• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

William Parcher said:
OK, so I guess there was enough time for another bear to enter the scene. So the head curled under could be a second bear.

Two little bears wrasslin' round with each other could end up looking like a single bear about to do a headstand. Eh?
Click to expand...


Yeah, there was enough time. I think it's just licking/chewing its back leg/knee area? That mange might be a bit itchy.
 
A bear eating a watermelon.

I think River got the first one, don't know about the second cause it doesn't make sense to me no matter how I look at it. But if follows that if the first is a bear, so is the second.
 
River said:
They're all time stamped. (who knows if they're accurate or altered? "looks legit" lol)
Click to expand...


The logo, date and timestamps may be counterfeit.

I haven't been able to find any other Bushnell images on the web where those things are placed on the exposed image itself instead of on a solid-colored lower border(s).

Can anybody find others that show that information like these?
 
Even if it was accurate to the model camera allegedly used, that stuff can be digitally altered. (exif data as well) If someone was serious about it, they could alter a lot. I don't think that is the case here though. That weird position could just be the bear rubbing its head on the ground/root as well.
 
You can also take a photo of a photo and it alters everything that's stamped by the camera. IOW, I can photograph an old photo and it now has a new timestamp. This will also apply to settings, etc., so one can PS a photo then take a photo of it and it's really hard to tell it's been PSed unless it's just obvious from the getgo.
 
William Parcher said:
Radford doesn't actually know that people are seeing bears and elk and then misidentifying them as being Bigfoot. You see, the alternative to a misidentification is an outright fabrication. He can't know which is which unless he is standing next to a person who says "Look at that Bigfoot!" and it is actually a bear and Radford sees that it is a bear. Even then he doesn't know if the person actually believes what they are saying.

IOW, nobody really knows if "R. Jacobs" actually believes that this bear is a Bigfoot. This person could be lying, and thinks that it is a bear just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

You are right, of course, speaking in the particular. But generally, I think we can assume that bears, elk, etc., have been responsible for some Bigfoot sightings.

To give a scenario: a backpacker hiking the backwoods sees something a distance away he does not immediately recognise. In fact, he is seeing the ass end of a moose, with the moose's front end buried in the brush. The hiker stops and looks, seeing only something big and hairy, standing on two legs. The moose advances into the brush and the hiker sees the two legged beast move away and disappear.

Now, this doesn't make a Bigfoot sighting -- except. Except, as the hiker makes his way back to camp or car, he is thinking Bigfoot. He has seen the Legend of Boggy Creek, Monster Quest, and Finding Bigfoot. Could what he saw be Bigfoot? Now he is "remembering" things he didn't actually see, such as thinking he saw the Bigfoot glance back at him as it stepped into the brush. (What he really saw, indistinctly, was a tree limb move as the moose brushed it with its antlers.)

I understand this is pure speculation, although I think it is a plausible one. You have a good point that singular or anomalous events are not exactly knowable to those not on the scene.

I get the impression you think most cryptid sightings are outright fabrications, and not misidentifications.
 
jerrywayne said:
Cryptozoology, unlike zoology, depends primarily on eyewitness accounts. Some cryptozoology enthusiasts understand that eyewitness testimonies are not definitive because of the potential problems inherent in such accounts. Other advocates accept, at least provisionally, sightings, and others accept a body of eyewitness stories as surely valid.

I would like to examine various aspects of particular cryptid or unknown animal sightings to make a general argument that skeptics are rightfully doubting of eyewitness testimonies when it comes to the extraordinary claims of undocumented, unknown or out-of-place large animals.

My first example relates to the alleged lake "monster" said to live in British Columbia's Lake Okanagan and nick-named "Ogopogo."

In 1989, Ken Chaplin and his father and daughter thought they saw Ogopogo entering an inlet area on the lake. Chaplin said he was between 75ft to 100ft away from the creature. He "saw [the creature's] features very clearly" and it was "snake or lizard like" with "no fur or hair;" his sister saw a long snake-like body over 15ft long.

Sounds like Chaplin and family had a typical Ogopogo sighting. He had no question as to what he saw. Unfortunately for Ogopogo lore, Chaplin not only saw the creature, he video recorded it too--twice. What he recorded was obviously not an anomalous lake serpent/monster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyb-hpDh-7M&feature=relmfu

Even after his recording was shown to represent a common animal, he and his sister refused to accept the mundane verdict.

Enter the local Ogopogo "expert," Arlene Gaal, to also deny that Chaplin recorded a common animal and to state he filmed a "miniature" Ogopogo.

This is a straightforward demonstration that people don't always see what they believe they are seeing, and that cryptozoological "experts" can be blind to the obvious.
Click to expand...

It's Okanagan Lake, not Lake Okanagan. It's like me going East and calling Lake Superior, Superior Lake.

Arlene Gaal is a self proclaimed Ogopogo expert and is nothing but an attention seeker. She will proclaim anything and everything Ogopogo so she can sell more stuff and get on TV.

Most people who see Ogopogo have no idea about wave action on lakes such as Okanagan or Kalamalka, which is next to Okanagan Lake. The Okanagan is a tourist trap full of Albertans in the summer and every rogue wave is Ogopogo. There have been many people who have claimed to have video evidence of Ogopogo, but will not show the evidence unless they are paid thousands. That kind of money grabbing garbage, the want to see Ogopogo, and the ignorance of wave action on Okanagan Lake, and the need to sell souvenirs to the tourists are a big reason why the myth of Ogopogo stays alive.
 
My Cryptid Sighting

When I was a teenager I hiked solo in a flood control area, a wooded area with open grassland, not too far from home. It was a sunny, summer day.

I had just crossed a grassy area and was moving into to the woods. I ducked under a low hanging branch and walked into a spider-web, face first. Immediately, I started wiping my face with my hands, and was a little creeped out.

I had moved from the bright sun into deep shade. Looking ahead, I saw what looked to be a giant garden spider. I mean giant! The spider's body was about the size of a house-lamp light bulb. Its legs looked almost a foot long. It was either on the trunk of the tree, or on a tree-limb, not-moving.

Only a second or two, and I was gone. I went the way I came and never looked back. To be frank, I was a bit frightened. Seeing something that shouldn't be will do that to you.

Later, I questioned my experience. Did I see the thing clearly or was it a side glance or just a quick see? Did I see a spider or something I imagined a spider, such as a dead leaf attached to a spindly tree-limb?

Doubtful it was really a giant garden spider. A face-full of spider-web probably put me in the mind of seeing one, and the normal garden spider had always intrigued me with its size and motionless solitude. I was primed, if only for that singular moment, to see my own cryptid.
 
FFed said:
It's Okanagan Lake, not Lake Okanagan. It's like me going East and calling Lake Superior, Superior Lake.

Arlene Gaal is a self proclaimed Ogopogo expert and is nothing but an attention seeker. She will proclaim anything and everything Ogopogo so she can sell more stuff and get on TV.

Most people who see Ogopogo have no idea about wave action on lakes such as Okanagan or Kalamalka, which is next to Okanagan Lake. The Okanagan is a tourist trap full of Albertans in the summer and every rogue wave is Ogopogo. There have been many people who have claimed to have video evidence of Ogopogo, but will not show the evidence unless they are paid thousands. That kind of money grabbing garbage, the want to see Ogopogo, and the ignorance of wave action on Okanagan Lake, and the need to sell souvenirs to the tourists are a big reason why the myth of Ogopogo stays alive.
Click to expand...

Here is video of wave action at Okanagan Lake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qmGs0clU8c

Here is video of what appears to be otters on the lake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWFkQHa9Peo&feature=related
 
I'll start with this...

Radford said:
bear, elk, and other creatures are turned into Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

He doesn't even mention mis-IDs of other humans who are just out doing normal things and not even trying to look like Bigfoot (a hoaxer). Why are we talking about bear and elk when a woman in dark clothing could be identified as a Bigfoot by mistake?


jerrywayne said:
But generally, I think we can assume that bears, elk, etc., have been responsible for some Bigfoot sightings.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in my opinion mis-IDs of non-human animals would not be statistically significant... IMO, they would amount to less than 1% of all claimed sightings of Bigfoot.

I get the impression you think most cryptid sightings are outright fabrications, and not misidentifications.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on which cryptid you are talking about. Again this is my opinion only but here are two opposite examples of cryptids...


Claimed modern sightings of living Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (a cryptid):
Fabrication... 10%
Misidentification... 90% (with Pileated Woodpeckers accounting for 90% of that)

Claimed sightings of Bigfoot (a cryptid):
Fabrication... 90%
Misidentification... 10% (with non-hoaxing humans accounting for 99% of that)
 
Last edited:
I think most of the large dark blobs people see from 100 yards away among the trees and brush are deer or bear, not humans.
 
Another reason why it depends on which cryptid you are talking about is that we may or may not have a good sense of the predominant personality type of the claimants. We have that for Bigfooters where there is a general lack of innocent honesty.

I think one of the big reasons why great numbers of people tell lies about seeing Bigfoot is because Bigfootery is extremely protective and gives real meaningful sanctuary to liars. People who like to tell folk tales automatically realize that Bigfootery is a great place for them. They are actually needed by Bigfootery. The liar knows this.
 
GT/CS said:
I think most of the large dark blobs people see from 100 yards away among the trees and brush are deer or bear, not humans.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, what percentage of those people go on to make formal reports to BFRO or BFF, etc?
 
I would love to see someone do a real study (and by real I mean with the necessary parameters used by social scientists to decrease bias) of Footers personality types vs the rest of the population.
 
GT/CS said:
I think most of the large dark blobs people see from 100 yards away among the trees and brush are deer or bear, not humans.
Click to expand...

They look like shade variation from the leaves picked up by the camera and not necessarily by the human eye in 3D vision, which is why they never see them in person while they are there in the area.
 
Last edited:
Sonny2 said:
I would love to see someone do a real study (and by real I mean with the necessary parameters used by social scientists to decrease bias) of Footers personality types vs the rest of the population.
Click to expand...


I did a rough unscientific Myers Briggs on the BFF, overwhelmingly they were all introverts and the skeptics tended to be extroverts.
 
Interesting, Jodie. I would have suspected that.

As for seeing bears, the few times I have seen bears in the wilds, there wasn't much misidentification, as their dark color seems to really stand out against the foliage. Even when I could only catch a few glimpses, it was pretty obvious I was looking at bear - even the lighter cinnamon colors.

And thus the mindset jerrywayne mentions - it must be there already to see BF instead of bear. And this also couples with Parcher's suspicions of dishonesty. You want to see BF, so you see it. Never mind what you really saw.

Throw in the thrills of telling the story, plus the societal blessings, and you're quite the deal now. You can even make yourslef believe yourself, given enough time and denial.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom