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
 

Notices


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 Arlene Gaal , bigfoot , cryptozoology , flatwoods monster , Ken Chaplin , lake worth monster , loch ness monster , onza , panthers , Trunko

Reply
Old 23rd November 2012, 03:40 PM   #121
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I did a rough unscientific Myers Briggs on the BFF, overwhelmingly they were all introverts and the skeptics tended to be extroverts.

What about all the ones pretending to believe in Bigfoot. Where did they end up in your analysis?
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 03:45 PM   #122
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
Like she said, they were all introverts (wouldn't that pretending thing apply to all footers?)
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 03:49 PM   #123
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by Sonny2 View Post
And this also couples with Parcher's suspicions of dishonesty.
But I would go on to say that this is not garden variety dishonesty. This is American tradition and customs in all their glory. A folk tale isn't exactly a lie.

Maybe the reason why there are so many Christians and Conservatives in Bigfootery is because they go there to defend America against the damn Liberals. These people already took God out of the classroom and now they want to take Bigfoot out of our wilderness. Liberals and Bigfoot skeptics are put into the same basket and they will probably go to Hell anyway.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 03:50 PM   #124
Jodie
Master Poster
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,555
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
What about all the ones pretending to believe in Bigfoot. Where did they end up in your analysis?

LOLOL.....I don't believe I asked that but the ones either looking or pretending to look were introverts for the most part.
__________________
testis unus, testis nullus
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
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 23rd November 2012, 03:53 PM   #125
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,496
Originally Posted by Sonny2 View Post
Interesting, Jodie. I would have suspected that.

As for seeing bears, the few times I have seen bears in the wilds, there wasn't much misidentification, as their dark color seems to really stand out against the foliage. Even when I could only catch a few glimpses, it was pretty obvious I was looking at bear - even the lighter cinnamon colors.

And thus the mindset jerrywayne mentions - it must be there already to see BF instead of bear. And this also couples with Parcher's suspicions of dishonesty. You want to see BF, so you see it. Never mind what you really saw.

Throw in the thrills of telling the story, plus the societal blessings, and you're quite the deal now. You can even make yourslef believe yourself, given enough time and denial.

Take into consideration, not everyone has good vision. Some of the people making these type of claims wear glasses or contacts. Everyone also has differing levels of perception in the woods. Especially if they aren't very familiar in that environment. They might think calls from a fox is bigfoot, or the raccoons are. I've heard people post all kinds of natural occuring sounds claiming it to be bigfoot. When called out, they usually say bigfoot mimics those animals. OK.

Add in a little footer imagination and dang...
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 03:57 PM   #126
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
So Myers Briggs can't catch cheaters, or there are no cheaters?
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 04:01 PM   #127
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by River View Post
They might think calls from a fox is bigfoot, or the raccoons are.
The problem doesn't go away. How do you know that the person isn't familiar with fox sounds and yet goes and claims that they heard a Bigfoot? You are granting innocent honest mistakes where you cannot prove that such mistakes are honest.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 04:02 PM   #128
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
But I would go on to say that this is not garden variety dishonesty. This is American tradition and customs in all their glory. A folk tale isn't exactly a lie.

Maybe the reason why there are so many Christians and Conservatives in Bigfootery is because they go there to defend America against the damn Liberals. These people already took God out of the classroom and now they want to take Bigfoot out of our wilderness. Liberals and Bigfoot skeptics are put into the same basket and they will probably go to Hell anyway.
I doubt if the footers have made that leap yet. They aren't aware that the skeptics are anti-American libs who are out to take their guns and BF away. They just think they're irritating thorns.

If they come over here and figure it out, though, watch out below. The truth will out and this Bleevers - Scofftic thing will explode. (j/k, kind of)

And River, my eyes aren't all that great, but I do get your point. Being outdoors a lot makes a difference, too, as you know what to expect.
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 04:09 PM   #129
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,496
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The problem doesn't go away. How do you know that the person isn't familiar with fox sounds and yet goes and claims that they heard a Bigfoot? You are granting innocent honest mistakes where you cannot prove that such mistakes are honest.

I think some of them obviously do know. It appears that most footers aren't really in the woods that much. When they do go, it's a stretch to say they're in "remote" areas. (parked in a camper van/truck on the side of a dirt road?) That's how they can believe the notion of a bigfoot. Just about anything can become bigfoot with the right coaching. So there are differing levels of footery at work! Certainly plenty of liars, and cons. Just as many suckers, and "greenies", dupes.
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by River; 23rd November 2012 at 04:10 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 04:11 PM   #130
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by Sonny2 View Post
I doubt if the footers have made that leap yet. They aren't aware that the skeptics are anti-American libs who are out to take their guns and BF away. They just think they're irritating thorns.
And yet, Evangelical Christianity and strong Conservative values are the elephant in Bigfootery's room.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 04:45 PM   #131
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
LOLOL.....I don't believe I asked that but the ones either looking or pretending to look were introverts for the most part.
I was wondering....

You fairly recently stopped believing in Bigfoot and began to deny. Did you also find that your personality made a switch from introversion to extroversion at the same time?

JREF forum had a thread on Myers-Briggs here.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 04:58 PM   #132
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Another reason why it depends on which cryptid you are talking about is that we may or may not have a good sense of the predominant personality type of the claimants. We have that for Bigfooters where there is a general lack of innocent honesty.

I think one of the big reasons why great numbers of people tell lies about seeing Bigfoot is because Bigfootery is extremely protective and gives real meaningful sanctuary to liars. People who like to tell folk tales automatically realize that Bigfootery is a great place for them. They are actually needed by Bigfootery. The liar knows this.
Very interesting point. Once, at Cryptomundo, someone posted that he had seen a sasquatch when he was alone in hinterland B.C. He said his brother doubted him. He made this claim anonymously. Common sense would council not to take this claim at face value. Didn't stop posters, however, from giving emotional support as if the sighting was a verified fact.
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 23rd November 2012, 05:06 PM   #133
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
And yet, Evangelical Christianity and strong Conservative values are the elephant in Bigfootery's room.
I am surprised at the creationist element in modern Bigfootery. I had thought they were dismissive of Bigfoot because of the Darwinian connotations of an apeman. I thought the Loch Ness Monster was their cup of tea, a surviving marine reptile thought to be extinct by modern evolutionary science.
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 23rd November 2012, 05:13 PM   #134
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I am surprised at the creationist element in modern Bigfootery. I had thought they were dismissive of Bigfoot because of the Darwinian connotations of an apeman. I thought the Loch Ness Monster was their cup of tea, a surviving marine reptile thought to be extinct by modern evolutionary science.
It doesn't surprise me so much because anyone who can ignore the scientific facts and believe in Creationism is also likely to ignore the scientific facts when looking at anything else.
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 05:17 PM   #135
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
People who have previously worked with the BFRO say that about 80-90% of all submitted claims are discarded because they are obvious lies. Doesn't seem unusual to me.

But what is unusual is that these are not spoken of, or even posted with a tag saying that the BFRO regards them as lies. I mean, it wouldn't harm anything by posting the lies in their own web section, right?

No, it's very harmful to Bigfootery because it would show the world exactly how popular and common it is for the public to tell Bigfoot lies. Then you realize that the few thousand reports that they do show are only just the best sounding lies according to people who already believe in Bigfoot (or say they do).

I strongly deny the existence of Bigfoot. Yet even I could pick the best Bigfoot lies from a pile of them. "Here go with these ones. They are lies but the Bigfooters will believe these ones. I know exactly what they like."

The movers and shakers in Bigfootery are constantly having to manage the Three Bears Situation. This bowl is too hot. This bowl is too cold. But this bowl is just right....

This is too many reports. This is too few reports. But this number of reports is just right to maintain even keel Bigfoot belief.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 05:22 PM   #136
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
The best lies are those that take a real situation and tell it like it happened, then throw in a Bigfoot. IOW, describe a place you were really at, doing something you were really doing, then throw in the monkey.

If BFRO is tossing that many claims, they must get quite a few sightings, as they have a bunch over there on their so-called database. QA testing at the BFRO - LOL.
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 05:23 PM   #137
Jodie
Master Poster
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,555
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I was wondering....

You fairly recently stopped believing in Bigfoot and began to deny. Did you also find that your personality made a switch from introversion to extroversion at the same time?

JREF forum had a thread on Myers-Briggs here.
No, I've never been extroverted, I have consistently tested out as INFJ for the last 10 years when I've had a reason to take them for work. I would say that if I run true to type, then it is because I'm more sensitive to BS than other types.
__________________
testis unus, testis nullus
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
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 23rd November 2012, 05:29 PM   #138
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
I don't know anything about the Briggs-Meyer, but I suspect it has a lot of fallicies, as do most things that try to categorize humans. Guess I'll go read the thread Parcher linked.
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 05:30 PM   #139
Jodie
Master Poster
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,555
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I am surprised at the creationist element in modern Bigfootery. I had thought they were dismissive of Bigfoot because of the Darwinian connotations of an apeman. I thought the Loch Ness Monster was their cup of tea, a surviving marine reptile thought to be extinct by modern evolutionary science.

Oh no, I think it has to do with that biblical story of Esau and Jacob.Bigfoot is descended from Esau.
__________________
testis unus, testis nullus
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
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 23rd November 2012, 05:30 PM   #140
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I am surprised at the creationist element in modern Bigfootery. I had thought they were dismissive of Bigfoot because of the Darwinian connotations of an apeman. I thought the Loch Ness Monster was their cup of tea, a surviving marine reptile thought to be extinct by modern evolutionary science.
Well I'd speculate a few things.

God created Bigfoot and everything else. We have not scientifically confirmed Bigfoot because God apparently doesn't want that, at least not yet. He may also only allow some people to observe Bigfoot. It may be God's way of showing that human experience ALWAYS trumps science... even though our experience may sometimes include science. IOW, Bigfoot is God's way of saying that science isn't everything.

Or, Bigfoot is simply a token used by these people to push against the erosion of American Tradition and Family Values. What American tradition? Bigfoot.

I don't know.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 05:39 PM   #141
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
Actually, Jodie, BF was the son of Cain or maybe IS Cain.

As for God not wanting us to confirm BF, it's because then we'd have to be pissed at God over one more thing - allowing Cain, a murderer, to survive and become so popular...oh hell, I even lost myself on that one.

As for the Meyer Briggs test, that thread has words like woo and Jung and violates ADA, etc.

Last edited by Sonny2; 23rd November 2012 at 05:46 PM.
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 06:03 PM   #142
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
But I would go on to say that this is not garden variety dishonesty.
This is pretty easy to see as a general character disorder. The works I am best familiar with actually do call this character disorder rather than personality disorder.

Don't stop with the superficial level of having a sighting. Try to engage the person as we have so many times with 'footers here and you get lie by omission, lie by inclusion of irrelevant material, evasion, diversion, selective attention, guilt-tripping, shaming, playing the victim, playing dumb - it is a whole panapopy of manipulative deceit with them rather than just a simple "misidentification".
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 06:12 PM   #143
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Oh no, I think it has to do with that biblical story of Esau and Jacob.Bigfoot is descended from Esau.
Guess I am behind on the news. When I used to read "Creation-Science" stuff, the Gish-Morris pseudo-science, there was an occasional mention of the dinosaur in the lake (Loch Ness), as if verified, but nothing about Bigfoot.

There is a weirdly interesting book about sasquatch apparently written by a maverick who uses creationist "scientific" sources. He argues for some kind of vertical, limited evolution that has produced, from new world monkeys, a large anthropoid monkey. This monkey-type migrated from South America and is the basis for most sasquatch stories (except for the stories based on neanderthals that migrated from Asia via the land bridge. I kid you not.)

I haven't decided if the author is sincere, or a brilliant satirist. Here is my review at BFF: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...footsasquatch/
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 23rd November 2012, 06:20 PM   #144
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Well I'd speculate a few things.

God created Bigfoot and everything else. We have not scientifically confirmed Bigfoot because God apparently doesn't want that, at least not yet. He may also only allow some people to observe Bigfoot. It may be God's way of showing that human experience ALWAYS trumps science... even though our experience may sometimes include science. IOW, Bigfoot is God's way of saying that science isn't everything.

Or, Bigfoot is simply a token used by these people to push against the erosion of American Tradition and Family Values. What American tradition? Bigfoot.

I don't know.
I would point out that there is a competing vision of Bigfoot, a new-age, green version, that symbolises sasquatch as some sort of ecological savior, a hopeful harbinger. Tall order for an ape.
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 23rd November 2012, 06:25 PM   #145
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
I would point out that there is a competing vision of Bigfoot, a new-age, green version, that symbolises sasquatch as some sort of ecological savior, a hopeful harbinger. Tall order for an ape.
Yes, Bigfoot is majestic. And if you were to meet Bigfoot eye-to-eye he would tilt his head upwards and gaze above your head towards the sky. Why? He is majestic and represents higher things.
__________________
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 23rd November 2012, 06:26 PM   #146
Jerrymander
Scholar
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 117
I found this posting on Crytomundo.

Quote:
Okay, to apparently win his argument from the start, Nick appears to set up an argument by defining cryptozoology in a way that ignores the discoveries that have been made. This is a technique I noticed from zoologists and naturalists in the 1960s, as a way to challenge cryptozoology by ignoring past successes and always ask, “But what of the Bigfoot, Yeti, or Nessie, the celebrity cryptids?,” they would ask.

You see, if you ignore the fact that animals are found all the time that have, by definition, been historically cryptids, then you have created a difficult wall to climb. Look, reports of a cryptid, a giant lizard said to be climbing trees in the Philippines was discussed by natives but not investigated by scientists until 2003. How could the biologists missed it until verified in 2010? It is brightly and beautifully colored with intricate golden spots running down its otherwise black back, and climbs trees to eat fruit. But the lizard was new to science even though the local tribespeople – the Agta and Ilongot – knew about it for centuries. Their name for the giant monitor, bitatawa, is now part of its official species name – Varanus bitatawa. The same can be said for so many discoveries, I don’t want to bore the frequent readers here. But you know the list, peppered with former cryptids that turned out to be what today we known as the giant squid, the okapi, the mountain gorilla, the soala, the snub-nosed monkey, and more.
Okay, does anybody know if cryptozoologists were talking about the saola, snub-nosed monkey, bitatawa, ect before they were officially discovered and classified?

Last edited by Jerrymander; 23rd November 2012 at 06:30 PM.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 06:51 PM   #147
Jodie
Master Poster
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,555
No they weren't, and no cryptozoologist ever discovered or rediscovered a cryptid species.
__________________
testis unus, testis nullus
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
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 23rd November 2012, 06:53 PM   #148
Jodie
Master Poster
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,555
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
IOW, Bigfoot is God's way of saying that science isn't everything.

I don't know.
I think this is closer to the truth but I don't know either.
__________________
testis unus, testis nullus
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
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 23rd November 2012, 07:27 PM   #149
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
 
RedRatSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,625
Man I am late to this party. Two of my favorite BS subjects " God & Bigfoot "
This is like waking up after a night partying at the Playboy Mansion in a Bed full of Reese's Cups.
RedRatSnake is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2012, 07:30 PM   #150
Jodie
Master Poster
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,555
Originally Posted by jerrywayne View Post
Guess I am behind on the news. When I used to read "Creation-Science" stuff, the Gish-Morris pseudo-science, there was an occasional mention of the dinosaur in the lake (Loch Ness), as if verified, but nothing about Bigfoot.

There is a weirdly interesting book about sasquatch apparently written by a maverick who uses creationist "scientific" sources. He argues for some kind of vertical, limited evolution that has produced, from new world monkeys, a large anthropoid monkey. This monkey-type migrated from South America and is the basis for most sasquatch stories (except for the stories based on neanderthals that migrated from Asia via the land bridge. I kid you not.)

I haven't decided if the author is sincere, or a brilliant satirist. Here is my review at BFF: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...footsasquatch/
There's a branch of bigfootery that supports the "more than one species" theory to explain the difference in tracks and reports. I remember reading your review then but never read the book. The creation scientist aspect put me off.

If bigfoot ever existed it never made sense that there would be only one kind if you took into account the lower levels of the sea during the several different ice ages that would have allowed more than one route to the Americas for different primates/marsupials and proto humans via ice or island hopping/floating, yet no fossils.

I also have the same questions about Pangaea. If you find fossils of cynodonts in South Africa and Antartica going that far back why not in SA? It should be the same shouldn't it?

I would think the more types you have migrating here, the more likely you would be to find some fossil evidence to support the hypothesis. I don't know how logical it is to think of it in terms of "all" or "nothing" but that's where I am at with it.
__________________
testis unus, testis nullus
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
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 23rd November 2012, 09:10 PM   #151
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by Slocie's View Post
Man I am late to this party. Two of my favorite BS subjects " God & Bigfoot "
This is like waking up after a night partying at the Playboy Mansion in a Bed full of Reese's Cups.
**** man, I need to hang out with you
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2012, 11:37 AM   #152
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 620
Not directly related to this thread, but Ketchum has issued a press release stating that her DNA report will show that sasquatch are hybrids of humans and "novel non-humans," not archaic hominins and not apes.

Here is link: http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.html

Last edited by jerrywayne; 24th November 2012 at 11:47 AM.
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 24th November 2012, 12:46 PM   #153
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
There goes her reputation, what was left of it anyway.
Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2012, 12:54 PM   #154
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
and you should hear the mob on the BE blog! lol, they think that it's a conspiracy by the legit science people to repress her paper!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Like the legit science community cares about any of this stuff.

If her data was legit and verifiable they would be fighting each other to be first to publish.


But footers don't get that. Cuz they are nuts (hence why no cryptozoologist has ever found, ya know, a new animal. they are crazy people with no scientific ability)
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2012, 06:52 PM   #155
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 620
Bigfoot Lives Near Me, You, and Everyone

In her introduction to her 1974 book, On the Track of Bigfoot, Marian T. Place makes this observation about Bigfoot: ...you won't come upon this creature near cities or parks or crowded forest recreation areas. (p. xii)

How times have changed. We live in the age of the ubiquitous Bigfoot. It's here, there, and everywhere, including near cities and in parks or forest recreation areas. Ms. Place would be amazed.

I like to point this out. I live in a major city, Dallas, Texas. I can skip over to the freeway and drive south, in maybe 45 minutes, to this Bigfoot sighting location: http://www.texlaresearch.com/tx_ellis_incident01.htm

Or I can drive north, instead, and 45 minutes later see this older location of two Bigfoot sightings: http://www.texasbigfoot.com/reports/...ollin&state=TX

Yes, things have changed since the old days. Next thing, they'll tell us, Bigfoot has been sighted in New York's Central Park.

Oh, wait....http://www.ghosttheory.com/2009/11/1...n-central-park
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 24th November 2012, 07:03 PM   #156
Sonny2
Muse
 
Sonny2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 669
Well, I found the witnesses to be articulate and insightful, with an impressive knowledge of local flora and fauna.

Sonny2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2012, 10:37 PM   #157
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I was wondering....

You fairly recently stopped believing in Bigfoot and began to deny. Did you also find that your personality made a switch from introversion to extroversion at the same time?
From my little hobby horse view the question is whether they go from nasty, underhanded, deceitful, manipulative charletans to decent people.

They can be superficially charming of course, or maintain the cover of "passive" character but the tools they have picked up in this arena are antisocial, ie nasty.

After one drops the bigfoot belief, do they still retain that whole tool box to pull out with playing dumb, selective attention/inattention, evasion, diversion, and all the manipulative emotional attacks? Are they still a nasty person?

One has to have the revelation that it is bad character to act that way, and this is the primary theme of James Randi's exposure of these cretins. The spoon benders and card readers and faith healers are all smiles and sweetness while performing their black arts. So if you give up spoon bending, does that mean you give up being a charletan altogether?

That's why I still use ignore in cases where despite giving up on bigfoot, it is all too easy for some of them to pull out the same offensive tactics for fun and jollies. Accepting the scientific method actually makes you into a much more pleasant person. It isn't enough to give up on bigfoot. You have to embrace the scientific method as a means of interaction with others.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2012, 11:29 PM   #158
Axxman300
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 270
Man, I so want to believe in Bigfoot. I really do.

Here's the problem...

It's not just the glaring lack of physical evidence (blood, hair, scat, skeletal remains, etc). It's not the lack of quality video or photographic evidence even though quality trail-cameras have been out on the boondocks for fifteen years or more.

It's the lack of consistency of the sightings, and the inconsistency of locations of those sightings. The best example is the lack of sightings in eastern Russia. The idea that Gigantopithecus migrated across the land bridge between Asia, and North America would be acceptable were it not for the lack of archaeological evidence that he made it over here. Siberia shares everything else with central Asia like people, plants, and animals. Yet there are no Bigfoot sightings there. Certainly not at the level of the Pacific Northwest.

The next problem I have is how the Bigfoot folks are so comfortable moving their own goal-posts when facts become uncomfortable for them.

The big problem I have is that a Sasquatch is find-able. Bears, Elk, Mountain Lions, Tigers, and dozens of other creatures can be tracked down (hence pictures, film, video, and their presence in zoos). Hell, they know where to look for the Coelacanth now that they know it's still around.

I hike. I'm sure experienced outdoors people see things they can't explain because I have too. However I have made the effort many times to figure out what I've seen, and each time I have found a number of natural factors to explain those incidents.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 12:06 AM   #159
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The idea that Gigantopithecus migrated across the land bridge between Asia, and North America would be acceptable were it not for the lack of archaeological evidence that he made it over here. Siberia shares everything else with central Asia like people, plants, and animals. Yet there are no Bigfoot sightings there. Certainly not at the level of the Pacific Northwest.
Doesn't that mean bigfoot fled from totalitarianism?
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2012, 05:50 AM   #160
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,221
Nope. Bigfoots still live under a totalitarian regime - total absolute lack of reliable evidence. And they brought this to America! See now why the govenment hides the truth about their existence?

Uncle Jo's man/ape hybrid soldiers infiltrated back in the Cold War times... The perfect sleeper agents, silently hiding in the woods everywhere in America, waiting for the order. Ever wondered why the Russians never stopped to send that radio signal? As soon as it stops, the bigfoots will attack America.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto 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 04:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.