Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Resume]

It wasn't "well defined" . . .

Yeah, I'll bet it wasn't.

 

[River]

Belief in the extreme - I like that meme, too. But it also applies to skepticism (cynicism?) in the extreme:

[qimg]http://i60.tinypic.com/zx0djc.jpg[/qimg]

Blurring the lines, presenting fiction as fact is kinda the point of good storytelling. If doing so in the name of Bigfoot is actually fraudulent then prove it - mount a case with others that feel the same way and take Meldrum et al to court. Getting fined and/or jailed will surely make them reconsider their wicked ways...

Source:
FRAUD
1
a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2
a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat
b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

Does that not describe bigfoot, or footers intentions perfectly? I think it does. Good stories do not need men out in the woods looking for type specimens now do they? You seem to be perfectly fine with PhD types representing bigfoot as a real entity? I'm not. I think it's a disgrace to their title, and should not be tolerated by their employers or the tax payers/students footing the bills. If you leave the fiction in the fiction section, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, it's miscategorized.

But - just like Bigfooters' eternal quest to get objective evidence - that's just not going to happen, is it? I have a problem with people who cannot support their claims, don't you? At least Bigfooters are trying...

Really? Are they? Show me one that has collected anything at all viable. It is a facade, and a very see through one. Skeptics and footers alike have proven one thing; that all bigfoot claims resolved are one of three things. 1) Hoaxing/lying/fabrications 2) Mentally deluded individuals 3) Occasionally mistaken identity.

Feel free to prove bigfoot is anything but one of those three things. I can give numerous examples of each of those proving what bigfoot really is. (people, in one of these three categories)

Every form of activity has its risks yet the injury/death toll of people searching for Bigfoot is surprisingly low - perhaps they are even more cautious that the average bush-walker because they are after a giant man-beast than can rip people's heads off their shoulders. If you are genuinely concerned with the consequences of the real dangers 'footers face then what are you actually doing about it besides raging against a sub-culture of people that you seem to have little to no personal real-world interactions with on a virtual-forum that most footers would never even read? Anything? Anything at all?

So let me get this straight, asking people to backup their wild claims is raging against people? Interesting. I thought it was standard procedure when someone makes wild claims. Science does too.

Skeptics don't need to call proponents out unless there is direct evidence that certain ones are engaging in shenanigans. Certainly - point out what is fake and offer insights into how it might have been done and let those who are interested come to their own conclusions. Proponents traditionally frame accounts in a particular manner which emphasizes the Bigfootedness of the situation while glossing-over or ignoring significant details and mundane explanations that put it in a different light. Skeptics, on the other hand, are really good at pointing those things out so skeptic-proponent collaboration in the field would provide a more complete picture of what is going on while at the same time help skeptics to relate to Footers as real people rather than just "frauds" and "nutters"...

This is where we disagree. Bigfoot is a shenanigan. It is nothing else. If you feel differently, prove it. We've already proven what bigfoot really is.

Hoaxing, fakery, and storytelling are not bad things - they are very human-things which create and perpetuate mysteries, and are FUN to be a part of...

Interesting, because a lot of very well informed folks feel differently.

 

[MikeG]

Mike, scientists, academic folks as a whole are not impervious to being fooled and hoaxed.

I hate using arguments from authority, I hate using the "been there done that" line, but trust me- we can be fooled. Intentionally or not, we can be fooled, sometimes even by ourselves.

We are only humans, of flesh and blood we are made.

The suggestion wasn't (as I read it) that Sykes might have been hoaxed, but that he might have been a hoaxer himself. It was that that I wrote against. However, Chris has since cleared up this confusion, and said that he was saying Sykes may have been hoaxed......

So of course I withdraw my comments on the subject.

 

[LTC8K6]

What's amazing is the resistance/incredulity here to the notion that ChrisBFRPKY is BLAARGing. It's almost like none of you think that's what he's doing. Seems you're stuck at "he really believes" and you're gonna somehow convince him of the evil of his ways. Then again, uber few of you truly understand anything about LYING either so...

He does seem to fit that profile of role playing.

It's like a hobby that you need, but don't really believe. You enjoy it, and you work at it, but you know it will shatter if you go too far.

That's why when you "know" there are two bigfoot within 100 feet of you, you make virtually no effort...

You don't want to walk over there and find nothing at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

Chris, why doesn't this footprint have a deep heel impression?

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0026.JPG

Shouldn't we see a distinct deep heel strike from a heavy biped crossing the road as you describe?

Above is a pic of an interesting track found in the center of a gravel lane on 03-06-10. This one was approximately 14 to 16 inches long and 5 or 6 inches wide at the heel. The track was in the center of the lane and was made at a 45 degree angle to the lane. A quick check revealed the path the creature had taken. It stepped from the side of the lane to the center, then, it stepped to the other side of the lane. 1 track only was pressed into the center of the gravel lane. The depth was approximately 1/4 inch. The track was VERY fresh and I was not making any impressions, I'm 215 lbs.

Clearly, the soil was not too hard for the whole foot to make a 1/4" deep impression. When the heel impacted, we should see a distinct deeper impression. This is particularly true when striding long to cross quickly, but it's true all the time, really.

And where are the toe "push off" marks? Why is the track just board flat? Supposedly we have a heavy biped taking one long stride to cross a road, yet the middle step is flat.

What do you mean by "very fresh"?

How close do you think you were to a live bigfoot?

 

[LTC8K6]

Oh, and by a modest estimate, he'd weigh over 700 lbs to be pushing his feet that deep in packed dry gravel

But your foot has much less surface area. Shouldn't you, at 215lbs, make close to the same impression? Or at least some impression? You claimed to have made none at all.

You said the track was "very fresh" so presumably soil condition had not changed much?

 

[Night Walker]

Really? Are they? Show me one that has collected anything at all viable. It is a facade, and a very see through one. Skeptics and footers alike have proven one thing; that all bigfoot claims resolved are one of three things. 1) Hoaxing/lying/fabrications 2) Mentally deluded individuals 3) Occasionally mistaken identity.

Feel free to prove bigfoot is anything but one of those three things. I can give numerous examples of each of those proving what bigfoot really is. (people, in one of these three categories)

In regards to demonstrating evidence to support one’s claims I said “At least Bigfooters are trying…”, right? I didn’t say that they were succeeding. Instead, they are succeeding in demonstrating that Bigfoot doesn’t exist other than as a “construct”. I still admire their enthusiasm, though.

In regards to the explanations offered to resolve all Bigfoot claims, I agree with 1 & 3. As for 2 – “Mentally deluded individuals” – who might they be? You’re not qualified to diagnose mental illness over the internet, are you? So can you present documented evidence of their clinical mental disorders? If you cannot then I suggest that you withdraw those comments and in future lift your game and try to refrain from using such inaccurate terms…

FRAUD
1
a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2
a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat
b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

Does that not describe bigfoot, or footers intentions perfectly? I think it does. Good stories do not need men out in the woods looking for type specimens now do they? You seem to be perfectly fine with PhD types representing bigfoot as a real entity? I'm not. I think it's a disgrace to their title, and should not be tolerated by their employers or the tax payers/students footing the bills.
…
Interesting, because a lot of very well informed folks feel differently. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038
…
We've already proven what bigfoot really is.

Great! You’ve got law on your side, you already proven to yourselves are frauds, and you can demonstrate their trickery. Awesome! So go get ‘em, tiger!

If I was American I would support for you by opening a local chapter of the “No Bigfoots Club” and notifying my local member of Congress or whatever of this grave and urgent situation – maybe they can pass a Bill that outlaws freaky folk-cultural practices. “Fairy doors”, then, too, are insidious, dishonest, and corrupting the minds of the young. It must stop.

So let me get this straight, asking people to backup their wild claims is raging against people? Interesting. I thought it was standard procedure when someone makes wild claims. Science does too.

Your claim is that Bigfooters are frauds (and/or mentally deluded). Fraud is a serious legal term implying illegality. I am asking you to prove your point as much as I am asking Chris to show me the objective documented evidence of Bigfoot he says he has. At this stage, your claims are no more supported by the evidence than are Chris’. Both are wild claims so ante up. Chris doesn’t get an exemption from science so why should you?

And remember to please think of the children…

 

[Resume]

Your claim is that Bigfooters are frauds (and/or mentally deluded). Fraud is a serious legal term implying illegality.

You've been shown multiple definitions on a number of occasions. Stop pretending you haven't. Hell, stop pretending.

 

[Cervelo]

Got to spend sometime with PT on thurs and fri. We were in the Cumberland Plateau area of Tenn which is another awesome part of this country.
We attempted to do a little fishing (wading) until yours truly took a wrong step and did a little swimming (kinda) LOL! We regrouped (changed into dry clothes) and took an awesome hike a long another part of the the South Fork area which was absolutely breathtaking!
PT is one of the most outstanding hosts and true outdoorsmen I've ever meet and one of those people I would trust with my life. His local knowledge of the area was astounding and we got into some pretty remote areas with ease.
His military experience also his college days, which included study and inventory of rediscovered fish populations as well as the current job.....quite frankly put him in a unique position of being a person to listen to in regards to this subject.
We saw tons of classic bigfoot sign and even smelled something stinky but alas we failed at sighting any cryptoids. I even attempted my best whoop and got nothing, so at that point we had to admit we were Squatch'in LOL!!!
PT thank you for a great day and next time I will not spoil our fishing trip!!!
Off to locate NAWACys location and (not) find Bigfoot will keep you guys posted

 

[bruto]

I think there's a difference between things here that must be recognized. If a person truly believed that fairies live behind fairy doors, then yes, that person would be deluded. If a person truly attempted to convince others that fairies live behind fairy doors without that delusion, he would be a fraud. There is a difference between fraud and fiction.

Where certain believers lie here is problematic, but insofar as they are trying seriously to convince others that bigfoot truly exists and that they truly are privy to this, what they are doing is not fiction.

 

[William Parcher]

As for 2 – “Mentally deluded individuals” – who might they be? You’re not qualified to diagnose mental illness over the internet, are you? So can you present documented evidence of their clinical mental disorders? If you cannot then I suggest that you withdraw those comments and in future lift your game and try to refrain from using such inaccurate terms…

"Mentally deluded" just means that they believe in something that doesn't exist. Nobody here has claimed to be a psychologist and it isn't "inaccurate" to say that people who believe that Bigfoot exists and that they have seen them are deluded. Bigfoot doesn't exist and they didn't see one - and so this is a delusion.

How is anything advanced or improved by refraining from saying that Bigfoot belief is a mental delusion?

How would a clinical psychologist determine if a Bigfoot witness/knower was deluded? Wouldn't they first need to know if Bigfoot exists or not? Because if they actually saw a Bigfoot then they wouldn't really be delusional and the trained professional psychologist would be wrong. Could a Bigfooter patient who has been professionally disgnosed with delusion contend that it is a bogus diagnosis because the clinician is acting as a skoftic and hasn't properly examined the evidence for Bigfoot? Should the doctor first read Munns' book before deciding on whether Bigfoot exists and whether they should be diagnosing Bigfooters as delusional?

I still admire their enthusiasm, though.

How did you determine that they are genuinely enthusiastic? Are you qualified to make that determination from your armchair?

 

[Resume]

NW has left the building to post over at BFF. Something about a Yowie discovery. Howing two gardens.

 

[Correa Neto]

That's interesting. Since I have only responded to posts directed at me, exactly who is seeking the attention here? I find it curious to be asked a question or given a counter point yet any response to that on my part is to be seen as "attention seeking". Is that how it works on a discussion forum?
Chris B.

When a thread is hijacked by a poster and several pages of the aforementioned thread became dedicated to the said poster's alleged sightings (brought to the table by the poster), when the said poster repeats the same flawed arguments over and over after they'be been shown wrong... And when other posters (defenders of fringe subjetcs) follow similar patterns...

I think yes, that's how it works, because the thread no longer looks like an actual discussion, it smells of attention whoring, among other things.

 

[Correa Neto]

The advices at
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141113-the-best-way-to-debunk-myths
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140521-the-best-way-to-win-an-argument
Do you guys think they are actually efficient?
Do you guys think they can actually work with footers? Of which type? How? Under which circunstances?

 

[snoop_doxie]

One of the problems with Seeing Cryptids, especially in the case of the Bigfoot, is the messed up Family tree that we get.

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/pjo0Sr.jpg[/qimg]

Awesome work, Drewbot!
I appreciate your creativity.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Right that is baloney right out of the box. Your rule of thumb for exhibits is if you can touch it, it is a reproduction. Period.

The diplodocus in the entrance of the London Museum of Natural history? Plaster. The diorama at the New York equivalent? Total fake built from casts of the real deal. And so on around the world.

The only ways to obtain such a sample without contamination would to be an application for such to a learned institution. Suggesting that one could simply pluck such a sample from an exhibit ignores the fact that the very act of such illicit plucking would irreversibly contaminate such a sample WITH YOUR OWN DNA, not to mention the DNA of millions of visitors who simply passed by. Researchers spend an astonishing amount of time eliminating such confounding factors. And fair play to their dedication. Your notion that one could casually pluck a few hairs from a museum sample for DNA matching is a blatant insult to the long, tedious and unregarded efforts of those who do such work. For shame. (oops, forgot you have none)

I don't remember saying to collect a sample from a public display.

I'm not implying that any Bigfoot tracks are from a genuine Bigfoot but that that people (some more intelligent and qualified than any of us) have also been quite easily duped - lead astray by their confidence. The Elbe trackway is a good example of that, though, so thanks for bringing that up...



You're missing the point here - I am not advocating that we try to solve one mystery (Bigfoot) with another (the paranormal) because that does not explain anything. By examining other paranormal claims critically (like ghosts, demons, aliens, etc) which people see and experience, which leaves behind physical traces and ambiguous evidence, but never any objective biological evidence (just like Bigfoot) you may gain a better understanding of the power of belief and the lengths people will go to justify that belief, to fake it in order to prove it.

The key biological being in the Bigfoot phenomenon (as it is with ghosts, demons, aliens, etc) is humans - specifically the humans who are into Bigfoot to begin with...



I didn't see any pictures or videos of Bigfoot, let alone any of Bigfoot making tracks on your website (http://www.bfrpky.com/) - did I miss something? If I did can you point it out to me? Otherwise, pictures of ambiguous shapes like these (http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html - you have to admit that none are clear and all are open to interpretation) are examples of pareidolia - seeing what you want to see, are they not? That's a natural human thing, not dishonest, but not Bigfoot either. It's ok to believe otherwise but that is belief dictating evidence rather than evidence dictating belief...



That's the exact same line that Wallace & co. used when they started the whole "Big Foot" craze, you know...



I understand that hoaxing from within the Bigfoot-research is a very touchy subject yet there are many examples, it happens time and time again. By being very serious about Bigfoot, not taking the history of Bigfoot shenanigans into account, and not being willing/able to consider the obvious in relation to those around you then you are putting yourself in a prime position to be hoaxed. It's like a wondering why you keep getting sharp pains in your rear when there's an unseen "kick me" sign on your back. That you have never busted even a single Bigfoot-hoaxer/researchers is a testament to that...

Remember: "If you think you already know everything there is to know, you may be mistaken." And you know Bigfoot exists and it is just not possible that you could be duped, right?

I think it is important to practice what you preach, don't you?



That's funny - neither do they: "This is the official Australian Yowie Project page. We do not comment on the research of others"...

Can you appreciate the view that Bigfoot-research is a sub-culture of people sharing the same belief, doing the same things, and ignoring the same issues rather than conducting any form systematic scientific inquiry?

You seem to be occupied with Bigfootery more than Bigfoot. I understand if one views these creatures as only something of the mind, why it would seem important to study the people rather than the phenomenon. I'm really not interested in the people.

As far as commenting on other's active work in the field. I don't comment for a few reasons. One, I'm not there and haven't seen their work or evidence personally. To comment from afar would be uninformed speculation at best.
And there are many examples of mistakes made by using uninformed speculation to reach a conclusion.

Chris, why doesn't this footprint have a deep heel impression?

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0026.JPG

Shouldn't we see a distinct deep heel strike from a heavy biped crossing the road as you describe?



Clearly, the soil was not too hard for the whole foot to make a 1/4" deep impression. When the heel impacted, we should see a distinct deeper impression. This is particularly true when striding long to cross quickly, but it's true all the time, really.

And where are the toe "push off" marks? Why is the track just board flat? Supposedly we have a heavy biped taking one long stride to cross a road, yet the middle step is flat.

What do you mean by "very fresh"?

How close do you think you were to a live bigfoot?

After study of their tracks I'm certain they do not walk heel to toe as we do. Their foot strike is largely toe to heel as in standard stealth walking with minor impact pressure at the toes IMO. Some tracks also appear to be flat with push off from the front as well suggesting some flexibility. Push off and strike changes in relation to their stride. That's all I care to discuss about track specifics as educating hoaxers (not a shot at you) on public forums is not high on my list of priorities.

The print from the center of the gravel lane was the only print on that surface, the rest of the trackway was on the right and left sides of the lane. I can only assume whatever left the track had intended to cross the lane by leaving as little evidence of passing as it could as it's stride lengthened purposely when it crossed the lane. The track in the center of the lane was completely flat with no dicernible front or rear push off suggesting a vault effect. I am under the impression whatever left the track displaced its entire weight briefly on the single track at the center of the lane.

IMO the tracks were very fresh likely made within a few hours of finding them.

But your foot has much less surface area. Shouldn't you, at 215lbs, make close to the same impression? Or at least some impression? You claimed to have made none at all.

You said the track was "very fresh" so presumably soil condition had not changed much?

I wasn't leaving an impression in the lane. Whatever left the track compacted the gravel at the center approx 1/4 inch deep. I first proposed it may have been the conditions that accounted for the depth. Maybe it was wet when the track was left, pressed in while the media was softer, but on further review I believed the tracks to be only hours old rather than days. So something had compacted that gravel in the same condition it was in.

When a thread is hijacked by a poster and several pages of the aforementioned thread became dedicated to the said poster's alleged sightings (brought to the table by the poster), when the said poster repeats the same flawed arguments over and over after they'be been shown wrong... And when other posters (defenders of fringe subjetcs) follow similar patterns...

I think yes, that's how it works, because the thread no longer looks like an actual discussion, it smells of attention whoring, among other things.

If you'll review the thread, you'll notice I had commented on a flawed investigation method used on a Bigfoot "story" and proposed a culprit of a deer kill other than Bigfoot. Where we are now has nothing to do with what I originally proposed.

I think you may be confused concerning a pile on as vs a thread hijacking. I think I see your motive though.

You'll also notice from a review, information from my site was first brought here by other members for discussion and ridicule. I'm up for discussion of the topic, though as the thread shows, I was not the first to present the information for discussion. It appears you'd rather I just go away, rather than respond. If that's the case, why do you or others seek me out for a response? Curious. Chris B.

 

[River]

In regards to demonstrating evidence to support one’s claims I said “At least Bigfooters are trying…”, right? I didn’t say that they were succeeding. Instead, they are succeeding in demonstrating that Bigfoot doesn’t exist other than as a “construct”. I still admire their enthusiasm, though.

I agree to with you on my bolded. It really isn't a matter of them succeeding at anything though. It's a matter of the truth being exposed, and the shenanigans being old news at this point.

In regards to the explanations offered to resolve all Bigfoot claims, I agree with 1 & 3. As for 2 – “Mentally deluded individuals” – who might they be? You’re not qualified to diagnose mental illness over the internet, are you? So can you present documented evidence of their clinical mental disorders? If you cannot then I suggest that you withdraw those comments and in future lift your game and try to refrain from using such inaccurate terms…

The terms I used are perfectly accurate. In fact I challenged you (and anyone) to show that bigfoot is anything but those three things. You (or anyone) have yet to show any different. I've linked to definitions of the terms I used in case you have problems understanding the English language.

Deluded
verb (used with object), deluded, deluding.
1.
to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive:
His conceit deluded him into believing he was important.
2.
Obsolete. to mock or frustrate the hopes or aims of.
3.
Obsolete. to elude; evade.

The difference between the hoaxers/liars/fabricators and the deluded is; the deluded may actually believe what they are saying or seeing. The others do not. The challenge is still there, feel free to prove bigfoot is anything but people in those three categories.

Great! You’ve got law on your side, you already proven to yourselves are frauds, and you can demonstrate their trickery. Awesome! So go get ‘em, tiger!

If I was American I would support for you by opening a local chapter of the “No Bigfoots Club” and notifying my local member of Congress or whatever of this grave and urgent situation – maybe they can pass a Bill that outlaws freaky folk-cultural practices. “Fairy doors”, then, too, are insidious, dishonest, and corrupting the minds of the young. It must stop.

[qimg]http://i58.tinypic.com/255m982.jpg[/qimg]

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of skeptic organizations already. No need for me to start a new one. You happen to be posting at a forum dedicated to it. No need to label it "no bigfoots club". It addresses a lot of fakery, not just bigfoot.

Your claim is that Bigfooters are frauds (and/or mentally deluded). Fraud is a serious legal term implying illegality. I am asking you to prove your point as much as I am asking Chris to show me the objective documented evidence of Bigfoot he says he has. At this stage, your claims are no more supported by the evidence than are Chris’. Both are wild claims so ante up. Chris doesn’t get an exemption from science so why should you?

And remember to please think of the children…

The terms used are well defined by the dictionary. Try reading the source definitions linked and posted. You'd love to put your twist on it, but you're failing terribly! The bolded statement is hilarious! The challenge remains, feel free to show that bigfoot is anything but those three categories. Chris has yet to prove anything, except that he's a little more patient than most footers.

Very simply put; The source of claimed bigfoot evidence has been proven time and again. The footers just don't like the answers.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Got to spend sometime with PT on thurs and fri. We were in the Cumberland Plateau area of Tenn which is another awesome part of this country.
We attempted to do a little fishing (wading) until yours truly took a wrong step and did a little swimming (kinda) LOL! We regrouped (changed into dry clothes) and took an awesome hike a long another part of the the South Fork area which was absolutely breathtaking!
PT is one of the most outstanding hosts and true outdoorsmen I've ever meet and one of those people I would trust with my life. His local knowledge of the area was astounding and we got into some pretty remote areas with ease.
His military experience also his college days, which included study and inventory of rediscovered fish populations as well as the current job.....quite frankly put him in a unique position of being a person to listen to in regards to this subject.
We saw tons of classic bigfoot sign and even smelled something stinky but alas we failed at sighting any cryptoids. I even attempted my best whoop and got nothing, so at that point we had to admit we were Squatch'in LOL!!!
PT thank you for a great day and next time I will not spoil our fishing trip!!!
Off to locate NAWACys location and (not) find Bigfoot will keep you guys posted

Haha, man don't oversell it. Was good hangin' out with you a couple days. Definitely come back through when it's warmer and we'll get on the smallmouth for sure. Sorry again for the near-hypothermia. Also, good luck in the Ouachitas. Very anxious to hear back on that.

Guys, if Cervelo's passing through your area, I highly recommend squatchin' with him. Cool guy. He'll buy you beer!

 

[Night Walker]

You seem to be occupied with Bigfootery more than Bigfoot. I understand if one views these creatures as only something of the mind, why it would seem important to study the people rather than the phenomenon. I'm really not interested in the people.

So can you please direct me to where you have objectively documented Bigfoot making tracks? Its not "secret evidence", is it?

If you cannot support that claim and you do not suspect your friends and the people around you of engaging in shenanigans – that is fine but that is like putting up blinkers and ignoring the lessons of history when investigating Bigfoot. That’s really limiting your investigation and understanding into the subject…

As far as commenting on other's active work in the field. I don't comment for a few reasons. One, I'm not there and haven't seen their work or evidence personally. To comment from afar would be uninformed speculation at best.

You could inform yourself by examining the evidence they present – that’s what we’re trying to do with you and your claims. But then you still have those self-administered blinkers on:

The terms I used are perfectly accurate. In fact I challenged you (and anyone) to show that bigfoot is anything but those three things. You (or anyone) have yet to show any different. I've linked to definitions of the terms I used in case you have problems understanding the English language.
…
The terms used are well defined by the dictionary. Try reading the source definitions linked and posted. You'd love to put your twist on it, but you're failing terribly!

I’m not arguing against Bigfoot being some sort of psychosocial construct – I am asking you to adequately prove that Bigfooters are fraudulent. Not via definitions/semantics but by demonstrating it (same as I’m asking from Chris or any other claimant). Show me the monkey and show me the monkey-fraudsters. Don’t just talk about it…

You can point to tangible examples fakery, to how they “propagate lies”, to how they “con money from others”, to how some “commit academic fraud”, to how they are poisoning the minds of the young. You can even point to the specific law that supposedly supports your position. You should be able to prove it quite easily in a court of law… and yet you will not because you cannot.

Why? If you did take anyone to court over Bigfoot related fraud you would lose. Big time. So if Bigfoot is not really legally fraudulent you should refrain from using that term (and the same applies to implications of mental illness when there is no evidence) to describe people who think and act differently from yourself – it really is that simple. I struggle to fathom why this is even an issue for critical-thinkers…

I think that the heart of the issue is that those that think Bigfoot is real speak about their experiences as if Bigfoot were a real biological creature. That causes angst among critical thinkers because 1) people then take it too literally, and 2) the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion – instead, the evidence suggests that Bigfoot is a human-phenomenon ie some sort of psychosocial construct or whatever. If that is the case, then to better understand what is going on then we need to appreciate Bigfoot from an anthropological perspective rather than a biological one – there is no need to judge people as “frauds” or whatever just for doing what people the world over do, have done traditionally, and will continue to do. Diversity of the human experience should be celebrated rather than berated...

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of skeptic organizations already. No need for me to start a new one. You happen to be posting at a forum dedicated to it. No need to label it "no bigfoots club". It addresses a lot of fakery, not just bigfoot.

You seem to have gone off on a tangent here – I said: I would support for you by opening a local chapter of the “No Bigfoots Club”. Me not you. It would be more of a fan club for your crusade should you ever decide to act rather than just talk. You may lack the courage of your convictions but I (and the “No Bigfoots Club”) still believe in you…

(ps I’m just playfully goading you – I suspect that you are smart enough to not pursue any pointless legal actions.)

 

[rockinkt]

<snip>
After study of their tracks I'm certain they do not walk heel to toe as we do. Their foot strike is largely toe to heel as in standard stealth walking with minor impact pressure at the toes IMO. Some tracks also appear to be flat with push off from the front as well suggesting some flexibility. Push off and strike changes in relation to their stride. That's all I care to discuss about track specifics as educating hoaxers (not a shot at you) on public forums is not high on my list of priorities.

The print from the center of the gravel lane was the only print on that surface, the rest of the trackway was on the right and left sides of the lane. I can only assume whatever left the track had intended to cross the lane by leaving as little evidence of passing as it could as it's stride lengthened purposely when it crossed the lane. The track in the center of the lane was completely flat with no dicernible front or rear push off suggesting a vault effect. I am under the impression whatever left the track displaced its entire weight briefly on the single track at the center of the lane.

IMO the tracks were very fresh likely made within a few hours of finding them.

I wasn't leaving an impression in the lane. Whatever left the track compacted the gravel at the center approx 1/4 inch deep. I first proposed it may have been the conditions that accounted for the depth. Maybe it was wet when the track was left, pressed in while the media was softer, but on further review I believed the tracks to be only hours old rather than days. So something had compacted that gravel in the same condition it was in.
<snip>
Chris B.

Chris...If it does not compromise your wish to try and not educate those who may attempt to hoax you or others - could you please explain what type of surface you believe the bottom and sides that a Bigfoot foot has?
In other words - are the bottom and sides of the foot like a usual primate foot in that it is relatively soft - or is it hard like a hoof?

I'm not asking for any specific descriptions like hairy, or dermal ridges, or creases, or flex patterns - just the general idea of whether one could expect it to be like a toughened human foot (e.g. - one who has never worn shoes).

Thanks.