Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Hey folks!
Just a brief update on yesterday's hike with Chris.
Awesome day to be out and got to see some great countryside. Total distance covered was about 3miles out and 3miles back to a river. Got to see one stealthy buck that was definitely a great practitioner of the "stand still and your invisible" club....great eye on Chris's part to see him. When he finally spooked we found out why he stood his ground... The doe he was following became "visible"!
While not covering alot of ground as we walked and talked we did discuss many aspects of the Bigfoot "evidence" and you might be surprised as I was how skeptical Chris really is.
We hiked out in the dark which is always a blast and did hear one cool unknown...sounded canid/foxy to me.
Chris was kind enough to drive me over to the Mommoth Cave visitors center so I could get my bearings straight for today's touristy adventures.
Still pissed Chris wouldn't let me buy him dinner (just kidding Chris) and he shared some other stories that were a blast to hear.
Chris I would just like to thank you for being a fantastic host and confiding in me!

You're very welcome and I thoroughly enjoyed our trekking and discussion together yesterday. I was pleased to be out with someone who knows their sign, sounds and other aspects of the woods as you very well do.

The Summer break has left me stiff and sore from yesterday as I had feared. It's a good thing you're seeing some of the local tourist attractions today, I'll have a chance to recover a bit for the next trip out.

Besides a Mammoth Cave tour I can also recommend a trip to the Dinosaur park near the interstate in Cave City KY. If you like to view life sized replicas, it's pretty cool, especially the T-rex. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

You have misunderstood. The default on this forum is certainly that people saying they've seen bigfoot are lying--several people have admitted as much. That is a very serious problem, for two reasons. First, it's logically indefensible; it presupposes knowledge we don't have, and ignores the fact that this forum only experiences a self-selected subset of bigfoot believers. Second, it more or less ensures that we've alienated every bigfoot believer before they post, meaning that we've effectively shut down any chance we have of presenting the real data in a way that will actually make a difference. Both are serious problems. The second defeats the purpose of an allegedly educational forum, and the first corrodes one's thinking over time.

Funny. I don't recall agreeing to any such thing. And I KNOW that the bigfoot community will reject this as the unwarranted assertion it is.

Ignorant and naive I'll give you. They are ignorant of biology, and naive in as much as they underestimate the errors of their own cognition, perception, and recollection.

The whole "blinded by" bit is way too far, though. "Ignorant" and "naive" are agressive terms (you and I both know they're value-neutral, but others do not). To call someone "blinded by" is to accuse them of shutting down their thought process, and again, without evidence for this I simply cannot accept that conclusion. And again, they by their nature essentially ensure that those we are trying to reach never hear us. Even the peanut gallery is going to react badly to this. Who's going to come here and honestly ask about an experience they had when they know that people are going to jump down their throats and call them, essentially, deluded just for not knowing what else to call their experience?

If I had come here years ago and said I felt like there was a shadow person following me everywhere I went, who got very angry when I read certain things, I would have been dismissed as blinded by my belief in the supernatural, or deluded, or whatnot. The reality is it's a known psychological issue, specifically an error in the process within the brain that determines sense of self/location of self. It's been replicated in labs--and the results are identical to what I've described. What happened to me was real, and the symptoms I've described are accurate--but with attitudes like those presented in this thread I'd never have come here to discuss it, because I'd know no one would take it seriously enough to actually listen. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those who honestly believe they have seen something that contradicts the beliefs of Skeptics. The honest ones often simply don't know what else to call what happened to them--and it's our obligation to give them that vocabulary and information.

No argument there. Those who are making bank on the idea cannot claim ignorance or innocence. If you've got time to write a book about bigfoot, you have time to do the research--and any honest examination of the research will inevitably lead to the dismissal of this hypothesis.

When I say that I agree with Dinwar that not all bigfooters are lying, I should also point out that the percentage in my opinion that are not lying, in some capacity, is quite small. I do also agree with Dinwar in that we cannot logically claim knowledge that we do not have--at least not as a moral certainty. We can, and have, demonstrated that the actions of some who claim repeated bigfoot sightings demonstrate, at the very least, a lack of conviction. But as correctly pointed out we cannot say for certain as that does imply knowledge we do not have and/or a confession from the bigfooter to lying that is also absent.

Also, I believe lying and dishonesty are not interchangeable in this discussion. In my opinion the liars are the ones at the top. They lie deliberately to fool the gullible into believing, or playing along with the game. Particularly that large component of bigfoot enthusiasts who do not claim a sighting at all but will fervently argue in favor of existence. These people have accepted the claims of people like Meldrum because it supports what they want to be true. For whatever reason, there are people that want bigfoot to be real. Campfire stories are not good enough for these people, they want to believe in the flesh and blood monster. Why that is so is a great question and we can only guess at the origins. Perhaps they want to be maverick thinkers. They want to be researchers on the cutting edge and wish to appear one step ahead of the stagnant mainstream science. Usually with no post secondary education at all much less in relevant disciplines. People like Meldrum build that bridge. They can point to Meldrum and Bindernagel and say we have relevant phds that support our position. Maybe it ties in with their religious view of the world somehow? I don't know. But I do believe that these people are being dishonest with themselves, while not being outright liars in the sense of deliberate con artists trying to profit from bigfoot. They allow themselves to be duped because it supports their need for bigfoot to be real--for whatever reasons. That is where I believe the vast majority of dishonesty occurs in this phenomenon with the outright lying occurring at the upper echelons by high profile "researchers" or phds such as Meldrum and Bindernagel.

It's interesting that you, Dinwar, feel you would have been ridiculed if you came here with your story of a shadow self. You say the fact that is a recognized pathology would be ignored in favor of ridicule and claims of woo belief. No doubt that might happen by some, but let's compare it to bigfoot eye witness claims. I have seen numerous times, in fact have quite often offered this explanation myself, where legitimate psychological basis for a sighting have been offered and dismissed. Everything from sub-clinical ADHD, depression, or other undiagnosed and untreated psychosis have been offered. Hallucination has been offered as a potential source of sightings as well. Every time these are summarily dismissed and the person suggesting them is accused of calling all bigfooters insane or crazy, when clearly this is not the case. It's no different than saying some bigfooters are lying. The strawman is immediately erected and thrown back in your face. They, bigfoot enthusiasts, do not want ANY explanation that does not support the bigfoot claim. Period.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I agree with most everything that you said. I don't believe all bigfooters are lying, just the vast majority of them. Fools or frauds is pretty much what it comes down to. I don't think that there is a high chance of any honest person coming here post encounter looking for answers. From what I have seen here we get nothing but people like Chris and Northern Lights. They have no intention of defining their experience in rational terms with, or without, assistance from any skeptical response.

They come here to parade their beliefs in front of us. They want to see if they have an answer to every skeptical response or they just want to laugh at us while we honestly try to provide real alternatives. It's like a whetstone for their beliefs. They come here and we highlight the weak points in their pro-bigfoot nonsense and then maybe the poppycock gets fine tuned a bit for future telling. There is no honest inquiry occurring.

From a review of some of the recent posts here it seems some members can't figure out why Bigfooters are scarce here.

Consider this. Automatically if someone even hints that they may have seen a Bigfoot they are instantly classified: a liar, mentally unstable, suffering from hallucinations, attention seeking, crazy, foolish, being fooled (gullible), con artist, or a long list of other less than flattering charges, accusations and remarks. Not a very practical approach for "helping" them......if that's your true motive.

Now, some here seem to take pleasure in the attack and the resulting pile on usually leads to a footer meltdown that quickly results in a counter attack outside the acceptable forum code of conduct followed by banishment of the footer. Correct me if I'm wrong. (You probably noticed this doesn't work for all cases though)

So, you're trying to help these folks understand the error of their ways? Great Caesar's ghost this is rich.

What if you're wrong? Can you consider that? If not, why not? That's the question. Most of the posts I've read seem dead set against any possibility that a creature such as Bigfoot could be. I can kinda understand that, based on the evidence considered to be koshier by "science" (which is zero) minus the hostility, I've agreed with that view in the past too, right up until the point I saw one for myself. But why all the personal insults to eyewitnesses? Every single Bigfooter that has ever come here has been at the center of an all out attack. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Being unable to consider you may be wrong happens on the other side of the fence as well. John Greene still swears by the authenticity of the Blue Mountain casts. But they're fakes. They're Ray Wallace stompers pure and simple. Why won't he admit the possibility he's wrong?

The Bossburg Cripplefoot cast Grover Krantz painstakingly reconstructed a bone structure on, it's fake. Made from a boot track cast in the snow.
People make mistakes, it's common but why can't they admit it. Pride maybe? What people do about those mistakes determines their character IMO.

Have I ever considered I may have been wrong in what I saw? Oh yes, I questioned it many times. Why wouldn't I? After the 2nd sighting, I questioned it again. I suppose third time is the charm because now I'm certain they exist without a doubt. I only submit here that some should change their argument from "impossible" to "unlikely". As I've seen evidence that the "impossible" argument is severely flawed.

Some here also seem to have Bigfoot research tied together with Bigfootery. The difference is staggering between the two. But that's one of the things skeptics like to do. They tend to tie two things together to make both seem ridiculous, rather than just the one. Strange but true and what's more, it's a dishonest way to argue a point.

I understand the level of attack towards me is largely being made by those who see Gorillas when they look at a pic of a Chimpanzee. They should really get over it and chalk it up as a lesson learned. Everyone makes mistakes. When I'm wrong , I admit it. Am I wrong about Bigfoot? Nope.

As much as I'd like Cervelo to have an encounter of his own while he's in the area, in a way it would be unfortunate for him. He'd go from being a skeptic to any of the negative terms on the list above. And yet he's a hell of of great guy. Isn't that odd?
Chris B.

 

[River]

From a review of some of the recent posts here it seems some members can't figure out why Bigfooters are scarce here.

Consider this. Automatically if someone even hints that they may have seen a Bigfoot they are instantly classified: a liar, mentally unstable, suffering from hallucinations, attention seeking, crazy, foolish, being fooled (gullible), con artist, or a long list of other less than flattering charges, accusations and remarks. Not a very practical approach for "helping" them......if that's your true motive.

Now, some here seem to take pleasure in the attack and the resulting pile on usually leads to a footer meltdown that quickly results in a counter attack outside the acceptable forum code of conduct followed by banishment of the footer. Correct me if I'm wrong. (You probably noticed this doesn't work for all cases though)

So, you're trying to help these folks understand the error of their ways? Great Caesar's ghost this is rich.

What if you're wrong? Can you consider that? If not, why not? That's the question. Most of the posts I've read seem dead set against any possibility that a creature such as Bigfoot could be. I can kinda understand that, based on the evidence considered to be koshier by "science" (which is zero) minus the hostility, I've agreed with that view in the past too, right up until the point I saw one for myself. But why all the personal insults to eyewitnesses? Every single Bigfooter that has ever come here has been at the center of an all out attack. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Being unable to consider you may be wrong happens on the other side of the fence as well. John Greene still swears by the authenticity of the Blue Mountain casts. But they're fakes. They're Ray Wallace stompers pure and simple. Why won't he admit the possibility he's wrong?

The Bossburg Cripplefoot cast Grover Krantz painstakingly reconstructed a bone structure on, it's fake. Made from a boot track cast in the snow.
People make mistakes, it's common but why can't they admit it. Pride maybe? What people do about those mistakes determines their character IMO.

Have I ever considered I may have been wrong in what I saw? Oh yes, I questioned it many times. Why wouldn't I? After the 2nd sighting, I questioned it again. I suppose third time is the charm because now I'm certain they exist without a doubt. I only submit here that some should change their argument from "impossible" to "unlikely". As I've seen evidence that the "impossible" argument is severely flawed.

Some here also seem to have Bigfoot research tied together with Bigfootery. The difference is staggering between the two. But that's one of the things skeptics like to do. They tend to tie two things together to make both seem ridiculous, rather than just the one. Strange but true and what's more, it's a dishonest way to argue a point.

I understand the level of attack towards me is largely being made by those who see Gorillas when they look at a pic of a Chimpanzee. They should really get over it and chalk it up as a lesson learned. Everyone makes mistakes. When I'm wrong , I admit it. Am I wrong about Bigfoot? Nope.

As much as I'd like Cervelo to have an encounter of his own while he's in the area, in a way it would be unfortunate for him. He'd go from being a skeptic to any of the negative terms on the list above. And yet he's a hell of of great guy. Isn't that odd?
Chris B.

MY bolded. No. Simply because the evidence does not support it. (and we've been over this tirelessly in these threads with you personally Chris) You want skeptics to accept a possibility? Prove it.

We've already proven what the source of claimed bigfoot evidence is. It's people. Want us to accept something else? Prove it.

You act like you're getting played some unfair card here. You're not. We're asking you to support your claims. If you cannot, then I submit that you're wrong. It doesnt matter if you have 30 more sightings. It will not make bigfoot real.

 

[Resume]

I understand the level of attack towards me is largely being made by those who see Gorillas when they look at a pic of a Chimpanzee.

Oooh, score. Actually, no. It was a funky picture that didn't look right at all, but wasn't really the issue at hand. You realize this, but prefer to imagine you're making some gotcha points with the homeboys.

When I'm wrong , I admit it. Am I wrong about Bigfoot? Nope.

You are as wrong about bigfoot as YECs are about the age of the whizzing rock they inhabit.

 

[Resume]

What if you're wrong? Can you consider that? If not, why not? That's the question. Most of the posts I've read seem dead set against any possibility that a creature such as Bigfoot could be.

Missed this one. Of course I've considered this, since the first still of ole foo that I saw. So I'd be wrong, so frikken what? That's the nature of life. It's just that there ain't any 9-ft, 600-lb ape wandering North America, undetected in every way we might detect it.

But why all the personal insults to eyewitnesses? Every single Bigfooter that has ever come here has been at the center of an all out attack. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's a combination of snark (both sides), and proponent's propensity to take offense. Sorry, but pointing out credulity sometimes stings, but in the end, it's helpful to note one's own gullibility, don't you think? Plus, like paranormal enthusiasts, many bigfoot proponents refuse to understand or acknowledge the frailties of human cognition and associated bias.

"I know what I saw."

"Not really," (to paraphrase Dr. Steve Novella.)

If enthusiasts can't acknowledge these problems, why in the world would I give any of their campfire stories the time of day?

 

[Cervelo]

And herein lies the problem.

Cervelo: Could you describe the habitat for us? What kind of terrain was it? How dense were the plants? How close were you to human habitation (was it within a few miles? a few hundred yards?)? Was the vegetation mostly undergrowth or mostly large trees? Was there an obvious source of water?

I've been to the Mammoth Cave area a number of times. There is some good habitat, but it's hardly a remote area as I recall. Then again, those cave systems go everywhere. so you may not have been at the same entrance as the ones I've been to.

I can't remember which magazine (Outdoors maybe) but it was about how remote one could get in the lower 48, I think it stated one could get no more than 25 miles from a road.....sure doesn't feel that way somtime LOL!
But we were only 3miles from a road and for all I know there could have been a house right across the river from us. But the drive to the site was very rural, farms ect.
We hiked in on a limited use dirt road (gated) and then got onto what looked like an unused Jeep trail.....could have even been a road long ago had a few switchbacks and very overgrown in some areas with numerous downed trees.
Fairly open large hardwood trees....this all led to a ravine, which had a creek that was dry at this time but did have some water at a spring at the top.
As your familar with the area tons of cool rock outcroppings to check out on our way to the river. We followed this for about a 1/2 hour saw lots of turkey sign/scratchings ...checked out a sighting location, got to the river snooped around looking for tracks. This area was a super highway for deer the ground was tilled up by their tracks.
Wished I had brought my fishing gear on the hike (DUH) and then headed back the way we came in stopping a few times just to listen and look as twilight took hold....I love that time in the woods!
Then finished with a little night hike back to our vehicles.
All round great way to spend an afternoon!!!

 

[LTC8K6]

It's very difficult to believe the 15 foot HD "full face" video claim is truthful.

If it were simply a mistaken description, Chris would have said so.

If he were misquoted, he would certainly have said so.

He has had plenty of opportunities to address the claim.

My personal opinion is that he made it up to seem cool and be respected among footers.

There's no reason whatsoever for Chris to maintain that he has such a video, and not show it, or not explain that the description is wrong, or a mistake, etc.

Chris knows what an NDA is, so he could even have shown the video to people under an NDA.

It's really very hard to believe that you can see bigfoot well enough to be sure it's bigfoot, but you can't get a picture or a video that shows me that you saw bigfoot.

 

[dmaker]

From a review of some of the recent posts here it seems some members can't figure out why Bigfooters are scarce here.

Consider this. Automatically if someone even hints that they may have seen a Bigfoot they are instantly classified: a liar, mentally unstable, suffering from hallucinations, attention seeking, crazy, foolish, being fooled (gullible), con artist, or a long list of other less than flattering charges, accusations and remarks.

What's the alternative? Agreeing that the person saw a bigfoot? That is never going to happen. Why is it that ANY alternative explanation offered is instantly considered an insult? People hallucinate, people suffer depression and ADHD and everyone is subject to the foibles of human perception and cognition. Yet when this is pointed out, you turn all blushing bigfooter on us.

Give me a break. You knew what to expect when you came here. Unless you can provide compelling supporting evidence, then no one is going to pat you on the head and say "I'm sure it was a lovely bigfoot that you saw". Yet you come here, knowing what sort of responses your passive-aggressive defense of the bigfoot claim would provoke, and then cry "J'accuse!"

Seriously Chris, stop playing games.

 

[Dinwar]

I only submit here that some should change their argument from "impossible" to "unlikely". As I've seen evidence that the "impossible" argument is severely flawed.

This is where you and I differ. I believe it's entirely true that people THINK they've seen bigfoot. However, such a creature is impossible. It contradicts known facts about the ecosystems they are allegedly a part of, and there is no data supporting their existence. Contradictions cannot exist. What CAN exist are people who don't know enough about data to understand why hearsay doesn't count, and people how are unaware of their own cognative errors.

This is not the same as calling you a liar, fraud, or deluded. It's merely a recognition of a potential causal mechanism. As I've pointed out repeatedly, we are ALL subject to these errors. It's an inherent part of how we are wired.

 

[LTC8K6]

Gershake, I noticed you used a figure of about 100 yards. I think this is a bit much to ask of a normal cam. Maybe something with a good long telephoto lens may bring out some facial detail, but the standard cam won't do it. I have a shot taken from 120 feet with an 8.1 MP cam and you cannot make out facial features. Even the high resolution fades away into pixellation when you zoom in to the subject's face. Although I was very proud of the pic, the most common comment among skeptics was that it's a bush or a tree or shadows or leaves or my imagination. (I didn't release the video of it walking away.)
I don't think any pic will do the trick. Even 1080 HD video captures are reduced in quality to about 4 MP resolution. Perhaps a good HD video of a creature tripping a DNA collection trap, in conjunction with the DNA obtained, then maybe a few eyebrows will raise. Other than that, everything is a blobsquatch and will likely be received as such.( I have some experience with these matters.) :lol: Chris B.

I have several videos I have not released. The main reason is that none will prove the existence of a North American ape. So why bother with ridicule over something that's not going to prove anything anyway? With that particular video I have of the creature moving away, it also contains my wife and son. I do not wish their images to be out in the public domain. There may come a time when everyone will be able to view some or all of the videos and images we have taken over the years but for now they will remain private. I truly believe that the only video that will be considered by science is one that is shot in HD in conjunction with the creature tripping a DNA trap. The HD video along with the DNA collected is our goal.
As mentioned above, I have released the full 8.1 MP pic but the creature is a very small area of a very large pic. The subject is 120 feet from the camera, so whether you consider it to be an actual creature or a collection of leaves and shadows, it's too far away to make out the intimate details of the face, or leaves. So again, it proves nothing. It's just one piece of an ongoing study. Chris B.

So, he claims to have unreleased videos in 2011, including one which has his family and bigfoot in it at the same moment, making it impossible to release the video.

This would be video of the same bigfoot in the 8.1MP pictures. This bigfoot apparently walked away and Chris got video of this, but somehow got his wife and son in the video at the same time.

Except, there were apparently two bigfoot in the 8.1MP pic, a male and a female. One was ~51 feet away, and one was ~120 feet away, from the camera.

From the quotes, I gather that the "big girl" bigfoot is the one on video walking away?

So what happened to the "boy" bigfoot? Did he sit tight? Did he follow the "girl".

He also says that only an HD video will be acceptable, yet well before this, he claimed to already have the HD "full face" video taken from 15 feet away.

It's also pretty clear that Chris knows how to edit the video to safeguard his family...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/...ired-of-the-optimal-bigfoot-photo/#entry42095

Note this caption from the web site. Chris can see the cheek and the brow ridge. So he evidently can make out facial details.

Chris is also so worried about bigfoot being dangerous, that he "packs large", yet he apparently has a video of "big boy" and/or "big girl" walking away from the spot, with his family in the shot.

This is another crop from the full image. This is right of the center and is "Big Boy" He's sitting down watching "Big Girl" for any reaction to me I think. He's exactly 51 feet away from the camera. The area where his cheek and brow ridge are showing thru the brush is about 6 feet exactly from the ground. So sitting down he's a bit over 6 feet tall. If this is the same one we've seen since, he's somewhere between 10 and 12 feet tall when standing. (Think about that if you decide to carry nothing but bear spray with you in the woods.) Some of these things are truly giants. Standing next to a creature this size, the average height person would be comparable to a 5 year old human child standing next to his adult Mom or Dad. That's why I'm armed when I'm in the woods. I don't think the creatures are normally violent but they're wild animals and I won't gamble my life by relying on the good will of a wild animal. Do as you will when you go into the woods, as for me, I'm packin' large. Feel free to right click on the pic and save on your desktop for review. Windows Photo Gallery works well for zooming etc. Please respect the copyright on this material and use it for nonprofit use only. Any other use must be licenced of course. Thanks and enjoy, Chris Bennett

 

[comncents]

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I mean, certain encounters are sure to be fabrications, but I know how much stories can change with the telling, and still be honestly believed. I think at least a portion of them are fooling themselves.

And I'm extremely hesitant to take the stand "specific claims are proof of fraud". It's too close to pseudoscientific reasoning, and I'm not willing to go down that road.

Here is my reasoning:

Bigfoot does not exist.

Anyone claiming to have seen bigfoot - complete with details - is incorrect in regards to fact. It doesn't matter if it is outright lies, embellishment of a misidentification, or a hallucination. If bigfoot doesn't exist - you can't see really see him. You might convince yourself that you saw him, but you didn't. You may think you are being honest, but you didn't really see bigfoot.

If this is pseudoscientific, then so be it for me.

 

[Dinwar]

Anyone claiming to have seen bigfoot - complete with details - is incorrect in regards to fact. It doesn't matter if it is outright lies, embellishment of a misidentification, or a hallucination. If bigfoot doesn't exist - you can't see really see him. You might convince yourself that you saw him, but you didn't. You may think you are being honest, but you didn't really see bigfoot.

We are obliged to differentiate between different causal mechanisms. Believing one has seen bigfoot because that is the best-available interpretation for what one has seen, to the best of one's knowledge, is a whole different ballgame from lies. I am absolutely baffled as to why anyone would argue against that concept, yet I seem to be in the minority here.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Here is my reasoning:

Bigfoot does not exist.

Anyone claiming to have seen bigfoot - complete with details - is incorrect in regards to fact. It doesn't matter if it is outright lies, embellishment of a misidentification, or a hallucination. If bigfoot doesn't exist - you can't see really see him. You might convince yourself that you saw him, but you didn't. You may think you are being honest, but you didn't really see bigfoot.

If this is pseudoscientific, then so be it for me.

^This
It's such a silly topic that it's amazing how people waste time thinking about it.
I am, alas, going to do just that.

All this talk about HD Video simply proves how these "researchers" are utterly clueless about everything.
They use kiddie-cams and child-friendly free software.

Finding an imaginary monkey man would be quite a moneymaker.
So investing in a professional camera that produces images that satisfy the technical requirements to meet "Broadcast Quality" would be worthwhile.
Mine cost UK£10,000 00. The same kit would be cheaper in The U.S.
A few weeks learning how to use it and decent images could be achieved.
Non of this blurry autofocus rubbish shot on throw away carp.

 

[The Shrike]

The reason lying and "BLAARG"ing have been oft invoked for bigfooty campfire stories of late is that, while skeptics have often acknowledged the possibility of fabrications for such stories, as a group we'd historically been far too polite to point them out. We can't imagine ourselves lying about such a thing so we relegated lying to a small, unknowable fraction of the stories and the bigfooters who tell them, and credited complex misidentifications and hallucinations to explain too many of them. The problem is that in so many cases those explanations are not satisfying, e.g., because the witness claims to have seen too much too clearly. Eventually you reach a point at which a false story is more likely than a false memory, and, of course, vastly more likely than a true bigfoot.

In Chris' case, he's got some leafy shadow photos that he claims on his website are a pair of bigfoots, apparently grooming each other. He's far more skeptical about those photos here at the ISF. That's a red flag to me. He's motivated to make specific claims on his website that he acknowledges are indefensible when challenged on them. That's not me being a jerk, that's me giving an honest appraisal of the information he puts out.

 

[dmaker]

We are obliged to differentiate between different causal mechanisms. Believing one has seen bigfoot because that is the best-available interpretation for what one has seen, to the best of one's knowledge, is a whole different ballgame from lies. I am absolutely baffled as to why anyone would argue against that concept, yet I seem to be in the minority here.

But how often is that truly the case? I think that is the point. Honestly believing that one has seen bigfoot I don't think happens all that often. More likely is allowing ambiguity to be replaced with the confirmation bias satisfying claims of people like Meldrum.

 

[Dinwar]

But how often is that truly the case? I think that is the point.

If you base your answer on those who come to this forum--as several have admitted to doing--you'll never know, because it's a biased sample.

More likely is allowing ambiguity to be replaced with the confirmation bias satisfying claims of people like Meldrum.

If you see something strange, and find a suitable interpretation, and leave it at that, I don't see that as dishonest. If a biologist did so, sure; but if an electrician or carpenter or traffic cop did so, it'd be fine. They have no obligation to investigate this any further than their interest carries them, unlike biologists who have a professional obligation in that regard. If they say "Yeah, that bigfoot thing, that sounds like what I saw!" it's not dishonest, it's an honest attempt to interpret what they saw based on available data and theoretical frameworks. They dont' know enough to know that one is completely and flagrantly false.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What's the alternative? Agreeing that the person saw a bigfoot? That is never going to happen. Why is it that ANY alternative explanation offered is instantly considered an insult? People hallucinate, people suffer depression and ADHD and everyone is subject to the foibles of human perception and cognition. Yet when this is pointed out, you turn all blushing bigfooter on us.

Give me a break. You knew what to expect when you came here. Unless you can provide compelling supporting evidence, then no one is going to pat you on the head and say "I'm sure it was a lovely bigfoot that you saw". Yet you come here, knowing what sort of responses your passive-aggressive defense of the bigfoot claim would provoke, and then cry "J'accuse!"

Seriously Chris, stop playing games.

I'm not talking specifically about me, I'm talking about every other Bigfooter to have ever stepped foot in this forum.

Every single one has been attacked, and you know it. The end result in many of those cases is that the Bigfooter gets banned.

It would appear the evidence of gameplay is on your side of the fence in these cases. Or are you oblivious to these facts as well?

So, he claims to have unreleased videos in 2011, including one which has his family and bigfoot in it at the same moment, making it impossible to release the video.

This would be video of the same bigfoot in the 8.1MP pictures. This bigfoot apparently walked away and Chris got video of this, but somehow got his wife and son in the video at the same time.

Except, there were apparently two bigfoot in the 8.1MP pic, a male and a female. One was ~51 feet away, and one was ~120 feet away, from the camera.

From the quotes, I gather that the "big girl" bigfoot is the one on video walking away?

So what happened to the "boy" bigfoot? Did he sit tight? Did he follow the "girl".

He also says that only an HD video will be acceptable, yet well before this, he claimed to already have the HD "full face" video taken from 15 feet away.

It's also pretty clear that Chris knows how to edit the video to safeguard his family...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/...ired-of-the-optimal-bigfoot-photo/#entry42095

Note this caption from the web site. Chris can see the cheek and the brow ridge. So he evidently can make out facial details.

Chris is also so worried about bigfoot being dangerous, that he "packs large", yet he apparently has a video of "big boy" and/or "big girl" walking away from the spot, with his family in the shot.

Yes, the pic with the subject at 120 feet has been released. Everything I said in the linked quote is 100% correct. Even though the pic was captured with a fairly high resolution digital camera (cutting edge at the time for 2010 when the pic was captured). When zoomed in to view facial features of the subject at 120 feet, the pixelation makes the features unviewable.

After later study of that pic, and after having the hillside family group encounter, with captured video, I determined there may be some features shown at 51 feet at the top of a "bush" that resemble the upper cheek and saggital crest of the male I had witnessed later. During my return trip to make measurements of the specific area for investigation of the possible 2nd subject in the pic, I noticed, there was actually no "bush" there at all and I found some twist broken tree limbs on the ground that seemed to match the "bush" when held upright in place. My findings seemed to support my theory that there was possibly a 2nd subject at the 51 foot mark in the same pic with the subject at 120 feet.

Now, regarding that pic. No there was no movement of the possible subjects during the time I physically made the pic. What prompted me to make the pic in the first place is that out of the corner of my eye I had spotted a quick sudden movement which alarmed me. It alarmed me enough I stopped dead in my tracks and placed one hand on my sidearm, and immediately turned to scan the area for further movement to see what had alarmed me. After seeing none, I snapped a high resolution pic for later study in case I was missing something during the moment. I discounted the movement as "it's probably nothing" and went on about my business.

I had the same thing happen while out with Cervelo. A movement caught my eye, not alarming though as it was at a good distance. After we stopped for further review of that area, Cervelo was able to pick out a buck through his field glasses. The buck was invisible when standing still, but that slight movement caught our attention as above.

In reflection, regarding the possible Bigfoot pic, I now think the movement in my peripheral vision that first caught my attention was the closer subject raising the limbs to make a "bush" to hide behind, though I still cannot be sure, that is only my supposition.

About the video shot just after, yes, after I dismissed the movement and collected the pic for review, I made a short video of my wife carrying my son on her back as he was tired. It was a funny family moment because my wife barely tips the scales at 95-100 lbs and was carrying my 60 or so lb son on her back. Right frame of the video reveals an upright walking dark object moving from the area of the subject at 120 feet to an area around behind us, and stopped to watch us from a distance.

I've not released that one for a few reasons. The main is of course this is my family and I have no interest of videos of them being on the net. The other is simply it's not worth release as it does not show any more than the pic does. The only thing it does show is movement of one of the subjects in the pic, which would tend to dismiss the counter claims of "shadows" "tricks of light", etc, but nothing to determine what exactly that subject moving is, other than it's on two feet, dark in color, tall and rather smoothly moves around behind us.

This was unplanned and the first sighting of the area. I certainly do not take my family there now after the fact. That's how most Bigfoot encounters occur, spur of the moment , unplanned, ill prepared. Yes I was armed, but not out of fear of a Bigfoot attack on my family. I was armed because we do have large cats in the area and I believe better safe than sorry.

Look, I understand the interest, but there are some videos I have not or will not release. Nothing I have would ever "prove" these creatures exist for science at any rate. It's gonna take a body or part to do that. If or when I have one of those in my possession I will be happy to share it the moment I complete my findings. I'm happy to share even to the point of ridicule but there are some things I must complete first. Chris B.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I find it amusing that a serious "researcher" is unable to blur out faces in a video.
Also amusing is that you think your kiddie-cam was cutting edge technology in 2010.

For more chortles I watched the two "field report" videos on your website.
Lots of talk about "the gear", including the colour of clothing being worn, but the expert researchers had to guess what the time was.
Almost as if the gear didn't include some kind of wearable time telling device.

Lots of plugs for the YouTube channel and "radio show" though.

You can't watch this rubbish and keep a straight face

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The reason lying and "BLAARG"ing have been oft invoked for bigfooty campfire stories of late is that, while skeptics have often acknowledged the possibility of fabrications for such stories, as a group we'd historically been far too polite to point them out. We can't imagine ourselves lying about such a thing so we relegated lying to a small, unknowable fraction of the stories and the bigfooters who tell them, and credited complex misidentifications and hallucinations to explain too many of them. The problem is that in so many cases those explanations are not satisfying, e.g., because the witness claims to have seen too much too clearly. Eventually you reach a point at which a false story is more likely than a false memory, and, of course, vastly more likely than a true bigfoot.

In Chris' case, he's got some leafy shadow photos that he claims on his website are a pair of bigfoots, apparently grooming each other. He's far more skeptical about those photos here at the JREF. That's a red flag to me. He's motivated to make specific claims on his website that he acknowledges are indefensible when challenged on them. That's not me being a jerk, that's me giving an honest appraisal of the information he puts out.

I'm gonna go ahead and address this one though my last post seems to cover the pics question.

The thing is, Bigfooters know some people are going to blatantly lie about having an encounter. Some people are gonna make an honest misidentification. Some will be accurate in their encounter. Some will accidentally make more of the encounter than there actually is (adding details, creative additions, etc). It's part of it. The hard part is trying to determine truth from tale.

Automatically, when one of those folks comes here, they're under attack. And yet I see posts claiming they only want to "help" these people. That's funny.

What about the guy that witnesses a bear on two legs and accidentally presumes it was a Bigfoot? That guy is not questioned about his sighting, he's ridiculed for it here. The result? Now you have a guy that thinks he saw a Bigfoot being called a liar or delusional etc. Isn't that gonna provoke some hostility rather than understanding or discussion? Defensiveness rather than open discussion of the event?

Maybe it's just my way of looking at things but to me you guys are going about it all wrong. What the common MO seems to be is ridicule rather than reason.

Funny thing is, I could talk with that same guy and determine if he actually had seen a bear or a Bigfoot. I've done it before. Chris B.