Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Tolls]

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

<snip>

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

Well, there you go.
If you have a nest then you have a wealth of biological data you can access.

So...

 

[Correa Neto]

I think the discussions on Chris' alleged bigfoot sightings should be split to another thread.

Call me dogmatic, radical, unscientific, close-minded denialist, rude, jerk, whatever, but I'll say it anyway.

From where I stand, what the whole thing quite appears to be right now at this thread is nothing but attention-seeking. A thread was hijacked and became a discussion about a posters' alleged multiple bigfoot experiences. This is not the first time such thing happens. My sightings, my gear, my expeditions, my ego...

 

[captain koolaid]

I tried it, personally because I wanted to know myself if the engine block busting 44 claim was true. It was and is. Mine knocked a hole thru a small block Chevy bare block.

A good friend of mine enjoyed bear hunting in New Mexico. He used a large caliber rifle but always carried a 44 mag on his side. It was his assertion anything smaller could bounce off a bear's skull.

I like guns too. The most ridiculous one I have is a 50 BMG rifle that I've owned for 2 years. I have yet to fire it. Since it weighs 38 lbs, I'm not physically able to carry it in the field anyway. Chris B.

I dunno, dude. The 44's a lot of pistol, but, it's still only a pistol. Like LTC says... one shot is probably gonna be the outcome. For a charging Bigfoot, I think you're gonna need an AK, at least. Faced with an enraged woodape with a taste for human blood is gonna require large calibre rock n roll action. Something belt fed would be my choice. But a 30 round mag might put sassy down if you're not an M60 guy. I don't like your chances with a pistol against the boss of the woods, Chris. Bigfoot's gonna be on your throat like white on rice.

 

[Resume]

I dunno, dude. The 44's a lot of pistol, but, it's still only a pistol. Like LTC says... one shot is probably gonna be the outcome. For a charging Bigfoot, I think you're gonna need an AK, at least. Faced with an enraged woodape with a taste for human blood is gonna require large calibre rock n roll action. Something belt fed would be my choice. But a 30 round mag might put sassy down if you're not an M60 guy. I don't like your chances with a pistol against the boss of the woods, Chris. Bigfoot's gonna be on your throat like white on rice.

A .44 Griz Tickler isn't gonna do much work on ole foo. You're gonna need a Bushmaster or such on full rock-n-roll.

Wow, I sorta like making footie **** up.

 

[Resume]

The thing is, the investigation. True, it's not in the scientific record to have a large hairy primate running around NA. <lame-ass apologetic snip>

Thing is, there's no footie anywhere, so certainly not in the scientific record. Your story is exactly the same as any other bigfoot campfire story with the exact same amount of corroborating biological evidence: None.

And stop with the footprints: any impression in the mud/sand/snow given sufficient weathering (plus pareidolia and confirmation bias) can magically become a footie print.

17 inch+ prints with detail = Shaq running around barefooted, or hoax.

BTW: A group of giant monkeys are gonna lay down an impressive game trail, not a few dozen tracks that lead to nowhere. Though I'll admit, all bigfoot trackways lead to nowhere.

 

[Cervelo]

No cryptoids sighted here in Mammoth Cave NP...if it wasn't for the awesome caves here they could rename it Turkey/Giant Deer NP I've seen at least 100 turkey in my time here and some very large deer.
Highly recommend this NP if you have kids they would love the cave tours, cool history and outside the park there are some wonderfully goofy looking things to do off the road to Cave city... rock vendors, putt putt, dino park, ect.....off to spoil NARWACys party will give you guys a report from there!

 

[dmaker]

You should make a documentary of your Not Finding Bigfoot travels, Cerv. It would be excellent parody.

 

[Resume]

Well, there you go.
If you have a nest then you have a wealth of biological data you can access.

So...

This nest/midden nonsense screws proponents every time. There would be all manner of biological evidence available. Yet . . . more excuses. If there is any consistency to bigfoot data, it's the endless supply of excuses for failure to collect any scientific/biological/objective support for their hypothesis.

You'd think the animal didn't exist.

 

[mustbeso]

I'm sure an imaginary pistol is sufficient to slay an imaginary beast and much safer for the rest of the population. I was not sure of Chris's motives until the "packin heat" stuff began but I now think he is firmly in the BLARRGING area. It's hard to imagine what goes on during the meetings of these organized bigfoot groups but it almost has to be the same old thing month after month. Chris has stated that his last personal sighting was 4 years ago. How do you sustain an interest in something with such limited feedback without resorting to a Dungeons and Dragons type thing? Sitting around telling your buddies about your new FLIR or HD camera or,indeed, your new .44 magnum is really all there is. It is like watching the tv show Finding Bigfoot which has exactly the same results as any bigfoot group on earth in the 4 or 5 years it has been on. Art imitating life.

 

[The Shrike]

Paraphrasing, obviously. The contradictions flow like contaminated runoff from an eastern Kentucky mine.


"Bigfoot only occurs in very special places."

"It takes a keen understanding of bigfooty habits to identify these places using the latest in bigfoot theory."

"I would never take my family to one of those bigfooty places."

"That time there was a bigfoot standing behind my family while I took their picture? That was an accident - I didn't realize that it was also a bigfooty place."

 

[carlitos]

"I've been analyzing an 'HD' video of 'bigfoot' for 5 years, but I'm not going to share it here because I'm not interested in being the man who unravels a 50-year-old myth, proving that a new primate exists in North America. "

"I'm going to look for bigfoot 3 or 4 times per week until January, but I'm not interested in proving that he exists."

"I totally have a video of bigfoot, but I can't share it here because I'm unable to blur my family's faces or ask a random 12-year-old how to Photoshop."

LOL.

 

[Belz...]

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

This rhetoric has been used for a hundred years. And yet despite human population in pretty much every corner of the world where this creature could be found, and modern technology, not a single reliable piece of evidence has been shown demonstrating at least the possibility of their existence.

There is a point at which a hypothesis must be abandoned in favour of reality.

 

[Belz...]

If I don't "folks can draw their own conclusions"..... again no motive for me to share any of my work with you.

Actually, I should think that it would be a strong motive. Claiming to have something without evidence is bound to be interpreted by others as not having that thing, especially in scientific fields. On the other hand, by showing that work, it allows others to correct, inform or confirm your conclusions.

Is that not good ?

But faced with a situation of finding those large unexplained footprints while investigating a sighting report, or a sighting of your own, one has to make some sort of conclusion based on the evidence at hand.

Are you saying that these tracks cannot be explained with what we already scientifically know ?

Same reason as you I suppose, to discuss the topic at hand. You have any Bigfoot evidence to present for discussion?

This is not a one-sided forum where only the pro side of the issue is discussed. This is a forum where these sorts of claims are challenged.

I had multiple encounters in 2010 and continue to research those areas and others.

What would you qualify as an "encounter" ?

 

[The Shrike]

What would you qualify as an "encounter" ?

Evidently, any vaguely gorilla-shaped shadow through some branches will do.

 

[LTC8K6]

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

A footers lot in life.

Fortunately for Chris, he doesn't yet seem to be consumed with bigfoot like we have seen before.

But if he keeps going, we may soon hear of him riding through the woods at night, looking for bigfoot out of his truck window, spotlight and rifle ready...

I hope he doesn't sound like Dahinden in 10 years...wasted life, ruined marriage, disillusioned...

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This nest/midden nonsense screws proponents every time. There would be all manner of biological evidence available. Yet . . . more excuses. If there is any consistency to bigfoot data, it's the endless supply of excuses for failure to collect any scientific/biological/objective support for their hypothesis.

You'd think the animal didn't exist.

Unless old footie died in it, there wouldn't be any biological evidence for a type specimen. Nothing but a body or part would seem to qualify

Thing is, there's no footie anywhere, so certainly not in the scientific record. Your story is exactly the same as any other bigfoot campfire story with the exact same amount of corroborating biological evidence: None.

And stop with the footprints: any impression in the mud/sand/snow given sufficient weathering (plus pareidolia and confirmation bias) can magically become a footie print.

17 inch+ prints with detail = Shaq running around barefooted, or hoax.

BTW: A group of giant monkeys are gonna lay down an impressive game trail, not a few dozen tracks that lead to nowhere. Though I'll admit, all bigfoot trackways lead to nowhere.

Stop with the footprints? Why on Earth would someone do so? Because they should be discounted as Shaq or some other large human made them? Some may be hoaxed of course yet others reveal to be from a natural living something. Throwing all trackways and tracks out the window would not serve to answer questions about what made them.

To not consider all the evidence available would be akin to an easy dismissal without investigation. That's not allowed.

If witness "A" states he saw a large apelike something walk past a tree. You can simply say "you may be mistaken or seeing things" , but if you investigate the area and find large footprints where the witness claimed to have seen the apelike something walking, that's something different. Now, you have to explain the prints as well because hallucinations don't leave prints. So only by investigation of all the evidence available can you reach a valid conclusion.

Well, there you go.
If you have a nest then you have a wealth of biological data you can access.

So...

As above, only if the creature died in it. Anything else found will be quickly dismissed.

Paraphrasing, obviously. The contradictions flow like contaminated runoff from an eastern Kentucky mine.


"Bigfoot only occurs in very special places."

"It takes a keen understanding of bigfooty habits to identify these places using the latest in bigfoot theory."

"I would never take my family to one of those bigfooty places."

"That time there was a bigfoot standing behind my family while I took their picture? That was an accident - I didn't realize that it was also a bigfooty place."

You'll stand a better chance at a sighting in a "hot" area than in an area where nothing out of the ordinary has been previously reported.

Actually, I should think that it would be a strong motive. Claiming to have something without evidence is bound to be interpreted by others as not having that thing, especially in scientific fields. On the other hand, by showing that work, it allows others to correct, inform or confirm your conclusions.

Is that not good ?



Are you saying that these tracks cannot be explained with what we already scientifically know ?



This is not a one-sided forum where only the pro side of the issue is discussed. This is a forum where these sorts of claims are challenged.



What would you qualify as an "encounter" ?

Sharing my findings done over the last few years here will not benefit the creatures or my research in any way.

Yes, I'm saying Bigfoot tracks cannot be explained by comparison with everything known to science at this point in time. They're different from everything else.

Of course claims are challenged here, however I don't recall ever saying I was here to bring forth evidence of Bigfoot for proof of existence. I have shared some pics and video in the past and that's all I'm willing to part with until I have a body or part. Rest easy knowing I do not have anything that would prove the existence of Bigfoot for science. When I do, it will be available for all to see.

Personally, I define my encounters as a sighting of something physical. A condition in which the large hairy thing is in view of the person viewing it.
To me, this is a confirmed encounter. Other behaviors may be experienced as well but the defining characteristic is the actual visual sighting.

Other encounters include sounds, or proposed behaviors experienced (rock throwing etc) but I feel without a physical sighting it leaves the experience open to other explanations, many may not be Bigfoot. So to my way of thinking these would be unconfirmed encounters.
Chris B.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not even one hair, with or without a follicle, from bigfoot?

Not from a nest, or from a trail through the woods, or from a stick structure, or from a bent tree?

Not one from anywhere?

Ever?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not even one hair, with or without a follicle, from bigfoot?

Not from a nest, or from a trail through the woods, or from a stick structure, or from a bent tree?

Not one from anywhere?

Ever?

If you have a hair, what do you compare it to? If you have DNA, what do you compare it to? Chris B.

 

[The Shrike]

If you have a hair, what do you compare it to? If you have DNA, what do you compare it to? Chris B.

You compare it to the DNA of other primates, plus some outlier like a bear or a potato or something. If bigfoot is unique then its DNA is unique and yes, its hair follicles could prove its existence.

This hackneyed statement from you is just another contradiction, Chris. You claim to be an active researcher into this phenomenon trying to obtain physical evidence of bigfoot yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of what could be done with such evidence. The "what do we compare it to" argument holds about as much water as a guitar string. You know this, though.

 

[LTC8K6]

As I've posted before...

Bigfoot never drowns or has an accident or plays, etc.

Bigfoot never does anything but walk straight from nowhere to nowhere.

He never does anything like stand around and contemplate the view, or kick pine cones, or skip and hop, or dance with happiness, or anything that would leave anything other than a line of tracks.

He's never walking along, and then runs like crazy for 20 yards just to be running on a nice summer day.

Two of them never race each other to the river to see who is fastest.

He never gets mad and stomps around in a circle in frustration.

He never gets in a fist fight with the guy in the next valley.

He never does a left-face.

He never does the bunny hop for fun, on a nice day to be alive.

His kids never run around in circles in the mud getting filthy.

They never climb a tree and fall out, or get stuck up there and holler for mama. Or chase each other around the base of a big tree.

They never hang around in unruly groups and misbehave, or draw things in the dirt.

They never do flips and cartwheels or handstands.

Bigfoot never sits at the base of a tree and thinks for a while.

He never squishes mud between his toes for a while because it feels good on his sore dogs.

Bigfoot never walks down the trail, changes his mind, and walks back.

Bigfoot never trips and falls while walking along.

Bigfoot never gets on his knees to work at something on or near the ground.

He just plods along, doing nothing but leaving a few vague tracks here and there.