Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It seems to me I recall someone saying something about making stuff up without fact checking first. Hmmm, now where was that.

That's right, it was here:

lol. Watch this:

I am only too happy to be corrected, whatever the result. It is interesting nobody is citing sources with counterclaims. I happily accept whatever the best data is on this, and it should include subsistence, (the white man's version of that is called personal use), and any other form of "poaching" if anyone prefers that term.

Because I can retract a claim even reasonably shown as wrong. No big deal. I grew up in Pennsylvania deer hunting - no surprise there that it would rank at the top.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's really even more impressive than a toss...he just slapped the thing through the air!

The pig flying is impressive. I often remark on it.

However...

A giant biped silently jumped up towards the hogs in stages, and then covered 30 yards with the last two quadrupedal leaps...without the hogs noticing...until it was too late...

No wonder we can't find one...

The attack leaps: distance was about thirty yards. Fifteen yards per leap. This was on all fours.

The movement from tree to tree: all tree to tree movements were two legged jumps, landing on two feet, anywhere from five to ten feet. Each movement going closer to the feeding hogs. Each movement animal was holding its body very still, slowing moving sideways just enough to look around the tree. All those movements, and landings were totally silent.

 

[William Parcher]

It's like the guy dreamed it then woke up and wrote it down for the BFRO and they accepted and published it.

 

[tsig]

The pig flying is impressive. I often remark on it.

However...

A giant biped silently jumped up towards the hogs in stages, and then covered 30 yards with the last two quadrupedal leaps...without the hogs noticing...until it was too late...

No wonder we can't find one...

Something that can move 15 feet in one leap and slap a pig up against a tree is not the Patty we are looking for.

 

[William Parcher]

Something that can move 15 feet in one leap

Check the math.

It covered 30 yards in two leaps.

30 yards = 90 feet.

That's 45 feet per leap.

Yet, this story has not been "blown out of the water".

 

[tsig]

Check the math.

It covered 30 yards in two leaps.

30 yards = 90 feet.

That's 45 feet per leap.

Yet, this story has not been "blown out of the water".

I didn't see yards instead of feet.

 

[LTC8K6]

How deep would Pattytrax^TM at Bluff Creek be if she jumped 45 feet?

Could we get Gimlin or his horse to do a comparison jump?

What does a mid-tarsal break do to broad jump capability?

 

[HarryHenderson]

Check the math.

It covered 30 yards in two leaps.

30 yards = 90 feet.

That's 45 feet per leap.

Yet, this story has not been "blown out of the water".

Good observation. And for reasons only those still having an unhealthy attachment to their yesteryear fantasies could truly know, it's simply too good of a Bigfoot story be "blown out of the water". It's the kind of story that is Bigfoot. So much so I'll bet it's been referenced here in this forum no less than 50 times. A seemingly legitimate "witness" who supposedly has nothing to gain, why would he make it up? And according to them he didn't make it up because people never make **** up when it comes to Bigfoot. And thus Bigfoot = true. Next!

Right Chris?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I guess Chris would say that the details supported the pig-tosser investigation and that's why it wasn't blown out of the water.

Thousands and thousands of Bigfoot sighting reports have not been blown out of the water because when they were investigated by Bigfoot Believers they were found to have supporting details.

Bigfoot believers believe Bigfoot reports. With that, we are getting somewhere productive.

I wouldn't investigate nonsensical sighting reports even if asked. I don't have the time for obvious idiocies.

To assume every Bigfoot enthusiast considers the BRFO sighting report section their Bible is not a safe assumption. In fact many reports are quite obviously flawed from the start and are likely embellished imaginary creations. A story is just a story and there's really nothing to be gained from a possible encounter story from years ago that would produce any evidence of the creature in the report, imaginary or otherwise.

Some information on behaviors, physical descriptions, and locations may be gleaned from some of the sighting reports but it's up to the researcher to determine the wheat from the chaff based on your own findings.

The only sightings I accept as 100% accurate are my own. I know you won't accept my sightings as any more accurate than any of the others and I'm fine with that. All I can say is if you have the desire to know the real truth, do the research and time in the woods in the right place. You may be lucky enough or unlucky enough to have a sighting of your own. Or one could choose to poke fun at bigfooters from a distance. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

My bold. For me to consider any anecdote as significant then the truth of the report must be confirmable by some method other than further testimony, i.e. objective evidence in the form of photographs, video footage or ideally objective forensic evidence. Without such, there is no way to determine the truth of the story and it remains simply a story.

Minus the aid of a time machine and shared sensory organs, the anecdote in question ( any bigfoot anecdote for that matter) is not falsifiable nor is it repeatable. Investigate it all you want, not sure what that will prove. Particularly in this case. Does one expect there to be tracks still there? Would the faint whiff of hunter still linger in the air? Investigation in these cases, at best, just leads to more ambiguous evidence ( tracks or stick structures, etc) and then subjective interpretation of said evidence.

Wow, will wonders never cease? I agree with your post completely Dmaker.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Wonderful, thanks!

Two-hundred twenty two words to say: he was poaching.

Three words you couldn't say. Manipulative players never want to say their dumbest things directly like this. Because yeah, it sounds really dumb. But let's roll with it.

This friend of Mudcat is POACHING one day and comes across another hunter who was ALSO POACHING, lol.

You need TWO people hunting illegally in this made-up story in order to improve its plausibility.

This is like the excuses made up for Roger Patterson's unworkable film development timeline: the invention of the clandestine porn lab developer working on a Saturday to develop the film (not) shot on Oct. 20. This is how far people will go: making up absurdities even beyond the original storyteller's. Because they really are vested in saying they believe.

You actually took the time to count? Yikes. Yet, I think you must have missed it. What I was actually saying is if you intend to dismiss a sighting based on the story details, you need to take the time to investigate those details at the source to get the facts. A secondhand account may unintentionally differ from the original. Without all the facts known from the original account we have a campfire story. I think we both agree on that point. Chris B.

 

[tsig]

I wouldn't investigate nonsensical sighting reports even if asked. I don't have the time for obvious idiocies.

To assume every Bigfoot enthusiast considers the BRFO sighting report section their Bible is not a safe assumption. In fact many reports are quite obviously flawed from the start and are likely embellished imaginary creations. A story is just a story and there's really nothing to be gained from a possible encounter story from years ago that would produce any evidence of the creature in the report, imaginary or otherwise.

Some information on behaviors, physical descriptions, and locations may be gleaned from some of the sighting reports but it's up to the researcher to determine the wheat from the chaff based on your own findings.

The only sightings I accept as 100% accurate are my own. I know you won't accept my sightings as any more accurate than any of the others and I'm fine with that. All I can say is if you have the desire to know the real truth, do the research and time in the woods in the right place. You may be lucky enough or unlucky enough to have a sighting of your own. Or one could choose to poke fun at bigfooters from a distance. Chris B.

Why? Are you immune from making a mistake?

 

[Resume]

Some information on behaviors, physical descriptions, and locations may be gleaned from some of the sighting reports but it's up to the researcher to determine the wheat from the chaff based on your own findings.

You guys should really be published. I mean, if you can determine the veracity of a claimants folk story report based on your findings, you must be making very reliable observations of a here-to-fore uncataloged bidpedal ape.

Cutting edge of science, you guys. I look forward to your article in Nature.

 

[Drewbot]

Imagine an 8' tall, 500 pound creature leaping 45' at a time, and now imagine the stresses on tendons, ligaments, and bones from partaking in such an activity.

6' tall 240 pound line backers blow their ACL out just making a cut on FIELD-TURF
and FIELD TURF is flat, soft, and designed with joint safety in mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pIeGgKtIs


This species is running through the SABINE RIVER BOTTOMS, faster than an ATV, leaping and landing 15 yards away, on questionable footing, Cracking the ribs of a 200 pound HOG, with a few punches, incapacitating the prey. When trying to control hogs, the safest way to incapacitate them is to grab their hind legs and lift them off the ground. Those things have scissor knives for teeth, and you do not want to be on the side of them. They can swing those things out in deadly fashion to the side, but not to the rear.

If you think Hogs of this size, are going to have Ribs broken by a few punches from a giant Biped, I don't think you've ever seen how nasty, and thick these hogs are. Plus the guy could 'hear' the ribs cracking from his tree stand. LOL.

 

[Resume]

So ChrisBFRPKY, is pig-tossing (flinging, slapping) footie the wheat, or the chaff?

How can you tell?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why? Are you immune from making a mistake?

Is anyone? Is there anything you can't learn?

You guys should really be published. I mean, if you can determine the veracity of a claimants folk story report based on your findings, you must be making very reliable observations of a here-to-fore uncataloged bidpedal ape.

Cutting edge of science, you guys. I look forward to your article in Nature.

Nothing cutting edge about trying to sort truth from fiction. If an encounter report starts out as "First the big UFO landed" it doesn't serve any reasonable relationship to any primate I'm interested in. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Nothing cutting edge about trying to sort truth from fiction. If an encounter report starts out as "First the big UFO landed" it doesn't serve any reasonable relationship to any primate I'm interested in. Chris B.

Doesn't answer my question.

You said:

Some information on behaviors, physical descriptions, and locations may be gleaned from some of the sighting reports but it's up to the researcher to determine the wheat from the chaff based on your own findings.

What behaviors, physical descriptions or locations are congruent with your "findings"? In what way?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Doesn't answer my question.

You said:

What behaviors, physical descriptions or locations are congruent with your "findings"? In what way?

Those findings should be based on your own research. It's up to the researcher to determine what if any info is gained. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Is anyone? Is there anything you can't learn?



Nothing cutting edge about trying to sort truth from fiction. If an encounter report starts out as "First the big UFO landed" it doesn't serve any reasonable relationship to any primate I'm interested in. Chris B.

Of course you plucked an example from the outer fringe, UFOs. How about your opinion on the pig tossing bigfoot story?

 

[Resume]

Those findings should be based on your own research. It's up to the researcher to determine what if any info is gained. Chris B.

Dodgeball.


BTW:

My findings indicate that a creature with continent wide distribution, that according to some interpretations of First Nation legends has been sharing the same continent with them for time immemorial, would have left behind biological evidence. Plenty of it, in fact. Cataloged a long time ago. This conversation moot.

If anyone anywhere has confirming biological evidence, it's time to put up or shut up.