Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Mudcat]

I have no wish to see them on an episode of "Finding Bigfoot"

After what I've seen of the show, I don't really blame you. Those people are embarising to watch and I'm surprised that the Bigfooting community don't disavow them.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

Pretty much. With a dash of "Nothing but a declared study specifically about bigfoot counts as research" for spice.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't see how such an NDA is worth anything. How does disclosure of the location damage Chris in any way?

 

[Dinwar]

I don't see how such an NDA is worth anything. How does disclosure of the location damage Chris in any way?

It's a common thing. It protects the site for future research in more legitimate fields. It's standard practice in many, and required by law in archaeology when it deals with federally-managed lands (Omnibus Public Land Management Act has a clause in there about it).

 

[LTC8K6]

It's a common thing. It protects the site for future research in more legitimate fields. It's standard practice in many, and required by law in archaeology when it deals with federally-managed lands (Omnibus Public Land Management Act has a clause in there about it).

I know they are common.

I question their value/enforceability in this particular case.

 

[Dinwar]

From his perspective, it will. It will serve to prevent too many people coming into the habitat, thus degrading it.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

From his perspective, it will. It will serve to prevent too many people coming into the habitat, thus degrading it.

Are you serious? If so, talk about duper's delight!

In 'footery the advances in geographic technology (google earth, yeah!) and information technology made claims about specific locations far too easy to debunk.

Standard operating procedure is to exaggerate the remoteness, lie by omission on how intensive the land use has been, etc. Once we have a location these gamers are dead meat. Even a county is too much to reveal when we can in two minutes find that ten thousand deer were harvested the last year by thirty thousand hunters, that the forests were logged over twice, that people have been living there for four hundred years for Europeans and thousands of years as indigenous peoples...

For the most part we are talking about public parks, and we've looked up user stats on particular cases where we were talking about millions of people visiting per year with zero reports of bigfoot vs. these BLAARGers claiming encounters with them every time out. It is ludicrous to assert some significant impact on a public use area in revealing it was some BLAARGers "research area". How many people are going to stampede to this place in Kentucky because the location was revealed on JREF/ISF? About zero.

You issue a press release that you think a stash of gold relics was buried in a state park and now you'll have a stampede of users. There are places specifically marketed as bigfoot parks already - with signs produced by the park service and all - and the use is miniscule for that purpose compared with day hikers, boaters, picnickers, Frisbee tossers, etc. It's giving them credit far, far beyond their merit to worry about eco-crowding from the revelation of a "bigfoot research area".

Revealing the location nowadays makes them look too stupid. But boy oh boy - when they can get a PhD scientist to buy into their con game in any way... it's a home run for a BLAARGer. Agreeing with their line about protecting habitat for an animal they know themselves does not exist... wow.

 

[Dinwar]

Are you serious? If so, talk about duper's delight!

I'm serious that it's a justifiable reason--from the perspective of someone who believes in bigfoot.

Remember, though: confidential DOES NOT mean secret. There are official repositories for this sort of data, and researchers would have access to them. That's how it works in archaeology and conservation biology, anyway. Note that this doesn't actually prevent their locality from being inspected; those repositories have criteria for who can access them, but those are basically to ensure that the people accessing them have an understanding of the necessity for conservation.

Plus, any taxonomic data would be available to anyone with access to the journal it's published in.

Agreeing with their line about protecting habitat for an animal they know themselves does not exist... wow.

This is where your error occurs (well, that and saying I have a PhD; I do not). I do not believe it. However, I'm also not one who believes all bigfoot believers to be liars.

 

[tsig]

I'm serious that it's a justifiable reason--from the perspective of someone who believes in bigfoot.

Remember, though: confidential DOES NOT mean secret. There are official repositories for this sort of data, and researchers would have access to them. That's how it works in archaeology and conservation biology, anyway. Note that this doesn't actually prevent their locality from being inspected; those repositories have criteria for who can access them, but those are basically to ensure that the people accessing them have an understanding of the necessity for conservation.

Plus, any taxonomic data would be available to anyone with access to the journal it's published in.

This is where your error occurs (well, that and saying I have a PhD; I do not). I do not believe it. However, I'm also not one who believes all bigfoot believers to be liars.

The evidence argues the other way.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Cervelo, props to you for taking the time to go in the field and get your hands dirty on this. Initially, I liked the idea of attending but as this conversation has gone on, I’m sensing a general evasiveness and lack of good faith that leaves me generally distrustful of motives here. I look forward to hearing what you report. As it is, I’m working today anyhow and wouldn’t’ve been able to tag along.



Otherwise, there are a couple of points I’d like to make regarding the demand for “science” to participate in this topic and the somewhat related demand for “university funded studies” to assume this search.

I think these demands generally demonstrate a lack of understanding in academia altogether, to the end that they illustrate those who are doing the demanding have little experience with any actual research themselves. Which other scientists should drop what they’re currently working on, and begin hunting for bigfoot? How many scientists is an acceptable number? I can name at least a few PhDs, now prominent names in the BF community who are either actively involved in this or are tangentially included in that they regularly test samples submitted by researchers. I know for a fact there are more involved in this than there in the search for some actual, missing animals (such as the Chucky madtom). Additionally, how will these people be compensated for this? Studies require funding, and I’m sure if some BF group out there wants to donate a ton of money instead of buying FLIR cams with faulty record buttons, and a bunch of smelly, loud game cams, some researcher will be more than happy to mentor a couple grad students in a “faunal characterization of such and such state park” study.
Speaking of university funding, I’m curious to know how much money these BF folks think goes into a typical university research project? When I was doing my grad work, I had to live under the camper top on the back of my personal vehicle in a free campsite during the field season. I got a little bit of new sampling gear, and had a few conference visits paid for, as well as a meager stipend so I could make the rent, and free tuition, but it wasn’t as if I were backed by an eccentric millionaire. In fact, most biological research I know of is done on the extreme cheap. Heck, I’m fairly convinced that the only reason grad assistantships even exist is to get around having to actually pay people minimum wage to do the field work.
What kind of field magic do you think additional PhDs will bring to the table that will ultimately lead to the capture of this alleged animal? It’s not as if once one becomes a professor at a university, all of a sudden you know how to find animals that no one else can, like you have some special woods skills that no other humans can replicate. Researchers very regularly hire hunting/fishing guides to locate their target species. I would venture that a well-employed elk/bear guide who is in the field 200 days a year is far, far more skilled at locating those critters than most PhDs who study them. Why is it that BFers think adding a few more scientists to the search would make any real difference?

 

[Resume]

I would venture that a well-employed elk/bear guide who is in the field 200 days a year is far, far more skilled at locating those critters than most PhDs who study them. Why is it that BFers think adding a few more scientists to the search would make any real difference?

If footie existed, these folks could put you right on them; as could have the indiginous people when the Europeans were looking for stuff to shoot. It's just silly to posit that a 9-ft, 600-lb monkey could evade all detection (save for stories) for the 15,000 +/- years humans have been mucking about NA.

 

[Correa Neto]

Confidentiality for a legit enterprise is OK. For bigfootery, which is nothing but tomfoolery and snake oil business it just raises more stink.

Bigfoot "researchers" can not actually stop people from entering their "research sites"; mind you, quite often real researchers can't. An interloper can accidentaly ruin a research site in so many ways, but what's to actually ruin when it comes down to a bigfoot research site?

The trust habituated bigfoots have in a selected group of contactees reaserchers?

Interference with natural bigfoot behavior?

Nope, since we are talking about sites where people frequently go for camping, hunting, trekking; usually near roads, at state parks, private lands open for hunting, etc.

One of the reasons is the fact that these sites are visited by people, they are not so distant, pristine, wild and unaccessible as the "fearless bigfoot hunters researchers" claim. The "research site" turns out to be a patch of second growth woods surrounded by farmlands and crossed by a highway. Its hit no. 1 against their claims.

Another reason: people may go there and find no signs of bigfoots.

One more reason: people may go there and fool the researchers, exposing their "methods and expertise".

So, its just fear of being exposed either as fraudsters or naïve fools.

 

[Correa Neto]

The evidence argues the other way.

Hmmm...

Personally I think some are just naïve gullible people and some pathologic attention-seekers. The "top" layers of bigfootery, however, I belive to be mostly composed by snake oil sellers.

 

[clayflingythingy]

I don't see how such an NDA is worth anything. How does disclosure of the location damage Chris in any way?

Chris can in no way be damaged by the reveal of the location. If it is private land the landowner controls access.

If he is playing BF hunter on public lands than a gazillion people per year are visiting his "research site".

Today is opening day of deer season with modern gun in KY. The landscape will be crawling with hunters. Not one of whom will spot Chris' 10' x 9' woods monkey.

 

[Dinwar]

What kind of field magic do you think additional PhDs will bring to the table that will ultimately lead to the capture of this alleged animal?

One thing they provide is a theoretical framework. A researcher can look at the alleged traits of a bigfoot (bipedal, hominin, lots of hair, etc) and determine likely environments in which to find them. They can, essentially, determine the niche bigfoot fills. This allows for a more targeted research program.

Not that most PhDs are worth spit in the field. Most geologists are okay in the field. A subset of archaeologists is okay, but there are a lot of indoor types in that field. They'd be best for osteological analysis. I can tell if a bone is human or not if it's got diagnostic features, but archaeologists can tell from fragments (it's the thickness of the bone around the inner cavity). For biologists, I'd rather have a grad student or consultant--someone who goes out regularly enough to have a kit pre-packed.

Confidentiality for a legit enterprise is OK. For bigfootery, which is nothing but tomfoolery and snake oil business it just raises more stink.

This presupposes that the bigfoot believer is dishonest about their belief. While I'm well aware that many are, I maintain that assertions of dishonesty have the burden of proof. We cannot--or at least should not--assume that the bigfoot believer is dishonest by default.

None of what you mention would be prevented by the NDA discussed in this forum. Statements of ecology--such as "area heavily trafficed by vehicles and pedestrians, located within a half-mile of ag fields and less than two miles from a small town" don't give enough locality data to matter (nearly all rural areas in Ohio, Alabama, and the Great Valley in California match this description, in my experience), but they provide ample information to rule out pristine wilderness and the like. That's one thing few people count on: those of us who have our professional lives dictated by NDAs are pretty good at determining their limits, and working around them.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

If I had a tenterhook, or if I indeed knew what a tenterhook was, I'd be waiting on it for cervelo's report.

Is this a first? Some of this board's members meeting up for some Squatchin'?

 

[comncents]

Dinwar,

"I'm also not one who believes all bigfoot believers to be liars."

There is an easy test...once a believer claims a detailed, in the flesh, I know bears and it wasn't a bear, long hairy arm giving a backrub to a hairy back, encounter - they are BLAARGers. It may be fair to give a few of the believers who buy into the nonsense the benefit of the doubt, but KNOWERS are all BLAARGers.

 

[William Parcher]

Is this a first? Some of this board's members meeting up for some Squatchin'?

No, but there have been few. Drew met with Jim Flowers at the Michigan Recording Project hoax site. I think maybe there were outings years ago with LAL and SweatyYeti (but not together) and other Bigfoot believers who are members here but not posting anymore.

Drew might be the only skeptic here who has gone Bigfootin' with a Bigfooter.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

No, but there have been few. Drew met with Jim Flowers at the Michigan Recording Project hoax site. I think maybe there were outings years ago with LAL and SweatyYeti (but not together) and other Bigfoot believers who are members here but not posting anymore.

Drew might be the only skeptic here who has gone Bigfootin' with a Bigfooter.

Thanks, William Parcher.

What ever happened to SweatyYeti, anyway? Used to get a kick out of that guy.

 

[tsig]

Chris can in no way be damaged by the reveal of the location. If it is private land the landowner controls access.

If he is playing BF hunter on public lands than a gazillion people per year are visiting his "research site".

Today is opening day of deer season with modern gun in KY. The landscape will be crawling with hunters. Not one of whom will spot Chris' 10' x 9' woods monkey.

Apparently the only way to find ole footy is to burn the woods and sift the ashes.


Oh wait they did that:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mblowers/def.html