Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Castro]

hi everybody!

 

[snoop_doxie]

Here is the quote in its entirety:

I have suggested at BFF that a troop of giant apes that remain in an area over such a lengthy time should leave well worn trails. I've also pointed out that there hasn't been any Bigfoot activity in the area except when the area has been occupied by Bigfooters. These facts and some of the "evidence" that they have claimed, such as finding a human sized and shaped outline on the ground of a prone individual in a sniper position situated above the cabins, cry out for a hoaxer explanation, an explanation they refuse to explore.

But ask yourself: Why all the ambiguous reports? Why make up a story about a human-sized Bigfoot in a sniper position, a story that makes them seem credulous and unthinking. Why make up a story about an invisible wood ape that blends in with downed trees in the bush? Why say you saw a person you thought was a team member and then later claim it must have been a Bigfoot because your team member was somewhere else?

These and other developments look to me like what we have is a bunch of credulous True Believers taking mundane events and turning them into meaningful events. If they were just making it all up, their stories would be far more exciting and far less ambiguous.

Your criticism is valid if we were dealing with fully objective, no-nonsense individuals. We are not. They are not the hillbillies they are portrayed to be sometimes; their resumes may surprise you. But they are committed believers who believe they are on the cusp of a great discovery. It colors their endeavors. And this may be hard for some to digest here, but it comes with the territory of Bigfoot belief that the quarry is somehow different from the typical, so defeated objectives do not mean your belief has been defeated. There is a certain odd type of nihilism to it that may look like abject dishonesty to an outsider.

And I know it's another meme here that some Bigfooters are lying for the bucks. Well the only persons I know who are cashing in big time with Bigfoot are the FINDING BIGFOOT celebs. NAWAC is probably breaking even. What is their motive, otherwise? Just playacting? Writing off their vacation time? What?

I did not use the term "ignorant" to describe hillbillies. But, now that you mention it, we are all ignorant in some form or fashion. Yes?

No, you did not use the term ignorant, I did.
How did you use the word hillbillies in the highlighted sentence?

I am ignorant of many things, this I can agree with you.
I am NOT ignorant when it comes to reading comprehension.
If you have something to teach me about how the word "hillbillies" is used in that
sentence that is NOT a put down of hillbillies, please explain.

As far as why they lie to themselves and the others accept the lies, well,
BLARGing. (I use lie as a short cut for half truths, not examining closely, that committed belief to the discovery of a Bigfoot).

Bigfoot Live Action Role-playing Game

Belonging is basic human need. (I think, I will look it up)
Knowers, believers, researchers, even the fringe group (on a quest).
Against the denialists, scofftics, and skeptics.
Area X is the grown up version of cowboys and indians.
No, more like playing war. Using the military alphabet and numbers to
designate teams, areas, equipment.

The guys that make some money and are at the top of the game have done
something "famous" to put them there.
Having credentials such as Meldrum. He will stay there as long as he does
not do anything to antagonize his followers.
Personally, I think he loathes to spend time with the faithful.
My opinion, he believes he is above the rabble, but he has to interact to keep
the only spot he will ever have with any kind of personal power.

Bill Munns is struggling to get some kind of notoriety in Bigfootdom, and
he has to a degree, but not nearly what he wants.
I do not think anything will happen for him outside of the game.
He is not likable. You said we are all ignorant of something, and I agree.
Munns does not think he is ignorant of anything.
He might say the opposite, he probably does.
After reading thousands and thousands of his words, he seems to be furious,
even seething that people do not see how brilliant he is.

Ah well, I went to rambling.

 

[snoop_doxie]

When I hear someone use the word "creature", I automatically put them in the make believe category. I don't think they really believe in bigfoot when they call it a creature. Jane Goodall studied animals. Dianne Fossey studied animals. Marlin Perkins studied animals. Bob Wilkins featured monsters on Creature Features. Creatures are not the same as animals. Creatures are the monsters that live in the shadows, under the bed, in the closet, by night, and disappear in daylight.

Meldrum, Munns, the cast of Finding Bigfoot, all the big players call bigfoot a creature. To me that means they honestly don't believe, they are just playing their adult version of capture the flag. Just pretending, playing a game, letting themselves the pleasure of losing themselves in a known fantasy.

When someone calls bigfoot a "creature", I figure they are posers and pretenders. A creature is a make believe monster, where an animal is not.

Exactly! Now that I think about it, they DO use the word "creature".
Yes, a creature is special, an animal is not (not to the creature hunter).
A creature is chased in his "habitat" with no resulting evidence,
an animal is studied after coming across some evidence.
(This is what I understood about it from Dinwar.)
Creatures are cryptozoology, animals are zoology.

 

[snoop_doxie]

hi everybody! [qimg]http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif[/qimg]

Hello Castro!

Yes, why can't we all just get along?

 

[The Shrike]

I'd rather be a liar than a frat boy, Jerry. <shudders>

So, you're suggesting that there are adult people seemingly without developmental deficits who went through this thought process regarding Dyer's Hank Hoax?

"I know a few years ago he froze a bigfoot costume in a block of ice but this time he really does have a really real bigfoot on ice!"

You're further suggesting that at least one dude took it further?

"Holy vegimite, Mate! Dyer not only has a real bigfoot, Oy need to see it so badly that Oy'm gonna queet my job, leave my family, and go on walkabout the States with that beegfoot on oyce! It's gonna cost me $12,000, but it'll be worth it."

That really makes more sense to you than either a story fabricated whole cloth or a shady guy looking to cash in on his dealings with Dyer?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You like to manipulate the conversation while claiming others are the manipulators. I am not "foot-stomping" or "shaming" or "guilt-tripping" or giving displays of "inappropriate anger." The mental image you are trying to create of me is wrong.

You have a difficult time differentiating between belief and lies.

lol.

My eyes are working pretty good, seeing all talk and no evidence.

You demanded the floor, buddy - so it's all yours. Just lay down this evidence you claim to be so under-represented here.

 

[Castro]

Jerrywayne, I find your post #859 quite confusing. This term "Fraternity" you chose to use, sounds vague and odd to me:

" -...I think the dishonesty here is with the Fraternity that has called me a liar..."
" -...certain elements of the Fraternity seem to me to be some angry folks..."
" -...I'm using the term "Fraternity" to mean the handful or so posters here that use the "IT"S KNOWING DISHONESTY" critique as the overriding explanation for the Bigfoot saga..."

I respectfully think that it would be sounder and less confusing to quote and name the posters you aim for.

 

[LTC8K6]

The issue is whether I lied when I said that the default position here about Bigfoot sightings (and related Bigfoot issues) is to claim it is all about knowing dishonesty.

Here is the kind of thing I fault --- Parcher on the guy who was taken in and financially damaged by the Dyer hoax:

"Rule #1: Never believe a Bigfoot believer without supporting evidence.

Anybody who partners with Rick Dyer must be a believer. Don't believe them."

I think the dishonesty here is with the Fraternity that has called me a liar because I have made statements to the effect that the "it's all a lie, all of it" explanation is inadequate as a central explanation for Bigfoot phenomena.

Here is the retort I am hearing: You, jerrywayne, are a liar because we don't say it's ALL based on lies. We admit that there is a TINY sliver of sightings that are misidentifications (or hallucinations), that there are a few, VERY FEW people who may be MORONIC enough to believe Bigfoot stuff; we are just saying that OVERWHELMINGLY, IT IS COMPOSED OF KNOWING LIES! So I'm a liar based on a loophole.

Sometimes I say "virtually all" and sometimes I say "all." I'll try to remember to say "virtually" exclusively just so the Fraternity will have to adjust its criticism and be less erroneous and unable to manufacture outrage at my comments.

I was born the same year the fake yeti track "discovered" by Shipton was announced to the world. When I was a young kid Bigfoot was born in northern California. I go way back. They problem between me and the Fraternity, I think, lies with the fact that I used to be a believer and the Fraternity, as far as I know, does not sport a former believer. Also, the Fraternity is reacting to Internet Bigfoot, such as BFF and numerous other sites as well as the occasional news report. I can almost agree that Bigfoot phenomena found on the net is mostly fabrication.

P.S. Alaska is trying to portray me as angry (I may be a little angry at being called a liar, but not as much as the Bush Pilot thinks.) I would say that certain elements of the Fraternity seem to me to be some angry folks. Your post seems angry, for instance.

P.S.S. I'm using the term "Fraternity" to mean the handful or so posters here that use the "IT"S KNOWING DISHONESTY" critique as the overriding explanation for the Bigfoot saga.

I have hardly interacted with you at all. Ever.
I had no idea you used to believe in bigfoot.

I'm not a member of any fraternity. I disagree with regular posters here about several things regarding bigfoot.

I don't think I have ever been angry about anything regarding bigfoot, as far as I can remember.

I try to stay on the high road, though I admit a poster or two have gotten to me now and then.

 

[LTC8K6]

hi everybody! [qimg]http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif[/qimg]

I am sorry, but I was forced to report this transgression to the capo.

 

[Resume]

The issue is whether I lied when I said that the default position here about Bigfoot sightings (and related Bigfoot issues) is to claim it is all about knowing dishonesty.

Here is the kind of thing I fault --- Parcher on the guy who was taken in and financially damaged by the Dyer hoax:

"Rule #1: Never believe a Bigfoot believer without supporting evidence.

Anybody who partners with Rick Dyer must be a believer. Don't believe them."

I think the dishonesty here is with the Fraternity that has called me a liar because I have made statements to the effect that the "it's all a lie, all of it" explanation is inadequate as a central explanation for Bigfoot phenomena.

Here is the retort I am hearing: You, jerrywayne, are a liar because we don't say it's ALL based on lies. We admit that there is a TINY sliver of sightings that are misidentifications (or hallucinations), that there are a few, VERY FEW people who may be MORONIC enough to believe Bigfoot stuff; we are just saying that OVERWHELMINGLY, IT IS COMPOSED OF KNOWING LIES! So I'm a liar based on a loophole.

Sometimes I say "virtually all" and sometimes I say "all." I'll try to remember to say "virtually" exclusively just so the Fraternity will have to adjust its criticism and be less erroneous and unable to manufacture outrage at my comments.

I was born the same year the fake yeti track "discovered" by Shipton was announced to the world. When I was a young kid Bigfoot was born in northern California. I go way back. They problem between me and the Fraternity, I think, lies with the fact that I used to be a believer and the Fraternity, as far as I know, does not sport a former believer. Also, the Fraternity is reacting to Internet Bigfoot, such as BFF and numerous other sites as well as the occasional news report. I can almost agree that Bigfoot phenomena found on the net is mostly fabrication.

P.S. Alaska is trying to portray me as angry (I may be a little angry at being called a liar, but not as much as the Bush Pilot thinks.) I would say that certain elements of the Fraternity seem to me to be some angry folks. Your post seems angry, for instance.

P.S.S. I'm using the term "Fraternity" to mean the handful or so posters here that use the "IT"S KNOWING DISHONESTY" critique as the overriding explanation for the Bigfoot saga.

Calm down.

There.

Now, it's a certainty that there is no bigfoot for folks to believe in (as there is no satan for satanists). So what's going on? A lot of role-playing, and ********ting . . . in my opinion of course. If you have any information (beyond personal testimony) on the extent of true bigfoot belief, bring it on; I can certainly demonstrate hoax after hoax after habituation scenario after Matilda video.

What are folks seeing that they claim to be bigfoot? I dunno for sure, and neither do you, but to turn a flash of fur or a scary shadow into a 9-ft apeman takes a bit of willing imagination, wouldn't you say?

This of course is all based on accepting testimony that is mostly unvetted and unverified; a bunch of one-offs that could be the work of a bunch of bored pot-smoking teen-agers (or adults) with a laptop and little else to do.

There's a reason that the bigfoot phenomenon isn't vitiating academia.

 

[jerrywayne]

Here is the quote in its entirety:





No, you did not use the term ignorant, I did.
How did you use the word hillbillies in the highlighted sentence?

I am ignorant of many things, this I can agree with you.
I am NOT ignorant when it comes to reading comprehension.
If you have something to teach me about how the word "hillbillies" is used in that
sentence that is NOT a put down of hillbillies, please explain.

As far as why they lie to themselves and the others accept the lies, well,
BLARGing. (I use lie as a short cut for half truths, not examining closely, that committed belief to the discovery of a Bigfoot).

Bigfoot Live Action Role-playing Game

Belonging is basic human need. (I think, I will look it up)
Knowers, believers, researchers, even the fringe group (on a quest).
Against the denialists, scofftics, and skeptics.
Area X is the grown up version of cowboys and indians.
No, more like playing war. Using the military alphabet and numbers to
designate teams, areas, equipment.

The guys that make some money and are at the top of the game have done
something "famous" to put them there.
Having credentials such as Meldrum. He will stay there as long as he does
not do anything to antagonize his followers.
Personally, I think he loathes to spend time with the faithful.
My opinion, he believes he is above the rabble, but he has to interact to keep
the only spot he will ever have with any kind of personal power.

Bill Munns is struggling to get some kind of notoriety in Bigfootdom, and
he has to a degree, but not nearly what he wants.
I do not think anything will happen for him outside of the game.
He is not likable. You said we are all ignorant of something, and I agree.
Munns does not think he is ignorant of anything.
He might say the opposite, he probably does.
After reading thousands and thousands of his words, he seems to be furious,
even seething that people do not see how brilliant he is.

Ah well, I went to rambling.

As far as I know, hillbillies are self taught and do not hold college degrees (unless you have a really broad definition of hillbillies.) One NAWAC member, at least, is a college prof in a relevant field and another, if I remember correctly, has a degree in Russian language. This distinction is primarily what I had in mind. You are right, of coarse, that the "uneducated" guys could probably show the "educated" a thing or two about what does or doesn't live out there in the woods.

If you think I have used "hillbillies" in a negative fashion, perhaps it is because the term itself carries with it negative connotations for many. Thanks to you, I'll try to remember to be more careful in future posts.

As for Munns, he has some interesting points that are worth considering, but alas, his points are not the conclusive end game he imagines. Also, his demand that a publisher pull a book on cryptozoology because he found the chapter on Bigfoot wanting was beyond the pale.

 

[jerrywayne]

Calm down.

There.

Now, it's a certainty that there is no bigfoot for folks to believe in (as there is no satan for satanists). So what's going on? A lot of role-playing, and ********ting . . . in my opinion of course. If you have any information (beyond personal testimony) on the extent of true bigfoot belief, bring it on; I can certainly demonstrate hoax after hoax after habituation scenario after Matilda video.

What are folks seeing that they claim to be bigfoot? I dunno for sure, and neither do you, but to turn a flash of fur or a scary shadow into a 9-ft apeman takes a bit of willing imagination, wouldn't you say?

This of course is all based on accepting testimony that is mostly unvetted and unverified; a bunch of one-offs that could be the work of a bunch of bored pot-smoking teen-agers (or adults) with a laptop and little else to do.

There's a reason that the bigfoot phenomenon isn't vitiating academia.

Thanks, but I am calm.

You are right about the fact there is a lot of hoaxing and fraud that helps perpetuate the Bigfoot myth. My main complaint is that one cannot explain the phenomena by appealing only to the fraudulent elements. And when one denies that there is really any one who actually believes this stuff (or virtually any one), not even the guys who write the books defending the existence of Bigfoot (Meldrum, Bindernagel, Dahinden, Green, Napier, Munns, etc.), then common sense is out the door.

Calling someone a liar should be the last resort in an analysis and not the first. I find it staggering that the mere idea that many Bigfooters are motivated by sincere, if misguided, belief is considered so crazyass it shouldn't even be figured in the equation, according to some of the skeptics here.

 

[jerrywayne]

I have hardly interacted with you at all. Ever.
I had no idea you used to believe in bigfoot.

I'm not a member of any fraternity. I disagree with regular posters here about several things regarding bigfoot.

I don't think I have ever been angry about anything regarding bigfoot, as far as I can remember.

I try to stay on the high road, though I admit a poster or two have gotten to me now and then.

I guess I misread the tone of your post. My apology.

Of coarse, it didn't help that your first post practically called me a liar.

 

[jerrywayne]

I'd rather be a liar than a frat boy, Jerry. <shudders>

So, you're suggesting that there are adult people seemingly without developmental deficits who went through this thought process regarding Dyer's Hank Hoax?

"I know a few years ago he froze a bigfoot costume in a block of ice but this time he really does have a really real bigfoot on ice!"

You're further suggesting that at least one dude took it further?

"Holy vegimite, Mate! Dyer not only has a real bigfoot, Oy need to see it so badly that Oy'm gonna queet my job, leave my family, and go on walkabout the States with that beegfoot on oyce! It's gonna cost me $12,000, but it'll be worth it."

That really makes more sense to you than either a story fabricated whole cloth or a shady guy looking to cash in on his dealings with Dyer?

Nothing is beyond the pale when it comes to Belief Blindness. BB is in the world, in countless manifestations. That you would preclude the possibility of a sincere believer being taken in and offer instead the hypothesis that a guy goes to the press with a story that makes him look ridiculous (or makes him a fraud himself, given your analysis), is, IMHO, wrongheaded.

Do you think everyone who believes in things you find indefensible on grounds of reason and common sense, are liars or underdeveloped mentally? Or is it just Bigfoot "believers" you so easily designate?

 

[jerrywayne]

Jerrywayne, I find your post #859 quite confusing. This term "Fraternity" you chose to use, sounds vague and odd to me:

I respectfully think that it would be sounder and less confusing to quote and name the posters you aim for.

You're right.

 

[Resume]

Do you think everyone who believes in things you find indefensible on grounds of reason and common sense, are liars or underdeveloped mentally? Or is it just Bigfoot "believers" you so easily designate?

One could be just plain ignorant of the entirety of the phenomenon. I would put Jane Goodall in this category.

 

[jerrywayne]

One could be just plain ignorant of the entirety of the phenomenon. I would put Jane Goodall in this category.

I would agree, except she says she has talked to First Nations people about "Bigfoot." My reading of what she said: she is more hopeful or wishful than certain.

Or, is she just a liar?

 

[Resume]

I would agree, except she says she has talked to First Nations people about "Bigfoot." My reading of what she said: she is more hopeful or wishful than certain.

First Nation legend is only a small part of the phenomenon.

Or, is she just a liar?

Oh calm down.

ETA: I should put it better. First Nation legends are a convenient bullet-point for enthusiasts but I'd wager that most have only a passing knowledge of those legends as they relate to their enthusiasm. They conveniently overlook most of the hundreds of other legendary creatures that were also the subject of First Nation lodge talk-stories. Creatures that also don't exist.

 

[jerrywayne]

lol.

My eyes are working pretty good, seeing all talk and no evidence.

You demanded the floor, buddy - so it's all yours. Just lay down this evidence you claim to be so under-represented here.

So you saw me "foot-stomping," yes? No, you were trying to portray me in a certain light. That's your specialty. Now, I admit I returned the favor in spades with my comment about your "imagination." We are big boys here.

Some of this current dispute arose when, for the umpteenth time, someone was calling Meldrum a liar a few months back and I suggested we dissect his arguments instead of attacking him personally.

You spent 15 minutes on the internet and came up with more LIES from Meldrum. The "lies" you culled were actually comments about what Meldrum seems to believe, namely, we have Bigfoot trackways, hair, a good film, etc. So you converted what he believes to be true into "lies" that you could then expose. You didn't attempt to answer him, or even understand his point of view, and instead chose to smear him.

(And before anyone accuses me of defending Meldrum, as someone always does, I think he is wrong about Bigfoot and I think he is arrogantly wrong about Bigfoot.)

Now, what is it you want from me? Evidence? Evidence of what? Evidence that there are many people out there who sincerely believe in the existence of Bigfoot? Well, I saw what you did with Meldrum, and have done with others, and I'm unimpressed. Like I said, you cannot distinguish between belief and lies. In your view, apparently, a Bigfoot believer is as mythological as Bigfoot itself.

So let's look elsewhere for a discussion. If you take it as a given that Bigfoot does not exist, or cannot exist, does this color how you perceive people who claim the Big Ape does exist? I can understand how you may convert a believer into a foolish person, in your mind, but by what reckoning and means must you insist they are liars? I won't ask for evidence because what really exists is opinion. So I'm asking for your opinion on this specific topic.

 

[jerrywayne]

First Nation legend is only a small part of the phenomenon.



Oh calm down.

ETA: I should put it better. First Nation legends are a convenient bullet-point for enthusiasts but I'd wager that most have only a passing knowledge of those legends as they relate to their enthusiasm. The conveniently overlook most of the hundreds of other legendary creatures that were also the subject of First Nation lodge talk-stories. Creatures that also don't exist.

I agree with you about the First Nation stories. Also, I don't think the First Nation folk are guiltless; today, some of them sought out seem to have tailored their myths to mix seamlessly with the contemporary myth of Bigfoot, for fun or profit. (Although I can't prove it.)

Next time you read a post of mine where I say something like, "or we could just call her a liar," please don't imagine that I'm not calm in my deliberation. I added such a comment about Goodall because it is the logical extension, in my mind, of a strain of Bigfoot skepticism found here. I could be wrong, but, if so, I was calmly wrong.