Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

I was referring to the sample, not the findings. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

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.

Wow. A 1.5 mile trackway should be well-defined and contain some of the following: ****, piss, blood, hair, partially consumed forage, and occassionally, a footie itself. Unless your foos don't ****, piss, bleed, defolliate, generate leftovers, or make mistakes.

Also, this sort of trackway would be a good place for a well-placed game came, or blind from which to harvest a footie, or take a calm, in focus HD video.

Any of this stuff occur to you? If not, why not? If so, where be the foo?

 

[River]

In trying to make my point I have probably oversold it. If I give off the impression that people are prancing around the woods, chasing fairies whilst singing “Tra-la-laa” then I assure you that is not what I am getting at. I’m struggling to find the right vocabulary to describe it better in a roundabout manner:

If you get the time read this (http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Yager_Yowie/) – it’s a good example of Enchantment (albeit for children). When adults do Enchantment for other adults (or for themselves) it is more subtle and multifaceted. Consider the “phenomenon” of fairy doors – tiny doorways constructed innocuously at the base of parkland trees and some inner-city buildings. Many people pass by without ever noticing and why would they? Fairies don’t exist so you shouldn’t be looking for their non-existent homes. Others may see it on occasion (ie enters their visual field) but it may not even register because they are not really paying attention and a tiny doorway is not something that one expects to see.

Imagine that you do see a fairy door in a spot you’ve been passed through time and time again. “Hey, what the…” – THAT MOMENT. That brief moment of wonder before reason steps in and you then smile/snort. That’s the feeling I am trying to get at and the subtle mindset of creative visualization I am trying to describe when I say “engaging with make-believe”.

Did that help or just make it less clear?



Working in the music industry for many years you will know that the entire industry has changed significantly over the last 15 years or so, right? In many ways its harder because the entire recording/distributing environment is different – you’ve had to change and adapt your business to survive, right? But whatever happens in the years to come people will still be making music even if there is no money in it, even if it costs them to do so because music is in some way an essential part of who we are. Music “touches” people in that Enchanting way. Follow me so far?

So, like music, the stories we live have similar significance to attain that magical experience that exists beyond quantification. Just as the music industry is changing so is the manner in which people share their stories. People are no longer content to be passively entertained, they want to be actively immersed within the story, participants even. People don’t even have to make money off storytelling – its an intrinsic thing that comes naturally to all of us, organically. It harkens back to something primal and has communal value. Bigfoot is an example such organic immersive storytelling – Bigfoot is for anyone but its also not for everyone. Bigfoot, then, is a bit like the fairy doors – you have to be paying attention to see it and if you do how would you react? Smile or snort?

I’ve addressed the apparent dangers of Bigfoot hunting above. Hysteria by any other name still smells like BS…



There is no evidence to suggest that they are any less sane than any other subculture (including that of “Bigfoot skeptics”). Folk-beliefs and practices are not valid criteria for diagnosing mental illness, you know…



I agree and that is what I did with my own children. But making stuff up is also really cool, creativity is cool, copying what other creative people do is cool, music and stories are cool and so is engaging with others who enjoy similar things, to be a part of an experience, a tradition, or something new – its all really cool. Bigfoot is way cool. People do cool “weird stuff” all the time and it is so cool that they can express themselves creatively without being judged… well, that is the ideal anyway. But, then, I am a dreamer. Can I ask if music just a business for you?



[qimg]http://i60.tinypic.com/1z4lq4n.jpg[/qimg]

If that’s an accurate reflection of how Bigfoot and the like moves you personally, if that’s what really works best for you then I salute you in your choice – Go, you indignant crusader of righteousness!

That's a really long post to try and explain why skeptics should embrace bigfootology and not call it out. I'm glad you posted the funny religious meme though. It reminds me a lot of how bigfooters act. "you must have faith" because without it, there is nothing...

I like this one better though.

As I've said many times previously, I have no problem with monster stories, vampire stories, werewolve stories or any thing of that sort. Where I have a problem with it is, when folks present it as a real entity. Especially when those same folks actually go to the woods and look for their fantasy to collect type specimens. You don't think that could lead to something extremely tragic?

The whole point is; its ok to write fiction or lore. Call it that. To use fiction or lore as footers do is often crossing the line into fraud. Patterson? Dyer? Ketchum? Yes, even Meldrum. It is not a role playing game, storytelling, or lore for these folks, it is about milking money from the gullible. I have a problem with that. Don't you?

 

[MikeG]

I was referring to the sample, not the findings. Chris B.

There isn't the merest hint of that in what you wrote. Can you tell me how one would set about hoaxing a DNA sample?

No, I thought not.

 

[dmaker]

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

.

Will you stop insisting that nothing short of a body matters for evidence collection? No matter how many times you have been corrected on this point?

 

[Belz...]

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.

I think you do know. They're nowhere because there is no bigfoot.

 

[HarryHenderson]

What's amazing is the resistance/incredulity here to the notion that ChrisBFRPKY is BLAARGing. It's almost like none of you think that's what he's doing. Seems you're stuck at "he really believes" and you're gonna somehow convince him of the evil of his ways. Then again, uber few of you truly understand anything about LYING either so...

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Mike, scientists, academic folks as a whole are not impervious to being fooled and hoaxed.

I hate using arguments from authority, I hate using the "been there done that" line, but trust me- we can be fooled. Intentionally or not, we can be fooled, sometimes even by ourselves.

We are only humans, of flesh and blood we are made.

 

[carlitos]

...of flesh and blood we are made.

Unlike a certain large-footed myth, who is made entirely of wishes and ********.

 

[Correa Neto]

What's amazing is the resistance/incredulity here to the notion that ChrisBFRPKY is BLAARGing. It's almost like none of you think that's what he's doing. Seems you're stuck at "he really believes" and you're gonna somehow convince him of the evil of his ways. Then again, uber few of you truly understand anything about LYING either so...

Guess I'm within the "almost none" field...
But hey, I'm unscientific and dogmatic, so screw this. It smells of attention-whoring, like a no small part of bigfootery. That's my SWAG.

 

[Correa Neto]

Unlike a certain large-footed myth, who is made entirely of wishes and ********.

Oh no!! Tending to zero is not equal to zero, you can' prove a negative, you can't actually prove anything. Bigfoot is not here but it may be behind that tree. No, not that one you just looked behind. That other one. No no no. That other one over there.

Doesn't matter. I saw one. I know what I saw. You can't take that from me.
My sightings. .Mine! Lets talk about my sightings, place the spotlight over me. Me. Me! Me! Me!

Bigfootery is for social scientists.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There isn't the merest hint of that in what you wrote. Can you tell me how one would set about hoaxing a DNA sample?

No, I thought not.

Never at any time have a commented that Dr Sykes may be the perpetrator of a hoax. I certainly don't believe he would risk a well defined career on nonsense. The evidence he was given to test though may have been a hoax.

Yes, I can tell you exactly how one would hoax a DNA sample. Simply pluck a few hairs from an extinct specimen. Where would one find an extinct specimen? Museum, a center for higher education, etc.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Will you stop insisting that nothing short of a body matters for evidence collection? No matter how many times you have been corrected on this point?

Only a body or part will suffice for a type specimen. I didn't say one shouldn't collect other data as well. How do those statements merit correction?
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Guess I'm within the "almost none" field...
But hey, I'm unscientific and dogmatic, so screw this. It smells of attention-whoring, like a no small part of bigfootery. That's my SWAG.

That's interesting. Since I have only responded to posts directed at me, exactly who is seeking the attention here? I find it curious to be asked a question or given a counter point yet any response to that on my part is to be seen as "attention seeking". Is that how it works on a discussion forum?
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I think you do know. They're nowhere because there is no bigfoot.

No more than I know where all the Chimpanzee and Gorilla fossils are. Aside from a few teeth discovered over the last 10 years or so, the fossil record for Chimps and Gorillas is almost as empty as Bigfoot's.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Wow. A 1.5 mile trackway should be well-defined and contain some of the following: ****, piss, blood, hair, partially consumed forage, and occassionally, a footie itself. Unless your foos don't ****, piss, bleed, defolliate, generate leftovers, or make mistakes.

Also, this sort of trackway would be a good place for a well-placed game came, or blind from which to harvest a footie, or take a calm, in focus HD video.

Any of this stuff occur to you? If not, why not? If so, where be the foo?

It wasn't "well defined" and aside from a few twist breaks, left no other impact on the environment and no biological data (no urine or scat).

The trackway is one of the areas I routinely watch with a cam at the ready.
Chris B.

 

[Belz...]

No more than I know where all the Chimpanzee and Gorilla fossils are. Aside from a few teeth discovered over the last 10 years or so, the fossil record for Chimps and Gorillas is almost as empty as Bigfoot's.

With the very important distinction that chimps and gorillas are known to exist today. Your analogy fails. I repeat: think that you know why there aren't any bigfoot corpses around, but you don't want to admit it.

 

[Night Walker]

<Cough> Elbe Trackway </Cough>

I'm not implying that any Bigfoot tracks are from a genuine Bigfoot but that that people (some more intelligent and qualified than any of us) have also been quite easily duped - lead astray by their confidence. The Elbe trackway is a good example of that, though, so thanks for bringing that up...

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're missing the point here - I am not advocating that we try to solve one mystery (Bigfoot) with another (the paranormal) because that does not explain anything. By examining other paranormal claims critically (like ghosts, demons, aliens, etc) which people see and experience, which leaves behind physical traces and ambiguous evidence, but never any objective biological evidence (just like Bigfoot) you may gain a better understanding of the power of belief and the lengths people will go to justify that belief, to fake it in order to prove it.

The key biological being in the Bigfoot phenomenon (as it is with ghosts, demons, aliens, etc) is humans - specifically the humans who are into Bigfoot to begin with...

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.

NW: Unless you have objectively documented Bigfoot personally making the tracks then there IS always doubt. Bolded mine: Yes, that's why I have no doubt about what a real track looks like.

I didn't see any pictures or videos of Bigfoot, let alone any of Bigfoot making tracks on your website (http://www.bfrpky.com/) - did I miss something? If I did can you point it out to me? Otherwise, pictures of ambiguous shapes like these (http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html - you have to admit that none are clear and all are open to interpretation) are examples of pareidolia - seeing what you want to see, are they not? That's a natural human thing, not dishonest, but not Bigfoot either. It's ok to believe otherwise but that is belief dictating evidence rather than evidence dictating belief...

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.

That's the exact same line that Wallace & co. used when they started the whole "Big Foot" craze, you know...

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.

I understand that hoaxing from within the Bigfoot-research is a very touchy subject yet there are many examples, it happens time and time again. By being very serious about Bigfoot, not taking the history of Bigfoot shenanigans into account, and not being willing/able to consider the obvious in relation to those around you then you are putting yourself in a prime position to be hoaxed. It's like a wondering why you keep getting sharp pains in your rear when there's an unseen "kick me" sign on your back. That you have never busted even a single Bigfoot-hoaxer/researchers is a testament to that...

Remember: "If you think you already know everything there is to know, you may be mistaken." And you know Bigfoot exists and it is just not possible that you could be duped, right?

I think it is important to practice what you preach, don't you?

I don't comment on other's research.

That's funny - neither do they: "This is the official Australian Yowie Project page. We do not comment on the research of others"...

Can you appreciate the view that Bigfoot-research is a sub-culture of people sharing the same belief, doing the same things, and ignoring the same issues rather than conducting any form systematic scientific inquiry?

 

[abaddon]

Never at any time have a commented that Dr Sykes may be the perpetrator of a hoax. I certainly don't believe he would risk a well defined career on nonsense. The evidence he was given to test though may have been a hoax.

Yes, I can tell you exactly how one would hoax a DNA sample. Simply pluck a few hairs from an extinct specimen. Where would one find an extinct specimen? Museum, a center for higher education, etc.
Chris B.

Right that is baloney right out of the box. Your rule of thumb for exhibits is if you can touch it, it is a reproduction. Period.

The diplodocus in the entrance of the London Museum of Natural history? Plaster. The diorama at the New York equivalent? Total fake built from casts of the real deal. And so on around the world.

The only ways to obtain such a sample without contamination would to be an application for such to a learned institution. Suggesting that one could simply pluck such a sample from an exhibit ignores the fact that the very act of such illicit plucking would irreversibly contaminate such a sample WITH YOUR OWN DNA, not to mention the DNA of millions of visitors who simply passed by. Researchers spend an astonishing amount of time eliminating such confounding factors. And fair play to their dedication. Your notion that one could casually pluck a few hairs from a museum sample for DNA matching is a blatant insult to the long, tedious and unregarded efforts of those who do such work. For shame. (oops, forgot you have none)

 

[Night Walker]

That's a really long post to try and explain why skeptics should embrace bigfootology and not call it out. I'm glad you posted the funny religious meme though. It reminds me a lot of how bigfooters act. "you must have faith" because without it, there is nothing...

I like this one better though.

[qimg]http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/iammenotu/religion_zpsbee9780e.jpg[/qimg]

As I've said many times previously, I have no problem with monster stories, vampire stories, werewolve stories or any thing of that sort. Where I have a problem with it is, when folks present it as a real entity. Especially when those same folks actually go to the woods and look for their fantasy to collect type specimens. You don't think that could lead to something extremely tragic?

The whole point is; its ok to write fiction or lore. Call it that. To use fiction or lore as footers do is often crossing the line into fraud. Patterson? Dyer? Ketchum? Yes, even Meldrum. It is not a role playing game, storytelling, or lore for these folks, it is about milking money from the gullible. I have a problem with that. Don't you?

Belief in the extreme - I like that meme, too. But it also applies to skepticism (cynicism?) in the extreme:

Blurring the lines, presenting fiction as fact is kinda the point of good storytelling. If doing so in the name of Bigfoot is actually fraudulent then prove it - mount a case with others that feel the same way and take Meldrum et al to court. Getting fined and/or jailed will surely make them reconsider their wicked ways...

But - just like Bigfooters' eternal quest to get objective evidence - that's just not going to happen, is it? I have a problem with people who cannot support their claims, don't you? At least Bigfooters are trying...

Every form of activity has its risks yet the injury/death toll of people searching for Bigfoot is surprisingly low - perhaps they are even more cautious that the average bush-walker because they are after a giant man-beast than can rip people's heads off their shoulders. If you are genuinely concerned with the consequences of the real dangers 'footers face then what are you actually doing about it besides raging against a sub-culture of people that you seem to have little to no personal real-world interactions with on a virtual-forum that most footers would never even read? Anything? Anything at all?

Skeptics don't need to call proponents out unless there is direct evidence that certain ones are engaging in shenanigans. Certainly - point out what is fake and offer insights into how it might have been done and let those who are interested come to their own conclusions. Proponents traditionally frame accounts in a particular manner which emphasizes the Bigfootedness of the situation while glossing-over or ignoring significant details and mundane explanations that put it in a different light. Skeptics, on the other hand, are really good at pointing those things out so skeptic-proponent collaboration in the field would provide a more complete picture of what is going on while at the same time help skeptics to relate to Footers as real people rather than just "frauds" and "nutters"...

Hoaxing, fakery, and storytelling are not bad things - they are very human-things which create and perpetuate mysteries, and are FUN to be a part of...