Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[LTC8K6]

Nope, that's a Blue Springs Creek casting. Chris B.

I think that's what I said.

 

[Mudcat]

Also since he signed an NDA not to talk about the NDA he can't tell you about it but if we apply footie researcher logic we can see that the lack of admitting an NDA is the same thing as admitting an NDA so we know bigfoot is real because you can't sing an NDA with a non existent creature.


Q...E...D

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[dmaker]

Also since he signed an NDA not to talk about the NDA he can't tell you about it but if we apply footie researcher logic we can see that the lack of admitting an NDA is the same thing as admitting an NDA so we know bigfoot is real because you can't sing an NDA with a non existent creature.


Q...E...D

Excellent! You did a better job of proving bigfoot in one sentence than Bill Munns did in 500 pages.

 

[carlitos]

You could sing an NDA if you wanted to. Might be entertaining.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No matter how you start out, unless someone lays a new bipedal species at your feet, you should always conclude that it wasn't bigfoot.



How do you determine whether the person is telling the truth?

RayG

That's a good point Ray. An investigator should never assume it was Bigfoot. Everything else must be looked at for a possible explanation first.

That particular case I don't doubt the witness believed he saw something out of the ordinary. But the facts/evidence revealed it was more than likely a bear. So he wasn't intentionally lying, he was simply mistaken.

The only way to determine whether or not the witness has seen something out of the ordinary is by investigation. I don't think he would have gotten that here. He would have been labelled liar, hoaxer etc right out of the gate. The defense mechanism would have made any further questioning pointless.

Hi Chris - how would you define and differentiate the terms "Bigfoot research" and "Bigfootery"?



I know you didn't ask this question of me but I think the most obvious function of "Bigfoot = social construct" is that it simply brings joy and a sense of mystery to people (usually enthusiasts) in the same manner as ghosts and UFOs do to ghost- and UFO-researchers...

Bigfoot research is the study of Bigfoot, Bigfootery is the study of people within the Bigfoot community.

I do agree with you. Man needs mystery, and yet we have plenty to mystify us even without Bigfoot filling the construct role.

I think that's what I said.

If you mean they have the same foot shape structure as the alderfoot tracks you may be correct. I've not investigated the alderfoot tracks or trackway as they have little to do with my own findings. The pics you saw were some of the Blue Springs Creek trackway and of myself casting the best one of the bunch.

The video was for internal use by our group. The trackway is not for public release. But as now that you have already seen it, I will say we do occasionally get a hit regarding the collection of secondary evidence from time to time. Although we don't release it to the public as it would serve no useful purpose to the creatures being studied. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Also since he signed an NDA not to talk about the NDA he can't tell you about it but if we apply footie researcher logic we can see that the lack of admitting an NDA is the same thing as admitting an NDA so we know bigfoot is real because you can't sing an NDA with a non existent creature.


Q...E...D

Public release of secondary evidence serves no useful purpose for the creatures or my research. I realize you guys are hungry for evidence (not only you tsig) but not all is on the table. You can ridicule what I've already released and be content in the opinion of "knowing" it's not Bigfoot, If that's not good enough, why not go out and get your own, or wait for it to come out in it's own time. Pressing me is not gonna work as I'm unconcerned with those personal opinions other than my own.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

Pressing me is not gonna work as I'm pretend to be unconcerned with those personal opinions other than my own.
Chris B.

fixed that for ya!

Hey techie people, do Chris' photos have geo-tags?

Also, thanks for the advice; I'll try to map KY to find the areas that are more than 2 miles from roads.

 

[Mudcat]

But not all is on the table.

Okay... No wait, that's just wrong. Everything is on the table until it is eliminated, and if it isn't on the table than it's safe to assume it doesn't exist.

Sorry, but them's the breaks.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Okay... No wait, that's just wrong. Everything is on the table until it is eliminated, and if it isn't on the table than it's safe to assume it doesn't exist.

Sorry, but them's the breaks.

That's the problem, assumptions are never safe. I completely understand the reasoning in this post. If you assume as is the common practice here, that I am a liar and have nothing more than I have already released to the public, that's perfectly fine. No hard feelings. For the time being I will do my best to make sure everyone here is as safe as they can be in those assumptions.
Chris B.

 

[RayG]

Bigfoot research is the study of Bigfoot, Bigfootery is the study of people within the Bigfoot community.

Been following this mystery for over four decades and haven't yet heard of anyone studying a Bigfoot. Did I miss something?

Here's my take on those terms...

Bigfoot research = pretend science promoted by bigfoot enthusiasts whether it be in the field or from an armchair.

Bigfootery = the whole of bigfootdom. The knowers, the proponents, the crazies, the skeptics, the conmen and hucksters, etc. Not so sure there's ever been a 'study' of the different camps though.

RayG

 

[The Shrike]

. . . why not go out and get your own, . . .

That's the point, Chris. Scientists, explorers, trappers, foresters, hunters, settlers, native peoples - all have been out to get their own for centuries without success. (That's without success in North America, Asia, Australia - name a "bigfoot"-type creature and the good people of the world ain't found it.) Therefore, if YOU have found bigfoot and managed to obtain some nifty HD footage, it's because you're somehow specially gifted to find those boogers. The world needs you, Chris.

 

[carlitos]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist - "Cervelo" joined the forum last month, went hiking with Chris B, and had nice things to say about him. Even complimenting his skepticism. Given what you experts know about bigfootery, does this raise any alarm bells?

 

[Correa Neto]

You know what? I'm done with this. People on this forum are all-too-obviously taking dogmatic stances on both sides. When one has to plead with scientists--scientists--to use proper data evaluation, and gets blasted for straw-man attacks when everyone can go back and find examples quoted in my posts of what I'm talking about, it's clear that reason has left the building. When one is accused of "jumping the shark" for having the gaul to say that the other side believes what it says, it's simply too ridiculous, irrational, and moronic a discussion to participate in.

Hmm. So, this means you will not provide evidence to back your claims at post 2014, right?

That's a very scientific and not dogmatic attitude.

Bye.

 

[comncents]

I've seen Cervelo posting on BFF for a long time, don't think there is any conspiracy afoot.

 

[Correa Neto]

I see what you did there.

And I was ninja'ed.

 

[Cervelo]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist - "Cervelo" joined the forum last month, went hiking with Chris B, and had nice things to say about him. Even complimenting his skepticism. Given what you experts know about bigfootery, does this raise any alarm bells?

Nah....I've "Cerved" Chris many times on BFF and a little bit here.
If you look at my post...I basically challenged him to "show me" and he called my bluff!
Which quite frankly shocked me and I was in a position to visit with him and spend time snooping around Mammoth Cave NP...which is awesome by the way.
Camped out last nite on an island (Lucky Island) got to see the most incredible congregation of multiple turkey flocks I've even seen and heard spooky noises at night yelling, screaming all the good stuff.... deer hunting camp not to far from where I was on the edge of the park LOL!
And managed to bust my "you know what" after doing a little climbing/cave exploring so tonite I'm "hotel camping" it's raining anyways.

But no this is not some bizarre set-up for who knows what reason!?!
I believe Chris believes what he has experienced is Bigfoot.
Other than no sighting or discovered footprints I could tell numerous stories myself that would be Bigfoot experiences certifiable by the BFF faithful(see above) that was Bigfoot yelling at the hunters!!!
Could Chris be flat out lying....maybe....but I can tell you after an adult lifetime of being in sales I've gotten pretty good at spotting a fib and that's not my opnion in this case.
Could Chris have had an experience that was profound and then fallen down the bigfoot rabbit hole...maybe.
But his willingness to meet with me and his ability to look at things from a skeptical veiwpoint is not what I expected, so conpliment him I have, we don't agree but we can still explore together and have a great time doing whatever one wants to call it camping, hiking, fishing, bigfoot research whatever!
It just so happens I love visiting new areas and being outdoors so you could say Cerv were going snipe hunting tonite.... I'm in!!

 

[Night Walker]

I'm a pretty creative guy and I like nature just fine the way it is when I'm out in it. You can make up some pretty awesome challenges just by experiencing the reality of it: winter camping where just staying warm is a job; wilderness kayaking where just staying on the right side of the water is a chore; free-climbing; orienteering (with a compass); fly-fishing; bowhunting; surfing . . . none of which requires a non-existent 9-ft, 600-lb ape.

Those are great hobbies! But people can do any or all of those things whilst simultaneously engaging in a bit of make-believe - climbing Mt Everest, breaking a World Record, searching for treasure, or whatever. Such imaginings aren't required - they are an added bonus for those of us who like to dream...

Sure - you could still get an imaginative experience sitting on the back of a pickup (or in front of your computer screen, for that matter) but it takes on greater meaning and personal significance if it is shared with others from within a dark forest where [..insert monster of choice here..] is rumoured to roam...

I will disagree with you on the "even better" remark too. It's better when it's real and honest. (as with most things in life, not just bigfoot!)

That's lovely if you can only see in black and white. But look outside - the world is full of colour...

Bigfoot research is the study of Bigfoot, Bigfootery is the study of people within the Bigfoot community.

Here's my take on those terms...

Bigfoot research = pretend science promoted by bigfoot enthusiasts whether it be in the field or from an armchair.

Bigfootery = the whole of bigfootdom. The knowers, the proponents, the crazies, the skeptics, the conmen and hucksters, etc. Not so sure there's ever been a 'study' of the different camps though.

I think Ray's definitions is closer to the mark here. Given that there is no evidence for the existence of Bigfoot that meets any sort of standard objective criteria, all that anyone has are stories and subjective appraisals of (at best) ambiguous data. Without the people to provide the stories and subjectivity there is no Bigfoot.

Bigfoot, then, would seem to be a human phenomenon rather than a biological one - inextricably linked with the people who believe and claim to experience it. Exactly how it is so remains unclear - unfortunately, it is such a fringe subject and a fairly recent one (in comparison to ghosts and UFOs) that the Bigfoot phenomenon remains largely unstudied. On the plus side, however - Bigfoot is very interesting to both proponents and skeptics so if there is any way to bridge this divide then we just might be able to adequately explain it ourselves.

I appreciate your involvement here, Chris and it would be great to see more proponent-skeptic co-operation (after all, we're all Bigfoot-enthusiasts) - try not to let the cynicism wear you down. Do you have any Yowie-contacts in Australia?

I do agree with you. Man needs mystery, and yet we have plenty to mystify us even without Bigfoot filling the construct role..

There is no dictator or committee to state when the world has had enough mystery and even if there were it wouldn't stop people from creating more (it would merely force it underground). It's just what people do, what we are largely hard-wired to do - seeking and often finding patterns in ambiguity even when there is none, always seeking more...

If Bigfoot doesn't exist (and, again, there is no evidence that it does) then someone would invent it - sure enough that is exactly what happened in 1958 (hot on the heals of the sensation of the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas) when Jerry Crew appeared in the Humboldt Times with the cast of a big foot. From there the idea of "researching" Bigfoot grew slowly in fits and starts (usually around prominent instances of hoaxing) until finally snowballing into what it is now via the new medium of the internet. Just because there is no evidence that Bigfoot exists doesn't make it all any less interesting...

Don't believe that a human-fabricated creation can get a life of its own? Slenderman would disagree. Slenderman is as "real" to those that immerse themselves in the belief as Bigfoot is (or ghosts, UFOs, etc). Slenderman has more relevance to understanding Bigfoot than, say, the coelacanth...

 

[Correa Neto]

Slenderman is a good analogy and sure it has its limits, as all analogies.

Think about it- how many people actually believe in Slenderman? Its live action role playing - SLAARG. People build, create sightings and signs. Is it possible someone actually believe he's real? Well, yes, its possible. My SWAG is very few people. A few, impressed by the tale, may even "see" Slenderman or attribute an old expericence to Slenderman. So, yes, its possible to build a group of believers.

Its recent? Yes, but its not hard to twist older tales and myths turning tem in to Slenderman. So, its possible to "validate" it with older material. I bet maybe you can even find Slenderman at the Bible.

Oh, its the 21^th Century, we can track back to its actual source as a prank/hoax/social experiment. Yes, but one could say the creators based it on reality or made a lucky hit.

So, the similarities with bigfootery are clear.

Mid-XX century a guy made a prank faking some giant footprints around a worker's camp. Some believed or pretended to believe. Some years later, a smart hoaxer figured out how to make money out of those who believed in the mysterious giant and created the giant ape myth by borrowing several elements from the Yeti tale.

 

[Resume]

Those are great hobbies! But people can do any or all of those things whilst simultaneously engaging in a bit of make-believe - climbing Mt Everest, breaking a World Record, searching for treasure, or whatever. Such imaginings aren't required - they are an added bonus for those of us who like to dream...

I think engaging reality while engaging nature is a much wiser path. An imagined handhold while rock-climbing wouldn't make for good results nor would overestimating one's kayaking ability while attempting a class IV rapids.

There's no question that imagining something that isn't there is imprudent (to say the least) when bowhunting, and while anglers today often practice catch and release, it's still considered bad form to just make up any result you like.

Dreams are fine for sleeping; goals are good for your waking hours.

 

[William Parcher]

I think Ray's definitions is closer to the mark here. Given that there is no evidence for the existence of Bigfoot that meets any sort of standard objective criteria, all that anyone has are stories and subjective appraisals of (at best) ambiguous data. Without the people to provide the stories and subjectivity there is no Bigfoot.

Many Bigfoot liars may be doing it primarily to keep the hobby/myth alive as a form of American tradition. Somebody has to do it or the pastime will fade away from a lack of sighting reports. It may be a form of patriotism or national pride to create a Bigfoot hoax.

Bigfoot, then, would seem to be a human phenomenon rather than a biological one - inextricably linked with the people who believe and claim to experience it. Exactly how it is so remains unclear - unfortunately, it is such a fringe subject and a fairly recent one (in comparison to ghosts and UFOs) that the Bigfoot phenomenon remains largely unstudied. On the plus side, however - Bigfoot is very interesting to both proponents and skeptics so if there is any way to bridge this divide then we just might be able to adequately explain it ourselves.

It's interesting to me to think that it may be "unstudiable". The ridiculous part is that the hundreds or thousands of liars and hoaxers will not confess and explain their motivations. These are not people who mistakenly saw a bear and are convinced that they saw a Bigfoot. These are people who make the whole thing up. You can't get them to explain to you why they did that.

Are you proposing that Bigfootery be studied as a psychology in academia? How would they do that? Get volunteer Bigfooters to tell them about their lying? Or would it be any better than we do here in this forum? Would a clinician in a university know that Northern Lights said he saw a corn pile that was both taller than 6 feet and shorter than 6 feet? Would it matter to them and if it did matter how would they find out? How would the "study" even determine if there was a corn pile at all?

it would be great to see more proponent-skeptic co-operation (after all, we're all Bigfoot-enthusiasts)

Why?

It's just what people do, what we are largely hard-wired to do - seeking and often finding patterns in ambiguity even when there is none, always seeking more...

But what good is a pattern in ambiguity that you made up yourself and you know that you did it? There is a contradiction between seeking mystery and drama in nature and then instead fabricating mystery and running after it as if it's the real thing. Does the person who is on his hands and knees creating a fake footprint feel a sense of awe and the vast mystery of the wilderness at that moment?

And why won't any of them come out and tell us about it? Where are the confessions? Doesn't anybody ever call the BFRO or John Green and say that the Bigfoot encounter that they submitted in 1989 was totally made up by them and that they should now remove it from the database?

Bigfootery doesn't just show you what's underneath its skirt - you have to look under there. A professional "study" of Bigfootery might not be as successful as what goes on daily here at ISF/JREF.