Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ChrisBFRPKY]

In other words, every scientist ever, was just wasting his time, because all the work he did is worthless, because anyone studying his work, isn't learning anything, unless they actually go and do the work themselves.

This is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard from a Bigfooter.

Weird as per your misrepresentation of my statement. Let me simplify.
When investigating the "unknown", you won't find anything on it in science books because it's "unknown". Better? Chris B.

 

[Resume]

When investigating the "unknown", you won't find anything on it in science books because it's "unknown". Better? Chris B.

You wouldn't find anything about the biological diversity of NA in "science books?" You wouldn't find anything about primates in the "science books?" You wouldn't find anything about the exploitation of North American fauna in "science books?" Have you read many?

 

[William Parcher]

There is fascinating psychology behind those who support the video as being authentic. They universally promote the thought that the cameraman is simply a lucky eyewitness. A hoax is discounted based on the idea that a hoaxer in a costume would not wait around with the huge gators and cottonmouths until somebody shows up in a boat.

I believe that this kind of reasoning is used in many Bigfoot encounter stories (and with presented evidence) to discount or eliminate the possibility of a hoax. The Bigfoot promoter immediately separates the witness from the hoax itself. This causes other Bigfoot believers to evaluate the evidence from that same perspective. The underlying theme is that the messenger/witness is innocent of hoaxing. Something like, "I may have possibly been hoaxed, but I am not a hoaxer or liar and I am telling you exactly what I saw."

IMO, this is done regularly and intentionally to keep hoaxes alive as possible genuine evidence.

Further and in a bigger perspective, it is my opinion that the great majority of actions and words from Bigfootery are intentional strategies to keep the Myth of Bigfoot alive and active. This is mostly because these people have chosen this subject as a hobby and pastime, and some of them monetarily profit from it.

 

[Resume]

There is fascinating psychology behind those who support the video as being authentic. They universally promote the thought that the cameraman is simply a lucky eyewitness. A hoax is discounted based on the idea that a hoaxer in a costume would not wait around with the huge gators and cottonmouths until somebody shows up in a boat.

I believe that this kind of reasoning is used in many Bigfoot encounter stories (and with presented evidence) to discount or eliminate the possibility of a hoax. The Bigfoot promoter immediately separates the witness from the hoax itself. This causes other Bigfoot believers to evaluate the evidence from that same perspective. The underlying theme is that the messenger/witness is innocent of hoaxing. Something like, "I may have possibly been hoaxed, but I am not a hoaxer or liar and I am telling you exactly what I saw."

IMO, this is done regularly and intentionally to keep hoaxes alive as possible genuine evidence.

Further and in a bigger perspective, it is my opinion that the great majority of actions and words from Bigfootery are intentional strategies to keep the Myth of Bigfoot alive and active. This is mostly because these people have chosen this subject as a hobby and pastime, and some of them monetarily profit from it.

The reporter is in on the hoax. I don't get why footers don't get that.

ETA: Though I guess many do get it but just play along with the BLAARG.

 

[William Parcher]

The reporter is in on the hoax. I don't get why footers don't get that.

ETA: Though I guess many do get it but just play along with the BLAARG.

When you say "reporter" you don't mean journalist reporters in media, do you? I want to clarify what you just said. When reporters from the Wall Street Journal write about Tom Biscardi they are not really part of his Bigfoot hoaxing, right?

 

[Resume]

When you say "reporter" you don't mean journalist reporters in media, do you? I want to clarify what you just said. When reporters from the Wall Street Journal write about Tom Biscardi they are not really part of his Bigfoot hoaxing, right?

Bigfoot reporter. The goof person who makes the report.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You wouldn't find anything about the biological diversity of NA in "science books?"

Yep, but not with Bigfoot included.

You wouldn't find anything about primates in the "science books?"

Yep, but not about Bigfoot.

You wouldn't find anything about the exploitation of North American fauna in "science books?"

Yep, but again, not about Bigfoot.

Have you read many?

Yep, a few. Chris B.

 

[The Shrike]

So why don't those science books say anything about bigfoot? Is it a conspiracy? I mean, those authors have all been in the woods and seen the same shadows Chris has. How come they can't tell that those shadows are bigfoots doing primatey things?

 

[Resume]

There's no bigfoot in those books because the authors aren't cheating Chris. They're not engaging in special pleading or beginning with the conclusion or assigning evidentiary weight to anecdotes that cannot be affirmed or nullified.

You guys do this, and pretend it means something.

You're cheating.

ETA: I guess I could say you're pretending, but I don't think that would make you any happier.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There's no bigfoot in those books because the authors aren't cheating Chris. They're not engaging in special pleading or beginning with the conclusion or assigning evidentiary weight to anecdotes that cannot be affirmed or nullified.

You guys do this, and pretend it means something.

You're cheating.

ETA: I guess I could say you're pretending, but I don't think that would make you any happier.

Well now you're wandering pretty far off topic. There is nothing about Bigfoot in the science books as it remains an "unknown" to science. So studying them will not enlighten one about Bigfoot.

When you say "you guys do this" I'd like to point out I speak for myself and do not represent anyone else in any way. Hence my personal opinions and views are my own. So, I'd rather you just stick to what "I do" or what "I say" please, so nobody gets confused.
Thanks, Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So why don't those science books say anything about bigfoot? Is it a conspiracy? I mean, those authors have all been in the woods and seen the same shadows Chris has. How come they can't tell that those shadows are bigfoots doing primatey things?

I suppose it's because there's no type specimen on file. Like any other animal before their type specimen was collected.
Conspiracy? I don't think so personally. I think you're stretching things a bit by assuming all authors of science texts are avid outdoorsmen though.
Bad video will not enter Bigfoot into the science books, it'll take a type specimen.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Well now you're wandering pretty far off topic. There is nothing about Bigfoot in the science books as it remains an "unknown" to science. So studying them will not enlighten one about Bigfoot.

Nice try, but there is no bigfoot in those books not because it's unknown but because there is zero (0) reliable evidence to even suggest it exists. Studying those books however will give one insight as to how a new species is catalogued, and why the one you're keen on is out of the question.

When you say "you guys do this" I'd like to point out I speak for myself and do not represent anyone else in any way. Hence my personal opinions and views are my own. So, I'd rather you just stick to what "I do" or what "I say" please, so nobody gets confused.
Thanks, Chris B.

No one is confused about what you do, or that you're much different than any of your fellow proponents that visit here on occasion. Every fringe believer believes their methodology/evidence/flavor of pseudoscience is different, but the truth is, they ain't, not much.

 

[River]

There is a lot of griping going on in bigfoot circles about how scientists won't put real effort into collecting a bigfoot. Well, that excuse is overplayed. Scientists are out in those same woods every day, looking for animals and for new things if they come across it. How do you think these animals became "discovered" to begin with? (the actual cataloged animals that are being studied, not the make believe ones) The become discovered by people being out in the field. Bigfooters act like this isnt happening because people aren't pouring money into the field. Bigfoot isnt being cataloged because scientists arent specifically looking for it, even though they are in the same areas constantly... uhhh.... right. makes sense.... lets stick with that...

It's really a lame excuse, and I'm surprised it's not called out more often on those forums and blogs where footers collect. The scientists are there in the woods. The bigfoot isnt.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Nice try, but there is no bigfoot in those books not because it's unknown but because there is zero (0) reliable evidence to even suggest it exists. Studying those books however will give one insight as to how a new species is catalogued, and why the one you're keen on is out of the question.

"Reliable evidence" would be a type specimen right? But there is evidence to support these creatures existence even if considered "unreliable". Sightings, tracks etc.

No one is confused about what you do, or that you're much different than any of your fellow proponents that visit here on occasion. Every fringe believer believes their methodology/evidence/flavor of pseudoscience is different, but the truth is, they ain't, not much.

There's actually a staggering amount of difference in the opinions of Bigfoot enthusiasts. Some think Bigfoot is paranormal, magical or spiritual. Some think Bigfoot is extraterrestrial. Some think it's simply an undiscovered primate with no paranormal abilities. Although most skeptics would prefer to combine all those aspects mentioned and attribute them to represent all Bigfoot enthusiasts beliefs, I was simply pointing out that the "you guys" grouping doesn't apply here. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

"Reliable evidence" would be a type specimen right? But there is evidence to support these creatures existence even if considered "unreliable". Sightings, tracks etc.

Repeating this over and over relentlessly doesn't make it any more compelling.

There's actually a staggering amount of difference in the opinions of Bigfoot enthusiasts. Some think Bigfoot is paranormal, magical or spiritual. Some think Bigfoot is extraterrestrial. Some think it's simply an undiscovered primate with no paranormal abilities. Although most skeptics would prefer to combine all those aspects mentioned and attribute them to represent all Bigfoot enthusiasts beliefs, I was simply pointing out that the "you guys" grouping doesn't apply here. Chris B.

Staggering is gilding the lily; we don't get many paranormal footers here. We do get many of you guys that are enthralled with the idea of elusive footie living off the fat of the sylvan ecotopia where few humans ever visit.

Let me repeat this: the romantic and uneducated notion that the North American continent is some sort of wilderness is a myth; it has long been settled and exploited (sometimes ruthlessly), from the High Arctic to the Everglades. By the time the Europeans arrived, it's now estimated that NA and SA had roughly the same population as Europe. If a 9-ft monkey were hereabouts, it would have been long ago noticed, collected and catalogued, a type specimen in the Field Musuem.

 

[William Parcher]

There's actually a staggering amount of difference in the opinions of Bigfoot enthusiasts. Some think Bigfoot is paranormal, magical or spiritual. Some think Bigfoot is extraterrestrial. Some think it's simply an undiscovered primate with no paranormal abilities. Although most skeptics would prefer to combine all those aspects mentioned and attribute them to represent all Bigfoot enthusiasts beliefs, I was simply pointing out that the "you guys" grouping doesn't apply here. Chris B.

Every single one of them agrees that Bigfoot exists in spite of everyone else saying that it doesn't. "You guys" are all exactly the same. Every single one of you are inside the same box.

 

[Resume]

It's really a lame excuse, and I'm surprised it's not called out more often on those forums and blogs where footers collect. The scientists are there in the woods. The bigfoot isnt.

To be fair, The Shrike often makes that point here (and in the past at other venues) but it's argued that since these scientists aren't specifically looking for ole foo, they miss him. It's hard to believe that an adult could make such an argument, but there you have it.

 

[comncents]

"Reliable evidence" would be a type specimen right? But there is evidence to support these creatures existence even if considered "unreliable". Sightings, tracks etc."- Chris..

^^This is the basic view of the believer. Another way of saying it is "skeptics don't believe because there is no "reliable evidence".

The lack of "reliable evidence" is only a small part of picture. The big picture is that there is so much "evidence" that bigfoot doesn't exist. The old footer quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is wrong. Absence of bigfoot evidence is exactly that - proof that he's not there. There are more sightings reports of Santa than Bigfoot...does that mean Santa exists?

So, Chris, based on your experience and knowledge about Bigfoot, is the figure in the film a real bigfoot or a hoax? Please give a real answer, like "yes, I think this one is real" or "no, I think it is a hoax," not one of those "I don't comment on other peoples research" answers. Thanks.

 

[comncents]

"There's actually a staggering amount of difference in the opinions of Bigfoot enthusiasts" - Chris

Doesn't this tell you something? (like everyone is making it up?)

 

[The Shrike]

Settler: "I saw a footprint like a cat's only much bigger."
Indian trapper guide: "Yeah, that's 'mountain lion.' He screams in the woods and eats deer."

Sometime thereafter:

Settler's gun: "Bang!"
Settler: "Hey, that's one of them mountain lions. I bet it's hide would fetch me a bob or two down at the trading post."

Wash, rinse, and repeat until just about every mountain lion, wolf, bear, deer, elk, bison, crane, turkey, beaver, otter, fisher was extirpated from the Lower 48 east of the Rockies.