ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Bob Heironimus , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Reply
Old 26th September 2016, 08:23 PM   #81
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
...I do not claim that the film is of a real creature. My position is agnostic, and I think the film is ambiguous and anomalous. That doesn't mean I am trying to make it be real, despite all the weight against the possibility of Bigfoot actually existing. If Bigfoot isn't real, so be it. I am interested in discovering the truth.

I do find Gimlin to be a congenial and honest type of fellow, a seemingly convincing witness; but that does not mean that I AM convinced. It doesn't seem to me that he is lying when I hear him talk, or when I have spoken with him. But, that is not proof that the film is of a real creature known as Bigfoot. Perhaps he was in on a hoax, or was the one first fooled by one? Even he has admitted this possibility. I said that about Gimlin to indicate one of the real puzzles of the whole PGF controversy, and one that applies to all of Bigfooting witness accounts: How can seemingly honest and sane, ordinary people think they have seen this creature, if it does not exist? If it does not exist, why are they claiming to have seen it? Is it all hoaxing or delusion, or mistakes of perception? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is not. This is the aspect of the "phenomenon" that I find most fascinating...

You're getting it, slowly, but you're on the right track. At what point are you willing to concede to yourself that people tell lies? Lots of people. They prank, hoax, talk themselves into thinking they saw Bigfoot (essentially a fib) and tell lies. I can't say I blame them. Bigfoot is funny. Telling Bigfoot whoppers? Why the hell not? I suspect you're giving people too much credit.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 26th September 2016 at 08:35 PM.
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:44 PM   #82
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Well, I share that view these days, whether or not some of you believe it. I'm sitting here in the Bigfoot Mecca, and also ensconced in my own way within the "Bigfoot Community," and the lunacy of it all never ceases to amaze me. I've been living here in Willow Creek since 2001, and never once have I seen anything that would convince me absolutely that the thing is a real creature. Yet, every day I hear about "encounters" and "sightings," either here locally or (mostly) through the online venues.

I maintain an interest in the history of it here locally, and as a general cultural element. I try to keep up the agnostic viewpoint mainly to allow people to tell their experiences, and to ponder what it could be that is causing these people to think they've run across a Bigfoot. To me, that is the real mystery now. Heck, maybe Bigfoot is out there somewhere hiding, after all, but I doubt it.

BFBM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
To talk to eyewitnesses?
You're perhaps misunderstanding our present day fascination with Bigfoot. It's not about the clever hoaxer Roger Patterson or his Indian sidekick Bob "Kee-mo sah-bee" Gimlin. It's almost solely about the hilarity that ensues when those who "believe" in Bigfoot so deeply or play Bigfootopoly™ so much they inevitably "experience" one. To sharpen the point, it's our humorous fascination with the seeming psychopathy required to claim such a thing.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 26th September 2016 at 08:47 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:01 PM   #83
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Yes, of course people lie, sometimes to others, and often to themselves. There are both con men and fools involved. Both are fun to identify and debunk, and it's great practice in applying the tools of skepticism and logic, and for learning about the scientific method. However, I do think there is another category, that of the person who is honest and sane, and yet still feels and thinks deeply that they have indeed encountered Bigfoot. Often, they have no motivation to think this, nothing to gain, and nothing to prove. Some of them are rather convincing, and it's hard to know what to say to them as they tell me of their experiences here in my bookshop. They aren't apparent liars, or delusional believers. Maybe they are mistaken in their interpretations, but really, they DO believe it.

What are we to make of this?

BFBM

Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
You're getting it, slowly, but you're on the right track. At what point are you willing to concede to yourself that people tell lies? Lots of people. They prank, hoax, talk themselves into thinking they saw Bigfoot (essentially a fib) and tell lies. I can't say I blame them. Bigfoot is funny. Telling Bigfoot whoppers? Why the hell not? I suspect you're giving people too much credit.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:25 PM   #84
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Maybe the point is that "the mystery" is dispelled, and certain understandings are reached? It most certainly is a great hoax or a great wildlife film (depending on one's view) in the impact it's had on the culture. Sure, it's not really big, like the Zapruder film, but here locally it is a big deal, and it's driving big interest in the media and the subculture that derives largely from it.

I'll tell you this, that if you want really to understand the action of that film, there's no substitute for standing on the very spot where it happened, and seeing the same trees, stumps, creek, and sand that were there back then. The film action is not easy to grasp, given the illusions of perspective, unless one can see how it happened on the ground, in that particular context. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, and that's OK. There are still huge debates about this, and I certainly find it interesting to have done a certain kind of research and see how it can be applied to the various claims and questions constantly raised.

At first, when I stood there at the center of the film site, I felt a certain mystery all around me, and yeah, that was the big What If, the sense of possibility that it could actually be real. But then I snapped out of it. I've never fully believed in that film, but there certainly are things about it that still intrigue me. One can never really go back into the mind of a child and become fully enchanted. So, I'll never be that kid in 1974 again who saw the PGF on a giant drive-in screen. That's ok. I'm happy studying the local environs and history, engaging with the bizarre Bigfooting culture, and observing the various interesting wildlife that we capture on our trail cameras. It's a great hobby, and doesn't require the belief of a fanatic. Maybe we'll never see a Bigfoot up there, and that's alright; but I'm willing to be surprised.

BFBM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I don't see how studying the site contributes anything to the mystery..
No one is questioning that a film was made on Bluff Creek..
That is a fact that adds nothing to the veracity of the film itself..
" Yep.. This is where Roger used his Camera.. Yes siree.. "
P.S. It's not a 'great' hoax in the minds of those who believe it's a hoax.. What does that leave?

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 26th September 2016 at 09:27 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:26 PM   #85
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
... However, I do think there is another category, that of the person who is honest and sane, and yet still feels and thinks deeply that they have indeed encountered Bigfoot. Often, they have no motivation to think this, nothing to gain, and nothing to prove...

Other than to yank your chain.


Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
...Some of them are rather convincing, and it's hard to know what to say to them as they tell me of their experiences here in my bookshop. They aren't apparent liars, or delusional believers. Maybe they are mistaken in their interpretations, but really, they DO believe it.

What are we to make of this?

BFBM

Mission accomplished. They have hooked you like a fish. My hat's off to them. Well played.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 03:43 AM   #86
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by captain koolaid
Nope. Not agreed. To hell with DeAtley. If I'm Roger, there is no way that I'm giving this to some other jerk to develop and "check out". I'm gonna do that myself, scope it out, myself... and then make a move.
DeAtley wasn’t just anybody—he was married to Patterson’s favorite sibling. Patterson had lived in DeAtley’s house, he’d worked for DeAtley’s company, he’d known him since high school, he’d borrowed money from him, he’d sold his pony-and-stagecoach business to or through him, . . . And Patterson wasn’t you.

Originally Posted by captain koolaid
I don't see why Patterson would give a flying **** what DeAtley thought. If I'm Patterson, I'm doing it myself and I might tell him "I got it. You want in, or not?" Because if he doesn't, so what? I'm not gonna stuff around, being jerked around by DeAtley and his concerns about "scoffers". I'm cashing in . . . .
But how are you “cashing in”? There’s no organization that’s posted a reward. There’s no magazine that’s done so. (I believe that Life magazine let Sanderson know that there’d $100,000 for an exclusive story, but only if scientists at the Museum of Natural History gave their OK, which they didn’t.) Hollywood bigshots similarly talked about big money, as I quoted in an earlier comment to you, but they also begged off after a month or two. (Maybe their FX guys said it was a hoax.) Expedition-funder Tom Slick didn’t buy it.

At that point, Patterson’s only option would have been to go on a four-walling tour organized by the Olson offspring, as they offered. Patterson couldn’t have copied their methods and done it himself—he had no business talents, as Al DeAtley explained at length in Long’s book. Most of the money would have gone to the Olsons. Maybe Patterson figured his brother-in-law would give him a higher percentage.

In addition, Patterson had pressing money needs. The Radfords’ loan was due to be repaid. He’d need to pay for copies of his film to show to others. He may not have had money to even pay for the development of the original PGF. He might have been in debt to DeAtley.

The PGF was not “a slam dunk,” as you’ve claimed. Numerous objections to it have been raised, some of which Patterson was already aware of and could anticipate. Scientists mostly thought it was impossible. Most outdoorsmen (90%?) would scoff at the idea. His own background was shady, and might deter a potential buyer who checked into it—as a person preparing to make a big payoff would likely do. The creature’s height couldn’t be determined from what was in the film—it could be within human dimensions. FX specialists might decry it as phony. Etc.

Compare this to a true slam-dunk: a video of an ivory bill woodpecker. Wikipedia says that there’s a $50,000 award for evidence pointing to the location of a nest. The films and videos that have been so far presented haven’t been unambiguous. A person who gets a good shot of the underside of the wings with their distinctive white trailing edge will have a slam-dunk. No possible “mime” is inside the bird.

But with a Bigfoot, the situation isn’t black or white. Credibility is on a shades-of-gray scale, from 1% for a blobsquatch to 100% of one doing a humanly impossible thing, like shinnying up the Empire State Building, to 90% to being video’d in a situation where photogrammetry could be confidently applied to pretty much rule out a mime being inside.

The PGF is in about the 50% range, credibility-wise (67% to me). Patterson must have suspected that—indeed, he said he was unsure of how good the film was before he saw it. If so, Patterson would have needed help to sell it. But even if he thought he didn’t, he took no risk of losing money in letting DeAtley develop the film and give him a report.

What would he have gained from leaving Bluff Creek to go to Palo Alto or Seattle and having it developed himself, and then having to rent an analyst projector and a room to use it in, even assuming he had the money to do so? Five days wasted, and meanwhile the opportunity to film other Bigfoots in the Bluff Creek area would have been lost. Sending it out immediately to a trusted associate was the normal, sensible, and risk-free thing to do.

After DeAtley reported, then one of them might well (IMO) have had the not-so-bright idea of pretending that this hadn't happened, but rather that the film had been shipped and developed without a time-gap for evaluation before projecting it, to obviate objections that the film had been tampered with somehow in the interim. This interpretation is supported by the reasons I provided in my comment 21 on page 1. (E.g., Gimlin saying (in separate comments) that he arrived in Bluff Creek on Oct. 1 and the film was shot two weeks after he arrived.)

Originally Posted by captain koolaid
Put yourself in Patterson's shoes. I can. I understand him. He seems a little familiar. I don't think you get him.
I think I understand him. He was hipped on making inventions, idolizing inventors, and making discoveries. He was a Bigfooter. He wasn’t entirely, or mostly, in it for the money. He wanted several other things: making a breakthrough scientific discovery, fame, validation of the time he’d spent on his obsession (including the chance to say, “I told you so”), a chance to lead future expeditions to capture a Bigfoot, a chance to go on TV and sound off, a chance to finally get a good distributor for his book, etc.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 27th September 2016 at 03:56 AM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 04:10 AM   #87
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,300
Patterson claimed to have invented the kwik-lok bag closure, when he hadn't. It seems to me that he just stole the idea, made it bigger, and called it a prop-lock for plants.

Patterson was pure huckster.

What did he invent?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 06:32 AM   #88
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
DeAtley wasn’t just anybody—he was married to Patterson’s favorite sibling. Patterson had lived in DeAtley’s house, he’d worked for DeAtley’s company, he’d known him since high school, he’d borrowed money from him, he’d sold his pony-and-stagecoach business to or through him, . . . And Patterson wasn’t you...

Yeah, DeAtley was a pal. An unnecessary one at that point. We all know what a standup guy Patterson could be. Whatever the case, I can't see Patterson just handing it over like that to some other guy to call the shots. DeAtley's not that important. He's just some other jerk who's going to have the film instead of him and screw him around.


Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...But how are you “cashing in”? There’s no organization that’s posted a reward. There’s no magazine that’s done so. (I believe that Life magazine let Sanderson know that there’d $100,000 for an exclusive story, but only if scientists at the Museum of Natural History gave their OK, which they didn’t.) Hollywood bigshots similarly talked about big money, as I quoted in an earlier comment to you, but they also begged off after a month or two. (Maybe their FX guys said it was a hoax.) Expedition-funder Tom Slick didn’t buy it...

You're looking at this stuff in hindsight. Patterson has (supposedly) just filmed a real Bigfoot... in 1967. If it's real, he could expect a payoff. It's monumental footage and there isn't the history of crap that followed to stain it at that point. He'd have every reason to believe that somebody with $$$ would be all over it.


Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...At that point, Patterson’s only option would have been to go on a four-walling tour organized by the Olson offspring, as they offered. Patterson couldn’t have copied their methods and done it himself—he had no business talents, as Al DeAtley explained at length in Long’s book. Most of the money would have gone to the Olsons. Maybe Patterson figured his brother-in-law would give him a higher percentage.

In addition, Patterson had pressing money needs. The Radfords’ loan was due to be repaid. He’d need to pay for copies of his film to show to others. He may not have had money to even pay for the development of the original PGF. He might have been in debt to DeAtley...

If you're holding a film you just shot, of a real Bigfoot, you're never that broke.


Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...The PGF was not “a slam dunk,” as you’ve claimed. Numerous objections to it have been raised, some of which Patterson was already aware of and could anticipate. Scientists mostly thought it was impossible. Most outdoorsmen (90%?) would scoff at the idea. His own background was shady, and might deter a potential buyer who checked into it—as a person preparing to make a big payoff would likely do. The creature’s height couldn’t be determined from what was in the film—it could be within human dimensions. FX specialists might decry it as phony. Etc...

I grant you Patterson would have some serious concerns.... if it was what it looks like. A man in a suit.


Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...Compare this to a true slam-dunk: a video of an ivory bill woodpecker. Wikipedia says that there’s a $50,000 award for evidence pointing to the location of a nest. The films and videos that have been so far presented haven’t been unambiguous. A person who gets a good shot of the underside of the wings with their distinctive white trailing edge will have a slam-dunk. No possible “mime” is inside the bird.

But with a Bigfoot, the situation isn’t black or white. Credibility is on a shades-of-gray scale, from 1% for a blobsquatch to 100% of one doing a humanly impossible thing, like shinnying up the Empire State Building, to 90% to being video’d in a situation where photogrammetry could be confidently applied to pretty much rule out a mime being inside.

The PGF is in about the 50% range, credibility-wise (67% to me). Patterson must have suspected that—indeed, he said he was unsure of how good the film was before he saw it. If so, Patterson would have needed help to sell it. But even if he thought he didn’t, he took no risk of losing money in letting DeAtley develop the film and give him a report.

What would he have gained from leaving Bluff Creek to go to Palo Alto or Seattle and having it developed himself, and then having to rent an analyst projector and a room to use it in, even assuming he had the money to do so? Five days wasted, and meanwhile the opportunity to film other Bigfoots in the Bluff Creek area would have been lost. Sending it out immediately to a trusted associate was the normal, sensible, and risk-free thing to do...

Why would it be 5 days wasted? Either stick around Bluff Creek to get more footage, or, go get it developed straight away and go back. He's gotta split Bluff Creek sometime. Why part with it by mail and hand it over to DeAtley's control, that day?

Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...After DeAtley reported, then one of them might well (IMO) have had the not-so-bright idea of pretending that this hadn't happened, but rather that the film had been shipped and developed without a time-gap for evaluation before projecting it, to obviate objections that the film had been tampered with somehow in the interim. This interpretation is supported by the reasons I provided in my comment 21 on page 1. (E.g., Gimlin saying (in separate comments) that he arrived in Bluff Creek on Oct. 1 and the film was shot two weeks after he arrived.)..

If Patterson had filmed a real Bigfoot and came up with that malarkey, he was a cretin and I don't think he was that stupid. As for DeAtley... Patterson is just going to take DeAtley playing The Puppetmaster in some wacky scheme to thwart something or other? Why? Patterson has just filmed a real Bigfoot. What the hell would credentials have to do with it? I can't see it. DeAtley can shove off.



Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...I think I understand him. He was hipped on making inventions, idolizing inventors, and making discoveries. He was a Bigfooter. He wasn’t entirely, or mostly, in it for the money. He wanted several other things: making a breakthrough scientific discovery, fame, validation of the time he’d spent on his obsession (including the chance to say, “I told you so”), a chance to lead future expeditions to capture a Bigfoot, a chance to go on TV and sound off, a chance to finally get a good distributor for his book, etc.

I'm sure Patterson was a swell guy. Yeah... he wasn't in it for the money. Bottom line, you're clinging to the hope that Patterson filmed a real Bigfoot, then was swayed by DeAtley to concoct a hoax, in order to head off suspicion of a hoax?


Maybe... it was just a hoax?
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 27th September 2016 at 06:44 AM.
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 12:08 PM   #89
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman
I only came here because of Roger telling me of things like Parcher accusing us of illegal activities. No, we didn't do illegal tree removal, and no, it was not illegal to do tree bores to determine age.
Is that what Knights said to you? I wasn't accusing you of illegal activity, I was asking about it. Accusations don't normally end in question marks. Both of my posts were inquiries with question marks. I didn't actually know, but thought it sounded odd, and so I asked. I even went to the Six Rivers NF website to try to answer my own questions but there apparently is no list of rules and regulations there. I did see stuff about Christmas tree cutting permits, but nothing pertaining to clearing flora and boring holes into trees.

Putting that aside, I am curious to know if Knights is sometimes a dishonest player. Did he actually say that I had made an accusation, or did he say that a legitimate question of legality had been asked?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 01:20 PM   #90
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
The accusation is implicit only. Ok.

Roger wasn't specific, really. He just sent the link and said I might want to reply to what Mr. Parcher was saying or asking.

The answer is no, there is no illegal activity, and the USFS were actually there with is on the site when we took them there, and they were curious and approving.

BFBM


Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Is that what Knights said to you? I wasn't accusing you of illegal activity, I was asking about it. Accusations don't normally end in question marks. Both of my posts were inquiries with question marks. I didn't actually know, but thought it sounded odd, and so I asked. I even went to the Six Rivers NF website to try to answer my own questions but there apparently is no list of rules and regulations there. I did see stuff about Christmas tree cutting permits, but nothing pertaining to clearing flora and boring holes into trees.

Putting that aside, I am curious to know if Knights is sometimes a dishonest player. Did he actually say that I had made an accusation, or did he say that a legitimate question of legality had been asked?
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 01:32 PM   #91
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
No, I'm not hooked like a fish. I'm simply curious as to why some appear so sincerely to believe they have encountered or seen a Bigfoot. There are many types of claimed witnesses. Some obviously have tongue in cheek, and there's usually a punch line at the end like, "It was my big, hairy uncle Joe who made that stench." Some just don't seem credible, either because their claims are outrageous, or they seem delusional, or they don't seem trustworthy. The other sort are really just ordinary people saying they saw or experienced something odd and anomalous. They don't seem to be exaggerating, and the details are there and quite normal, and they are usually people who have nothing to gain and perhaps much to lose (I know, you've heard this one before) by telling such a story. Everyone's motives are different, as are their perceptions. Perhaps they were wrong about seeing a Bigfoot. Perhaps they are not fools, crazy or disingenuous, and really believe it. Often the claimed experience is life-alerting or at least disturbing, shocking, or surprising to them, or so they act. This is, anyway, how they seem, and I've spoken with dozens and dozens of such people. I'll always take everything that people say with a large amount of grains of salt, but I'm also not so inclined to call *everyone* a liar or an idiot.

BFBM

Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
Other than to yank your chain.

Mission accomplished. They have hooked you like a fish. My hat's off to them. Well played.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 01:40 PM   #92
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
The answer is no, there is no illegal activity, and the USFS were actually there with is on the site when we took them there, and they were curious and approving.
Ok, therefore is is safe for anyone to think that it is fully and legally allowable for anyone to clear foliage and bore holes into trees in the Six Rivers National Forest. You have clarified that.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 01:53 PM   #93
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Quote:
they are usually people who have nothing to gain and perhaps much to lose
The biggest loser that comes to mind is Dahinden. He lost a sweet wife and two children because of Bigfoot. It wasn't because he claimed to see Bigfoot and then went crazy. It was because he believed the eyewitness claimants and then went crazy.

Putting that aside, I've always been skeptical of claims of people having much to lose when they tell someone that they've seen a Bigfoot. What is really at stake at that moment?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 02:01 PM   #94
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
No, I'm not hooked like a fish. I'm simply curious as to why some appear so sincerely to believe they have encountered or seen a Bigfoot. There are many types of claimed witnesses. Some obviously have tongue in cheek, and there's usually a punch line at the end like, "It was my big, hairy uncle Joe who made that stench." Some just don't seem credible, either because their claims are outrageous, or they seem delusional, or they don't seem trustworthy. The other sort are really just ordinary people saying they saw or experienced something odd and anomalous. They don't seem to be exaggerating, and the details are there and quite normal, and they are usually people who have nothing to gain and perhaps much to lose (I know, you've heard this one before) by telling such a story. Everyone's motives are different, as are their perceptions. Perhaps they were wrong about seeing a Bigfoot. Perhaps they are not fools, crazy or disingenuous, and really believe it. Often the claimed experience is life-alerting or at least disturbing, shocking, or surprising to them, or so they act. This is, anyway, how they seem, and I've spoken with dozens and dozens of such people. I'll always take everything that people say with a large amount of grains of salt, but I'm also not so inclined to call *everyone* a liar or an idiot.

BFBM
I would estimate this "sort" represents the smallest percentage of the bigfoot faithful.
__________________
In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church.

Bill Donohue
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 02:44 PM   #95
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Quote:
I'm also not so inclined to call *everyone* a liar or an idiot.
I've hinted at this before and I'll say it again. We should now be in a phase of post-skepticism where we step back and look at a bigger picture. Bigfoot is now an established part of American culture with longstanding endurance. Is a dishonest eyewitness claimant to be considered a liar or should they be considered one who has contributed to American culture? There must be some kind of virtue, even if it is questionable, to have contributed to American culture. We vaunt those who have made a mark in human history. Is it not a mark if we claim to have seen a Bigfoot even if it is a lie or a bumbling error?

I urge you to understand that if Bigfoot does not exist, then this part of American culture and legend exists entirely upon lies and errors. The topic of claimants' honesty, integrity and what they have to lose becomes nothing but a trivial footnote in the realm of humanity.

When we think of ancient Greek myths are we inclined to call a Greek person of that time a liar or an erroneous idiot? If we could zoom backwards in time would we call them that?

In spite of our advancements in knowledge and technology, is it really still necessary to wait many thousands of years to recognize a myth and to also pay little attention to the honesty and vulnerabilities of any individual person?

Is there something important that prevents us from recognizing myths when they occur in real time?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 27th September 2016 at 02:48 PM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 03:10 PM   #96
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
I have already acknowledged this as a distinct possibility, in fact a probability. Bigfoot seems to be a modern urban legend, based upon old mythologies, a living legend so to speak in the minds of people. Perhaps it's not, but that seems rather unlikely given the decades of fruitless searching.

So, the question may in fact be one about the nature of belief, epistemology, rather than existence, or ontology. If Bigfoot does not exist, WHY do people believe things? Why is there a whole large subculture concerned with holding this belief and reinforcing it against skepticism and scrutiny? How does this case relate to the other cases of belief among humans. Hence, the issue becomes sociological, and psychological, rather than zoological or anthropological.

I find the conundrum fascinating. I will listen to all the stories people tell, and consider the meaning of their narratives along with the motives for such. If it proves to be true that there is a creature at the bottom of all of this, so much the better.

As I said, though: I doubt it.

BFBM


Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I've hinted at this before and I'll say it again. We should now be in a phase of post-skepticism where we step back and look at a bigger picture. Bigfoot is now an established part of American culture with longstanding endurance. Is a dishonest eyewitness claimant to be considered a liar or should they be considered one who has contributed to American culture? There must be some kind of virtue, even if it is questionable, to have contributed to American culture. We vaunt those who have made a mark in human history. Is it not a mark if we claim to have seen a Bigfoot even if it is a lie or a bumbling error?

I urge you to understand that if Bigfoot does not exist, then this part of American culture and legend exists entirely upon lies and errors. The topic of claimants' honesty, integrity and what they have to lose becomes nothing but a trivial footnote in the realm of humanity.

When we think of ancient Greek myths are we inclined to call a Greek person of that time a liar or an erroneous idiot? If we could zoom backwards in time would we call them that?

In spite of our advancements in knowledge and technology, is it really still necessary to wait many thousands of years to recognize a myth and to also pay little attention to the honesty and vulnerabilities of any individual person?

Is there something important that prevents us from recognizing myths when they occur in real time?
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 03:12 PM   #97
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,166
What/how long will it take for you to admit there is no Bigfoot, and just enjoy the mythology?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 03:15 PM   #98
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Quote:
Hence, the issue becomes sociological, and psychological, rather than zoological or anthropological.
This forum has rules against attacking the arguer instead of the argument. What are we to do when it's really about the arguer and the argument itself is an abstract distraction?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 04:03 PM   #99
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
They aren't apparent liars, or delusional believers. Maybe they are mistaken in their interpretations, but really, they DO believe it.
There's an episode of Mythbusters where they attached a crystal onto a bicycle helmet and attempted to use it to transmit their coffee order into the mind of the barista.

One of the other customers claimed she received the order for a mocha.

Off camera, she admitted she was lying, just to yank a stranger's chain. People do that.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 07:00 PM   #100
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
No, I'm not hooked like a fish. I'm simply curious as to why some appear so sincerely to believe they have encountered or seen a Bigfoot...


Because they're really good.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2016, 11:54 AM   #101
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,591
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
This forum has rules against attacking the arguer instead of the argument. What are we to do when it's really about the arguer and the argument itself is an abstract distraction?
Well that's a funny statement to make. I would think that since those "rules" are rarely if ever enforced, preconceived thinking reigns supreme here. Shame that. Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2016, 01:10 PM   #102
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,337
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Well that's a funny statement to make. I would think that since those "rules" are rarely if ever enforced, preconceived thinking reigns supreme here. Shame that. Chris B.
Says the guy who thinks Bigfoot hangs around Mammoth Cave National Park.

I guess Bigfoot doesn't mind crowds eh? That is a LOT of cameras at the ready as well.
It only goes back 60 years, you know, having 2-4000 people per day, most with cameras ready, visiting a place where Bigfoot supposedly hangs out.

2012 508,054
2011 483,319
2010 497,225
2009 503,856
2008 446,174
2007 487,305
2006 597,934
2005 1,878,006
2004 1,888,267
2003 1,869,137
2002 1,891,307
2001 1,883,580
2000 1,749,268
1999 1,710,983
1998 2,113,992
1997 1,997,658
1996 1,896,829
1995 1,935,709
1994 2,009,935
1993 2,396,234
1992 2,392,858
1991 2,158,195
1990 1,924,538
1989 1,672,840
1988 1,735,610
1987 1,636,340
1986 1,646,673
1985 1,507,939
1984 1,501,450
1983 1,498,503
1982 1,526,676
1981 1,404,317
1980 1,495,787
1979 1,384,910
1978 1,640,488
1977 1,806,300
1976 1,748,900
1975 1,680,700
1974 1,566,900
1973 1,754,500
1972 1,699,782
1971 1,571,900
1970 1,726,500
1969 1,299,700
1968 1,540,200
1967 1,282,800
1966 1,143,800
http://www.nationalparked.com/US/Mam...on_History.php
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 28th September 2016 at 01:13 PM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2016, 06:28 PM   #103
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,806
Hey ChrisBFRPKY, LTNS. I think you may have missed the gist of his comment.

Anyway, I'm not sure you've ever realized we are not your natural enemy. I know you've never realized "skepticism" isn't about any one person or taking any one stand. It's simply the "caution" any one person should have before taking one.

You claim Bigfoot. You claim Bigfoot evidence. You appear to understand what constitutes acceptable Bigfoot evidence. You subsequently present unacceptable Bigfoot evidence. Bing bang boom we're the "enemy". Exactly what did we fail to do to earn that designation? Blindly accept your version of things because you'd never tell a lie? Give you the benefit of the doubt? We haven't already done that? Really? Our wanting a "clear picture" of a real Bigfoot is asking too much? Really?

Regardless, you can start fresh here as far as I'm concerned. Got any acceptable Bigfoot evidence yet? Didn't think so.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 07:50 AM   #104
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,300
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Says the guy who thinks Bigfoot hangs around Mammoth Cave National Park.

I guess Bigfoot doesn't mind crowds eh? That is a LOT of cameras at the ready as well.
It only goes back 60 years, you know, having 2-4000 people per day, most with cameras ready, visiting a place where Bigfoot supposedly hangs out.

2012 508,054
2011 483,319
2010 497,225
2009 503,856
2008 446,174
2007 487,305
2006 597,934
2005 1,878,006
2004 1,888,267
2003 1,869,137
2002 1,891,307
2001 1,883,580
2000 1,749,268
1999 1,710,983
1998 2,113,992
1997 1,997,658
1996 1,896,829
1995 1,935,709
1994 2,009,935
1993 2,396,234
1992 2,392,858
1991 2,158,195
1990 1,924,538
1989 1,672,840
1988 1,735,610
1987 1,636,340
1986 1,646,673
1985 1,507,939
1984 1,501,450
1983 1,498,503
1982 1,526,676
1981 1,404,317
1980 1,495,787
1979 1,384,910
1978 1,640,488
1977 1,806,300
1976 1,748,900
1975 1,680,700
1974 1,566,900
1973 1,754,500
1972 1,699,782
1971 1,571,900
1970 1,726,500
1969 1,299,700
1968 1,540,200
1967 1,282,800
1966 1,143,800
http://www.nationalparked.com/US/Mam...on_History.php
What happened in 2006 to kill tourism?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 08:27 AM   #105
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
What happened in 2006 to kill tourism?
It was my postings on JREF about there being no Bigfoots.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 11:40 AM   #106
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Both Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield's increase of 311,000 visits and Mammoth Cave National Park's decrease of 1.3 million visits were the result of counting procedure changes.
I'm assuming they were counting 4 people per vehicle, when it was really only 2.1/vehicle or something like that.

http://www.americantrails.org/resour...psvisit07.html
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 11:50 AM   #107
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,166
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
What happened in 2006 to kill tourism?
Gas prices?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 04:15 PM   #108
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
So, the question may in fact be one about the nature of belief, epistemology, rather than existence, or ontology. If Bigfoot does not exist, WHY do people believe things? Why is there a whole large subculture concerned with holding this belief and reinforcing it against skepticism and scrutiny? How does this case relate to the other cases of belief among humans. Hence, the issue becomes sociological, and psychological, rather than zoological or anthropological.

I find the conundrum fascinating. I will listen to all the stories people tell, and consider the meaning of their narratives along with the motives for such. If it proves to be true that there is a creature at the bottom of all of this, so much the better.

As I said, though: I doubt it.

BFBM
BFBM, I enjoyed reading this post. While reading it, I could not help but think that this reads as someone who truly gets it. That the bigfoot "mystery" is a psychological question, not a biological one. I must also apologize for my response a few days ago. The LOL was flippant.

My only comment further to this is that I am puzzled by the lack of congruence between the words that I quoted and your actions. If someone believes the mystery of bigfoot lies within the mind of the participant, then why bother with elaborate studies of a hoax site? The two do not add up. Studying every log and twig and weather report related to the PGF are not the actions of someone who believes bigfoot to be a myth. If you believed that, your time invested into this would be better spent reading psychology journals rather than looking for clues in a small tract of forest where a hoax was perpetrated.

But again, I do apologize to you for my flippant response. You surprised me with your intelligent, articulate, and even insightful, post. I just wish that was where your true conviction lay.

Last edited by dmaker; 29th September 2016 at 04:27 PM.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 04:30 PM   #109
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman
If Bigfoot does not exist, WHY do people believe things? Why is there a whole large subculture concerned with holding this belief and reinforcing it against skepticism and scrutiny?
I've been calling it a small subculture. Did I get that wrong?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 04:37 PM   #110
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
I think it's a largish group that give bigfoot even a passing thought and think, oh perhaps it's real. This is probably reinforced by shows like Finding Bigfoot. This large group does not really dig into the topic and still maintain belief in the face of facts and logic. They just never move beyond a casual opinion. This would probably represent the 30% of Americans that believe in bigfoot that is constantly stated by surveys of whatever sort.

The smaller subculture would be those that get entrenched and resist any skeptical commentary.

Last edited by dmaker; 29th September 2016 at 04:41 PM.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 04:53 PM   #111
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
For the record--Re comment 89 upthread. Here's the email I sent BigfootBookman on Sept. 23; the link went to a comment by Parcher on both the foliage issue and the map issue. I was mostly implicitly concerned about the map issue, because that's what I addressed where I said, "(Back up a few posts to see my comments.)" I didn't say anything about Parcher accusing BFBM of illegality.

(Why isn't the quote tag below working?)
==============
[quote]
Hi Steven,

I suggest you visit ISF / Parcher at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11505924

and respond. (Back up a few posts to see my comments.)

Roger[\quote]

Last edited by Roger Knights; 29th September 2016 at 05:13 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 09:00 PM   #112
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
 
Drs_Res's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,102
[quote=Roger Knights;11516423]For the record--Re comment 89 upthread. Here's the email I sent BigfootBookman on Sept. 23; the link went to a comment by Parcher on both the foliage issue and the map issue. I was mostly implicitly concerned about the map issue, because that's what I addressed where I said, "(Back up a few posts to see my comments.)" I didn't say anything about Parcher accusing BFBM of illegality.

(Why isn't the quote tag below working?)
==============
Quote:
Hi Steven,

I suggest you visit ISF / Parcher at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11505924

and respond. (Back up a few posts to see my comments.)

Roger[\quote]
Because you used a \ instead of a / in the closing tag.
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Drs_Res is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 04:43 AM   #113
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,337
[quote=Roger Knights;11516423]For the record--Re comment 89 upthread. Here's the email I sent BigfootBookman on Sept. 23; the link went to a comment by Parcher on both the foliage issue and the map issue. I was mostly implicitly concerned about the map issue, because that's what I addressed where I said, "(Back up a few posts to see my comments.)" I didn't say anything about Parcher accusing BFBM of illegality.

(Why isn't the quote tag below working?)
==============
Quote:
Hi Steven,

I suggest you visit ISF / Parcher at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11505924

and respond. (Back up a few posts to see my comments.)

Roger[\quote]
You didn't say anyone was accusing anyone of anything. Is it normal for Bigfooters to exaggerate a claim for some emotional response or something? Why would the Bookman say you said he was being accused of something?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 12:05 PM   #114
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
The motivation for doing a particular study may not be about the confirmation of a belief. It may in fact be about endeavoring to find the truth.

BFBM

Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
BFBM, I enjoyed reading this post. While reading it, I could not help but think that this reads as someone who truly gets it. That the bigfoot "mystery" is a psychological question, not a biological one. I must also apologize for my response a few days ago. The LOL was flippant.

My only comment further to this is that I am puzzled by the lack of congruence between the words that I quoted and your actions. If someone believes the mystery of bigfoot lies within the mind of the participant, then why bother with elaborate studies of a hoax site? The two do not add up. Studying every log and twig and weather report related to the PGF are not the actions of someone who believes bigfoot to be a myth. If you believed that, your time invested into this would be better spent reading psychology journals rather than looking for clues in a small tract of forest where a hoax was perpetrated.

But again, I do apologize to you for my flippant response. You surprised me with your intelligent, articulate, and even insightful, post. I just wish that was where your true conviction lay.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 12:17 PM   #115
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
The motivation for doing a particular study may not be about the confirmation of a belief. It may in fact be about endeavoring to find the truth.

BFBM
The truth about what? There's no need to head to the Strait of Messina to understand there is no Scylla or Charybdis.
__________________
In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church.

Bill Donohue
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 02:02 PM   #116
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
The motivation for doing a particular study may not be about the confirmation of a belief. It may in fact be about endeavoring to find the truth.

BFBM
What truth? That the PGF was a hoax? There is no bigfoot, ergo the PGF is a hoax. There you go, mystery solved. Truth exposed.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 03:35 PM   #117
Spektator
Watching . . . always watching.
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southeastern USA
Posts: 1,625
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
The truth about what? There's no need to head to the Strait of Messina to understand there is no Scylla or Charybdis.
Huh. I'll unpack.
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 09:45 PM   #118
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,606
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
I have already acknowledged this as a distinct possibility, in fact a probability. Bigfoot seems to be a modern urban legend, based upon old mythologies,...
BFBM
I have an objection.
Their are no "old mythologies", especially not American Native mythologies, that the invention of bf is based on.
We had a long and enlightening thread on the subject here a year or two ago.
The be legend is purely a modern, white mans invention and has no basis in local, native legend or mythology.
[/high horse]
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 10:34 PM   #119
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
It wasn't done "in an amateurish way." I said we are amateurs, in the sense that we are not professional surveyors. Surely you can see the difference that your choice of rhetoric makes?

Once we were reasonably assured in our own minds that we had indeed found matches for the original trees, stumps, and old log piles from the flood, we determined to map the whole site using a grid map. We chose the point that Gimlin had identified as the approximate spot where they had first seen the subject, and with a compass we drew a line directly north. Along the way we marked ten foot segments.
Hi. I haven't been around for 12 months or so. I have a nagging question.

Why?

What was your objective in precisely mapping this location 40 years after the film was made?

Also, could you explain the point of taking core samples from trees?

Last edited by Shiner; 30th September 2016 at 10:36 PM.
Shiner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 03:09 PM   #120
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
I'm sure Patterson was a swell guy. Yeah... he wasn't in it for the money.
Although Greg Long himself accused Patterson of only being in it for the money, his own book provides much evidence that this wasn’t so. See my “Index to Patterson’s characteristics as described in Greg Long’s The Making of Bigfoot,” which is comment #3056 on page 77 of Part II at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post11416289
--------

Originally Posted by Drs_Res View Post
Because you used a \ instead of a / in the closing tag.
Thanks.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 1st October 2016 at 03:15 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.