Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[GT/CS]

The Rancho La Brea tar pits museum has something like 300 dire wolf (Canis dirus) skulls on one wall. It's one of the few times paleontologist a have been a blue to do population studies, in fact. Beautiful creatures. I wish I could clone one.

That's the cool part of REAL science--we get to study monsters made even more awe-inspiring by the fact that they were real. They in fact encountered humans.

You want to be really terrified, look up short-faced bears. Closest thing to a demon humans have ever encountered.

You want to take another shot at that?

 

[bruto]

You want to take another shot at that?

I suspect a spell checker that misread an accidental space in "able."

 

[Dinwar]

You want to take another shot at that?

I posted that on an iPad one evening, because I didn't want to fire the computer up. Unfortunately, autocorrect is horrible when it comes to science. It turned "lacustrine" into "locust rinse", to the great amusement of my boss. I still haven't figured that out....

"a blue" should be "able".

As for the intended statement, it's true. Paleontologists--particularly vertebrate paleontologists--tend to work with very small datasets composed of individuals from geographically and temporally separated areas. It's called time- and space-averaging. A real nightmare when trying to do paleoenvironmental reconstructions. A raptor can have a huge home range, and skeletons of creatures from multiple biomes can end up in the same regurgitated pellet, to say nothing of rock formation. Worse, we generally only have a few pieces of skeleton to work with--hardly ever a full animal, and it's even more rare to have the same piece from multiple animals of the same species. La Brea is one of the few places we actually have multiple members of a single species in a relatively well-constrained deposit (temporally and geographically speaking). This lets us do studies of the population that are impossible for other formations. We can't do ALL the studies, to be sure--there remains a certain amount of averaging. But we can certainly do some.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You point out an important, probable cause for some of the phenomena -- the out of the way prank. This does not require a conspiracy of hoaxers. Instead, one thread of Bigfoot "evidence" is manufactured by an individual on a lark or a fun side trip intentionally sowing wonder and surprise.

Exactly. It always kills me how many proponents fail to take this (and overlaid animal tracks) into account when they breathlessly discuss tracks made in remote locations. Then again, it's amusing how people always seem to find these supposedly "remote" areas.

This type of prank is a possible explanation for cryptid artifacts like Bigfoot tracks. I'm not sure how it would relate to sightings, unless an artificial cryptid was left out some place to be glimpsed.

Although documented cases of people making static artificial cryptids are rare, they do exist. Back on the old BFF, there was a post detailing a case where someone put a cut-out (either cardboard of plywood) that looked like Bigfoot in a wooded area and successfully tricked people into thinking they saw Bigfoot. I also recall a case there where someone was leaving some sort of UV-reactive markers in the woods while they were hunting. They had arranged a couple to look like a pair of eyes to amuse themselves and scared the crap out of themselves while coming back later in the evening with their night vision goggles on after having forgotten their own joke! Of course, that's not to say that a full-fledged monster prop wouldn't generate sighting reports. Imagine someone weatherproofing the hell out of this and leaving it out in the woods.

I have also heard cases of people making wind-powered noisemakers out of coffee cans and leaving them up in trees to prank people. This sort of device might be called a "moose whistle," but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Oh, and I should note that the link for "art" in my last post is broken. This is the correct link.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...
You point out an important, probable cause for some of the phenomena -- the out of the way prank. This does not require a conspiracy of hoaxers. Instead, one thread of Bigfoot "evidence" is manufactured by an individual on a lark or a fun side trip intentionally sowing wonder and surprise.
...

On that same thought, suppose you were out in the middle of the Bronson Gifford Pinchot Forest being all Bigfooty and stuff and wanted to make the loudest possible 'natural' (but non-human) sound you could make that wasn't your own voice, what would you do? If actually presented with such a scenario, it would probably take you less than a second to realize you just needed to pick up a stick say 2 inches in diameter and pound it it hard as you can against a bigger stick say 24 inches in diameter. It's about as close to a no-brainer as no-brainers get.

Rocket scientists like Moneymaker made up that "Bigfoot big and loud. Bigfoot like wood knocking." crap up years ago for his own marketing purposes, and has used it to great success actually making literally thousands of dollars with it by mentally abusing the attendees on the BFRO Bigfoot hikes since 'wood knocking' is considered a Bigfoot encounter.

 

[Drewbot]

Not even pranks needed to fool them.

When I was a boy scout, we used to go into the woods, knock down dead trees and make giant Teepees in the middle of the woods. We didn't think anyone would think they were Bigfoot houses.

Same with hunting blinds. On state land, you can't leave your tree stand out there, so hunters make wood fall blinds on the ground. These are not places where Bigfoots sleep.

 

[Drewbot]

Check this prank detailed on EHOW.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_8234291_make-big-footprints-snow.html

When the first snow falls, it can be an exciting and fun-filled time. Not only can you create whimsical snowmen and take part in a snowball fight, but you can make also make tracks in the snow. One way to make snow tracks even more humorous is to create giant bigfoot-sized tracks that resemble those a Sasquatch would have left behind. You can make large footprints using only a few craft materials that can be found at an art supply store.

 

[jerrywayne]

Not even pranks needed to fool them.

When I was a boy scout, we used to go into the woods, knock down dead trees and make giant Teepees in the middle of the woods. We didn't think anyone would think they were Bigfoot houses.

Same with hunting blinds. On state land, you can't leave your tree stand out there, so hunters make wood fall blinds on the ground. These are not places where Bigfoots sleep.

I've been wondering about the now standard Bigfoot lore concerning "stick structures." This explanation deserves further exposure.

 

[jerrywayne]

Check this prank detailed on EHOW.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_8234291_make-big-footprints-snow.html

I don't doubt that this explains many of the snow tracks. But, tracks in deep snow and of long strides are hard to explain this way.

Not sure what to make of these tracks. At such a distance, we cannot tell. I'm guessing a four-legged bounder.


http://www.bfro.net/news/snow_track_season.asp

 

[jerrywayne]

On that same thought, suppose you were out in the middle of the Bronson Gifford Pinchot Forest being all Bigfooty and stuff and wanted to make the loudest possible 'natural' (but non-human) sound you could make that wasn't your own voice, what would you do? If actually presented with such a scenario, it would probably take you less than a second to realize you just needed to pick up a stick say 2 inches in diameter and pound it it hard as you can against a bigger stick say 24 inches in diameter. It's about as close to a no-brainer as no-brainers get.

Rocket scientists like Moneymaker made up that "Bigfoot big and loud. Bigfoot like wood knocking." crap up years ago for his own marketing purposes, and has used it to great success actually making literally thousands of dollars with it by mentally abusing the attendees on the BFRO Bigfoot hikes since 'wood knocking' is considered a Bigfoot encounter.

Scroll down this article and find the photo of a Bigfoot wood-knocking station. What-ever, who-ever, used a "displaced" piece of firewood.

http://woodape.org/index.php/our-research/projects/206-oe

 

[The Shrike]

Re: prints in deep snow: yes, 4-legged bounder. I've never seen anything from one of those examples that would lead me to suspect anything else. Note, for example, how often those prints in snow look like they were made by a truly enormous beast, judging from the stride length and the snow depth. Note as well the "cleanliness" of the prints, as if they were laid down in an almost vertical plane. Just how tall would that Bigfoot need to be to show an 8' stride in deep snow while lifting and stepping so close to vertical? I'm not sure, but I'd think that to do that it's *legs* would need to be close to 8' long.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...it's *legs* would need to be close to 8' long.

Hey don't knock it mister, there's been reports of 13 foot tall Bigfeet before. And I believe everything I ever read about them.

 

[rockinkt]

But Harry - if their legs are 8 feet long and they don't have tails - what's that line in the snow between their feet that seems to indicate something dragging?

 

[jerrywayne]

Hey don't knock it mister, there's been reports of 13 foot tall Bigfeet before. And I believe everything I ever read about them.

13 ft. tall? Must be females. "The figure was as tall as the spruce trees beside it. That meant it was 15 feet tall." (From Hall and Coleman's TRUE GIANTS, on an Alberta 1969 sighting.)

But, if we believe the Hall and Coleman lore, our Bigfoot is not so big. They report an account from, of all places, Scotland. They quote from a source:

"a great brown creature...swaggering down the hill...it rolled slightly from side to side, taking huge measured steps. It looked as though it was covered with shortish brown hair" and according to the report, the witness "later calculated its height as between 24 and 30 feet." (p. 27)

 

[jerrywayne]

But Harry - if their legs are 8 feet long and they don't have tails - what's that line in the snow between their feet that seems to indicate something dragging?

I, for one, wouldn't have a clue. According to Ostman, sasquatch guys have shortjakes, not longjohnnys.

 

[rockinkt]

Good Point!

The one thing Ostman teaches us though is that with a trivial fact or two - you can fool a lot of fools.
Ostman obviously never left the beer parlours that often.

Only tenderfeet fools like Green who had absolutely no knowledge of the incredibly rugged fjords of BC and the completely inhospitable terrain of the West Coast - would believe Ostman's preposterous story.

Even if Ostman had stated nothing about squatches - his story should have been dismissed (and was by knowledgeable people) entirely due to his abysmal lack of knowledge about the geography and terrain he supposedly had ventured into.

Edited for typo

 

[HarryHenderson]

Good Point!

The one thing Ostman teaches us though is that with a trivial fact or two - you can fool a lot of fools.
Ostman obviously never left the beer parlours that often.

Only tenderfeet fools like Green who had absolutely no knowledge of the incredibly rugged fjords of BC and the completely inhospitable terrain of the West Coast - would believe Ostman's preposterous story.

Even if Ostman had stated nothing about squatches - his story should have been dismissed (and was by knowledgeable people) entirely due to his abysmal lack of knowledge about the geography and terrain he supposedly had ventured into.

Edited for typo

I never could buy that guy's 'story', even way back in my early days of Bigfootingdom. In no small part because he claimed he'd never told anyone before that late date that something so unusual had happened to him 40(?) years earlier. Really? Kidnapped? By a whole family of Bigfeet? Really? I've seen his interview(s) before and he's as sincere as an actor ever was. I think he was mostly just a ne'er-do-well type who'd probably never done much of anything in life except regularly seek simple-to-create-but-always-undeserved attention or glory.

I've in fact come to know many similar phony eccentric types during my career. Their actual 'cleverness' is in getting you to think they're being honest and sincere by using the 'a trivial fact or two you can fool a lot of fools' method. Their ruse inevitably involves some form of their possessing a 'grand secret' that (in essence) only they have. A story, a design, a product, a technique, a treasure, a game changer, a cure-all. That you can know about if you're nice, and have if you're rich. I'm pretty sure Ostman made uber little money from it, but he's almost infinitely famous.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

A lot of people forget the revelation at the old BFF that Ostman's tale was directly lifted from an old Swedish folk tale, right down the the escape via snuff box! From what I understand, he starting telling his story after he was left with no family and was inspired to "come forward" after seeing how much attention the Roe encounter got in John Green's newspaper (speaking of which, I love the claims agent's comment on Roe's affidavit).

Had Sanderson not been so seemingly hell-bent on discarding any information pointing towards a hoax (as he was known to do), he might have caught on sooner. One blatant clue as to the folkloric origin of his story was his comment about getting sick due to eating a supposedly poisonous "broody grouse." Although Sanderson recognized that was pure nonsense, he still gave Ostman a pass! Even when his story kept gaining details in each telling and Ostman's habit of dodging any attempts to provide details on one of his female captors, Sanderson still found a way to justify it. If only he had paid more attention to his own offhand comment about Ostman's humorous nature...

Here are tow more fun pieces of information about Ostman: Not only did Rene Dahinden declare the story a hoax based on the timeline issues (funny how he gave the PGF a pass on this), but Ostman said that Patty wasn't the same sort of creature that kidnapped him after seeing the PGF!

 

[jerrywayne]

Given old newspaper reports of "gorillas" and wild men in America's hinterland, and the purported Native American belief in tribes of giants, most skeptical commentators are reluctant to give a defining moment in time to the origin of the sasquatch myth that is comparable to the Kenneth Arnold episode relating to the UFO myth. I see it differently.

I see the sasquatch myth as beginning with Green, Dahinden, Sanderson, Ostman, and Roe. They are the sasquatch founders. Rene was the passionate spark looking for a yeti anywhere he could find it. Green, a convert, was a self-important journalist who was bent on scooping the world. Sanderson, a zoologist, was now making money as a writer of nature and Fortean subjects. Roe dreamed up a story to help celebrate "sasquatch days" and, apparently called on it, sanctified it by swearing to its truth. And tall-tale spinner Ostman joined in with a fairy-tale updated for British Columbians.

Green converted the sasquatch of Indian lore into the British Empire's "Abominable Snowman," the yeti, itself a Darwinian apeman vision of muddled Sherpa lore. He took the Roe and Ostman accounts, along with the Ruby Creek Incident (see posting up thread), and created an enduring legend of the Giant Ape of North America (and contrary to what Roe and Chapman at Ruby Creek said were human). Sanderson, making a living writing up a Fort viewpoint, and the only celebrity of the bunch, entertained his audience dutifully, even if they didn't see the wry and the winking.

It all really started with these guys. The singularities, like the Jacko story and the Ape Canyon story, were dug up and given new contexts. And then came Northern California in the late 1950's, with hoaxer Wallace and company, serious and gullible Jerry Crew, the name "Big Foot," and then John Green to link it all to his yetiized sasquatch.

This origin transpired as cryptozoology was being introduced by maverick zoologists and popularizers of Fortean and occult phenomena. They needed big cryptids to promote to the public. And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[HarryHenderson]

^^^ Said very well by somebody who's been paying Bigfoot attention for awhile. I would also include Roger Patterson even if he did come along several years later. IMO his appearance 'on the Bigfoot scene' was so perfectly timed (for the perpetuation of the gag) that it couldn't have been algorithm-ed better. That is, if all that you've said is true, then the PGF is the glue that's held it all together for the Bigfoot 'faithful' all these many years since. "Cripes man are you blond blind, there's a real beast and he's right there on film."

Whatever Green and Sanderson et al had written previously on the subject became instantly sanctified and certified the minute the PGF came out. Green's alliance (and still ongoing as far as I know) with Patterson was not a random decision. I wonder what all those guys' 'reputations' would be like nowadays had the PGF been proven fake say 30 years ago?! Surely non-existent and/or long forgotten.