Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Drewbot]

Science would be able to place any primate DNA in the correct relationship to known primates. Even "unknown" primate DNA. Sasquatch DNA would end all questions about existence.

Saying that DNA is useless is silly.

Just in case Chris doesn't believe you...

 

[ComfySlippers]

BigFoot threads are as pointless as chocolate teapots.
But I must admit they do make me laugh.

Out of interest Chris, why does your beautifully designed website list the equipment you carry on your fantasy trips?

Surely someone stupid enough to believe in FigBoot would spend a bit of cash on things rather better than kids toys!

 

[Resume]

So how long does it take for science to catch on? 2000 years? Yikes. I'll wager the gorilla actually existed long before science accepted it. The fact that it was witnessed by others seemed not to matter for 2000 years? Isn't that something. Has nothing to do with Bigfoot but 2000 years for science to catch on.......
Chris B.

How long do you think it will take for bigfooters to catch on that there's no bigfoot?

Yikes.

 

[ComfySlippers]

How long do you think it will take for bigfooters to catch on that there's no bigfoot?

Yikes.

Can't answer that question as it's taking many years to analyse the HD data.
Pay me money and sign a pretend NDA I'll give you vague clues though.

FigBoot Threads: better than paracetamol for making your head feel better.

 

[tsig]

That's what I mean by the iron law of opposites in 'footery. "Research", for example, means to do systematic study in order to acquire new knowledge.

But what 'footers are doing is the antonym of research: to actually ignore everything known about the so-called "study area" and concoct some fantasy story about what you are seeing.

Footers practice nonsearch instead of research.

 

[tsig]

Can't answer that question as it's taking many years to analyse the HD data.
Pay me money and sign a pretend NDA I'll give you vague clues though.

FigBoot Threads: better than paracetamol for making your head feel better.

NDA's are more binding than priestly vows of silence.

 

[tsig]

Forgetting something? Only a body or part/bone etc, can be used to determine scientific existence of a biological creature. Without a type specimen you have nothing to prove existence.
I think most other footers already know this.

Oh, there's alot of secondary evidence that can be taken for investigation of a sighting sure. You can make casts of tracks, take photos, videos, follow trackways until they lose you etc. All of that evidence to determine a sighting happening or not is great. But none of it will ever prove the existence of Bigfoot to science. Only a type specimen will fill that void. Chris B.

OK, when will you be bringing one in?

Why didn't that bigfoot you saw leave footprints, hair snagged on bushes or some tangible evidence other than blurry photos.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You probably can't discuss foot structure at all, imo. You likely know nothing at all about the subject. You certainly have no idea about the mythical bigfoot foot structure.

I certainly wouldn't listen to you regarding foot structure.

You can recommend Meldrum's book if you want to get laughed out of the room. It's not like he hasn't been discussed a hundred times.

Is a game cam useless or not? Your FAQ says it doesn't work, yet one is listed as gear carried. Which is it?

And why won't a game cam work on bigfoot?
Brandon doesn't make that claim, your page does.

1st, I don't claim to be a specialist on foot structure, only to have read and studied primate foot structure, tracks, and foot strike as each relates to Bigfoot. If you "certainly wouldn't listen" to me regarding foot structure, then why ask? Ask someone you believe to be an expert. Easy enough.

I suggested Meldrum's book as a good source with a disclaimer that I personally do not agree with some findings in it. If you know a better source to the topic by all means please share.

I am also aware of the work done by Grover Krantz on the cripple foot cast bone reconstruction. But I feel that work was wasted as I personally believe the cripple foot cast to be a hoax.

About game cams, Why won't they work? I don't know. I have a few ideas, but nothing provable.

Science would be able to place any primate DNA in the correct relationship to known primates. Even "unknown" primate DNA. Sasquatch DNA would end all questions about existence.

Saying that DNA is useless is silly.

Sure, tell that to Melba Ketchum. Looks like she did well without a type specimen huh? Ridiculous.

Chris, you're making comments apparently far outside the realm of your expertise.

Again, western lowland gorilla was discovered without anyone looking for it. The story is almost as serendipitous for the discovery of mountain gorilla, in which individuals were collected during the first European exploration of the Virungas.

You can't trump up some kind of scientific establishment pooh-poohing reports of gorillas from an ancient Greek explorer and put in on the same level as modern skepticism of bigfoot. For one, the standardized science of formally describing species did not even exist until the 18th Century.

Some people did not believe Hanno or Bartell? So what? Not everyone believed in mermaids or unicorns back then either, but a heck of a lot of people did. The standards by which people determined what was real in the natural world and what was not did exist until later. Once those standards existed, however, mysterious creatures were discovered again and again once people with the requisite know-how simply went to the places where those creatures lived.

With respect to bigfoot, that same process (going to where they are reported to live) has failed to produce a single scrap of such things again and again and again. This is why the fact that you claim to have these creatures in rural Kentucky is relevant. Bigfoots living there would be completely UNlike the discovery of gorillas, chimps, giant squid, okapi, saola, snub-nosed monkey - you name it - because Kentucky has already been explored, exploited, settled, hunted out, cut-over, and re-grown.

I don't claim to be an expert.

Remember, I said a conversation about other scientific discoveries didn't have much to do with Bigfoot, but it is worthy to note that sometimes it takes a long time before science has a type specimen of reported animals.

I agree Ky has already been explored and settled. Alot of timber was cut and alot of land was cleared during that process. When could these hairy guys have arrived? Before, during or after? Who knows? I can't say either. I think we will be closer to answering those questions once we have multiple type specimens from around the Country for DNA comparison though.

Bigfoot ought to have been cataloged by science before the gorilla was.

I dunno, modern science is still young compared to some of the animals still being discovered.

Just in case Chris doesn't believe you...

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/823/0pm7.jpg[/qimg]

Maybe you need to send this to Melba Ketchum.

BigFoot threads are as pointless as chocolate teapots.
But I must admit they do make me laugh.

Out of interest Chris, why does your beautifully designed website list the equipment you carry on your fantasy trips?

Surely someone stupid enough to believe in FigBoot would spend a bit of cash on things rather better than kids toys!

Bolding mine. My website is of poor quality. I agree. It was created several years ago and was designed with Bigfoot researchers in mind. The equipment list was also created around 2010 and is out of date now. If you took the time to read the equipment list, then you would also see the prices of equipment and where to get it was also listed. This was done to aid researchers on a tight budget. As you probably already know, private research without funding means the total costs come out of the researcher's own pocket.

You can say alot about my website and that's ok, the important thing to take away is that it's free.

How long do you think it will take for bigfooters to catch on that there's no bigfoot?

Yikes.

And you know this based on science? Yikes again.

Can't answer that question as it's taking many years to analyse the HD data.
Pay me money and sign a pretend NDA I'll give you vague clues though.

FigBoot Threads: better than paracetamol for making your head feel better.

Your statement is flawed. I've never charged anyone for anything Bigfoot related, so your implication of such is either out of ignorance or ridicule. If you wish, you can bellyache post about videos or pics that haven't been released yet though. It's a free Country. Chris B.

 

[ComfySlippers]

NDA's are more binding than priestly vows of silence.

Ask me to break my NDAs, Confidentiality Agreements and to veer from the the terms of The Official Secrets Act.
I'll do so happily because they are meaningless.

/Disclamer: none of the above are secret and Her Majesty can not imprison me as The OSA clearly stated that hush hush only lasted seven years after leaving that employer.

 

[Resume]

And you know this based on science? Yikes again.

I know this through inductive reasoning based on researching the natural history of the alleged natural habitat of the cryptid known as bigfoot. The type of research that proponents don't do, or ignore because it defeats their hypothesis.

BTW: I became curious about this cryptid after seeing the PGF stills in Argosy, and began to research the possibility when I was all of 12.

 

[ComfySlippers]

For the sake of lurkers or newcomers here is Chris's website.
http://www.bfrpky.com/index.html

Personally I find it amusing that Chris has invented a time machine to take him back to 1984. A time when 4 year olds discovered the WWW and how to make the equivalent of cave drawings in the 20th century.

It's a blast, if your eyes don't combust due to arrggghhh and embarrassment.

 

[The Shrike]

I don't claim to be an expert.

Yet you have no problem ignoring evidence presented by people who are when it is at odds with your bigfooty world view . . .

Remember, I said a conversation about other scientific discoveries didn't have much to do with Bigfoot, but it is worthy to note that sometimes it takes a long time before science has a type specimen of reported animals.

Ooh - you're almost there. Now just think for a moment why it has taken "a long time" to describe certain animals. Here are some examples:
*the animal is very small
*the animal is very similar to an already recognized species
*the animal occurs somewhere very remote or difficult to access

How 'bout bigfoot? Is it small? No. Is it similar to something we already know about? No. Does it occur someplace remote or difficult to access? No. (Well some of them might, but you claim to have them in rural Kentucky, and folks claim to have seen them all over the Lower 48 states).

Now that you understand the difference between the discovery of recently-described species and the NON-discovery of bigfoot, I hope that you will no longer link the two ideas.

 

[Tolls]

And don't forget (talking about the "2000 years to catch on" thing), the rather drastic change in world population between (say) 1800 and today...
There's not many places (outside of the deep oceans) for big things to hide.

I do like the idea that Bigfoot was hiding out in one of the neighbouring states while Kentucky was being logged.

 

[Resume]

I do like the idea that Bigfoot was hiding out in one of the neighbouring states while Kentucky was being logged.

In my mind's ear I hear the Fred Flinstone twinkletoes thing as I picture footie sneaking away just ahead of the loggers.

 

[Mudcat]

About game cams, Why won't they work? I don't know. I have a few ideas, but nothing provable.

The most likely reason is that the end users aren't smarter than the gear they're using. Your mileage may vary.

The equipment list was also created around 2010 and is out of date now. If you took the time to read the equipment list, then you would also see the prices of equipment and where to get it was also listed. This was done to aid researchers on a tight budget. As you probably already know, private research without funding means the total costs come out of the researcher's own pocket.

What kind of tight budget are we talking about here? There are some decent recording gear to be had at reasonable prices if you put forth the effort. I could have been able to get such even when I was still working minimum wage, back when minimum wage was still five-fifteen an hour. There is no reason to be using what your website suggests.

My website is of poor quality. I agree. It was created several years ago and was designed with Bigfoot researchers in mind. You can say alot about my website and that's ok, the important thing to take away is that it's free.


Post Edited By Mudcat.

Just because the website is free doesn't mean you can't do better than what you have currently. I'm sure if you asked nicely you could get someone to clean it up for you.

 

[comncents]

Here lies the problem. You state that you "know" footie doesn't exist. Is it because they've not been proven to science with a type specimen? If that's the reasoning, then the snub nosed monkey didn't exist either, until they found it. Or giant squids? I suppose they didn't exist either.

That's the thing, your statement claims to know the unknowable.

Not my reasoning. My knowledge is a conclusion based on everything else that is known about Kentucky and the rest of Footie land. It is not a lack of evidence, it is all sorts of evidence that says they are not out there. Things that have been explained over and over and over.

Let me play your game a little bit more:

here is 3-1/2 minutes of HD photography...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fdSVp9GFeS4

Should be equivalent to your 15' HD shot. I agree it probably wouldn't scientifically prove existence, but it would go a long way toward getting the University Funded expeditions you were crying about earlier.

 

[River]

Bigfoot has been proven, the footers just don't like what it was proven to be. There is no more mystery. Only tom foolery.

 

[bruto]

I think the reason that game cams don't work is very simple. Nonexistent animals do not set them off.

 

[captain koolaid]

...Someone would have to be extremely gullible to accept every reported behavior as fact.

The flaw in your statement is assuming every reported behavior is attributable to Bigfoot. It's not. Common sense would be the first method to use for a new researcher. It leads to some fun at times. Smoking Bigfoot? See, that's funny... But the common sense thing to ask is where would Bigfoot get a pack of smokes and a lighter? lol Ridiculous...

Bigfoot can get ciggies and lighter from the some places he gets all his stuff. From your kitchen, your car, your campsite. How do you know he doesn't lounge around your house and watch TV when you're not there? You're missing the bigger picture here, Chris. Cigarette smoking Bigfoot works. I ask you this... why can't Bigfoot smoke? He's a big boy. He can do whatever the hell he wants. Who's going to tell a 9ft tall, rage prone, flesh eating behemoth that he can't enjoy the smooth virginia flavour of a Camel? Not me. You're missing an opportunity with your negative attitude. Go for it.

Here's a quiz for starters... What brand does Bigfoot prefer? Is he a Marlboro man? Luckies? Does he prefer regular, or menthol? Does Biggie like filters, or does he dig the full, rich rush you can only get from unfiltered?

 

[LTC8K6]

If you "certainly wouldn't listen" to me regarding foot structure, then why ask? Ask someone you believe to be an expert. Easy enough.

Sure, tell that to Melba Ketchum. Looks like she did well without a type specimen huh? Ridiculous.

I didn't ask you a darn thing about foot structure, Chris. What are you talking about?
I actually thought "relocated instep" was funny.

I asked you for pictures of tracks you saw, and the width of the road.

You brought up foot structure on your own. Presumably to avoid talking about the tracks crossing the gravel road.

There are no bigfoot foot anatomy experts, Chris. None.

Meldrum's guess is no better than yours. Or mine, for that matter. Or Krantz's.

Melba? You used Melba as an example of DNA testing procedures? Are you feeling well?