Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Resume]

It's much easier than that. Simply identify river corridors. It's not that difficult.
Chris B.

Any navigable river is a road.

 

[The Shrike]

"Video is under analysis."

If a video requires 4 years of analysis then chances are it's worthless.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

****, fur, piss, viable trackways, dead footies on occasion.


I base that on the fact that if we had footie behavior nailed down, we'd have footie nailed down and we wouldn't be discussing this on an obscure internet skeptic site.


It's not a straw man but a fact.

Most certainly there were witnesses. It's just that we've relegated these creatures to mythic status, which we will also do one day with ole foo.


As there is no behavior reliably attributed to footie, how can you tell the difference?


They're getting closer as to the real number of false reports.


Again, how the hell do you know what's ridiculous or not? Not a single bigfoot researcher can show us a single example of bigfoot behavior. If you people have more than just campfire stories, go ahead and bring it. If you can't show it . . . well, you know.

I don't think anyone has all Bigfoot behaviors nailed down yet. Although there are some similarities with great apes as pointed out in Steve's book. Good info IMO and others that tend to view these beings as a biological living creatures and nothing more.

How does one come to this conclusion? Investigation and research, how else?

You asked how do you know what's ridiculous or not? Well that's left up to the individual based on their own personal research and findings. That's why people do research, to learn. Personally I don't think one will get very far by trying to explain one mystery with another. Someone would have to be extremely gullible to accept every reported behavior as fact.

The flaw in your statement is assuming every reported behavior is attributable to Bigfoot. It's not. Common sense would be the first method to use for a new researcher. It leads to some fun at times. Smoking Bigfoot? See, that's funny. But not because a primate could not smoke, of course they can and usually with much enjoyment, I've seen chimps smoke and if prompted, I'd supply a lit cigarette for them at times. (yes I know this was wrong and I most often supplied them with a hard candy, granola or fruit treat) But the common sense thing to ask is where would Bigfoot get a pack of smokes and a lighter? lol Ridiculous. So some conclusions can be reached with common sense.

I'm not gonna get into a "show me the monkey" debate. I'm merely commenting on the flaws present in your conclusion.

Any navigable river is a road.

If you wish to include rivers as roads, well then certainly I feel you'd have a much better chance at viewing one from a boat than a car. IMO

"Video is under analysis."

If a video requires 4 years of analysis then chances are it's worthless.

Everything is worthless without scientific proof. A body or a bone is what it will take. Chris B.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Video is under analysis."

If a video requires 4 years of analysis then chances are it's worthless.

Yeah.

How can it require much analysis at all if it's in HD from 15 feet away?

Chris can spot a bigfoot, no two large ones, in the video that is from 51 feet away, where I can't make out anything at all but blobs and artifacts.

He's very sure that he can see bigfoot in these vids and pics. He has posted them at his web page and he makes this clear.

Yet Chris needs years to analyze the HD video taken from 15 feet away, featuring the full face of a bigfoot...?

Then says "some day" when I ask to see it?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0026.JPG

Above is a pic of an interesting track found in the center of a gravel lane on 03-06-10. This one was approximately 14 to 16 inches long and 5 or 6 inches wide at the heel. The track was in the center of the lane and was made at a 45 degree angle to the lane. A quick check revealed the path the creature had taken. It stepped from the side of the lane to the center, then, it stepped to the other side of the lane. 1 track only was pressed into the center of the gravel lane. The depth was approximately 1/4 inch. The track was VERY fresh and I was not making any impressions, I'm 215 lbs. Here's the odd part, by a glance you think you're looking at a left foot print, it's not, this is a RIGHT foot print. Most of the really large prints I've seen didn't have much of a curve on either side of the foot. They're almost like a straight line on both sides. This one has a curve that would seem to be an instep except the instep is actually on the outside of the foot. Weird. Of course I guess to be fair I must admit this track could belong to a large human with a foot deformation that relocates the instep to the outside of the foot. Oh, and by a modest estimate, he'd weigh over 700 lbs to be pushing his feet that deep in packed dry gravel...walking thru the woods barefoot in early March..... 30 minutes later more evidence was collected to support the supposition this was likely freshly made by a creature. Chris B.

Chris, where are the pics of the other tracks this creature made on either side of the gravel road? How wide is this road?

What's all the ridiculous stuff about a human foot with a relocated instep? That junk kills any credibility you might have. Is it supposed to be funny?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bfro.net/news/images/patterson_color.jpg

Why doesn't Patty have this clear "reverse instep"?

Is she a different species of bigfoot?

Yet Alderfoot has it...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace6.jpg

 

[Resume]

I don't think anyone has all Bigfoot behaviors nailed down yet. Although there are some similarities with great apes as pointed out in Steve's book. Good info IMO and others that tend to view these beings as a biological living creatures and nothing more.

No one has any behavior nailed down at all; it's never been observed. You speak of this cryptid as if you folks had more than campfire stories. You do not. You do not have a single piece of verifiable biological evidence for you claims; you have no objective evidence for any of your stories.

 

[The Shrike]

Everything is worthless without scientific proof. A body or a bone is what it will take. Chris B.

Yes and no. Here's a post I made to the BFF a few years ago (just one of many times I addressed this topic there, but folks never seemed to believe me):

I've also oft-written here about my interpretation of diagnostic photographic evidence. The cynics dismiss my statements about this and claim that I'd just never accept anything as good enough. Some have even stated things to the effect that if I'm not convinced by the PGF, there's no way photography would ever convince me. (I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry in response to that one.) Anyway, imagine something like this, only the photos clearly indicated a massive, hair-covered, bipedal hominid. The provenance is confirmed, the photos are freely available for independent analysis, etc. All above-board like that with diagnostic photography? Bigfoot would be instantly propelled (for me) from "no way" to "you know, there just might be something to this."

 

[Resume]

How does one come to this conclusion? Investigation and research, how else?

You asked how do you know what's ridiculous or not? Well that's left up to the individual based on their own personal research and findings. That's why people do research, to learn. Personally I don't think one will get very far by trying to explain one mystery with another.

Stop insulting real wildlife professionals with this noise.

ETA: See post 1868

 

[Correa Neto]

An enterprising poster could identify the areas in that part of Kentucky that are "2 miles from a roadway."

Piece of cake.

Download vectorial database of roads, load it on ArcGIS, MapInfo or similar sofware. Select all objects from the layer you just built. Click on the "buffer" tool icon, set radius to 2 miles, click OK and.. TA DA!

Protip- get ready to see a big blurred area. With some luck, it'll look like bigfoot.

 

[River]

Refuses to answer questions like how you can tell the subjects you claim to see are male or female. Insists the scary make believe monster is living in the woods near him. Refuses any alternative that could explain his "sighting".

Chris, knows there is no bigfoot. This is all posing for your bigfoot buddies and website. You should reconsider your approach to this subject. Would you like for kids to be "educated" about bigfoot by someone like yourself?

Refuses to show "HD video" of creature from 15 feet away that he claims to have as evidence. (im sure there is a reason he refuses to show this. i bet you can guess the reason)

Insists he's right and the entire world of science is wrong.

Apparently these bigfeet do not leave any evidence of their existence, and they are invisible to anyone that does not believe.

 

[Correa Neto]

Pshaw! You think Meldrum is tough? Les Stroud had a Bigfoot break trees AND push down on the top of his tent. In the middle of the California Gold Rush area of Humboldt County. He couldn't stick the camera out of the tent though. It was too dangerous.

Meh. Again.

Forgot Meldrum had an experience with bigfoot at a tent? Big hand pressing the tent, heavy footsteps...

Legend says they ended the night singing "Macho Man!"

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, where are the pics of the other tracks this creature made on either side of the gravel road? How wide is this road?

What's all the ridiculous stuff about a human foot with a relocated instep? That junk kills any credibility you might have. Is it supposed to be funny?

I'm not interested in a debate of any pics. If you wish to learn about foot structure you'll have to invest the time and study.

Credibility, you know, I think that term is over rated. Many scientists refuse to comment on Bigfoot for fear their credibility will be attacked. I'm not. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. There's a good reason I feel this way.

http://www.bfro.net/news/images/patterson_color.jpg

Why doesn't Patty have this clear "reverse instep"?

Is she a different species of bigfoot?

Yet Alderfoot has it...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace6.jpg

If you'll notice, the Ray Wallace stompers have an instep on both sides. In regard to Patty's tracks vs Alderfoot, you'll need to determine that info yourself. Are you certain Patty is real? That's interesting.

No one has any behavior nailed down at all; it's never been observed. You speak of this cryptid as if you folks had more than campfire stories. You do not. You do not have a single piece of verifiable biological evidence for you claims; you have no objective evidence for any of your stories.

I agree, I haven't provided a single piece of verifiable evidence for you and don't intend to at this time. Can we please get off the "show me the monkey" and focus on the topic. Or are you finished with debate of the topic and simply stepping back to the safety of "show me the monkey"?

Yes and no. Here's a post I made to the BFF a few years ago (just one of many times I addressed this topic there, but folks never seemed to believe me):

I've also oft-written here about my interpretation of diagnostic photographic evidence. The cynics dismiss my statements about this and claim that I'd just never accept anything as good enough. Some have even stated things to the effect that if I'm not convinced by the PGF, there's no way photography would ever convince me. (I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry in response to that one.) Anyway, imagine something like this, only the photos clearly indicated a massive, hair-covered, bipedal hominid. The provenance is confirmed, the photos are freely available for independent analysis, etc. All above-board like that with diagnostic photography? Bigfoot would be instantly propelled (for me) from "no way" to "you know, there just might be something to this."

Pics are wonderful, I like to view wildlife pics too, but how do we know something hasn't been photoshopped? ie not acceptable as evidence for proof of existence. One cannot extract DNA or a type specimen from a pic.

Stop insulting real wildlife professionals with this noise.

ETA: See post 1868

Yes I saw that post and responded. I'm not aware of any insults made to wildlife professionals if any are lurking here.

Piece of cake.

Download vectorial database of roads, load it on ArcGIS, MapInfo or similar sofware. Select all objects from the layer you just built. Click on the "buffer" tool icon, set radius to 2 miles, click OK and.. TA DA!

Protip- get ready to see a big blurred area. With some luck, it'll look like bigfoot.

See, it's easy, now simply cross reference those areas you find with reported bigfoot sightings and you have a starting point. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

I agree, I haven't provided a single piece of verifiable evidence for you and don't intend to at this time. Can we please get off the "show me the monkey" and focus on the topic. Or are you finished with debate of the topic and simply stepping back to the safety of "show me the monkey"?

You're making claims on a skeptic's forum, of course people are going to ask for evidence. It's almost as if you're playing some sort of game here.

Hmmm.

 

[comncents]

Rather than an "built-in excuse" for the footers not collecting evidence, did you consider this may be a common behavior being described for Bigfoot?

Chris B.

Long ago I might have, but now I'm a "knower"...I know Footie doesn't exist - not in South Central Kentucky, not in South Central Oklahoma or South Central L.A.

I'll wager that if Cervelo goes hiking with you, Footie won't be around...dang the bad luck!

We can talk about seeing cryptids, but in the case of bigfoot - it has evolved into a big game. I'm glad you believe bigfoot is a biological entity rather than cigarette smoking super being, but if you take that though to a logical conclusion, you would understand why a 12' tall biological entity would have already been found in North America. BTW thanks for reminding me about the NDA - no BLAARGer is complete without an NDA.

 

[bruto]

If you keep saying there's a monkey, some people will, rightfully say, "show us the monkey." If you don't want to show people the monkey, don't tell them there's a monkey.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not interested in a debate of any pics. If you wish to learn about foot structure you'll have to invest the time and study.

Credibility, you know, I think that term is over rated. Many scientists refuse to comment on Bigfoot for fear their credibility will be attacked. I'm not. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. There's a good reason I feel this way.

If you'll notice, the Ray Wallace stompers have an instep on both sides. In regard to Patty's tracks vs Alderfoot, you'll need to determine that info yourself. Are you certain Patty is real? That's interesting.

If you think blowing off my questions with trite replies helps your credibility, then keep on doing it.

I'm not interested in a debate of any pics.

Really?

Really?

Besides, I didn't say a word about debating any pics...?
I only asked to see more pics, and I asked how wide the road was...

Skeptics aren't the only ones reading your posts...

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

There's a myth about hunting being peddled - the less effort he puts in, the lower his stature.

If you are fishing, hunting, plant gathering, logging, etc. for your livelihood then the sign of knowing what you're doing is efficiency. Maximum product for minimum effort.

You want the berry patch that gets you a gallon in an hour round-trip, not to hike twenty miles for a handful. You want to shoot a moose in your yard. Catch 40 fat salmon in an hour with a net, not cast some stupid fly for seven hours to get one skinny little grayling.
It is common sense to park as close as you can to something that weighs a lot and must be transported. Same with bigfoot. If they are actually there, don't tell me how much effort we'll have to spend finding them.

'footers come home with zero product 100% of the time. Efficiency = 0. By extension, the mightiest, wisest bigfoot hunter has 50 straight years of zero. The deer hunter who bags one every year at the crack of dawn on opening day... he's a buffoon to be ridiculed in the bigfoot world the same way a real scientist who has actually discovered new species is ridiculed.

This iron law of opposites is a singular feature of 'footery: things in reality being the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

Q: Can a person use a game camera to capture a picture of Bigfoot?
A: You can try, but it's highly unlikely you'll capture one on a game camera.

Care to elaborate, Chris?

You got within 15 feet of one with a camera...

You apparently remained within 51 feet of a 12 foot tall one for a while, with a camera...

 

[Resume]

Catch 40 fat salmon in an hour with a net, not cast some stupid fly for seven hours to get one skinny little grayling.

Hey . . . it was six hours.