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 BFRO , bigfoot , matt moneymaker , sasquatch

Reply
Old 22nd April 2014, 10:49 AM   #361
comncents
Critical Thinker
 
comncents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 272
Sightings databases are contaminated in many ways. To start with, the investigators are almost exclusively believers. If Finding Bigfoot is an example of how “investigations” are conducted, then they are just a bunch of leading questions and positive reinforcement. “ was it really tall?, did it smell bad?, was it hairy?....dude – you saw BIGFOOT!”
The Bigfoot researcher investigates a siting report with this basic premise:
True = they really saw Bigfoot.
False = they didn’t see Bigfoot.
Since Bigfoot doesn’t exist, True = 0% and False = 100%
When someone reports seeing a bigfoot, the premise should be:
True = they saw a NON-bigfoot something, but reported seeing a bigfoot.
False = they didn’t see anything but reported seeing a bigfoot.
So, if True, what NON-bigfoot things could someone see and then report as bigfoot.
A hallucination, a person if a costume, a person, an animal (bear or?) a tree. I assume a hallucination would come across as extremely realist with as many details as the mind wants to create. A person in a costume would have to in just the right place to give enough of a view to reveal some details, but not enough to get exposed as a hoax. Anything else just means that the person didn’t see the object clearly enough to identify it as a known animal or object, but somehow convinced themselves it was a bigfoot. For me, someone seeing a NON-bigfoot object, but being convinced that it was a bigfoot is just not a very realistic scenario.
This leads me with the “False = they didn’t see anything but reported seeing a bigfoot.” answer as the most likely. In other words, most sightings reports are just lies.
comncents 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 23rd April 2014, 07:12 PM   #362
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Anyone is really at a disadvantage if they try to estimate the "percentage" of honest misidentifications as compared to fabricated (hoax) encounters that are reported.

We hear of "several thousand" Bigfoot reports coming from some databases such as BFRO and Green and others. We can sit down and read these reports and for some we can say to ourselves "well that could have been a bear or maybe a homeless person or a hiker according to what they said" and for some we can say "well that couldn't really have been a bear or a person according to what they said." Maybe at some point a person reflects on the databases and gives an estimated percentage that are likely to be hoaxes as compared to mistakes and such.

But again the problem is that the Bigfooter community has always aggressively censored (excluded) the reports that they think are fabrications. These would amount to thousands over the years. This means that we are all deprived of data that would reveal the real nature of the "Bigfoot phenomenon". What is happening is that Bigfootery is actively creating a false public character for itself. It doesn't want the world to know what it really is. Bigfoot believers don't want you to look at Bigfootery and see a myth. So they hide and cover up the reality of Bigfootery. They DO NOT want you to know that hoaxing Bigfoot is a kind of national pastime for over 50 years!

You can't properly estimate the percentage of "honest errors" when you have never seen or accounted for even a fraction of the "dishonest errors". It's like throwing away the misses and only recording the hits. The databases are flawed because they are only what Bigfoot promoters want you to see and know about. They are censored specifically to make it look like Bigfoot is a serious and legitimate subject. The censorship is meant to deprive skeptics and others from seeing what is really there.

It's like shaking a camera so that the audience doesn't easily see that it is a guy in a costume.
You've talked about this before, but this is a great rendition of it.

The framing they put on this is doing an "investigation" where in their infinite experience with real bigfeets they determine which ones are "Class A" and which ones are "Class B" sightings.

But I made a report to the BFRO myself and they didn't even investigate. It would have been obvious to anyone following this forum here that it was from me. I should not have said I was a skeptical bushpilot from Alaska.

No skeptics are allowed on the BFRO "expeditions". There is a thorough vetting for that before you are permitted to go. Likewise, with any sighting reports they are vetting for true believer status. Seems to me that is more important than the story itself.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 24th April 2014, 11:48 AM   #363
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
Somebody is making money off of Bigfoot, I just wish it was whoever designed this:



http://www.zazzle.com/squatching_hat-148953645384275586
__________________
"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; 24th April 2014 at 11:53 AM.
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 24th April 2014, 04:51 PM   #364
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,872
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
...No skeptics are allowed on the BFRO "expeditions". There is a thorough vetting for that before you are permitted to go. Likewise, with any sighting reports they are vetting for true believer status. Seems to me that is more important than the story itself.
To quote the late great Johnny Carson, "I did not know that." It's either True Believer or No Bigfoot For You huh?! I've often wondered why somebody from here, for instance, hadn't covertly/overtly gone on one of their insane fart hunts just to report back on how bad the smell really was. I vote William Parcher to go. He could change his name to William Tell.

On that same matter, I've recently heard that the first thing Moneymaker does with any potential "expedition" employee is audition them by having them recite the line "Hi guys, what did I miss?" as he has them 'act' like they're walking back into camp realizing they'd just missed out on the Bigfoot that ran through that same camp not 5 minutes earlier. The really good 'actors' at this usually get to stay at Matt Moneymaker's beach house every other weekend, usually with both Matt and Bernie. And as a bonus they get to take care of Moneymaker's 5 illegitimate children on the off weekends for free because that's how the slaves did it and as MM says, "So can they." Just another win-win for, umm, only Matt Moneymaker. But seriously, very few people know how much the guy just gives and gives and gives until he can't give no more and then he just gives some more. And then gives even more after that. The Award Winning Platinum Rated Giving the Gift of Bigfoot Bastidô that he is!
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 24th April 2014, 11:49 PM   #365
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,219
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
You've talked about this before, but this is a great rendition of it.


But I made a report to the BFRO myself and they didn't even investigate. It would have been obvious to anyone following this forum here that it was from me. I should not have said I was a skeptical bushpilot from Alaska.

Don't give yourself so much credit, it probably had more to do with your remote location.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie 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 25th April 2014, 05:49 AM   #366
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
To quote the late great Johnny Carson, "I did not know that." It's either True Believer or No Bigfoot For You huh?! I've often wondered why somebody from here, for instance, hadn't covertly/overtly gone on one of their insane fart hunts just to report back on how bad the smell really was. I vote William Parcher to go. He could change his name to William Tell.

On that same matter, I've recently heard that the first thing Moneymaker does with any potential "expedition" employee is audition them by having them recite the line "Hi guys, what did I miss?" as he has them 'act' like they're walking back into camp realizing they'd just missed out on the Bigfoot that ran through that same camp not 5 minutes earlier. The really good 'actors' at this usually get to stay at Matt Moneymaker's beach house every other weekend, usually with both Matt and Bernie. And as a bonus they get to take care of Moneymaker's 5 illegitimate children on the off weekends for free because that's how the slaves did it and as MM says, "So can they." Just another win-win for, umm, only Matt Moneymaker. But seriously, very few people know how much the guy just gives and gives and gives until he can't give no more and then he just gives some more. And then gives even more after that. The Award Winning Platinum Rated Giving the Gift of Bigfoot Bastidô that he is!
Make that William No-Tell.
tsig 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 25th April 2014, 07:06 AM   #367
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
By censoring (excluding) encounter reports of Paranormal Bigfoots the BFRO has chosen to proceed in a non-scientific manner because they throw away data and evidence. There would be hundreds or thousands of Paranormal Bigfoot encounters including invisibility, shape shifting, mind control, close association with alien spacecraft, etc. But the BFRO and other sighting databases don't want the audience to know about that.

Once you have thousands of Paranormal Bigfoot reports you can say "they can't all be wrong or hoaxes." So the BFRO doesn't want to get painted into that corner. They would say "yes even with many thousands of reports it is possible that every single one of them is a lie or a mistake."

Anyone who says no way to Paranormal Bigfoot is a Denialist and therefore knows that there is a time and place for Denialism and a complete out-of-hand dismissal of the presented evidence.
__________________
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 25th April 2014, 09:27 AM   #368
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post

No skeptics are allowed on the BFRO "expeditions". There is a thorough vetting for that before you are permitted to go.
This is not true, at least for the expeditions in the upper Midwest. I've been on over 10 BFRO expeditions and helped organize three of them so I'm speaking from experience.
Northern Lights 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 25th April 2014, 09:50 AM   #369
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,689
NL, how did you identify skeptics during an expedition? Or are you challenging the notion of vetting potential expedition members?
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 25th April 2014, 10:28 AM   #370
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,941
If I remember correctly Drew went on one of their adventures.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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 25th April 2014, 10:45 AM   #371
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,061
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
This is not true, at least for the expeditions in the upper Midwest. I've been on over 10 BFRO expeditions and helped organize three of them so I'm speaking from experience.
Was it on one of these expeditions that someone handed you a thermal cam on which you proceeded to see a bigfoot?
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 25th April 2014, 11:50 AM   #372
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
If I remember correctly Drew went on one of their adventures.
Nope.
Never on a BFRO adventure.

I would be afraid. I think Cliff has a contract out on me.
__________________
"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 25th April 2014, 01:03 PM   #373
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,118
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Don't give yourself so much credit, it probably had more to do with your remote location.
Don't let your personal animus towards ABP cloud your judgement.

The BFRO has always used long distance phone-calls to be their primary source of "investigations".
Depending on the BFRO bozo "investigator" - 50 miles could be too far to go look in person.
Telephone, email, smoke signals, it doesn't matter if the story sounds like it's remotely plausible to these fools.
More than likely there are just too many stories to "investigate" in a timely manner given the propensity of people to lie about sasquatch. APB's story just hasn't made the top of the list yet.
__________________
"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

Last edited by rockinkt; 25th April 2014 at 01:04 PM. Reason: insert "timely"
rockinkt 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 25th April 2014, 01:11 PM   #374
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Drew visited the Michigan Recording Project which had an extreme amount of very close and loud and very consistent Bigfoot encounters. Their claims were of unquestionable Bigfoot habitation. He found that they had absolutely nothing at all.
__________________
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 25th April 2014, 02:38 PM   #375
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,135
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I can't think of anything more tedious and boring than sitting out in the woods waiting on something to happen. The fact that you expect bigfoot would predispose you to interpreting bigfoot with every pine cone falling from a tree, every fox call, every woodpecker knocking on wood.....there just comes a time when you have to question, "Where's the poop?" I mean has anyone ever claimed to hear a bigfoot fart? If they eat that much vegetation it's bound to happen.
No poop, no farts, no dead bigfeets, no bones, no clear photos or videos. Just footprints (with incredible variation in size and structure for prints supposedly from a single species of animal), garbage photos and videos and campfire stories. I think the existence of bigfoot will be proven at about the same time the the existence of the jackalope is proven, i.e. the 33rd of Nevember.
CORed 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 25th April 2014, 03:20 PM   #376
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
This is not true, at least for the expeditions in the upper Midwest. I've been on over 10 BFRO expeditions and helped organize three of them so I'm speaking from experience.
This is exactly what I am saying, as evidenced by their website:

Quote:
Most of the participants of BFRO expeditions are prior attendees (members and non-members) who have attended every BFRO trip in their state/province for several years. They tend to sign up quickly, which leaves fewer slots open for new people
Just like you. My God - every BFRO trip in their state for years! Talk about preaching to the choir. There is a pretty involved sign-up process that requires people to communicate on a private, password protected message board. You have to confirm you have read all the rubbish Moneymaker put out on that website. Look at the "little green men analogy" for example - how ludicrous. This IS a vetting process by definition. Sensible people reading that kind of stuff are not going to pay five hundred dollars to drive into a park that is free.

They don't actually have a number of predetermined attendees on these trips, nor the exact fees. There is negotiation going on back and forth... just an awful lot of secrecy and negotiating that doesn't happen on most above-board outdoor trips. They say the fees and registration process ensure:

Quote:
only those people with a serious interest in the subject will be the trip.
My, my - so much secrecy. You can't get details on where the car-camping/motel trip is beforehand, and they won't say afterwards. All people can know outside the vetted circle of longtime bigfoot groupies is a general region like "Daniel Boone National Forest".

There can be no doubt that with such uber-secrecy and tight control on what gets outside the chosen circle of groupies that the same is true for who gets in. A lot of the work is actually done FOR them through self-selection. You'd have to be a pretty dedicated skeptic to pay this kind of money, fake your way into an expedition, and be so outnumbered by longtime groupies.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 25th April 2014, 11:26 PM   #377
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 3,671
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
I've been on over 10 BFRO expeditions and helped organize three of them so I'm speaking from experience.
No BFRO expedition has ever found a bigfoot. This is a fact simply because no bigfoot has ever been found by anyone ever in the history of always. Does this cause you to consider that maybe you're wasting your time?
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 26th April 2014, 12:29 AM   #378
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,421
The secrecy also allows actors to be brought in to throw things at people, and return sasquatch calls, and beat on tree trunks, etc.

It prevents installation of game cams that might photograph interesting goings on, etc.
__________________
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 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 April 2014, 10:34 AM   #379
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
The secrecy also allows actors to be brought in to throw things at people, and return sasquatch calls, and beat on tree trunks, etc.

It prevents installation of game cams that might photograph interesting goings on, etc.
Excellent point. In conjunction with that, they prohibit firearms, claiming there is no "need" for them. So, on the one hand you have to read all of this rubbish about how scary and dangerous bigfoot is, but on the other hand you can't defend yourself against them as you would a rabid coyote, mother bear with cubs charging, poisonous snakes, or whatever.

But obviously they don't want actors shot when they are throwing things at people. There is another thread where the liability for such a thing is discussed. If you are on a bigfoot expedition with guides insisting they are looking for dangerous animals that throw rocks then it is Moneymaker who goes to prison for criminal negligence when a rock-throwing actor is shot.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 April 2014, 11:32 PM   #380
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,219
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post


More than likely there are just too many stories to "investigate" in a timely manner given the propensity of people to lie about sasquatch. APB's story just hasn't made the top of the list yet.
Which one?
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie 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 7th May 2014, 08:26 AM   #381
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I know my views about the nature of Bigfoot phenomena are not generally accepted here. Here, the idea is that most of the phenomena consists of lies, hoaxes, and lies (Harry, is that you?) This has always puzzled me. While it is true that lying and hoaxing are important parts of the creation and continued perpetration of the Bigfoot myth, like most myths, to reduce it all, or most of it, to knowing dishonesty is a convenient, but insufficient, explanation.
I want to bring your attention to the Squamish BC hiker video.

It might be easy to say that this is a classic misidentification where somebody sees another person and thinks it is a Bigfoot and reports it as a Bigfoot. But in my opinion this is a hoax.

How do you think the BFRO would classify this encounter? What about John Green or other encounter database keepers? What would happen if there was no video but instead only the detailed story of the witness(s)?

IMO, Bigfootery would and will intentionally describe this as a misidentification. IMO, a great number of apparent or likely misidentifications are actually hoaxes at their root.

IMO again, more than 90% of Bigfoot encounter stories are intentional fabrications by the claimant. A dishonest misidentification is not a misidentification - it's a lie.
__________________
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 7th May 2014, 09:12 AM   #382
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
It might be easy to say that this is a classic misidentification where somebody sees another person and thinks it is a Bigfoot and reports it as a Bigfoot. But in my opinion this is a hoax.
On what do you base that opinion? Just looks like a couple of ignorant guys on a mountain to me.
The Shrike 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 7th May 2014, 09:25 AM   #383
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
IMO the witnesses realized that it was a person. IMO the video is edited and the presentation is such that the audience is intentionally being fooled into believing that the witnesses truly believe this is a Bigfoot.

Releasing the video two years after it was filmed is more support for my position.
__________________
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; 7th May 2014 at 09:27 AM.
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 7th May 2014, 11:07 AM   #384
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
"good thing we brought beers..."
Yeah that kind of joking during the filming reminds me of the famous Memorial Day Video. People in the group that submitted the video are heard saying stuff like "I'm drunk" "looks like a white boy" and "his nutsack (scrotum) would make a purse".

Those people didn't think it was a Bigfoot but later went on to argue for that. So for me it was a hoax because the witnesses are lying.
__________________
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 7th May 2014, 01:22 PM   #385
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
^Fair enough, although I've done some pretty wacky stuff* while in the field conducting otherwise serious research. I guess I'm less inclined to read much into the behavior of the guys taking the footage.


*might include such things as pole dancing on a signpost, challenging a bull matador-style, tossing bones up in the air to recreate a famous scene from a sci fi classic . . .
The Shrike 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 7th May 2014, 03:55 PM   #386
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
^Fair enough, although I've done some pretty wacky stuff* while in the field conducting otherwise serious research. I guess I'm less inclined to read much into the behavior of the guys taking the footage.


*might include such things as pole dancing on a signpost, challenging a bull matador-style, tossing bones up in the air to recreate a famous scene from a sci fi classic . . .
Dang Shrike. Didn't figure you for a drinker.
jerrywayne 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 7th May 2014, 04:07 PM   #387
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I want to bring your attention to the Squamish BC hiker video.

It might be easy to say that this is a classic misidentification where somebody sees another person and thinks it is a Bigfoot and reports it as a Bigfoot. But in my opinion this is a hoax.

How do you think the BFRO would classify this encounter? What about John Green or other encounter database keepers? What would happen if there was no video but instead only the detailed story of the witness(s)?

IMO, Bigfootery would and will intentionally describe this as a misidentification. IMO, a great number of apparent or likely misidentifications are actually hoaxes at their root.

IMO again, more than 90% of Bigfoot encounter stories are intentional fabrications by the claimant. A dishonest misidentification is not a misidentification - it's a lie.
I would agree with you about the prevalence of dishonest sighting reports. This aspect of the saga is not the interesting part to me. I'm more fascinated in the belief itself and not the phony stuff.

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.

If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.
jerrywayne 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 7th May 2014, 04:36 PM   #388
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,061
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.
Take a look at the latest bigfoot nonsense:
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/...s.html#moretop.

One has to wonder who's ********ting whom, the alleged biologist putting one over on the BFRO, or is the BFRO just ********ting everyone? Or is it a combination? One things for certain, ******** is being slung.
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 7th May 2014, 04:39 PM   #389
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.
Demonstrate for us exactly where this has happened if you assert it to be so common.

This is a manipulative defense well known to con-men: They use guilt-tripping and shaming to prevent people of good conscience from correctly calling them out on their lies. The worse their behavior is; the more outrageous the lie - the more the skeptic is in danger of being guilt-tripped over stating the truth. You can call Ted Bundy a merciless, sick mass murderer because that is exactly what he was. It is not "name calling".

I really want to hear about these arguments we have "largely unmet". Boy, sounds like there must be a lot of great bigfoot evidence we just don't want to hear about...
AlaskaBushPilot 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 7th May 2014, 05:36 PM   #390
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Take a look at the latest bigfoot nonsense:
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/...s.html#moretop.

One has to wonder who's ********ting whom, the alleged biologist putting one over on the BFRO, or is the BFRO just ********ting everyone? Or is it a combination? One things for certain, ******** is being slung.
lol. Hillsborough County population - 1.3 million. The Spanish mapped the area five hundred years ago.

I noticed there is no name given for the person claiming to have seen the bigfoot. I wonder what proportion of these reports are anonymous like this. Talk about complete lack of verifiability. I doubt it was a wildlife biologist.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 7th May 2014, 06:08 PM   #391
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,061
Then there's the BFRO report and the Google Earth image:http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=42978

Cypress Creek Nature Preserve:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recrea...resscreek.html
7400 acres . . . of biking, in-line skating (?) and equestrian trails nestled in between suburban Pasco County sprawl.
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 7th May 2014, 08:10 PM   #392
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Dang Shrike. Didn't figure you for a drinker.
Who said anything about drinking? Those events were just simple matters of having fun in the moment.
The Shrike 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 7th May 2014, 08:58 PM   #393
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,118
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I would agree with you about the prevalence of dishonest sighting reports. This aspect of the saga is not the interesting part to me. I'm more fascinated in the belief itself and not the phony stuff.

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.

If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.
Give me an example of an argument that Meldrum, Munns, or Krantz has put forward that has not been dissected on this board.
Don't know why you insist on defending these liars and con-men - but give your head a shake.

Edit - APB beat me to it.
__________________
"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

Last edited by rockinkt; 7th May 2014 at 08:59 PM. Reason: see notation
rockinkt 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 8th May 2014, 07:20 AM   #394
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
I doubt it was a wildlife biologist.
Maybe fast and loose with the credentials.

Originally Posted by BFRO Report
First, I'll start with the fact that I have never put much stock into the Bigfoot phenomenon.
Sounds like Penthouse Magazine letters. "I never thought that my teacher would take off her clothes when we were finally alone..."

Quote:
I have degrees in wildlife management and wildlife biology and I have been working as a biologist for the last 17 years...

I am an avid birdwatcher...

I immediately noticed that all the birds around me had stopped chirping...
YOU ARE BUSTED!

No avid birder or wildlife biologist would say "birds stopped chirping". They would be more specific and use different terms like "the scrub jays stopped their calling".

But it's even worse than that. The birder biologist never mentions the extreme oddity of not hearing ALARM CALLS from the birds instead of total silence.

So all the insects which were making noises (these would presumably be grasshoppers, crickets, katydids, cicadas, etc.) suddenly stopped including the ones up in the trees?

YOU ARE BUSTED!

These are the lies that keep Bigfootery enjoyable for Bigfoot believers.
__________________
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 8th May 2014, 07:23 AM   #395
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdctK7LzA0Y

Paid expeditions are they worth it?
__________________
"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 8th May 2014, 08:16 AM   #396
mustbeso
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 249
Why do all the people on this video, especially Rev. Jeff, sound like used car salesmen/gameshow host? The wholle of professional Bigfoolery seems to be to get to be the biggest fish in the small pond that is bigfoot in general and knowing the wink and nod system to do that very thing. I am amazed that so many websites, podcasts, books, etc. can exist and, apparently, sustain themselves. In this video, they make what most of us call camping/backpacking into a prohibitively expensive, danger laden thing that only the most skillful bigfooler should undertake. It's still just camping.
mustbeso 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 8th May 2014, 11:57 AM   #397
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Maybe fast and loose with the credentials.
No doubt in my mind. For example, the assertion that he taught a college course in bears. I doubt there is a course in bears in the entire Florida higher educational system, and I am dead certain nobody with just an undergraduate degree would be teaching one.



Quote:
No avid birder or wildlife biologist would say "birds stopped chirping". They would be more specific and use different terms like "the scrub jays stopped their calling".
Interesting observation. I thought the bit about the insects all stopping was his jumping the shark moment too. Not one mosquito buzzing.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 8th May 2014, 12:06 PM   #398
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Then there's the BFRO report and the Google Earth image:http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=42978

Cypress Creek Nature Preserve:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recrea...resscreek.html
7400 acres . . . of biking, in-line skating (?) and equestrian trails nestled in between suburban Pasco County sprawl.
Over the last 500 years this exact area has been used intensively with logging, road construction, and now recreation. Innumerable studies have been done listing all plant and animal species. There are regular surveys being done with fauna, soils, groundwater etc. and it is incredible really that anyone in their right minds would pretend that the very largest animal of all would be overlooked in half a millennia of use and study.

THIS is what we need to be studying - not bigfoot. Studying the science of personalities choosing to operate in an entire world of make-believe.

An example of their land use plan referencing dozens of other studies:

http://hillsboroughcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/9196
AlaskaBushPilot 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 8th May 2014, 05:26 PM   #399
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I would agree with you about the prevalence of dishonest sighting reports. This aspect of the saga is not the interesting part to me. I'm more fascinated in the belief itself and not the phony stuff.

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.

If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.
Arguments? Could you post those arguments?


If they had a monkey we'd have no arguments.
tsig 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 8th May 2014, 07:52 PM   #400
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,061
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Over the last 500 years this exact area has been used intensively with logging, road construction, and now recreation. Innumerable studies have been done listing all plant and animal species. There are regular surveys being done with fauna, soils, groundwater etc. and it is incredible really that anyone in their right minds would pretend that the very largest animal of all would be overlooked in half a millennia of use and study.

THIS is what we need to be studying - not bigfoot. Studying the science of personalities choosing to operate in an entire world of make-believe.

An example of their land use plan referencing dozens of other studies:

http://hillsboroughcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/9196
Notice that there is no bigfoot listed under Descriptions of Special Status Species. One would imagine that a 9ft, 600lb upright primate would qualify for special status.

Bigfoot enthusiasts do have a point though; science is ignoring an interesting phenomenon: the bigfoot True Believerô. The juvenile apologetics and special pleading these folks get up into is facinating as most seem to be full-grown adults.
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
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 11:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.