Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[MikeG]

..........
A side note: if many of these folks are playing roles, as I and others suspect, what's the advantage of coming off as an imbecile?

Exactly. So re-examine your premise.

 

[The Shrike]

I certainly want this mystery solved but as I said, I do not have the evidence it will take to solve it. I will continue, as I have, to try and collect what is required.

That's another contradiction. You're not working on collecting a specimen, you claim to be trying to "study" the footies, Goodall-style. How will your observations "collect what is required" when you're apparently not even interested in hairs?

 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

There is no nest in the world that could contain biological evidence of a type specimen.

 

[Belz...]

A side note: if many of these folks are playing roles, as I and others suspect, what's the advantage of coming off as an imbecile?

I would say that they are fishing for fools.

 

[Resume]

Exactly. So re-examine your premise.

See post 2264.

 

[Night Walker]

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.

I think that the term “legend-tripping” is a better fit than “role-playing” to describe this kind of paranormal performance/interaction. Belief isn’t even necessary – just the momentary suspension of disbelief – it’s the “experience” that matters…

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.

You raise some good points but not everyone is so goal-oriented and that is fine. People’s minds can and often do wander and when they value Enchantment over Enlightenment then it’ll tend to wander in a more dream-like manner. It can’t be too dangerous when it does – the death/injury rate among Bigfooters in the field is almost zero so it would seem not too difficult to concentrate on safety whilst at the same time being focused on the adventure. It may be “bad form” for fishermen to exaggerate their catch (or the one that got away) but they still do it and they are even renown for doing so. Fishermen are almost expected to exaggerate…

 

[Night Walker]

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.

If Bigfoot is not really some undiscovered creature (and there is no evidence to suggest that it is), if the search for said Bigfoot only has the façade of serious research (which it does), and the Bigfoot phenomenon is not really a serious pursuit (it is not – well, no more serious than researching ghosts and UFOs) then you shouldn’t be so hung-up about what Bigfooters say/claim. Bigfootery does show signs of being a tradition but to label those who uphold the tradition as “Bigfoot liars” is needlessly provocative and misses the positives of such a tradition. For me, “storytelling” is a more accurate term with deeper and more meaningful connotations than “lying”. Traditional liars? No, traditional storytellers – keepers and makers of the Bigfoot-lore…

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?

Actions speak louder than words so such confessions are not even necessary to get a better understanding of it all. There is no need of any Spanish Inquisition here. Besides, it’s the people and the stories which are important. Stories reflect who we are as individuals, as groups, as a culture much better than forced confessions…

We don’t need psychologists or clinicians or biologists to study Bigfootery (although their input at times would be valuable). Something like what the Danes are doing - http://rt.com/news/200539-krolle-bolle-denmark-trolle/ - would be a good start – they’re funding studies into Trolls:

“It should not be a discussion about whether the underground exists or not, but a story about how we are attached to a place,” Rømer told Danish broadcasting service DrDk.

Academic folklorists would be ideal for Bigfoot – who better to track and appreciate the value of stories? More importantly – it would allow people to open up whilst retaining their dignity rather than to simply be labelled as “backward”, “deluded”, “liars”, or whatever. People are simply not going to stop living the Bigfoot legend and telling Bigfoot stories so such terms only serve to divide and throw up barriers to understanding.

Live and let live…

Why?

Why would it be great to see more proponent-skeptic co-operation? If only to have the voice of critical reasoning there as it happens when Bigfoot rips down trees or hurls pigs around. Its also good to relate to people as people rather than as anonymous voices preaching despised ideologies or whatever on the internet…

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?

We process ambiguity into patterns automatically – like seeing faces in the clouds. I agree that there is a contradiction in faking Bigfoot in order to prove it yet it happens all too often. Why? It is a mystery – a paradox of the human experience that needs to be explored. Split-brain studies show that we may often act first and rationalize why we did it a bit later but we don’t even notice because of the rationalization has taken place. How counter-intuitive is that?

I reckon that it would give a Bigfoot track-maker at least some sense of awe and the vast mystery of the wilderness by serving to grow those things in others…

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?

Fakery, illusion, and allusion are key ingredients of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Confessions of fakery, however, are rare despite the number of hoaxes, pranks, exaggerations, fictions – its part of the tradition for whatever reason. But if Bigfoot doesn’t really exist then it doesn’t really matter if no-one bothers to confess to fakery or seeks to remove a false report for which they are responsible for from the database when the database itself is a compilation of fiction. Besides, no-one wants to be a party-pooper…

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.

Bigfoot skeptics possess a vast amount of knowledge on the subject of Bigfoot but I don’t think reducing a small but diverse subculture of people actively participating in an on-going and complex set of interactions as “liars” as being representative of that success. (ps Please don’t throw the book of logical fallacies at me again – you used the terms “liars”/ “lying” three times in this post I’m responding to – your point was made very clear…)

 

[Night Walker]

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.

Why is it a problem when fact and fantasy become blurred? It is a key ingredient of illusion, the paranormal, mysteries, entertainment, etc.

How many people have been charged for Bigfoot-related fraud? Zero. (Actually, I found one from 1913 involving a Wild Man exhibit in Australia - http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Burlesque_Travesty_Wild_Man/)

I think that some people were shot while searching for Bigfoot a few years ago but accidents happen when guns are involved. Some people have had their feelings hurt over some of the social interactions and shenanigans that go on but no more so than in any other sphere of human interaction. Boo-hoo. Searching for Bigfoot, then, would be one of the safer hobbies around – so who exactly is being harmed when it comes to Bigfoot? “Victims who don’t even know they’re being victimized” is not an adequate explanation for me…

I’m all for critical reasoning but the onus is on the individual seeker to be critical rather than imposing it on all from above. There is no mystery if everyone already thinks the same and sticks to the rules and does what we expect. Life doesn’t come with spoilers – its not a big deal…

Personal background stuff: I wasn’t born critical, I had to become it. I came in on the Bigfoot-thing from more of a position of belief – not to prove Bigfoot is real (which is where I think many others get off on the wrong foot) but to see what was going on, to follow the evidence. Sure, it would be great to be “The One” to bring in definitive proof of existence but that is just not going to happen. I don’t know how you can be critical of the evidence and still believe in Bigfoot – but I want to know, to understand. I’m bumbling my way through this just like any other Bigfoot seeker…

 

[Night Walker]

@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.

In trying to make my point I have probably oversold it. If I give off the impression that people are prancing around the woods, chasing fairies whilst singing “Tra-la-laa” then I assure you that is not what I am getting at. I’m struggling to find the right vocabulary to describe it better in a roundabout manner:

If you get the time read this (http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Yager_Yowie/) – it’s a good example of Enchantment (albeit for children). When adults do Enchantment for other adults (or for themselves) it is more subtle and multifaceted. Consider the “phenomenon” of fairy doors – tiny doorways constructed innocuously at the base of parkland trees and some inner-city buildings. Many people pass by without ever noticing and why would they? Fairies don’t exist so you shouldn’t be looking for their non-existent homes. Others may see it on occasion (ie enters their visual field) but it may not even register because they are not really paying attention and a tiny doorway is not something that one expects to see.

Imagine that you do see a fairy door in a spot you’ve been passed through time and time again. “Hey, what the…” – THAT MOMENT. That brief moment of wonder before reason steps in and you then smile/snort. That’s the feeling I am trying to get at and the subtle mindset of creative visualization I am trying to describe when I say “engaging with make-believe”.

Did that help or just make it less clear?

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.

Working in the music industry for many years you will know that the entire industry has changed significantly over the last 15 years or so, right? In many ways its harder because the entire recording/distributing environment is different – you’ve had to change and adapt your business to survive, right? But whatever happens in the years to come people will still be making music even if there is no money in it, even if it costs them to do so because music is in some way an essential part of who we are. Music “touches” people in that Enchanting way. Follow me so far?

So, like music, the stories we live have similar significance to attain that magical experience that exists beyond quantification. Just as the music industry is changing so is the manner in which people share their stories. People are no longer content to be passively entertained, they want to be actively immersed within the story, participants even. People don’t even have to make money off storytelling – its an intrinsic thing that comes naturally to all of us, organically. It harkens back to something primal and has communal value. Bigfoot is an example such organic immersive storytelling – Bigfoot is for anyone but its also not for everyone. Bigfoot, then, is a bit like the fairy doors – you have to be paying attention to see it and if you do how would you react? Smile or snort?

I’ve addressed the apparent dangers of Bigfoot hunting above. Hysteria by any other name still smells like BS…

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

There is no evidence to suggest that they are any less sane than any other subculture (including that of “Bigfoot skeptics”). Folk-beliefs and practices are not valid criteria for diagnosing mental illness, you know…

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 agree and that is what I did with my own children. But making stuff up is also really cool, creativity is cool, copying what other creative people do is cool, music and stories are cool and so is engaging with others who enjoy similar things, to be a part of an experience, a tradition, or something new – its all really cool. Bigfoot is way cool. People do cool “weird stuff” all the time and it is so cool that they can express themselves creatively without being judged… well, that is the ideal anyway. But, then, I am a dreamer. Can I ask if music just a business for you?

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.

If that’s an accurate reflection of how Bigfoot and the like moves you personally, if that’s what really works best for you then I salute you in your choice – Go, you indignant crusader of righteousness!

 

[Night Walker]

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.

Scratches, bite marks, and writing have appeared on the skin of people possessed by demons; objects have been thrown around the room by poltergeists; tracks of the Loch Ness Monster have been found; ghosts have been photographed and captured on film as have faeries, dinosaurs, aliens and their space crafts; ectoplasm has issued forth from the orifices of mediums when communicating with spirits…

And there are plenty more examples of “constructs” leaving physical evidence – is it evidence of their objective reality or is it evidence that something else – something very human – is going on? There’s not much of a “mystery” without tantalizing evidence – that’s kinda the point of fabrication and trickery. In fact, it would be more of a surprise if the “construct” of Bigfoot didn’t leave some trace too, you know…

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.

That sounds impressive but what makes you think a hoaxer wouldn’t use one or even several different types of flexible fake feet (instead of or along with your standard inflexible wood stompers)? You know what to look for in a track not because you’re able to compare it with a Bigfoot’s foot but because you are convinced those particular tracks are real. That’s a significant difference you need to be conscious of at all times. Considering the history of Bigfoot, it is far more likely that you are being played by someone(/s) you know. I expect that you’ve already considered that possibility so if evidence to that effect became apparent to you how would you react, if you don’t mind me asking?

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 think the hostility is partly the result of tradition – the ideological battlefield of Enlightenment v Enchantment. The stakes are high – the hearts and minds of the next generation – so of course it is fought with intensity. The other side is just so… sinister and twisted in their ways! Boo! Hiss!

But it needn’t be like that. There is no evidence to say Bigfoot really exists but there is also no evidence that those that believe otherwise are frauds and/or insane (even the ones involved in shenanigans). No-one likes to think that they are wrong (myself included) but I don’t think it really is a big deal – we are talking about Bigfoot, after all. Bigfoot. Right or wrong – its not the end of the world. We’re all just regular dudes with a varied interest in the same stupid/awesome thing…

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.

Thanks.

 

[HarryHenderson]

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...

It's almost like you don't understand the necessity of the requirement. And "qualify" for what? More cred in your role tale?

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

That's not allowed huh?! Well it's hilarious given you've not considered any Bigfoot evidence ever. Since only Forrest Gump would have brought his worst evidence here for our perusal, we will assume you've brought your best evidence for such and you've found out it sucks far beyond the limits of the concept of sucking. And I mean sucks in compliance with the definition of evidence.

...So only by investigation of all the evidence available can you reach a valid conclusion...

Again with the "evidence". Evidence of what? That your BLAARGing role is under suspicion?

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

And once again, your seemingly obtuse 'opinion' about what is and isn't acceptable mainstream. It's "obtuse" because it's not from reason, you have to do it that way to play the game properly. Always stay at odds with your opposition. Concede nothing.

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

Really? Running all your great findings by say 100 mostly intelligent people couldn't help you in any way at all huh? And again, you just confessed to the BLAARG.

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.

Different how? In how they look? Impossible to duplicate? And bingo bango 8' tall hairy beast?

...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.

You're so giving Chris. Maybe especially so when it's something you won't ever be giving. And again, an admission to the BLAARG.

Personally, I define my encounters as a sighting of something physical Bigfoot. A condition in which the large hairy thing Bigfoot 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.

Fixed that for you. Saying Bigfoot was just too much huh?! See, you even know when the game (BLAARG) puts a tad bit too much demand on you in any one moment and you just have to wing it a bit.

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.

No ****!

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

Everything else. BLAARGing again.

I know what I've posted. I certainly want this mystery solved but as I said, I do not have the evidence it will take to solve it. I will continue, as I have, to try and collect what is required.
Chris B.

I'm not sure what else anyone here needs so as to know you're simply pulling our collective leg by your BLAARGing.

...The first to bring in a specimen will be the winner. Odd there's so much competition and interest in a study of something that science says doesn't exist. Chris B.

Winner of what? What about that $10 million Bigfoot bounty show Spike TV did and didn't find one? You didn't even have to string it out over years and years to get your money out of it, plink it off and BAM there's $10 million right there! You and your clan are "above such mundane thoughts?"

And it's surely not science that says it doesn't exist. It's everyone else. Science proper hasn't really said yes or no, given it's never been able to study anything biologically because, you know. There's even an argument to be made that it's you too who's saying it doesn't exist. You've claimed encounters and pictures and HD videos even and such, yet we've not seen a single piece of anything that would lead anyone here to agree or even contemplate in any way it's Bigfoot. So really you're here just telling us to simply believe you. Is there a worse way for one to get somebody to believe their fairy tale? Yet curiously, the "trust me" routine is exactly how you'd have to play it if you were BLAARGing.

You are missing the point entirely: your idea isn't your invention. The existence of this species is independant of your efforts...

Not when you're BLAARGing. Every Bigfoot is uniquely your own. Note how no two Bigfoot photos, videos or even any two footprints of Bigfoot are alike, yet it's described pretty much the same way every time. Oh and if your Bigfoot is not that great in any "go round", you simply have to do a better job next round whilst not letting anyone know what you're really doing because of the, you know, competition game BLAARG.

...Almost nobody seriously believes in the existence of these creatures, so the race is between a small number of outliers.

If such specimen existed, they would have been found by now. For some reason no bigfoot ever gets hit by a car.

You are confusing interest by frings groups with maintstream interest. As I said: almost no one even cares about the question.

Your making wholly rational, reasonable arguments won't get you anywhere in the BLAARG. Anyone can claim reality, their goal is so much loftier. You need to be able to claim your own Bigfoot.

...A side note: if many of these folks are playing roles, as I and others (like Harry Henderson)¹ suspect, what's the advantage of coming off as an imbecile?

Because they don't care what you or I think, only what their kind thinks. I think it's clear Chris isn't here to make friends with us, he's here to get respect from those other "outliers" in the BLAARG. The task of "taking on the skeptics no matter what" is where he scores most of his points. He gets none nor loses any for how daft he might look to us doing it.

String theory, perhaps ?

Part of a subject I've become a bit fascinated with i.e. quantum mechanics. The factoid that caused my initial pause a couple years ago: using one meter, 10^0 as the basis, the scale of the universe (theoretical) in BIGNESS, 10^27 meters, is literally dwarfed by the scale of the universe in SMALLNESS, 10^-35 meters (a "string", Planck Length). A single proton, probably the smallest imaginable type of particle, is around 10^-15 meters. It's quite insane.


¹ FTFY

 

[carlitos]

If you get the time read this (http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Yager_Yowie/[/url]) – i

I suspect that there are many Jäger-induced sightings of yowie.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Why is it a problem when fact and fantasy become blurred? It is a key ingredient of illusion, the paranormal, mysteries, entertainment, etc.

How many people have been charged for Bigfoot-related fraud? Zero. (Actually, I found one from 1913 involving a Wild Man exhibit in Australia - http://home.yowieocalypse.com/Burlesque_Travesty_Wild_Man/)

I think that some people were shot while searching for Bigfoot a few years ago but accidents happen when guns are involved. Some people have had their feelings hurt over some of the social interactions and shenanigans that go on but no more so than in any other sphere of human interaction. Boo-hoo. Searching for Bigfoot, then, would be one of the safer hobbies around – so who exactly is being harmed when it comes to Bigfoot? “Victims who don’t even know they’re being victimized” is not an adequate explanation for me…

I’m all for critical reasoning but the onus is on the individual seeker to be critical rather than imposing it on all from above. There is no mystery if everyone already thinks the same and sticks to the rules and does what we expect. Life doesn’t come with spoilers – its not a big deal…

Personal background stuff: I wasn’t born critical, I had to become it. I came in on the Bigfoot-thing from more of a position of belief – not to prove Bigfoot is real (which is where I think many others get off on the wrong foot) but to see what was going on, to follow the evidence. Sure, it would be great to be “The One” to bring in definitive proof of existence but that is just not going to happen. I don’t know how you can be critical of the evidence and still believe in Bigfoot – but I want to know, to understand. I’m bumbling my way through this just like any other Bigfoot seeker…

Wonderful.
Doesn't alter the fact that there is no such thing as BigFoot.
Or that anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton.

Continue....

 

[Belz...]

Wonderful.
Doesn't alter the fact that there is no such thing as BigFoot.
Or that anyone who believes otherwise is a simpleton.

Continue....

I don't think you should be calling your fellow ISF members simpletons just because they happen to conclude the wrong thing.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Your error here has been explained by a number of posters.



Well, for one, they're pretty much laughable. For second, they lead nowhere. Ever. For thirds, they're all suspicious

A troop of footies would leave a well-defined trail which would lead you to other evidence, biological evidence, up to and including footie. No trackway had ever done that. Ever.

So you do not advocate the collection of biological samples as they will not qualify? Qualify as proof, I assume you mean? However, footprints? Boy, howdy we should really focus on those!

If you successfully managed to get an interesting DNA analysis result ( i.e. unknown primate) from either hair, scat, blood or other potential sources that should be present in abundance in a bigfoot nest, you would drum up more scientific interest than all of the alleged bigfoot footprints so far introduced.

Yet, you decide that footrpints are more useful in supporting the hypothesis than biological samples. Evidence, I would like to point out, that can actually be subjected to scientific testing and analysis? And you think people should take you seriously? Why on earth would someone do that?

You know you're starting to talk like you realize Bigfoot is possible. Finally.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then what was the point of the Sykes study? You seem to want to prop up his DNA analysis as evidence of an undiscovered animal when it suits your argument. But then you want to contradict that and say biological samples short of a body are useless.

Also, why would Meldrum be calling for people to submit hair samples for DNA testing if DNA testing will not improve the bigfoot hypothesis?

Or is it only when you are challenged as to why you do not, personally, collect samples ( such as hair) for DNA analysis, that DNA suddenly becomes worthless?

Which one is it Chris?

Syke's bear, supposedly is something already on record thought to have been extinct. So in fact there was a type specimen already on file. The same cannot be said of Bigfoot. Regardless, ask yourself how the bear findings went over here even with a specimen on file.

I don't recall listing what I collect for samples or if I have collected any. What's the query about? Show me the monkey again? Not interested.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Scratches, bite marks, and writing have appeared on the skin of people possessed by demons; objects have been thrown around the room by poltergeists; tracks of the Loch Ness Monster have been found; ghosts have been photographed and captured on film as have faeries, dinosaurs, aliens and their space crafts; ectoplasm has issued forth from the orifices of mediums when communicating with spirits…

And there are plenty more examples of “constructs” leaving physical evidence – is it evidence of their objective reality or is it evidence that something else – something very human – is going on? There’s not much of a “mystery” without tantalizing evidence – that’s kinda the point of fabrication and trickery. In fact, it would be more of a surprise if the “construct” of Bigfoot didn’t leave some trace too, you know…

As for ghosts, demons etc. I'm not interested in the supernatural. I stick with Biological living things. As for Nessie, I'd have to see it myself. Unfortunately I don't live anywhere near the Loch for routine trips there. The Nessie prints were proven fake long ago if I remember correctly.

Certainly there are some reports with human trickery in play. Some prints are no doubt left by hoaxers. Ray Wallace was notorious for his trickery.

That sounds impressive but what makes you think a hoaxer wouldn’t use one or even several different types of flexible fake feet (instead of or along with your standard inflexible wood stompers)? You know what to look for in a track not because you’re able to compare it with a Bigfoot’s foot but because you are convinced those particular tracks are real. That’s a significant difference you need to be conscious of at all times. Considering the history of Bigfoot, it is far more likely that you are being played by someone(/s) you know. I expect that you’ve already considered that possibility so if evidence to that effect became apparent to you how would you react, if you don’t mind me asking?

I'm able to compare the tracks I see with tracks made by a creature from a known personal sighting. In other words, there is no doubt. I don't think many hoaxers spend much time in KY. If they did, and left tracks for someone to find. They'd be easy to identify as hoaxed prints.

Ah, someone I know could have hoaxed me? Not possible. The guys had no idea where I went until after the fact.

How would I react if someone I knew tried to hoax me? Disassociation and exposure of the hoax.

I think the hostility is partly the result of tradition – the ideological battlefield of Enlightenment v Enchantment. The stakes are high – the hearts and minds of the next generation – so of course it is fought with intensity. The other side is just so… sinister and twisted in their ways! Boo! Hiss!

But it needn’t be like that. There is no evidence to say Bigfoot really exists but there is also no evidence that those that believe otherwise are frauds and/or insane (even the ones involved in shenanigans). No-one likes to think that they are wrong (myself included) but I don’t think it really is a big deal – we are talking about Bigfoot, after all. Bigfoot. Right or wrong – its not the end of the world. We’re all just regular dudes with a varied interest in the same stupid/awesome thing…

I agree, everyone should try to at least be civil no matter which side of the fence they reside. Since I've seen these creatures, their tracks and know they exist I'm not concerned with personal attack on those who haven't. In fact, I encourage everyone to remain skeptical until they've seen one for themselves. But I don't receive the same courtesy. Somehow what I've seen threatens some? Strange World I guess.

I encourage more Bifooters to post here. There seems to be some sort of promoted assumption that posting here is taking on the Tiger, but the truth is, the Tiger has no teeth in most cases.

Personal attack, name calling, show me the monkey, are all tired, worn out techniques. I prefer good thought provoking debate.

Thanks.

You're welcome. Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

Show me the monkey again? Not interested.
Chris B.

Well, that's obvious.

 

[Resume]

I encourage more Bifooters to post here. There seems to be some sort of promoted assumption that posting here is taking on the Tiger, but the truth is, the Tiger has no teeth in most cases.

I think more bigfooters should post here as well. Because of course the tiger having no teeth (whatever that means) isn't the hypothesis. Bigfoot is, and as can be plainly seen, the footer has no footie. Ever. They don't even have a logical supporting argument.

Personal attack, name calling, show me the monkey, are all tired, worn out techniques. I prefer good thought provoking debate.

Looking more and more like BLAARGing here. There is no debate about footie; that's been settled for years.

 

[carlitos]

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THE THING THAT I CLAIM TO DO THREE TIMES A WEEK!