Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[LTC8K6]

Bigfoot apparently has several types of feet and locomotion.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
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.

The thread now is about your sightings, your videos, your pictures, the arguments you present (again and again and again and again), how mean skeptics are... An it has nothing to do with what you originally proposed? Are you sure?

Pile on? You think we are being unfair questioning you?

I think I see your motive though.

And what would be my motive?

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.

I would like you to stop hijacking the thread. If you want to discuss your work within bigfootery, open a thread for it. If you actually want to discuss something, because from where I stand, your refusal to understand and/or accept the errors pointed out within the arguments you presented (not exactly original, by the way), within the "evidence" you presented or claimed to have, it seems you what you actually is want is attention, a spotlight.

 

[HarryHenderson]

What's now lol funny is back in the day an escaped mental patient named Janice Carter detailed her exploits of living (literally?) amongst a whole family of Bigfeet (with individual names!) on some rural farm in Tennessee. And everyone including the pro and con Bigfooters on the BFF¹ thought she was at best Bat **** Crazy. Yet now professing such BSC "beast intimacy" is just another one of the parts in becoming exalted Grand Poobah of the beast. How the rules times have changed.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot apparently has several types of feet and locomotion.

This would not be unusual for such divergent morphology to appear by way of speciation. We've seen evolution do this many times. The problem is in talking about Bigfoot as if it's just one species.

 

[Correa Neto]

What's now lol funny is back in the day an escaped mental patient named Janice Carter detailed her exploits of living (literally?) amongst a whole family of Bigfeet (with individual names!) on some rural farm in Tennessee. And everyone including the pro and con Bigfooters on the BFF¹ thought she was at best Bat **** Crazy. Yet now professing such BSC "beast intimacy" is just another one of the parts in becoming exalted Grand Poobah of the beast. How the rules times have changed.

If I am not mistaken, Carter had support from The Russian Hominologist...

If the above is correct, I bet other people supported her too. So, this probably means some folks were already BLAARGing back then. Or were extremely gullible, naïve, ignorant or just crazy, ...

 

[Night Walker]

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

You mean this?

I'm just reporting what Opit announced and no-one seems to know anything about it - prime candidate for Bigfooter of the Year, wouldn't you think?

 

[tsig]

Bigfoot apparently has several types of feet and locomotion.

He could be stumpfoot, clubfoot or blobfoot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

Toughened but flexible. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The thread now is about your sightings, your videos, your pictures, the arguments you present (again and again and again and again), how mean skeptics are... An it has nothing to do with what you originally proposed? Are you sure?

Pile on? You think we are being unfair questioning you?



And what would be my motive?



I would like you to stop hijacking the thread. If you want to discuss your work within bigfootery, open a thread for it. If you actually want to discuss something, because from where I stand, your refusal to understand and/or accept the errors pointed out within the arguments you presented (not exactly original, by the way), within the "evidence" you presented or claimed to have, it seems you what you actually is want is attention, a spotlight.

This thread is titled "Seeing Cryptids: The Problems. Exactly what thread should be used for a discussion of seeing cryptids and the problems that result from those sightings? Hello......

If you have an ignore button, by all means please use it if you don't particularly like my posts. It seems more to me that you are the one seeking attention here as you don't add anything about the conversation, you simply take pokes at me for some reason.

Was there something specific you wished to add to the discussion of the topic or are you limited to only adding pokes in my direction for attention?
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

You mean this?

I'm just reporting what Opit announced and no-one seems to know anything about it - prime candidate for Bigfooter of the Year, wouldn't you think?

I think you're having a time is what I think.

And the BLAARG goes on; good on yah, as they might say down in your nape of the neck. If you're actually from there.

 

[Resume]

Toughened but flexible. Chris B.

Carbon fiber?

 

[LTC8K6]

This would not be unusual for such divergent morphology to appear by way of speciation. We've seen evolution do this many times. The problem is in talking about Bigfoot as if it's just one species.

The Kentucky species foot can somehow strike ball first, and still not show a deeper impression for the ball.

Whatever way the foot lands, somehow it makes flat straight tracks most of the time...even when taking a deliberately long stride to avoid leaving tracks in a certain spot.

AFAIK, we have never even seen a track indicating a turn made by a bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.history.com/shows/swamp-people/videos/meet-harlan-bigfoot-hatcher

Pay attention to the soles of his feet.

 

[rockinkt]

Toughened but flexible. Chris B.

Then I'm afraid that puts another huge doubt in my mind about the photo that is purported to be that of a Bigfoot that has been posted above. (http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0026.JPG).

The first thing I see is a distinct sideways brushing of the small stones in one specific place that should not be seen in a single track.
Either the entire "foot" shifted sideways - or it did not. There is no logical reason for one small area to shift that far. That strongly indicates that more than one object made impressions in what you call one track.
Also, one can easily see the etches in the soil from where the stones were - to where they finish up after the movement. Some of the lengths of the straight line cuts in the soil are many times the diameter of the stones. Therefore - the stones did not just roll over under pressure.

The second thing I see is a distinct ridge that outlines the edge of the track adjacent to the shifted area.
That is not logical if the object making the track is not solid. There should be a gradual depression that slowly and smoothly fades - not a ridge - if what is making the depression is supple and/or cushioned (like a primate foot).
A ridge in ground like that could only be the result of a hard, inflexible object.

Given the sideways movement in only one place in the track that resulted in a sharply defined ridge - it appears to me that the track was either purposely altered by a sideways brushing of a hard object like a boot - or it is an impression made of multiple, overlapping, imprints.



IMHO, of course.

 

[River]

snipped for brevity
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...



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.)

You've typed a very long response again to try and twist the meaning of the word fraud. I'll link the definition again so you can perhaps grasp why it fails.

Fraud
noun
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2.
a particular instance of such deceit or trickery:
mail fraud; election frauds.
3.
any deception, trickery, or humbug:
That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4.
a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

As you can see, the definition is accurate as used. It fits perfectly. Whether or not legal action is in order depends on what type of fraud they are committing. That would apply to all forms of fraud, not just the bigfoot quandary. Also of note; I'm not so sure I lack courage in any department, much less addressing bigfoot claims or claimants. Goad away, I can take it I promise you won't hurt my feelings.

 

[Night Walker]

I think you're having a time is what I think.

And the BLAARG goes on; good on yah, as they might say down in your nape of the neck. If you're actually from there.

People get great joy out of Bigfoot - seekers and skeptics alike...

You've typed a very long response again to try and twist the meaning of the word fraud. I'll link the definition again so you can perhaps grasp why it fails.

<snip>

As you can see, the definition is accurate as used. It fits perfectly. Whether or not legal action is in order depends on what type of fraud they are committing. That would apply to all forms of fraud, not just the bigfoot quandary.

Types of fraud like how 'footers “propagate lies”, how they “con money from others”, and “commit academic fraud” - the latter two are particularly serious accusations with serious implications and consequences. Why, they are even corrupting the minds of the young according to you. You have the means and opportunity to put a stop to it via legal action - yet you do not. You accuse 'footers of "role-playing" and me of "twist[ing] the meaning of the word fraud" yet that is exactly what you, yourself, are doing - it is apparent that, at least in this regard, you don't really mean what you say...

Applying the legal definition sets a clearly standard of what is and is not acceptable usage of the word "fraud". Any other definition (like the one you quote) still implies illegality which is, I think, part of the reason you like to use the word so liberally - it's a smear against people who are you are ideologically opposed to. For me, the legal definition is fair because it can be proven when someone is or is not committing fraud. If it is perfectly acceptable to impose appropriate scientific definitions upon what what proponents consider to be evidence of Bigfoot (hence, it always comes up short) then it is also appropriate to apply a legal definition to that of what is and is not fraud. That is being fair, is it not? Extreme proponents are not excused from scientifically proving their "evidence" of Bigfoot and neither are extreme skeptics from legally proving "fraud". Yet it is not really surprising that both extremes resist the notion that they have to prove that which they already know to be true - confirmation bias affects everyone and no-one likes to even contemplate that they could be wrong...

As much as Chris is a nice guy who is clearly passionate about what he does it should not be simply accepted that he has actually has objectively documented Bigfoot in the process of making tracks unless he actually demonstrates it. Same applies to you, River, and to your assertions of "fraud"...

I commend you on your debunking skills when it comes to Bigfoot, River, but the narrative which you use to explain the broader phenomenon is shallow and, worse, empirically false when you talk big and loose about fraud but are unwilling and unable to walk that talk. The narrative is important because that is what stays with people after all the chatter fades away and the story of some giant undiscovered man-beast existing in the woods of modern America (despite zero evidence) is far more appealing than that which explains it, even in part, with direct fraudulent activity (despite zero evidence). So, in this sense, you are helping to propagate the very Bigfoot narrative you so vehemently oppose...

 

[River]

People get great joy out of Bigfoot - seekers and skeptics alike...



Types of fraud like how 'footers “propagate lies”, how they “con money from others”, and “commit academic fraud” - the latter two are particularly serious accusations with serious implications and consequences. Why, they are even corrupting the minds of the young according to you. You have the means and opportunity to put a stop to it via legal action - yet you do not. You accuse 'footers of "role-playing" and me of "twist[ing] the meaning of the word fraud" yet that is exactly what you, yourself, are doing - it is apparent that, at least in this regard, you don't really mean what you say...

I find it interesting that you seem to be offended by the term when it accurately fits. I know you'd love to single out the meaning to only as it applies to legalities. (which has been demonstrated by your multiple attempts in recent posts) However, I'm not taking the bait. The words I used were accurate, and apply to bigfoot.

Applying the legal definition sets a clearly standard of what is and is not acceptable usage of the word "fraud". Any other definition (like the one you quote) still implies illegality which is, I think, part of the reason you like to use the word so liberally - it's a smear against people who are you are ideologically opposed to. For me, the legal definition is fair because it can be proven when someone is or is not committing fraud. If it is perfectly acceptable to impose appropriate scientific definitions upon what what proponents consider to be evidence of Bigfoot (hence, it always comes up short) then it is also appropriate to apply a legal definition to that of what is and is not fraud. That is being fair, is it not? Extreme proponents are not excused from scientifically proving their "evidence" of Bigfoot and neither are extreme skeptics from legally proving "fraud". Yet it is not really surprising that both extremes resist the notion that they have to prove that which they already know to be true - confirmation bias affects everyone and no-one likes to even contemplate that they could be wrong...

There you go again, in typical footer style cherry picking. Tisk tisk! Sorry, but the definition is much broader, and was used properly when applied to bigfoot/bigfootery. If bigfoot (as you've admitted to) is only a social construct, how is it not also fraud? (again, read the actual definition of the word, not your personal interpretation of it!) I'd love to see you explain this.

As much as Chris is a nice guy who is clearly passionate about what he does it should not be simply accepted that he has actually has objectively documented Bigfoot in the process of making tracks unless he actually demonstrates it. Same applies to you, River, and to your assertions of "fraud"...

I commend you on your debunking skills when it comes to Bigfoot, River, but the narrative which you use to explain the broader phenomenon is shallow and, worse, empirically false when you talk big and loose about fraud but are unwilling and unable to walk that talk. The narrative is important because that is what stays with people after all the chatter fades away and the story of some giant undiscovered man-beast existing in the woods of modern America (despite zero evidence) is far more appealing than that which explains it, even in part, with direct fraudulent activity (despite zero evidence). So, in this sense, you are helping to propagate the very Bigfoot narrative you so vehemently oppose...

Here's a good one for you to digest. Bigfoot as proposed by footers (some of which are academics, and use university funds and space to "study") is fraud. Folks like Patterson, Dyer, Ketchum, and Meldrum elicit funds using the facade of bigfoot as a real entity. Yes or no? Does this not fit the meaning of fraud to you? It does to me. Whether or not legal charges be brought upon someone is not up to me. (as it would be a civil suit if it involved myself and those individuals, not criminal charges) If it were to involve legal charges, it would have to involve law enforcement and the breaking of laws. If you'd like to point out anywhere I accused someone of breaking the law, please do so. Otherwise, your rhetoric concerning terms is laughable. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you still try to infer only the cherry picked version that fits your own motives. Basically, you're barking up the wrong tree. (knowingly!)

If you'd like to discuss this with me further please refrain applying only the definitions you choose, and not the intended definition. If necessary I'll post a specific definition with each word you seem to have problems understanding.

 

[Resume]

People get great joy out of Bigfoot - seekers and skeptics alike...

You're certainly getting off on your BLAARG.

 

[Night Walker]

I find it interesting that you seem to be offended by the term when it accurately fits. I know you'd love to single out the meaning to only as it applies to legalities. (which has been demonstrated by your multiple attempts in recent posts) However, I'm not taking the bait. The words I used were accurate, and apply to bigfoot.

I'm not offended - I find the similarities between extreme Bigfoot-belief and extreme Bigfoot-skepticism to be fascinating. I am pleased that you are not taking the bait because, as I've already said, I am playfully goading you into legal action to prove your case and you would lose big time if you did...

There you go again, in typical footer style cherry picking. Tisk tisk! Sorry, but the definition is much broader, and was used properly when applied to bigfoot/bigfootery. If bigfoot (as you've admitted to) is only a social construct, how is it not also fraud? (again, read the actual definition of the word, not your personal interpretation of it!) I'd love to see you explain this.

Are you, yourself, not cherry picking your own definition of what is or is not fraud? Bigfoot is not fraud because it is a social construct that only extreme proponents and skeptics appear to take seriously. It is the performance of belief. Folklife. Entertainment. My definition of the term simply allows fraud to be quantified objectively. Your definition can be subjectively applied to anything which appears to be fraudulent whether it actually is or not. Elements of belief, folklife, and entertainment appear fraudulent under your definition but are clearly not actually/legally so...

Here's a good one for you to digest. Bigfoot as proposed by footers (some of which are academics, and use university funds and space to "study") is fraud. Folks like Patterson, Dyer, Ketchum, and Meldrum elicit funds using the facade of bigfoot as a real entity. Yes or no? Does this not fit the meaning of fraud to you? It does to me. Whether or not legal charges be brought upon someone is not up to me. (as it would be a civil suit if it involved myself and those individuals, not criminal charges) If it were to involve legal charges, it would have to involve law enforcement and the breaking of laws. If you'd like to point out anywhere I accused someone of breaking the law, please do so. Otherwise, your rhetoric concerning terms is laughable. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you still try to infer only the cherry picked version that fits your own motives. Basically, you're barking up the wrong tree. (knowingly!)

Blobsquatches and big, fake-looking footprints look like evidence of Bigfoot to proponents just as the things quoted above look like fraud to you. Be it civil law, criminal law, or whatever the onus is on you to prove/demonstrate your case that it is fraudulent just as is expected of proponents to prove/demonstrate theirs. In both cases, judgement as to their respective validity should not be left to the claimants themselves (be they proponents or skeptics) but to higher, more knowledgeable sources who specialize in such things. Proponents proclaiming that they have evidence of Bigfoot (but failing to formally demonstrate it) is ridiculous. Skeptics proclaiming fraud (which carries distinct implications of illegality) but also failing to formally demonstrate it is no less so...

If Bigfoot is actually more about the performance of belief, folklife, entertainment then consumers are getting exactly what they paid for - hence zero case of Bigfoot fraud. It's not rocket-science...

If you'd like to discuss this with me further please refrain applying only the definitions you choose, and not the intended definition. If necessary I'll post a specific definition with each word you seem to have problems understanding.

Why is it ok for you to impose your loose definition of "fraud" which notably doesn't include any legal implications but not for me to impose mine which does? Are you denying that "fraud" carries any legal connotation at all? That's a bit naive, isn't it...

Bottom line is that you can do, say, and believe whatever you like but, like Chris who investigates Bigfoot but not the people themselves, you are simply seeking to justify what you already "know" - and that devalues the good debunking work that you bring to the table. However, it also demonstrates that skeptics are human too - and that is a good thing...

 

[Night Walker]

You're certainly getting off on your BLAARG.

We all play a variety of roles - business owner/employee, parent, sibling, consumer, entertainer, proponent, skeptic, etc. No harm in enjoying what you do and the simple truth is that people from a small but broad cross-section of the community enjoy the Bigfoot phenomenon...