Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, you don't


See above.

That's not theorizing. Sophistry, sure.


You're looking in a very wrong field.

Was there a particular point you wanted to make about the musk ox?

What would be the right "field" I should be looking.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Was there a particular point you wanted to make about the musk ox?

The one you missed. The idea that there is some sort of unexplored haystack in NA. A footie-hiding haystack

What would be the right "field" I should be looking.
Chris B.

Well, if you're looking for primates, it wouldn't be a field north of southern Mexico.

 

[Pterodactyl]

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.

Putting aside the fact that both you and I know there's no such living animal as bigfoot, this scenario still doesn't make sense if the haystack you're searching has already been cutup, logged, farmed, subdivided and otherwise completely searched. I could buy the ostensible plausibility of such an argument if you were comparing Labrador to Siberia, but Kentucky? Why am I even entertaining this?

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

Again, I live in the general area. It's not like Im claiming to have been to siberia. It's kentucky.

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.

Id settle for a look at the 15' away, HD photograph that you claimed to have taken. In the absence of that, Im just going to have to assume you're full of it and wont waste my time joining you in the field.

 

[The Shrike]

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

The fact that I offered this:

"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"

and that you responded with "Sykes' bear" is telling. Even without any chicanery involved in Sykes' bear, it would qualify for 2 of the 3 criteria above. "Bigfoot" would go 0 for 3.

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

That's 1 out of the 3 - remoteness. Extant coelacanths don't occur in places where they're likely to be found by western scientists who weren't looking for them. Still, they were found, and by western scientists who weren't looking for them.

In contrast, bigfoot has been looked for by western scientists in the very places where people claim to have seen them and still . . . nada.

If you like DNA, please may I ask your opinion of the Denisovan DNA findings?

Sure. Denisovans hit criteria 2 and 3, much like Sykes' bear. We couldn't identify them (i.e., distinguish them from known species) without the DNA information.

As for the speculated "mystery" primate, I don't understand your question. The point is that we don't know the source of some of the genetic variability identified within the Denisovans. I don't know enough about it to determine if they mean that they don't know which hominin contributed that material or if they're proposing that a truly undescribed hominin contributed the material. Why would I seek to refute either interpretation? Both would be cool results; I suppose the latter more cool than the former.

 

[EHocking]

...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.

Don't get your hopes up.
The only person selling the idea is Sykes. I'm sure it has nothing to do with book sales.

Other scientists in this field are less enthusiastic.

...Robert Rockwell, a biologist and research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, remains unconvinced.

Rockwell confessed to being “a bit shocked and dismayed” to see that the prehistoric polar bear match was based on just 104 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA—a shortcoming that the study team itself admitted.

“The amount of DNA sequence examined is so small, especially for a conserved region [DNA that remains very similar across many different species], that I am not certain [the type of bear] can actually be concluded.”

Charlotte Lindqvist, a molecular biologist at State University of New York’s University at Buffalo, echoed those reservations.

“Even if they find a 100 percent match to the Pleistocene polar bear, it is important to bear in mind that the evidence is based on a short fragment” of a gene seen in other lineages that’s not necessarily unique to that species, Lindqvist said in an email.

“I find other scenarios more plausible, such as the hairs coming from native brown bears,” she said. (See “Yeti” pictures on the National Geographic Channel.)

Study leader Sykes conceded that the finding is “only a preliminary result,” and that more genetic material is needed to rule out the Tibetan brown bear as the source of the Yeti legend.​

Even Sykes can't rule out it being a brown bear. But with the potential for a new bear species discovery, a book to shill and a newly crowned reputation to defend*, he's sticking to the ancient polar bear theory.


* “Bigfootologist of the Year.”

 

[comncents]

What goes up, must come down
Spinnin' wheel, got ta go round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony,
Let the spinnin' wheel spin

Ya got no money, and ya
Ya got no home
Spinnin' wheel all alone
Talkin' 'bout your troubles and ya
Ya never learn
Ride a painted pony,
Let the spinnin' wheel turn...


Can't seem to get this song outa my head as I read the same old stuff over and over.

Chris - a couple weeks ago I followed a link to what I'm pretty sure was your site and it had a donate button on the right side panel. It was when we were still discussing your pics/vids. If I am mistaken and it wasn't your site - I apologize - but I'm pretty sure it was your site. What is a Bill Gates Donate Button? Is that one that only Bill Gates can see? Maybe it means you were hoping a really rich guy would believe your stuff and make a BIG donation. That way you could quit your real job and live in the fantasy world everyday? Would you feel less guilty if the donation is from a rich guy? Nevermind, this should probably be discussed in a thread about personal ethics or morality.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Don't get your hopes up.
The only person selling the idea is Sykes. I'm sure it has nothing to do with book sales.

Other scientists in this field are less enthusiastic.

...Robert Rockwell, a biologist and research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, remains unconvinced.

Rockwell confessed to being “a bit shocked and dismayed” to see that the prehistoric polar bear match was based on just 104 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA—a shortcoming that the study team itself admitted.

“The amount of DNA sequence examined is so small, especially for a conserved region [DNA that remains very similar across many different species], that I am not certain [the type of bear] can actually be concluded.”

Charlotte Lindqvist, a molecular biologist at State University of New York’s University at Buffalo, echoed those reservations.

“Even if they find a 100 percent match to the Pleistocene polar bear, it is important to bear in mind that the evidence is based on a short fragment” of a gene seen in other lineages that’s not necessarily unique to that species, Lindqvist said in an email.

“I find other scenarios more plausible, such as the hairs coming from native brown bears,” she said. (See “Yeti” pictures on the National Geographic Channel.)

Study leader Sykes conceded that the finding is “only a preliminary result,” and that more genetic material is needed to rule out the Tibetan brown bear as the source of the Yeti legend.​

Even Sykes can't rule out it being a brown bear. But with the potential for a new bear species discovery, a book to shill and a newly crowned reputation to defend*, he's sticking to the ancient polar bear theory.


* “Bigfootologist of the Year.”

Well, time will tell. My guess would be a sort of watered down cross if we do have a bear. But I do agree, it's not likely.

I can't remember his name but there's a well known mountain climber that previously stated he knew the Yeti to be nothing more than a bear. I think he is German or Austrian? Made me wonder about Syke's findings.

Anyway, it would be pretty dang cool.

What goes up, must come down
Spinnin' wheel, got ta go round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony,
Let the spinnin' wheel spin

Ya got no money, and ya
Ya got no home
Spinnin' wheel all alone
Talkin' 'bout your troubles and ya
Ya never learn
Ride a painted pony,
Let the spinnin' wheel turn...


Can't seem to get this song outa my head as I read the same old stuff over and over.

Chris - a couple weeks ago I followed a link to what I'm pretty sure was your site and it had a donate button on the right side panel. It was when we were still discussing your pics/vids. If I am mistaken and it wasn't your site - I apologize - but I'm pretty sure it was your site. What is a Bill Gates Donate Button? Is that one that only Bill Gates can see? Maybe it means you were hoping a really rich guy would believe your stuff and make a BIG donation. That way you could quit your real job and live in the fantasy world everyday? Would you feel less guilty if the donation is from a rich guy? Nevermind, this should probably be discussed in a thread about personal ethics or morality.

I looked too and I can't find it? You guys have difficulty in the sense of humor department. A Bill Gates donation button, not funny at all?

It's ok, I remember doing that as a joke in 2010 but I can't find it anywhere now? I thought I had deleted it long ago but you must have seen it somewhere? I'm not accusing you of making something up, no apology required. I just can't find it to delete it?

Quit my day job? lol, you truly don't know me.

The fact that I offered this:

"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"

and that you responded with "Sykes' bear" is telling. Even without any chicanery involved in Sykes' bear, it would qualify for 2 of the 3 criteria above. "Bigfoot" would go 0 for 3.


That's 1 out of the 3 - remoteness. Extant coelacanths don't occur in places where they're likely to be found by western scientists who weren't looking for them. Still, they were found, and by western scientists who weren't looking for them.

In contrast, bigfoot has been looked for by western scientists in the very places where people claim to have seen them and still . . . nada.



Sure. Denisovans hit criteria 2 and 3, much like Sykes' bear. We couldn't identify them (i.e., distinguish them from known species) without the DNA information.

As for the speculated "mystery" primate, I don't understand your question. The point is that we don't know the source of some of the genetic variability identified within the Denisovans. I don't know enough about it to determine if they mean that they don't know which hominin contributed that material or if they're proposing that a truly undescribed hominin contributed the material. Why would I seek to refute either interpretation? Both would be cool results; I suppose the latter more cool than the former.

Yes it doesn't go anywhere to discuss the similarities or contrast of newly discovered species as compared with Bigfoot. A neverending circle of speculation is the only possible result.

About the only logical thing to be gained is that we do discover stuff from time to time. I think all sides can agree with that point. More than that, not so much.

The DNA findings are pretty neat and set the stage for an upcoming discovery of some type. They do suggest an unknown in the gene pool. We can't fake DNA. After the unknown's discovery it may lead to yet another. Very exciting times for Anthropologists, to know with certainty they have not yet completed their search for man's even fairly recent ancestry. Bigfoot aside, when X Woman was found, I'll bet phones were ringing off the hooks in university offices everywhere.

Putting aside the fact that both you and I know there's no such living animal as bigfoot, this scenario still doesn't make sense if the haystack you're searching has already been cutup, logged, farmed, subdivided and otherwise completely searched. I could buy the ostensible plausibility of such an argument if you were comparing Labrador to Siberia, but Kentucky? Why am I even entertaining this?




Again, I live in the general area. It's not like Im claiming to have been to siberia. It's kentucky.



Id settle for a look at the 15' away, HD photograph that you claimed to have taken. In the absence of that, Im just going to have to assume you're full of it and wont waste my time joining you in the field.

You might "know" they don't exist, I'm of another opinion. Of course you're free to assume as you will. A photo wouldn't do it for you. You'd need a full blown, up close and personal sighting of your own, and I don't blame you a bit. Chris B.

The one you missed. The idea that there is some sort of unexplored haystack in NA. A footie-hiding haystack

Well, if you're looking for primates, it wouldn't be a field north of southern Mexico.

I see. "footie hiding haystack" lol , now that's funny.

If nothing else , I'll get some much needed exercise.
Chris B.

 

[HarryHenderson]

You are absolutely cracking me up. Here's how a caveman smokes

<Fred and Barney watching Wilma and Betty do outside yard work>

Fred Flintstone: "They sure work hard don't they Barney?"

Barney Rubble: "Yeah. I hate to see them work so hard."

Fred Flintstone: "Yeah me too. Let's go around back where we can't see them."

 

[The Shrike]

Yes it doesn't go anywhere to discuss the similarities or contrast of newly discovered species as compared with Bigfoot. A neverending circle of speculation is the only possible result.

Only if you begin with the false premise that there's such a thing as bigfoot. In the reality-based community, these examples illustrate quite clearly how silly it is to hold that premise.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...Yes it doesn't go anywhere to discuss the similarities or contrast of newly discovered species as compared with Bigfoot. A never-ending circle of speculation is the only possible result...

I'll avoid using the word daft in any way and just say no it's not. Who told you that anyway? Just make it up? Do you repeat this kind of pablum to somehow reassure yourself that Bigfoot LIVES?

...About the only logical thing to be gained is that we do discover stuff from time to time. I think all sides can agree with that point. More than that, not so much.

The DNA findings are pretty neat and set the stage for an upcoming discovery of some type. They do suggest an unknown in the gene pool. We can't fake DNA. After the unknown's discovery it may lead to yet another. Very exciting times for Anthropologists, to know with certainty they have not yet completed their search for man's even fairly recent ancestry. Bigfoot aside, when X Woman was found, I'll bet phones were ringing off the hooks in university offices everywhere...

Did you proof-read your post? In one sentence you say "About the only logical thing to be gained is that we do discover stuff from time to time..." Then literally 3 sentences later you say "The DNA findings are pretty neat and set the stage for an upcoming discovery of some type....Can't fake DNA...Very exciting times for Anthropologists..." So which is it?

...You might "know" they don't exist, I'm of another opinion. Of course you're free to assume as you will. A photo wouldn't do it for you. You'd need a full blown, up close and personal sighting of your own, and I don't blame you a bit...

Really, you're of another opinion? Of course you are. Because insisting you "know" there's a monster out there trumps his knowing there's not one because he's not had a full blown, up close and personal sighting of his own of said non-existent monster, umm, like you have? So I guess that's it, we lose, Bigfoot LIVES?

And you "don't blame him" a bit for needing to see it himself huh? Well, if Bigfoot LIVES, show it to him then. Quit with all the unnecessary suspense. Show him the ******* beast. Invite him over, have a BBQ, leave him alone with your sheep even, but show it to him before somebody else does and they cock it all up.

Wait, what? He has to "believe in Bigfoot with all his heart" first?

 

[Correa Neto]

babble babble babble coelacanth babble babble babble thus bigfoot may be awaiting to be discovered.

Yeah.

-Coelacanths are marine, from the West Indian Ocean and can be up to 1.8m-long (~6ft for you outdated non-metric folks).
-Coelacanths have been seldom caught by local fishermen; usually the butt-ugly foul-tasting fishes were thrown back to the sea. Sometimes coelacanths ended up at a fishmongers' tables; eventually a museum curator saw one over a table, acquired the specimen and described the species.
-Nowadays you can find high-quality pics and footage of reliable provenance around the www.

Now, what about bigfoots?

-Bigfoots are said to be 1.8 to 4m-tall (6 to 12ft for you backwards non-metric folks) living all across USA and part of Canada, literally at some folks' backyards.
-Bigfoots have been eluding a not small number of hunters and poachers for centuries. A bigfoot carcass has never been brought to or found by anyone linked to science.
-There are no high-quality pics and footage of reliable provenance available anywhere - except stuff like alleged high-quality full facial shots taken in 2010 "under analysis". Oh, plus blobs and hoaxes.

"But I've seen them... I KNOW they exist. You can't take that from me. I am impervious to perception and memory flaws and I am no a liar."
"I am not seeking attention."
"I am not trying to make some small cash from naïve people."
"I am not pretending to believe."
"Its not blind belief."

 

[tsig]

babble babble babble coelacanth babble babble babble thus bigfoot may be awaiting to be discovered.

Yeah.

-Coelacanths are marine, from the West Indian Ocean and can be up to 1.8m-long (~6ft for you outdated non-metric folks).
-Coelacanths have been seldom caught by local fishermen; usually the butt-ugly foul-tasting fishes were thrown back to the sea. Sometimes coelacanths ended up at a fishmongers' tables; eventually a museum curator saw one over a table, acquired the specimen and described the species.
-Nowadays you can find high-quality pics and footage of reliable provenance around the www.

Now, what about bigfoots?

-Bigfoots are said to be 1.8 to 4m-tall (6 to 12ft for you backwards non-metric folks) living all across USA and part of Canada, literally at some folks' backyards.
-Bigfoots have been eluding a not small number of hunters and poachers for centuries. A bigfoot carcass has never been brought to or found by anyone linked to science.
-There are no high-quality pics and footage of reliable provenance available anywhere - except stuff like alleged high-quality full facial shots taken in 2010 "under analysis". Oh, plus blobs and hoaxes.

"But I've seen them... I KNOW they exist. You can't take that from me. I am impervious to perception and memory flaws and I am no a liar."
"I am not seeking attention."
"I am not trying to make some small cash from naïve people."
"I am not pretending to believe."
"Its not blind belief."

Bigfoot is everywhere and nowhere.

 

[MikeG]

....I can't remember his name but there's a well known mountain climber that previously stated he knew the Yeti to be nothing more than a bear. I think he is German or Austrian? Made me wonder about Syke's findings.........

That's Rheinhold Messner. Certainly the most famous and probably the best current mountaineer.....an absolute legend.

Did you watch the Syke's documentary? Because Messner appeared in it, explaining how he had been convinced for decades that he had seen a yeti, but then came to realise that he had actually seen an unusual bear. I don't know why you would cite someone who seems to be making the opposite point to the one you appear to be trying to make.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'll avoid using the word daft in any way and just say no it's not. Who told you that anyway? Just make it up? Do you repeat this kind of pablum to somehow reassure yourself that Bigfoot LIVES?

Bolding mine. So are you incapable of independent thought for debate? Have trouble understanding or making declaratory statements? Know your subject and these problems won't be problems.

Did you proof-read your post? In one sentence you say "About the only logical thing to be gained is that we do discover stuff from time to time..." Then literally 3 sentences later you say "The DNA findings are pretty neat and set the stage for an upcoming discovery of some type....Can't fake DNA...Very exciting times for Anthropologists..." So which is it?

The post was addressed to another member. You'll need to go back and read the conversation in detail.

Cherry picking sentences without review of the conversation can tend to cause confusion in comprehension. My first statement applied to previous discoveries of species.

The second statement was a discussion of Denisovan DNA findings. So which is it? Both.

Really, you're of another opinion? Of course you are. Because insisting you "know" there's a monster out there trumps his knowing there's not one because he's not had a full blown, up close and personal sighting of his own of said non-existent monster, umm, like you have? So I guess that's it, we lose, Bigfoot LIVES?

Yes I was skeptical up until I had a sighting of my own. It's not a win or lose situation. If you do not accept that these creatures may possibly exist, then that's great. Unlike you, I won't try to sell you on what you've seen or not. I'm comfortable with my position on Bigfoot and if you're comfortable with yours, I accept that without any need to ridicule you whatsoever. The odd thing is, you fail to show me the same courtesy. Why is that?

And you "don't blame him" a bit for needing to see it himself huh? Well, if Bigfoot LIVES, show it to him then. Quit with all the unnecessary suspense. Show him the ******* beast. Invite him over, have a BBQ, leave him alone with your sheep even, but show it to him before somebody else does and they cock it all up.

Unfortunately, I don't have Bigfoot in my pocket and so I'm unable to produce one at will. But, I have offered anyone an open invitation to go out in the field with me as long as an NDA is acceptable. Into the same areas I've been trekking since 2010. These areas provided me with sightings and observations in 2010 and have provided sightings for others in the same area since that time. What else do your require? I've offered a "peek under the microscope".

Wait, what? He has to "believe in Bigfoot with all his heart" first?

lol, that's funny. Bigfoot is not faith based. I'd rather you held the opinion they don't exist right until you're looking at one. I wouldn't take any satisfaction in proving anything to you, the satisfaction is in knowing you would have proven it for yourself.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That's Rheinhold Messner. Certainly the most famous and probably the best current mountaineer.....an absolute legend.

Did you watch the Syke's documentary? Because Messner appeared in it, explaining how he had been convinced for decades that he had seen a yeti, but then came to realise that he had actually seen an unusual bear. I don't know why you would cite someone who seems to be making the opposite point to the one you appear to be trying to make.

Thanks Mike, I had seen him in a documentary before. It may have been only in Syke's but I seem to remember he had appeared in an earlier documentary as well.

Certainly an interesting guy and worthy of further study of his accomplishments.

What interested me was that his conclusion supports Dr Sykes findings. I'm personally not holding out for a Yeti. I'm just as excited at the premise of this bear!

After we get this Bigfoot issue sewn up in the US, then it's off in search of the Yeti and/or the bear. Chris B.

 

[GT/CS]

-Bigfoots are said to be 1.8 to 4m-tall (6 to 12ft for you backwards non-metric folks) [/I]

If 1.8m = 6' how can 4m = 12'

 

[Resume]

After we get this Bigfoot issue sewn up in the US, then it's off in search of the Yeti and/or the bear. Chris B.

You must've missed the memo/e-mail/tweet.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Only if you begin with the false premise that there's such a thing as bigfoot. In the reality-based community, these examples illustrate quite clearly how silly it is to hold that premise.

I think the community you describe holds more of an omniscience view than that of any real science. Chris B.

 

[Dinwar]

I think the community you describe holds more of an omniscience view than that of any real science. Chris B.

Nope. The scientific view is that that which is proposed without evidence is not even wrong--it's not worth evaluating. The idea of bigfoot does not rise to the level of being worth considering at this point.

Or, to use another method: ALL ideas are, by default, considered false in science. One must prove one's ideas right. Thus, the assertion that bigfoot exists, in as much as no data has been provided for any of it, is wrong. Thus, we can dismiss the issue.

This does not require omniscience, the way you keep falsely insisting. Merely an understanding the principles of scientific discourse. Given that you've lectured multiple scientists in this thread on the scientific method, you don't get to make such basic errors; at minimum, these are not errors due to lack of knowledge.

 

[MikeG]

Thanks Mike, I had seen him in a documentary before. It may have been only in Syke's but I seem to remember he had appeared in an earlier documentary as well.

Certainly an interesting guy and worthy of further study of his accomplishments.....

Indeed. He solo'd Everest, without oxygen, at a time when people thought both (doing it alone, and doing it without oxygen) were separately impossible. He has solo'd all of the world's highest peaks, and holds dozens of records for first ascents and fastest ascents. He was so far ahead of the next best climbers that whispering campaigns accusing him of lying about his achievements emerged.

Chris, I think you are wrong in your claims about BF. However, I would commend you on the calm manner in which you have generally posted here in the face of well deserved incredulity.