Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[The Shrike]

Yet another bizarre sexual story by Ketchum: dogman raped her horse.

"I don't know that dogman did it, but I suspicion he did."

Dogman is bad and he scares the bigfoots away.

 

[carlitos]

I don't remember claiming the pic was any sort of viable evidence. In fact I simply asked: What is it? So far a few guessed: "It's just a blob", "It's nothing" "It's a bear" etc, but whatever the answer the general conclusion here seems to be : "It's definitely NOT a Bigfoot."

Also NOT a chupacabra. Or a leprechaun.

If you say there is no Bigfoot in the pics or video, then I expect to hear an alternate opinion.

There is no Bigfoot. Not in the video, not in the photos, not anywhere.

IfIf you are certain there is no Bigfoot in the pics or video then what is it?

What is what? Bigfoot only exists in your imagination. How can we explain what you imagine?

 

[LTC8K6]

Oh but it does work that way. If it's not Bigfoot what else is it? If you choose to have the opinion that the pic or video definitely does not contain an unknown creature, then you are obligated to voice your opinion of what the pic or video DOES contain. Two way street, nobody gets freebies.

If you cannot voice your opinion of what it is besides a bigfoot then why should I take you at your word it's not Bigfoot? Chris B.

I don't think my posts have been based on claiming "it's not bigfoot", but rather on "there's nothing there at all".

However, the default position for any picture of "bigfoot", including PGF stills, is "it's not bigfoot".

It is always up to the bigfoot claimant to move the ball off of that line.

It's not necessary to claim "it's not bigfoot". By definition, it is already "not bigfoot", unless evidence is provided.

You would do a lot better if you would realize what the default position is for any extraordinary claim.

The default position for a UFO picture is "it's not an extraterrestrial craft", for example.

For a picture of mothman..."it's not mothman", etc.

Why is this, you ask?

Because no good, useable evidence of these things has ever surfaced. Ever.

There is zero evidence of ET craft.

Zero evidence of mothman.

Zero evidence of bigfoot.

So, when you say you have photographed bigfoot, with blurry indistinct blobs as the subject, then you haven't cleared that hurdle. Or any hurdle on the way to showing us bigfoot.

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm not here to prove Bigfoot for you. I don't have the evidence. Be content with your beliefs and remain skeptical. I'm all for that. Why the need to give me a hard time? Because we don't share the same opinion?

You are here then for what? Showing pictures of blobs and saying they must be of bigfoots?

You brought forward the following old worn out arguments (among others):

1. A new species of monkey (rather similar to others previously known) discovered at some remote corner of the world can to be used to open a door for a 3m-tall bipedal ape (something VERY different from known species) in USA and Canada living at some folks’ backyards.
2. Images are not acceptable scientific evidence.
3. Bigfoots may be gigantopithecus because they look like them.
4. The fact that we are in 2014 and no reliable evidence has been ever found to back 3-m tall apes living now or in the past at some of the best studied places of the world doesn’t mean they are not there.

You arguments were questioned, their flaws were exposed. This is giving you a hard time? Stop playing the victim card and remember where you are- a debate forum. Put something over the table and it’ll be debated, questioned. “Hard times” are to thus be expected. If you don’t want questioning, a blog might be a better solution. The “hard times” you are experiencing are solely due to the fact that your arguments are deeply flawed. Recognize this fact, dump or improve them and your hard times will be over.

I've been able to study a skull model of Giganto. Unfortunately, due to the distance issue, I've not been able to study Bill Munns full size Giganto. though I'd like to see it up close.

OK, you studied a skull model. Which species of the Gigantopithecus genus was the skull model from? Who made it? It was built over exactly which real bits of bones? Can you, based solely on the skull, actually have a good idea of how it would look like covered in flesh, muscle, skin and hairs?

Regarding Munns’ model, which real bits of bones was it built over? How accurate can it be? Was its bipedal posture an accurate representation of its usual locomotion? Limb proportions, how were they inferred?

 

[dmaker]

At least this comment was funny. I like that.



I agree with your points and I have since been trying to get closer with much better cameras.

I really don't consider pics and video to be of any value until I collect a body or part. Although I did not present the pics here as evidence, I was still willing to discuss them. However, most would like to comment from afar without discussion and that's not allowed in real science. One cannot simply dismiss something based on their say so, the opinion must be backed up with an actual discussion. Many here fail to realize this so evidently to their horror, I simply pointed it out.

I have done so. I have stated, numerous times, that the photos are too indistinct to determine what is in them at all. What more discussion would you like to have? I can say with the same almost mortal certainty that there is no bigfoot in the photo just as I say with the same certainty that there is no leprechaun in the photo either.

What discussion points are absent in your opinion?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, claiming that there are 9 foot tall, 800 pound, hairy, bipedal, primates running around in the woods near you, and being unable to show any evidence, is kinda' comical.

Then when you claim that one is close to you, and you got it on camera, but the pictures are indistinct at best, it is just further comedy.

How can you have a working camera, and be within 51 feet of a giant hairy humanoid, and be unable to prove that it was ever there? Or even start to show that it might have been there?

The way you tell it, there could literally have been an elephant there, and we wouldn't be able to tell. We would have to tell you what it was, "if it's not an elephant".

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I have done so. I have stated, numerous times, that the photos are too indistinct to determine what is in them at all. What more discussion would you like to have? I can say with the same almost mortal certainty that there is no bigfoot in the photo just as I say with the same certainty that there is no leprechaun in the photo either.

What discussion points are absent in your opinion?

As above, I clearly agree the photos are of no significance. Hence the reason for them being here could not have been reasonable discussion. Thank you.

Well, claiming that there are 9 foot tall, 800 pound, hairy, bipedal, primates running around in the woods near you, and being unable to show any evidence, is kinda' comical.

Then when you claim that one is close to you, and you got it on camera, but the pictures are indistinct at best, it is just further comedy.

How can you have a working camera, and be within 51 feet of a giant hairy humanoid, and be unable to prove that it was ever there? Or even start to show that it might have been there?

The way you tell it, there could literally have been an elephant there, and we wouldn't be able to tell. We would have to tell you what it was, "if it's not an elephant".

Bolding mine. I agree, it is comical, right up until it happens to you.

And yet another attempt at ridicule and further driving my point home.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

As above, I clearly agree the photos are of no significance. Hence the reason for them being here could not have been reasonable discussion. Thank you.



Chris B.

Then why are they posted on your website with firm claims that they depict bigfoots?

 

[Resume]

Bolding mine. I agree, it is comical, right up until it happens to you.

And yet another attempt at ridicule and further driving my point home.
Chris B.

If you're seeing 9-ft apes where no one else is, the last thing you should be concerned with is imagined ridicule.

 

[comncents]

Chris,

"Yep, all those self financed as I said."

No, what you said was this:

"I'm not aware of any real financed time consuming effort of science to find and identify these creatures in question. The largest share of investigation seems to go to those individuals who actually had a sighting of their own."

I pointed out 12-1/2 years of "real financed time consuming effort" that have come up with a picture of a Wookie suit. BTW I don't believe Tom Slick or Byrne ever claimed to have had a sighting. IDK about Erickson, although I think he had a video of Footie eating pancakes, too.

Long story short...you have sucked us into your BLAARGing. Points for that. I have a Minolta X-700 35mm SLR with multiple lens that I'll sell you cheap. The anti-bigfoot malfunction filter is a little pricey.

 

[carlitos]

As above, I clearly agree the photos are of no significance. Hence the reason for them being here could not have been reasonable discussion. Thank you.

Umm...

http://www.bfrpky.com/newcrop42.jpg

http://www.bfrpky.com/newcrop50.jpg

I forgot to link the two pics. The first has something in it, the second is the comparison pic. It was taken the next day and something is missing.
Chris B.

 

[Dinwar]

I've been able to study a skull model of Giganto.

I've probably seen the same one. For that matter, I once re-did the university's paleo displays, so I've probably held a model of it. Here's the thing: while you can tell it's bipedal, more or less, from where the axis and skull connect, that's about all. After that, you're guessing. Some of us can make educated guesses, but they're still guesses.

Oh but it does work that way. If it's not Bigfoot what else is it? If you choose to have the opinion that the pic or video definitely does not contain an unknown creature, then you are obligated to voice your opinion of what the pic or video DOES contain.

Nonsense. All we are obliged to do is demonstrate that your evidence is insufficient to support your conclusion. We need not offer ANY conclusions of our own. This is the way this sort of debate works--regardless of whether it's in a courtroom or an academic journal. YOU are trying to support a conclusion. WE are required to do nothing but maintain intellectual honesty. Don't like it? Cry to someone else. That's one of the rules of the game you wish to play. Don't know the rules? Too bad--your ignorance of even the basic concepts involved in the discussions you barged in on does not oblige us to alter the rules for you.

Plus, you've been flat-out dishonest about this. Allow me to demonstrate.

I have done so. I have stated, numerous times, that the photos are too indistinct to determine what is in them at all.

This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. With any photo, there are three options: 1) It's what you say; 2) It's something else; 3) We can't identify it. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the photo is unidentifiable. However, despite the fact that htis is the correct answer, you refuse to accept it.

You arguments were questioned, their flaws were exposed. This is giving you a hard time? Stop playing the victim card and remember where you are- a debate forum.

You and I both know that what's happening here is NICE compared to what either of us would go through. I would flat-out lose my job if I made an argument as poorly-supported as this (private sector; I have no tenure). The fact that we're willing to discuss this stuff is far more polite than the argument deserves.

 

[LTC8K6]

Bolding mine. I agree, it is comical, right up until it happens to you.

And yet another attempt at ridicule and further driving my point home.

No attempt at ridicule whatsoever. You see things everywhere, I guess.

If I ever get within 51 feet of a bigfoot, you won't have any doubts about it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

For context, this is why he's packin' large:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/bmuBGx1.jpg[/qimg]

Umm...

I think you must have forgotten so I quoted the post you made prior to mine regarding the pics.

Then why are they posted on your website with firm claims that they depict bigfoots?

As I have asserted previously, the pics were taken during sightings. They are a poor visual representation of what I and others saw at those times. The pics are not represented as scientific proof that Bigfoot exists they are represented as my failed attempt to relay what the witness(es) saw.

If you're seeing 9-ft apes where no one else is, the last thing you should be concerned with is imagined ridicule.

The pics and video in question were taken during multi-witness encounters. (That means I'm not the only one that saw them.)

Chris,

"Yep, all those self financed as I said."

No, what you said was this:

"I'm not aware of any real financed time consuming effort of science to find and identify these creatures in question. The largest share of investigation seems to go to those individuals who actually had a sighting of their own."

I pointed out 12-1/2 years of "real financed time consuming effort" that have come up with a picture of a Wookie suit. BTW I don't believe Tom Slick or Byrne ever claimed to have had a sighting. IDK about Erickson, although I think he had a video of Footie eating pancakes, too.

Long story short...you have sucked us into your BLAARGing. Points for that. I have a Minolta X-700 35mm SLR with multiple lens that I'll sell you cheap. The anti-bigfoot malfunction filter is a little pricey.

Show me the University funded studies. Show me the Government sponsored expeditions. All you have shown are privately funded individuals who with the exception of Tom Slick I believe, all had sightings prior to their field studies.

Note about Tom Slick: I'm not sure whether Tom Slick had a yeti sighting or not prior to his investigation. I've not gotten into his background very deep as he was mainly searching for the yeti in Tibet.

No attempt at ridicule whatsoever. You see things everywhere, I guess.

If I ever get within 51 feet of a bigfoot, you won't have any doubts about it.

I do have use of both eyes so yes, I see everything around me when I look around. That's a strange question? But why would anyone consider that ridicule?

Oh, now I see. To deflect your statement away from ridicule you neglected to add the subject above and so added here. Well, now it's ridicule. See how that works? But of course you do, it was designed that way.

Well anyway, if you get within 51 feet do what you need to do. I take it you mean to kill one from your implication. Go for it. I'd suggest a 50 BMG at distance and at least a 44 magnum for close quarters. Don't forget to remove the head and take with you. After you drop the first one, you may wanna look around real good, real often, during the trip out.

I've probably seen the same one. For that matter, I once re-did the university's paleo displays, so I've probably held a model of it. Here's the thing: while you can tell it's bipedal, more or less, from where the axis and skull connect, that's about all. After that, you're guessing. Some of us can make educated guesses, but they're still guesses.

Nonsense. All we are obliged to do is demonstrate that your evidence is insufficient to support your conclusion. We need not offer ANY conclusions of our own. This is the way this sort of debate works--regardless of whether it's in a courtroom or an academic journal. YOU are trying to support a conclusion. WE are required to do nothing but maintain intellectual honesty. Don't like it? Cry to someone else. That's one of the rules of the game you wish to play. Don't know the rules? Too bad--your ignorance of even the basic concepts involved in the discussions you barged in on does not oblige us to alter the rules for you.

Plus, you've been flat-out dishonest about this. Allow me to demonstrate.

This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. With any photo, there are three options: 1) It's what you say; 2) It's something else; 3) We can't identify it. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the photo is unidentifiable. However, despite the fact that htis is the correct answer, you refuse to accept it.

You and I both know that what's happening here is NICE compared to what either of us would go through. I would flat-out lose my job if I made an argument as poorly-supported as this (private sector; I have no tenure). The fact that we're willing to discuss this stuff is far more polite than the argument deserves.

I've not presented any evidence to defend at this point.

I wouldn't exactly say dmaker's posts were unfair or overflowing with ridicule. There are one or two others that seemed to agree the pics were not of any quality to determine what was shown. I have maintained the same opinion that they are of too poor quality for reasonable discussion.

The attempt made by others here is for me to defend those pics as evidence of Bigfoot when they're not presented as such. The pics were taken during 2 different encounters and due to the image quality, do not visually represent what was witnessed by all members present. They do represent the encounter but the subjects are poorly defined. Chris B

 

[bruto]

..... They do represent the encounter but the subjects are poorly defined. Chris B

Not really. The photographs may have been taken during an encounter, though of course we'll never really know. But they don't represent the encounter. They represent only what they show, and they do not show an encounter. The subjects are not "poorly defined." They are not demonstrably subjects at all.

I know this does not go over well with you, but you keep hedging on this as if to try to save your photographs from oblivion. By themselves, these are not poorly defined pictures of a bigfoot. There's nothing to define.

I'm reminded of the famous, probably apocryphal story of Martin Luther, who reported that the Devil appeared in his study, and he threw an inkwell at him. When asked for confirmation, he said, "there's the inkstain on the wall."

Your pictures are the equivalent of showing a picture of a barn and saying "there was a bigfoot hiding behind it."

 

[Resume]

The pics and video in question were taken during multi-witness encounters. (That means I'm not the only one that saw them.)

The only one to see what? Surely not a 9-ft ape. Who do you think you're crapping here Chris? You need better game.

You know what you need? Dogman. Dogman vs Bigfoot Cagematch. Survivorman as ref. From what I've seen of your credulous fellow enthusiasts, it doesn't take much. But you know that.

 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

The problem with seeing Cryptids is that they fundamentally don't exist.

It's nice to have a sense of wonderment about the world around us but come on...

There is no giant undiscovered heretofore unkown bipedal hinged-footed wood-apey dumpster-diving skunky-smelling living, breathing, biological SOB wandering the woods.

Unless I've had a rough night and stumbled through the lakeshore on my way home.

Then shoot me and cast me.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not really. The photographs may have been taken during an encounter, though of course we'll never really know. But they don't represent the encounter. They represent only what they show, and they do not show an encounter. The subjects are not "poorly defined." They are not demonstrably subjects at all.

I know this does not go over well with you, but you keep hedging on this as if to try to save your photographs from oblivion. By themselves, these are not poorly defined pictures of a bigfoot. There's nothing to define.

I'm reminded of the famous, probably apocryphal story of Martin Luther, who reported that the Devil appeared in his study, and he threw an inkwell at him. When asked for confirmation, he said, "there's the inkstain on the wall."

Your pictures are the equivalent of showing a picture of a barn and saying "there was a bigfoot hiding behind it."

I guess then there's nothing further to discuss. The pics are a waste of time for anything other than kick starting a pile on. Nothing relevent can be determined by pics especially those. I'm fine with that. Chris B.

Bolding mine. I guess you must have missed this post. So as you see, it goes over fine with me. Chris B.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It's nice to have a sense of wonderment about the world around us

They don't have a sense of wonderment about the world. It's the opposite.

Going on a car camping trip knowing almost nothing about nature where you are car camping, but calling it an expedition for some non-existent monster instead? That shows tremendous disrespect for nature.

Look at the corollary: all the vile things said about scientists who are accurately studying nature. Nature doesn't give them what they want.

Walking by innumerable fascinating natural signs and wonders, shunting them aside to take pictures of broken branches and tell other people they were made by nonexistent animals...

That's a sense of entitlement that con men have, not a sense of wonderment about nature.

 

[River]

This pretty much simplifies it down to a meme. lol. Still. So. Fitting.