Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Correa Neto]

Belief incentives snake oil sellers. They will create hoaxes, schemes to grab believers' money. If its not for the money, they will create hoaxes and tall tales to gain attention or just for the fun of trolling. They will incentive belief because that's where their profit will come from. The hoaxes will fuel belief; belief by its turn will fuel hoaxes.

The actual question would perhaps be: "Who came first? Belief or hoaxes?"

I bet 1000 quatloos on hoaxes.

 

[The Shrike]

Wow, you're rolling in quatloos today . . .

 

[barehl]

My understanding of the evolution of bipedalism in hominids is that digitigrade quadrapedalism and plantigrade bipedalism developed from common ancestry with a plantigrade quadraped. This line of research is rather fluid, however, so I'm not willing to hang my hat on that hypothesis just yet.

To the best of my knowledge, bipedalism only happened once in dinosaurs. That is, all bipedal dinosaurs and birds are related and they are all digitigrade. To the best of my knowledge, it only happened once in mammals. In contrast, I know of many unrelated organisms that have become aquatically adapted. If memory serves, flight had to evolve at least twice in dinosaurs and one of these is the ancestor of birds. However it also happened in insects and bats.

Now, suppose someone made the claim that a cow could evolve flight. To the best of my knowledge that is not possible because a cow is too big. Okay, why couldn't a sheep evolve flight? Again, to the best of my knowledge that would not be possible for something of that size. Something the size of a flying squirrel is probably about the maximum size for evolving semi-propulsive flight (although it could be smaller than this). That means that there are probably characteristics that a flying squirrel could develop that would help it glide farther. And, it could develop means of assisting that glide. However, the physics don't match for something the size of a sheep.

The same thing applies to climbing out of the water and onto land. It is easier for a small fish to develop this ability than a large fish. In fact, I can assert quite readily that a large fish could never evolve the ability to walk on land. Evolution isn't magic, physics and biology do get in the way.

 

[The Shrike]

Bipedalism in dinosaurs evolved at least once in ornithischians (e.g. ornithopods) and at least twice in saurischians (e.g., early sauropod Plateosaurus and in the theropods, ultimately giving rise to bipedal birds.)

Obligate bipedalism evolved at least 4 times in mammals, of which 3 are saltators: springhare, kangaroo mice, kangaroos and their allies, and, of course, hominins. (I can think of some other saltators, like jerboas.)

Yes, most animals that evolve any new form of locomotion are small but most animals are small. You have provided nothing to support your statement that bipedalism can only evolve in small organisms. Are you seriously going to equate the demands for flight with the demands for bipedal walking? "Cows can't fly" is your argument?


"In fact, I can assert quite readily that a large fish could never evolve the ability to walk on land."

Google is your friend, bro:

"Tiktaalik roseae lived in Devonian period around 375 million years ago. It was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and a flattened body. The animal looked like a cross between a fish and a crocodile, growing up to a length of 9 feet as it hunted in shallow freshwater environments."

 

[Correa Neto]

Wow, you're rolling in quatloos today . . .

Yes.

Got lots of them from a secret sponsor to fund my bifgoot research.
And I'm pretty sure of my position.

Now, seriously, bigfootery history seems to point towards "hoax/tall tale first, belief later".

 

[Resume]

Unfortunately, since I've moved to Mexico I have been blocked by BFF from even looking at the BFF site.

In my humble opinion, habituation scenarios are based on fabrications and are the easiest aspect of the Bigfoot story to dismiss.

As they should be. But you were a member at the BFF long enough to be exposed to other scenarios in which researchers claim vast knowledge of footie due to multiple sightings in multiple locations. Not surprisingly, these "researchers" have blogs and podcasts to promote. These folks are lying; and the reason we know this is that if they really had multiple bigfoot encounters, they'd certainly be exploiting them in venues more lucrative than obscure websites.

On the other hand, with something like NAWAC at "Area X", I think the circumstances are more complex. I think it is a mixture of belief and hoaxing. In most of the sighting events, they are frankly ambiguous. They claim to see "fuzzy black dots" moving up hill too fast for bear, or claim to see team members from a distance, only later to decide they had actually seen a Bigfoot, etc. This looks like the classic "seeing what you expect to see" misidentifications. If they were all lying, there would be less ambiguity to the stories they are telling, imho.

Other sightings at Area X are more suspect, from a hoaxing aspect. One team member shot at what he described as a classic Bigfoot, and later saw another one. It does not do his credibility any good that years earlier he saw an orang like Bigfoot cross his path just yards from a main highway in Texas. At Area X, he had a team member behind him but the member was not positioned to see anything. In Texas his wife was behind him and she saw nothing too.

I would say that NAWAC members are being hoaxed in order to boost tourism in the area, and other members are playing along, perhaps unwittingly.

I'm not sure if you read of the Red Oak Trunk Snapping Incident at area x somewhere upthread; if you have, what do you think?

Here's what I think: I think if the NAWAC were actually having multiple encounters, from pebble tossing to red oak snapping, there'd be plenty of physical evidence left behind of an unambiguous nature, more than enough to attract the attentions of independent researchers with actual credentials. Just the trackways alone would be compelling.

 

[The Shrike]

I think if the NAWAC were actually having multiple encounters, . . . there'd be plenty of physical evidence left behind of an unambiguous nature, more than enough to attract the attentions of independent researchers with actual credentials. Just the trackways alone would be compelling.

Indeed. I am one of those guys who's done work out there. I had 4 people over 2 summers scouring those very woods, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of my grad students had actually walked "Area X". There's a decidedly "Appalachian" community of songbirds out there on the higher ridges of the Ouachitas, some cool salamanders, and plenty of bears. No bigfoots, though.

 

[jerrywayne]

Here is a relevant article, if underdeveloped, on why people may believe in Bigfoot.

http://www.viralglobalnews.com/science/bigfoot-people-still-believe/11076/

 

[jerrywayne]

As they should be. But you were a member at the BFF long enough to be exposed to other scenarios in which researchers claim vast knowledge of footie due to multiple sightings in multiple locations. Not surprisingly, these "researchers" have blogs and podcasts to promote. These folks are lying; and the reason we know this is that if they really had multiple bigfoot encounters, they'd certainly be exploiting them in venues more lucrative than obscure websites.

I'm not sure if you read of the Red Oak Trunk Snapping Incident at area x somewhere upthread; if you have, what do you think?

Here's what I think: I think if the NAWAC were actually having multiple encounters, from pebble tossing to red oak snapping, there'd be plenty of physical evidence left behind of an unambiguous nature, more than enough to attract the attentions of independent researchers with actual credentials. Just the trackways alone would be compelling.

To be clear: I do not think there is a troop of giant bipedal apes living in Oklahoma.

The question is: Do members of NAWAC believe there are "wood apes" living in Area X? I would say yes. Probably not all, though.

Brian Brown has stated that he was 90 something percent sure that Bigfoot existed before Area X, and that his experiences there have removed any doubt he may have had. It looks to me like his belief has colored (and corrupted) his interpretation of his experiences.

I think they would benefit from allowing independent observers, and
even skeptical observers; the Bigfoot colored glasses they are wearing would be exposed and they would be the better for it.

If you are expecting me to throw a blanket on all of this and call them all a bunch of open faced liars --well, Parcher, The Shrike, Harry, Alaska and others are your go-to guys. Not me.

P.S. When I was at BFF I really only read a few threads on a regular basis. I'm sure there is quite a bunch of silly stuff there that I did not expose
myself to.

 

[dmaker]

Thanks for the article link, Jerry. It still leaves the question of dishonesty open, however. The main thrust of the article, as I see it, is that people will persist in bigfoot belief despite evidence to the contrary, despite consensus opinion to the contrary, despite everything because it fills some basic human need to belong to something special and unique. The article even goes so far as to say perhaps some enthusiasts truly believe, perhaps they do not, perhaps they are simply seeking 15 minutes of fame.

But if the aim of the article is true, and I think it is, then one large question that becomes relevant to recent discussions here would be: is this human need, as described in the article, filled consciously or sub-consciously?

I would argue that, for the most part, this need is filled consciously. It is never admitted to others in the game, but deep down the admitted believer is a willing participant to their own duping, either externally by prime players like Meldrum, Munns, et al, or by themselves. Perhaps a misidentified moose rear, or burnt stump, that was not truly misidentified but was instead used as currency into the bigfoot game. The honest mistake is not really all that honest in the end.


ETA: It is rather interesting that article never mentioned incorrectly identifying common fauna as a potential source of enthusiast belief. I am not saying that this is evidence that the author agrees with the theory that most of bigfootery is supported by lies. It could also stem from the fact the author clearly thinks bigfoot is nothing more than a myth and it is therefore axiomatic that the source of any sighting is either a lie or a mistake and the author chose not differentiate between the two.

 

[Resume]

If you are expecting me to throw a blanket on all of this and call them all a bunch of open faced liars --well, Parcher, The Shrike, Harry, Alaska and others are your go-to guys. Not me.

I wasn't expecting anything save to ask you to ponder why the NAWAC regulars who claim to be experiencing these encounters are ignoring the necessary fact that there should be plenty of physical evidence left behind to back up their claims and prove Wood Ape existence in short order.

This seems dishonest from the get-go. Unless they're just uselessly incompetent.

ETA: Also, unless there is some sort of update, there is a Brian Brown claim that the area x hair samples sent to Sykes through an intermediary went untested, unreported, and unreturned. These folks seem to be the biggest Bad Luck Joes in bigfootery.

 

[Castro]

...Brian Brown has stated that he was 90 something percent sure that Bigfoot existed before Area X, and that his experiences there have removed any doubt he may have had. It looks to me like his belief has colored (and corrupted) his interpretation of his experiences...

Experiences? What experiences? Do you mean the stories he tells? For someone who works in marketing, storytelling is a basic and mundane technique.

 

[jerrywayne]

Minnesota Iceman

This is old news, but I thought it belongs on this thread.

I saw the Minnesota Iceman in the late 1960's at the Texas State Fair's midway. I was pretty much taken in by the then emerging Bigfoot lore of the time, but didn't connect this exhibit with Bigfoot. I remember thinking it was a well made fake; it reminded me of a very large chimp (it had coarse black hair.)

I was surprised several months later when Ivan Sanderson published a piece on the Iceman and endorsed it as a recently killed apeman. Sanderson and Heuvelmann (the godfathers of cryptozoology) had examined the creature through glass and ice and unscientifically concluded it was real. Heuvelmann believed it was a remnant Neanderthal.

As late as three or four years ago I argued with Bigfooters over at BFF about the obvious fabrication of the whole Iceman saga. To her credit, one Bigfooter found and posted a recent photograph of the Iceman artifact. Unfortunately, even with her own discovery and revelation staring her in the face, she still defended the existence of the "real" Iceman (a creature she believed might have originated from Vietnam, of all places.) She argued that the recent finding of the dummy Iceman was the alleged second (fake) display used to fool the authorities.

The Iceman now resides in a museum in Austin, Texas. This short video gives some of the details of the saga and shows a de-iced Iceman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dk7EEwMQsE

 

[jerrywayne]

Experiences? What experiences? Do you mean the stories he tells? For someone who works in marketing, storytelling is a basic and mundane technique.

Brown, a Bigfooter, necessarily then is a liar. Such sentiment is the crowd favorite here at JREF, so you need to stand in line. It's the default position here.

 

[jerrywayne]

I wasn't expecting anything save to ask you to ponder why the NAWAC regulars who claim to be experiencing these encounters are ignoring the necessary fact that there should be plenty of physical evidence left behind to back up their claims and prove Wood Ape existence in short order.

This seems dishonest from the get-go. Unless they're just uselessly incompetent.

ETA: Also, unless there is some sort of update, there is a Brian Brown claim that the area x hair samples sent to Sykes through an intermediary went untested, unreported, and unreturned. These folks seem to be the biggest Bad Luck Joes in bigfootery.

I have suggested at BFF that a troop of giant apes that remain in an area over such a lengthy time should leave well worn trails. I've also pointed out that there hasn't been any Bigfoot activity in the area except when the area has been occupied by Bigfooters. These facts and some of the "evidence" that they have claimed, such as finding a human sized and shaped outline on the ground of a prone individual in a sniper position situated above the cabins, cry out for a hoaxer explanation, an explanation they refuse to explore.

But ask yourself: Why all the ambiguous reports? Why make up a story about a human-sized Bigfoot in a sniper position, a story that makes them seem credulous and unthinking. Why make up a story about an invisible wood ape that blends in with downed trees in the bush? Why say you saw a person you thought was a team member and then later claim it must have been a Bigfoot because your team member was somewhere else?

These and other developments look to me like what we have is a bunch of credulous True Believers taking mundane events and turning them into meaningful events. If they were just making it all up, their stories would be far more exciting and far less ambiguous.

Your criticism is valid if we were dealing with fully objective, no-nonsense individuals. We are not. They are not the hillbillies they are portrayed to be sometimes; their resumes may surprise you. But they are committed believers who believe they are on the cusp of a great discovery. It colors their endeavors. And this may be hard for some to digest here, but it comes with the territory of Bigfoot belief that the quarry is somehow different from the typical, so defeated objectives do not mean your belief has been defeated. There is a certain odd type of nihilism to it that may look like abject dishonesty to an outsider.

And I know it's another meme here that some Bigfooters are lying for the bucks. Well the only persons I know who are cashing in big time with Bigfoot are the FINDING BIGFOOT celebs. NAWAC is probably breaking even. What is their motive, otherwise? Just playacting? Writing off their vacation time? What?

 

[LTC8K6]

Brown, a Bigfooter, necessarily then is a liar. Such sentiment is the crowd favorite here at JREF, so you need to stand in line. It's the default position here.

Well, I think you just lied about this forum, but I really don't care.

I barely know who Brian Brown is. I have heard the name and I knew it was associated with the BFF.

I can see that he has nothing but scorn for JREF members, though.

http://thebigfootshow.com/2014/07/11/parasites-are-driving-the-ant/

http://thebigfootshow.com/2014/07/13/points-of-clarification-re-zombie-ants/

For the record, as far as I can remember, I have never posted on any bigfoot forums.

 

[Castro]

Brown, a Bigfooter, necessarily then is a liar. Such sentiment is the crowd favorite here at JREF, so you need to stand in line. It's the default position here.

Obviously you don't follow very well what's going on here jerrywayne. I suggest you to (re)read this post, for example, for a better understanding.

All Brian Brown is doing is embellishing mundane occurrences to transform them in extraordinary and mysterious events. Stains on a rock? bigfoot blood. A noise in the woods? bigfoot is watching us. A broken tree? bigfoot did it, etc, etc...It's called storytelling in marketing. It's a trick used to interest your target audience and bring it to buy your product. The N A W A C/Field Study Discussion thread at the BFF is a great example of this basic technique. It worked for more than a year. The NAWAC "Marketing and Communications Coordinator" does a good job to keep his organization at the front of the bigfootery stage.

 

[Resume]

These facts and some of the "evidence" that they have claimed, such as finding a human sized and shaped outline on the ground of a prone individual in a sniper position situated above the cabins, cry out for a hoaxer explanation, an explanation they refuse to explore.

Maybe the reason they don't explore it is they know it's a hoax and who perpetrated it.

But ask yourself: Why all the ambiguous reports?

Plausible deniability.

Your criticism is valid if we were dealing with fully objective, no-nonsense individuals. We are not. They are not the hillbillies they are portrayed to be sometimes; their resumes may surprise you.

There are no credentialed phonies? C'mon jerrywayne, think about where you're posting. Deepak Chopra, Dr. Oz, Dr. Wayne Dwyer, et al.

But they are committed believers who believe they are on the cusp of a great discovery. It colors their endeavors. And this may be hard for some to digest here, but it comes with the territory of Bigfoot belief that the quarry is somehow different from the typical, so defeated objectives do not mean your belief has been defeated. There is a certain odd type of nihilism to it that may look like abject dishonesty to an outsider.

See The Shrikes comments on christian believers

And I know it's another meme here that some Bigfooters are lying for the bucks. Well the only persons I know who are cashing in big time with Bigfoot are the FINDING BIGFOOT celebs. NAWAC is probably breaking even. What is their motive, otherwise? Just playacting? Writing off their vacation time? What?

Breaking even pays for your camping trip. Hope for future profit is a bonus.

Look, I don't know if every NAWACer is a phony; some may be credulous to the point of moronic when it comes to footie, but I make no apologies in casting a skeptical eye at these folks.

ETA: I used to be exactly where you are jerrywayne; then I began to realize that LARPing explains things as well as naive credulity, if not better. Not in all cases, all the time, of course.

 

[Resume]

For the record, as far as I can remember, I have never posted on any bigfoot forums.

Neither have I. But I understand those folks lurk here, with the occassional drive-by. If they get pissed, why not sign up and post up?

 

[Castro]

Just saw someone copied and pasted my last post on a bigfoot blog. For the record I never comment on bigfoot blogs.