Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[MikeG]

....... I am absolutely baffled as to why anyone would argue against that concept, yet I seem to be in the minority here.

Don't worry, you're not alone. It's just that I've been shouted down on this too often to feel like joining in the fray. I "know", in an internet kind of way, quite a number of people who sincerely think they have seen BF. I'm never going to call them liars, but have often told them they're wrong. Misguided, mistaken, gullible, bad eyesight.....whatever, but they're not all liars, however much some people here want them to be.

 

[Mudcat]

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.

This is no more true now then when you first made the assertion. Many, including myself, would be happy with clear and unambiguous photograph or video. This is never going to happen though.

 

[Dinwar]

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!!!

Interesting data.

Good to know there's a water source. If there are bigfoot in the area, we should find their bones downstream--there are numerous studies of exactly how bones interact with water, but the gist is at least the rounder bones flow downstream pretty easily.

A lack of data on nearby human habitation is a pretty serious datagap, the kind that no serious researcher would exclude. The NDA probably precludes you from providing the locality data to folks who can do a review of historic land use, but if you could do it that'd help.

The bio data suggests at least old forest. Dense undergrowth is an edge effect, and typically is present at the boundaries of forests and in areas where the trees (and thus the canopy) have been removed. Undergrowth provides food, but it also represents a disrupted habitat. Lack of dense undergrowth would reduce the available floral food supply (thus necessitating larger home ranges), but also tends to suggest that the habitat has been there for a few hundred years or so.

If someone wants to make the argument that they're carnivorous, that's fine--but that disproves the Giganto connection, as they are presumably herbivorous (the best-supported speculation is that they ate bamboo).

If the deer are using that pathway, we can be certain most large organisms are in that area. Animals are lazy, and will tend to follow paths of least resistance. If something has already cut a trail, they'll use that trail instead of cutting their own. Plus, it's a path to water, which is even more important (organisms will go to water even if they know there are predators around). If you're going to seriously look for large mammals, that's where to do it.

Rural areas tend to be evidence against large mammals, for two reasons. First, if anyone was going to see them it'd be the folks who spend their time on tractors in the area. Second, bigfoot would most likely venture into farms for various reasons--farms are FANTASTIC sources for food (thus why we make them), and animals very quickly realize this. In Ohio farmers constantly worry about how to keep the deer out of their crops; they're worse than rodents. Farms have meat for carnivores, grains and grazing for herbivores, and foodstuffs that have gone through thousands of years of selective breeding to become as nutrient- and callorie-rich as possible. Bigfoot would CERTAINLY invade farm fields if they existed in the region.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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

Yes, Kodak digital 8.1 MP in 2010 was a pretty good camera.

I do agree the zoom camcorder I had at the time is not much more than a toy. In fact I gave them to my son after purchasing the Sony 1080 HD camcorder.

Two things about the need for an exact time issue. I don't wear a watch. My watch rises and sets every day and I don't have to carry it with me. I can tell within 15 minutes of the exact time of day at a glance and it's free.

The other thing is I've not claimed the title of "expert" for anything.

If you've watched the videos then you know the ending is that this such and such episode is for Squatch-D TV. I made those few vids at the request of Steve Kulls for Squatchdetective Radio which was on the Paranormal TV network at that time.

I have long since stopped making those vids as Squatchdetecive Radio is no longer on that network and I really have no interest of being in front of a camera anyway. If you looked at my site you may have noticed I also do not give interviews to reporters. I have no interest of being in the public eye. When the day arrives that I have the evidence I need, you'll see Steve in front of the cameras making the announcement to the World, not me. You may catch a glimpse of me in the background but that's the extent of exposure I'm willing to accept. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is no more true now then when you first made the assertion. Many, including myself, would be happy with clear and unambiguous photograph or video. This is never going to happen though.

The raw footage of the family group encounter is on my youtube channel, the full size image of the pic with the subject at 120 feet is on my web page.
There's also a blink animation pic on my site. Please feel free to download them if you can help clear anything up. Chris B.

 

[MikeG]

Chris, blurry, fuzzy, pixelated photos are useless to everyone. Get some decent equipment....a full format DSLR with some expensive lenses.... and go get some decent, clear, unambiguous photos, like there are of every single other mammal on the planet. Then, and only then, tell to us to go to your site to view them.

I've got some great photos of lions, leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs...whatever, you name it, from further away than that. 40 metres is nothing for decent kit. These aren't photos which require red circles around them. These are photos which absolutely everyone who sees them recognises the animal.......indeed, you can look at the hairs in the ears, or the blood on the lips, of some of them. Get a few photos of that sort of clarity, and you'll get people interested. Until then, you've got nothing.

 

[dmaker]

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.

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.

Right. But when their claim of "Yeah, that bigfoot thing, that sounds like what I saw!" is countered with real data and alternative explanations, how often do they reconsider and recant? I have never seen that happen here or at the BFF or on any bigfoot documentary. What I have always seen is what we see here with Chris and Northern Lights. They refuse any alternative explanations despite all the great information regarding the lack of bigfoots and the nature of human perception. THAT is where I feel the self-deception comes into play.

 

[Dinwar]

I have never seen that happen here or at the BFF or on any bigfoot documentary.

The obvious assumption in this statement is that hte majority of bigfoot believers frequent such places. I do not believe that to be the case; at the very least, no evidence has been presented to support this assumption. Therefore, we cannot base conclusions off of arguments built upon it.

 

[MikeG]

Right. But when their claim of "Yeah, that bigfoot thing, that sounds like what I saw!" is countered with real data and alternative explanations, how often do they reconsider and recant? I have never seen that happen here or at the BFF or on any bigfoot documentary.......

Well, you're just wrong on that. Jodie, for one, came here as a believer with a family history of sighting/s, and within a short time saw the error of her ways and converted to a sceptic.

 

[snoop_doxie]

The raw footage of the family group encounter is on my youtube channel, the full size image of the pic with the subject at 120 feet is on my web page.
There's also a blink animation pic on my site. Please feel free to download them if you can help clear anything up. Chris B.

Chris,

Would you please provide a link?

Thank you.

 

[dmaker]

I am sure you are correct MikeG, but it predates my time here.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Yes, Kodak digital 8.1 MP in 2010 was a pretty good camera.

I do agree the zoom camcorder I had at the time is not much more than a toy. In fact I gave them to my son after purchasing the Sony 1080 HD camcorder.

Two things about the need for an exact time issue. I don't wear a watch. My watch rises and sets every day and I don't have to carry it with me. I can tell within 15 minutes of the exact time of day at a glance and it's free.

The other thing is I've not claimed the title of "expert" for anything.

If you've watched the videos then you know the ending is that this such and such episode is for Squatch-D TV. I made those few vids at the request of Steve Kulls for Squatchdetective Radio which was on the Paranormal TV network at that time.

I have long since stopped making those vids as Squatchdetecive Radio is no longer on that network and I really have no interest of being in front of a camera anyway. If you looked at my site you may have noticed I also do not give interviews to reporters. I have no interest of being in the public eye. When the day arrives that I have the evidence I need, you'll see Steve in front of the cameras making the announcement to the World, not me. You may catch a glimpse of me in the background but that's the extent of exposure I'm willing to accept. Chris B.

Your Kodak camera might, to you, have seemed cutting edge but it wasn't.
Your Sony HD camera isn't either.

Fascinating how a serious researcher into a fairy tale monkey man doesn't understand his "gear".

Interesting how you've already planned who'll be on camera for the big reveal.

 

[Dinwar]

Your Kodak camera might, to you, have seemed cutting edge but it wasn't.
Your Sony HD camera isn't either.

You don't need a cutting-edge camera to take photos that count as scientific data. You need clear photos. How you get them is irrelevant. I've heard of scientists painting photosensitive material on all sorts of things to get photos (mostly in the past, but a few still do it because it's fun to take photos with logs! ). A pinhole camera built out fo an oatmeal carton is good enough, IF the picture is clear.

Two things about the need for an exact time issue. I don't wear a watch. My watch rises and sets every day and I don't have to carry it with me. I can tell within 15 minutes of the exact time of day at a glance and it's free.

That's a failure of basic field techniques. I don't wear a watch either (I like my limbs, thankyouverymuch!), but my phone has a clock on it. I also have a pocket watch for those times when my phone tries to not charge.

The other thing is I've not claimed the title of "expert" for anything.

No--you've merely insisted that multiple experts in relevant fields of study are wrong, based on data you refuse to provide, and you further insist on telling us what our jobs require. That is, de facto, claiming to be an expert.

The rest is a typical humblebrag.

 

[Correa Neto]

I am sure you are correct MikeG, but it predates my time here.

There's also Vortigern, who came here to defend Britain the PGF and soon was dragged in to the dark side. I think there are others too but I am not sure about how many holes they already had in their beliefs in bigfoot when they arrived.

Most footers, however, stick to their beliefs. They are not debaters but believers, evangelizers, hoaxers and trolls.

 

[Dinwar]

Most footers who come to this site, however, stick to their beliefs. They are not debaters but believers, evangelizers, hoaxers and trolls.

I have edited your statement to be more in line with the evidence. Alternatively, the highlighted text could be replaced with "...that I have encountered..." If you have data that allows us to extrapolate this to all who believe in bigfoot, I would certainly enjoy seeing it. I believe this is my third request for such data, and none has been provided thus far.

 

[ComfySlippers]

"I'm a serious researcher, out in the field, hunting imaginary creatures but I don't need a watch" /paraphrase.
Come on. That's just silly.

Whilst true that amazing images can occasionally be captured by children's toys it's more likely that someone researching magic monkey men would equip themselves somewhat better.

The bandying around of the term "HD" is very amusing.
They've absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Correa Neto]

You might as well ask for the fourth or fifth times; you may ask how times you wish. You are not going to get it and you know it; you know its anecdotal. Its based on what regular posters write.

I think can be extended, however, beyond JREF ISF to BFF and other (most nowadays probably now dead) bigfoot sites, especially because there are (were) people who post(ed) at more than one place. Again, anectodal data, stuff I saw years ago. It can be agreed, ignored, dumped, challenged, whatever.

 

[Dinwar]

You might as well ask for the fourth or fifth times; you may ask how times you wish. You are not going to get it and you know it; you know its anecdotal. Its based on what regular posters write.

The difference is, I'm not willing to abandon my training and education regarding evaluation of data simply becaues something gratifies some a priori conclusion of mine.

You just admitted that you don't know what the average bigfoot believer believes. You CAN'T know--you don't interact with them. You interact with the self-selected subset that comes to this forum, or a handful of forums. There is a huge difference. The self-selection process renders your sample biased in ways that make it non-representative of the whole--or at least, makes assuming it's representative an error.

The concept is simple: if you wish to discuss a whole population, you must at minimum have a sample that covers that whole population. If your sample is known to be biased, you cannot extrapolate to the whole sample. This is basic data evaluation, and you in particular should know better.

 

[bruto]

In the debate about whether gear is up to date or not one thing seems to be lost, and that is the unfortunate fact that even woefully obsolete, low-pixel point and shoot cameras, if used with a modicum of skill, can make clear and crisp pictures of a subject at the distances that are being spoken of. And that's not to mention good old fashioned film, which can capture a great deal at very low cost.

If Bigfoots did exist, and if the pictures taken did show them, then they are extraordinary beasts indeed, to have the ability to cloud not only minds but cameras.

 

[The Shrike]

My field camera is a Fuji Finepix S8100 with 18x optical zoom, ca. 2006 vintage. I manage perfectly diagnostic photos of 10g songbirds with that thing.

The problem with Chris' photos is not that his gear is no good, it's that there are no bigfoots in those photos.