Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

River, I understand your point of view. I agree you can prove some Bigfoot sightings and casts have been hoaxed. But, you cannot prove ALL have been hoaxed. You cannot prove ALL witnesses are mistaken or lying or delusional.

I'm not one to believe in fairies, mermaids or leprechauns. I honestly wouldn't consider investigating anything of that nature. It's absolutely ridicule to suggest a comparison between Bigfoot and those beings. I suggest Bigfoot is a living primate, nothing more. A biological being much like other known great apes with the exception it's bipedal like us. Do I blame you for your opinion? Nope, I had to see it for myself but at least I can say I was open to the possibility that these creatures may be out there.

You say I have nothing to show from my encounters. Well I admit the videos I shared are not that great but they are "something". Have you really looked at the hillside family group slow motion video and studied it on a large screen? Honestly, have you taken the time to study it fully? Did you look to the lower left of the large subject? If you do, you might see the infant coming out to take a peek at us. Did you focus on the large subject's back/shoulder during the video? If you did, you might see the lighter color hairy arm and hand movements of a smaller subject behind him. If after you spend a little time studying it and still do not see anything, that's ok. But if you do, will you admit it? Can you admit it?

I've not shared everything I have with the public. But I promise I will when the time comes. I know Bigfoot will absolutely be put on scientific record. As far as when? Who can say. I can't put an exact date on it and I know the public is tired of waiting too but it's still a waiting game.

Someone said in an earlier post that I need to get it together. I have. I learn from my mistakes. The other team members and I have had sightings yes. It's not easy and it's got as much to do with luck as it has doing the research to find their areas. EVERY sighting is by chance.

Do hunters see these creatures in KY? You bet they do. Raccoon hunters, deer hunters, fishermen, there are numerous sightings. So why didn't they pull a trigger? I've asked a few that question. The most common answer is "I thought it may have been a hairy person because it was walking on two legs" Or "Are you kidding? You should have seen the size of that thing. Besides I didn't wanna shoot somebody by mistake."

Responsible hunters will not shoot something unknown if they think it possibly could be a human. That's it. It's not because they're all lying or mistaken, it's because they fear making the ultimate mistake of killing a fellow human. Until we know exactly what these creatures are, I'd be careful suggesting to others they should kill one. I think they're only apes but nobody knows for sure.

It's not impossible for the creatures to exist. Someone I can't remember who, once said "They've already been discovered just not put into the science books yet." It's not like nobody ever saw one before. Sightings are actually growing more common. I think their population is increasing and their habitat is decreasing. You know what's gonna happen soon.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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?

Easy now. I know exactly what I've posted and exactly what the argument was/is being twisted into.

Go back and see for yourself. I said a wolf was shot in KY. I was asked for a link to that info which I provided. I said I had seen what I had thought was a wolf at one time in the same area but I had dismissed it as it had to be a large coyote because wolves aren't supposed to live in KY. Now I think my first impression may have been accurate.

Poof, enter the rhetoric. My point has been and still is one shouldn't make declamatory statements regarding what exists where. Sometimes it may come back to bite you in the buttocks.

You can defend other facts about the wolf if you need, but that's simply diversion. The fact remains a wolf was shot in the wild in KY. Are there any wolves in KY now? I dunno, I kinda think there may be, time will tell I guess

 

[GT/CS]

Easy now. I know exactly what I've posted and exactly what the argument was/is being twisted into.

Go back and see for yourself. I said a wolf was shot in KY. I was asked for a link to that info which I provided. I said I had seen what I had thought was a wolf at one time in the same area but I had dismissed it as it had to be a large coyote because wolves aren't supposed to live in KY. Now I think my first impression may have been accurate.

Poof, enter the rhetoric. My point has been and still is one shouldn't make declamatory statements regarding what exists where. Sometimes it may come back to bite you in the buttocks.

You can defend other facts about the wolf if you need, but that's simply diversion. The fact remains a wolf was shot in the wild in KY. Are there any wolves in KY now? I dunno, I kinda think there may be, time will tell I guess

Chris,
There are wolves in all states, because people have them as pets in all states, and they are in zoos in most, or all, states.
Why do you ignore that fact and continue make irrational posts?

 

[eerok]

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

I know that no one quoted or commenting in this thread has claimed that there were no captive wolves in KY or that a wolf from somewhere else couldn't wander through. Is that incorrect?

I know that you're desperate to try to make a point and it's not working. Is that incorrect?

And yes, there are elephants in KY.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

"There are no wolves in KY"

There was at least 1.

 

[Resume]

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?

There would be no need to eat crow because one was skeptical of the existence cryptid. It's a perfectly acceptable position. What would be incorrect would to deny the existence of the thing after a body is brought in.

You will sadly never enjoy steak and apologies however,

 

[GT/CS]

Chris,
If you just want to brag to all your friends that you are right then I'm sure we will all agree that there are wolves in Kentucky, but they are all pets or in zoos.

What is your point in continuing this disturbing and unhealthy semantic tirade?

 

[Resume]

Responsible hunters will not shoot something unknown if they think it possibly could be a human. That's it. It's not because they're all lying or mistaken, it's because they fear making the ultimate mistake of killing a fellow human. Until we know exactly what these creatures are, I'd be careful suggesting to others they should kill one. I think they're only apes but nobody knows for sure.

What about irresponsible ones? Seriously, it's hard to imagine someone with less knowledge of how this continent's flora and fauna were exploited and in some cases, extirpated. If this animal existed, market hunters would have brought one in the first chance they had, as they did all the rest.

It's not impossible for the creatures to exist. Someone I can't remember who, once said "They've already been discovered just not put into the science books yet." It's not like nobody ever saw one before. Sightings are actually growing more common. I think their population is increasing and their habitat is decreasing. You know what's gonna happen soon.

You can bluster these assertions all you wish, they count for nothing. This isn't the BFF board where every silly notion is fawned over.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There would be no need to eat crow because one was skeptical of the existence cryptid. It's a perfectly acceptable position. What would be incorrect would to deny the existence of the thing after a body is brought in.

You will sadly never enjoy steak and apologies however,

If everyone denied it's existence it'd never be proven. Is that science? Don't look there's nothing there? I don't think so. Nothing would have been discovered if someone wasn't looking for it.
On another note, I guess civility is a choice.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What about irresponsible ones? Seriously, it's hard to imagine someone with less knowledge of how this continent's flora and fauna were exploited and in some cases, extirpated. If this animal existed, market hunters would have brought one in the first chance they had, as they did all the rest.



You can bluster these assertions all you wish, they count for nothing. This isn't the BFF board where every silly notion is fawned over.

Speculation without investigation.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris,
If you just want to brag to all your friends that you are right then I'm sure we will all agree that there are wolves in Kentucky, but they are all pets or in zoos.

What is your point in continuing this disturbing and unhealthy semantic tirade?

I agree it's bit unhealthy to keep trying to twist a post into a defense of the unknowable.

 

[Drewbot]

"There are no wolves in KY"

There was at least 1.

There are no wolves in Kentucky. The one wolf was shot and killed.

There are no wolves in Kentucky. There is no population of wolves breeding and living in Kentucky.

There are no wolves in Kentucky. There was a feral captive wolf in Kentucky.

 

[Resume]

If everyone denied it's existence it'd never be proven. Is that science? Don't look there's nothing there? I don't think so. Nothing would have been discovered if someone wasn't looking for it.
On another note, I guess civility is a choice.

What's uncivil? The fact you won't be enjoying steak and apologies? There's nothing to apologize for.

ETA: Lot's of stuff was discovered while looking for other stuff. Sort of what discovery means.

 

[Resume]

Speculation without investigation.

Investigate what exactly. Your reply doesn't follow.

 

[Castro]

Investigate what exactly. Your reply doesn't follow.

SPIRAL fractures? lol

 

[The Shrike]

Nothing would have been discovered if someone wasn't looking for it.

Discovered by people who were not specifically looking for them:

Western Lowland Gorilla
Mountain Gorilla
Coelacanth
Saola

Of these old chestnuts of craptozoology, only the Okapi was discovered by people intentionally heading out to find it. The four above were happy accidents. When bigfooters use the above species' discoveries as analogies to bigfoot, it's just about as dumb as Ray Comfort invoking the design of a banana as god's handiwork.

 

[Resume]

Discovered by people who were not specifically looking for them:

Western Lowland Gorilla
Mountain Gorilla
Coelacanth
Saola

Of these old chestnuts of craptozoology, only the Okapi was discovered by people intentionally heading out to find it. The four above were happy accidents. When bigfooters use the above species' discoveries as analogies to bigfoot, it's just about as dumb as Ray Comfort invoking the design of a banana as god's handiwork.

"Hey, this ain't India!"

Christopher Columbus.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Investigate what exactly. Your reply doesn't follow.

The statements you make about hunters and Bigfoot are merely speculation without investigation. In other words, your personal opinion, further, an opinion that was formed with no study or hands on investigation. As in "useless". But everyone's entitled to their opinions.

 

[Resume]

The statements you make about hunters and Bigfoot are merely speculation without investigation. In other words, your personal opinion, further, an opinion that was formed with no study or hands on investigation. As in "useless". But everyone's entitled to their opinions.

No, the statements I made about market hunters aren't speculation; they're borne out by the extirpation and near-extirpation of NA wildlife from passenger pigeon to bison. And of course the extirpation of Native American tribes. Bigfoot could not have escaped this destruction.

Unless you care to propose a supernatural hypothesis, which would be fun.

 

[The Shrike]

non-sequiturs:

1. "Hunter's don't shoot bigfoot because it looks too human."

White settlers had no problem shooting Native Americans or indeed other white settlers. Ask Alexander Hamilton.

Hunters today routinely shoot other hunters because they do not always get a positive ID on their target, and they shoot anyway.

1. "Hunter's don't shoot bigfoot because bigfoot looks too big and ferocious."

Grizzly bears were extirpated from almost their entire range in the Lower 48 states. The largest ever taken seems to have been about 10' tall (on two legs) and 1200 lbs, more typical might be about 6–7' tall and more like 500–800 lbs. That's squatch-sized, and something with far more formidable weaponry than I've ever read attributed to a bigfoot.

See also: extinction of Pleistocene megafauna at the hands of people with spears.