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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 6th March 2015, 07:23 AM   #121
Pterodactyl
Muse
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 511
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
So far, no:


I think someone is blinded to the relevant questions.

ETA: One of her first questions should be something along the lines of why skeptics aren't asked to the site. After the initial oily BB answer, the follow up question should be when is the group going to allow an independent skeptic to observe the site. That skeptic shouldn't be her, of course.
If you listen to Bigfoot Show Episode 60, there's an interview with David Mizejewski ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mizejewski ) on site in Area X.
He doesn't primarily describe himself as a skeptic (though he does mention he is highly skeptical of BF) and states he has visited the site more than once. He also during the interview very clearly states that he hasn't seen anything during his visits that he would ascribe to bigfoot.

So, basically we know that any time a skeptic has been on site, there are no BF-related happenings. Funny how that works.
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 07:32 AM   #122
mustbeso
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 246
Shouldn't the hill from which all these rocks are thrown be absolutely awash in biological samples like hair and scat? This is something I always think about when any of these habituators start with their storytelling.
mustbeso is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 07:45 AM   #123
Cervelo
Graduate Poster
 
Cervelo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,305
I haven't read the NAWACKY monograph of malarkey but a question for those who have.
Do they recount the dancing bigfoot in the tree incident resulting in the snapping off of a 24" tree at its base?
Cervelo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 07:51 AM   #124
Cervelo
Graduate Poster
 
Cervelo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,305
I would place Area X north of 63, for the reason that the NAWAC web page places it above 63:
http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/457

On the other hand, NAWAC may be offering a ruse here to steer folks away from the real site. The report above mentions cabins on the Little River -- as best I can tell, the Little River would be west and south of this site, and near Honobia.[/quote]
Thx Jerry I am very interested in hearing from anyone about the location of this site....PT ya takin notes
Cervelo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 07:55 AM   #125
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,290
My position: show me a real living, breathing creature or don't waste my time. Claims are not worth my time.

If we can get such great documentary evidences of mountain gorillas or bonobos in the remotest jungles of Africa, we would be able to get the same with "wood apes" or "bigfoot" if they were actually real. Show me evidence on par with that evidence or don't waste my time.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 08:03 AM   #126
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,689
If the NAWAC have been offered solutions to the hoaxing problem, and refuse to implement those solutions, then they are guilty of Blaarging.

I have told them to mount secret cameras in the vicinity. Cameras that only one person knows about.

I have told them to put sensors on the road into the area, so they would know when an unaccounted-for car gets anywhere near the area.

I have told them to try trickery to drop off a person in the middle of the area where the footies show up, to surprise whoever it is that is out there.

They won't do these things.
What is that called when people won't do things that could solve a problem that they don't want a solution to?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 08:23 AM   #127
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Here is a comment by Sharon Hill: "Now we’re pushing skepticism to pathological cynicism."

I tend to agree with her on this, up to a point. While I think there are credible grounds to challenge NAWAC's account of what they experienced, the easy, first stop, dismissal of their assertions and arguments as nothing but lies has never held much appeal to me. Such an approach is cynicism, to be sure, but is it pathological?
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Since when does dismissing virtually everything concerning Bigfoot as a knowing lie become a "vastly more likely explanation?" It's not, in my book. I would say that the idea that NAWAC just made up everything they reported, that they bold faced lied about everything, is an explanation that has its own problems.

To be clear about Hill's complaint, I must add that she was addressing folks who did not read the report and still wanted to dismiss it out of hand.

Although you don't hold this view, I don't think, there are skeptics who believe positively that Bigfoot does not exist and cannot exist. They are not just skeptical, they are "knowers" in their own right; they know Bigfoot does not exist. Given this, they have no openness whatsoever to the possibility of Bigfoot. The cynicism comes into play when they also believe no one else could really believe in Bigfoot either. It is a small step from there to calling people liars over Bigfoot. It is a first stop, easy way to dismiss the phenomena.
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I wonder why you think I "believe that all these people can't find bigfoot that is infesting these 10 little acres even though the footies are knocking, rocking and stinking all the time."
Hilited.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 08:29 AM   #128
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,415
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
You and others are really in love with the "BLAARGing" meme. I guess you think it is THE grand contribution to the understanding of the phenomena.
With more than a decade invested in pretty much daily bigfoot study, I find the BLAARGing hypothesis to be well supported by the data, yes.

The options are these:

1) people experiencing real bigfoots
2) people genuinely mistaking other experiences for bigfoot
3) people disingenuously claiming to experience bigfoot

#1 is not supported by the available evidence.

#2 and #3 do support the available evidence (i.e., people claiming to encounter bigfoots).

At the BFF, I spent years engaged in mental gymnastics to find ways to make #2 fit the data. Some people really do hear deep-throated coyotes and or see a guy in a dark coat along the side of the road and convince themselves that they've experienced bigfoot. In sum, the BFF = #2.

For a great many accounts, however, #2 is unsatisfactory. When people claim close-up, broad daylight encounters, interactions lasting many years, long-duration observations, etc., then it becomes much more difficult to explain their account by some kind of hallucination, misidentification, etc. The explanation that fits the data more elegantly and parsimoniously is that of #3 - the "witness" is lying/pretending/BLAARGing.

It's very difficult to determine a percentage of BLAARGed vs misidentified reports among all bigfoot accounts. It's not 100%, but I suspect it's much higher than 10%. There is BLAARGing on display with NAWAC, but who is in on it and who is not I don't know. It doesn't have to be any more than 1 person in on it.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 08:40 AM   #129
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Not being able to find a bigfoot in a ten acre patch of ground sounds like a game of Stupid Man's Bluff.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:00 AM   #130
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,415
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Not being able to find a bigfoot in a ten acre patch of ground sounds like a game of Stupid Man's Bluff.
To the clear, the 10-acre site is nested within many thousands of acres of the Ouachita National Forest. They're working a small patch within a much larger forested matrix.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:01 AM   #131
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
To the clear, the 10-acre site is nested within many thousands of acres of the Ouachita National Forest. They're working a small patch within a much larger forested matrix.
And repeated failures is not a clue that they have, at the very least, the wrong ten acre patch?
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:02 AM   #132
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,520
IMO, one of the best indicators of widespread BLAARGing is that Bigfoot witnesses universally do not call the police. We are told that this should be understood as nobody wants to call in a Bigfoot encounter-in-progress only to have the police laugh at them. But this doesn't follow the reality of what we are requested to believe about encounters. There is no good reason to believe that law enforcement would take no action against a 9-foot hairy ape running amok.

A caller does not have to say that Bigfoot is harassing them and please come to help. They can say that they are being harassed by a person. Further, if Bigfoot exists, there must be many people who have had encounters where they mistakenly think it is a person harassing them. Think about all the encounter stories of people having their home or cabin "terrorized" by something and yet they do not call the police. Rocks are being thrown at your home and yet you do not call the police. What is going on with these witnesses?

IMO, this informs us that these Bigfooters commonly do not genuinely believe there is a Bigfoot outside, nor do they think that some person is harassing them either. It informs me that so many encounter stories are simply made up - and it is supported by the fact that these people are not calling the police.

If Bigfoot existed and people were serious we would have dead Bigfoots shot by the police by now. "We received a call of a prowler throwing rocks at a house. We arrived and soon had rocks thrown at our squad car. We identified the culprit as a 9-foot tall hairy ape beast. We shot and killed it and the body was transported to the county morgue. This is now one of 7 such beasts that have been killed in our county by officers responding to complaints."
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:07 AM   #133
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,520
Originally Posted by Sharon Hill
Read more carefully. Everyone assumed I concluded Bigfoot? Wrong. I said there were questions here to be answered. There is certainly no dispute about that.

Most people’s dismissive assumptions have blinded them to relevant questions. I’m sticking to my openness on this one, like it or not.
What are the questions, and who has the burden of answering them?

Is Sharon suggesting that skeptics need to be providing answers? Is this a case where the claimant's claim stands firm until it can be toppled? Is she really thinking that way or am I misunderstanding?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:08 AM   #134
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
IMO, one of the best indicators of widespread BLAARGing is that Bigfoot witnesses universally do not call the police. We are told that this should be understood as nobody wants to call in a Bigfoot encounter-in-progress only to have the police laugh at them. But this doesn't follow the reality of what we are requested to believe about encounters. There is no good reason to believe that law enforcement would take no action against a 9-foot hairy ape running amok.
I know for a fact that they take action against a 6' 4" hairy ape running amok.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:09 AM   #135
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,172
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
And repeated failures is not a clue that they have, at the very least, the wrong ten acre patch?
No, they have these encounters on this patch, they just lack the necessary skill-set to collect the evidence that a bunch of big monkeys would leave behind. And when they do, something always happens to it. It's like a sit-com.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:12 AM   #136
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,172
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
What are the questions, and who has the burden of answering them?

Is Sharon suggesting that skeptics need to be providing answers? Is this a case where the claimant's claim stands firm until it can be toppled? Is she really thinking that way or am I misunderstanding?
I think she means skeptical questions. But she seems to be way behind the curve concerning the hijinks at area x.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:40 AM   #137
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,172
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
I think she means skeptical questions. But she seems to be way behind the curve concerning the hijinks at area x.
ETA: However, she did also say this:
Originally Posted by Sharon Hill
Practical skepticism is warranted.
Is it practical to take "Brian's" colorful anecdotes ( “As the reports states, the rocks are flying essentially *at all times* we’re there.) at face value? She posts them as if she does.

Also, I don't recall reading anything in the monograph about NAWAC's contribution to the Sykes study. Is it in there? I'd hate to have to go through all that crap again.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:47 AM   #138
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,520
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Also, I don't recall reading anything in the monograph about NAWAC's contribution to the Sykes study. Is it in there? I'd hate to have to go through all that crap again.
Sykes did not analyze any sample from Oklahoma or Texas.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:47 AM   #139
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
It's like a sit-com.
I.e., scripted.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 09:53 AM   #140
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,172
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Sykes did not analyze any sample from Oklahoma or Texas.
I''m pretty sure Mr. Brown claimed a sample was sent. What actually occurred, I have no idea.


ETA: Something about not hearing from Sykes, nor any sample returned, sent through an intermediary. In other words, more sit-com hijinks. Or hijinx.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane

Last edited by Resume; 6th March 2015 at 09:55 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 10:29 AM   #141
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 53,339
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
I''m pretty sure Mr. Brown claimed a sample was sent. What actually occurred, I have no idea.


ETA: Something about not hearing from Sykes, nor any sample returned, sent through an intermediary. In other words, more sit-com hijinks. Or hijinx.
Mayhaps he accidentally ate the sample(s). He does seem to be full of stool.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:13 AM   #142
Gilbert Syndrome
Illuminator
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 3,684
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
What I don't understand is that Sharon seems to be completely discounting dishonesty. Why does she believe everything they say? I just assume most of them are lying or exaggerating.

A rock was thrown on the roof by an unknown tosser? How do we know that when all we see is a rock sitting on the roof? I don't grant any premise presented by anyone in NAWAC or footers in general. Otherwise I will assume one of them threw the rock just as easily as anyone or anything else.
Them unknown tossers are at it again? To be fair, that whole gang seems to be little more than a bunch of unknown tossers, imo.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:16 AM   #143
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,721
There is something seriously wrong with this whole 'Sharon-not-rejecting-bigfoot' thing. I find it hard to believe that The Lying Brian Brown is convincing enough to fool her. That said, I submitted a reply on her site specifically bashing Mr. Brown to see if she would post it, and she did not. That may be a clue.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 6th March 2015 at 11:22 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:21 AM   #144
Gilbert Syndrome
Illuminator
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 3,684
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Since when does dismissing virtually everything concerning Bigfoot as a knowing lie become a "vastly more likely explanation?" It's not, in my book. I would say that the idea that NAWAC just made up everything they reported, that they bold faced lied about everything, is an explanation that has its own problems.

To be clear about Hill's complaint, I must add that she was addressing folks who did not read the report and still wanted to dismiss it out of hand.

Although you don't hold this view, I don't think, there are skeptics who believe positively that Bigfoot does not exist and cannot exist. They are not just skeptical, they are "knowers" in their own right; they know Bigfoot does not exist. Given this, they have no openness whatsoever to the possibility of Bigfoot. The cynicism comes into play when they also believe no one else could really believe in Bigfoot either. It is a small step from there to calling people liars over Bigfoot. It is a first stop, easy way to dismiss the phenomena.
Did the universe shift itself into an axis of retardation while I was away? I have no problem classing myself as a "knower," much like I "know" that those internet pop-ups won't ever win me a million quid, I also know that there is no such thing as Bigfoot, because...y'know...reality.

How long must this nonsense go on?
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:24 AM   #145
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
<snip>
Also, I don't recall reading anything in the monograph about NAWAC's contribution to the Sykes study. Is it in there? I'd hate to have to go through all that crap again.
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
I''m pretty sure Mr. Brown claimed a sample was sent. What actually occurred, I have no idea.


ETA: Something about not hearing from Sykes, nor any sample returned, sent through an intermediary. In other words, more sit-com hijinks. Or hijinx.

Brian Brown claimed 2-3 years ago that they had sent a sample of blood from the site (shotgun fiasco) to be analyzed for DNA composition.
After a long time evading questions about the results - he stated on the BFF that the lab never sent them the results even though they had paid for the tests.
He was challenged more than once as to why he did not sue the lab for such a blatant case of breach of contract. He did give any sort of rational reply.
He was then advised numerous times to publicize the name of the lab so as to warn others about sending their samples to it. He did not reply nor has the name of the lab - to my knowledge - ever been released.

Not a very good record regarding DNA analysis.
__________________
"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; 6th March 2015 at 11:27 AM. Reason: edited to add Resume quote
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:28 AM   #146
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,689
I am predicting some sort of a podcast Team-up between Brian Brown and Sharon Hill.

Either that, or Brian Brown has a TV deal in the works, and offered her a part in it, as the 'Skeptical' Renae type person.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:29 AM   #147
Gilbert Syndrome
Illuminator
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 3,684
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I would agree with you that no one ought believe what the Bigfooters tell us. We are not obligated. But I think Hill is arguing that we ought not be so totally closed-minded that we easily dismiss claims without giving a hearing whatsoever. Who knows, maybe there IS something there. (I seriously doubt there is, but I know I may be wrong.) Cynicism is not the same thing as skepticism.

My complaint is that the idea that we can dismiss NAWAC as just a bunch of liars cannot be assumed off hand, and is probably itself a dubious assumption.
It's hard to not be cynical when we see the same tired bollocks over and over from the same tired peddlers of absolute crap. It isn't true cynicism when it's founded on an incredibly sensible foundation such as Bigfoot-scepticism.

If this were any other crypto-crap I'd probably give them the benefit of the doubt, just because, but with Bigfoot? Nah. What makes these nuggets any more credible than any other nuggets who come along and try to pretend that they've been living amongst Bigfoot's for christknowshowlong and STILL have nothing to offer except the average bollocks that anyone could fake if they had an afternoon off work and a cooler full of brown ale?

You might aswell suggest that we now give Patterson the benefit of the doubt because he seemed sincere when he was peddling his garbage.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:33 AM   #148
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Them unknown tossers are at it again? To be fair, that whole gang seems to be little more than a bunch of unknown tossers, imo.
Finally someone took a swing at the pitch
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:39 AM   #149
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,415
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I am predicting some sort of a podcast Team-up between Brian Brown and Sharon Hill.

Either that, or Brian Brown has a TV deal in the works, and offered her a part in it, as the 'Skeptical' Renae type person.
I predict that you're on the right track.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:43 AM   #150
icerat
Philosopher
 
icerat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sweden
Posts: 5,532
How about we put together a team to go up and replicate their "study"?

Volunteers?
Donations?
__________________
Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available
icerat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:46 AM   #151
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,055
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I am predicting some sort of a podcast Team-up between Brian Brown and Sharon Hill.

Either that, or Brian Brown has a TV deal in the works, and offered her a part in it, as the 'Skeptical' Renae type person.

Starting to look that way from her less than skeptical view on the situation. That's very unfortunate if so.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:48 AM   #152
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Brian Brown claimed 2-3 years ago that they had sent a sample of blood from the site (shotgun fiasco) to be analyzed for DNA composition.
After a long time evading questions about the results - he stated on the BFF that the lab never sent them the results even though they had paid for the tests.
He was challenged more than once as to why he did not sue the lab for such a blatant case of breach of contract. He did give any sort of rational reply.
He was then advised numerous times to publicize the name of the lab so as to warn others about sending their samples to it. He did not reply nor has the name of the lab - to my knowledge - ever been released.

Not a very good record regarding DNA analysis.
So that's who it was! The label got smudged. I didn't make the connection because it was menstrual blood.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 11:57 AM   #153
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,520
Ranae never was a skeptic in any meaningful sense. She is a token prop used to bolster Bigfoot promotion because she is ineffective at debunking. Anyway, she has recently said that she now believes that Bigfoot does exist. She says she thinks it's a spirit being. So we have a TV skeptic saying that spirits exist in the real world. Oh boy.

I don't think NAWAC can use Sharon as a regular cooperating skeptic because she is too skeptical for that. She has stumbled somewhat in her recent evaluation of NAWAC but she will recover. Right now she's having internal struggles thinking about what skepticism should be and how it should proceed. It has caused other skeptics to wonder about her state of mind.

Sharon won't sell out to NAWAC and this will all return to the perpetual state of nothingness coming out of Bigfootery. All "hot items" in Bigfootery burn and then fizzle out to the constant monotonous nothingness. Like birthday candles stuck in a cake made from mud.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 12:35 PM   #154
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,520
Originally Posted by icerat View Post
How about we put together a team to go up and replicate their "study"?

Volunteers?
Donations?
You make a joke?

Anyway, they don't have any results to replicate. Stories about rocks hitting a cabin and stinky smells are not results.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 01:09 PM   #155
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,494
I'm now vaguely familiar with this Sharon person. She was a member here apparently. She "doubts". When was she crowned Skeptic of All Skeptics? I never voted. And why do we really care if she's drank the NAWAC juice? It's probably got pineapple in it. Hey the law's the law, "looking stupid" is one of your Miranda rights guaranteed by the constitution. Sergeant Matt Moneymaker proved that way back. And I as a regular citizen have no right to infringe on it. Only Obama can through an Executive Order.

Heck, we've got jerrywayne here who's not a practicing skeptic, but we put up with him. Mostly.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 01:17 PM   #156
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I am predicting some sort of a podcast Team-up between Brian Brown and Sharon Hill.

Either that, or Brian Brown has a TV deal in the works, and offered her a part in it, as the 'Skeptical' Renae type person.
Seems footie has more to do with the pocketbook than the forest.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 01:18 PM   #157
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Them unknown tossers are at it again? To be fair, that whole gang seems to be little more than a bunch of unknown tossers, imo.

+3
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 01:19 PM   #158
comncents
Critical Thinker
 
comncents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
(snip)
At the BFF, I spent years engaged in mental gymnastics to find ways to make #2 fit the data. Some people really do hear deep-throated coyotes and or see a guy in a dark coat along the side of the road and convince themselves that they've experienced bigfoot. In sum, the BFF = #2.
(snip)
Couldn't resist.

Jerrywayne,

I think you have a point regarding BLAARGers and if they believe in bigfoot or not. My opinion is that bigfoot doesn't exist. Anyone claiming a clear, detailed sighting/encounter is making it up. (the number of honest misidentifications is too small to be significant) That being said, just because someone lies about their own sighting, doesn't mean they don't believe Bigfoot is out there somewhere. So, while some BLAARGers may actually believe in the existence of Footie, they know that their sighting is a lie. I think this is one reason that so many believers will defend someone else's story - think about how many people Dyer duped on his second go-round. They want someone to be right about Footie. Other BLAARGers don't believe, they just play.

In terms of the NAWAC stories, do you believe they actually saw an ape in a tree throwing multiple rocks at them? or they saw an ape swing back and forth and breaking a 24" tree? If you think any of the stories are a lie, then why not accept they are all lies? If they had an actual experience, why make up such unbelievable stories to go along with it?

The answer to how the wood ape got so many rocks up the tree is that they are marsupial wood apes - right?
__________________
WARNING - DO NOT FEED THE BLAARGers!
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 01:22 PM   #159
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,415
BTW, the fetid urine odor referenced in the report - not feral hogs because . . . ?
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2015, 01:25 PM   #160
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,689
I read through the MONOGRAPH, but didn't see anything about the NAWAC operation SLINGSHOT, where they were using a giant slingshot to shoot things back up the hill at the Bigfoots. It was brought up at BFF, but I didn't see it in this paper. I wonder if I missed it, or if it was left out as being too silly for sciense.

__________________
"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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 04:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.