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 10th April 2014, 09:28 PM   #321
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
If there were an adult male gorilla stealing your corn, you'd call the police.

The police would investigate, and call some experts from the local zoo or university.

They would all go out there, and since you are telling the truth, it would be readily apparent that there is indeed a gorilla loose in the woods. There would be no doubt just from the tracks and other sign.

Since a gorilla wandering around the woods is dangerous, particularly one that has learned to get food from people, a great effort would be made to capture the gorilla.

It would be captured and taken care of, of course.
A gorilla! Yeah. You are going to phone in a gorilla is on the loose. I can see it now. Dispatcher asking you where, what time, describe it, are you SURE its a gorilla. Then at that point you could say you REALLY think its a Bigfoot, but figured that it COULD be a gorilla, and that you`d at least send someone out to try to capture a gorilla.
At that point they might ask you if you may have seen a bear. Where then you`d say absolutely not. A gorilla! Mayyyybe a bigfoot. But definitely not a bear, for sure! And to please send somebody out quick, and not to forget big nets and a tranqualizer gun.
__________________
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 10th April 2014, 10:41 PM   #322
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,421
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
A gorilla! Yeah. You are going to phone in a gorilla is on the loose. I can see it now. Dispatcher asking you where, what time, describe it, are you SURE its a gorilla. Then at that point you could say you REALLY think its a Bigfoot, but figured that it COULD be a gorilla, and that you`d at least send someone out to try to capture a gorilla.
At that point they might ask you if you may have seen a bear. Where then you`d say absolutely not. A gorilla! Mayyyybe a bigfoot. But definitely not a bear, for sure! And to please send somebody out quick, and not to forget big nets and a tranqualizer gun.
Sure, they might initially think it was a bear. But a bear stealing corn and getting familiar with people is also quite dangerous. So they would still come and investigate.

And when they do, if you really saw a gorilla, it will be obvious. If you really saw a bear, it will be obvious. If you really saw a bigfoot, no one will be able to tell.

Besides, you could easily get a recognizable picture if it was a bear or a gorilla, but not if it was a bigfoot.

Bigfoot is always unverifiable.
__________________
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 11th April 2014, 03:55 AM   #323
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
I think the point of this rhetorical exercise is that people who claim to "know" that they saw some really large and dangerous creature never seem confident enough to really report it to the people who matter. Instead, they report it to their Bigfoot treehouse club. This behavior strongly suggests that the entire story of the alleged encounter is made up, or at least that the "witness" isn't nearly as confident in the identification ad they claim to be.
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 11th April 2014, 05:59 AM   #324
Spektator
Watching . . . always watching.
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southeastern USA
Posts: 1,950
And yet a primate out of place might be taken seriously. A Kansas City chimp figured out how to escape his enclosure recently. True, no chimpanzees managed to make it to the wilds, but if one had....

If unsure about how a bigfoot report might be accepted by the police, one could simply report "A large animal's loose on this land."

ETA: Valentine's day is past, but anyhow--

My blurry bigfoot guy,
Nine foot tall bigfoot guy,
You make me think that I’m nuts….
You’re just unbearable,
Unverifiable,
You pile up brush into huts.

Does your footprint show a break?
Do you steal canned beans and steak?
Are your toenails like a rake?
How’s your butt?

You don’t have to pose for me,
Or wipe your nose for me,
Blur, great big bigfoot guy, blur!
And each pic will show bigfoot, sir!

Last edited by Spektator; 11th April 2014 at 06:10 AM.
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2014, 06:07 AM   #325
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Again though it's all rather silly to think about.

If Bigfoot wasn't a myth police departments would already be familiar with them and have procedures for when they get too close to people. They would have already killed some that "crossed the line" and that would be a quote from the Chief of Police.

But Bigfoot doesn't exist at all and I think most Bigfoot Believers know that just the same as you and I.
__________________
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 11th April 2014, 07:59 AM   #326
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,118
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
In reality, wouldn`t the police answering the phone say they dont have the manpower and resources for such stuff, then politely dismiss you, hangup, then giggle with their fellow officers how some guy one pickle short called in about seeing a giant bigfoot?
Depends on where you are at. When I was with the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) I investigated two such cases and the policy has not changed. If it is rural enough and the complainant comes in personally - a file will be generated.
I should also add that the current Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP investigated a sasquatch sighting back in the mid 1980s.
__________________
"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
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 11th April 2014, 08:28 AM   #327
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,058
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
I should also add that the current Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP investigated a sasquatch sighting back in the mid 1980s.
And did he find it?
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 11th April 2014, 08:43 AM   #328
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
Yes, and then the MIB came and confiscated it in their Black UH-1 Helicopter, and zapped everyone with the memory erasing wand.
__________________
"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 11th April 2014, 08:46 AM   #329
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 3,669
"Hello? Police? There's a big, creepy guy out here in a fur suit. I'm afraid he might be a danger to himself or others..."
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Last edited by eerok; 11th April 2014 at 08:47 AM.
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 11th April 2014, 08:47 AM   #330
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Law enforcement would be able to confirm the Wood Apes at Area X on the same day that they would be there. But they won't ever be called there. Those Bigfooters know that they have no apes.
__________________
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 11th April 2014, 08:55 AM   #331
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
They won't be called there for a Wood Ape sighting, they might be called there for any other illegal activities that might be taking place.

In either case however, they would be able to confirm whether there was a Giant Hairy Ape man marauding through the semi-mature scrub forest in the area.
__________________
"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 11th April 2014, 09:21 AM   #332
comncents
Critical Thinker
 
comncents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
Maybe because your stories are lame-o. Come on, dude. They need to be juicy. Anybody can tell yarns about blobby whatsamajiggers and feeling faint. Work in some infrasound zapping, glowing red eyes, pig throwing, rock attacks and stuff. Bared fangs and roaring always goes over well. To stand out from the also rans you gotta have some action.
And here lies the Bigfoot Report Paradox:

If you report a fleeting view or a blurry thermal, then it will get blown off as not good enough to count.

If you make it all juicy, so it gets noticed, you end up throwing in a little too much and give yourself away.
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 11th April 2014, 09:33 AM   #333
Northern Lights
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
"Hello? Police? There's a big, creepy guy out here in a fur suit. I'm afraid he might be a danger to himself or others..."
Check these out.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
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 11th April 2014, 10:00 AM   #334
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,118
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
And did he find it?
Actually - she.

No, but there was a statement taken and a perusal of the area.
A trackway was found off the paved hwy. where the alleged sighting took place. The ground was covered in tall dead grass so identification was impossible.
The barbed wire fence encircling the field was checked for hair and cow hair was found.
A person known for their tracking abilities was asked to assist and he believed the trackway was that of a quadruped - most likely a bear.

BTW - the files are coded under the general title of "Assist General Public".

Edited to add: You may note in perusing reports by John Green that the RCMP has been involved in numerous sighting investigations. Major newspapers also have carried stories whereby they note the RCMP investigation and results - sometimes interviewing the officer involved.
__________________
"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; 11th April 2014 at 10:04 AM.
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 11th April 2014, 10:29 AM   #335
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,118
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Law enforcement would be able to confirm the Wood Apes at Area X on the same day that they would be there. But they won't ever be called there. Those Bigfooters know that they have no apes.
A number of years ago on the original BFF - a person from Vancouver Island was reporting a lot of sasquatch activity. Of course the stories got more and more dramatic with sasquatches peering from behind every tree and purposely pushing trees over the trail so as to trap the hikers.
To call the poster's bluff - I actually called a former partner of mine who was now in charge of the RCMP for the area in question and he readily agreed to assign someone to do the investigation and allocate resources as needed IF the person came in and made the report in person and agreed to make a formal statement.
I posted that info on the BFF and I sent a PM to the person giving the name of my friend and his contact info.
Needless to say - the poster disappeared without further comment.

There are two reasons the RCMP may do this type of investigation:
1) Danger to the public. There may legitimately be a large animal in the area that a person saw and misidentified; but, the animal might be a predator and a danger to the public. Also - in the majority of cases - the sightings are off highways and any large animal wandering around the roadway could cause a collision and is therefore also a danger to the public.

2) Reassure the public that such sightings are taken seriously, investigated, and that there is no cause for alarm. Also, it stops the charlatans from taking advantage of anyone other than the most gullible.
__________________
"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
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 11th April 2014, 10:30 AM   #336
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 3,669
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Check these out.
There are all kinds of reported sightings: bigfoot, ghosts, werewolves, angels, fairies, demons, mothmen, sea monsters, unicorns, flying witches, mermaids, chupacabras, little green men, rougarou... the list goes on. They have one thing in common: not one shred of objective evidence that could establish they could possibly exist. Not one. These are all things that people see that are not really there.

The biggest mystery to me is how bigfoot witnesses can manage to pretend that science, especially psychology, doesn't exist, but monsters do.
__________________
"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 12th April 2014, 11:48 AM   #337
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,246
The police/sheriff is one possibility for legitimate reporting. The other is fish and game. In my state they have wildlife troopers. At any rate isn't it rich to hear an advocate denigrating calls to pertinent state officials?

Boy howdy they do everything. Here it is grizzly bears. It's monster snakes and alligators in Florida. Venomous snakes elsewhere. Mountain lions. Sharks. Even runaway deer downtown can cause significant property damage. There's canines of all sorts, etc. Dealing with real animal threats to property and humans is ordinary police or fish & game business. It's happening daily all across the country.

Thousands of alleged "encounters" yet not one of them rises to the level of a lowly animal control officer being called out to catch a loose poodle.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 12th April 2014, 12:47 PM   #338
FFed
Muse
 
FFed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 990
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
A number of years ago on the original BFF - a person from Vancouver Island was reporting a lot of sasquatch activity. Of course the stories got more and more dramatic with sasquatches peering from behind every tree and purposely pushing trees over the trail so as to trap the hikers.
To call the poster's bluff - I actually called a former partner of mine who was now in charge of the RCMP for the area in question and he readily agreed to assign someone to do the investigation and allocate resources as needed IF the person came in and made the report in person and agreed to make a formal statement.
I posted that info on the BFF and I sent a PM to the person giving the name of my friend and his contact info.
Needless to say - the poster disappeared without further comment.

There are two reasons the RCMP may do this type of investigation:
1) Danger to the public. There may legitimately be a large animal in the area that a person saw and misidentified; but, the animal might be a predator and a danger to the public. Also - in the majority of cases - the sightings are off highways and any large animal wandering around the roadway could cause a collision and is therefore also a danger to the public.

2) Reassure the public that such sightings are taken seriously, investigated, and that there is no cause for alarm. Also, it stops the charlatans from taking advantage of anyone other than the most gullible.
I used to be a Park Ranger on Vancouver Island. I would routinely investigate all kinds of reports from dangerous animals, to trees down. It was all about liability. If even an anonymous report of something that can harm hikers came in we had to investigate it.
FFed 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 13th April 2014, 11:22 AM   #339
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
Smile

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
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.



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.



Did you ever see one?



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.


No, I just think it is overrepresented and especially when compared to mistakes involving fellow humans for Bigfoot.


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.
Parcher,

Thanks for clarifying issues for me. I’ll try to reciprocate by making my points clearer.

Bear

I do not think Bigfoot sightings are to any great percent due to the misidentifications of bears. It does happen, I think, but not to the degree that it could be considered THE explanation for Bigfoot sightings.

Some folks confuse these two different statements. 1. Bears are the most likely candidate for the mistaking of a known animal for Bigfoot. 2. Bears are the primary cause of Bigfoot sightings (misidentifications.) The first statement would be true, the second not, imho.

For a bear to be mistaken for a Bigfoot, I think two conditions would be necessary. First, the sighting is brief, even fleeting. Second, the person who has the sighting is either a Bigfoot believer or aware of Bigfoot lore. Mathew Johnson claims to have seen a Bigfoot at the Oregon Caves National Monument, and the sighting famously changed his life. While hiking with his family, Johnson broke off to relieve himself when he heard a whooping sound and fleetingly saw a large figure moving between two trees. Writer Michael McLeod investigated and found that the Park Service people didn’t think he saw Bigfoot and one Service person volunteered that Johnson may have heard a grouse or fox.

McLeod found that a Bigfoot website was contacted by Johnson. He also found this update on the site: “5 July 2000 --- Oregon Caves, Oregon. Update: Oregon Caves hiker actually encountered a black bear, investigators now say.” McLeod considered if Johnson saw a bear imperfectly, he may have became stressed and then filled in memory blanks with the idea of Bigfoot; even simple perceptions “are a complex interweaving of sensory data, emotions, and cognitive information” McLeod says. Or maybe Johnson knew he saw a bear but “gave himself psychological permission” to tell a story (lie) to the public for purposes of inculcating the idea in public that “the mysteries of nature are alive and well in the forests of the twenty-first century.”

You make the common sense argument that most Bigfoot sightings, if they are at all sincere, are misidentifications of humans, the real bipedal primate. Obviously, accounts such as the famous William Roe story, given that he could not have been mistaken about what he saw, are of a “believe it or not” variety, with the wise opting for “not.” Other sightings, though, such as at least one NAWAC sighting where the eyewitness thought he was seeing another team member down the trail, only to then believe he saw a “wood ape” when the other team member was located elsewhere, are certainly explainable by the idea Bigfoot reporters are really seeing other humans.

I disagree with you about the Ruby Creek sighting, an important story in the Bigfoot canon. You seem to go to lengths to question a bear interpretation. Your possible suggestions: Mrs. Chapman didn’t see a bear; she did see a bear but lied about it; she saw some guy; she just lied about everything; she didn’t lie but her story was misreported later. Anything, apparently, is acceptable, except an account of a bear being mistaken for a sasquatch.

Why is this so? I’ll tender an answer. You are looking at this story too literally. Of coarse, if we accept Green’s account, or Sanderson’s, or even Ms. Chapman’s later revised recounting, there is no way she saw a bear. But we shouldn’t take their jacked up accounts, over ten years after the fact, as literally true. The earliest reporting of this event, in a local newspaper, suggests Ms. Chapman got just a glimpse of some hairy creature standing on two legs and then fled with her children. To deny the possibility she saw a bear, you are ignoring the fact the local authorities believed she had seen a bear, one of her children alerted her to the fact that a large animal was coming down the mountainside (the child said it was a big cow which implies it was four legged), tracks were found all about, a fish barrel was broken into, and a tracing of one track was taken to a university scientist by Green and identified as a bear track.

Mrs. Chapman believed she saw a sasquatch; she said she remembered (essentially bogeyman) stories about sasquatch told to her when she was a girl. With this belief as part of her worldview, it is no stretch at all to assume she saw, briefly, a standing bear, a position a bear might attain if looking for the source of commotion from agitated children, and fled with her children away from the scene. Why is there absolute resistance to this explanation?

Belief

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.

My example of the “religiously devout” seeing the Virgin in a fence post was meant to show how BELIEF is an integral part in what would otherwise be seen as an odd belief. Your reply, again, is looking too literally at the issue. It’s not that you can see the likeness of the Virgin too that’s important. What’s important is that the devout would see something more in the image than you would. You might see the likeness and think it unimportant as just a coincidence or pareidolia. The devout sees the same image but finds it miraculous and inexplicable except for a supernatural explanation.

Hoaxing and lying might juice up the Bigfoot myth, but it is the will to believe that is its underlying cause.

And, to answer your question, no -- I never saw a Bigfoot. They don’t exist. Remember.
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 13th April 2014, 03:20 PM   #340
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,246
Dr. Jane Goodall said that the idea of bigfoot was romantic to her. She's in the majority with that sentiment. So sure, this romantic notion alone explains some people's beliefs, especially when we are talking about people who have spent no time looking into it. Bigfoot is not a topic they know anything about. They've heard of the idea, and think it's cool. But they don't read on it or join forums.

But once you start looking at bigfoot with any kind of intellectual honesty, it's lying for Jesus from there on out. Lying is a necessary condition for continued belief in the presence of evidence the belief is absurd.

So in the long run lying is a necessary condition to defend belief.

We are in the BFRO expedition moneymaking thread so I thought I would bring it back around to lying in that subject area:

http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/expeds_2014.asp

I see the last one they did was in Texas (Sabine River area) and the next one coming up is in the Daniel Boone National Forest of Kentucky.

Fine, let's take the upcoming one. Visitorship to the Daniel Boone was estimated in 2003 to be 2.3 million per year, and those millions are crawling over every square inch of it by canoe, hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.

Google Daniel Boone National Visitor Use Monitoring Results 2003 for that. It's a word doc put out by the USDA Region 8. On page 13 they show a table of 26 different activities undertaken by these millions of people.

Bigfoot expedition is not even on the list of known activities as of 2003. But there were over 39,000 remote backpackers alone. Over 600,000 hikers. Over a million people a year specifically going there to watch for animals. But bigfoot is not even on the list of animals people are watching.

I see on their website they have 19 expeditions as I count them for 2014. The same thing is going to be true for all of them. It's so absurd.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 13th April 2014, 09:15 PM   #341
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,219
I got laughed at immensely when I first arrived here and suggested that feral people might be what people are misidentifying. I recently moved to Eugene, Oregon and the homeless rate here, and elsewhere in the state, is very high.

After seeing some of these poor folks on the street, and noticing the low light conditions that exist in these forests even on bright sunny days, I can definitely see how a homeless person could be misidentified as bigfoot if they happen to be camping. Most have untreated mental disorders so if you couple that with some of the reported bigfoot behaviors, it could explain a lot.

None of this was ever discussed anywhere else that I recall, I've never heard anyone from the PNW even put the hypothesis forward. That speaks volumes when considering what people are willing to overlook as possible explanations.
__________________
"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 13th April 2014, 11:06 PM   #342
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,246
I haven't seen a report from the recent BFRO road trip to the Sabine River Basin in Texas. (March 2014). Gosh, we have twelve thousand years of archaeological evidence in the Sabine River Basin going back to the Clovis culture. Isn't that amazing? We can find evidence from twelve thousand years ago that tiny family units of clovis culture people lived, worked, and traded in the Sabine River basin. But zero on bigfoot even in the here and now.

The river has always been important for transportation, but specifically intensive logging, milling, and transport of same as far back as the early 1800's. The Spanish were there beforehand but the 1800's was truly intensive use of the land. Followed by intensive oil exploration and development in the 1900's. Centuries of intensive human land use.

Pick any county you want along the 500 or so miles of Sabine tributaries. Like say, Sabine county. 21 people per square mile population density. Almost 11,000 people living there continuously, plus a lot more recreational visitors, and no bigfoot. For twelve thousand years of human habitation. Panola county, 28 per square mile. Like 25 times the population density of my own state. Anywhere you look on the Sabine the idea will be absurd.

It would be rich to get exact locations of the BFRO car trip (they call it expedition) to the Sabine River. Because it is a really narrow river basin. They're going to try making it sound remote and large, which is easy to debunk along the entirety of the Sabine. You see on the BFRO expedition web page that these car trips have hotel options for these intrepid explorers. A car trip to a hotel is not an expedition.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 14th April 2014, 06:29 AM   #343
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
I haven't seen a report from the recent BFRO road trip to the Sabine River Basin in Texas. (March 2014). Gosh, we have twelve thousand years of archaeological evidence in the Sabine River Basin going back to the Clovis culture. Isn't that amazing? We can find evidence from twelve thousand years ago that tiny family units of clovis culture people lived, worked, and traded in the Sabine River basin. But zero on bigfoot even in the here and now.

The river has always been important for transportation, but specifically intensive logging, milling, and transport of same as far back as the early 1800's. The Spanish were there beforehand but the 1800's was truly intensive use of the land. Followed by intensive oil exploration and development in the 1900's. Centuries of intensive human land use.

Pick any county you want along the 500 or so miles of Sabine tributaries. Like say, Sabine county. 21 people per square mile population density. Almost 11,000 people living there continuously, plus a lot more recreational visitors, and no bigfoot. For twelve thousand years of human habitation. Panola county, 28 per square mile. Like 25 times the population density of my own state. Anywhere you look on the Sabine the idea will be absurd.

It would be rich to get exact locations of the BFRO car trip (they call it expedition) to the Sabine River. Because it is a really narrow river basin. They're going to try making it sound remote and large, which is easy to debunk along the entirety of the Sabine. You see on the BFRO expedition web page that these car trips have hotel options for these intrepid explorers. A car trip to a hotel is not an expedition.
Well, maybe the car was an Expedition. Or maybe an Escalade.
TjW 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 14th April 2014, 07:41 AM   #344
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
The biggest mystery to me is how bigfoot witnesses can manage to pretend that science, especially psychology, doesn't exist, but monsters do.
Excellent sig line.


May I?
dmaker 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 14th April 2014, 10:58 AM   #345
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,246
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
Well, maybe the car was an Expedition. Or maybe an Escalade.
Way too funny!

It seems so ironic to me that right under foot in the Sabine River basin there are pre-historic relics of immense importance to the history and knowledge of hominids in that vicinity.

You put a couple dozen well informed people to work digging for Clovis points for a few days and you have a good chance at coming up with one. That's what reality can do for you. Think how thrilling it would be to stumble upon a semi-permanent site with centuries of evidence. Looking at their poopies through an electron microscope to find out how important cranberries were to their diet or whatever.

Skeptics are always framed as closed-minded when it is the exact opposite: the skeptic is open to any evidence you can roll in. It's exciting too. We really do have primate cousins and some day they'll find some frozen tissue in a glacier to clone a Neanderthal with. We'll have some tough decisions to make but I come down on the side of both owning, hunting, and eating them. We can have cage matches and put some of these MMM guys in there with a 700 lb Neanderthal with a club. There's going to be no tapping out with a Neanderthal. These are going to be to the death, so we'll have to find some former Soviet state to host these matches.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 14th April 2014, 01:51 PM   #346
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 3,669
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
Excellent sig line.

May I?
Sure. Glad you liked it.
__________________
"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 16th April 2014, 07:16 AM   #347
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I disagree with you about the Ruby Creek sighting, an important story in the Bigfoot canon. You seem to go to lengths to question a bear interpretation. Your possible suggestions: Mrs. Chapman didn’t see a bear; she did see a bear but lied about it; she saw some guy; she just lied about everything; she didn’t lie but her story was misreported later. Anything, apparently, is acceptable, except an account of a bear being mistaken for a sasquatch.
She may have seen a bear and thought it was Bigfoot. I just doubt it.

Could "big cow" have been what the child said after seeing an elk or moose?

Quote:
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.
This might be another strawman. I don't think there are any people here who think that there are no misidentifications among the Bigfoot encounter stories. What is common here is the idea that lies and hoaxes (mostly the same thing anyway) hold the great majority of Bigfoot encounter reports and campfire stories.

Quote:
My example of the “religiously devout” seeing the Virgin in a fence post was meant to show how BELIEF is an integral part in what would otherwise be seen as an odd belief. Your reply, again, is looking too literally at the issue. It’s not that you can see the likeness of the Virgin too that’s important. What’s important is that the devout would see something more in the image than you would. You might see the likeness and think it unimportant as just a coincidence or pareidolia. The devout sees the same image but finds it miraculous and inexplicable except for a supernatural explanation.
I understand but your example doesn't serve your purpose because the witness DID NOT LIE when they said that they saw a picture of the Virgin in a fencepost. This matters because we regularly have Bigfooters lying about the picture on the fencepost.


Here's a hypothetical to get at what I'm talking about:

A guy claims "I found a huge complete skeleton in the woods yesterday and after examining it I am certain that it is a Bigfoot skeleton."

Oh wow OK now take us to the skeleton. He does...

A) There is no skeleton. The guy lied.

B) There is a human skeleton of a 73" tall male. The guy was wrong about it being a Bigfoot and it's not really huge either.

C) There is a crow skeleton. The guy was wrong about it being a Bigfoot and it's not really huge either.

D) There is a pile of sticks and branches that have been stripped of bark. The guy was wrong about it being a skeleton but it is sort of a huge pile after all.

Those are not the only options.
__________________
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 16th April 2014, 07:55 AM   #348
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
E. There is nothing there, indicating not 'a lie', but a government conspiracy to remove evidence of Bigfoot.

F. There is nothing there, indicating Bigfoots take their dead and bury them somewhere.
__________________
"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 16th April 2014, 09:18 AM   #349
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I think the point of this rhetorical exercise is that people who claim to "know" that they saw some really large and dangerous creature never seem confident enough to really report it to the people who matter. Instead, they report it to their Bigfoot treehouse club. This behavior strongly suggests that the entire story of the alleged encounter is made up, or at least that the "witness" isn't nearly as confident in the identification ad they claim to be.
We could also turn the clock back and ask why police never captured a Bigfoot in the 1940's (or earlier). At that time there is no Bigfoot belief hobby. There is no "Bigfoot" word in our language and very few would know what "Sasquatch" is or have even heard the word. Nobody has adopted the behavior of hoaxing Bigfoot either. Police departments would not really have a reason to think a 9 foot hairy ape beast thing is an organized prank because that wasn't really going on.

Cops should have gotten calls. They would respond. Soon you have a Bigfoot body before you even have a proper or common name for it.

It didn't seem to happen that way. It's explained perfectly by the fact that Bigfoot doesn't exist now or then.
__________________
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 16th April 2014, 09:27 AM   #350
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
Maybe the police should know that the Native Americans in the old days said that this huge ape beast thing steals children and sometimes eats them too. That should matter to Bigfooters and the cops and everybody else too, right. Or is that Indian stuff just a bunch of bullcrap?
__________________
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 16th April 2014, 06:50 PM   #351
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 16,993
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I got laughed at immensely when I first arrived here and suggested that feral people might be what people are misidentifying. I recently moved to Eugene, Oregon and the homeless rate here, and elsewhere in the state, is very high.

After seeing some of these poor folks on the street, and noticing the low light conditions that exist in these forests even on bright sunny days, I can definitely see how a homeless person could be misidentified as bigfoot if they happen to be camping. Most have untreated mental disorders so if you couple that with some of the reported bigfoot behaviors, it could explain a lot.

None of this was ever discussed anywhere else that I recall, I've never heard anyone from the PNW even put the hypothesis forward. That speaks volumes when considering what people are willing to overlook as possible explanations.
How many of these homeless people possess the proportions normally attributed to Bigfoot?
__________________
" 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 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 16th April 2014, 07:45 PM   #352
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,219
I think they misjudge the size of what they are seeing, if they see anything at all. Think about it Greg, your hiking along in the woods, more than likely daydreaming and enjoying the scenery when suddenly you spot this motley looking creature trying to hide from you, either walking away, or crossing your path up the trail. All of a sudden, the fear factor kicks in and the creature becomes bigger than life and inhuman.
__________________
"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 16th April 2014, 08:13 PM   #353
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,421
You are back to square one. The beginnings of the modern bigfoot myth. It started off as feral humans. All the early bigfoot experts were looking for long haired wild indians or feral humans.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...no_bee1958.htm
__________________
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 16th April 2014, 10:53 PM   #354
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,219
No, I don't think the two are related. Not all sightings can be blamed on homeless people camping in the woods. It's only one of many possible explanations for sightings. The prints are either faked or just bear prints. The two rarely ever occur together which ought to tell the die hard footers something, but they choose to ignore that fact.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jodie; 16th April 2014 at 11:09 PM.
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 17th April 2014, 01:13 PM   #355
comncents
Critical Thinker
 
comncents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 272
Lets talk about "honest" misidentifications. In Jodie's example, something walks across the trail in front of a hiker. It could be a homeless person, a survivalist or Mick Dodge himself. It could also be a deer, bear, elk or some other animal viewed from an angle that made it look bipedal. Its a fleeting glimpse from a distance that doesn't easily allow for correct identification. Same situation if you are riding in a car and catch a glimpse of something you think is BF. An "honest" report would say that whatever it was, was only seen for a brief instant. Once the report starts throwing in details like glowing eyes, long fangs, red-tipped brown hair, sneaking up on a wild hog - catching it and breaking its back against a tree, etc it becomes an obvious lie. If someone can give enough details to "know for sure it was bigfoot" - then they are making it up. I still believe that the vast majority of all reported bigfoots are just plain lies - period. People are just passing on the Great North American Myth. The believers want everyone to think there are all sorts of sightings as part of the "evidence". Trying to justify the "large number of sightings" by giving multiple reasons for misidentifications or hallucinations or whatever is just playing their game. No bigfoot = no detailed sightings. Go back through the lists of sightings and throw out all the ones that give details - you won't have many left.
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 17th April 2014, 10:42 PM   #356
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,219
Well you might be right but I can certainly see how a camping homeless person could be mistaken for a bigfoot based on what I've seen here, 1 in 50 are homeless in Eugene, and I bet there are more out there in forests.
__________________
"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 22nd April 2014, 07:50 AM   #357
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
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.
__________________
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 22nd April 2014, 08:37 AM   #358
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,356
Parcher- You are dead-on here.

It is strongly paralleled by Christian churches. When they talk about that power of prayer, they always recount the wonderful recoveries from illness, that the power of prayer has given their congregation. However, they do not mention the failures of prayer when it comes to those who did not recover. They probably leave out 90% of the failed prayer history, and only talk about the 10% that coincidentally recovered because of 'prayer'. It really misleads people about the effectiveness of said prayers.
__________________
"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 22nd April 2014, 09:04 AM   #359
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 19,058
Reading some of the reports, you have to wonder if this the wheat from the chaff, what the hell did they leave out? Sort of like the results of the samples sent to Sykes: the best DNA evidence enthusiasts came up with turned out to be bear and skunk and cow. Add in the attention whores that claim footie-foo-foo is running under the backyard sprinkler (you'd think they'd want to make these jokers shut up), there really is no reason to think the phenomenon is a legitimate subject at all.

In 50-odd years, the apogee of bigfoot evidence is the PGF; shakey-shakey is no way to prove a species. And it hasn't.
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 22nd April 2014, 09:22 AM   #360
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,810
They will even change old stories to make them more suitable. The Ape Canyon story from 1924 by Fred Beck is actually a Paranormal Wild Man encounter story. Footers have retold the story so that it appears to be a "possible" encounter with flesh-and-blood Bigfoots.

It's a celebrated story in Bigfootery even if many Footers don't believe it. But it really is a supernatural story as told by Beck.
__________________
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 03:51 PM.
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.