Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[dmaker]

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...



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




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?



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...

It's all fine to enjoy a bit of make believe from time to time. The problem is when the line between fact and fantasy disappears. Or when promotion of the fantasy turns to fraud, pseudoscience and a rejection of critical thinking. Then it becomes harmful.

 

[Drewbot]

Can anyone download this? I want to read it.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105181645623

 

[carlitos]

Read Online (Beta) Free
Read this item online for free by registering for a MyJSTOR account.

REGISTER
Already have an account? Log in
close
How does it work?

1 Register for a MyJSTOR account

2 Add up to 3 free items to your shelf

3 Items added to your shelf can be removed after 14 days.

I haven't done it, but it sounds simple enough. My e-book thingie can read these online tomes.

 

[Resume]

Can anyone download this? I want to read it.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105181645623

Here's a link to a PDF.
http://www.ravenndragon.net/montgomery/milliganbigfoot.pdf

 

[dmaker]

Can anyone download this? I want to read it.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105181645623

Reading it now. Sign up process was very easy.

 

[Drewbot]

An excerpt

While the group argued for the existence of Bigfoot with memorates,
photographs, and hair samples to outsiders like myself, I observed
evidence of a more subtle, secondary debate over the nature of
Bigfoot inside the group. In one instance, network members went so
far as to debunk the claim of a fellow member. One of my informants
told me that a woman who shares the group's interest in Bigfoot set
up a feeding station in her backyard. According to a Dayton, Ohio,
newspaper, the woman says she feeds dog food and deer meat to a
group of Bigfeet that frequent the station (Balz 1985). John and
Vicki, officers of a UFO group in a small, Central Ohio city, debunked
her story. The context was a caution to me to be skeptical of people
who claim multiple sightings of unusual phenomena:

John: ... It's like the little boy who cried wolf. After a while you can't
believe anything they say. Uh, there's a lady that we've had some brief
contact with, uh, through TEROCO. She firmly believes that she has
Bigfoot in her backyard.

Vicki: She has feeding stations, and she has Bigfoot "ka ka" [feces] in
little zip lock bags that she has stored in her freezer next to her hamburger.
So that if you want to analyze it ...

Linda: Well, has it been analyzed?

John: Yes, well, I didn't have to analyze it. I know what it is. I've seen it
before because I was raised in the country. It's raccoon "ka ka." [laughter]
But she has all these little zip lock bags. And she's preserving this
raccoon "ka ka" for, forever.

Vicki:A nd she firmly believes though, that she has had Bigfoot coming
to her house to this feeding station that she has set up for somewhat,
fifteen years.

John: But they've never taken a picture of it. Now if Bigfoot is coming
there, and they sit up night after night after night waiting for Bigfoot
to come, it's kinda like kids who used to wait up for Santa. You'd wait
there for Santa Claus, and you always fall asleep. Santa Claus always
eats the damn cookies and drinks that milk. [laughterA] nd you never
know what happens to him, but you know he had that cookies and milk
cause it's gone.

 

[Resume]

From the ending paragraph:

The "truth" about the Bigfoot legend reveals little about Bigfoot
but considerably more about the legend process. Published theories
can ignite debate, but speculative debate is not sufficient by itself to
dramatically alter a legend. The traditional belief that Bigfoot is a
terrestrial animal resists being invalidated. It would take a large number
of compelling memorates to do so. Since there are none reported
in Central Ohio linking Bigfoot to UFOs, one could argue either that
people who provide accounts simply are not experiencing a Bigfoot/
UFO connection, or that people's interpretations of their experience
are so tradition bound that they cannot perceive a link even if it exists.
In either case, without a large number of memorates linking Bigfoot
and UFOs, the traditional belief that Bigfoot is an elusive, terrestrial
animal is likely to win the debate; and the belief in a Bigfoot/UFO
connection will eventually fade before ever having become a legend.

Which sort of validates Parcher's assertion:

A professional "study" of Bigfootery might not be as successful as what goes on daily here at ISF/JREF.

 

[River]

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...



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




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?



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...

@Night Walker: I'm quite familiar with the outdoors, and with the dangers of looking at the world through rose colored glasses. (as many footers seem to do!) Playing pretend in nature can be quite unforgiving. Imagine someone playing pretend whitewater and tubing down something like this. (and yes, I took that photo myself - I probably spend a lot more time in the woods than most footers do) Playing pretend in nature is not always a good idea Night Walker. In fact most times, it will just lead to trouble.

I am not color blind, and I understand the entertainment industry well as I've worked in it for many years (practically my whole life) and still currently do. During that time I've been very lucky to work with some really great artists. I own and operate an independent record label and I produce artists and perform/write myself as well. (note I am providing proof of my claims, unlike footers) I do not have a problem with monster shows, or vampire shows or any of that. My problem is with telling people these things are real. (not just on the level of folks like Chris, but others in academia positions like Meldrum) This results in people going into the woods looking to hunt/shoot something that walks upright like a human. How long until someone gets shot under this premise? If you put enough people out in the woods looking for a humanoid figure to shoot, it's bound to happen at some point.

What do you think of folks that think vampires or werewolves are a real entity? Do you think they are sane?

Also, theres the educational part. Teach your kids the truth about the woods and animals out there. There are plenty of REALLY COOL animals out there without having to make up pretend ones.

I think the issue is, it is much harder to seek out real animals that are cool, then it is to lie about pretend ones. From the look of most footers it appears as if they rarely move out of a chair, much less actually ford through forests often. How many footers fit this category? (how many rubes? how many pros?) The difference is, people use this to con money from others. They use it to commit academic fraud. They try to insert this as a real entity into the minds of our youth. You talk about black and white as if there is no gray. Explain the gray, show people what the gray is. Do not misrepresent it. When you start lying/conning people, I have a problem with it.

Whats wrong with the truth? Not exciting enough for you? I'd suggest you're not seeking out the cool real things in nature. (likely because you're either lazy, or not capable of it) Bigfoot is a con. Just like psychics, just like ghosts, and all other woo. It is not healthy to promote lies, on any accounts. So, the color I see and the colors you see may vary due to the perception of the pilot. (har har) Try being real, and honest. You might have a better time and find more quality people than a lot of liars/cons/thieves or dupes.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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!!

I was just made aware of a fairly recent sighting in the local area, on 10-14-2014.
It will be in the vicinity for a put in somewhere around the NW side of Mammoth Cave park if you plan further kayaking on the river.

link: http://www.kentuckybigfoot.com/reports.htm

This one is from Edmonson county without an exact location given, so I would start at the vicinity of Boardcut Island and go further downstream a few miles keeping in mind the features we have discussed.

Hope your river camping trip wasn't too uncomfortable! Spring may be the best option. Chris B.

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...



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




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?



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...

There are some great points made in your post. I would argue though that "slenderman" would not be in the same class of constructs as Bigfoot. There has been no other "social construct" to leave physical signs of passing. Bigfoot on the other hand , does. The first thing I look for in a sighting area is foot prints, a certain type and size of foot print to be exact.

Of course the argument then becomes, "oh you are being duped by someone with stompers" such as the Ray Wallace antics. The only problem with that line of thinking is that not everyone views tracks without skepticism, as has been the mistake in the past. There are and have been some that wish to believe in the unknown to the point of gullibility. They mistakenly, concentrate on the wonder rather than breaking it down to see if their wonder is justified.

I submit there are those in the field without this sense of wonder when viewing a possible trackway. Those are the individuals more concerned with toe splay, push off, kick, flexibility, location, length of trackway, etc.

Bolded section: I welcome and encourage mutual cooperation. It just makes more sense to me. Although I'm greeted here with much hostility by many, I think you'll find it's due largely to my position of course. Some are offended by the suggestion "If you think you already know everything there is to know, you may be mistaken." I'll be here to remind them of that.

I'm sorry but I don't have any contacts down under. Steve Kulls may know someone, I'll ask him and let you know if he does. Chris B.

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

Ray, you're trying to group the two together as the same, they're not. I would suggest that it's common to do so though. Since most skeptics view Bigfoot rather as something of the mind, it makes sense why they would want to study the people rather than the creature or evidence of it. Chris B.

 

[MikeG]

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?

Assuming it is the same Cervelo from the BFF, then no, there is nothing to your suggestion, nothing to worry about, and no conspiracy.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm sure Chris is a nice guy to go hiking with. Just don't get ~51 feet away from him in the thicker woods, because he's packin' large and he thinks blobs in the woods are bigfoot. If you start walking towards him, he's liable to pop a cap in you.

Keep talking when you are around Chris in Bigfoot County, KY.

Chris is never going to see bigfoot.

Chris is always going to maintain that he sees/has seen bigfoot.

Chris will never be able to produce any useful evidence of the bigfoot that he sees.

Chris is doomed to seeing something no one else, including himself, can actually find.

He is doomed to cry wolf forever, without the ending to the story.

 

[bruto]

I'm sure Chris is a nice guy to go hiking with. Just don't get ~51 feet away from him in the thicker woods, because he's packin' large and he thinks blobs in the woods are bigfoot. If you start walking towards him, he's liable to pop a cap in you.

Keep talking when you are around Chris in Bigfoot County, KY.

Chris is never going to see bigfoot.

Chris is always going to maintain that he sees/has seen bigfoot.

Chris will never be able to produce any useful evidence of the bigfoot that he sees.

Chris is doomed to seeing something no one else, including himself, can actually find.

He is doomed to cry wolf forever, without the ending to the story.

I'm inclined to agree with much of what you say, but in fairness one ought to note that as far as we know Chris has never popped a cap in anything, including what he was convinced were bigfeet. He's more likely to shoot you with the camera, but aside from becoming famous as a blob in a future video I doubt you're in danger.

 

[carlitos]

I was just made aware of a fairly recent sighting in the local area, on 10-14-2014.

A sighting of what?

The first thing I look for in a sighting area is foot prints, a certain type and size of foot print to be exact.

You are pretending to believe in a silly thing. A silly thing with a certain type and size of footprint. Hilarious.

Since most skeptics view Bigfoot rather as something of the mind, it makes sense why they would want to study the people rather than the creature or evidence of it. Chris B.

Yes. Since the only evidence for "bigfoot" is people, then it makes sense to study the people. Liars are known, and there is evidence for them. Self-deluded people are known, and there is evidence for them. Bigfoot, not so much.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm inclined to agree with much of what you say, but in fairness one ought to note that as far as we know Chris has never popped a cap in anything, including what he was convinced were bigfeet. He's more likely to shoot you with the camera, but aside from becoming famous as a blob in a future video I doubt you're in danger.

The blobs didn't move towards him, as far as we know.

And I doubt Chris carries anyway, except for videos and visitors.

An actual 1,000 pound 10 foot tall gorilla would take more than a big caliber revolver, anyway. It would take a big bore rifle or 10/12ga shotgun with slugs.
That gorilla will close on you from 50 feet in ~two seconds. One or two shots is all you are going to get.

He thinks it's safe enough to have his family in the presence of these wild creatures, so he can't be too worried about them.

 

[carlitos]

Well, the "creatures" don't exist, so there's that.

 

[Resume]

Well, the "creatures" don't exist, so there's that.

You'd think this problem would be well nigh insurmountable but most proponents hardly seem to give it a second thought. They seem to acknowledge this problem, nod, then go on and talk about the bigfoot in the backyard.

 

[tsig]

You'd think this problem would be well nigh insurmountable but most proponents hardly seem to give it a second thought. They seem to acknowledge this problem, nod, then go on and talk about the bigfoot in the backyard.

Non existence is a non problem for non thinkers.

 

[dmaker]

There are some great points made in your post. I would argue though that "slenderman" would not be in the same class of constructs as Bigfoot. There has been no other "social construct" to leave physical signs of passing. Bigfoot on the other hand , does. The first thing I look for in a sighting area is foot prints, a certain type and size of foot print to be exact.

Nope, no it doesn't.

 

[Resume]

Nope, no it doesn't.

If footie left biological signs of its passing, we'd be having quite the different conversation. But the conversation is still "where's footie?"

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

If footie left biological signs of its passing, we'd be having quite the different conversation. But the conversation is still "where's footie?"

That's correct. After the first biological sample for a type subject is recovered the conversation will change drastically for all science.

The question of "where's footie" will be no different though.

Nope, no it doesn't.

Certainly it does. A trackway, an unknown scream, an odor, a resting/sleeping nest, all perfectly acceptable sign of something living and biological evidenced.

The blobs didn't move towards him, as far as we know.

And I doubt Chris carries anyway, except for videos and visitors.

An actual 1,000 pound 10 foot tall gorilla would take more than a big caliber revolver, anyway. It would take a big bore rifle or 10/12ga shotgun with slugs.
That gorilla will close on you from 50 feet in ~two seconds. One or two shots is all you are going to get.

He thinks it's safe enough to have his family in the presence of these wild creatures, so he can't be too worried about them.

I can and do carry openly anytime I'm out in nature. Since any caliber from .44 magnum and above can crack a cast iron engine block, I don't feel it would be any problem to penetrate skull, bone or muscle tissue. I usually carry 2 sidearms and a box of cartridges for each.

From a distance of 25 feet or less, I can put a bullet anywhere I choose with a sidearm. Whether the target is stationary or moving at me rapidly makes no difference. This doesn't take any higher education to accomplish though, it's attained the exact same way you get to Carnegie Hall, practice, practice, practice.

Bolded portion: The bolded portion of your post is clearly a lie. I never take my family with me into an area previously known to have had sightings or during my research outings. Although I don't think the creatures would intentionally harm anyone unless provoked, I do not risk the safety of my family regardless, to suggest I do is highly distasteful and a lie.

I do take my family on nature outings from time to time but never to any of my research areas or anywhere sightings have been reported. This being KY, there was one occasion our family outing was interrupted by a sighting. They've never been back to that area, though I have, and do research there now as well. It's an error to assume you know what someone else "thinks". If you wish to try and paint me as a bigger SOB than I already am painted here, let's stick to the facts please and not falsely accuse me of endangering my loved ones.
Chris B.