Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Belz...]

Sharing my findings done over the last few years here will not benefit the creatures or my research in any way.

How would you know ?

Yes, I'm saying Bigfoot tracks cannot be explained by comparison with everything known to science at this point in time. They're different from everything else.

How have you determined that without access to experts in the field ?

If you post some good quality track pictures, I'm sure people here or elsewhere can help you out. Perhaps they can even identify the species that made those tracks, and lay your claims to rest. That might not be the answer you want, but it would solve the question.

Personally, I define my encounters as a sighting of something physical. A condition in which the large hairy thing is in view of the person viewing it.

Do you have a physical description or picture that could help ?

To me, this is a confirmed encounter.

Some people say the same thing about UFOs and ghosts.

 

[Belz...]

If you have a hair, what do you compare it to? If you have DNA, what do you compare it to? Chris B.

Known species, etc. This is where your lack of expertise hampers your research, and why sharing the data is important. No one can steal your idea, but the advance to science should this be genuine is very important.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you have a hair, what do you compare it to? If you have DNA, what do you compare it to? Chris B.

A qualified scientist will have no problems with a hair or with a DNA sample.

They will let you know if you have something unique.

This is the biggest BS argument, imo.

So there's no need to hide all those samples you have.

They are very useful.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You compare it to the DNA of other primates, plus some outlier like a bear or a potato or something. If bigfoot is unique then its DNA is unique and yes, its hair follicles could prove its existence.

This hackneyed statement from you is just another contradiction, Chris. You claim to be an active researcher into this phenomenon trying to obtain physical evidence of bigfoot yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of what could be done with such evidence. The "what do we compare it to" argument holds about as much water as a guitar string. You know this, though.

Alrighty then, you compare it with other stuff and it comes back as something different. But what? If it's close to human, could the lab simply say the evidence has been contaminated during collection? Inconclusive, as is the favored determination.

The point is, no matter the result, without a type specimen on file there's nothing to match it to. With a bone or body, we can have a match.

Chris B.

 

[LTC8K6]

Alrighty then, you compare it with other stuff and it comes back as something different. But what? If it's close to human, could the lab simply say the evidence has been contaminated during collection? Inconclusive, as is the favored determination.

The point is, no matter the result, without a type specimen on file there's nothing to match it to. With a bone or body, we can have a match.

Chris B.

That's not even wrong...

 

[Belz...]

Alrighty then, you compare it with other stuff and it comes back as something different. But what? If it's close to human, could the lab simply say the evidence has been contaminated during collection? Inconclusive, as is the favored determination.

The point is, no matter the result, without a type specimen on file there's nothing to match it to.

New species were often found with incomplete evidence. Regardless, it would be useful to determine whether we are dealing with such a species. Your objection is puzzling.

I invite you to re-read your last few posts here, and try to understand why other posters conclude that you do not want this mystery solved.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Known species, etc. This is where your lack of expertise hampers your research, and why sharing the data is important. No one can steal your idea, but the advance to science should this be genuine is very important.

Bolding mine. Of course they can. There are even individuals downloading unpublished files from my website root directory looking to find something I've not released to the public.
In case you didn't know, it's more of a race than a cooperation these days.
The first to bring in a specimen will be the winner. Odd there's so much competition and interest in a study of something that science says doesn't exist..
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

New species were often found with incomplete evidence. Regardless, it would be useful to determine whether we are dealing with such a species. Your objection is puzzling.

I invite you to re-read your last few posts here, and try to understand why other posters conclude that you do not want this mystery solved.

I know what I've posted. I certainly want this mystery solved but as I said, I do not have the evidence it will take to solve it. I will continue, as I have, to try and collect what is required.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Unless old footie died in it, there wouldn't be any biological evidence for a type specimen. Nothing but a body or part would seem to qualify

Your error here has been explained by a number of posters.

Stop with the footprints? Why on Earth would someone do so?

Well, for one, they're pretty much laughable. For second, they lead nowhere. Ever. For thirds, they're all suspicious

A troop of footies would leave a well-defined trail which would lead you to other evidence, biological evidence, up to and including footie. No trackway had ever done that. Ever.

 

[Belz...]

Bolding mine. Of course they can.

You are missing the point entirely: your idea isn't your invention. The existence of this species is independant of your efforts.

There are even individuals downloading unpublished files from my website root directory looking to find something I've not released to the public.

I am having a hard time believing this. However, if you feel that the situation is thus, then it would be in your best interest to publish as soon as possible. If anyone steals it after that, you have legal recourse.

In case you didn't know, it's more of a race than a cooperation these days.

Almost nobody seriously believes in the existence of these creatures, so the race is between a small number of outliers.

The first to bring in a specimen will be the winner.

If such specimen existed, they would have been found by now. For some reason no bigfoot ever gets hit by a car.

dd there's so much competition and interest in a study of something that science says doesn't exist.

You are confusing interest by frings groups with maintstream interest. As I said: almost no one even cares about the question.

 

[Resume]

Odd there's so much competition and interest in a study of something that science says doesn't exist..
Chris B.

Lot's of hopeful and gullible people in the world. See Las Vegas and lotteries. Of course with those, there's a chance of winning.

 

[MikeG]

.......Odd there's so much competition and interest in a study of something that science says doesn't exist..
Chris B.

Odd that all this competition has produced absolutely nothing so far, in some 50 odd years. In most other fields of human endeavour, whenever there is a race to find something or do something, someone normally achieves it. Can you think of any other competition where no-one has produced any results after 50 years of effort?

 

[Belz...]

A troop of footies would leave a well-defined trail which would lead you to other evidence, biological evidence, up to and including footie. No trackway had ever done that. Ever.

At this point, the only way for bigfoot to exist would be if they have magical abilities to remain undetected, which I support is why some believers actually have come to this conclusion as well.

 

[Belz...]

Odd that all this competition has produced absolutely nothing so far, in some 50 odd years. In most other fields of human endeavour, whenever there is a race to find something or do something, someone normally achieves it. Can you think of any other competition where no-one has produced any results after 50 years of effort?

String theory, perhaps ?

 

[Drewbot]

Bolding mine. Of course they can. There are even individuals downloading unpublished files from my website root directory looking to find something I've not released to the public.
In case you didn't know, it's more of a race than a cooperation these days.
The first to bring in a specimen will be the winner. Odd there's so much competition and interest in a study of something that science says doesn't exist..
Chris B.

riiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhtt.

I mean we're not necessarily talking about the cream of the crop Biologists, Anthropologists, Scientists etc... are we?

Have you watched a tape of Bindernagel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lZt7X2p2bs


No. We're not. We're talking about a VERY VERY small amount of people, a large portion of which have reported Hallucinations on a BFF Poll.

 

[dmaker]

Unless old footie died in it, there wouldn't be any biological evidence for a type specimen. Nothing but a body or part would seem to qualify


.

Then what was the point of the Sykes study? You seem to want to prop up his DNA analysis as evidence of an undiscovered animal when it suits your argument. But then you want to contradict that and say biological samples short of a body are useless.

Also, why would Meldrum be calling for people to submit hair samples for DNA testing if DNA testing will not improve the bigfoot hypothesis?

Or is it only when you are challenged as to why you do not, personally, collect samples ( such as hair) for DNA analysis, that DNA suddenly becomes worthless?

Which one is it Chris?

 

[Resume]

At this point, the only way for bigfoot to exist would be if they have magical abilities to remain undetected, which I support is why some believers actually have come to this conclusion as well.

If you observe places like the BFF, you'll see a contingent of paranormal enthusiasts, but what's surprising is the amount of folks who still claim to believe that it's possible for a large ape with continental distribution to somehow remain hidden and undocumented. Now, this idea is daft from the outset but this general "elusiveness" is given a nod an wink by a majority of the rank and file. Granted, most of these are imbeciles, but it still gives one pause.

A side note: if many of these folks are playing roles, as I and others suspect, what's the advantage of coming off as an imbecile?

 

[dmaker]

Unless old footie died in it, there wouldn't be any biological evidence for a type specimen. Nothing but a body or part would seem to qualify



Stop with the footprints? Why on Earth would someone do so? Because they should be discounted as Shaq or some other large human made them? Some may be hoaxed of course yet others reveal to be from a natural living something. Throwing all trackways and tracks out the window would not serve to answer questions about what made them.

So you do not advocate the collection of biological samples as they will not qualify? Qualify as proof, I assume you mean? However, footprints? Boy, howdy we should really focus on those!

If you successfully managed to get an interesting DNA analysis result ( i.e. unknown primate) from either hair, scat, blood or other potential sources that should be present in abundance in a bigfoot nest, you would drum up more scientific interest than all of the alleged bigfoot footprints so far introduced.

Yet, you decide that footrpints are more useful in supporting the hypothesis than biological samples. Evidence, I would like to point out, that can actually be subjected to scientific testing and analysis? And you think people should take you seriously? Why on earth would someone do that?

 

[Resume]

Alrighty then, you compare it with other stuff and it comes back as something different. But what? If it's close to human, could the lab simply say the evidence has been contaminated during collection? Inconclusive, as is the favored determination.

No, it's the determination. Ketchum (and others) screwed the pooch. There's a good Breaking Bio YouTube on the Ketchum debacle that explains what she should have done and why. Most footers can't get through it though because the actual biologists find her findings amusing at best.



It's kinda fun.

 

[carlitos]

Well, there you go.
If you have a nest then you have a wealth of biological data you can access.

So...

Unless old footie died in it, there wouldn't be any biological evidence for a type specimen. Nothing but a body or part would seem to qualify
4

Hi Chris. I realize that you are role-playing here, but you are so bad at it as to be laughable. What you said above is ridiculous. We find fossils that are useful in identifying "creatures." Fossils. Hundreds of millions of years old. Those aren't anything like a Motel 6 bed with figboot hairs on it.

A god-damned "nest" with a "creature" not sleeping in it would have a wealth of information. What you said is stupid, beyond belief. Like, dude, I don't leave any biological evidence in my bed. You ever see Gattica?

Seriously, cut it out. You suck at this. Go find a real-life hobby.