The True Nature of Bigfoot Skepticism

Status
Not open for further replies.

OntarioSquatch

Graduate Poster
OntarioSquatch
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
1,783
It's said that skepticism is a method, while denialism is a position. During my time here, I've come to terms with the fact that the majority of the Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't actually skeptics at all, but rather denialists hiding behind the label of "skeptic". These people are absolute masters of what's called special-pleading, a logical fallacy where a person uses special considerations for whatever premise of theirs. While I don't know the precise cause of this denialism, I do know it's a psychological defense mechanism that stems from the subconscious mind of an individual.

The possibility of an animal such as Bigfoot/Sasquatch being real deeply shakes these peoples minds. Entertaining it will often anger them. Knocking down the possibility of Bigfoot being a real animal along with any sort of evidence that suggests it might be real provides these people a great deal of relief. This is in direct contrast with many religious Bigfoot proponents, where the idea of Bigfoot being real actually gives them some sort of psychological relief. For that reason, neither side can have any sort of genuine and non-biased scientific discussion on the phenomenon. A good example of the true nature of these people was their reaction to the blog post of well-known skeptic Sharon Hill, who entertained the idea that there might be something to the NAWAC and their anecdotes on the things they've experienced in the Ouachita National Forest. She experienced all sorts of attacks on her credibility, which were totally uncalled for and didn't match the situation. Another example for this would be when Bill Munns, an experienced makeup artist, tried to discuss the Patterson-Gimlin film in an honest, straight-forward and scientific manner here. He too experienced similar attacks on his credibility.

There are perhaps only a handful of people here who discuss the Bigfoot phenomenon and are what you could call true skeptics and most of them aren't even active members. For this reason, discussing or defending the possibility of Bigfoot here is a waste of time. My hope is that this post sheds some light on what's really going on here with these Bigfoot threads. The truth regarding the Bigfoot phenomenon is out there for anyone who wants to do their own research and find out what's really going on. You won't have much luck finding it here though. This is my last post here for the foreseeable future.
 
Nice words. After all these years, all these expeditions, all these Sharon Hills, where is the evidence? The PGF is not it. The NAWAC report is not it. The anecdotes are not it.

Where is the evidence?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's said that skepticism is a method, while denialism is a position. During my time here, I've come to terms with the fact that the majority of the Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't actually skeptics at all, but rather denialists hiding behind the label of "skeptic". These people are absolute masters of what's called special-pleading, a logical fallacy where a person uses special considerations for whatever premise of theirs. While I don't know the precise cause of this denialism, I do know it's a psychological defense mechanism that stems from the subconscious mind of an individual.

The possibility of an animal such as Bigfoot/Sasquatch being real deeply shakes these peoples minds. Entertaining it will often anger them. Knocking down the possibility of Bigfoot being a real animal along with any sort of evidence that suggests it might be real provides these people a great deal of relief. This is in direct contrast with many religious Bigfoot proponents, where the idea of Bigfoot being real actually gives them some sort of psychological relief. For that reason, neither side can have any sort of genuine and non-biased scientific discussion on the phenomenon. A good example of the true nature of these people was their reaction to the blog post of well-known skeptic Sharon Hill, who entertained the idea that there might be something to the NAWAC and their anecdotes on the things they've experienced in the Ouachita National Forest. She experienced all sorts of attacks on her credibility, which were totally uncalled for and didn't match the situation. Another example for this would be when Bill Munns, an experienced makeup artist, tried to discuss the Patterson-Gimlin film in an honest, straight-forward and scientific manner here. He too experienced similar attacks on his credibility.

There are perhaps only a handful of people here who discuss the Bigfoot phenomenon and are what you could call true skeptics and most of them aren't even active members. For this reason, discussing or defending the possibility of Bigfoot here is a waste of time. My hope is that this post sheds some light on what's really going on here with these Bigfoot threads. The truth regarding the Bigfoot phenomenon is out there for anyone who wants to do their own research and find out what's really going on. You won't have much luck finding it here though. This is my last post here for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


How is it being a denialist to say bigfoot is not a real creature? It is the truth. There is 0 evidence of bigfoot. Anywhere. The denialists are the footers. Silly wabbit, trixs are for kids!

Would I be a denialist to say faeries arent real? Vampires? Pot bellied figboofs with long wings and forked tongues?

This post is hilarious. Nice job on the inverted proof theory? haha. Theres plenty of proof of what "bigfoot" really is OS...
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
It's said that skepticism is a method, while denialism is a position. During my time here, I've come to terms with the fact that the majority of the Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't actually skeptics at all, but rather denialists hiding behind the label of "skeptic". These people are absolute masters of what's called special-pleading, a logical fallacy where a person uses special considerations for whatever premise of theirs. While I don't know the precise cause of this denialism, I do know it's a psychological defense mechanism that stems from the subconscious mind of an individual.

The possibility of an animal such as Bigfoot/Sasquatch being real deeply shakes these peoples minds. Entertaining it will often anger them. Knocking down the possibility of Bigfoot being a real animal along with any sort of evidence that suggests it might be real provides these people a great deal of relief. This is in direct contrast with many religious Bigfoot proponents, where the idea of Bigfoot being real actually gives them some sort of psychological relief. For that reason, neither side can have any sort of genuine and non-biased scientific discussion on the phenomenon. A good example of the true nature of these people was their reaction to the blog post of well-known skeptic Sharon Hill, who entertained the idea that there might be something to the NAWAC and their anecdotes on the things they've experienced in the Ouachita National Forest. She experienced all sorts of attacks on her credibility, which were totally uncalled for and didn't match the situation. Another example for this would be when Bill Munns, an experienced makeup artist, tried to discuss the Patterson-Gimlin film in an honest, straight-forward and scientific manner here. He too experienced similar attacks on his credibility.

There are perhaps only a handful of people here who discuss the Bigfoot phenomenon and are what you could call true skeptics and most of them aren't even active members. For this reason, discussing or defending the possibility of Bigfoot here is a waste of time. My hope is that this post sheds some light on what's really going on here with these Bigfoot threads. The truth regarding the Bigfoot phenomenon is out there for anyone who wants to do their own research and find out what's really going on. You won't have much luck finding it here though. This is my last post here for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to pick this up on your way out...you earned it!
 
Like many bigfoot proponents, OS fails to meet the burden of proof, blames skeptics, then leaves, advancing his fringe belief not one iota.

Bye.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's said that skepticism is a method, while denialism is a position. During my time here, I've come to terms with the fact that the majority of the Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't actually skeptics at all, but rather denialists hiding behind the label of "skeptic". These people are absolute masters of what's called special-pleading, a logical fallacy where a person uses special considerations for whatever premise of theirs. While I don't know the precise cause of this denialism, I do know it's a psychological defense mechanism that stems from the subconscious mind of an individual.

The possibility of an animal such as Bigfoot/Sasquatch being real deeply shakes these peoples minds. Entertaining it will often anger them. Knocking down the possibility of Bigfoot being a real animal along with any sort of evidence that suggests it might be real provides these people a great deal of relief. This is in direct contrast with many religious Bigfoot proponents, where the idea of Bigfoot being real actually gives them some sort of psychological relief. For that reason, neither side can have any sort of genuine and non-biased scientific discussion on the phenomenon. A good example of the true nature of these people was their reaction to the blog post of well-known skeptic Sharon Hill, who entertained the idea that there might be something to the NAWAC and their anecdotes on the things they've experienced in the Ouachita National Forest. She experienced all sorts of attacks on her credibility, which were totally uncalled for and didn't match the situation. Another example for this would be when Bill Munns, an experienced makeup artist, tried to discuss the Patterson-Gimlin film in an honest, straight-forward and scientific manner here. He too experienced similar attacks on his credibility.

There are perhaps only a handful of people here who discuss the Bigfoot phenomenon and are what you could call true skeptics and most of them aren't even active members. For this reason, discussing or defending the possibility of Bigfoot here is a waste of time. My hope is that this post sheds some light on what's really going on here with these Bigfoot threads. The truth regarding the Bigfoot phenomenon is out there for anyone who wants to do their own research and find out what's really going on. You won't have much luck finding it here though. This is my last post here for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

I think you're taking this forum a little too personal. Of course as a Bigfoot proponent, if you post here you will be labelled "Liar", "BLARRGER", "Mentally Ill" etc. So what? Please remember it is the woefully uneducated on the subject that are throwing those terms at you. You can't blame them for their ignorance of the subject, remember they haven't seen what you may have. But because you may have seen something they cannot or will not accept, it doesn't mean you're wrong and it doesn't mean you're any of those negative things you were labelled here.

The only response you will receive for Bigfoot discussion here is "Show me the monkey". Simply because they WANT to know what you know. They WANT to know to the point of insulting you to incite showing them evidence of Bigfoot. It is impossible to have any sort of discussion here even theoretical about Bigfoot. You will immediately be hit with name calling and "Show me the monkey" and "Why are you here?" Insecurity of position reeks on this forum. Just laugh it off, I do. Chris B.
 
Wow, OS, I really got to you, didn't I???
All I asked you to do was locate the scapula on Patty, that you said you could see, and you threw a hissy fit.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
It's said that skepticism is a method, while denialism is a position. During my time here, I've come to terms with the fact that the majority of the Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't actually skeptics at all, but rather denialists hiding behind the label of "skeptic". These people are absolute masters of what's called special-pleading, a logical fallacy where a person uses special considerations for whatever premise of theirs. While I don't know the precise cause of this denialism, I do know it's a psychological defense mechanism that stems from the subconscious mind of an individual.

The possibility of an animal such as Bigfoot/Sasquatch being real deeply shakes these peoples minds. Entertaining it will often anger them. Knocking down the possibility of Bigfoot being a real animal along with any sort of evidence that suggests it might be real provides these people a great deal of relief. This is in direct contrast with many religious Bigfoot proponents, where the idea of Bigfoot being real actually gives them some sort of psychological relief. For that reason, neither side can have any sort of genuine and non-biased scientific discussion on the phenomenon. A good example of the true nature of these people was their reaction to the blog post of well-known skeptic Sharon Hill, who entertained the idea that there might be something to the NAWAC and their anecdotes on the things they've experienced in the Ouachita National Forest. She experienced all sorts of attacks on her credibility, which were totally uncalled for and didn't match the situation. Another example for this would be when Bill Munns, an experienced makeup artist, tried to discuss the Patterson-Gimlin film in an honest, straight-forward and scientific manner here. He too experienced similar attacks on his credibility.

There are perhaps only a handful of people here who discuss the Bigfoot phenomenon and are what you could call true skeptics and most of them aren't even active members. For this reason, discussing or defending the possibility of Bigfoot here is a waste of time. My hope is that this post sheds some light on what's really going on here with these Bigfoot threads. The truth regarding the Bigfoot phenomenon is out there for anyone who wants to do their own research and find out what's really going on. You won't have much luck finding it here though. This is my last post here for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...



I love Bigfoot. Always have. One of the first movies I ever saw in a theatre was a Bigfoot documentary back in the 70s. The idea of of some throwback wild man has had a primal appeal for humans at least as far back as the Gilgamesh epic and probably a lot further back than that. Nothing would thrill me more than to have incontrovertible proof that Bigfoot is real. I think you'd find that many here feel the same way. "Incontrovertible proof" incidentally means an actual specimen to study, not footprints, not blurry photos and especially not shaky-cam films made by a known conman and liar.

Why don't you dial down the condescension and read up on standards of evidence, pareidolia, logical fallacies ("No True Scotsman", in particular) and all aspects of the Bigfoot legend, not just the aspects which conform to your beliefs? Any jackass can believe in things that please him, comfort him or reinforce ideas he first embraced as a child. Skeptics hear those same siren calls of irrationality, but they (sometimes grudgingly) would rather believe in an uncomfortable truth than a comforting lie. It's not always fun, but it is how rational, intelligent adults conduct themselves.
 
I am skeptical of claims that Bigfoot exists and I deny its existence based on the application of rationality and reason. Denialism of existence would be unwarranted only if the context and circumstances were entirely different than they actually are.

Bigfoot is an ongoing cultural myth that attracts some individuals to participate and attempt to promote belief in its actual existence. Humans have a long history of adopting and embracing myths and it would be naive to think that any advanced culture would simply discard such things over time. Skeptical people are powerless to effect entire societies composed of individuals with the freedom to choose their own beliefs and desires.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's said that skepticism is a method, while denialism is a position. During my time here, I've come to terms with the fact that the majority of the Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't actually skeptics at all, but rather denialists hiding behind the label of "skeptic". These people are absolute masters of what's called special-pleading, a logical fallacy where a person uses special considerations for whatever premise of theirs. While I don't know the precise cause of this denialism, I do know it's a psychological defense mechanism that stems from the subconscious mind of an individual.

The possibility of an animal such as Bigfoot/Sasquatch being real deeply shakes these peoples minds. Entertaining it will often anger them. Knocking down the possibility of Bigfoot being a real animal along with any sort of evidence that suggests it might be real provides these people a great deal of relief. This is in direct contrast with many religious Bigfoot proponents, where the idea of Bigfoot being real actually gives them some sort of psychological relief. For that reason, neither side can have any sort of genuine and non-biased scientific discussion on the phenomenon. A good example of the true nature of these people was their reaction to the blog post of well-known skeptic Sharon Hill, who entertained the idea that there might be something to the NAWAC and their anecdotes on the things they've experienced in the Ouachita National Forest. She experienced all sorts of attacks on her credibility, which were totally uncalled for and didn't match the situation. Another example for this would be when Bill Munns, an experienced makeup artist, tried to discuss the Patterson-Gimlin film in an honest, straight-forward and scientific manner here. He too experienced similar attacks on his credibility.

There are perhaps only a handful of people here who discuss the Bigfoot phenomenon and are what you could call true skeptics and most of them aren't even active members. For this reason, discussing or defending the possibility of Bigfoot here is a waste of time. My hope is that this post sheds some light on what's really going on here with these Bigfoot threads. The truth regarding the Bigfoot phenomenon is out there for anyone who wants to do their own research and find out what's really going on. You won't have much luck finding it here though.
This is my last post here for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can use your absence to learn about what "special pleading" is.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
Enjoy!
 
Since you have not shown OS's claim to be false, I'm puzzled about how special pleading applies? Chris B.
 
Still the wrong focus. OS has not shown his claim to be true, either the fallacious one in the OP or the base one reference Bigfoot.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Since you have not shown OS's claim to be false, I'm puzzled about how special pleading applies? Chris B.
Click to expand...

On a different thread, OS was struggling with the fallacy of special pleading (among many concepts) and Slowvehicle was trying to help him out.
 
Garrette said:
Still the wrong focus. OS has not shown his claim to be true, either the fallacious one in the OP or the base one reference Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Resume said:
On a different thread, OS was struggling with the fallacy of special pleading (among many concepts) and Slowvehicle was trying to help him out.
Click to expand...

Who has shown his claims to be false? Simple question. For special pleading to apply someone must have shown the claim to be false. Is that the case or not?
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think you may have confused opinion and fact. What is your evidence that supports your "fact"? Chris B.
Click to expand...
That I'm secure in my position about the non-existence of bigfoot?

Why yes, yes I am. Your assertion that I am not is a complete crock of ****.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I see, you failed to specify. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Failed to specify what? Others here are insecure about the non-existence of bigfoot? I'm pretty sure that Parcher and The Shrike and GT/CS and dmaker, et al are secure in that as well.
 
True skeptics are willing to consider a lot of things, but will only believe something is true based on hard evidence. I have already posted that I would be thrilled if Bigfoot was real. But I have yet to see any hard evidence, so I don't accept it as fact anymore than I accept unicorns ;which I would kind of like to believe too). So if anyone has evidence, great. Go ahead.
 
Resume said:
Failed to specify what? Others here are insecure about the non-existence of bigfoot? I'm pretty sure that Parcher and The Shrike and GT/CS and dmaker, et al are secure in that as well.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you would not be interested in Bigfoot evidence whatsoever? Really?
Chris B.
 
Giordano said:
True skeptics are willing to consider a lot of things, but will only believe something is true based on hard evidence. I have already posted that I would be thrilled if Bigfoot was real. But I have yet to see any hard evidence, so I don't accept it as fact anymore than I accept unicorns ;which I would kind of like to believe too). So if anyone has evidence, great. Go ahead.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with this position. At least you are willing to consider hard evidence.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Ah, so you would not be interested in Bigfoot evidence whatsoever? Really?
Chris B.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in bigfoot enthusiast evidence; not campfire stories, nor paredoilac photos, nor ProTool recordings, nor silly footprints. There are long established techniques and protocol used to establish new species as well as new technologies. Footers seem to be unaware of these.

No bigfoot proponent has ever met the burden of proof; meet this burden and folks like me will listen. Keep on with the same old crap and expect to be called on it.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Who has shown his claims to be false? Simple question. For special pleading to apply someone must have shown the claim to be false. Is that the case or not?
Chris B.
Click to expand...

ChrisBFRPKY said:
Nothing wrong with this position. At least you are willing to consider hard evidence.
Chris B.
Click to expand...
We all are. It is merely the insistent avoidance of presenting such that has made us doubt it will ever be presented.

No matter. Your posts here are perfectly consistent with AlaskaBushPilot's BLAARGing game theory matrix. I, for one, choose to indulge you only to the extent it amuses me. Right now. That limit is expressed by this question: where and what is your evidence?
 
Garrette said:
We all are. It is merely the insistent avoidance of presenting such that has made us doubt it will ever be presented.

No matter. Your posts here are perfectly consistent with AlaskaBushPilot's BLAARGing game theory matrix. I, for one, choose to indulge you only to the extent it amuses me. Right now. That limit is expressed by this question: where and what is your evidence?
Click to expand...

"Here we have not innocent open-mindedness, but a narrow and intolerant creed, which is today often recognized as such. The word “skeptic” is, in fact, increasingly conjoined with “dogmatic,” “zealous,” and “militant.” Some people accuse skeptics of being nothing but cynics in disguise. A few wags have dubbed them “septics.” Admittedly, that’s not very nice – but, truth be told, skeptics have brought such attacks on themselves by repeatedly characterizing their opponents as credulous, gullible, simpleminded, ignorant, irrational, and foolish."

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.o...tics/examining-skeptics/why-im-not-a-skeptic/

Very good thread on this article, perhaps you should read it?
Chris B.

added: P.S. This is not the Bigfoot evidence thread, this is the "True Nature of Bigfoot Skepticism" thread.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Since you have not shown OS's claim to be false, I'm puzzled about how special pleading applies? Chris B.
Click to expand...

This:

I saw a faerie fly across my backyard last night with a thermal device... Also, it threw a twix at my beer gut.
Click to expand...

Would I need to prove this claim to be false for it to be?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Since you have not shown OS's claim to be false, I'm puzzled about how special pleading applies? Chris B.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that other large fauna create copious evidence of their existence (hair, scat, corpses, middens, trails, even game camera photos, among others) is not "special pleading", but a description of demonstrable reality.

Claiming that 'Squatch leaves no such, because reasons, is, in fact, "special pleading" (reality does not apply to 'Squatch, because he's special...).

OP is, and has been, a bit skosh in understanding of that.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"Here we have not innocent open-mindedness, but a narrow and intolerant creed, which is today often recognized as such. The word “skeptic” is, in fact, increasingly conjoined with “dogmatic,” “zealous,” and “militant.” Some people accuse skeptics of being nothing but cynics in disguise. A few wags have dubbed them “septics.” Admittedly, that’s not very nice – but, truth be told, skeptics have brought such attacks on themselves by repeatedly characterizing their opponents as credulous, gullible, simpleminded, ignorant, irrational, and foolish."

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.o...tics/examining-skeptics/why-im-not-a-skeptic/

Very good thread on this article, perhaps you should read it?
Chris B.

added: P.S. This is not the Bigfoot evidence thread, this is the "True Nature of Bigfoot Skepticism" thread.
Click to expand...
Another by Prescott? First I have seen this one, but I have read several previous. A quick perusal of this one indicates he still engages in the same strawmen.

Also the same insistence that we (skeptics) should accept non-evidence as evidence. No thanks.

Got evidence?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
added: P.S. This is not the Bigfoot evidence thread, this is the "True Nature of Bigfoot Skepticism" thread.
Click to expand...

The true nature of bigfoot skepticism is based on the utter lack of scientific evidence for the subject cryptid. So we'll allow this line of questioning.

This is a frikken skeptic's forum; to be surprised at being asked for evidence in support of fringe claims is naïve.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Who has shown his claims to be false? Simple question. For special pleading to apply someone must have shown the claim to be false. Is that the case or not?
Chris B.
Click to expand...

You are misdirecting the onus. It is not up to me (for instance) to "prove" that 'Squatch does not exist. I can, and do, simply point out that there is no practical, empirical, congruent, fruitful, luminous, non-anecdotal evidence for the existence of an uncatalogued giant North American primate. It is up to the claimant to demonstrate that her claims are supported by reality. It is up to the claimants to adduce evidence that 'Squatch does, in fact, exist.

NB: the pronoun "her" is employed here to make a point in another argument. Nothing to see here, citizens; back to your lives...
 
Slowvehicle said:
Pointing out that other large fauna create copious evidence of their existence (hair, scat, corpses, middens, trails, even game camera photos, among others) is not "special pleading", but a description of demonstrable reality.

Claiming that 'Squatch leaves no such, because reasons, is, in fact, "special pleading" (reality does not apply to 'Squatch, because he's special...).

OP is, and has been, a bit skosh in understanding of that.
Click to expand...

I get the gist, thank you. I do disagree though with characterizing unknown speculation as special pleading though. (If that was the case as used it is not to be confused literally with special pleading as used when one has been proven wrong. In this case it would only be speculation as opposed to special pleading)
Chris B.
 
Reference the topic of this thread: yes, it's about the nature of skepticism. While there are nuances, it boils down to the question I just asked: got evidence?.

The OP and your (Chris's) posts are an attempt to portray it as something else. You have failed and in doing so have provided more evidence of the BLAARGING hypothesis. Well done.
 
Bring us a body of the creature. Alive or dead, it truly doesn't matter. Anything less is little more than baseless speculation and mental masturbation. I for one would love to find out that Bigfoot actually exists, but I'm not going to accept a "you have to believe me because of these low-resolution photos and I'm an honest guy trust me" gambit.

Bring us a body. Or even part of one. Considering how many of these creatures are said to exist in the United States alone it shouldn't be that difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom