Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Cainkane1]

My biggest problem with people seeing cryptids is that an in depth search for these creatures by a non biased person or persons fails inevitably to find the creature themselves.

 

[Resume]

My biggest problem with people seeing cryptids is that an in depth search for these creatures by a non biased person or persons fails inevitably to find the creature themselves.

Biased searchers don't find them either.

 

[carlitos]

I'd love to see the the 15 foot away, HD video. Do I need to sign an NDA?

 

[tsig]

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.

So They got to him.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

The gist of my argument is simple. Bigfoot can only be viewed as "unlikely" to occur within nature. To view it as "impossible" is more akin to omniscience. It really is that easy.

Nobody can honestly claim the ultimate advantage of absolutes in a discussion of the unknown. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. One would have to be some sort of supreme being to know all there is and all there ever will be.

I understand your attempts to use falsification as your reasoning as many here do. But falsification is a lazy antiquated method, and one that incidentally does require your own study of the subject nonetheless. Too many cling to this argument without ever having done the work.

I'll give you the evidence provided has been secondary at best, but have you actually studied it? Have you personally studied a casting or viewed a trackway? At any rate, the only honest negative conclusion one can gain is "unlikely"

Chris B.

 

[Mudcat]

But, I have offered anyone an open invitation to go out in the field with me as long as an NDA is acceptable.

Why do you need people to sign an NDA to join you in the field?

 

[Dinwar]

The gist of my argument is simple. Bigfoot can only be viewed as "unlikely" to occur within nature. To view it as "impossible" is more akin to omniscience. It really is that easy.

And totally wrong. We can rule it out because it contradicts known data.

It really is that simple.

Nobody can honestly claim the ultimate advantage of absolutes in a discussion of the unknown.

This is nothing more than Bigfoot of the Gaps. We can know that something doesn't exist if its existence would contradict known data. Bigfoot does. Thus, it cannot exist.

But falsification is a lazy antiquated method, and one that incidentally does require your own study of the subject nonetheless.

Mere assertion to avoid addressing the fact that you have NO data, and that your conclusions contradict known data. Plus a nice little ad hom in there, just to put the lie to the previous comments about your civility.

Also, I note that you ignore the fact that I do research relevant to this topic for a living.

Besides, you ignored my statement entirely. I'm not using falsification here--I'm saying that data is a requirement for acceptence of a topic into scientific discussion. Without data, your idea is not science, period. And as biology is science, and bigfoot is biology, what this means is that you haven't said ANYTHING in this thread. It's just blathering to hide that fact.

I'll give you the evidence provided has been secondary at best,

No. It's HEARSAY at best. And that's a very, very generous best.

Hearsay isn't data in science. Period. No amount of insults, smears, lies, or evasions can get around that. Hearsay isn't evidence.

Have you personally studied a casting or viewed a trackway?

Actually, yes. I've also studied ichnofossils. And bigfoot trackways look nothing like ichnofossils. There are distinct differences, such as deformation from the mechanics of walking to the way the sediment interacts with the feet. In short, the trackways look like feet, NOT footprints--and the differences are such that the trackways cannot have been produced by a moving organism. The mechanics of walking and of sediment/ped interaction don't allow it.

At any rate, the only honest negative conclusion one can gain is "unlikely"

So Sayeth the Spider. You love these grand, authoritative statements, but undermine your authority constantly.

 

[Drewbot]

Why do you need people to sign an NDA to join you in the field?

If you signed an NDA for a company you worked for, and discovered it was a disguised PONZI scheme, would the NDA be enforceable?

 

[Dinwar]

Why do you need people to sign an NDA to join you in the field?

One justifiable reason is to keep locality data quite. It's the reason I keep having to sign the damn things.

My bet, though, is that it's far less rational. He just doesn't want to have to deal with it when you don't find anything.

If you signed an NDA for a company you worked for, and discovered it was a disguised PONZI scheme, would the NDA be enforceable?

Depends, but I'm leaning towards "No". I don't see any way an NDA can override the law.

 

[MikeG]

.....Depends, but I'm leaning towards "No". I don't see any way an NDA can override the law.

As a non-lawyer, but with a bit of contract law as part of by architecture post-graduate studies, I can confirm that (in the UK at least), a contract is not legal if it relates to illegal activity. A pimp, for instance, can't be said to have a contract with a prostitute (although interestingly, the proceeds from these illegal activities are taxable..........I'm not sure how that works).

 

[Mudcat]

If you signed an NDA for a company you worked for, and discovered it was a disguised PONZI scheme, would the NDA be enforceable?

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be no.

 

[Resume]

I'll give you the evidence provided has been secondary at best, but have you actually studied it? Have you personally studied a casting or viewed a trackway? At any rate, the only honest negative conclusion one can gain is "unlikely"

Chris B.

Bigfoot is a binary question that's been asked, and answered.

 

[The Shrike]

I understand your attempts to use falsification as your reasoning as many here do. But falsification is a lazy antiquated method, and one that incidentally does require your own study of the subject nonetheless. Too many cling to this argument without ever having done the work.

Riiiiight. The reason I say there's no bigfoot is because I haven't actually given this much thought, coupled with the fact that I don't go outside. Oy.

 

[comncents]

My biggest problem with people seeing cryptids is not an occasional person who is open to discussion because they think they have seen a cryptid. My biggest problem is figuring out how the BLAARGers keep score.
I’m sure they get some points just for getting people to respond. I think they get extra points when they get responses to the same canned argument presented multiple times. I’m not sure how many points they get for using the words coelacanth and gigantopithecus, but I think there is a bonus attached.

What I really wonder is how many points they get for pointing out a dark sport on a hillside to a kid and telling them “Now you’ve seen bigfoot, too!”

 

[HarryHenderson]

As a non-lawyer, but with a bit of contract law as part of by architecture post-graduate studies, I can confirm that (in the UK at least), a contract is not legal if it relates to illegal activity. A pimp, for instance, can't be said to have a contract with a prostitute (although interestingly, the proceeds from these illegal activities are taxable..........I'm not sure how that works).

Bingo. Nor can you be compelled to participate in any kind of "illegalities" to satisfy your portion of a contract. Severability clauses notwithstanding, any kind of deliberate deception, dishonesty, underhandedness etc., especially on the wholesale level, by either party, is potential cause for voiding any contract/agreement.

The problem is in these infamous NDAs apparently every ProBigfooter™ has at-the-ready for final sigs. Like actual contracts, honesty is of ultimate concern and importance. As such, any agreement for confidentiality must contain actually true statements as to what exactly will be held in confidence.

An NDA that says you can't tell anyone the "secret process" of making WD-40™ assumes (by such declaration) there actually is a "secret process". That process might be off-the-wall and goofy, like running a secret ingredient thru a long 47° room for 20 minutes, but it's inevitably real. That is, an agreement to not reveal the location of Bigfoot's Graveyard™, for instance, is basically void from the get go.

While I've never seen one of them, I'm bettin' dollars to donuts that the NDAs ole Matt Moneymaker has you sign to go on his Hallucination Round-ups contain but only basic restrictions. You can't "disclose" the location and who else was there and that's probably just about it. Even if there are other restrictions on divulging certain activities etc., "chasing Bigfoot" is not one of those activities.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Why do you need people to sign an NDA to join you in the field?

So you can't rat him out when he you find out his research area is downtown Bowling Green?

 

[HarryHenderson]

So you can't rat him out when he you find out his research area is downtown Bowling Green?

FTFY

 

[Cervelo]

I'm meeting Chris tomorrow around noon.
As I understand it the NDA applies to viewing of the vid, which I have declined to do.
Of course I have agreed to not disclose his research locations and no problem signing something to that affect.
After our hike anything that Chris feels I can share, I will be happy to do so.
Chris feel free to correct me if needed, see ya tomorrow!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm meeting Chris tomorrow around noon.
As I understand it the NDA applies to viewing of the vid, which I have declined to do.
Of course I have agreed to not disclose his research locations and no problem signing something to that affect.
After our hike anything that Chris feels I can share, I will be happy to do so.
Chris feel free to correct me if needed, see ya tomorrow!

That's it. It's a simple NDA to protect the integrity of the site(s) and so my research. It also covers evidence if any is gathered.

Of course it is written in that Cervelo will share an equal part if any biological evidence is gathered during our outing, both in credit of discovery and any proceeds to be gained from said discovery.

You're free to discuss any sightings should they occur as long as the location is given only as "In Kentucky" and any audio, video, or images captured will remain 100% your property.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why do you need people to sign an NDA to join you in the field?

All I ask is that the research areas and my work remain undisclosed. If the integrity of the sites is compromised, I may never finish my work as I may never have another chance to complete it.

I've devoted several years of study and worn out several pairs of boots just to find these sites. I have no wish to see them on an episode of "Finding Bigfoot"
Chris B.