Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[HarryHenderson]

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

There was.

Why can't you take in focus pictures?

Define focus.

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.

Your findings "are confidential and will remain as such" until you finish your work...building Mexican orphanages? Setting up food distribution channels in war-torn Sudan? Fixing the torn backseat in your sedan?

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.

That's comedy!

...a walk from a picnic table to the latrine at a state park is a scientific expedition.

Warren Buffet wants everyone to learn to take infinite amounts of shorter expeditions instead of fewer longer ones like the latrine expedition. It's just business. Journey a good 20 steps or so then hang awhile restocking your expedition supplies. Go another 20, same thing. Never go on an expedition over 50 steps because any expedition over 50 steps and the expeditioner is automatically entitled to a free McDonald's coffee. And in the end that kind of expedition policy just drives up expedition costs for everyone who expeditions. Down with long latrine-like expeditions and up with short couch-to-refrigerator expeditions. Short expeditions rule!

 

[bruto]

....


Approaching zero is fair, but as with other formulas for trying to determine the existence of an unknown species, it won't work with Bigfoot. Why not? Because you can play with the numbers and have different results each time.

They're either there or they're not, I'm of the opinion they are there.
Chris B.

What do you mean by playing with the numbers, though? If there is no good evidence, the only way you can play with numbers is to consider bad evidence as good, or to lie.

 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Chris you mentioned and/or alluded to a monkey.

May I please see the monkey in question?

Do you have monkey?

 

[Nonpareil]

Do you have monkey?

Do you, in fact, have any monkey at all?

 

[Mudcat]

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

That's okay, they aren't worth discussing except maybe as examples of bad photography anyhow.

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

And what kind of work are you talking about?

Chris you mentioned and/or alluded to a monkey.

May I please see the monkey in question?

Do you have monkey?

You can't handle the truth monkey!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, you mentioned a passion for primate anatomy since you were a child. Do you hold degrees in any science?

You don't provide any justification for this absurd assertion. Nor do you demonstrate any understanding of how it would apply (nor, to be fair, any MISunderstanding; you don't address the issue at all).

Using rarefraction curves we can rigorously determine if there are new species (within a certain set of limits, those limits defined by the individual studies) in an area. The nature of those species is more or less irrelevant; as long as the sampling is reasonably random, their ecology isn't going to matter much. And since you assert (it's a basal assumption in your argument) that bigfoot exists in an area, and is a unique species, and can be detected, rarefraction WILL tell us if such a creature is left to be discovered.

You fail to understand my statement. I mean, the fact that you call it an argument is proof of that, but aside from that your statement is still nonsense.

Basically, I'm saying that if your best argument is a pedantic statement, you have no actual data to support your assertions and therefore they can be dismissed.

Besides, you're the one asserting knowledge here. All we're doing is pointing out that you cannot support your assertions. I'm not claiming to know the unknowable--I'm claiming to know what's been repeatedly demonstrated over centuries. The only reason you say it's unknowable is that you only count evidence supporting your pet hypothesis (a technical term, by the way) as actual evidence. That is YOUR failing, and in no way alters the nature of my argument.

Did you read ANY of the rest of that statement? I agreed that using the mathematical defintion, no, it's not impossible--but I asserted that using such a definition was so incorrect in this context that it constitutes a confession of intellectual bancruptcy. I also provided a non-vacuous definition, by which standard it IS impossible for bigfoot to exist.

You missed the last few bits.

Not true, and it shows the depths of your ignorance in ecology. There are processes for testing exactly that--for example, bootstrapping and jackknifing.

Besides, if it works for every other species it necessarily MUST work for bigfoot. Unless bigfoot isn't biological. Psychological issues do tend to not show up in rarefraction curves, I'll grant you....

Actually, he fits right in with the tradition of bigfoot expeditions that I have remarked on several times...where expeditions claim to have been very close to a bigfoot, but then the chase is always abandoned for various reasons.

Bigfoot is right there!

Aw hell, I gotta go change the oil in my truck...

Bigfoot was just here!

Aw hell, I gotta go cut my grass...

Bigfoot always makes a goal line stand.

Bigfoot expeditions never score on bigfoot, despite many claims of entering well into the red zone.

They run off because biggie puts the mind meld..bad ju-ju on them!
Plus they don't want to seem all pushy....you know so they can come back later and hang out with their Bigfoot buddy in the woods. It's a tried and true "research" protocol.

You guys are wasting your time. This guy knows there's no such animal. Plainly he does.

Your perfectly respectable adherence to the only reasonable and logical method of separating reality from fantasy puts you at an unwinnable disadvantage to those who would exploit that commendable commitment for their own amusement.

Exactly.

Dinwar says he doesn't understand this universal "running away just as you are about to capture bigfoot" paradox. That's only hard to understand if you agree they believe in bigfoot.

If they don't believe in bigfoot, then it is not only logical, but they have no other choice. The stories are lies. So there has to be a reason manufactured as to why they can't get a picture my three year old can take. Of real animals, that is. He took pictures of a fox last week.

I've taught my kids how to track real animals and take their pictures. Another parent here has taught his children how to lie. I just wonder - when he sees his children lying to other people, does this make him proud? Wow, son - just look at those idiots who believe what you are saying. Boy, you really did a good job there.

You can call a bar "study hall". You can claim passion about Spanish without knowing a single word. Do the children say "I want to be just like Dad: lie, lie, lie." Other kids' parents can build stuff, catch fish, hunt animals, etc. but my Dad blows them out of the water because he can lie about being someone great.

It's been 47 years since a sasquatch supposedly strolled across Roger Patterson's path in broad daylight...

Still not one bit of useable sign.

This time thing is tough, eh?

There was.


Define focus.


Your findings "are confidential and will remain as such" until you finish your work...building Mexican orphanages? Setting up food distribution channels in war-torn Sudan? Fixing the torn backseat in your sedan?


That's comedy!


Warren Buffet wants everyone to learn to take infinite amounts of shorter expeditions instead of fewer longer ones like the latrine expedition. It's just business. Journey a good 20 steps or so then hang awhile restocking your expedition supplies. Go another 20, same thing. Never go on an expedition over 50 steps because any expedition over 50 steps and the expeditioner is automatically entitled to a free McDonald's coffee. And in the end that kind of expedition policy just drives up expedition costs for everyone who expeditions. Down with long latrine-like expeditions and up with short couch-to-refrigerator expeditions. Short expeditions rule!

Chris you mentioned and/or alluded to a monkey.

May I please see the monkey in question?

Do you have monkey?

That's okay, they aren't worth discussing except maybe as examples of bad photography anyhow.



And what kind of work are you talking about?



You can't handle the truth monkey!

To all quoted posts above:
Please find another member to attack and ridicule. I'm not interested in the insults as it is clear that's the only thing many here are capable of is personal attack.

I've not tried to convince any here of my opinion and have not brought forth any evidence to argue. So again, please halt the personal attacks and name calling. I'm not here to prove Bigfoot exists for you or to argue the case for or against it. Once again, be content in your beliefs.

I'd just like to simply read and comment as everyone else does. Why are so many threatened by my presence? Just because you are uncomfortable with my opinion of Bigfoot that shouldn't spark personal attack. What does this say about the collective mentality of "skeptics" here? It suggests desperation and a clear lack of critical thinking. If you feel the only way your post can shine is by dowsing all other light, you truly are in a dark place. Chris B.

 

[Correa Neto]

Of course probably it is just make-believe.

But the guy must have something of a masochist to enjoy constantly having his arguments being torn apart and handled to him on a silver plate. I mean, after a point, its either sheer ignorance, blind faith or dishonesty. Or some mix of these. Anyway, these are the colors footers paint themselves when subscribing to these arguments.

If they like playing these types of characters in their role-playing games... Well, I hope they realize its not the same as playing a rogue or a thief in an MMORPG...

ETA- Oh, I just saw the victim card being played... Sometimes it can be as predictable as games' AI moves.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Of course probably it is just make-believe.

But the guy must have something of a masochist to enjoy constantly having his arguments being torn apart and handled to him on a silver plate. I mean, after a point, its either sheer ignorance, blind faith or dishonesty. Or some mix of these. Anyway, these are the colors footers paint themselves when subscribing to these arguments.

If they like playing these types of characters in their role-playing games... Well, I hope they realize its not the same as playing a rogue or a thief in an MMORPG...

What argument of mine has been torn apart and handed to me on a silver plate? Curious. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

I'd just like to simply read and comment as everyone else does. Why are so many threatened by my presence? Just because you are uncomfortable with my opinion of Bigfoot that shouldn't spark personal attack. What does this say about the collective mentality of "skeptics" here? It suggests desperation and a clear lack of critical thinking. If you feel the only way your post can shine is by dowsing all other light, you truly are in a dark place. Chris B.

Geez, talk about playing the martyr. I'll bet even a few of the BFF lurkers winced a bit at this paragraph of self pity. Oh woe is you. If you want more substantial replies, post more substantial evidence or at least better arguments. The problem with that is there ain't much of that in bigfootery; the idea that's there is, and has been, a nine-foot, 600-lb plus ape wandering around the North American continent unmolested (and uncataloged) is simply ludicrous. More ludicrous are those that pretend it isn't.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Geez, talk about playing the martyr. I'll bet eve a few of the BFF lurkers winced a bit at this paragraph of self pity. Oh woe is you. If you want more substantial replies, post more substantial evidence or at least better arguments. The problem with that is there ain't much of that in bigfootery; the idea that's there is, and has been, a nine-foot, 600-lb plus ape wandering around the North American continent unmolested (and uncataloged)for eons is simply ludicrous. More ludicrous are those that pretend it isn't.

Exactly what "evidence" have I posted? Curious. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Exactly what "evidence" have I posted? Curious. Chris B.

Actually, none; you have none. You have stories and claims, bigfootery defined.

 

[Cayvmann]

Exactly what "evidence" have I posted? Curious. Chris B.

None, and no good arguments either. Plenty of whining though

 

[Correa Neto]

What argument of mine has been torn apart and handed to me on a silver plate? Curious. Chris B.

1. The bigblobfoot pics.
2. 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.
3. Images are not acceptable scientific evidence (includes a discussion why the PGF is an unreliable bit of bigfoot evidence).
4. Bigfoots may be gigantopithecus because they look like them.
5. 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.
6. The whole discussion over possible, plausible, probable, tending towards zero allowing a glimmer of hope for bigfoot.
7. Your secret confidential "research".
8. Appeals to emotion, playing the victim.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

1. The bigblobfoot pics.
2. 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.
3. Images are not acceptable scientific evidence (includes a discussion why the PGF is an unreliable bit of bigfoot evidence).
4. Bigfoots may be gigantopithecus because they look like them.
5. 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.
6. The whole discussion over possible, plausible, probable, tending towards zero allowing a glimmer of hope for bigfoot.
7. Your secret confidential "research".
8. Appeals to emotion, playing the victim.

1. I have not claimed those pics as scientific evidence of Bigfoot. The pics and my website were both brought up here by another forum member.
2. Yes there was a new species of monkey discovered fairly recently. This was pointed out to dismiss the claims that we've already discovered everything there is.
3. You left out part, "images are not acceptable as scientific evidence for proof of existence of a new species, we need a body or part for that."
4. That's not an argument, it's my opinion based on my sighting.
5. Again, that's not an argument, it's reality.
6. Yes I pointed out the flaws in using the term "impossible"
7. What does my research have to do with anything here? I've not presented any of it here for discussion so I'm not aware of the relevance of my research to this forum?
8. Just pointing out the facts. My presence here seems to draw personal attacks and name calling. What need is there for that type of childish behavior? Chris B.

 

[eerok]

Exactly what "evidence" have I posted?

We all know that you have no evidence, and yet you claim to be a "knower" who's had "confirmed" bigfoot experiences. So I don't think that you can play the innocent bystander here.

When you come to a skeptic site and make ridiculous claims, you get what you get, and meaningless blobs that you present as evidence elsewhere can certainly be held against you here.

 

[MikeG]

.....
4. Bigfoots may be gigantopithecus because they look like them...........

........4. That's not an argument, it's my opinion based on my sighting..........

How do you know what gigantopithecus looks like? All we have is teeth and a few bits of jaw.

 

[Drewbot]

See the car keys statement above.

Not the same.
Your wife checked the pockets on your jeans, she missed a pocket.

Loggers in Michigan cut down almost every white pine tree in the lower peninsula. The devastation was so vast, that the Grayling and Brook Trout were extirpated, because the cool water streams they inhabited were no longer shaded by the overhanging trees. The water temps rose, the mud washed into the river, because there were no trees left to hold the sediment. They all died. Entire species of fish, in every river in Michigan's lower peninsula were wiped out.

This would be more equivalent to you taking your jeans, burning them in a fire place, taking a metal detector to the ashes and still not finding the keys. Then asking your wife to check your jeans again.

 

[tsig]

1. I have not claimed those pics as scientific evidence of Bigfoot. The pics and my website were both brought up here by another forum member.
2. Yes there was a new species of monkey discovered fairly recently. This was pointed out to dismiss the claims that we've already discovered everything there is.
3. You left out part, "images are not acceptable as scientific evidence for proof of existence of a new species, we need a body or part for that."
4. That's not an argument, it's my opinion based on my sighting.
5. Again, that's not an argument, it's reality.
6. Yes I pointed out the flaws in using the term "impossible"
7. What does my research have to do with anything here? I've not presented any of it here for discussion so I'm not aware of the relevance of my research to this forum?
8. Just pointing out the facts. My presence here seems to draw personal attacks and name calling. What need is there for that type of childish behavior? Chris B.

As bigfoot teaches us, "As they have treated me so shall they treat you, if I have been reviled and ridiculed so much more will you be reviled and ridiculed but behold those who are faithfull to the end will see me coming in full scientific glory to confound the naysayers and put the poopy skeptics in their place."

The Big Book of Bigfoot Wisdom
page 5,675 para 22,050. sub 01 footnote 3

 

[Cervelo]

This is so reminiscent of the Habs/attention seekers on BFF... I see bigfoot all the time, blobsquatchs presented as evidence, I know their real, I'm not here to prove anything blah blah blah blah...invoke victimization/holier than thou attitude of the "knower" with a little condescension and pity for us ignorant masses.... good stuff!

 

[dmaker]

To all quoted posts above:
Please find another member to attack and ridicule. I'm not interested in the insults as it is clear that's the only thing many here are capable of is personal attack.

I've not tried to convince any here of my opinion and have not brought forth any evidence to argue. So again, please halt the personal attacks and name calling. I'm not here to prove Bigfoot exists for you or to argue the case for or against it. Once again, be content in your beliefs.

I'd just like to simply read and comment as everyone else does. Why are so many threatened by my presence? Just because you are uncomfortable with my opinion of Bigfoot that shouldn't spark personal attack. What does this say about the collective mentality of "skeptics" here? It suggests desperation and a clear lack of critical thinking. If you feel the only way your post can shine is by dowsing all other light, you truly are in a dark place. Chris B.

Oh please, stop with the victim card. All I asked was a simple question: do you have any degrees in any scientific discipline. It's a fair question considering you mentioned primate anatomy as a life long interest and you feel that you are in a position to lecture others here on what "real science" means.

You are so very predictable. We have seen this here before and we will no doubt see it again. In fact this is twice now with you. You come here and make assertions like bigfoot looks like Giganto, or erect straw man arguments like skeptics are saying all new species have been found, or move goal posts around on your no real bigfoot expeditions have ever happened argument, etc, etc. And then you dodge pertinent questions, accuse others of attacking all so that you can stand back and say " Oh my, what is wrong with all you skeptics. Look how you pile on poor little me"

It's transparent and it's complete nonsense.