Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[rockinkt]

I keep seeing references to "Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer" Faragher (1992) wherein the author purportedly reports Boone shooting a Bigfoot-like creature.

I have yet to see the actual story as written and what the author bases his story on.

Can you help with this Chris?
Thanks.

 

[Resume]

I did respond that one was reported shot by Daniel Boone well over 200 years ago. (A creature perfectly matching the description of Bigfoot)

Confirmation bias.

I do see a compelling comparison with the description of Bigfoot.

A perfect example of confirmation bias.

 

[Resume]

The story exists though even if you're of the opinion Bigfoot doesn't.

An opinion that perfectly matches the reality of no bigfoot.

 

[burmballgeetar]

More often than not, I just like to scroll around here and read. It's rare that I feel compelled to post...most of the time the replies are spot on and I agree with what's said. Having said that, I don't think Chris is trolling. I think that he feels like he's pioneering something.

As some of you may or may not recall, I was once a Kool-Aid drinking believer. I consumed every bit of info that I could and once I was armed with what I thought was enough knowledge, I ventured into the world of Bigfoot internet message boards. I found the folks at the MABRC (who are all good people...if a little misguided) to be the ones that I most identified with. They made mention of the JREF forums and *bang*...my introduction to skeptical thought occurred. I stamped my feet and said all the same stuff that he's saying now.

Then something happened. I went out and looked for myself. I hiked and camped all over the US. I still do it just without the intention of finding bigfoot. In doing that, I unveiled a greater passion for hiking, camping, nature and wildlife photography that grew into a very rewarding way to spend my time. I have seen and photographed all sorts of critters from lizards and snakes and alligators to bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, raccoons...never any bigfoot though. Over the course of a few years, I slowly came to the realization that nothing that I had ever seen could only have been explained by bigfoot. I did a 180 and wound up a complete skeptic. My opinion now is that it doesn't exist...should a specimen be presented, I'll adjust my opinion to reflect the reality of it. I'm not hopeful though...

That's all been typed to get to the point that when I first arrived here, I felt like I was pioneering something much like I'm sure Chris feels now. It's easy to think that nobody has ever made these arguments before and it's easier to convince yourself that something you want to exist actually exists, despite evidence to the contrary. He isn't trolling...he's making a much bolder step than most Footers and exposing himself to critical and skeptical thoughts. He isn't trolling and his intentions are good, in my opinion. Give it a year or two and you may witness the rebirth of another footer into a skeptic. I know that I'm grateful for the transformation.

I know that the sentiment here doesn't run towards the "let's be patient with the children" idea of dealing with footers. Many of them are completely unable to understand the concept of evidence that isn't circumstantial and a huge majority don't even want a specimen to be found. They fall back on comments like, "I know and that's good enough for me." Which coincidentally is a very easy way to dismiss skeptics and continue on with their heads in the sand.

Chris, I don't know what you saw. I am of the opinion that it wasn't a bigfoot. Whatever it was, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove it either way at this point in time. What I would suggest is that you get out into the woods and experience nature as much as possible. Continue to look for evidence. It will give you a great appreciation for the outdoors and is a super fun way to spend your spare time. I guarantee you won't find Bigfoot but you will find that there is plenty of wilderness to explore and plenty of critters to see.

 

[barehl]

I don't think they need millions of acres of forest to survive.

I've discussed this before. The habitat for a theoretical bigfoot would be about the same as for black bear. So you wouldn't find them on the Great Plains, in deserts, or on the arctic tundra. You would expect to find them in the Appalachian chain in the east and the Rockies in the west.

As far as speculating why early settlers didn't bag one? Who knows?

I've gone over this too. You had several cycles of people moving into wild areas over time. For example, the California Gold Rush, the Alaskan Gold Rush, building the Alaskan highway during WWII, drilling for oil on the North Slope, drilling for oil in Canada, and the more recent Diamond mining. These are all periods of influx where bigfoot should have been seen and documented if it existed.

Daniel Boone claimed to have done so, a 10 foot tall one at that.

No, Boone was fond of Gulliver's Travels and came up with his story from that. He used the same word, "Yahoo", and used other terms from Gulliver's Travels.

Early reports of Bigfoot are found throughout the History of the US. It's a mystery as to why nobody bagged one and brought it in. Perhaps they didn't care to do so? Is it more likely to believe that every single report in History is a lie?

There are many more stories of witches and ghosts than of bigfoot. So, by your logic, witches and ghosts must be real. In fact, dragons, trolls, fairies, werewolves and a number of other things common in stories would have to be real as well. People like stories, especially scary stories that can be told around a campfire. That these would be popular and retold is proof of very little.

Daniel Boone: "Looks like I shot a Yeahoh"

No, he called it a "Yahoo". The name "Yeahoh" came later. There is some speculation as to whether Swift got the term from Aboriginal folklore.

 

[Resume]

More often than not, I just like to scroll around here and read. It's rare that I feel compelled to post...most of the time the replies are spot on and I agree with what's said. Having said that, I don't think Chris is trolling. I think that he feels like he's pioneering something.

As some of you may or may not recall, I was once a Kool-Aid drinking believer. I consumed every bit of info that I could and once I was armed with what I thought was enough knowledge, I ventured into the world of Bigfoot internet message boards. I found the folks at the MABRC (who are all good people...if a little misguided) to be the ones that I most identified with. They made mention of the JREF forums and *bang*...my introduction to skeptical thought occurred. I stamped my feet and said all the same stuff that he's saying now.

Then something happened. I went out and looked for myself. I hiked and camped all over the US. I still do it just without the intention of finding bigfoot. In doing that, I unveiled a greater passion for hiking, camping, nature and wildlife photography that grew into a very rewarding way to spend my time. I have seen and photographed all sorts of critters from lizards and snakes and alligators to bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, raccoons...never any bigfoot though. Over the course of a few years, I slowly came to the realization that nothing that I had ever seen could only have been explained by bigfoot. I did a 180 and wound up a complete skeptic. My opinion now is that it doesn't exist...should a specimen be presented, I'll adjust my opinion to reflect the reality of it. I'm not hopeful though...

That's all been typed to get to the point that when I first arrived here, I felt like I was pioneering something much like I'm sure Chris feels now. It's easy to think that nobody has ever made these arguments before and it's easier to convince yourself that something you want to exist actually exists, despite evidence to the contrary. He isn't trolling...he's making a much bolder step than most Footers and exposing himself to critical and skeptical thoughts. He isn't trolling and his intentions are good, in my opinion. Give it a year or two and you may witness the rebirth of another footer into a skeptic. I know that I'm grateful for the transformation.

I know that the sentiment here doesn't run towards the "let's be patient with the children" idea of dealing with footers. Many of them are completely unable to understand the concept of evidence that isn't circumstantial and a huge majority don't even want a specimen to be found. They fall back on comments like, "I know and that's good enough for me." Which coincidentally is a very easy way to dismiss skeptics and continue on with their heads in the sand.

Chris, I don't know what you saw. I am of the opinion that it wasn't a bigfoot. Whatever it was, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove it either way at this point in time. What I would suggest is that you get out into the woods and experience nature as much as possible. Continue to look for evidence. It will give you a great appreciation for the outdoors and is a super fun way to spend your spare time. I guarantee you won't find Bigfoot but you will find that there is plenty of wilderness to explore and plenty of critters to see.

Very thoughtful post, though I disagree with your assessment of Chris. Still, post more often.

 

[dmaker]

Chris does not claim seeing something that could be bigfoot. Chris claims clear, prolonged viewing of bigfoots eating pine bark like it was cotton candy.

Chris does not think bigfoot might exist based on the weak evidence. Chris claims something that cannot be mistaken for anything other than what he claims it to be. And since we all know that bigfoot does not exist, what does that leave for options?

 

[HarryHenderson]

...
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.

Sincerely speaking, sometimes I get confused. I thought the consensus here was pro Bigfooters were, in 98% of cases, BLAARGing. The missing 2% of cases being from alcoholism. And stated simply, BLAARGing requires such "intentional" acts to continue play.

ChrisBFRPKY is looked upon as a dedicated Bigfooter (BLAARGer) amongst his peers mostly because he gets results. Ask him, he saw a real Bigfoot. More than once. Yet, since he also knows no real real Bigfoot is ever gonna show up to absolve him of the need to do so, he knows that he has to intentionally keep 'Finding Bigfoot' to continue to play.

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?

In order to sustain his own ironic credibility, it has to be a conspiracy. Not only is he trying to "convince" us there's a F&B Bigfoot, but that everyone it should/would genuinely matter to couldn't care less about it and on purpose.

You can speak to this better than I, but I doubt you could get 3 "scientists" to agree on where to eat lunch, let alone convince each other to not seek the biggest baddest hairy man-ape mutha ****** you ever saw...that would in turn give them a Nobel prize, millions of dollars and eternal esteem. No, they'd hate that. He can only be doing one thing, BLAARGing.

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

He is pretending. He's BLAARGing.

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.

BLAARGing requires them to be.

...
If that total lack of any history of anything resembling Bigfoot over that huge domain in North America doesn't stop the average Footer in his tracks - so to speak - they aren't paying attention.

It won't stop him in his tracks like it should because that's just an (and in) addition to the "conspiracy theory" he already subscribes to (as above). Not only are the scientists willfully avoiding its study, the very people most likely to encounter it and bring it to them for such are consciously and deliberately refusing to do so also and have been for 345 years. Apparently.

This post tells me that Chris B. is absolutely trolling us, and does not believe a thing he is saying.

^^BINGO!!!!!! He's BLAARGing while we're reasoning.

 

[Tontar]

I can't believe you wrote this. Of course this was the first video. If you had read the article you may have found this passage:
Chris B.

Believe it, Chris. I wrote it to point out how you twisted what the article said. You said four years and only one sighting, as if in four years they had only had one sighting. The fact is, that isn't what the article stated at all. They have had numerous sightings, numerous photos, but only one video. But you knew that. You weren't trying to portray the cats as having been well known or documented, you wanted to portray them like bigfoot, which is what all believers do as a matter of habit. If you could get away with saying that a species of cat was able to go unseen except for ONE time, you could translate that into an argument about bigfoot being able to go thousands of years without leaving a trace. Just like trying to say that gorillas were cryptids denied by science, or that the okapi used to be a cryptid. The same old song and dance.

Thing is you are being disingenuous with a good deal of the things you are saying. Perhaps just playing, seeing how much junk you can slip into conversations without getting called out on it?

 

[Tontar]

HH, well stated!

 

[rockinkt]

HH, well stated!

Ditto!

 

[barehl]

Sincerely speaking, sometimes I get confused. I thought the consensus here was pro Bigfooters were, in 98% of cases, BLAARGing. The missing 2% of cases being from alcoholism.

I would say that 98% of the reported sightings of bigfoot were misidentification of people, bears, moose, shadows, etc. Then you have the bigfoot enthusiasts who think that anything could be a bigfoot unless proven not a bigfoot. I think what you are talking about is the Jerry Springer level of bigfoot enthusiasts where stories are simply made up to get attention. These all involve claims of direct or close interaction on multiple occasions where misidentification would not be possible. It's like Munchausen by bigfoot.

Chris does not claim seeing something that could be bigfoot. Chris claims clear, prolonged viewing of bigfoots eating pine bark like it was cotton candy.

This would certainly qualify.

 

[The Shrike]

. . . I doubt you could get 3 "scientists" to agree on where to eat lunch, let alone convince each other to not seek the biggest baddest hairy man-ape mutha ****** you ever saw...that would in turn give them a Nobel prize, millions of dollars and eternal esteem.

One of the biggest misconceptions about scientists is that we are in lock-step with each other to preserve the "dogma". People don't get that we benefit far more from publishing papers that go against the grain as opposed to with it. The frustrating part is how often I've explained that to bigfooters only to have them continue with their mischaracterization. This is another reason why skeptics can find BLAARGing to be a better explanation for these behaviors than ignorance and honest delusion. These folks do know better but it doesn't change their messaging in the slightest.

That said, I have shared many amicable lunches with > 3 scientists.

 

[The Shrike]

I would say that 98% of the reported sightings of bigfoot were misidentification of people, bears, moose, shadows, etc.

So of the thousands of reports in the BFRO database, for example, you see almost all of them as honest misidentifications. Why don't you think that a higher percentage are just people who make up stories of encounters to see if they can get them included in the BFRO database?

We've all had the experience of seeing something odd for a split second and we can't make sense of it. I bet we've far more often come in contact with people who'd get a kick out of punking some "bigfoot researchers" by spinning a yarn about having seen a bigfoot.

 

[barehl]

So of the thousands of reports in the BFRO database, for example, you see almost all of them as honest misidentifications. Why don't you think that a higher percentage are just people who make up stories of encounters to see if they can get them included in the BFRO database?

Since you asked, I had to go and look more in detail at the BFRO database. It does contain several anomalies. I guess I can go over them.

Illinois is a good place to look because there are no black bear in Illinois. The only large wild animal is white tail deer, the same as we have in Indiana. I can't imagine anyone mistaking a white tail deer for a bigfoot. The Illinois database shows a strange gap in sightings from about 1978 to 2000. There are very few sightings in the 1980s and until the late 1990s. This coincides with the decline in interest after the PG film and the founding of the BFRO in 1995. Sightings in the early 1970s and after 2000 are more likely to be clearly invented. There are no reports of wood knocks until after the founding of the BFRO. Reports of vocalization are also more common after 1995.

I looked at the data from Indiana (where again there are no black bear). And, although there less than one third as many reports from Indiana as Illinois some of these are clear inventions.

Washington is a state where one would expect a large number of misidentifications since bear sightings are more likely. Yet, the database here shows a similar pattern. There is no real gap in reports but the database shows a five fold increase in the 15 years following the founding of the BFRO versus the 15 years before it. There are similar reports of wood knocks after the BFRO and more reports of vocalization. They also show a pattern of invented stories. I looked through other states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York. Then I started going through the most recent reports for each state.

At this point I would probably say that since the creation of the BFRO in 1995, roughly half of the reports in the BFRO database are made up. About 25% are reports of vocalizations and wood knocks by BF enthusiasts. And around 25% are misidentifications. So, yes, that is much lower than I would have expected.

 

[barehl]

When you start looking at so-called bigfoot reports there is a great variability in what is found. For wood knocks, I would assume that 100% of these are made by BF enthusiasts. For vocalizations since 1995, I would assume that most of these are also made by BFE's. However, there are several other animals that might be mistaken including owls, elk, and particularly red foxes which are fairly common.

When you start talking about tracks, there is a sharp divergence. The only actual footprint in North America that could be mistaken for a BF track is the print from the hind foot of a large brown bear. But these are only found along the North Pacific coast. And, since most people don't go hiking with a sack of plaster it is most likely that plaster casts were made by the same person who faked the track.

When people make up bigfoot stories they make the same mistakes that people do when they invent stories to explain murders or other crimes. These are fairly easy to spot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Did Daniel Boone shoot a bigfoot? He might have. We'll never know because Chris wasn't there to confirm or deny the event.

Those Ape Canyon guys said they shot some bigfoots. That guy who was moose hunting in Saskatchewan in the 1940s said he did too. Justin Smeja said he shot a bigfoot. Rick Dyer said he shot two of them.

What do all of these claims have in common (including Boone's)?

No bigfoot.

Well it is true that none of the above turned over a body for identification. There is quite a bit of difference when comparing Daniel Boone to Rick Dyer. One was a major historic figure whose praises are many, the other lied to get his 15 minutes of fame but in time will be completely forgotten.

Imagine that you've never heard of bigfoot. Now what comparisons do you see?

I think the best comparison of a Yahoo in that case would be a Gorilla. It's the "hairy man-like giant" part that matches Bigfoot descriptions exactly.

I keep seeing references to "Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer" Faragher (1992) wherein the author purportedly reports Boone shooting a Bigfoot-like creature.

I have yet to see the actual story as written and what the author bases his story on.

Can you help with this Chris?
Thanks.

Certainly.

Faragher, J. M. 1992. Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer. New York:
Henry Holt & Company

Trotti, H. H. 1994. Did fiction give birth to Bigfoot? SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 18(5): 541-2

If you wish to study the comparisons Boone used taken from Swift's Gulliver's Travels, Teddy Roosevelt also discusses some of these in his book:
Daniel Boone’s Move to Kentucky (1897) Theodore Roosevelt
(Should be available at Amazon)

But if you're interested in Bigfoot stories from prominent Americans, I'd also recommend another one of Roosevelt's books called "The Wilderness Hunter" which should be available at Amazon as well. Even if you don't care for Bigfoot, it's a very interesting read. Teddy R. was a heck of a man even back in his day.

Confirmation bias.

A perfect example of confirmation bias.

So, what would be an unbiased speculation for a creature described to be a "Hairy man-like giant" ?

More often than not, I just like to scroll around here and read. It's rare that I feel compelled to post...most of the time the replies are spot on and I agree with what's said. Having said that, I don't think Chris is trolling. I think that he feels like he's pioneering something.

As some of you may or may not recall, I was once a Kool-Aid drinking believer. I consumed every bit of info that I could and once I was armed with what I thought was enough knowledge, I ventured into the world of Bigfoot internet message boards. I found the folks at the MABRC (who are all good people...if a little misguided) to be the ones that I most identified with. They made mention of the JREF forums and *bang*...my introduction to skeptical thought occurred. I stamped my feet and said all the same stuff that he's saying now.

Then something happened. I went out and looked for myself. I hiked and camped all over the US. I still do it just without the intention of finding bigfoot. In doing that, I unveiled a greater passion for hiking, camping, nature and wildlife photography that grew into a very rewarding way to spend my time. I have seen and photographed all sorts of critters from lizards and snakes and alligators to bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, raccoons...never any bigfoot though. Over the course of a few years, I slowly came to the realization that nothing that I had ever seen could only have been explained by bigfoot. I did a 180 and wound up a complete skeptic. My opinion now is that it doesn't exist...should a specimen be presented, I'll adjust my opinion to reflect the reality of it. I'm not hopeful though...

That's all been typed to get to the point that when I first arrived here, I felt like I was pioneering something much like I'm sure Chris feels now. It's easy to think that nobody has ever made these arguments before and it's easier to convince yourself that something you want to exist actually exists, despite evidence to the contrary. He isn't trolling...he's making a much bolder step than most Footers and exposing himself to critical and skeptical thoughts. He isn't trolling and his intentions are good, in my opinion. Give it a year or two and you may witness the rebirth of another footer into a skeptic. I know that I'm grateful for the transformation.

I know that the sentiment here doesn't run towards the "let's be patient with the children" idea of dealing with footers. Many of them are completely unable to understand the concept of evidence that isn't circumstantial and a huge majority don't even want a specimen to be found. They fall back on comments like, "I know and that's good enough for me." Which coincidentally is a very easy way to dismiss skeptics and continue on with their heads in the sand.

Chris, I don't know what you saw. I am of the opinion that it wasn't a bigfoot. Whatever it was, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove it either way at this point in time. What I would suggest is that you get out into the woods and experience nature as much as possible. Continue to look for evidence. It will give you a great appreciation for the outdoors and is a super fun way to spend your spare time. I guarantee you won't find Bigfoot but you will find that there is plenty of wilderness to explore and plenty of critters to see.

I appreciate the sentiment and let me say it was a pleasure to read your post. You Sir are a writer. I don't know if you write at the present but if you don't please start as soon as possible. I'll buy your books.

As far as my encounters with these creatures, I have no doubt what I've seen. They perfectly match the description of Bigfoot. The bulk of my encounters happened in 2010 (some creatures were seen by multiple witnesses during some of these encounters so rest easy on the hallucination/mistaken identity theories thrown in the mix by a few here) and I continue to be out in the woods since. I will continue to go trekking during peak sighting seasons as long as I am physically able.

I have enjoyed the outdoors since the age of 8 and will continue to do so for as long as I'm able. During all that time outdoors, hunting, fishing, camping, exploring etc, I never saw a Bigfoot while in the woods until 2010. I'm 48, so that's 35 years without a sighting. Of course I wasn't looking for one either. But based on my own past, I'm not surprised you have yet to see one. If they were easy to locate, they'd be on the books by now.

An opinion that perfectly matches the reality of no bigfoot.

Reality is, the story is real. Like it or not.

I've discussed this before. The habitat for a theoretical bigfoot would be about the same as for black bear. So you wouldn't find them on the Great Plains, in deserts, or on the arctic tundra. You would expect to find them in the Appalachian chain in the east and the Rockies in the west.

I agree, as long as there is a good water and food source they would be more likely to end up in these areas. However, some reports have them in odd places too. A quick check usually reveals a river or stream nearby or within the sighting area. Personally I think this would suggest a nomadic behavior at times but that's only speculation.

I've gone over this too. You had several cycles of people moving into wild areas over time. For example, the California Gold Rush, the Alaskan Gold Rush, building the Alaskan highway during WWII, drilling for oil on the North Slope, drilling for oil in Canada, and the more recent Diamond mining. These are all periods of influx where bigfoot should have been seen and documented if it existed.

I think there are sighting reports throughout history. But, no specimens taken.

No, Boone was fond of Gulliver's Travels and came up with his story from that. He used the same word, "Yahoo", and used other terms from Gulliver's Travels.

Yes he was and reportedly Gulliver's Travels was the first book to enter KY.

There are many more stories of witches and ghosts than of bigfoot. So, by your logic, witches and ghosts must be real. In fact, dragons, trolls, fairies, werewolves and a number of other things common in stories would have to be real as well. People like stories, especially scary stories that can be told around a campfire. That these would be popular and retold is proof of very little.

Well, my logic kinda considers ongoing reports of the same thing here. The reports of Bigfoot in KY continue.

I don't think witches ever really existed. I'm sure there were and are people who think they're witches though. Some may practice it but none are. Kinda like the folks who want to be vampires....

I'm not really concerned with dragons, trolls ,fairies, etc because none of those are being reported here. And even if they were, I'm skeptical.

No, he called it a "Yahoo". The name "Yeahoh" came later. There is some speculation as to whether Swift got the term from Aboriginal folklore.

That may be but only according to John Mack Faragher the author's account . The Yeohoh version came from Mr. Lee Maggard of Harlan County, Kentucky Western Folklore (Roberts 1957) and a matching account/pronunciation from Nancy McDaniel of Big Leatherfoot Creek, Perry County, KY which can be found as told to folktale collector Leonard Roberts, who published it under the title “The Origin of Man” in South From Hell-fer-Sartin (1955)

I enjoy researching old KY Folk tales and legends. I also think Swift derived his term from Aboriginal folklore as well. Which is really cool as that means it predated Capt Cook's visit of 1770. Written in 1726, Gulliver's Travels predated Cook by quite a bit. Chris B.

Chris does not claim seeing something that could be bigfoot. Chris claims clear, prolonged viewing of bigfoots eating pine bark like it was cotton candy.

Chris does not think bigfoot might exist based on the weak evidence. Chris claims something that cannot be mistaken for anything other than what he claims it to be. And since we all know that bigfoot does not exist, what does that leave for options?

Very omniscient view. How does a new discovery such as this fit into that view?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/asia/taiwan-penghu-human-jawbone-fossil/index.html

Sincerely speaking, sometimes I get confused. I thought the consensus here was pro Bigfooters were, in 98% of cases, BLAARGing. The missing 2% of cases being from alcoholism. And stated simply, BLAARGing requires such "intentional" acts to continue play.

ChrisBFRPKY is looked upon as a dedicated Bigfooter (BLAARGer) amongst his peers mostly because he gets results. Ask him, he saw a real Bigfoot. More than once. Yet, since he also knows no real real Bigfoot is ever gonna show up to absolve him of the need to do so, he knows that he has to intentionally keep 'Finding Bigfoot' to continue to play.


In order to sustain his own ironic credibility, it has to be a conspiracy. Not only is he trying to "convince" us there's a F&B Bigfoot, but that everyone it should/would genuinely matter to couldn't care less about it and on purpose.

You can speak to this better than I, but I doubt you could get 3 "scientists" to agree on where to eat lunch, let alone convince each other to not seek the biggest baddest hairy man-ape mutha ****** you ever saw...that would in turn give them a Nobel prize, millions of dollars and eternal esteem. No, they'd hate that. He can only be doing one thing, BLAARGing.


He is pretending. He's BLAARGing.


BLAARGing requires them to be.


It won't stop him in his tracks like it should because that's just an (and in) addition to the "conspiracy theory" he already subscribes to (as above). Not only are the scientists willfully avoiding its study, the very people most likely to encounter it and bring it to them for such are consciously and deliberately refusing to do so also and have been for 345 years. Apparently.


^^BINGO!!!!!! He's BLAARGing while we're reasoning.

Back for more? Can you explain what "BLAARGing" is? It seems to be a favorite term you use but please remember, I'm just a Hillbilly with a limited vocabulary. All help appreciated.
Thanks, Chris B.

Believe it, Chris. I wrote it to point out how you twisted what the article said. You said four years and only one sighting, as if in four years they had only had one sighting. The fact is, that isn't what the article stated at all. They have had numerous sightings, numerous photos, but only one video. But you knew that. You weren't trying to portray the cats as having been well known or documented, you wanted to portray them like bigfoot, which is what all believers do as a matter of habit. If you could get away with saying that a species of cat was able to go unseen except for ONE time, you could translate that into an argument about bigfoot being able to go thousands of years without leaving a trace. Just like trying to say that gorillas were cryptids denied by science, or that the okapi used to be a cryptid. The same old song and dance.

Thing is you are being disingenuous with a good deal of the things you are saying. Perhaps just playing, seeing how much junk you can slip into conversations without getting called out on it?

Perhaps you missed it again, so here is the direct quote from the article again.
"Bahaa-el-din has been studying the species for four years but said it was so secretive and remarkable in its ability to stay hidden that she had only ever sighted one cat."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-most-elusive-cat-has-been-captured-on-camera-2015-1

Please feel free to check it out. Again. It's still there. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

One of the biggest misconceptions about scientists is that we are in lock-step with each other to preserve the "dogma". People don't get that we benefit far more from publishing papers that go against the grain as opposed to with it. The frustrating part is how often I've explained that to bigfooters only to have them continue with their mischaracterization. This is another reason why skeptics can find BLAARGing to be a better explanation for these behaviors than ignorance and honest delusion. These folks do know better but it doesn't change their messaging in the slightest.

That said, I have shared many amicable lunches with > 3 scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/asia/taiwan-penghu-human-jawbone-fossil/index.html

How about that for a lunch topic. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

So, what would be an unbiased speculation for a creature described to be a "Hairy man-like giant" ?

Like any boogeyman, werewolf, mermaid story: a story.

 

[The Shrike]

There is quite a bit of difference when comparing Daniel Boone to Rick Dyer.

One charged $10 to look at his dead bigfoot and one told his story gratis?

The other accomplishments in their lives are hardly relevant to this conversation, unless one is a big proponent of the argument from authority and ad hominem fallacies.