Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[jerrywayne]

Bigfoot

Here is the NAWAC account of the infamous tree break.

http://thebigfootshow.com/2014/07/10/tree-trouble/

It'll be interesting to see if the NAWAC stories, such as Bigfoot climbing trees and causing tree breaks, will be incorporated in the myth in the future. Will it catch on? Will we have more stories from other sources of tree climbing and tree swaying sasquatches?

 

[Resume]

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

They're so accustomed to chasing real scientists off their enthusiast boards that they forget those scientists might be around here to correct them. Sort of similar to their idea that skeptics/non-enthusiasts never get out of the city.

Both of these ideas are incorrect.

 

[William Parcher]

Sort of similar to their idea that skeptics/non-enthusiasts never get out of the city.

Both of these ideas are incorrect.

There are two fallacies there. First, that skeptics never get out of their city. Second, that skeptics are living inside cities in the first place.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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....])

This is one of the advantages message board rules have for BLAARGing: you can behave in extremely offensive ways, yet stay within the rules.

It isn't against the rules to relentlessly insult science/scientists, to never ever concede on any point no matter what kind of overwhelming proof there is to the contrary, and keep repeating the same lies as if they had never been told before.

and Parcher the other fallacy is that bigfoot "hunters" spend any significant time in the forest at all. We have one here that has gone on a couple of car camping trips in all the time he has been here. I fricking live in the woods. I've logged close to 50 miles by snow machine in the last three days alone, and don't call them "expeditions".

We don't lie about what we're doing, pretending that a walk from a picnic table to the latrine at a state park is a scientific expedition.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

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.

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".

Again with the photos. How many times must I repeat I did not present the photos here as evidence? That horse is dead my friend and yet many continue to beat it.

And yet, more suppositions about me. Why the personal attacks? Is that all you have to offer?

I haven't presented any scientific evidence for debate. I agree with you.

Lewis and Clark, well that wasn't exactly a Bigfoot expedition, but it was Government funded. I seem to remember a few odd passages in their notes. I had to look up the date but on June 29th 1806 you'll find the following entry: "Saw the tracks of 2 bearfooted indians—". Kind of a weird journal entry. I guess it was odd that these indians did not wear moccasins.
There are more odd entries if you really care to actually look for yourself.

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

I dunno? How many sightings occur annually? Any tracks found?

Fine.

What else you got?

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

As I said previously, my findings will be shared when I complete them.

It's funny you mentioned that exact woodpecker. My father pointed one out to me while on a hunting trip in the 70's. He told me it was a "big woodpecker" and to "get a good look because you don't see those very often." He was right, I've not seen one since.

I'll overlook bringing that one up as a comparison for a new species accepted with a photo as you indicated in a latter post that you may have been mistaken. Of course it would be prudent you retract the "This is a LIE" from your previous comment. As you now know my statement isn't a "LIE" and in fact is 100% correct.

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?

Again with the pics? Really? You're not done yet?

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.

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.

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....])

And yet again with the pics. It's funny how you argue a point in which I agree with. The main problem with your post is I've not presented any evidence for argument. When I do, we can proceed. Chris B.

 

[mustbeso]

Chris, you have defined those photos on your own website as evidence for the existence of bigfoot. You have further stated that you can tell the gender of two subjects in the photos that are invisible to everyone else commenting here. Your evidence is an accident of light and shadow yet you seem to require further explanation for it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, you have defined those photos on your own website as evidence for the existence of bigfoot. You have further stated that you can tell the gender of two subjects in the photos that are invisible to everyone else commenting here. Your evidence is an accident of light and shadow yet you seem to require further explanation for it.

Those statements were made based on my own research and findings, not entirely based on the info available in the pic.

If you feel every pic or video of mine is based on an accident of light and shadows, that's a perfectly sound theory. As long as you do not allow for shadows to exist in direct sunlight. Chris B.

 

[bruto]

Lewis and Clark, well that wasn't exactly a Bigfoot expedition, but it was Government funded. I seem to remember a few odd passages in their notes. I had to look up the date but on June 29th 1806 you'll find the following entry: "Saw the tracks of 2 bearfooted indians—". Kind of a weird journal entry. I guess it was odd that these indians did not wear moccasins.
There are more odd entries if you really care to actually look for yourself.

yes, indeedy. If you care to actually look for yourself, you will find that Mr. Clark was a careless writer and occasional miss-speller. The journals abound with such errors.

But why guess that Clark meant 'barefooted' when it would be so much more fun to think he was tracking squatches.

I remember back years ago up in the North Country I knew a man from Georgia who, upon listening to a colleague's account of some event, remarked, "why, that ol boy would climb a tree to tell a lie before he'd tell the truth on the ground."

 

[Resume]

Lewis and Clark, well that wasn't exactly a Bigfoot expedition, but it was Government funded. I seem to remember a few odd passages in their notes. I had to look up the date but on June 29th 1806 you'll find the following entry: "Saw the tracks of 2 bearfooted indians—". Kind of a weird journal entry. I guess it was odd that these indians did not wear moccasins.
There are more odd entries if you really care to actually look for yourself.

It's the bigfoot shoe horn again. If the footie slipper doesn't fit, make it fit.

And the number of bigfoot reliably described? Zero (0). The number of bigfoot collected? Zero (0). The number of bigfoot pieces/parts? Zero (0). The sum total of any biological evidence for anything bigfoot, despite billions and billions (sorry Carl) of human hours spent mucking about in the NA backcountry is . . . zero (0).

You guys have a lot of campfire stories though.

 

[William Parcher]

I dunno? How many sightings occur annually? Any tracks found?

I'm not aware of any Florida marmoset sightings or tracks found, but that shouldn't matter for finding new species. You said that it happens all the time. Looking back at new species finds we understand that sightings and tracks aren't at all required prior to confirmation. The right person(s) just has to get in there and look.

Things might change on the confirmation status of the small primate if something like a Florida Marmoset Research Group were launched.

It's funny you mentioned that exact woodpecker. My father pointed one out to me while on a hunting trip in the 70's. He told me it was a "big woodpecker" and to "get a good look because you don't see those very often." He was right, I've not seen one since.

It's funny that you mentioned seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. We had another guy here years ago who had seen both Bigfoot and an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. He called himself Creekfreak. He eventually got banned from JREF because he told another member to commit suicide.

I feel a bit left out because I've only seen Pileated Woodpeckers (pretty big) and never seen a Bigfoot.

 

[Mudcat]

Lewis and Clark, well that wasn't exactly a Bigfoot expedition, but it was Government funded. I seem to remember a few odd passages in their notes. I had to look up the date but on June 29th 1806 you'll find the following entry: "Saw the tracks of 2 bearfooted indians—". Kind of a weird journal entry. I guess it was odd that these indians did not wear moccasins.

They were recording what they had came accross, so why is it odd that they should mention footprint of barefooted Indians? And if it was a Bigfoot footprint, as you seem to be alluding to, why didn't they mention it's inhuman size?

 

[Resume]

I saw a group of what I think were night herons standing about a foot from each other ankle-deep (do herons have ankles?) in the Namekagon River one morning. I don't know what they were doing grouped like that, bills down, just chilling out, but they brought to mind a pack of velociraptors.

So that's what I'm gonna claim I saw from now on.

 

[dmaker]

Again with the photos. How many times must I repeat I did not present the photos here as evidence? That horse is dead my friend and yet many continue to beat it.

Again with the pics? Really? You're not done yet?



And yet again with the pics. .

Chris, you prolong the discussion of the pics when you say things like we cannot simply say there is no bigfoot in them without additional discussion. That is not "real science" to you. I am asking you what sort of additional discussion would you expect? I am not asking you to defend the pics, so you can dispense with that nonsense, I am asking you to explain your demand for supporting discussion.

 

[Correa Neto]

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

Fine. Blobfoots are useless regardless what are the claims associated to them. However, you brought them to the table, you asked what they could be other than bigfoots, because you claim to have seen them”.

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

Every single bit of “confidential findings” in bigfootery turned out to be hoaxes or just nothing at all. You are following this trend quite nicely.

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

OK, lets see if you’ll get somewhere other than the standard bigfootology bog.

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?

Nope. Because the discovery of a new species of monkey at a place not yet well studied is not equal to the discovery of a 3m-tall bipedal ape (quite likely a new genus, BTW) in USA and/or Canada. North America is not exactly unknown in terms of biodiversity. Or you actually think a biologist working say, with bears or wildlife survey, would miss the signs of a 3m-tall bipedal ape?

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 can only say that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about or are being dishonest. See those three linkie thingies below? They are some instructions for manuscript submissions for scientific journals (Nature included); ALL of them include instructions for pictures and - OH! The surprise! – even video files. Hey, by the way, what are those things at the covers of the journals? Hey, let us look inside a volume… IT’S FULL OF STARS PICTURES!!!

http://www.nature.com/srep/authors/index.html
http://www.fws.gov/science/nafguideforauthors.html#FormatConventions
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...ines2011Final.pdf?v=1&7b435687&isAguDoi=false

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.

And I will prove again you either have no idea of what you are talking about or you are being dishonest.

From the Nature manuscripts submission guidelines, regarding pictures:

The guidelines below will aid in accurate data presentation at the image processing level; authors must also take care to exercise prudence during data acquisition, where misrepresentation must equally be avoided. Manuscripts should include an 'equipment and settings' section with their Methods that describes for each figure the pertinent instrument settings, acquisition conditions and processing changes, as described in this guide.

Authors should list all image acquisition tools and image processing software packages used. Authors should document key image-gathering settings and processing manipulations in the Methods.
Images gathered at different times or from different locations should not be combined into a single image, unless it is stated that the resultant image is a product of time-averaged data or a time-lapse sequence. If juxtaposing images is essential, the borders should be clearly demarcated in the figure and described in the legend.
The use of touch-up tools, such as cloning and healing tools in Photoshop, or any feature that deliberately obscures manipulations, is to be avoided.
Processing (such as changing brightness and contrast) is appropriate only when it is applied equally across the entire image and is applied equally to controls. Contrast should not be adjusted so that data disappear. Excessive manipulations, such as processing to emphasize one region in the image at the expense of others (for example, through the use of a biased choice of threshold settings), is inappropriate, as is emphasizing experimental data relative to the control.

PGF fits that bill? NO. <-that’s a period.

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

OK, and exactly how you managed to know how Gigantopithecus looked like? Which species of the Gigantopithecus genus, by the way, are you talking about? Are you qualified to know from some bits of bone how a specimen with muscle, flesh, skin and hairs would look like?

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.

Oh, the “I’ve seen them! You did not!” last ditch maneauver… How unexpected.

Sorry, your two choices are crappy. I’ll take another one: accept what the people who do real science and spend months doing field work say-> there’s no such thing as bigfoot. By the way, its same thing that thousands of hunters, poachers and trucks without bigfoot smashed at their front bumpers are saying after tens of years. Or hundreds. Hundreds of thousands and even millions if you bring paleontologists to the fray.

So, you are still stuck in the bog of bigfootery regurgitating the same old false worn-out arguments and fallacies.

 

[Dinwar]

Again with the photos. How many times must I repeat I did not present the photos here as evidence? That horse is dead my friend and yet many continue to beat it.

Here's the thing: you continue to fail to understand WHY the photos are bad--and you are spreading flat-out lies about my field. I'm going to keep hammering that point home until you understand it, or until I get fed up with you and leave before I get banned, or until I'm reasonably certain no lurker will mistake your misinformation as true.

And yet, more suppositions about me. Why the personal attacks? Is that all you have to offer?

Conclusions=/=supposition. And I've offered my evidence. You ignored and continue to ignore it.

I haven't presented any scientific evidence for debate. I agree with you.

Than you've got NOTHING. PERIOD. There is no counter-argument to this. You are attempting to do science--if you have no scientific evidence, you cannot make a single statement on the topic. Those are the rules.

Lewis and Clark, well that wasn't exactly a Bigfoot expedition, but it was Government funded.

This is an example of you twisting things to make yourself look better. Lewis and Clark were sent out, in part, to discover any unusual animals they could. It was a test of a theory of extinction. Therefore, finding bigfoot falls well within the scope of their expedition. The fact that it wasn't specifically labeled a bigfoot expedition is irrelevant.

Secondly, why in the nine Hells does funding matter? Who CARES if it was government-funded, privately funded, or completely unfunded? I've seen perfectly good research using funding from all three sources. We should be discussing the DATA, not the funding.

I seem to remember a few odd passages in their notes. I had to look up the date but on June 29th 1806 you'll find the following entry: "Saw the tracks of 2 bearfooted indians—". Kind of a weird journal entry.

Seriously? A misspelled word is the best you've got?

Here's the thing: I HAVE looked for myself. I got on a kick of reading historical scientific works a while back, and these journals were one of them. Within the first three pages I knew that they spelled as bad as me; an error of that type is negligible compared to some of the rest. And the journal entries weren't any different from what I'd expect from anyone exploring the West for the first time. They saw things they didn't understand. But there remains a dirth of bigfoot, and a complete absence of any evidence.

As I said previously, my findings will be shared when I complete them.

No scientist works this way. They consult others. Handing out copies of papers pre-publication is so common there are actually standard protocols for it (I've cited works that were in review before, for example).

Of course it would be prudent you retract the "This is a LIE" from your previous comment. As you now know my statement isn't a "LIE" and in fact is 100% correct.

Nope. Your lie is still a lie. Specifically: You stated that photos were not scientific evidence. AFTER I had gone over the ways in which this was an error. That means that you knowingly stated something which is false. You lied. The fact that one of the examples I used may not actually be relevant does not change that--I've mentioned numerous others, and outlined the conceptual framework for scientific evidence that you are ignoring.

If you know enough about science to tell multiple scientists how science works (which you have done repeatedly in this thread) you should know that disproving a single example out of multiple examples in no way disproves the concept illustrated by the examples. The fact that you're looking for an excuse to dismiss my statements, rather than to examine them, demonstrates that you are not engaging in scientific inquiry.

By the way, I retracted my statement about the woodpecker not because I know it's wrong, but because I don't know enough to defend it. I thought I did, but was reminded of a few things that had slipped my mind. I just don't know, so would rather not support anything with such shoddy evidence.

The main problem with your post is I've not presented any evidence for argument. When I do, we can proceed. Chris B.

What's the holdup?

Here's my advice: Halt ALL discussion on this forum. Everything. Do not post a single word. Devote that time to organizing your evidence. Once that's done, present it. Because right now, you're playing a very dishonest game: you wish to have the discussion, but to be able to cower behind "I haven't presented anything!" every time someone calls you out on your nonsense.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

yes, indeedy. If you care to actually look for yourself, you will find that Mr. Clark was a careless writer and occasional miss-speller. The journals abound with such errors.

But why guess that Clark meant 'barefooted' when it would be so much more fun to think he was tracking squatches.

I remember back years ago up in the North Country I knew a man from Georgia who, upon listening to a colleague's account of some event, remarked, "why, that ol boy would climb a tree to tell a lie before he'd tell the truth on the ground."

The Lewis and Clark expedition didn't bring in a Bigfoot body so I'm not that interested in their exploits as it relates to Bigfoot.

There is further evidence that seems odd in their journals as well. I think Dr Meldrum has based some of their entries on possible contact with Bigfoot. You may want to look at what he has to offer.

I don't see anything that directly relates to Bigfoot , just some "odd" entries that are beyond investigation.

I agree, seems like alot of liars come from Georgia when Bigfoot is the subject.

It's the bigfoot shoe horn again. If the footie slipper doesn't fit, make it fit.

And the number of bigfoot reliably described? Zero (0). The number of bigfoot collected? Zero (0). The number of bigfoot pieces/parts? Zero (0). The sum total of any biological evidence for anything bigfoot, despite billions and billions (sorry Carl) of human hours spent mucking about in the NA backcountry is . . . zero (0).

You guys have a lot of campfire stories though.

Nope, it's pointing out something odd that you may have missed. Are the journal entries of any Bigfoot research value? Not to me.

I'm not aware of any Florida marmoset sightings or tracks found, but that shouldn't matter for finding new species. You said that it happens all the time. Looking back at new species finds we understand that sightings and tracks aren't at all required prior to confirmation. The right person(s) just has to get in there and look.

Things might change on the confirmation status of the small primate if something like a Florida Marmoset Research Group were launched.


It's funny that you mentioned seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. We had another guy here years ago who had seen both Bigfoot and an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. He called himself Creekfreak. He eventually got banned from JREF because he told another member to commit suicide.

I feel a bit left out because I've only seen Pileated Woodpeckers (pretty big) and never seen a Bigfoot.

If the species is not being sighted, I personally wouldn't expect to find any.

I don't think I've implied the discovery of new species happens regularly, I think what I said was it still happens, even primates.

I also remember Creekfreak from the BFF.

Bird watching can be more addictive than cigarettes.
Chris B.

 

[William Parcher]

If the species is not being sighted, I personally wouldn't expect to find any.

You should check out the history of the discovery of species.

Bird watching can be more addictive than cigarettes.

Comment after seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the 1970s: "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking!"

 

[tsig]

The Lewis and Clark expedition didn't bring in a Bigfoot body so I'm not that interested in their exploits as it relates to Bigfoot. There is further evidence that seems odd in their journals as well. I think Dr Meldrum has based some of their entries on possible contact with Bigfoot. You may want to look at what he has to offer.

I don't see anything that directly relates to Bigfoot , just some "odd" entries that are beyond investigation.

I agree, seems like alot of liars come from Georgia when Bigfoot is the subject.



Nope, it's pointing out something odd that you may have missed. Are the journal entries of any Bigfoot research value? Not to me.



If the species is not being sighted, I personally wouldn't expect to find any.

I don't think I've implied the discovery of new species happens regularly, I think what I said was it still happens, even primates.

I also remember Creekfreak from the BFF.

Bird watching can be more addictive than cigarettes.
Chris B.

Of course they couldn't bring back a body since their main job was to check on an army breeding project to develop a soldier with bearlike fur to withstand the cold and a pigs stomach so he could thrive on army swill, the result, the ManBearPig was what is called Bigfoot. If you think this story is cartoon like I might remind you of the "Buffalo Soldier", an attempt to combine the infantry and the cavalry.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It was the horse you rode in here on. According to your blog your reports of it's death are a bit premature.

No actually, if you'll look back up thread you'll see I commented about the NL Bigfoot story first. Then a couple members here linked to my site and pics and that started the ball rolling as they had planned.

Some here seek a debate in which someone must present evidence and all they are required to do is deny and ridicule. I'm not interested in such activities as it serves no useful purpose.

I don't have a blog, so I'm not sure what information you're looking at. I have captions under the pics at my site, if that's what you mean. If you are asking do I think the pics and video contain Bigfoot, yes I do. But they're not evidence of scientific proof of an unknown creature. Even if they were perfectly clear.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You should check out the history of the discovery of species.


Comment after seeing an Ivory-billed Woodpecker in the 1970s: "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking!"

As I see it the history of discovery of species is not what's important. The fact that we are still discovering new species today is.

I also had blind cave fish in my goldfish bowl in the 70's.
Chris B.