want to talk about this creature? Fine. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. If you don't know how your hypothesis could work, it is incumbant upon you to LEARN how your hypothesis could work. Because right now, you have openly stated that you do not know enough to be considered minimally competant in this subject matter. You have openly stated that you do not know enough to provide an informed opinion. And you wish to overthrow several hundred years' worth of scientific research via that ignorance.

I'm of the opinion we may find Bigfoot to be a similar case. Why? Because they look alot like Giganto.

Please provide specific similarities. In particular, I'm most interested in the post-craneal osteological similarities; however, I'll admit dental similarities would be far more useful (this being a mammal, allegedly).

I'm not interested in a comparison of two species....

Than you're not interested in actually finding new species. Because that's exactly what REAL researchers who find new species do.

Pics and video aren't really scientific evidence , so why the eagerness to see them?

I beg your pardon, but photographs ARE scientific evidence. I have done innumerable photographic surveys for various projects, and have used photographs to document everything from existing site conditions to excavation methods to type specimens. There are requirements and considerations to be taken into account--one must prove that the photos were not altered, or at least were not altered malliciously (I frequently put site IDs in my iPad photos, but keep the original files untouched as well, for example)--but that's nothing more than standard procedure.

Plus, if you could provide a type specimen we'd shut up about photos and videos. A type specimen would trump every other type of evidence or argument, no exceptions. But since you are incapable of providing one (if someone could, they would have by now), we are left with other data to explore. Basically, our desire to see photos or video is due to your side's failure to provide any better evidence. We're asking for the lowest quality evidence that would still allow you to draw your conclusions. We are doing you a favor here, one that would NEVER be extended to real scientists.

I am saying that large, undiscovered megafauna, such as the alleged bigfoot, are extremely unlikely to exist in the reported range and frequency of bigfoot. And by extremely unlikely I believe there is a better chance of it raining skittles tomorrow than a bigfoot being discovered anywhere in North America.

I'll go further: I will say it's not just unlikely, but that it's impossible. It's not impossible that some hominin migrated from Asia; obviously at least one did. However, Giganto did not. It is also impossible that a large hominin could exist undiscovered by science in the United States of America, for various historical, cultural, and scientific reasons. For example, multiple expiditions were sent out in order to find exactly this sort of creature (large mammalian megafauna that did not exist elsewhere) in order to refute or establish various biological theories of the 19th century. When repeated testing results in constant failures, the hypothesis can be rejected. Bigfoot has been proven to not exist with as much scientific accuracy as dragons, unicorns, and the fae (actually more, in the first two cases, but that's a separate issue).

 

[Mudcat]

Chris,
This may be buried somewhere in all this but my question is
Did you see these creatures clearly?

If the photographs and videos presented are the best he could produce then I would have to say no. But that's a common claim of cryptid proponents that they, putting aside the three other senses for a moment, could see and hear the [insert cryptid here] just fine but the recording device failed to capture it or captured it badly.

 

[carlitos]

My assertion is if it's not Bigfoot, then what is it?

My assertion is if it's not a camera artifact, then what is it?
My assertion is if it's not a tree stump, then what is it?
My assertion is if it's not your buddy Mike, then what is it?
My assertion is if it's not a pile of leaves, then what is it?
My assertion is if it's not a chupacabra, then what is it?
My assertion is if it's not a Pterodactyl, then what is it?

I suppose that the above would be a fun game for a 10-year-old. For me, not so much.

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Was there a question here?

No. There is no point in asking questions of someone who won't answer honestly.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No one has said this. To keep repeating it makes you look dishonest.

That was paraphrased from posts made here and also Dr Eugenie Scott's Bigfoot presentation. I will agree to assume everything has already been discovered seems dishonest and unlikely.

My, you are fond of that strawman, aren't you? I am not saying that, in fact I doubt very strongly that anyone here is saying that. It does suit your purpose, though, to desperately try to shoehorn that argument into our mouths.

I am saying that large, undiscovered megafauna, such as the alleged bigfoot, are extremely unlikely to exist in the reported range and frequency of bigfoot. And by extremely unlikely I believe there is a better chance of it raining skittles tomorrow than a bigfoot being discovered anywhere in North America.

Yes, new species are discovered regularly. They are not, however, large apes in well explored and settled areas where there hitherto had been no apes at all. Sometimes, yes, larger new species are discovered, even in North America, but they are almost always a sub-species of a known species. There is no commonly known, classified and encountered North American ape that is being confused for bigfoot.


ETA: It looks a lot like Giganto? How do you know what Giganto looks like? We don't even know if G.Blacki was bipedal, but you've already got it locked into looking like bigfoot?

I really don't see the need for an opinion vs opinion debate of why Bigfoot hasn't been discovered by science yet. I'll admit I don't know the answer.

As far as the giganto comparison, I've compared reconstructions of giganto skulls (models) against what I've seen and it's a match. Along with the description. I realize you may not accept the reconstructed skull model or proposed description of Giganto, but that's not my dept. I only know those guys are very good at their models even based on a small section of bone. Everything is proportional.

You provided some pics.

I'll go that far.

I have yet to see anything definite in the pics, save for the trees, and certainly nothing matching anything you have described.

If I say I provided some pics of an elephant, but you can't see an elephant in my pics, it's your fault? You have to tell me what I took a picture of "if it wasn't an elephant"?

Does that make any sense?

No, it doesn't.

You are trying to influence the testimony with leading questions, imo.

"If my picture doesn't show a sasquatch, then what does it show?"

"If my picture doesn't show an elephant, then what does it show?"

"You can't answer that can you?"

Ridiculous method of trying to make your case...

"If you didn't rob the store, then who did?"

Well, River seemed to wanna throw some links of my pics and comments from my website for discussion here and I've been entertaining that. I know the pics are terrible, but it's all I was able to take away from that sighting.

I don't expect the pics to reflect exactly what I saw. Here's my only gripe. Alot of guys here are CERTAIN the pics do not show a Bigfoot. But, they fail to comment or voice an opinion of what the pic shows to them? If they claim it's too blurry to make anything out then how in the World can they say it's DEFINITELY NOT a Bigfoot? Curious.

"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." - ChrisBFRPKY

What about Tom Slick and Peter Byrne ( From Byrne's website)
"Acting under Slick's directions, Peter flew to the Pacific Northwest and set up a base in in what at that time appeared to be the heart of activity of the phenomenon, Trinity County, in Northern California. There, at a tiny settlement named Salyer, near the town of Willow Creek, he assembled equipment that included four-wheel-drive vehicles, all terrain, heavy-duty motorcycles, cameras and binoculars and all-weather camping gear. He set up an office with staff and recruited an outdoor team of men and women with backgrounds of experience in the heavily forested terrain of the mountains. Once ready, he set about what he named The Great Search, for something which, if eyewitnesses were accurate in their descriptions, was a giant, unclassified, hair-covered, bipedal, man-like primate that might well have as its ancestor an equally enormous primate that at one time lived in Asia - in fact in the region from which America's Native Americans originated - a huge beast known to scientists as Gigantopithecus.

Commencing in early 1960, Peter's search continued for two and a half years, until October, 1962 at which time, in a most unfortunate accident, his friend and the project sponsor, Tom Slick, died in the crash of small plane."

and later...

"Soon after the group returned to the U.S., Ransburg contacted Peter and asked him if he would be interested in designing and operating a new project and a new search for the mysterious Bigfoot; if so, he would sponsor it. Peter promptly said yes and so was born another search, Bigfoot Research Project 111, one that lasted for five years and that, although one of the creatures was not found and documented..."

How about Erickson???

"Sasquatch The Quest
Privately funded for five years, The Erickson Project has studied Sasquatch at various habituation sites throughout North America. The only goal of Adrian Erickson and his team is to finally have the sasquatch officially recognized as a species or sub-species. " of course, that produced a picture of a wookie suit!

How about Melba's benefactor or Sykes study?

Footer's belief that no time or money has been spent on finding the big guy is wrong, but they always put this up as Excuse #34 of why ol' footie hasn't been found. Sorry Chris, based on the number of sitings across the country, a pack of Cub Scouts on a weekend camping trip should be able to bring in the proof needed.

Yep, all those self financed as I said.

I've discovered new organisms. So this strawman is pretty much nonsense.

The issue is the quality of the evidence. Your data simply are not sufficient to justify the conclusions you are drawing. There's no shame in that, really; I fully acknowledge that I tend to be ready to accept a tentative working hypothesis based on less data than I probably should (though I tend to adopt multiple working hypotheses to compensate). Where you devolve into crackpottery is in refusing to acknowledge the criticisms of your data and in refusing to systematically gather higher-quality data. When I describe new species there is NO question of what the photographs show--they are high resolution, taken in a professional set-up, and if someone wanted they could always ask to see the original specimens or casts thereof. The fact that people can't identify your pictures means that they ARE NOT of sufficient quality to be used to justify naming a new species, or to use as proof of a new species. Again, no shame there; all research starts somewhere. But you're stalling out at the start, and that IS a problem.

That does not discharge the burden of proof. It's sufficient to say that you're not actually being dishonest--and sorry, but with as many frauds as are in the bigfoot community that IS a legitimate first step in these discussions for your side--but it's hardly sufficient to justify saying it's bigfoot. Your job, if you choose to play the role of a researcher, is to provide enough evidence that it is perverse for us to reject your conclusions. In science, you start off wrong by default. A picture that is not clearly of the organism in question is insufficient to demonstrate said organism's existence.

See, here's where you just get lazy. You want to talk about this creature? Fine. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. If you don't know how your hypothesis could work, it is incumbant upon you to LEARN how your hypothesis could work. Because right now, you have openly stated that you do not know enough to be considered minimally competant in this subject matter. You have openly stated that you do not know enough to provide an informed opinion. And you wish to overthrow several hundred years' worth of scientific research via that ignorance.

Please provide specific similarities. In particular, I'm most interested in the post-craneal osteological similarities; however, I'll admit dental similarities would be far more useful (this being a mammal, allegedly).

Than you're not interested in actually finding new species. Because that's exactly what REAL researchers who find new species do.

I beg your pardon, but photographs ARE scientific evidence. I have done innumerable photographic surveys for various projects, and have used photographs to document everything from existing site conditions to excavation methods to type specimens. There are requirements and considerations to be taken into account--one must prove that the photos were not altered, or at least were not altered malliciously (I frequently put site IDs in my iPad photos, but keep the original files untouched as well, for example)--but that's nothing more than standard procedure.

Plus, if you could provide a type specimen we'd shut up about photos and videos. A type specimen would trump every other type of evidence or argument, no exceptions. But since you are incapable of providing one (if someone could, they would have by now), we are left with other data to explore. Basically, our desire to see photos or video is due to your side's failure to provide any better evidence. We're asking for the lowest quality evidence that would still allow you to draw your conclusions. We are doing you a favor here, one that would NEVER be extended to real scientists.

I'll go further: I will say it's not just unlikely, but that it's impossible. It's not impossible that some hominin migrated from Asia; obviously at least one did. However, Giganto did not. It is also impossible that a large hominin could exist undiscovered by science in the United States of America, for various historical, cultural, and scientific reasons. For example, multiple expiditions were sent out in order to find exactly this sort of creature (large mammalian megafauna that did not exist elsewhere) in order to refute or establish various biological theories of the 19th century. When repeated testing results in constant failures, the hypothesis can be rejected. Bigfoot has been proven to not exist with as much scientific accuracy as dragons, unicorns, and the fae (actually more, in the first two cases, but that's a separate issue).

I think you think I'm here to prove Bigfoot exists for you, I'm not. I don't have any viable evidence. But, the moment I get a body or part you're more than welcome to examine it.

To make a long story short, your opinion has been noted, pics are not viable evidence of an undiscovered species, we'd need a body or part on file for that as you well know, I don't claim to be the best researcher in the business no need for a lecture about what I need to do or how incompetent you believe me to be, I'm not one for name calling or mud tossing, and finally since you base your opinion that Giganto could not have migrated to North America as the other mammals and hominids did based on the lack of fossil evidence, I would say that is an opinion based on current available evidence and to be continued. Keep on believing everything you believe.

I've never seen a dragon or dragon tracks, except the kind in Komodo, I've never seen a unicorn or tracks made by one. I've never heard any reports of them in this area either. But, I have seen a large hairy primate, its tracks etc and taken plenty of eye witness reports of them. So while I may not spend time searching for dragons or unicorns, I'll keep at it on Bigfoot whether science or anyone else thinks they exist or not. I'm content knowing they exist, your opinion of that matters very little to me. Chris B.

 

[bruto]

Here I think is a part of the problem in a nutshell.

We have Chris telling us that the pictures are of a rather specific thing, of a specific size from a specific distance.

These claims strike many of us as preposterous. If you stood 51 feet away from a 12 foot ape, even if it is sitting down, and even if it is trying to hide behind bushes, two major explanations for the uninformative pictures exist: one is gross incompetence, and the other is dishonesty. It is hard to think of any third explanation for the quality of the pictures, and harder to think of any explanation for posting them that does not involve either dishonesty or delusion. One might roughly estimate the mass of a 12 foot animal, if one remembers Galileo, and expect that if it is proportioned more or less as a human is, it would likely be twice as wide and four times as heavy as a six foot man, who is leaner and lighter than, say, a Gorilla. It would have to be a pretty lean specimen not to top a half ton.

I have a sort of theory about bigfoot hunters. I suspect that many who are not outright hoaxers are not really convinced that their quarry exists, but they are dreadfully afraid it does and they'll miss the boat. As long as they can produce something, anything at all, that is not obviously nothing, they can claim priority if and when someone else actually gets something useful. It's about the only explanation other than outright hoaxing I can think of that would explain why any bigfoot hunter would embark on the job with the woebegone shortage of equipment and skill that characterize the pursuit.

The Chris videos are the Selden patents of bigfootery.

Don't take my theory too seriously. It's a thought exercise, mainly in vain, to explain things in a way that does not openly impugn intelligence.

 

[Correa Neto]

You know, you want me to explain to you how they could exist and how is it possible they could go undetected by science for so long. I get it. The answer is I don't know. But because I don't know the answers to these questions does not mean they do not exist, it means I don't know.

And again you are trying to dodge from the point I made- a new species of monkey (rather similar to others previously known) discovered at some remote corner of the world can to be used to open a door for a 3m-tall bipedal ape (something VERY different from known species) in USA and Canada living at some folks’ backyards.

Now, what about doing some unbiased brain work and considering what’s underneath the “I don’t know”? If you look for the answers, you’ll see it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for such an animal to be eluding us in 2014. Or 1960. Or 1890. Or 1790. It has not been found yet because it is not real. <- That’s a period.

Pictures of species may be acceptable for those that are already on file but not for Bigfoot. It'll take a body or part.

Nope. Imagery of good quality and reliable provenance can be scientific data. At the very least such material would show us skeptics are quite likely wrong and trigger a ton of scientific projects for bigfoot, which would result in a specimen or more and better footage. Blobs, PGF, fake pics, these are nothing but evidence bigfootery is composed, in a no small amount, of pranks and hoaxes. “Science won’t accept my images of bigfoot” is an old lame excuse. Bring something new to the table.

In particular I pointed out the ceolacanth , which was not a new find but a simple rediscovery of a known species that was mistakenly thought extinct. I'm of the opinion we may find Bigfoot to be a similar case. Why? Because they look alot like Giganto.

Oh, really?

Care to tell us how you managed to know how a gigantopithecus looked like? Which species of the Gigantopithecus genus are you talking about, by the way? Would your source be Munns’ standing upright reconstruction?
How can you know they are not related to howler monkeys? Maybe Patty’s boobs are actually vocal sacks. Maybe they are marsupials. You don’t know. Unknown species. Maybe they are the kids from Mystique and The Beast. You know, those mutants from Marvel comics. This would explain LOTS of things. Hairy apey thing shape shifts to guy in ghillie suit, a tree stump, some hot girl/gal, a gorilla costume, Hieronimus, Gimlim, messes with camera traps…

 

[River]

That was paraphrased from posts made here and also Dr Eugenie Scott's Bigfoot presentation. I will agree to assume everything has already been discovered seems dishonest and unlikely.



I really don't see the need for an opinion vs opinion debate of why Bigfoot hasn't been discovered by science yet. I'll admit I don't know the answer.

As far as the giganto comparison, I've compared reconstructions of giganto skulls (models) against what I've seen and it's a match. Along with the description. I realize you may not accept the reconstructed skull model or proposed description of Giganto, but that's not my dept. I only know those guys are very good at their models even based on a small section of bone. Everything is proportional.



Well, River seemed to wanna throw some links of my pics and comments from my website for discussion here and I've been entertaining that. I know the pics are terrible, but it's all I was able to take away from that sighting.

I don't expect the pics to reflect exactly what I saw. Here's my only gripe. Alot of guys here are CERTAIN the pics do not show a Bigfoot. But, they fail to comment or voice an opinion of what the pic shows to them? If they claim it's too blurry to make anything out then how in the World can they say it's DEFINITELY NOT a Bigfoot? Curious.



Yep, all those self financed as I said.



I think you think I'm here to prove Bigfoot exists for you, I'm not. I don't have any viable evidence. But, the moment I get a body or part you're more than welcome to examine it.

To make a long story short, your opinion has been noted, pics are not viable evidence of an undiscovered species, we'd need a body or part on file for that as you well know, I don't claim to be the best researcher in the business no need for a lecture about what I need to do or how incompetent you believe me to be, I'm not one for name calling or mud tossing, and finally since you base your opinion that Giganto could not have migrated to North America as the other mammals and hominids did based on the lack of fossil evidence, I would say that is an opinion based on current available evidence and to be continued. Keep on believing everything you believe.

I've never seen a dragon or dragon tracks, except the kind in Komodo, I've never seen a unicorn or tracks made by one. I've never heard any reports of them in this area either. But, I have seen a large hairy primate, its tracks etc and taken plenty of eye witness reports of them. So while I may not spend time searching for dragons or unicorns, I'll keep at it on Bigfoot whether science or anyone else thinks they exist or not. I'm content knowing they exist, your opinion of that matters very little to me. Chris B.

My bolded. Because bigfoot does not exist. If you feel differently, you're definitely being asked to show that here. You haven't. The last time I checked, myths and stories do not show up in pictures. If you feel like bigfoot is a real entity, please by all means show us all. Otherwise, why in the world should or would we take you seriously on this topic? Also, we have described what we see in the photos. You failed to describe how you could differentiate between male and female on these claimed sightings. How can you tell Chris?

Every single bigfoot claim made to date that has been resolved is one of these three things. A hoax, delusional people, or misidentification. Feel free to prove that statement wrong if you can.

Chris, it's very simple. If you want folks here to take you seriously, show a photograph depicting a bigfoot. Not branches and shadows. While I'm sure you've heard this term used before. It's fitting when used describing your photographs.