Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

He gotcha.


In a third grade sort of way.

It's not really a "gotcha" I was demonstrating my opinion on avoidance. Some may have taken "avoidance" to mean passing in front of a game cam center lens, although it's more likely something else is fueling the negativity.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

As I've said before, nobody knows for certain why game cams don't capture Bigfoot.

Oh, we know for certain.

It's not really a "gotcha" I was demonstrating my opinion on avoidance. Some may have taken "avoidance" to mean passing in front of a game cam center lens, although it's more likely something else is fueling the negativity.
Chris B.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rules 0, 10 and 12.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So you don't even know your own website?

Can you provide evidence of a "donate button" on my website? I can't seem to find one.

I don't dispute that I did create a donate button for Bill Gates sometime back in 2010, but I don't seem to find any sign of it on my website?

I have full intention of deleting it as Bill never came through.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There are whole bunches of people who know for certain.

That statement would seem to suggest fact for the opinion of one mindset that it would be impossible for Bigfoot to exist.

That mindset is flawed. To base everything science will ever know on what science currently knows is ridiculous. With that view of the World nothing new would ever turn up. Nothing new would ever be discovered. Don't ask questions? Fall in line with the mainstream? I say question everything plausible.

An honest statement about the unknown would be to substitute "unlikely" for "impossible" as it applies to Bigfoot. Chris B.

 

[Drewbot]

Nothing new* will be discovered living on the outskirts of a Trailer park outside of Joliet Illinois. Therefore Bigfoot does not exist.






*New refers only to Large, Unclassified Bipedal Primates, Weighing in excess of 700 pounds, Undetectable by the Latest Human Technology.

 

[Resume]

That statement would seem to suggest fact for the opinion of one mindset that it would be impossible for Bigfoot to exist.

That mindset is flawed. To base everything science will ever know on what science currently knows is ridiculous. With that view of the World nothing new would ever turn up. Nothing new would ever be discovered. Don't ask questions? Fall in line with the mainstream? I say question everything plausible.

An honest statement about the unknown would be to substitute "unlikely" for "impossible" as it applies to Bigfoot. Chris B.

Bigfoot isn't a biological impossibility, it's just that bigfoot isn't.

 

[The Shrike]

Sykes bear won't fall in the "small things remain hidden" category, it will obviously fall in the "very similar to a known creature category".

. . .

It would also fall into the "remote or difficult to access" category.

. . .

The cynic may well ask why you would deliberately choose to assign the wrong category to this example, when in fact, your example actually makes The Shrikes' point for him very well.

Thank you for noticing that, Mike. Yes Chris, this exchange was an example of what I consider "willful obfuscation" from you. It fits with a pattern of behavior that has led me to conclude a significant proportion of people who claim to be bigfoot "knowers" are really bigfoot role-players.

 

[Pterodactyl]

I also like how when Sykes finds no evidence of Bigfoot or Yeti in all the best samples anyone had from around the world, his results still somehow are taken/spun as a positive for the existence of bigfoot.

Reminds me of a cult leader's end-of-the-world prediction gone wrong and the faithful rationalizing this error to be proof the leader was right all along.

Also, here is the patchwork of ag land and thrice logged wood lots heretofore referred as "south central Kentucky":

Not exactly the Yukon Territory in terms of untamed lands.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Thank you for noticing that, Mike. Yes Chris, this exchange was an example of what I consider "willful obfuscation" from you. It fits with a pattern of behavior that has led me to conclude a significant proportion of people who claim to be bigfoot "knowers" are really bigfoot role-players.

You need to be right about Syke's bear in what ways exactly?

Here we go back to a discussion of scientific discoveries as they do or don't apply to Bigfoot. OK.

Syke's bear may not be a new discovery, It may be an extant species that was mistakenly thought to have been extinct. (If his DNA didn't come from a museum) Who knows? We'll have to wait for the answers. It could be a hoax?

It would be interesting though to discover another mistake in scientific perception of species. It's happened before with the coelacanth.

Could it be this is the case with Bigfoot? If you like DNA, please may I ask your opinion of the Denisovan DNA findings? Particularly the underlined portion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/799.summary

"Researchers have analyzed three fossil samples from Denisova Cave using a powerful new method that reveals ancient genomes in brilliant detail. One sample, a Neandertal toe bone, has yielded a nearly complete, high-coverage genome of our closest cousins, reported paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, at The Biology of Genomes meeting last week. The analyses paint a complex picture of mingling among ancient human groups, and the data suggest inbreeding in Neandertals, a large Denisovan population, and mixing between Denisovans and an even earlier mystery species."

Isn't that interesting? Even Science admits there's an unknown in the mix yet to be discovered. How about that. Gee, Science proves there's an earlier mystery species.... Can you intelligently dispute these findings as well?

Bolding mine. That is interesting. I have noticed quite a bit of "role playing" in many posts I've read here, but none of those were made by me....Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I also like how when Sykes finds no evidence of Bigfoot or Yeti in all the best samples anyone had from around the world, his results still somehow are taken/spun as a positive for the existence of bigfoot.

Reminds me of a cult leader's end-of-the-world prediction gone wrong and the faithful rationalizing this error to be proof the leader was right all along.

Also, here is the patchwork of ag land and thrice logged wood lots heretofore referred as "south central Kentucky":


Not exactly the Yukon Territory in terms of untamed lands.

Bolding mine. Who said it is? If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, the Yukon would be one hell of a haystack to search. Think about that.
Chris B.

 

[Drewbot]

It would be interesting though to discover another mistake in scientific perception of species. It's happened before with the coelacanth.

What exactly 'happened before' with the Coelacanth?

Do you really know?

How would the discovery of the Coelacanth correspond to Bigfoot?

 

[Northern Lights]

I also like how when Sykes finds no evidence of Bigfoot or Yeti in all the best samples anyone had from around the world, his results still somehow are taken/spun as a positive for the existence of bigfoot.

Sykes didn't test the best samples from around the world, he took the best samples that would get him fast results, and didn't test anything that would prove to be difficult to extract viable DNA. Big difference.

 

[Resume]

Bolding mine. Who said it is? If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, the Yukon would be one hell of a haystack to search. Think about that.
Chris B.

Alaska is an even bigger haytstack, yet muskoxen had to be reintroduced from Canada after they'd been extirpated from the last American frontier.

Think about that.

 

[Drewbot]

So you're saying the BEST SAMPLES may have been the ones that had no viable DNA?

I think that may be an Oxymoron.

 

[Resume]

Sykes didn't test the best samples from around the world, he took the best samples that would get him fast results, and didn't test anything that would prove to be difficult to extract viable DNA. Big difference.

What better samples were left out?

How do you know they're better?

 

[Pterodactyl]

Bolding mine. Who said it is? If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, the Yukon would be one hell of a haystack to search. Think about that.
Chris B.

Well, we aren't exactly looking for a needle in a haystack, now are we? We're pretending to be looking for a population of 10-12 ft (your estimation' right?) giant gorillas hiding in the cutover hardwood stands between a bunch of cattle pastures, highways, and small municipalities in a well and long-populated area. Think about that.

 

[MikeG]

I also like how when Sykes finds no evidence of Bigfoot or Yeti in all the best samples anyone had from around the world, his results still somehow are taken/spun as a positive for the existence of bigfoot...........

Are they? Is this what BF people are saying? I've so lost interest that I don't follow this stuff any more (and I'm banned at the BFF), but for the life of me I can't see how they could spin those unequivocal results into support for the existence of BF & yeti.

eta.....don't worry. In the time I've taken pondering the question, NL has provided the answer.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Alaska is an even bigger haytstack, yet muskoxen had to be reintroduced from Canada after they'd been extirpated from the last American frontier.

Think about that.

So the musk ox was there, then not, now it's there again. I think I got it.

What exactly 'happened before' with the Coelacanth?

Do you really know?

How would the discovery of the Coelacanth correspond to Bigfoot?

As if you didn't know, the coelacanth was mistakenly thought to have gone extinct around 65 million years ago.

Just the facts.

We were discussing Syke's bear and the possibility it could be an extant species thought to have been extinct. Who knows? Time will tell I suppose.

If we are theorizing, the same may be said of Bigfoot.

What is your opinion of the "mystery DNA" found in the Denisovan line? Does it point to an unknown primate line still yet to be discovered by science? Or No?

You guys like to use the current knowledge available to science to base your opinions of unknowns, how does the Denisovan mystery DNA section work for you?

Well, we aren't exactly looking for a needle in a haystack, now are we? We're pretending to be looking for a population of 10-12 ft (your estimation' right?) giant gorillas hiding in the cutover hardwood stands between a bunch of cattle pastures, highways, and small municipalities in a well and long-populated area. Think about that.

No we're not literally looking for a needle in a haystack but if we were, wouldn't it be foolish to start looking in the largest haystack first?

The larger the area to be searched the more time and resources it takes to do so. The larger the area the more the odds decrease for finding what you're searching for. It's ok, many others still haven't figured this out either.

Nice descriptors of the area, but very lacking for someone who claims to have done grad work here.

I don't know what you'll be doing this weekend, but I'll be in the field searching for sign of large hairy primates. I'd love to have another sighting. Wouldn't you? Chris B.

 

[Resume]

So the musk ox was there, then not, now it's there again. I think I got it.

No, you don't

As if you didn't know, the coelacanth was mistakenly thought to have gone extinct around 65 million years ago.

See above.

If we are theorizing, the same may be said of Bigfoot.

That's not theorizing. Sophistry, sure.

I don't know what you'll be doing this weekend, but I'll be in the field searching for sign of large hairy primates. I'd love to have another sighting. Wouldn't you? Chris B.

You're looking in a very wrong field.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Are they? Is this what BF people are saying? I've so lost interest that I don't follow this stuff any more (and I'm banned at the BFF), but for the life of me I can't see how they could spin those unequivocal results into support for the existence of BF & yeti.

eta.....don't worry. In the time I've taken pondering the question, NL has provided the answer.

Mike, I think most footers should acknowledge Sykes did not find Bigfoot DNA in any of the samples submitted/tested. If he did not test all samples because some could not be tested with current DNA science, I'm sure he will return to those samples the moment DNA testing progresses to the level as to allow further testing of those problem samples.

He's not likely to throw them out.

I don't think anyone can charge any conspiracy on Syke's part. Some can remain hopeful as DNA science continues to advance of course. What perplexes me is how would one remain hopeful for a result based on somebody else's DNA submission? Footers should be highly skeptical of submissions made. None may be of Bigfoot.

The bear thing is thrilling to me though. All Bigfoot stuff aside. If it works out this bear is not extinct and still walking around Nepal very much alive and well. It'll make for some exciting times for science. Chris B.