Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Night Walker]

As for ghosts, demons etc. I'm not interested in the supernatural. I stick with Biological living things.
…
Since I've seen these creatures, their tracks and know they exist

But ghosts, demons, aliens, etc leave physical evidence just not any evidence that they are actual biological living things – just like Bigfoot. You may not have an interest in the paranormal but if you are interested in getting to the bottom of the Bigfoot mystery then perhaps you should broaden your approach and understanding of the phenomenon.

So, what kind of creatures do people all over the world report seeing (people just like you) and leaves behind physical evidence of its presence, but no evidence that they are actual biological living things? Paranormal creatures. Ghosts, demons, aliens, Bigfoot, etc. Then the question becomes: What is the paranormal? (Please, let’s not go there for now…)

You don’t need to believe in the paranormal but you should at least take steps to understand it better…

I'm able to compare the tracks I see with tracks made by a creature from a known personal sighting. In other words, there is no doubt. I don't think many hoaxers spend much time in KY. If they did, and left tracks for someone to find. They'd be easy to identify as hoaxed prints.

You are not alone in your confidence to be able to correctly identify real vs hoaxed prints. Intelligent and qualified men like Krantz, Meldrum, Bindernagel, etc have expressed similar confidence have all been lead astray – but with you that is not at all possible?

Your belief that Bigfoot is real ape-like creature is supported by your subjective experiences but not by your own objective evidence (http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html). How do you account for that (particularly if Bigfoot isn’t paranormal like ghosts, demons, aliens, etc)?

Unless you have objectively documented Bigfoot personally making the tracks then there IS always doubt. There should be big doubts rather than none. If there are Bigfoot-researchers in Kentucky then there are Bigfoot-hoaxers there too – you should realize that the two groups are not mutually exclusive…

Certainly there are some reports with human trickery in play. Some prints are no doubt left by hoaxers. Ray Wallace was notorious for his trickery.
…
How would I react if someone I knew tried to hoax me? Disassociation and exposure of the hoax.

How many Bigfoot hoaxers have you exposed personally?

If you are being hoaxed by other Bigfoot-researchers (or their associates), by people you may well know, trust, and like, and they want to remain your friend then it is hardly likely that they will tell you about it, would they?

There is an extreme view that is popular among both Bigfoot-proponents and skeptics – that hoaxing is a bad thing, almost the worst thing that someone could do. Yet it is a very natural and human-thing to do, a fun thing – and it is an integral part of the Bigfoot phenomenon (as it is with ghosts, demons, aliens, etc). Its just that few own up to it in these things…
___________

There is a Yowie group close to where I live and they, like you, are confident that the Yowie is some sort of ape based on their research and their own personal sightings. Yet their own evidence, also like yours, suggests otherwise. Could you examine the following example:

The Evidence Part 1 - http://theaustralianapeproject.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page.html
The Evidence Part 2 - http://theaustralianapeproject.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page_12.html

I’d be interested to learn your opinion of their work? Do you see what they see? How is it different to yours?

 

[Tolls]

I would say that they are fishing for fools.

That's an interesting thought.
Scammers (the email and cold calling type) will hang up / drop the conversation if you appear to know what you're talking about, as they don't want to have to deal with someone who will spot the scam. It's said to be one of the reasons scam emails are so crappy. If you fall for a crappy email then you are therefore more likely to fall for the scam behind it.

Ah, here's a Torygraph page on what I'm thinking of.

And a more recent one, but I have no idea who Newsonaut is...it references a Microsoft paper, though.

 

[Belz...]

You know you're starting to talk like you realize Bigfoot is possible. Finally.

Of course bigfoot is possible. It is logically possible, physically possible, etc. But it is extremly improbable, due to the amount of knowledge we have about the world around us. How can it avoid us and never leave carcasses, etc. ?

 

[LTC8K6]

Syke's bear, supposedly is something already on record thought to have been extinct. So in fact there was a type specimen already on file. The same cannot be said of Bigfoot. Regardless, ask yourself how the bear findings went over here even with a specimen on file.

I don't recall listing what I collect for samples or if I have collected any. What's the query about? Show me the monkey again? Not interested.
Chris B.

IIRC, the bear hair samples that Sykes used have serious provenance problems...

 

[LTC8K6]

Of course bigfoot is possible. It is logically possible, physically possible, etc. But it is extremly improbable, due to the amount of knowledge we have about the world around us. How can it avoid us and never leave carcasses, etc. ?

It's really not physically possible for bigfoot to exist as described and seen, and still be unproven, imo.

 

[The Shrike]

IIRC, the bear hair samples that Sykes used have serious provenance problems...

. . . And Chris knows this; we addressed it a few pages ago.

 

[Resume]

You know you're starting to talk like you realize Bigfoot is possible. Finally.
Chris B.

I've opined many times that footie is a biological possibility, though not a real animal as hypothesized by proponents.

The real animal thing is the problem here. A problem you folks can't seem to solve. Almost as if you're not really trying.

 

[RayG]

You are not alone in your confidence to be able to correctly identify real vs hoaxed prints.

<Cough> Elbe Trackway </Cough>

RayG

 

[dmaker]

Syke's bear, supposedly is something already on record thought to have been extinct. So in fact there was a type specimen already on file. The same cannot be said of Bigfoot. Regardless, ask yourself how the bear findings went over here even with a specimen on file.

I don't recall listing what I collect for samples or if I have collected any. What's the query about? Show me the monkey again? Not interested.
Chris B.

Riiiiight. So when called out on your BS, your response is to turn it into a refusal to provide proof question.

Do you enjoy this game? You have clearly demonstrated that you are simply here to, in your mind, tweak our noses. The reality is that you are demonstrating laughable incongruities in your claims and statements and a staggering level of ignorance. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose.


You never answered me before, so I will try again: has anyone else shared a bigfoot sighting with you?

 

[carlitos]

The guy's name is Sykes, right? Not "Syke?"

I'm starting to think that Chris is doing performance art.

 

[swright777]

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

Ahem... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194545/Man-run-cars-killed-standing-highway-dressed-BIGFOOT.html

 

[Belz...]

I wonder if he was trolling gullible people, or if he was trying to bolster the ranks of fellow believers...

 

[Mudcat]

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

I have qualms with your second point. Now I'm not a biologist, or a hunter, or a ranger, or a Mountie, nor any other profession that requires significant tracking skills, but I do enjoy hiking and used to camp a lot and have came accross all kinds of tracks. Humans, dogs, foxes, wolves, deer, bear, even a horse once.

Many of these tracks came out of nowhere and terminated just as suddenly. Now I'm not a proponent of Bigfoot or, as I said, any kind of tracker but I can still think of a few reasons why that would happen. So is this a legitimate argument?

 

[Drewbot]

One of the problems with Seeing Cryptids, especially in the case of the Bigfoot, is the messed up Family tree that we get.

 

[Resume]

I have qualms with your second point. Now I'm not a biologist, or a hunter, or a ranger, or a Mountie, nor any other profession that requires significant tracking skills, but I do enjoy hiking and used to camp a lot and have came accross all kinds of tracks. Humans, dogs, foxes, wolves, deer, bear, even a horse once.

Many of these tracks came out of nowhere and terminated just as suddenly. Now I'm not a proponent of Bigfoot or, as I said, any kind of tracker but I can still think of a few reasons why that would happen. So is this a legitimate argument?

They never seem to lead anywhere. Ever. But even trackways that seem to disappear have sign associated with them: scat, hair, rubs, that sort of thing. Other signs of passing. Signs that might yield biological evidence. That science could test.

ETA: A trackway indicates a pinch-point that a savvy footie hunter would use to his advantage, don't you think? That's never happened, either.

 

[Resume]

Delete

 

[Mudcat]

They never seem to lead anywhere. Ever. But even trackways that seem to disappear have sign associated with them: scat, hair, rubs, that sort of thing. Other signs of passing. Signs that might yield biological evidence. That science could test.

ETA: A trackway indicates a pinch-point that a savvy footie hunter would use to his advantage, don't you think? That's never happened, either.

Point well taken. I could also point to examples of things that never happen.

For example, Bigfoot proponents claim that Bigfoots follow power lines in the woods. They even go so far as to claim that is their highway. So how come is it that Bigfooters never stake out power lines or put them under surveillance via game trail cameras?

 

[The Shrike]

Ahem... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194545/Man-run-cars-killed-standing-highway-dressed-BIGFOOT.html

I don't think we emphasize this story to 'footers as often as we should.

On the one hand, we have a population of at least several thousand bigfoots in North America by most proponents' estimates. These creatures are usually dark, often nocturnal, have been often spotted by motorists, and should have little to no concept that a motor vehicle is something exceedingly dangerous. With a population of bigfoots, there should be young ones, old ones, crazy ones, etc.; i.e., we expect there would be plenty of situations in which a bigfoot stumbled/ran into the path of a speeding car. Despite all that, we have 0 cases of a bigfoot ever having been stuck anbd killed by a car.

In contrast, we have a small number (I don't know how many but I think we can agree that it's far fewer than thousands at any given time) of humans who will don ape and/or ghillie suits in an effort to prank motorists into thinking they have seen a roadside bigfoot. As humans, these subjects know full well the danger involved in this endeavor and presumably apply an abundance of caution to their activity. Despite that, we actually have a case in which one of these humans was "collected" via automobile collision (twice, actually).

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

They never seem to lead anywhere. Ever. But even trackways that seem to disappear have sign associated with them: scat, hair, rubs, that sort of thing. Other signs of passing. Signs that might yield biological evidence. That science could test.

ETA: A trackway indicates a pinch-point that a savvy footie hunter would use to his advantage, don't you think? That's never happened, either.

A real trackway does lead somewhere. I've found good trackways before but was unable to follow any further than about 1.5 miles. This doesn't mean the footies simply disappeared into thin air, it means I do not have the skill required to follow the tracks to their completion. The footies choose their walk path differently than other animals. Tracking them using techniques based on smaller animals doesn't work very well and I don't have the skills required. I'd like to team up with someone who does.

Riiiiight. So when called out on your BS, your response is to turn it into a refusal to provide proof question.

Do you enjoy this game? You have clearly demonstrated that you are simply here to, in your mind, tweak our noses. The reality is that you are demonstrating laughable incongruities in your claims and statements and a staggering level of ignorance. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose.


You never answered me before, so I will try again: has anyone else shared a bigfoot sighting with you?

I'll be happy to have a discussion with you, if you can refrain from using the aforementioned tired argument techniques.

I think I've already answered your question regarding anyone else sharing a Bigfoot sighting with me. Another member of our group and his son was present at the hillside family group sighting.

<Cough> Elbe Trackway </Cough>

RayG

I'm glad I wasn't on the list.

I've opined many times that footie is a biological possibility, though not a real animal as hypothesized by proponents.

The real animal thing is the problem here. A problem you folks can't seem to solve. Almost as if you're not really trying.

There are a few trying.

. . . And Chris knows this; we addressed it a few pages ago.

I think all we can agree on with the proposed extinct bear, is that it will need further investigation. Time will tell. At this point it could be a hoax, or the real thing. Who knows. It's exciting though.

IIRC, the bear hair samples that Sykes used have serious provenance problems...

I agree, it seems funny how something as simple as a chain of custody could be so difficult to follow. That leaves the door open for claims of a hoax.

Of course bigfoot is possible. It is logically possible, physically possible, etc. But it is extremly improbable, due to the amount of knowledge we have about the world around us. How can it avoid us and never leave carcasses, etc. ?

The carcass question is a good one. Where are all the dead Bigfoots? Where are the fossils? I don't know either, I wish I did. Though we're not good at finding fossils for our current primate brothers either. The Chimpanzee and Gorilla don't have much of a fossil record either.

But ghosts, demons, aliens, etc leave physical evidence just not any evidence that they are actual biological living things – just like Bigfoot. You may not have an interest in the paranormal but if you are interested in getting to the bottom of the Bigfoot mystery then perhaps you should broaden your approach and understanding of the phenomenon.

So, what kind of creatures do people all over the world report seeing (people just like you) and leaves behind physical evidence of its presence, but no evidence that they are actual biological living things? Paranormal creatures. Ghosts, demons, aliens, Bigfoot, etc. Then the question becomes: What is the paranormal? (Please, let’s not go there for now…)

You don’t need to believe in the paranormal but you should at least take steps to understand it better…

I'm in the camp that "Bigfoot is a living biological creature" Others may feel otherwise and that's ok. I think trying to explain one mystery with another though is not really an explanation at all. It's further compounding the mystery of Bigfoot with yet more mystery rather than real answers.

I understand why some tend to attribute the paranormal with Bigfoot. The animal does some odd things at times, but nothing that cannot be explained as having been done by a biological being.

You are not alone in your confidence to be able to correctly identify real vs hoaxed prints. Intelligent and qualified men like Krantz, Meldrum, Bindernagel, etc have expressed similar confidence have all been lead astray – but with you that is not at all possible?

Your belief that Bigfoot is real ape-like creature is supported by your subjective experiences but not by your own objective evidence (http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html). How do you account for that (particularly if Bigfoot isn’t paranormal like ghosts, demons, aliens, etc)?

No, with me it's not at all possible. The reason? The scientists you mention did not gather their evidence from a personal sighting. In other words, they commented on second hand casts and tracks. Which is akin to commenting on the condition of a second hand car someone had brought them. I don't do that.

I think it would be better to say your belief is not supported by the objective pics and video I have released to the public on my site. And that's ok.

Unless you have objectively documented Bigfoot personally making the tracks then there IS always doubt. There should be big doubts rather than none.

Bolded mine: Yes, that's why I have no doubt about what a real track looks like.

If there are Bigfoot-researchers in Kentucky then there are Bigfoot-hoaxers there too – you should realize that the two groups are not mutually exclusive…



How many Bigfoot hoaxers have you exposed personally?

If you are being hoaxed by other Bigfoot-researchers (or their associates), by people you may well know, trust, and like, and they want to remain your friend then it is hardly likely that they will tell you about it, would they?

There is an extreme view that is popular among both Bigfoot-proponents and skeptics – that hoaxing is a bad thing, almost the worst thing that someone could do. Yet it is a very natural and human-thing to do, a fun thing – and it is an integral part of the Bigfoot phenomenon (as it is with ghosts, demons, aliens, etc). Its just that few own up to it in these things…
___________

The Bigfoot hoaxing business in KY is kinda slow. I guess most folks are too busy trying to earn a living to go out with stompers in the backwoods hoping someone will find their mischief.

I've only busted one hoax here in KY. It was a few kids in Brownsville with a gorilla suit video.

Further suggestion that my friends may be hoaxing me should not have been made. As previously I stated it was not only unlikely, it was impossible for them to have done so. Certainly everyone has a sense of humor but we are very serious about the subject.

There is a Yowie group close to where I live and they, like you, are confident that the Yowie is some sort of ape based on their research and their own personal sightings. Yet their own evidence, also like yours, suggests otherwise. Could you examine the following example:

The Evidence Part 1 - http://theaustralianapeproject.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page.html
The Evidence Part 2 - http://theaustralianapeproject.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page_12.html

I’d be interested to learn your opinion of their work? Do you see what they see? How is it different to yours?

I don't comment on other's research. No matter the quality or approach, I can only say if they are out trying to explain the mystery, they get an "A" for effort regardless of results. Chris B.

 

[MikeG]

......I think all we can agree on with the proposed extinct bear, is that it will need further investigation. Time will tell. At this point it could be a hoax, or the real thing. Who knows. It's exciting though.......

No, that's the one thing it won't be. It could be a mistake of some description. It could be an exaggeration, or jumping to conclusions on too little data. It could be all sorts of things, but you won't find anyone suggesting that Brian Sykes would hoax results. Maybe the world you live in is rather used to hoaxes, but the world of Oxbridge academia.......not so much.