Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ChrisBFRPKY]

To ABP's specific point, there is no place so consistently providing the kind of tripe that passes for Bigfoot evidence as the Ouachitas of Oklahoma. Forget the NAWACkies for a moment, and consider all of the hopeful and true believers out there. If they're sincere in their beliefs they too should be spending their time in that region in the hope of catching a glimpse or perhaps a million-dollar photo. That's what all the ivorybill believers did a few years ago - they descended en masse on the White/Cache river basin.

Why don't bigfooters do the same? Prime example - Moneymaker. So what if he can't get access to a measly 10 acre inholding, he's got enough money to gain access to any adjacent property he likes, in addition to the abundant public land. Why aren't they there right now, you know, finding bigfoot? Speaks volumes to me.

How do you know they're not there now? Because nobody told you?
You assume much. Chris B.

 

[Jodie]

Exactly so, and these contradictions are a hallmark, not an exception to, his BLAARGing.

SlowVehicle - a student of doublethink understands that it is carried out with such precision that it is very conscious, detailed planning mechanism. It is not that they "can't see" their contradictions - they are specifically constructing those contradictions in the service of an objective. So with Orwell's writings or studies of cults that practice groupthink, etc. it is very obvious what purpose the doublethink is serving; its strategic importance. It isn't an aimless capacity to believe random contradictory things at the same time.

In the instant case of asserting DWA does not have faith, but is a true believer, is it because he believes both things simultaneously? More generally, does he have this highly integrated system of contradictions that he must keep memorized at all times? Or is it mere lazy gaming where you just make stuff up as you go along with every skeptic point?

This is a good study item from OntarioSquatch below - he had to think a while about how to respond to the contradiction that none of these BLAARGers bother going to the Ouachitas where they profess to believe all the nonsense coming out of the Area X buffoons:



This is not an expression of belief bigfoot are there. In fact, it is announcing that he would only be able to CLAIM a sighting, not actually HAVE one. So he isn't holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. He has confirmed for us that he knows he won't have one.

It isn't an explanation for why a believer would not go there. Like "it costs too much" or "I don't know where it is" or "I could get shot", etc. All he says is that he could go there and lie, he has not, so we should figure out for ourselves why that is a reason not to go there. He doesn't even HAVE two contradictory beliefs for us to point to as doublethink.

What you have trouble with is understanding why people BLAARG. Because it isn't something you would do yourself. We don't understand how people can rape, torture, or like duck egg fetuses and that ghastly shrimp paste my wife eats. A lot of people cannot accept that gays love each other the same way heterosexuals do, or that mixed racial couples can love each other or a teen hottie can love a dirty old man. But they do, and with wild abandon.

BLAARGing is fun for them. It wouldn't be for you, but that is the very thing used against you. That is why extremely bright PhD's can argue for years with them on the BFF or here, all in vain. Because they are working from the wrong premise. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with having no conscience about being deceptive. That is the requirement for playing the game. People who have a conscience can't flippantly contradict themselves from one sentence to the next. It makes them feel bad. So they can't empathize with those who can.

I remember last year when we were first trying to figure out where Area X was that I suggested you go out there and check it out. I realize you are in Alaska but I got the " it costs too much" excuse. Sometimes it is a real reason.

I can assure you that it is more than a game for some of these people, ABP. The die hards can be down right scary and they will threaten you if you challenge their universe.

 

[rockinkt]

I remember last year when we were first trying to figure out where Area X was that I suggested you go out there and check it out. I realize you are in Alaska but I got the " it costs too much" excuse. Sometimes it is a real reason.

I can assure you that it is more than a game for some of these people, ABP. The die hards can be down right scary and they will threaten you if you challenge their universe.

ABP did say "it costs too much" is a real excuse.

 

[The Shrike]

How do you know they're not there now? Because nobody told you?
You assume much. Chris B.

Chris?! I just figured you had me on ignore or something seeing as you hadn't responded to post 3258 way back on page 82.

As to your question above, when people who are committed to finding something elusive actually believe there is something to be discovered, many of them will act accordingly.

In the case of the putative Ivory-billed Woodpecker rediscovery in Arkansas, here are some ways that people responded: the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, USFWS, USFS, The Nature Conservancy, and other organizations/agencies went into "code red" to mobilize people and technology to scour the region for additional confirmatory evidence. Dozens of people (including one of my closest friends and one of my graduate students at the time) took leaves of absence to slog day after day through those cypress swamps, some for weeks at a time. (I think the official minimum commitment for volunteers then was 2 weeks.) Why did they do that? Because some well-educated people said there were Ivorybills there and there was a grainy video that kinda sorta might have shown one.

Are you suggesting that there's been a similar response to claims of bigfoot coming from the NAWACkies at Area X? They've had more than 10 years of these claims, with stories of the creatures being seen by their experts, stories of them firing upon said wood apes, etc. They're encountering wood apes much more frequently than those initial claims of Ivorybill encounters. Clearly if bigfoot is real, there's a population of them in the Ouachitas and the first one to get even a decent photo will be able to retire early. If I were convinced such creatures were really there, I know where I would've traveled for Spring Break this year. I've seen several episodes of Finding Bigfoot, and Moneymaker et al. don't seem to have been parked there for the past several years. It's almost as if they don't want to find those bigfoots . . .

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

ABP did say "it costs too much" is a real excuse.

Oh. I have her on ignore and don't recall the exchange, but there aren't any bigfoot to go see there, so no matter what the expense is, it does not pass a cost-benefit test for anyone who knows there are no bigfoot there.

We are honest about knowing there are no bigfoot. The BLAARGers pretend to believe. But their actions are the same as a non-believer in this respect.

Cervelo went to take some nice pictures of the roads, proving how they were lying about the remote, difficult nature of the place. An ordinary two-wheeled drive passenger car can travel easily on the roads, and millions do.

But we already know they are lying. The only thing I am sure is not a lie is the presence of bigfoot in Thailand. Hence, my disappointment that nobody has ponied up the dough for my expedition there.

 

[tsig]

Oh. I have her on ignore and don't recall the exchange, but there aren't any bigfoot to go see there, so no matter what the expense is, it does not pass a cost-benefit test for anyone who knows there are no bigfoot there.

We are honest about knowing there are no bigfoot. The BLAARGers pretend to believe. But their actions are the same as a non-believer in this respect.

Cervelo went to take some nice pictures of the roads, proving how they were lying about the remote, difficult nature of the place. An ordinary two-wheeled drive passenger car can travel easily on the roads, and millions do.

But we already know they are lying. The only thing I am sure is not a lie is the presence of bigfoot in Thailand. Hence, my disappointment that nobody has ponied up the dough for my expedition there.

Thailand has Bigtit not bigfoot.

 

[rockinkt]

Oh. I have her on ignore and don't recall the exchange, but there aren't any bigfoot to go see there, so no matter what the expense is, it does not pass a cost-benefit test for anyone who knows there are no bigfoot there.

We are honest about knowing there are no bigfoot. The BLAARGers pretend to believe. But their actions are the same as a non-believer in this respect.

Cervelo went to take some nice pictures of the roads, proving how they were lying about the remote, difficult nature of the place. An ordinary two-wheeled drive passenger car can travel easily on the roads, and millions do.

But we already know they are lying. The only thing I am sure is not a lie is the presence of bigfoot in Thailand. Hence, my disappointment that nobody has ponied up the dough for my expedition there.

I think putting her on ignore is a great idea and will probably save me some time in the sin bin.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris?! I just figured you had me on ignore or something seeing as you hadn't responded to post 3258 way back on page 82.

As to your question above, when people who are committed to finding something elusive actually believe there is something to be discovered, many of them will act accordingly.

In the case of the putative Ivory-billed Woodpecker rediscovery in Arkansas, here are some ways that people responded: the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, USFWS, USFS, The Nature Conservancy, and other organizations/agencies went into "code red" to mobilize people and technology to scour the region for additional confirmatory evidence. Dozens of people (including one of my closest friends and one of my graduate students at the time) took leaves of absence to slog day after day through those cypress swamps, some for weeks at a time. (I think the official minimum commitment for volunteers then was 2 weeks.) Why did they do that? Because some well-educated people said there were Ivorybills there and there was a grainy video that kinda sorta might have shown one.

Are you suggesting that there's been a similar response to claims of bigfoot coming from the NAWACkies at Area X? They've had more than 10 years of these claims, with stories of the creatures being seen by their experts, stories of them firing upon said wood apes, etc. They're encountering wood apes much more frequently than those initial claims of Ivorybill encounters. Clearly if bigfoot is real, there's a population of them in the Ouachitas and the first one to get even a decent photo will be able to retire early. If I were convinced such creatures were really there, I know where I would've traveled for Spring Break this year. I've seen several episodes of Finding Bigfoot, and Moneymaker et al. don't seem to have been parked there for the past several years. It's almost as if they don't want to find those bigfoots . . .

Yes, I saw that. I didn't respond as there is nothing to be gained by continuous back and forth about birders here.

I suggest the field of Bigfoot research may be a bit more competitive than you suspect. Any reported "hot" area will have an influx of researchers in and around it.

A pic would not gain you anything other than ridicule. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Oh. I have her on ignore and don't recall the exchange, but there aren't any bigfoot to go see there, so no matter what the expense is, it does not pass a cost-benefit test for anyone who knows there are no bigfoot there.

We are honest about knowing there are no bigfoot. The BLAARGers pretend to believe. But their actions are the same as a non-believer in this respect.

Cervelo went to take some nice pictures of the roads, proving how they were lying about the remote, difficult nature of the place. An ordinary two-wheeled drive passenger car can travel easily on the roads, and millions do.

But we already know they are lying. The only thing I am sure is not a lie is the presence of bigfoot in Thailand. Hence, my disappointment that nobody has ponied up the dough for my expedition there.

It's too bad you're joking. I could actually help you with this expedition.
Chris B.

 

[Craig4]

Yes, I saw that. I didn't respond as there is nothing to be gained by continuous back and forth about birders here.

I suggest the field of Bigfoot research may be a bit more competitive than you suspect. Any reported "hot" area will have an influx of researchers in and around it.

A pic would not gain you anything other than ridicule. Chris B.

If it's that damn competitive why has no one produced evidence? If you're all trying so hard, seems like one of you would have claimed the prize by now.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

If it's that damn competitive why has no one produced evidence? If you're all trying so hard, seems like one of you would have claimed the prize by now.

I agree it would seem that way, but it's not as easy as you may think. The only thing a researcher can do is to use info to try and find an area that is supposedly "hot" with sightings and activity, then trek that area routinely in hopes of crossing paths with a Bigfoot or evidence of one being there. Everyone has their own theory as to how best to go about finding them but the fact is nobody knows exactly how to find them. The best we can do is to find a likely area and hope for an encounter. Chris B.

 

[Giordano]

I suggest the field of Bigfoot research may be a bit more competitive than you suspect. Any reported "hot" area will have an influx of researchers in and around it.

A pic would not gain you anything other than ridicule. Chris B.

Why wouldn't an influx of researchers make it more likely to prove Bigfoot? Where would all the Bigfeet hide, if that is what you are implying?

And a clear, high resolution photo would not be ridiculed; it would be poured over and if found valid represent a game changer. But there are no such photos; it is the blurry, grainy, distant, obscured ones that appear to be they only kind that exist. Again, if there really is a Bigfoot, why is it that the more clear the photo the more it looks like a bear or a rock? That says a lot!

 

[Giordano]

I agree it would seem that way, but it's not as easy as you may think. The only thing a researcher can do is to use info to try and find an area that is supposedly "hot" with sightings and activity, then trek that area routinely in hopes of crossing paths with a Bigfoot or evidence of one being there. Everyone has their own theory as to how best to go about finding them but the fact is nobody knows exactly how to find them. The best we can do is to find a likely area and hope for an encounter. Chris B.

Or perhaps they don't exist. Such a fact makes finding them even more difficult.

 

[Garrette]

I agree it would seem that way, but it's not as easy as you may think. The only thing a researcher can do is to use info to try and find an area that is supposedly "hot" with sightings and activity, then trek that area routinely in hopes of crossing paths with a Bigfoot or evidence of one being there. Everyone has their own theory as to how best to go about finding them but the fact is nobody knows exactly how to find them. The best we can do is to find a likely area and hope for an encounter. Chris B.

Yeah, because setting up game cams, setting out hair traps, looking for trace where the bigfoots were allegedly seen, and scouting "known migration routes" are too hard to figure out.

Whether it's called BLAARGing or BLARPing or something else, it is most definitely an activity with a large component comprising nonbelievers tacitly agreeing not to ruin the game for others.

And you're losing your touch, Chris.

 

[Jodie]

ABP did say "it costs too much" is a real excuse.

He says, " It isn't an explanation for why a believer would not go there"

Did I misinterpret that? Or was it a typo on his part?

 

[Jodie]

Oh enough of the others will respond so you'll see it anyway. I guess forthright comments and hard questions aren't appreciated by you guys that have me on ignore.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why wouldn't an influx of researchers make it more likely to prove Bigfoot? Where would all the Bigfeet hide, if that is what you are implying?

And a clear, high resolution photo would not be ridiculed; it would be poured over and if found valid represent a game changer. But there are no such photos; it is the blurry, grainy, distant, obscured ones that appear to be they only kind that exist. Again, if there really is a Bigfoot, why is it that the more clear the photo the more it looks like a bear or a rock? That says a lot!

Sure, if you had the Bigfoot creatures confined in an area without an exit, more people would make the search go faster.

Photoshop negates any value of photographic evidence collected.

Or perhaps they don't exist. Such a fact makes finding them even more difficult.

They certainly exist, though finding them is the issue.

Yeah, because setting up game cams, setting out hair traps, looking for trace where the bigfoots were allegedly seen, and scouting "known migration routes" are too hard to figure out.

Whether it's called BLAARGing or BLARPing or something else, it is most definitely an activity with a large component comprising nonbelievers tacitly agreeing not to ruin the game for others.

And you're losing your touch, Chris.

I'm certain all the methods you mention are currently being used and then some.

Some of us don't care whether you believe Bigfoot exists or not. It's a complete non-issue. Chris B.

 

[Garrette]

Some of us don't care whether you believe Bigfoot exists or not. It's a complete non-issue. Chris B.

I know. I have already stated this.

 

[The Shrike]

Photoshop negates any value of photographic evidence collected.

Footer logic: "I'm not going to bother trying to obtain what might be the most valuable photograph of all time because skeptics will simply accuse me of Photoshopping it."

You leave me in a tough spot, Chris. Is it possible that you are unaware that Photoshop and similar photo-editing approaches can be detected? Nah, it's 2015 and you can't be that clueless. But wait, that means that if you do realize that Photoshopping is detectable then you must have made a disingenuous comment as yet another lame-o excuse for the lack of any scrap of bigfoot evidence. So what shall I put you down for, BLAARGer or bumpkin?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It's too bad you're joking. I could actually help you with this expedition.
Chris B.

Yes, I've been joking. It should come as no surprise that I have years of pictures from trekking in the Golden Triangle.

The joke is that Roger Patterson pretended to be on an expedition but probably never made it out of Bangkok. I was in Bangkok overnight twice - in the hospital both times.

Truth is, I'd much rather go back to Northern Laos, where I failed to find jungle tigers on my expedition there. Thailand is way too crowded.

It's a pretty good anti-bigfoot example because even with the protected habitat in Laos, the value of the pelts and body parts for poachers is so extraordinary that they can't stop the illegal wildlife trade. But there is no protected bigfoot habitat in your area nor laws against hunting them.

They told me in Laos that a tiger skin was ten thousand dollars, but it was teeth, claws, bones, meat,and internal organs for Chinese medicines too - in all enough to change one of these mountain people's lives forever. What would a bigfoot hide go for? A million dollars I would think, and you would be breaking no laws.