• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

It's hard to see other wildlife when all your looking for/see is Bigfoot everywhere.
 
The Shrike said:
You're an active camper and bigfooter with a thermal imaging camera who's seen a bigfoot thermal but never seen an owl through the thing? (For a wee bit of perspective, I found 9 owls on the Audubon Christmas Bird Count the other day.)
Click to expand...

I find it absolutely fascinating that almost everything I post, no matter how innocuous, gets challenged.

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen an owl through a thermal. Alert the media.
 
Northern Lights said:
Okay, let's see if we can put this to rest once and for all. I know you love to bring this up and somehow in your mind it is proof of something (which I won't pretend to understand), but let's see if this explanation will suffice.

The organization I work with consists of three principal owners, and a small collective of others (myself included) that do other things for the benefit of the group. The organization has set up a website http://sasquatchresearchers.org/ and collects submissions of reports and other evidence such as audio recordings. When I use the pronoun "we" in my ISF posts, that is intended to indicate something done by our group, but please understand that no one else within the group posts here or even knows what this forum is about. So, when I posted the audio recording here for this forum, I provided the link but that didn't mean that I had actual physical possession of the recording. I only had access to the link, same as everyone else.

After I posted the link, someone asked if the recording had been analyzed by a wolf expert and I replied that "I" didn't know of one, in which someone promptly provided me with a name. Meche or something like that. During this time, I reached out to one of the owners and asked him if the recordings had been analyzed by a wolf expert and he told me that they had and the expert indicated they didn't sound like wolf, but since nothing else in the woods would make a similar call, it must be a wolf. Just didn't sound like one.

I didn't get the name of the wolf expert nor will I be asking. I'm satisfied it was done and I'm not going to continue to grill my colleagues for more information because folks here want it. Sorry, but that's the extent of what I am going to do.

So, to sum this up. I don't have access to the recordings so I haven't submitted them to a wolf expert. Our group has and I provided you what we were told.

If you want to submit them to a wolf expert, knock your freaking socks off and send them the link. Gawd, I hope that ends this, but probably not.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm sorry, but that isn't a satisfactory explanation for the time you blatantly got caught lying, again... And yes, in my mind it's clearly proof of you telling yet another porky-pie. Why would you have to pretend to understand this? You could've easily explained this when you originally posted your error, but you chose not to, and instead ignored it 'til now, whilst acting weary, as though you'd had to answer this before, which you never once did.

Of course you're satisfied with "what was done," you're the guy who found a piece of candy in the woods and were totally satisfied that it was Bigfoot, that you didn't investigate any further. "During this time..." During what time? It was about 2 days, and you went from not knowing anyone to suddenly knowing them and having a correspondence with them. You explain it all here like it's all been a misunderstanding, but when I originally pointed it out you went quiet for like, ever.
 
Last edited:
Yes yes the righteous indignation of the "Bigfoot Researcher" we'er way past that blah blah blah....it's one of my favorites!
Looks like he took lessons from Sweaty Yeti the master of that malarkey.
 
Northern Lights said:
No, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen an owl through a thermal. Alert the media.
Click to expand...
Well, it's really unusual. You're claiming that you haven't seen a single individual of multiple common and conspicuous species but that you have seen an individual of a species so rare and inconspicuous that one has never been proven to exist at all - ever.

You're claiming something way way way more extreme than a first-time birder who's think he's seen an Ivory-billed Woodpecker but has never seen a Downy.
 
Northern Lights said:
I find it absolutely fascinating that almost everything I post, no matter how innocuous, gets challenged.
Click to expand...
The problem is your contention that a 9-ft, 600-lb uncatalogued monkey tossed a candy at you and your fellow car-campers in some second-growth, popple and pine grove somewhere in Minnesota. Sort of casts an amusing light on your assertions. Maybe it shouldn't, but there you have it.
 
Northern Lights said:
I find it absolutely fascinating that almost everything I post, no matter how innocuous, gets challenged.

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen an owl through a thermal. Alert the media.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what most "researchers" are looking for attention?
In your case isn't this good for business...more traffic driven to your site and potential customers?
 
Northern Lights said:
I find it absolutely fascinating that almost everything I post, no matter how innocuous, gets challenged.

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen an owl through a thermal. Alert the media.
Click to expand...

Also, if your hypothesis cannot stand up to scrutiny and criticism, it isn't much of a hypothesis, is it?
 
While I'm not even sure why he's still here, our pointing out the good-n-plenty absurdities of Bigfoot itself (the theory) to Northern Lights isn't better than the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard anymore. I'd have no worse time trying to convince my keyboard to stop cussing. What's so odd now is he almost agrees with us that every other Bigfoot encounter we discuss is bogus, but he really saw a Bigfoot heat signature in the exact shape of his favorite story time character. "What else could it be?" Uh, Tony the Tiger?
 
Northern Lights said:
<snip>

I didn't get the name of the wolf expert nor will I be asking. I'm satisfied it was done and I'm not going to continue to grill my colleagues for more information because folks here want it. Sorry, but that's the extent of what I am going to do.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

The part I bolded outs this entire story as a lie. IMHO

It is absurd to think that asking a simple question of a colleague is akin to grilling him/her.

Based on my training and experience as a cop - people fabricating stories will often claim that they have corroborating proof of their story or multiple witnesses able to provide alibis.
However, when push comes to shove, they invariably come up with a ludicrous excuse as to why they cannot - or will not - provide the actual evidence or witnesses.

An honest person will do anything they can to prove that they are right.

I am now completely certain that Northern Lights is fabricating the entire "wolf expert" story.
 
rockinkt said:
(bolding mine)

The part I bolded outs this entire story as a lie. IMHO

It is absurd to think that asking a simple question of a colleague is akin to grilling him/her.

Based on my training and experience as a cop - people fabricating stories will often claim that they have corroborating proof of their story or multiple witnesses able to provide alibis.
However, when push comes to shove, they invariably come up with a ludicrous excuse as to why they cannot - or will not - provide the actual evidence or witnesses.

An honest person will do anything they can to prove that they are right.

I am now completely certain that Northern Lights is fabricating the entire "wolf expert" story.
Click to expand...

I called him on his weird story as soon as I saw it and it took him nearly 2 years to address it. One day he didn't know anyone who could be classed as an "expert" re: wolves and literally no more than 2 days later he's had confirmation from "an expert" that his audio "wasn't a wolf, nor any known animal." Now, over 18 months later, he's come here and wearily addressed my puzzlement as though it's the thousandth time he's had to do it, LOL.

What's worse, is he's acting like he was given the name of an expert here and then passed this onto some other random members of his crew, and they went off and had a correspondance with said expert, got what they wanted and then passed all of this information back to NL. But he came back here and never mentioned anything about it other than to say "Mr. X says it wasn't a wolf..."
 
Last edited:
HarryHenderson said:
While I'm not even sure why he's still here, our pointing out the good-n-plenty absurdities of Bigfoot itself (the theory) to Northern Lights isn't better than the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard anymore. I'd have no worse time trying to convince my keyboard to stop cussing. What's so odd now is he almost agrees with us that every other Bigfoot encounter we discuss is bogus, but he really saw a Bigfoot heat signature in the exact shape of his favorite story time character. "What else could it be?" Uh, Tony the Tiger?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the heat-signature was "head" shaped. No foolies.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I called him on his weird story as soon as I saw it and it took him nearly 2 years to address it. One day he didn't know anyone who could be classed as an "expert" re: wolves and literally no more than 2 days later he's had confirmation from "an expert" that his audio "wasn't a wolf, nor any known animal." Now, over 18 months later, he's come here and wearily addressed my puzzlement as though it's the thousandth time he's had to do it, LOL.

What's worse, is he's acting like he was given the name of an expert here and then passed this onto some other random members of his crew, and they went off and had a correspondance with said expert, got what they wanted and then passed all of this information back to NL. But he came back here and never mentioned anything about it other than to say "Mr. X says it wasn't a wolf..."
Click to expand...

Funny how the same pattern is repeated year after year by different people who have similar silly stories with the same lame excuses and predictable behaviour.
 
Northern Lights said:
........The image I saw through the thermal was moving much slower so it wasn't anything flying.
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't know you'd resurfaced, NL. Welcome back. You've a little explaining to do in one or two other threads, which I am sure we all look forward to. But to return to this post of yours......

What has moving slow/er/ly got to do with flying or not?
 
Weird stuff in the woods is not always bigfoot. You might not be able to explain it but that has more to do with the observer's bias than what was actually observed. It's human nature to do that, we all do it, being aware of your own bias is a step forward towards approaching something realistically regardless of your stance on bigfoot.
 
jerrywayne said:
I have no desire to believe in Bigfoot...

But what is the purpose of the above cluster of limbs?
Click to expand...

This is wonderful for our BLAARGing study. A denial precedes exactly what you are about to do. I call it pre-denial.

e.g. "Not to be critical, BUT... [followed by highly critical statement].

A person posing as a skeptic first pretends to agree with the skeptics, but then delivers exactly the same line an admitted 'footer uses. "Well, explain THIS one..."

Northern Lights uses exactly the same tactic of "explain this". He is more honest about his BLAARGing though. He doesn't precede the Good 'n Plenty story with how he is the biggest skeptic in the room.

Here's another example:

Actually, I agree with you, up to a point.
Click to expand...

lol. I learned this in speech class in High School. I agree, but...[disagree].

But it bothered me ethically. I don't like to lie with a smirk on my face.

Here is the umpteenth time you use juvenile emotional manipulation, the "you always" accusation children lay on their parents whenever the child is misbehaving:

Now any skeptic who has a different opinion, one that you find naïve or incorrect, is likewise deceitful.
Click to expand...

This is the tactic 'footers use to put skeptics on the defensive, because when proposing a fantasy animal as real it is untenable to defend that claim with evidence. So you accuse, accuse, accuse and make skeptics deal with this relentless accusation as if you had never made it before.

Shrike mentioned that people "think" you are playing a game because of how easy it is to see through. There isn't any question this is BLAARGing. The faux skeptic, the "real" skeptic, the skeptic who meets the fallacy of the golden middle - just relentless masquerading as the only true skeptic on this board...

What is so fascinating about it is this: since you've used the same tactics the 'footers do and claim that all of your logic in doing so makes you the only real skeptic, then the only true skeptics are 'footers who claim to be skeptics.

Thanks for playing. :)
 
rockinkt said:
(bolding mine)

The part I bolded outs this entire story as a lie. IMHO

It is absurd to think that asking a simple question of a colleague is akin to grilling him/her.

Based on my training and experience as a cop - people fabricating stories will often claim that they have corroborating proof of their story or multiple witnesses able to provide alibis.
However, when push comes to shove, they invariably come up with a ludicrous excuse as to why they cannot - or will not - provide the actual evidence or witnesses.

An honest person will do anything they can to prove that they are right.

I am now completely certain that Northern Lights is fabricating the entire "wolf expert" story.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. We had another example of this not too long ago where a skeptic made up a story about a hunter seeing another hunter in a ghille suit, mistaking it for a bigfoot.

This was offered as "evidence" for how plausible bigfoot sightings are. So asking a simple question of someone who would not be put out by it at all is now cast as this grave injustice. Enhanced interrogation. It demonstrates that we are all prone to lies, the most common we call defense mechanisms.

The advantage you have as a cop is that you can actually arrest people, have the right to make them either answer or lawyer up, face charges - but on an internet forum we don't have these powers.

I am lobbying for them though. Especially the waterboarding.
 
rockinkt said:
(bolding mine)

The part I bolded outs this entire story as a lie. IMHO

It is absurd to think that asking a simple question of a colleague is akin to grilling him/her.

Based on my training and experience as a cop - people fabricating stories will often claim that they have corroborating proof of their story or multiple witnesses able to provide alibis.
However, when push comes to shove, they invariably come up with a ludicrous excuse as to why they cannot - or will not - provide the actual evidence or witnesses.

An honest person will do anything they can to prove that they are right.

I am now completely certain that Northern Lights is fabricating the entire "wolf expert" story.
Click to expand...

First, I would like to thank you for your service. You have my ultimate respect and undying appreciation.

Second, would you agree that in your professional capacity in law enforcement, there would be degrees in which someone would try and prove they were right based upon what they would have to lose? For example, if you were questioning someone in the line of duty, they would have a lot more to lose than I would as a simple participant in an internet forum? So my effort would be significantly less than someone you would be dealing with in your line of work.

As such, I did put in a "little" effort to look up my email on this topic and was able to find it. Here it is:

1. Not per-sae. The problem here is that whenever we've bounced anything off wolf "experts" in the past they typically say "that's odd, but it must be a wolf as there is nothing else." So I ask if it is atypical for wolves and they say "Yes, but it is likely a wolf." The real question is how much can one trust a "wolf expert's" opinion, especially if they study wolves in squatch zones and assume any howl heard is a wolf, no matter how strange.

2. We're working on it. Probably going to do something Sept 5-8, but XXXXX has not invited us this year. We're not sure why. Jim's talking to her.

Andy
Sent from my iPod

On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Todd NXXXX <ltXXXXXX@msn.com> wrote:
Andy-
Two questions for you.

1. Have the 2012 howls ever been heard by a wolf expert? If not, should it? I posted the link here JREF Forum and am getting push back.
2. Any chance of a small group doing our annual fall trip to the XXXXX’s?

Have fun out in Montana, and hope it goes well. Let me know. Thanks
Todd
Click to expand...

So again, I'm not lying.

NL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom