Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Paul Holland]

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

Removing double post.

Try not to let the water get above your ankles, Squatchy.

 

[Mudcat]

Show me the University funded studies. Show me the Government sponsored expeditions.

According to wikipedia, the National Wildlife Federation funded a study on Bigfoot in the 1970s but no notable discoveries were made. But I don't suppose that study counts because they didn't confirm your belief?

But let us pretend for a moment that your claim is right and no official studies or expeditions looking for Bigfoot ever happened. Why do you think this would be the case?

There is no evidence that they exist at all beside from vague Indian legends that propents claim pertain to them, unreliable eyewitness accounts, fake looking footprints, and grainy, blurry, or otherwise indistinct photos, videos, and audio.

Why would there be an official study or expedition into this? And even if there was one that looked into every rock, nook, cranny, and crevice, and they found nothing would that make any difference? Or would you still be claiming that Bigfoot some how eluded such a study or expedition?

 

[Tolls]

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.

I missed this over the weekend...they both show the same thing. In the Bigfoot one it's just more out of focus.
What is it?
Look in the second.
It's the tree in the middle with that dark shadow, or possibly missing branch.
Nothing's moved, or wandered off.
It's all still there.

 

[tsig]

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



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.



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



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.


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 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

Why can't you take in focus pictures?

 

[Correa Neto]

The first part of your post was already answered from my posts quoted below.

What? Pics of blobs you claim to be 3m-tall apes? That’s all you want to discuss? All the other things you wrote trying to somehow back, justify huge bipedals apes living in North America are not open for discussion? I am supposed to just accept them?

Sorry, but no.

Regarding my opinion or research on Giganto, that info is not for discussion until a body or bone is collected. After which my info and findings will be available for review.

No. You are at a discussion forum. Put something over the table and it’ll be dissected. You claimed to have examined a model skull and that it matched what you claimed to have seen. Again:

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?

For the above quotes without comment. I suppose you missed these prior posts so I've added them here to answer your comment. I realize some may rather cherry pick posts in order to participate in ridicule but it would be much more helpful if you took the time to actually read the thread. By responding in such a manner you only demonstrate your eagerness to ridicule instead of any reasonable attempt at discussion. Chris B.

None of those quotes are related to the things you wrote which I am questioning. You are evading the questioning and here are again some of the extremely questionable thing you wrote:

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.

Defend them from the critics or remove them. If you don’t want these things to be questioned, post them at a personal blog or a footer-only web place.

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.

As the academy/industry hybrid I am, I must agree.

Any of my torture subjects, minions and slaves students bringing forward similar levels of ignorance of the scientific method, flawed reasoning and lame excuses would fail the course. Any of my fellow puppets of the imperialistic capitalism co-workers backing a project, a plan, a conclusion in similar ways would be either fired or sent to a distant, forgotten and mostly harmless part of the company(*).

(*) disclaimer- some similar-minded folks, however, so it seems, somehow managed to become politicians or board members and CEOs of companies and Chancellors of universities…

 

[bruto]

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

No, I did not miss the earlier post before I responded to the later one. You continue to discuss the pictures as if they had content worth discussing, so I continue to discuss them.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What? Pics of blobs you claim to be 3m-tall apes? That’s all you want to discuss? All the other things you wrote trying to somehow back, justify huge bipedals apes living in North America are not open for discussion? I am supposed to just accept them?

Sorry, but no.



No. You are at a discussion forum. Put something over the table and it’ll be dissected. You claimed to have examined a model skull and that it matched what you claimed to have seen. Again:

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?



None of those quotes are related to the things you wrote which I am questioning. You are evading the questioning and here are again some of the extremely questionable thing you wrote:

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.

Defend them from the critics or remove them. If you don’t want these things to be questioned, post them at a personal blog or a footer-only web place.



As the academy/industry hybrid I am, I must agree.

Any of my torture subjects, minions and slaves students bringing forward similar levels of ignorance of the scientific method, flawed reasoning and lame excuses would fail the course. Any of my fellow puppets of the imperialistic capitalism co-workers backing a project, a plan, a conclusion in similar ways would be either fired or sent to a distant, forgotten and mostly harmless part of the company(*).

(*) disclaimer- some similar-minded folks, however, so it seems, somehow managed to become politicians or board members and CEOs of companies and Chancellors of universities…

I'm not interested in further discussion of the pics.

My findings are confidential and will remain as such until I've finished my work.

I will respond to your "by the number" comments.

1. It is my opinion that if science is still discovering new species, some of those even primates, then the World has not revealed every species now populating it.
Isn't that easy?

2. Images are not acceptable as scientific evidence for proof of existence of a new species. You need a type specimen. Now that's not to say we need an entire specimen, even a finger would do the trick.
I will further qualify my opinion by asking you to consider the Patterson/Gimlin film. Still debated daily and not accepted as evidence of an unknown species.

3. Yes, it is my opinion that the Bigfoot I witnessed did look like Giganto.

4. I think everyone should remain skeptical right up to the point these creatures are proven to exist or you have your own sighting. For me personally the mystery of existence is solved because I've seen them. So you have 2 choices, either go out and look for evidence yourself or accept what others in the field give you. I'm not offering. Chris B.

 

[Dinwar]

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

Which means that the only way to believe you is to abandon all the of rules of scientific discourse.

When your BEST argument is "throw away logic", you've got no argument. You may be right, you may be wrong; regardless, we cannot believe you.

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.

Than they are without value. Period. They should have been discarded, and should never have been brought up. They are not representational of anything; they are merely poor-quality photos that serve no purpose.

But all of this nonsense is untrue. You clearly DO expect us to accept that these pictures show something--your conversation with Correa Neto proves that. What this means is that you're trying to play every side, even when those sides contradict each other. You're flailing, looking for any way to get around the fact that you haven't presented sufficient evidence for us to accept your statements as true.

Show me the University funded studies. Show me the Government sponsored expeditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark_Expedition

One of the major factors pushing the Lewis and Clark Expedition was the idea that the American interior could contain organisms that were present in the fossil record, but not elsewhere. They were specifically sent out (again, among other objectives) to discover every new critter they could.

The fact that you are unaware of these sorts of things demonstrates a remarkably and deplorably shallow grasp of the fields you are attempting to "correct".

 

[William Parcher]

1. It is my opinion that if science is still discovering new species, some of those even primates, then the World has not revealed every species now populating it.
Isn't that easy?

Should wildlife professionals be specifically searching Florida forests for new species of marmosets? If not, then why not?

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not interested in further discussion of the pics.

Fine.

What else you got?

1. It is my opinion that if science is still discovering new species, some of those even primates, then the World has not revealed every species now populating it.
Isn't that easy?

Hell, I'VE discovered new species. A few times. That said, I have a strong suspicion I go about it differently than you.

2. Images are not acceptable as scientific evidence for proof of existence of a new species.

This is a lie. See the ivory-billed woodpecker. Or, see the bones that were destroyed in WWI and WWII.

YOUR images aren't acceptable, because they are too poor-quality to show anything. Pictures in general? Sure, we accept them. That doesn't mean that pictures are not acceptable in science. We've discussed this.

3. Yes, it is my opinion that the Bigfoot I witnessed did look like Giganto.

Please provide specific similarities. Was it the sagital crest that was similar? The angular process? The zygomatic arch? The elongate rostrum? The carnasal? The antorbital finestras? (If you're not laughing by now, I strongly suggest you withhold commenting on anatomical similarities until you learn the basic terms.)

. I think everyone should remain skeptical right up to the point these creatures are proven to exist or you have your own sighting.

So by your logic, I should be convinced that Texas has giant glass spiders 40' tall. After all, I had a sighting of one!

So you have 2 choices, either go out and look for evidence yourself or accept what others in the field give you.

See, here's the rub: I'm in this field. I've spent my time in bigfoot territory, I've worked closely with biologists who have, and I've studied the relevant fossiliferous units.

I say they don't exist. That is my profesional opinion, upon which I'm willing to base my profesional reputation and my job.

Now what? We've got different experts saying different things!

Here's a hint: on one side, we have high-quality evidence from multiple fields of study. On the other, we have photos of such poor quality even the advocates are abandoning them as evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

See the ivory-billed woodpecker.

Uh oh!

 

[Dinwar]

Uh oh!

Hm....I may be wrong on that one. So please disregard it.

Regardless, photographs are generally considered scientific evidence IF they are high-quality (meaning you can actually see the thing in question). For my work, there are further restrictions: I need to keep a photo log in a bound field notebook with numbered pages, for example. That said, no scientist would ever dismiss a photo as not valid evidence. They would question it, certainly; fraud is not unknown. But they wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. To say that they would reveals a complete unfamiliarity with how science operates.

 

[comncents]

According to wikipedia, the National Wildlife Federation funded a study on Bigfoot in the 1970s but no notable discoveries were made. But I don't suppose that study counts because they didn't confirm your belief?

But let us pretend for a moment that your claim is right and no official studies or expeditions looking for Bigfoot ever happened. Why do you think this would be the case?

There is no evidence that they exist at all beside from vague Indian legends that propents claim pertain to them, unreliable eyewitness accounts, fake looking footprints, and grainy, blurry, or otherwise indistinct photos, videos, and audio.

Why would there be an official study or expedition into this? And even if there was one that looked into every rock, nook, cranny, and crevice, and they found nothing would that make any difference? Or would you still be claiming that Bigfoot some how eluded such a study or expedition?

This is a perfect example of "moving goal posts." Footers say "No long term study" they are shown long term studies. Footers say "no funded study" they are shown funded studies. Footers say " no University studies" ....

As mentioned before, most new species are discovered when looking for other things. So, here are three links to University studies, based in the PNW (Bigfoot central) that were able to document wolverines.
http://www.oregonzoo.org/news/2012/11/zoo-assisted-study-search-cascades-wolverines
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2008/mar/osu-researcher-documents-rare-wolverine-california
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/washingtons-wild-one

If you relate the number of wolverine sightings to the number of bigfoot sightings, finding ol' footie should be easy.

I'm pretty sure there are numerous University funded studies putting people in the field all over Footie's supposed range, but none of them ever come up with anything Footie related.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm pretty sure there are numerous University funded studies putting people in the field all over Footie's supposed range, but none of them ever come up with anything Footie related.

Not just university funded studies. The EPA, BLM, and other federal and state agencies require biological resources monitoring of many construction projects. That means that there are thousands of biologists in the field at any given time, each looking for a way to become famous so that they can stop being monitors. NONE of them have found sufficient evidence of bigfoot to warrant publication.

 

[Cervelo]

All one has to do is some basic goggling on the subject of population studies on virtually any animal that is in Bigfoots range....if one doesn't come away from that "research" 99.9% convinced they don't exist....they are deluding themselves at that point.

 

[comncents]

I'm not interested in further discussion of the pics.

.... For me personally the mystery of existence is solved because I've seen them. So you have 2 choices, either go out and look for evidence yourself or accept what others in the field give you. I'm not offering. Chris B.

Pretty much what I predicted 8 days ago:

.....when all else fails, the BLAARGer's SOP answer is "I'm not trying to convince anyone else, I KNOW they exist. I just want to study them"

 

[Resume]

Not just university funded studies. The EPA, BLM, and other federal and state agencies require biological resources monitoring of many construction projects. That means that there are thousands of biologists in the field at any given time, each looking for a way to become famous so that they can stop being monitors. NONE of them have found sufficient evidence of bigfoot to warrant publication.

It's a gummint conspiracy

. . . the Gov may not have to provide proof anymore but they would surely have to acknowledge its existence, whether now extinct or not, which it simply hasn't done ?

I personally don't believe that this animal exists (which it does) right under the noses of 400m people and right under the noses of the US Gov without them knowing full well.

I know a few of you don't hold your Gov in the highest regards, but there's no way that's happening.

Why they won't go public with it I have no idea, but i guess like everything else it would be down to $$ more than anything else.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

This is a perfect example of "moving goal posts." Footers say "No long term study" they are shown long term studies. Footers say "no funded study" they are shown funded studies. Footers say " no University studies" ....

As mentioned before, most new species are discovered when looking for other things. So, here are three links to University studies, based in the PNW (Bigfoot central) that were able to document wolverines.
http://www.oregonzoo.org/news/2012/11/zoo-assisted-study-search-cascades-wolverines
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2008/mar/osu-researcher-documents-rare-wolverine-california
http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/washingtons-wild-one

If you relate the number of wolverine sightings to the number of bigfoot sightings, finding ol' footie should be easy.

I'm pretty sure there are numerous University funded studies putting people in the field all over Footie's supposed range, but none of them ever come up with anything Footie related.

Oh, I am certain he knows all this. The most notable expedition into this asinine hoax industry was by the Daily Mail back in the 1950's to the Himalayas. It was a 16 week expedition and of course they found nothing because there is no abominable snowman.

Propaganda enthusiasts know exactly what is going on here: you keep repeating a lie often enough and people will come to believe it, even when it is so fantastical (the Big Lie) that logic alone is sufficient to excoriate it.

They have a very long list of lies they keep repeating, and you aren't going to hear him come out saying "Oh, golly you're right: look at all of these expeditions and studies, look at all the wildlife professionals working in the field every day, etc."

It's just off to the next lie, and the next one, and the next. This is another reason to scoff at the "where's the harm" chirping. Relentless lying isn't something to inculcate into people, especially children.

 

[dmaker]

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.

Chris, what do you think would be the proper response from someone practicing " real science"? You ask us ( demand actually) that we provide you with an answer, backed up by discussion, as to why the photo is dismissed. What discussion, beyond it is impossible to define because the image is of too poor quality, do you reasonably expect?

Side note: do you realize how offensive your "real science" comment is considering the real experience and knowledge of some involved in this discussion?

 

[Dinwar]

However, most would like to comment from afar without discussion and that's not allowed in real science.

I missed this. This is obviously wrong. One IS allowed to "comment from afar"--meaning to examine the data presented by the authors, and determine if it's sufficient or not. The "letters to the editor" section of every journal is filled with exactly this.

One cannot simply dismiss something based on their say so, the opinion must be backed up with an actual discussion.

What ChrisBFRPKY fails to realize is that we ARE basing our conclusions on actual discussions--and (more significantly) on data. That's exactly what science does. But because he doesn't like our conclusions, he ignores this.

Side note: do you realize how offensive your "real science" comment is considering the real experience and knowledge of some involved in this discussion?

I wish to second this. ChrisBFRPKY, you are quite literally telling some of us how to do our jobs. How would YOU like it if I demonstrated no knowledge of your job, nor any interest in gaining any, but still insisted that you are not actually doing your job because you aren't doing it the way *I* want? How long would it take before you punched me? The fact that we're still talking to you in relatively civil terms is actually remarkably generous from some of us. (And the worst said in this thread is polite--science has involved flat-out warfare in the past, over FAR less [thus the reason they are very hesitant to let us paleo folks play with TNT anymore....])