Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Regarding the story of the wolf shot in Kentucky in March of this year, could you please identify for us the following from the above statement?

1) Who is the "someone"?

2) What is it that this someone thought he/she/they knew that we now know was incorrect based on the collection and positive identification of the wolf?

I'd rather not make a big stink about the wolf shot in KY. The argument was that there are no wolves in KY, yet one was shot here and confirmed by DNA to be a wolf.

You may still argue that there are no wolves in KY, yet we have a confirmed body. You can speculate it was an escaped pet, yet we have a body. You can speculate it's not that far out of it's normal range, yet we have a body.

There is much to speculate about how it got here but the fact remains, we have a DNA confirmed body of a wolf.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Rene Dahinden...

'You know, I've spent over 40 years — and I didn't find it. I guess that's got to say something.'

You know this got me to thinking. AlaskaBushPilot mentioned in a post about how vast Alaska is. The PNW contains a vast amount of forest land as well although not as much as Alaska.

Maybe Rene was looking in the wrong area? Or wasn't looking at all, only investigating sightings? I think the vastness of the area directly determines the probability of a sighting. The larger the forested area the more space required to search. The smaller the area, the less space to cover. Probability of a sighting would increase in a smaller research area.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So you plan on proving something soon?



Or:

"That's the thing about having one's mind open to a subject, you may learn that you've been wrong all along."

Yoda you're not.


Correct, you have belief without evidence. There's the word for that is "faith" not science.

I plan on proving the creatures exist for science to allow the recognition of the species. Not by killing one. Demands of "Show me the monkey" will be satisfied at some point in the future. When? We'll see.

You know it's kinda funny that you tell me my knowledge of Bigfoot is faith based. It absolutely is not, my knowledge of Bigfoot is based on fact.

Let's be perfectly clear. What you choose to believe about Bigfoot would be faith based. I have no doubt whatsoever the creatures exist. If you have an opinion that they don't exist, good luck with that. I wouldn't place any bets if I were you.

 

[LTC8K6]

You know this got me to thinking. AlaskaBushPilot mentioned in a post about how vast Alaska is. The PNW contains a vast amount of forest land as well although not as much as Alaska.

Maybe Rene was looking in the wrong area? Or wasn't looking at all, only investigating sightings? I think the vastness of the area directly determines the probability of a sighting. The larger the forested area the more space required to search. The smaller the area, the less space to cover. Probability of a sighting would increase in a smaller research area.

Maybe Rene wasted much of his life and lost his marriage over a silly hoax?

Take the hint.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Anything is possible.

 

[River]

Anything is possible.

Anything? Or what you'd like to be true? Rene never saw a bigfoot even once. (i think that might be renes trailer in the background) Yet you and your group seem to have multiple times in the same area.

Bigfoot is men fabricating stories/evidence/misidentifying things, or sometimes humans being delusional. We can prove this. (many times over) Can you prove otherwise once?

 

[Resume]

I have no doubt whatsoever the creatures exist. If you have an opinion that they don't exist, good luck with that. I wouldn't place any bets if I were you.

I wouldn't either because enthusiasts would never money up. The absolute fact is none of you have ever produced a bigfoot. Ever.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have no doubt whatsoever the creatures exist. If you have an opinion that they don't exist, good luck with that. I wouldn't place any bets if I were you.

Wait a minute. How long do we have to wait for the game to be called?

It's been my entire life, so far, and no bigfoot. Not even any decent evidence of bigfoot. When I was a boy, bigfoot was the coolest, scariest thing in the woods. I would have given anything to see one. Alas...

When would I win the bet?

If we made a bet today, when would you pay off?

It's obvious when I would have to pay off, but what about you?

 

[The Shrike]

I'd rather not make a big stink about the wolf shot in KY.

You wouldn't?

The argument was that there are no wolves in KY,

Well, not really. The "argument" is that wolves were extirpated from Kentucky in the 19th Century and that any wolf discovered in Kentucky in 2013 would be extralimital or, more likely, an escaped pet.

. . . yet one was shot here and confirmed by DNA to be a wolf.

Wow! That's very cool. Proof of a wolf in Kentucky! Well, we know that it's extralimital as there has been no evidence of range expansion out of Michigan and through the Midwest for the animal to have made it to Kentucky. There aren't, for example, packs of wolves running deer and stealing calves all over Ohio. So this was one very impressive dispersal event or . . . wait a minute: What can we discern about the likelihood that this was a captive wolf that escaped or was released? Is there any evidence suggesting that might have been the case?

You may still argue that there are no wolves in KY, yet we have a confirmed body.

No one is arguing against the positive identification of the wolf.

You can speculate it was an escaped pet, yet we have a body. You can speculate it's not that far out of it's normal range, yet we have a body.

You seem to be arguing against the opinion of those who examined the carcass that it showed a distinct indication of having been in captivity.

So it seems that you extol the physical evidence when it supports your preconceived notion but ignore the evidence that refutes it. Do you see that you're doing this?

 

[Resume]

There is much to speculate about how it got here but the fact remains, we have a DNA confirmed body of a wolf.

Yes, we can indeed speculate about how this particular wolf got there, but that red herring keeps us from examining the fact that there isn't, hasn't been any sort of confirmed bigfoot body.

Which is a problem for you side.

 

[William Parcher]

There aren't, for example, packs of wolves running deer and stealing calves all over Ohio.

Don't assume that the locals in Ohio have not claimed something like this. Remember that Chris would be using the anecdotes of locals to determine what animals live in a particular area or state. IOW, if Ohio locals claim to see grey wolves then Ohio has grey wolves.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

There are reports of wolves in Ohio too. Bigfoot smashes them in volume though..

 

[EHocking]

Yes, we can indeed speculate about how this particular wolf got there, but that red herring keeps us from examining the fact that there isn't, hasn't been any sort of confirmed bigfoot body.

Which is a problem for you side.

You're missing the point.
DNA was used to prove this was a wolf, therefore bigfoot.



or something....

 

[eerok]

I'd rather not make a big stink about the wolf shot in KY. The argument was that there are no wolves in KY, yet one was shot here and confirmed by DNA to be a wolf.

What do the experts say about elephants in KY?

 

[LTC8K6]

What do the experts say about elephants in KY?

There are elephant experts in KY?

Or expert elephants?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I only know a wolf was shot in the wild in KY. Is that incorrect?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Anything? Or what you'd like to be true? Rene never saw a bigfoot even once. (i think that might be renes trailer in the background) Yet you and your group seem to have multiple times in the same area.

Bigfoot is men fabricating stories/evidence/misidentifying things, or sometimes humans being delusional. We can prove this. (many times over) Can you prove otherwise once?

"We can prove this." Nope, you can't. You "believe" Bigfoot can be explained away, but that's faith based, not factual.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Wait a minute. How long do we have to wait for the game to be called?

It's been my entire life, so far, and no bigfoot. Not even any decent evidence of bigfoot. When I was a boy, bigfoot was the coolest, scariest thing in the woods. I would have given anything to see one. Alas...

When would I win the bet?

If we made a bet today, when would you pay off?

It's obvious when I would have to pay off, but what about you?

You're already reaping the benefits of your position on Bigfoot. Take a look thru some threads and view some of the ridicule, rudeness, name calling, and generally insulting remarks I receive everytime I log in here. You have YOUR reward now.

I wouldn't wanna bet money with you as I already know you will lose and that's not fair. That's kinda like cheating.

I would like to suggest a large gathering of skeptics for a banquet dinner in the event I personally end up providing the evidence of Bigfoot that is accepted as positive proof of existence by science.

The main course will be of course, Crow. Clean healthy specimens will be obtained for the dinner. They will be humanely dispatched, thoughtfully prepared and cooked to perfection.

I will enjoy a main course of steak and accept apologies from the other diners. I will of course still pay for the banquet, and dining facilities.
Would there be any skeptics that are willing to participate? Keep in mind I specified only if "I" brought in the conclusive evidence. Takers?

 

[River]

"We can prove this." Nope, you can't. You "believe" Bigfoot can be explained away, but that's faith based, not factual.

Actually you're quite wrong. Those are the only proven explanations for the bigfoot phenomenon. I can prove humans leave bigfoot prints. I can prove humans fabricate bigfoot films and videos. I can prove humans have misidentified things as bigfoot evidence. I can prove people have lied, also that people have been delusional when it comes to their sightings with bigfoot. I can prove these things many times over.


That is the bigfoot phenomenon. It has been proven time and again. In fact each time we learn the outcome or we do prove a source for these claims it ends up as one of those things I listed.


The one thing it has never ended up leading to, is an actual bigfoot. Do you believe in mermaids? Leprechauns? Faeries?

Why not? Why do we declare animals extinct? For the same reason bigfoot does not exist. It is not present. We would have collected one long ago. With so many sightings, and absolutely zero verifiable evidence... this mimics perfectly many other social constructs. The sightings database also mimics the human population charts in our country. It also mimics UFO sighting charts.

I've asked this of you before Chris. Do you think bigfoot will ever be discovered? When? If not, why not?

How do you explain being able to know where they are and you have nothing to show for it? You've made the claim of having 2 videos and footprints documented.

You've made many claims regarding bigfoot, including multiple sightings within your group. If bigfoot is so rare, and so stealthy how are all these people able to see it, yet no cameras or guns can? Can you name any real animal that is declared as rare, that is spotted as often as bigfoot? I can name many rare or elusive animals that are cataloged that arent spotted nearly as often as the HUGE purported bigfoot beast is. You've claimed they are in Kentucky.

There are 250 sighting reports in Kentucky listed on one of the websites I saw. 250. Yet zip, zero, nothing for evidence or documentation. Not one photograph, or trailcam photo. Not one hair, or bit of DNA. Nothing. It's almost as if the people seeing it are just making it up, or if it really doesnt exist.

Every single living thing leaves evidence of its existence Chris. Back in this post, I mentioned how many hunters per year are out in our woods. Also how many other citizens have ventured into the woods. About 1000 people per year are mistakenly shot in hunting accidents alone. (only in canada in the usa) Never a bigfoot. All bigfoot stories, and claimed evidence have lead to once place, and to one place only Chris. Real science follows the evidence and utilizes critical thinking skills.

It is impossible for the creature you have alleged to have seen to exist in this world without being discovered a very long time ago Chris. To continue to make claims of this nature, and never produce any viable evidence only leads to one place as well. (delusional, or hoaxer)

Theres a group of t-rex out back. I seen em. Anything is possible.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I only know a wolf was shot in the wild in KY. Is that incorrect?

It's totally incorrect. You know a lot more about it. You're either lying or you're claiming you don't actually read the threads you post in. Not the least of which is the fact 'experts' who actually looked at it determined it was inevitably from an unknown-but-domestic source and in no way "wild" to that part of the country.

Are you seriously claiming you don't also know that?