|
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. |
5th March 2015, 09:24 PM | #81 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
It is less speculative than saying the person is a liar, yes? If someone says they are 95% percent sure Bigfoot exists and spends time and money out in the field looking for Bigfoot, it is less speculative to take them at their word and their actions and call them true believers than it is to assume, without evidence, that they are lying about what they think about Bigfoot.
|
5th March 2015, 09:24 PM | #82 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Under what condition can we "call someone a liar over Bigfoot", Jerry? You might think that Dyer and Biscardi and Sasfooty lie about Bigfoot, so why not one or more NAWAC folks? Are they better-looking? Do they seem really sincere?
|
5th March 2015, 09:32 PM | #83 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
I'm not saying that they all are liars. But on the other hand I haven't heard any member say that there are no Bigfoots there.
I suspect that nobody in that project wants to discover any hoaxing or lying. Can you imagine being the one who publicly announces that you found a hoax at Area X? Can you imagine a member publicly announcing that another member is lying? I speculate that if any hoaxing or lying is going on that nobody there will report it. You will destroy everything all at once. Jerry, I think the reason why they only let special people visit is because they know that the project is a scam. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
5th March 2015, 09:37 PM | #84 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
5th March 2015, 09:38 PM | #85 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
I know you've tried to pin the label of strawman on my views before. Are you saying that no one that posts here believes that Bigfoot phenomena is virtually reducible to a con job? Don't forget our friend in Alaska who challenged me to name just one true believer in Bigfoot. And don't forget you yourself are saying you cannot trust even one Bigfoot enthusiast to tell the truth.
You might have a little loophole where you once said someone may have mistaken a hunter for Bigfoot, but your overall thrust is that Bigfootery is basically dishonesty via play acting. This will be my last post on the subject. We have hashed it out before. I would rather spend time on NAWAC. I brought up this issue here because it relates to Hill's concern about cynicism. I will move on to NAWAC. Anyone that wants to reply to my complaint/concern about what I see as a misguided emphasis on flagrant lying in Bigfootery will have the last word. |
5th March 2015, 09:48 PM | #86 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
But that's the problem. How can we have a meaningful discussion of NAWAC without talking about lying?
It's . . . Crimea without Putin. Iran without Israel. GaGa without Madonna. |
5th March 2015, 09:54 PM | #87 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
I mostly agree with you here. I think there are more fellows involved in this than have been heard from. What did they experience?
Also, we don't see anyone at NAWAC challenging some other member's word. For instance, we've got one member who claims to have a night vision dead aim shot at a huge Bigfoot target, only yards away, and he misses, the shot is deflected off a small limb. No one saw this night vision image except the shooter -- but he is backed 100% by other members. Not even a small doubt is evidenced. Where I disagree with you is on the notion that they didn't allow skeptics or neutrals in on the research because they knew it was all a scam. They didn't want anyone but believers there because they knew their evidence was not convincing enough for neutrals or skeptics, and they didn't want naysayers in camp to put a damper on their enthusiasms. You don't invite disputatious atheists to your Sunday School class. |
5th March 2015, 09:56 PM | #88 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
Growls, Smells, Rock Throwing
Do you believe this account of growls, smells and rocks? 03:23 – The two mean heard a growl to the south at a distance of perhaps thirty yards. In their field log the men noted that the growl was “higher pitched and not nearly as intimidating as the other growls.” Lawrence threw a rock at the animal. It growled again. Lawrence growled at the animal. There was no response from the unseen animal. 03:51 – The two men heard rocks shifting in the creek to east - southeast, followed by an extremely fetid smell. 03:57 – The men heard another g rowl from the east - northeast. It was their impression with certainty that the growls were intended for them. 04:00 – The growl was followed by a snort. 04:05 – The snort was followed by what Lawrence and McClurkan described as “the worst smell yet...a na sty urine wet dog nastiness mixture. |
5th March 2015, 09:57 PM | #89 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
|
5th March 2015, 10:01 PM | #90 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
Do you believe this?
The Ouachita Project 115 © 2015 North American Wood Ape Conservancy 04:45 – The two men then heard a large animal move up the creek from the south, compress the barbed wire fence, and “jog” away. 04:55 – The two men were now hearing what they described as “large bipedal animal movement on all sides of th e cabin.” The sounds lasted for several minutes and were accompanied by the overpowering smell of rancid urine. At this point, the two men noted that the first signs of morning light began to appear, although it was still significantly dark. 05:10 – Lawre nce next recorded in the field journal what he described as “the single most bizarre event of my life.” Lawrence heard what he described as an odd “squishing sound” to the north on the ground outside his window. He was certain the sound came from the mouth of some animal that was gurgling a copious amount of liquid or saliva; and it was loud . Then the two men heard another animal to the south of the cabin below McClurkan’s window make an identical sound; the first animal continued even as the second one to the south joined in, or answered. Then the men heard a third animal join in to the northwest. The men were hearing the same sounds simultaneously from three different sources and directions. Each individual animal produced the sound once every two or three seconds. The odd cacophony lasted over a minute before ceasing. The two men could hear the two animals to the north and northwest moving through the vegetation as they produced the odd sound and walked off together. Once the two to the north were gone, th e animal to the south stopped producing the weird sound as well. The two men wrote that they were “stupefied. |
5th March 2015, 10:04 PM | #91 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
|
5th March 2015, 10:11 PM | #92 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
If only he could have stayed awake
09:57 – Just after searching for rocks and finding none behind the cabin and in front of the east shed, Higgins h eard a “wood impact (rock on wood?)” from the south cabin area. Higgins carried his scoped Remington .30 - 06 bolt gun and his Taurus Judge revolver sidearm. 10:38 – Higgins caught up with his journal entries. He wrote: “I’m extremely frustrated at missing what may have been my best chance to collect a specimen. I just could not stay awake last night, constantly nodding off. No way I could have lasted another six hours for the porch visitor You believe he slept thu his chance for fame and fortune? |
5th March 2015, 10:15 PM | #93 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
Why not ask Sharon? She gives them more credence than I do.
Is it a fallacy to believe that if we assume Dyer or Biscardi are liars, then all Bigfooters are liars? (BTW, I do think that the best explanation for what NAWAC is claiming involves some dishonesty from some members.) |
5th March 2015, 10:21 PM | #94 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
|
5th March 2015, 10:26 PM | #95 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
If the VC are in the daily process of throwing rocks at your camp you are not going to fall asleep on guard duty.
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
5th March 2015, 10:28 PM | #96 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
If you say so.
1. I'm speculating that you don't believe in Bigfoot. 2. I'm speculating that you are a con artist trying to get people to believe you don't believe in Bigfoot. Which statement is based on your stated views about what you believe, and which is not? Which statement is better grounded? |
5th March 2015, 10:41 PM | #97 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
You never knew when, if at all, the VC would probe your guard post. But why take a chance?
Higgins did not know if he was going to get a shot or not. He was probably exhausted to boot. He's not a young guy. There is nothing so totally unreasonable about him falling asleep. Sure, he may be lying -- but if so, why not just say you stayed up all night and nothing happened? Hell, if it's all just lies, why not make a better story for yourself? On the other hand, Higgins was one of the members who has claimed to have seen a Bigfoot somewhere else besides Area X. http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/2270 |
5th March 2015, 11:43 PM | #98 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 198
|
Just before Bipto fled the bff he gave me a choice: Either he's telling the truth or he's lying.
He's lying. It's great we can have a discussion about this. Or he really really really sucks at hunting bigfoot in 10 acres. He's lying. But he's clearly lying. |
6th March 2015, 12:38 AM | #99 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
They took a video of themselves several years ago after the incident of the two animals running uphill. In the video they use physical expressions to explain what they saw. I know that people do that when they are trying to explain a real event. The expressions on their faces looked very genuine as well as the dialogue. If they can successfully pull off all of that, then it's really no surprise that someone like Sharon Hill can be fooled. IMO, there's no problem of gullibility on Sharon Hill's part. These guys are just very convincing in the way they present themselves. With the number of things against a hoax explanation, I think it's worth considering the possibility that they're telling the truth.
|
6th March 2015, 01:36 AM | #100 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
Knocking, Rocking and Stinking
|
6th March 2015, 01:37 AM | #101 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 262
|
The oval eye-shine described is problematic. Light exiting the eye after reflecting off the tapetum lucidum passes through the pupil which in nocturnal creatures is enlarged and round in the dark. To the viewer, then, eye-shine generally appears as 1 or 2 circular points of light in the dark - not oval.
Possible explanations: 1. Eye-shine from a creature whose eyes are on either side of the head rather than front-on giving the appearance of being oval-shaped. 2. Human agency - someone using fabricated oval eye lights/reflectors. 3. The product of human imagination via legend-tripping - happens fairly regularly to true believers in an emotionally charged yet ambiguous dark environment (similar to ghost-hunting). I take it that none of them had inexpensive digital action cameras to document this event... |
6th March 2015, 03:18 AM | #102 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
Higgins carried his scoped Remington .30-06 bolt gun and his Taurus Judge revolver sidearm.
You know it's BLAARGING when grown men think it's necessary to report the make and type of firearms being carried when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their research. Adults playing games. They may as well be describing themselves putting their phasers on stun. It's really sad that these people think they are living such meaningless lives that they must resort to such ridiculous fantasy to get attention and fill some deep rooted need. |
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
6th March 2015, 05:06 AM | #103 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Bingo.
The pseudo-macho military names for their teams and penchant for describing their weaponry is juvenile. Whatever Sharon was smoking yesterday it'll be interesting to see if she's clearer-headed about this today. I wonder if SHE's been so dismissive of Bigfoot in the past that the first time she read an account written in complete sentences it knocked for a loop? For Jerry, there are no bigfoots at Area X or anywhere else. Some or all of the NAWAC team are BLAARGing. Not everyone involved needs to be a mastermind hoaxer. |
6th March 2015, 05:23 AM | #104 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
|
6th March 2015, 05:26 AM | #105 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
|
6th March 2015, 05:31 AM | #106 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
A number of NAWAC members claim clear and distinct footie sightings in this ten-acre OK ape wilderness. So distinct that they have named several. Brian Brown has stated clearly and distinctly that either he is lying or they're seeing wood apes. There is no reliable scientific evidence for this creature.*
What is cynical about calling BS in this situation? *No reliable scientific evidence for this creature has ever been brought forward in the 15,000 + years of human natural history in NA. |
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
6th March 2015, 05:34 AM | #107 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
6th March 2015, 05:36 AM | #108 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
Wait! 10 acres? That's a joke, right? You can't hide a viable population of large animals in ten acres unless they're invisible and the people looking for them are idiots.
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
6th March 2015, 05:44 AM | #109 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
Well, the ten acre thing is an estimate based on intel from a few members here. It's probably not far off, in any event and the leaseholding is connected to the Oauchita Nat Forest, which though much larger, is still hardly the vast wilderness proponents portray.
At any rate, the areas of interaction have to be small enough to be reconnoitered easily for evidence that a troop of 9-ft ape would necessarily leave behind. Hair traps, dung samples, things of that nature. As you can imagine, bupkis to date. |
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
6th March 2015, 05:48 AM | #110 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
6th March 2015, 05:50 AM | #111 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
So far, no:
Quote:
ETA: One of her first questions should be something along the lines of why skeptics aren't asked to the site. After the initial oily BB answer, the follow up question should be when is the group going to allow an independent skeptic to observe the site. That skeptic shouldn't be her, of course. |
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
6th March 2015, 06:26 AM | #112 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Listen, this is so clearly a combination of internal hoaxing, and the group making stuff up to make each other feel like they are doing something important for Bigfoot.
Reason #1 that I know this. They placed some cameras, infrared or night vision cameras around the cabin. The activity stopped. They assumed the activity stopped because Bigfoot could see the infrared sensor on the cameras. They took the cameras down, and the activity started again. Is it not obvious, that who ever is hucking rocks at the cabin, knew they put the cameras up on the cabin, and stopped their hoaxing, until the team pulled the cameras? I'm sure the hoaxer(s) were even the ones telling them that Bigfoot could see the cameras. "Well you know BF can see them cameras, no wonder he don't come around no more." They pull the cameras, he knows they pull the cameras, so then he can start hucking rocks again. Please add some more. |
__________________
"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 |
|
6th March 2015, 06:30 AM | #113 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
6th March 2015, 06:32 AM | #114 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
6th March 2015, 06:32 AM | #115 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
6th March 2015, 06:40 AM | #116 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
I sort of agree, but only because I'm not entirely confident in my understanding of what BLAARGING comprises. I think the weapons think extends beyond a desire to role play in the context of Bigfoot. My experience is that an out-of-context fixation on the number and technical nomenclature of firearms is indicative (not proof) of someone trying to demonstrate manliness.
In one of the other Bigfoot threads I was asked the entirely irrelevant question of whether I own any guns. The following is one of my replies to that question: |
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
6th March 2015, 06:59 AM | #117 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 198
|
Nawac presents a great section on why bigfoot avoid game cameras:
They either i) see the IR and avoid the camera or they ii) can hear the mechanical sound of the camera and avoid the camera or they iii) just avoid cameras altogether. Does anyone remember the [Echo?] incident where nawac members opened fire because they mistook a teen couple for Bigfoot? |
6th March 2015, 07:02 AM | #118 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Is the ECHO Incident not included in the MONOGRAPH?
|
__________________
"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 |
|
6th March 2015, 07:04 AM | #119 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
Bigfoot Live Action Altenative Reality Gaming.
In other words, footie pretend. It's an evolving hypothesis, with multiple camps.
Quote:
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
6th March 2015, 07:16 AM | #120 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 262
|
Conversely, just because you haven't heard any members say there are no Bigfoots there doesn't mean that none have doubts about these claims. I agree with you that nobody there wants to discover fakery and false claims (let alone announce it out loud) but I reckon the psycho-social reasons (like confirmation bias, group-think, and social pressure) may be more applicable here that blatantly dishonest ones. “BLAARGing” infers deliberate dishonesty in most cases – ie that they know there ain’t no Bigfoot out there they’re just pretending otherwise. But just because there is no Bigfoot doesn't automatically mean that most claimants/experiencers are deliberately dishonest. Subjectivity is all about the experience, after all... Legend-tripping infers honesty in many cases – ie that they believe Bigfoot is out there so their actions and perceptions are geared to experience it (particularly in ambiguous situations). Their own evidence, though, doesn’t support Bigfoot’s existence – it supports their belief. The reason, then, that NAWAC are selective about who they allow to visit could well be more about confirming the belief and the experience of Bigfoot among the faithful than proving it to doubtful outsiders. Their belief and experience of Bigfoot may be real but the creature is not (ie not supported by the evidence). This is not a radical proposition. I think it is both inaccurate and needlessly nasty to speculate dishonesty in most Bigfoot cases - particularly ones similar in nature to these of NAWAC involving belief and subjective experiences... |
Thread Tools | |
|
|