• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

Cheeseburgers no, Unicat can't haz
they lay him low and give him the gaz
jealous he be of his mate The Taz
who twirls about with general snazz
scarfing burgers, fries, and all that jazz
 
That's just Bruce, he is to Bigfoot what Battle-Cat is to He-Man.

Many people suggested that Bruce could in fact be spotted hiding just behind some shrubbery in the PGF. Many people have also claimed to see Gimlin crouching down watching the scene unfold, but this was just Ronald the Poacher, who understands that the exceedingly rare Bruce can fetch up to $125K at auction, (I haven't verified those numbers, but NL has, they're solid.)

The horn isn't a natural feature, btw, Patty added it for dramatic effect.

They say that Bruce can only be tamed by a man who is strong-willed, pure of heart and fond of liquorice.

Patty.
The Last Sasquatch,
and her faithful steed, Bruce.

This tag-team is tight,
but Patty's costume is loose.
 
Do you know who separates out the green M&Ms for Unicat?

Eddie and Alex Van Halen.
 
I was probably the last person to read this, but I'm going to post it anyway:

(New Photos May Show Bigfoot’s Cloaking Ability)

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/11/new-photos-may-show-bigfoots-cloaking-ability/

One of the comments from below the article:

"I'm surprised none of my images of Sasquatch stalking deer posted on my Facebook page with public access, have garnered near as much attention that these inferior images and videos receive. Always inconclusive, with a question mark at the end, of it. I don't need a game cam or other devices rigged up to deceive something far superior in its cognizance of our motives, when they are open, and responsive to my honesty towards them."

No real reason for posting that, I just found it to be worth a chuckle.
 
Last edited:
jerrywayne said:
Cryptozoology, unlike zoology, depends primarily on eyewitness accounts. Some cryptozoology enthusiasts understand that eyewitness testimonies are not definitive because of the potential problems inherent in such accounts. Other advocates accept, at least provisionally, sightings, and others accept a body of eyewitness stories as surely valid.

I would like to examine various aspects of particular cryptid or unknown animal sightings to make a general argument that skeptics are rightfully doubting of eyewitness testimonies when it comes to the extraordinary claims of undocumented, unknown or out-of-place large animals.

My first example relates to the alleged lake "monster" said to live in British Columbia's Lake Okanagan and nick-named "Ogopogo."

In 1989, Ken Chaplin and his father and daughter thought they saw Ogopogo entering an inlet area on the lake. Chaplin said he was between 75ft to 100ft away from the creature. He "saw [the creature's] features very clearly" and it was "snake or lizard like" with "no fur or hair;" his sister saw a long snake-like body over 15ft long.

Sounds like Chaplin and family had a typical Ogopogo sighting. He had no question as to what he saw. Unfortunately for Ogopogo lore, Chaplin not only saw the creature, he video recorded it too--twice. What he recorded was obviously not an anomalous lake serpent/monster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyb-hpDh-7M&feature=relmfu

Even after his recording was shown to represent a common animal, he and his sister refused to accept the mundane verdict.

Enter the local Ogopogo "expert," Arlene Gaal, to also deny that Chaplin recorded a common animal and to state he filmed a "miniature" Ogopogo.

This is a straightforward demonstration that people don't always see what they believe they are seeing, and that cryptozoological "experts" can be blind to the obvious.
Click to expand...

Would this be an example of the highlighted that constitutes empirical evidence that can be legitimized and authenticated?
 
Jango said:
'Hidden animals' was mentioned when I Googled the definition.
Click to expand...

That is the etymology. The actual definition follows:
Wikipedia said:
Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is a pseudoscience involving the search for animals whose existence has not been proven due to lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
Note the terms 'pseudoscience' and 'lack of evidence'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology
 
Fundamentally it is the sharing of existing folk tales and the creation of new folk tales. I don't know if that is even "fake science" (pseudoscience).
 
I'm trying to recall during my time on the BFF, which is my only experience with with those that place faith in sightings, or their own experiences, as to whether anyone ever claimed that it constituted empirical evidence.

Mulder was the only one I remember that I ever spoke with that made that claim. Another is someone y'all quote often, but I don't remember talking to him, and that is DWI, at least I think that's his screen name. The scammers like Dyer, the MABRC and their petrified bigfoot foot, etc....That hardly constitutes the entire fan club of cryptozoology as claiming they have empirical evidence for what they claim to believe or know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom