BLAARGing

[The Shrike]

I find the BLAARG hypothesis to be applicable to many bigfooty claims and actions, but certainly not all of them. I remember kitakaze using terms like "playing woods and wildmen" but it never really clicked with me what he meant because I was ignorant of Live Action Role Playing in general, and I still have no idea what the hell Dungeons and Dragons is all about.

Now I understand a bit more, and the analogy of Civil War re-enactors helped a lot to let me attach the concept to something with which I was more familiar: You take on a persona, use language, and engage in actions to enter into a cultural subtext for some period of time or under some predetermined criteria. So long as you don't break character, you're golden!

The best example of BLAARGing I see in bigfootery is streaming into American living rooms almost daily on Finding Bigfoot. Every one of those (quite literal) characters is acting in a specific role on that show, and each is completely incongruent with the claims of finding squatchy evidence in each episode. The last thing I would do if I actually believed I was in the presence of one or more wood apes would be to leave the area as they do every week on that show.

I think one part of these discussions that may be vexing to jerrywayne is that the cases we discuss here are very often BLAARGy. The fact that there may be a majority of people at the BFF who actually believe in bigfoot rarely enters into our discussions here. Instead, we tend to address specific claims like those of BLAARGer Chris and the BLAARGers at NAWACKy, OK. Just because >50% of our threads here might address BLAARGers does not mean that >50% of bigfooters are BLAARGers.

 

[Cervelo]

The existence of Bigfoot itself isn't a silly idea. Bigfooters themselves though, are another story...

My opinion on Sharon Hill is that she's still a skeptic. It's possible to believe in Bigfoot and still be a skeptic. If the NAWAC were to bag one tomorrow, I think that would pretty much prove what I mean...

The existence of Bigfoot is very silly since there's zilch to support it.
Human behavior and ones inclination to believe in silliness has numerous examples.
Once again your footer logic has failed you

 

[bruto]

Yes, LAL is the one I was thinking about. She generally sounded relatively sane, but was, it seems, a true believer, and willing to forgive the most egregious sins when they were committed by another true believer.

I suspect she would dispute the whole idea of BLAARGing, and attack it as a skeptics' stratagem to discredit believers.

 

[Resume]

The existence of Bigfoot itself isn't a silly idea.

It's very silly. Mostly because of the way proponents frame that existence. And of course the utter, complete lack of any sort of biological evidence.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

I'm quite certain that on the IS forums, the only thing that would count as evidence is proof and by proof I mean DNA or a body. There's plenty of actual evidence.

 

[Cervelo]

I'm quite certain that on the IS forums, the only thing that would count as evidence is proof and by proof I mean DNA or a body. There's plenty of actual evidence.

Nope not one shred....line'em up OS and watch'em fall!

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Apparently some people don't know what evidence means.

 

[Resume]

I'm quite certain that on the IS forums, the only thing that would count as evidence is proof and by proof I mean DNA or a body. There's plenty of actual evidence.

There's biological evidence for footie?

Where?

 

[Resume]

Apparently some people don't know what evidence means.

Indeed.

Hint: Campfire stories; not evidence. Claims; not evidence.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Apparently some people don't know what evidence means.

Is this sarcasm? The current "evidence" for Bigfoot is nonsensical at best, "evidence" is exactly what it says on the tin.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Hint: Campfire stories; not evidence. Claims; not evidence.

Anecdotes are a form of evidence. They aren't very hard evidence, but still a type of evidence in my opinion. The geographical patterns found in sightings are a much harder form of evidence.

The PGF is another form of strong evidence.

Of course, people can use all sorts of special-pleading to try and dismiss these. And they can at least to their own satisfaction because evidence is all it is, not proof.

 

[The Shrike]

The geographical patterns found in sightings are a much harder form of evidence.

There's an extremely high and positive spatial correlation between Loch Ness and reported sightings of the Loch Ness Monster. It's way higher than the spatial correlation between claimed bigfoot sightings and forest.

 

[Resume]

Anecdotes are a form of evidence. They aren't very hard evidence, but still a type of evidence in my opinion.

Your opinion is incorrect. A untestable, unverifiable claim is not evidence for itself. It's useless

The geographical patterns found in sightings are a much harder form of evidence.

Claims about claims are not evidence for those claims. They are useless.

The PGF is another form of strong evidence.

So strong it's sparked much scientific interest. Wait . . .

Of course, people can use all sorts of special-pleading to try and dismiss these. And they can at least to their own satisfaction because evidence is all it is, not proof.

Bigfootery is nothing but special pleading and excuse. Can you produce any biological evidence sufficient to justify the bigfoot hypothesis?

BTW: Stop channeling your inner DWA; it doesn't help your cause.

 

[William Parcher]

Anecdotes are a form of evidence. They aren't very hard evidence, but still a type of evidence in my opinion. The geographical patterns found in sightings are a much harder form of evidence.

The PGF is another form of strong evidence.

Of course, people can use all sorts of special-pleading to try and dismiss these. And they can at least to their own satisfaction because evidence is all it is, not proof.

If a child tells you that they saw a ghost that child has presented evidence for life after death. Is that right?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Anecdotes are a form of evidence. They aren't very hard evidence, but still a type of evidence in my opinion. The geographical patterns found in sightings are a much harder form of evidence.

The PGF is another form of strong evidence.

Of course, people can use all sorts of special-pleading to try and dismiss these. And they can at least to their own satisfaction because evidence is all it is, not proof.

Dismissing something that is very obviously not true isn't "special pleading" at all. The PGF, though? Really, OS? It's like you've not been paying attention, or you're messing around...

 

[s4zando]

The whole subject of BLAARGing leaves me a little mystified, I suppose because i can't see much virtue in pretending to believe something you don't. I can see doubting and faking a certain amount in the case of a bigfoot agnostic, but not if one really doesn't at least hope. But of course people are strange, some are crazy and some are just plain nasty.

I just don't see why you can't find another good reason to have fun in the woods without lying.

I do think there's a gray area where bigfoot fakery is concerned. I have forgotten her name now, but a few years ago there was a woman who posted here on bigfoot threads (I'm sure Kitikaze and others will remember who I mean - her avatar was a little sparrow or something), who quite straight-facedly defended the outrageous fakery of some bigfooters on the grounds that it was a necessary ruse in service of a greater truth (sort of like a cop planting evidence on a bad guy, I suppose). She was quite serious about this, it seems. Now she, presumably, was not a BLAARGer, and at least in her view neither were the hoaxers.

Yes, LAL is the one I was thinking about. She generally sounded relatively sane, but was, it seems, a true believer, and willing to forgive the most egregious sins when they were committed by another true believer.

I suspect she would dispute the whole idea of BLAARGing, and attack it as a skeptics' stratagem to discredit believers.

To the contrary, I believe, with regards to the bold.

I was lurking for some years when kitakaze was talking of "woods & wildmen," but never got the reference to D&D until today, and it was so obvious now that he was on the same track that eventually led to the coining of 'BLAARG' (I forget who first coined it and in which thread, but it would be worth digging up for sake of this otherwise 'inside' term which now headlines it's own thread).

I say all this because I have been seeing lately that forumites are looking for the 'one BLAARGer to step forward and admit' the BLAARG/W&W. Perhaps she was the one who shed light on this aspect of BFery back then. I admit to not being very familiar with her work.

 

[Cervelo]

Apparently some people don't know what evidence means.

You got that right
Gentlemen how many times have we played the word definition game over at BFF?

 

[Cervelo]

Anecdotes are a form of evidence. They aren't very hard evidence, but still a type of evidence in my opinion. The geographical patterns found in sightings are a much harder form of evidence.

The PGF is another form of strong evidence.

Of course, people can use all sorts of special-pleading to try and dismiss these. And they can at least to their own satisfaction because evidence is all it is, not proof.

OS,
Google the definition of evidence....then get back to us when you have some facts.

 

[s4zando]

OS: "Anecdotes are a form of evidence. They aren't very hard evidence, but still a type of evidence in my opinion."

Lionel Hutz, The Simpsons: "Well Your Honor we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are KINDS of evidence!"

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Lionel Hutz, The Simpsons: "Well Your Honor we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are KINDS of evidence!"

Lionel Hutz is the perfect BLAARGer