Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

ChrisBFRPKY said:
You likely didn't sleep through it because I never made a presentation for that specific trackway. Some pics of it were on the video you linked to, now deleted from my site as pics of the trackway and the tracks cast that were shown briefly in that video, were meant for internal use only. It was my mistake for not catching it earlier. At the time the video was put together, we hadn't considered the possible negative impact for Bigfooters.

Not really meaning to be secretive but it was decided to give any possible hoaxers (not you specifically) a close look at an actual track would not be beneficial to other Bigfoot researchers.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

I have just looked at that video again, and I do recall seeing the other track or tracks. There are two shots of a deep track in the video. I can't tell if it's the same track in each shot.

They are not the specific track you mentioned me seeing, though. Just a straight flat track, fairly deep, much like an alderfoot. No sign of a turn at all.

There is a largish green nut nearby, and a pair of sunglasses is there for scale, in one of the shots.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I have just looked at that video again, and I do recall seeing the other track or tracks. There are two shots of a deep track in the video. I can't tell if it's the same track in each shot.

They are not the specific track you mentioned me seeing, though. Just a straight flat track, fairly deep, much like an alderfoot. No sign of a turn at all.

There is a largish green nut nearby, and a pair of sunglasses is there for scale, in one of the shots.
Click to expand...

Ah, but is there a giant primate?
 
William Parcher said:
Never mind your pictures. Sounds like you Bigfooters will have a serious problem with guys who have seen genuine Bigfoot tracks in the wild and then go on to create hoax tracks that look just like what they saw in the wilderness.

Do you know if the walnut trackway you saw was the real deal or a perfect but fake replication by somebody who had previously seen the real deal?
Click to expand...

It's pretty clearly fake, imo.

Very obviously so too, imo.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It's pretty clearly fake, imo.

Very obviously so too, imo.
Click to expand...
I was talking about this one which doesn't look like a fake anything to me. It looks like gravel and dirt or sand....... a picture of the ground.

attachment.php
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Bolded section: 1 percent out of 280 million. I would say Shrike has a valid argument. African Americans don't seem to embrace the outdoors as much as other ethnic groups.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
But do not forget that citing the overall number does not somehow make the percentage smaller. While it is true that the percentage is small and explains much, a small percentage of a very large number is a very large number too. One percent of 280 million is 2.8 million.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yeah, it was "very fresh" but the little plant in the middle is upright.
Click to expand...
The photo is not in sharp focus and I can't tell if the little plants are upright or not. Those could be chewed forage that fell out of Bigfoot's mouth.

What do the blue circles show? Are those cute little mid-tarsal breaks, or thermal vents coming from the bowels of the earth, or what?
 
bruto said:
One percent of 280 million is 2.8 million.
Click to expand...
So, 2.8 million black people have visited National Parks and they still are not part of Bigfootery? How, or why does Bigfoot avoid those people so perfectly?

There must be a lot of Mexican-American or Hispanic-American people out there too.

But the best way to describe Bigfootery might be "all kinds of white guys".
 
William Parcher said:
The photo is not in sharp focus and I can't tell if the little plants are upright or not. Those could be chewed forage that fell out of Bigfoot's mouth.

What do the blue circles show? Are those cute little mid-tarsal breaks, or thermal vents coming from the bowels of the earth, or what?
Click to expand...

I believe I see the little plants making shadows, indicating that they weren't just trod on by a Giganto...

The decorations are not on the original.

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICT0026.JPG
 
Well anyway, I think you can step on a seedling or tiny plant and it will spring right back up within the same day.
 
That photo looks to me like some of the stones (in a road, presumably) were lined up to make shadows that would form a vaguely footprint-shaped half-outline. If I squint, I can also make it out as two boot print prints overstepped at a near perpendicular angle.

In short, I'm at a loss as to why someone would try to pass that off as a footprint of a mythical forest ape-man.
 
William Parcher said:
Never mind your pictures. Sounds like you Bigfooters will have a serious problem with guys who have seen genuine Bigfoot tracks in the wild and then go on to create hoax tracks that look just like what they saw in the wilderness.

Do you know if the walnut trackway you saw was the real deal or a perfect but fake replication by somebody who had previously seen the real deal?
Click to expand...

There's no sense in educating hoaxers how to make a better hoax.

Yes I know it to be the real deal.

LTC8K6 said:
I have just looked at that video again, and I do recall seeing the other track or tracks. There are two shots of a deep track in the video. I can't tell if it's the same track in each shot.

They are not the specific track you mentioned me seeing, though. Just a straight flat track, fairly deep, much like an alderfoot. No sign of a turn at all.

There is a largish green nut nearby, and a pair of sunglasses is there for scale, in one of the shots.
Click to expand...

That shot shows the plow ridge in the center of the track, but the other shot without the shades is a better angle. You can see where the unplowed ground meets the plowed and the track straddles that exact spot. Very fortunate to catch that one, the rest were made on unplowed (harder) ground. The trackway went from the edge of the plowed ground to the unplowed ground at that point on. While not a hard left bank, it was a left turn from that point.

bruto said:
But do not forget that citing the overall number does not somehow make the percentage smaller. While it is true that the percentage is small and explains much, a small percentage of a very large number is a very large number too. One percent of 280 million is 2.8 million.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you'd probably have to go further and find out what percentage of that 280 million actually had sightings and adjust that percentile with the same for African American numbers. Again, if the numbers are accurate the number of sightings should be proportional across the board IMO. It would actually be an interesting study to complete. Chris B.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Well anyway, I think you can step on a seedling or tiny plant and it will spring right back up within the same day.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of leaves on a green thing in the center of the track. Had they been crushed under other conditions, say when the ground was wet, the leaves would have been cemented to the ground. Chris B.
 
The Shrike said:
That photo looks to me like some of the stones (in a road, presumably) were lined up to make shadows that would form a vaguely footprint-shaped half-outline. If I squint, I can also make it out as two boot print prints overstepped at a near perpendicular angle.

In short, I'm at a loss as to why someone would try to pass that off as a footprint of a mythical forest ape-man.
Click to expand...
It's interesting you see no compression of the ground whatsoever. I'm at a loss to explain this as I and others, see it clearly.

If you wish to view it only as some stones lined up to create shadows, that's ok.
I've gotten quite used to having things explained away as "shadows" even if the "shadows" exist in direct sun light.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
There's no sense in educating hoaxers how to make a better hoax. Yes I know it to be the real deal.
Click to expand...
Chris, it would take me about 17 hours to try to recreate this thing you are calling a Bigfoot track and even then it wouldn't be a perfect replica. I don't even know where the heel and toes are supposed to be. It just looks like a gravel and dirt Rorschach test to me. Then, how am I supposed to get people to find it and look at it and think it's a Bigfoot track? I'd probably need to write "Bigfoot Footprint" on a piece of paper and lay it right next to the thing.

It would seem that the only logical thing to do is make this track and then go and tell the world that you found a Bigfoot track (the one you just made). But then you'll probably run into guys like me that can't see anything in the photo. A plaster cast would just look like an albino pizza.

I agree, but you'd probably have to go further and find out what percentage of that 280 million actually had sightings and adjust that percentile with the same for African American numbers. Again, if the numbers are accurate the number of sightings should be proportional across the board IMO. It would actually be an interesting study to complete.
Click to expand...
Complete the study? Do you mean like visit all 280 million people (the living ones) and ask each of them if they saw a Bigfoot when they went to the park(s)? Then for the dead ones you ask a relative if they ever mentioned seeing a Bigfoot when they went to the park?

So it's 280 million. How many Bigfoot encounters do you think are in there? Maybe like 60,000-90,000? The black people are 2.8 million so, what, maybe like 600-900 of those saw a Bigfoot? I'm just farting around with numbers pulled from my butt. Maybe none of the blacks saw Bigfoot and just a dozen non-blacks saw one. We don't know how many of the non-blacks were Hispanic or Asian - but to me it sure doesn't look like they are represented in Bigfootery which essentially looks like a white guy's club.
 
River said:
I get it, you dont like bigfoot being labeled as fraud. Guess what? It still is. You can try and change the definitions to ONLY mean legal connotations, but guess what? The ACTUAL definition of the term fits bigfoot perfectly. Bigfoot = fraud.

If this offends you, too bad.

You're right that, you perfectly have the right to lie. Keep at it, and enjoy your dishonesty. I prefer to "keep things real" and stick with an honest lifestyle and description of things in it. The thing you will never change is; a lie is a lie. Deceiving people is fun for you. We get it. I'm sorry (not really?) you have a hard time accepting that some folks prefer truth and reality over lies/fraud.
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't bother me - recall: "I’m just playfully goading you"...

Remember this:

1z4lq4n.jpg

River said:
I'm glad you posted the funny religious meme though. It reminds me a lot of how bigfooters act. "you must have faith" because without it, there is nothing...
Click to expand...


A lie is a lie as a fork is a fork and a spoon is a spoon. I will have to end our little discussion by agreeing with you since you can obviously spot a religious nutter rant when you see one...

Cheers. It's been educational...
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I've gotten quite used to having things explained away as "shadows" even if the "shadows" exist in direct sun light.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
You should be used to trees and brush casting shadows in "direct sun light" Light is generally necessary to cast shadows; as are the objects that block the light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom