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 1st April 2014, 09:06 AM   #201
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I didn't intend to bump this thread tonight but I've found (or rather not found) something interesting. I'm updating my bigfoot lecture and went to the BFRO website to find some classic Moneymaker talking points. The BFRO, however, appears to be defunct. Anyone know anything about this?
You give a bigfoot lecture? What course is that part of? I'd love to read a transcript it such a thing were available.
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 1st April 2014, 11:05 AM   #202
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Oh it's nothing special dmaker, but I've done it several times. I've delivered versions of it in one of my wildlife classes, in my department's seminar series, and at a state chapter meeting of The Wildlife Society. Tonight I'll be speaking to our student wildlife club. The point is always to illustrate where lack of critical thinking can lead us astray. We have fun with it too. One time I gave the talk on Halloween and delivered the first half of it in character as a "bigfoot researcher".
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 1st April 2014, 01:09 PM   #203
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,689
^^ Sounds like fun.
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 1st April 2014, 01:20 PM   #204
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,941
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Oh it's nothing special dmaker, but I've done it several times. I've delivered versions of it in one of my wildlife classes, in my department's seminar series, and at a state chapter meeting of The Wildlife Society. Tonight I'll be speaking to our student wildlife club. The point is always to illustrate where lack of critical thinking can lead us astray. We have fun with it too. One time I gave the talk on Halloween and delivered the first half of it in character as a "bigfoot researcher".
Drunk, stupid, and cowardly?
__________________
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 1st April 2014, 01:30 PM   #205
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Oh it's nothing special dmaker, but I've done it several times. I've delivered versions of it in one of my wildlife classes, in my department's seminar series, and at a state chapter meeting of The Wildlife Society. Tonight I'll be speaking to our student wildlife club. The point is always to illustrate where lack of critical thinking can lead us astray. We have fun with it too. One time I gave the talk on Halloween and delivered the first half of it in character as a "bigfoot researcher".
Did your researcher have 36 years experience, in 36 states and 120 Canadian Provinces, work for the DoD, NASA, and a number of universities? Oh yeah, and was he an engineer/farmer who's cows were sexually assaulted by bigfoot?

Wait, that's a different made-up researcher.

Last edited by Resume; 1st April 2014 at 01:32 PM.
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 1st April 2014, 06:23 PM   #206
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,689
^^ You must be talking about Coonbo. I just got schooled on how he must be telling the truth about bigfoot because he is buried in degrees and helped build rockets and stuff. This is the guy that thinks bigfoots outnumber bears in much of North America. When I called him on it, he dialed it down to about 30,000 plus bigfoots. I don't know how he managed to find the time to spend so much time in the woods when he was doing so many degrees and building rockets. Quite the person.
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 1st April 2014, 06:38 PM   #207
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,421
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Drunk, stupid, and cowardly?
That's no way to go through life...
__________________
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 1st April 2014, 08:54 PM   #208
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
That's no way to go through life...
Well, if you've got the first one nailed, you just don't care about the other two.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
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 2nd April 2014, 06:41 AM   #209
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
^^ You must be talking about Coonbo. I just got schooled on how he must be telling the truth about bigfoot because he is buried in degrees and helped build rockets and stuff. This is the guy that thinks bigfoots outnumber bears in much of North America. When I called him on it, he dialed it down to about 30,000 plus bigfoots. I don't know how he managed to find the time to spend so much time in the woods when he was doing so many degrees and building rockets. Quite the person.
Yes, this gentleman who had to be cajoled by his family to file three sighting reports. Very reticent to discuss his stories. Other than on the BFF, or Bigfoot Quest, or one the dozens of bigfoot blog/podcasts, or Carolina Bigfoot Field Research, or Bigfoot Evidence. Yes, a shy one is he. A shy bigfoot expert.

He's not out to prove anything, though.
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 2nd April 2014, 07:20 AM   #210
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,689
I got scolded by the chief admin in the premium section of the BFF recently on how foolish I was to question this person's credentials and on how far superior this person's education is to mine, etc, etc.

I like the chief admin there, I think he is a nice guy and honest. But I also think he is buying this persons BS hook, line and sinker.

I believe it happened in the past with some chicken farmer fellow as well?
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 2nd April 2014, 07:41 AM   #211
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Oh it's nothing special dmaker, but I've done it several times. I've delivered versions of it in one of my wildlife classes, in my department's seminar series, and at a state chapter meeting of The Wildlife Society. Tonight I'll be speaking to our student wildlife club. The point is always to illustrate where lack of critical thinking can lead us astray. We have fun with it too. One time I gave the talk on Halloween and delivered the first half of it in character as a "bigfoot researcher".
I, too, would like to see a transcript, especially of the bolded.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat 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 2nd April 2014, 09:15 AM   #212
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 16,991
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I didn't intend to bump this thread tonight but I've found (or rather not found) something interesting. I'm updating my bigfoot lecture and went to the BFRO website to find some classic Moneymaker talking points. The BFRO, however, appears to be defunct. Anyone know anything about this?
BFRO appears to be alive and well on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/pages/BFRO/219722521410853

Why pay for hosting when you can get it for free..

Quote:
B.F.R.O is a non-profit Orginization, founded by Matt Moneymaker in 1995 to prove the existint of a mythical creature, "The Sasquatch"
Apparently they haven't realized that Facebook has a free spell checker..
__________________
" 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 2nd April 2014, 09:26 AM   #213
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Apparently they haven't realized that Facebook has a free spell checker..
Best to leave it the way it is. Conveys to Bigfooters that they are genuine and straightforward. Correct spelling takes time and energy that could instead be spent looking for Bigfoot and arguing with those who say it doesn't exist.
__________________
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 2nd April 2014, 11:16 AM   #214
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
I don't have a transcript, but here's an abridged version:

I did the first half in character again last night. The title included the phrase "why there's no bigfoot" so I started by telling the audience that the organizer had made a mistake with my title. It was supposed to say "Know Bigfoot" which is the name for my new, non-profit research outfit dedicated to learning more about the bigfoot people. I told them that my research team included Moneymaker, Meldrum, and Ketchum and then featured some highlights of their respective talking points.

So for about 20 minutes I buried them in bigfooter speak and logical fallacies. Then I switched gears - and personalities - and presented a basic primer on critical thinking that specifically focused on a few logical fallacies I had planted in the first part of my talk. So then I flipped the classroom to get the audience to identify specific logical fallacies they had heard me use during the first part.

I don't know how effective it was, but the talk was well received. Most of the people there were current or former students of mine, so they'd heard the "critical thinking" part before. The question and answer session afterwards was lively, and gave me the opportunity to expound on things like Don Jeffrey being a fraud and the weird linkages 'footers make between bigfoot and the nephilim.

Last edited by The Shrike; 2nd April 2014 at 11:17 AM.
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 2nd April 2014, 01:05 PM   #215
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I don't have a transcript, but here's an abridged version:

I did the first half in character again last night. The title included the phrase "why there's no bigfoot" so I started by telling the audience that the organizer had made a mistake with my title. It was supposed to say "Know Bigfoot" which is the name for my new, non-profit research outfit dedicated to learning more about the bigfoot people. I told them that my research team included Moneymaker, Meldrum, and Ketchum and then featured some highlights of their respective talking points.

So for about 20 minutes I buried them in bigfooter speak and logical fallacies. Then I switched gears - and personalities - and presented a basic primer on critical thinking that specifically focused on a few logical fallacies I had planted in the first part of my talk. So then I flipped the classroom to get the audience to identify specific logical fallacies they had heard me use during the first part.

I don't know how effective it was, but the talk was well received. Most of the people there were current or former students of mine, so they'd heard the "critical thinking" part before. The question and answer session afterwards was lively, and gave me the opportunity to expound on things like Don Jeffrey being a fraud and the weird linkages 'footers make between bigfoot and the nephilim.
Since you're on the subject of bigfoot research and pseudoscience, I've a question about the Presence software and its usefullness in determining population densities in, say, I dunno, an uncatalogued species like, say, bigfoot? Specifically, wouldn't this just be a prime example of GiGo?
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 2nd April 2014, 01:15 PM   #216
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
I've never used Presence and I don't know what GiGo is, so I'm afraid I'm no help.
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 2nd April 2014, 01:19 PM   #217
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I've never used Presence and I don't know what GiGo is, so I'm afraid I'm no help.
GiGo: Garbage In = Garbage Out
Monza 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 2nd April 2014, 01:42 PM   #218
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I've never used Presence and I don't know what GiGo is, so I'm afraid I'm no help.
Thanks anyway.

Perhaps it might be more apt to term it as BSiBSo.
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 2nd April 2014, 04:35 PM   #219
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Oh, so are you asking about Ecological Niche Modeling or Occupancy Modeling? In that case, yes - it's absolutely a garbage-in/garbage out sort of thing. That was the exact point that Lozier et al. were trying to make with their 2009 paper. ENM is a powerful tool, but it's so vulnerable to misuse with lousy data that you could even use it to model the predicted distribution of sasquatch from sightings reports. A secondary point of that paper was to illustrate that the "bigfoots" people report are actually bears: the overlap between the predicted distributions of black bear and bigfoot was too high for them to be two distinct species.

Last edited by The Shrike; 2nd April 2014 at 04:36 PM.
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 2nd April 2014, 05:47 PM   #220
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Oh, so are you asking about Ecological Niche Modeling or Occupancy Modeling? In that case, yes - it's absolutely a garbage-in/garbage out sort of thing. That was the exact point that Lozier et al. were trying to make with their 2009 paper. ENM is a powerful tool, but it's so vulnerable to misuse with lousy data that you could even use it to model the predicted distribution of sasquatch from sightings reports. A secondary point of that paper was to illustrate that the "bigfoots" people report are actually bears: the overlap between the predicted distributions of black bear and bigfoot was too high for them to be two distinct species.
Yeah, you nailed it. Great link.
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 2nd April 2014, 06:06 PM   #221
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
A secondary point of that paper was to illustrate that the "bigfoots" people report are actually bears...
This doesn't make sense. When we look at Bigfoot films and videos taken by eyewitnesses we do not see bears. When we look at the plaster casts in Meldrum's collection we don't see bear tracks.

Bigfootery is not about honest people who just happened to see a bear that looked to them like a walking apeman. It's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's mainly people who are mistaken.
__________________
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 2nd April 2014, 06:36 PM   #222
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Right - there again the vulnerability of ENM is illustrated. Lozier et al. used a sample of alleged bigfoot sighting locations in the Pacific Northwest. Just going by what was reported where, they were able to develop a model and apply it to predict a distribution. This says nothing about the veracity of the claims or the integrity of the claimants. All we can say from their data is that people reported bigfoots from places that also support bears. In other words, most people didn't claim to see bigfoots in downtown Portland. They reported bigfoots from places that looked "squatchy" which will invariably be places likely to support black bears.
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 2nd April 2014, 06:54 PM   #223
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
We have no idea how many people have reported Bigfoot in downtown areas and had their reports rejected. That's one of the things I keep saying about how the database is fully biased. Data gets thrown away and you can no longer understand Bigfootery.

The people who assemble encounter databases automatically throw out reports coming in from obviously "non-Squatchy" areas.
__________________
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 2nd April 2014, 08:53 PM   #224
ScottV
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 29
I haven't really used the program Presence but messed around with it at workshop a few years ago. It gives the probability that the site is occupied by whatever it is you're trying to document. It looks like people are also using it to estimate population density but I'm not sure how that works. Shrike explained the possibility for misuse/fudging on this very well. If you are quite liberal with what constitutes a "detection" then you can come up with all sorts of things and not just bigfoot. Dragons, fairies, unicorns etc.

Coonbo seems to be quite the character. If I thought bigfoot were a real animal then I would agree with him that there are alot of them. However if there were that many then there would be no mystery about it. Individuals can hide but populations cannot.
ScottV 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 3rd April 2014, 04:58 AM   #225
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,056
Originally Posted by ScottV View Post
Coonbo seems to be quite the character. If I thought bigfoot were a real animal then I would agree with him that there are alot of them. However if there were that many then there would be no mystery about it. Individuals can hide but populations cannot.
I quite agree with the term character, and the ineluctable conclusion that if real, bigfoot would have been captured and catalogued long ago.
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 3rd April 2014, 10:17 AM   #226
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The people who assemble encounter databases automatically throw out reports coming in from obviously "non-Squatchy" areas.
Of course, but how would this negate Lozier et al.'s analysis?
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 3rd April 2014, 11:16 AM   #227
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Of course, but how would this negate Lozier et al.'s analysis?
He has no idea where people are claiming to see Bigfoot because he has only been shown a fraction of the data.
__________________
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 3rd April 2014, 12:02 PM   #228
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
^Not that different from any number of other spatially-explicit databases on species' distributions. Millions of birds end up dead in urban areas every year but those places they actually were are not captured in databases used to model the habitat of those species.

Lozier et al. massaged the bigfoot data to remove "spurious" locations - which they don't explain - but they also used a very restrictive sample of bear locations, including only those from the study area that produced a specimen. I'd argue that they were more biased in their restriction of the bear distribution than they were in their restriction of bigfoot distribution, even with the filters that the BFRO investigators applied before Lozier et al. got ahold of the raw data.
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 4th April 2014, 06:37 AM   #229
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
The conclusion of "people are seeing bears and then reporting Bigfoot" is unsupported and seems naive to the realities of Bigfootery.

IMO, if there is any misidentification justified and likely (no matter how remote the wilderness may be) it would be "people are seeing people and then reporting Bigfoot".
__________________
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 4th April 2014, 09:39 AM   #230
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The conclusion of "people are seeing bears and then reporting Bigfoot" is unsupported and seems naive to the realities of Bigfootery.
Agreed, I just wouldn't expect folks who aren't daily monitoring the World of Bigfoot to understand this nuance.
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 4th April 2014, 02:30 PM   #231
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
This doesn't make sense. When we look at Bigfoot films and videos taken by eyewitnesses we do not see bears. When we look at the plaster casts in Meldrum's collection we don't see bear tracks.

Bigfootery is not about honest people who just happened to see a bear that looked to them like a walking apeman. It's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's mainly people who are mistaken.
Parcher,

With all due respect, I disagree with this appraisal. I take the contrary position: it's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's basically people lying about their experiences.

Do you think the religiously devout who claims to see an image of the Virgin in a fence post is simply lying? Or is there something more to explain in such a "sighting?"

It seems that the skeptical divide concerning Bigfoot phenomena ("they're all lying" vs. "mistaken perceptions") is due to the fault line between former "believers" and those who never thought Bigfoot was possible or plausible. Being a Bigfoot proponent once, and for years, I can say that the Bigfoot story and its "evidences" created an emotional response in me that shut down a purely reasonable, objective viewing of the evidence. I can still remember when someone would say to me -- "but if such a thing really existed, it would have been proven a long time ago." To me that response was soooo boring! People are seeing it now! - I would declare. Looking back, I can see that the Belief was emotionally satisfying (for whatever reason) and the idea Bigfoot was not real was not. Emotional satisfaction won out -- back then.

Those who think the whole Bigfoot phenomena is purposefully manufactured seem to be the ones who never gave the phenomena any credence from day one. If they didn't fall for it, then how could anyone else seriously fall for it? They ignore the whole issue of belief. It is belief that clouds reason and bends it to a willful blindness. We have countless religions, paranormal beliefs, political beliefs, and just everyday mistakes in judgment that serve as reminders of our common emotional desire to believe.

I do not mean to suggest that the Bigfoot story is all innocent, emotional error and has no knowing dishonesty attached to it. WP, imho, your view certainly has some validity when we consider today's Bigfoot scene, with the Dyer and Smeja "killings," Todd Standing's adventures, the Kentucky habituation films, Moneymaker making money, etc. And this kind of nonsense does go back to the beginning, with Ostman and Roe, and Patterson and Gimlin, etc. But does this mean that a Dahinden or a Krantz knowingly flim-flammed us too? Does this mean that no one(or practically no one) actually honestly believes they saw a sasquatch?

You reject the idea that some people may mistake known animals, like a bear, for Bigfoot. We do have a photo, or two, that is probably bear photographed at an fortunate angle, and we have at least one "sasquatch" track tracing that was identified as a bear track, as well as other Bigfoot tracks that have been bear tracks (overlapping.) I recall a recent video where a mountain biker, with a mounted camera, rounded a bend on a mountain road to film a retreating Bigfoot. He excitedly posted the video with comments like "see it drop that limb as it fled -- must have a grasping hand." The problem is -- he filmed a retreating moose (!) and the "dropped limb" was kicked up debris. (Of coarse, the video itself might be a hoax to make the idea of Bigfoot even more ridiculous.)

The real problem with your analysis about bears and Bigfoot is that it is on the same plane as Bigfoot sightings or bear as Bigfoot explanations; it cannot be proven. If I propose that Mrs. Chapman saw an upright bear in that famous 1941 Ruby Creek sighting, I'm charged with "shoehorning" a bear into a Bigfoot sighting by other skeptics. But what is the reasonable alternative? To say she was just lying? How is that not "shoehorning" an explanation as well? (And, for me, a less plausible explanation than the bear one.) If we just ignore such a sighting altogether, then what do we contribute to the understanding of the Bigfoot phenomenon?
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 4th April 2014, 04:41 PM   #232
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
A: 1. The devil, screwing with our minds. He might be doing that with flying saucer sightings also.
2. Someone in a gorilla suit.
3. A gorilla.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 4th April 2014, 07:49 PM   #233
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,872
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Agreed, I just wouldn't expect folks who aren't daily monitoring the World of Bigfoot peculiar JREF members to understand this nuance.
FTFY

Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Parcher,

With all due respect, I disagree with this appraisal...<brevity snip>...of the Bigfoot phenomenon?
Excellent post jerrywayne. And I have to agree with you. On a practical level, I don't think it's possible for (pretty much) anything in the universe to be 100% of just one thing. Literally or figuratively. And while I'll admit to not knowing exactly why "serious belief" in Bigfoot still exists in the present day, I know the Bigfoot we talk about here on a daily basis is, yes, absolutely fictional yet absolutely not just lies. It couldn't be. John Cartwright (WGBH) anyone? Or maybe more timely, Northern Lights? Just lies?

Maybe William Parcher can expound on his meaning?
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 5th April 2014, 08:05 AM   #234
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Of all the people in the world whom I'd hesitate to speak for, Parcher might top the list. That said, I think his main point is spot-on: What we know as "bigfoot" is an amalgam of anecdotes that have been pretty carefully vetted to fit the profile before ever making it into a database of alleged sightings. With respect to Lozier et al. he thinks that's a big enough problem to nullify their analysis comparing bigfoot and black bear distributions; I think it's a minor problem and their analysis is relevant.
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 6th April 2014, 08:18 AM   #235
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Parcher,

With all due respect, I disagree with this appraisal. I take the contrary position: it's impossible to understand Bigfootery if you think it's basically people lying about their experiences.

Do you think the religiously devout who claims to see an image of the Virgin in a fence post is simply lying? Or is there something more to explain in such a "sighting?"

It seems that the skeptical divide concerning Bigfoot phenomena ("they're all lying" vs. "mistaken perceptions") is due to the fault line between former "believers" and those who never thought Bigfoot was possible or plausible. Being a Bigfoot proponent once, and for years, I can say that the Bigfoot story and its "evidences" created an emotional response in me that shut down a purely reasonable, objective viewing of the evidence. I can still remember when someone would say to me -- "but if such a thing really existed, it would have been proven a long time ago." To me that response was soooo boring! People are seeing it now! - I would declare. Looking back, I can see that the Belief was emotionally satisfying (for whatever reason) and the idea Bigfoot was not real was not. Emotional satisfaction won out -- back then.

Those who think the whole Bigfoot phenomena is purposefully manufactured seem to be the ones who never gave the phenomena any credence from day one. If they didn't fall for it, then how could anyone else seriously fall for it? They ignore the whole issue of belief. It is belief that clouds reason and bends it to a willful blindness. We have countless religions, paranormal beliefs, political beliefs, and just everyday mistakes in judgment that serve as reminders of our common emotional desire to believe.

I do not mean to suggest that the Bigfoot story is all innocent, emotional error and has no knowing dishonesty attached to it. WP, imho, your view certainly has some validity when we consider today's Bigfoot scene, with the Dyer and Smeja "killings," Todd Standing's adventures, the Kentucky habituation films, Moneymaker making money, etc. And this kind of nonsense does go back to the beginning, with Ostman and Roe, and Patterson and Gimlin, etc. But does this mean that a Dahinden or a Krantz knowingly flim-flammed us too? Does this mean that no one(or practically no one) actually honestly believes they saw a sasquatch?

You reject the idea that some people may mistake known animals, like a bear, for Bigfoot. We do have a photo, or two, that is probably bear photographed at an fortunate angle, and we have at least one "sasquatch" track tracing that was identified as a bear track, as well as other Bigfoot tracks that have been bear tracks (overlapping.) I recall a recent video where a mountain biker, with a mounted camera, rounded a bend on a mountain road to film a retreating Bigfoot. He excitedly posted the video with comments like "see it drop that limb as it fled -- must have a grasping hand." The problem is -- he filmed a retreating moose (!) and the "dropped limb" was kicked up debris. (Of coarse, the video itself might be a hoax to make the idea of Bigfoot even more ridiculous.)

The real problem with your analysis about bears and Bigfoot is that it is on the same plane as Bigfoot sightings or bear as Bigfoot explanations; it cannot be proven. If I propose that Mrs. Chapman saw an upright bear in that famous 1941 Ruby Creek sighting, I'm charged with "shoehorning" a bear into a Bigfoot sighting by other skeptics. But what is the reasonable alternative? To say she was just lying? How is that not "shoehorning" an explanation as well? (And, for me, a less plausible explanation than the bear one.) If we just ignore such a sighting altogether, then what do we contribute to the understanding of the Bigfoot phenomenon?

This might be a strawman criticism of my position and opinions.

I don't think Bigfootery is always reducible to lying. But liars cannot be put aside as not being fundamental to the birth and perpetuation of Bigfoot belief.

With genuine eyewitness misidentifications I personally doubt that bears are responsible for a significant percentage of errors. The Jacobs Creature represents a bear misidentified as a Bigfoot but that is a single still image and not an eyewitness encounter. We can imagine that a person standing where that camera was would easily see that it is a bear cub walking in front of them.

My opinion is that some people see other people in the wilds (or not so wild areas) and come to believe that they are seeing (or saw) a Bigfoot. This kind of misidentification constitutes more than 90% of all genuine mis-IDs, in my opinion. It also makes more sense because they are seeing an actual bipedal primate but the error is that it's the wrong species.

Quote:
Do you think the religiously devout who claims to see an image of the Virgin in a fence post is simply lying? Or is there something more to explain in such a "sighting?"
This may not be a good comparison. You can look at the same fencepost and see what looks like "the Virgin" (figure or face or whatever) represented on it and therefore have evidence that they are not lying. I've seen pictures of Jesus et al represented on various objects and foods. Often it really does look like what they say. But Bigfooters don't offer anything like a fencepost when they give you the remembered story of their Bigfoot encounter.

Quote:
Being a Bigfoot proponent once, and for years,
Did you ever see one?

Quote:
And this kind of nonsense does go back to the beginning, with Ostman and Roe, and Patterson and Gimlin, etc. But does this mean that a Dahinden or a Krantz knowingly flim-flammed us too?
Rene Dahinden may have done that with the PGF. He may have had good reasons (or knew) that the film was a fake but he promoted it because he had financial stakes and saw that people would pay to see it regardless of its authenticity. But there still is a certain kind of honesty that he had because he never ever claimed to see a Bigfoot and he certainly had the opportunity to lie about that if he had wanted.

Quote:
You reject the idea that some people may mistake known animals, like a bear, for Bigfoot.
No, I just think it is overrepresented and especially when compared to mistakes involving fellow humans for Bigfoot.

Quote:
If I propose that Mrs. Chapman saw an upright bear in that famous 1941 Ruby Creek sighting, I'm charged with "shoehorning" a bear into a Bigfoot sighting by other skeptics. But what is the reasonable alternative? To say she was just lying? How is that not "shoehorning" an explanation as well? (And, for me, a less plausible explanation than the bear one.)
I don't think she saw a bear. She may have seen some guy. But anyway she may have outright lied. Her reasoning may have been to get attention and/or because she desperately wanted to leave and needed a working excuse other than "I just don't like it here". She may have seen a bear, knew it was a bear, but then lied and said it was a Bigfoot thing. It's even possible that what she really had to say is nothing like what we have been told.
__________________
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 6th April 2014, 08:28 AM   #236
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
There are places and regions of the USA and Canada that do not have any bears. Yet Bigfoot sightings are still reported from these areas. Bear presence is certainly not a necessary setting for Bigfoot claims. Further, there are many wild areas where bears have been (long ago) extirpated but the environment could support bears again. These places would be "very Squatchy" but have no bears. You can bet that there are Bigfoot stories from these places.
__________________
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 April 2014, 05:19 AM   #237
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
I think many of the cases are a Bigfooter version of the 'Noble Lie'.

They have 'seen' something that they could not explain. They lie to themselves that they saw a Bigfoot. They tell people they saw a Bigfoot. In their mind, it is a much better explanation than telling someone that they hallucinated something. They are invested in this lie to the point where they actually believe that they saw a Bigfoot.

I think that the population in the Footer community of people prone to hallucination is disproportionately high compared to the general population. People say a large number of sightings cannot be explained by hallucination. I am tending to disagree, as the more time I spend trying to communicate with Footers, the more convinced I become that a significant percentage of Footers are suffering from Sleep Disorders, or mental conditions that should require medication, in which case, both taking meds, and not taking meds could lead to these hallucinations.

They make up the Noble Lie to prevent others from knowing they had a hallucination.
They are paranoid about people knowing that they had a hallucination.
__________________
"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 7th April 2014, 05:59 AM   #238
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
????

If you feel that you had a Bigfoot hallucination you don't have to tell anyone that you had a hallucination if that sort of thing embarrasses you.

If you feel that you had a genuine non-hallucinated Bigfoot encounter you don't have to tell anyone if that sort of thing embarrasses you.

In either case, you can report your Bigfoot encounter anonymously. The world won't know that it's you telling the story.
__________________
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 April 2014, 06:12 AM   #239
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
Yes, but can people pat you on the back and tell you they saw the same thing?
__________________
"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 7th April 2014, 06:19 AM   #240
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Hallucinations can happen anywhere. Do you think many of these people hallucinate Bigfoot inside their home or at the office? Do they have hallucinations of Bigfoot giving their wife a bath and scrubbing her back?

Or do the visions only present themselves as a stealthy ape hiding in the woods?
__________________
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
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 07:21 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.