William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
That seems like a stretch. Bring in ecotourists by throwing some rocks at a by-invitation-only private cabin?
Bigfoot Follies: part deux
- Thread starter Pterodactyl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot
- Status
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,280
Agree.
I would think that if they are/were indeed being hoaxed, this was being done by members of the group (recall only a small number of "researchers" stay at the cabins at any given time, on rotation, while others are away) or by locals for kicks.
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
It's always funny to me how liberals can't wrap their minds around the concept that humans are innately selfish, nasty and carry dubious motives for their actions much of the time...yet at the same time absolutely believe those same humans are just stupid (who will inevitably need direction from the more "reasonable and fair" jerrywaynes of the world that wade amongst them). It's so insane.
How exactly does it work in your mind jerrywayne? In the 10+ years these clowns have been going to this OK property they've not come up with a single clear picture of the ubiquitous beast or anything at all (beyond words) because...they're stupid? I mean, they all must believe it's out there somewhere because why would they lie about it, right? Your inability (or deliberate refusal) to understand any reason they'd be wanting to "fool the world" proves to you they must be telling the truth, no? So they're either lying or stupid and you pick stupid? I guarantee you don't see a particular irony in that (it's not the one you think).
Additionally, you're selling the folks here short again. Every six months or so you come in here and pretend to be the Grand Poobah of "reasonable" and attempt to school us on what that is...and it's a crock. You've no more a grip on reasonableness than Tweety and based on your history here I'd argue less so. The people here really do understand plenty, including what is reasonable. Your forever pretending people don't lie because you lack understanding of the reasons they would do so is not "reasonable".
You've literally turned Occam's Razor on its head. Because on your street you're a lot more "reasonable" than the GEE Club?
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
More likely the land owner or his family.
They would just have a tradition of tricking people.
I think that is what was going on at the Michigan recording site.
My cousin used to trick me about Bigfoot living in the woods near his house. Then I joined in and we told my little brother about it. It's fun.
They would just have a tradition of tricking people.
I think that is what was going on at the Michigan recording site.
My cousin used to trick me about Bigfoot living in the woods near his house. Then I joined in and we told my little brother about it. It's fun.
Well, at least one still does.
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
It's always funny to me how liberals can't wrap their minds around the concept that humans are innately selfish, nasty and carry dubious motives for their actions much of the time...yet at the same time absolutely believe those same humans are just stupid (who will inevitably need direction from the more "reasonable and fair" jerrywaynes of the world that wade amongst them). It's so insane.
How exactly does it work in your mind jerrywayne? In the 10+ years these clowns have been going to this OK property they've not come up with a single clear picture of the ubiquitous beast or anything at all (beyond words) because...they're stupid? I mean, they all must believe it's out there somewhere because why would they lie about it, right? Your inability (or deliberate refusal) to understand any reason they'd be wanting to "fool the world" proves to you they must be telling the truth, no? So they're either lying or stupid and you pick stupid? I guarantee you don't see a particular irony in that (it's not the one you think).
Additionally, you're selling the folks here short again. Every six months or so you come in here and pretend to be the Grand Poobah of "reasonable" and attempt to school us on what that is...and it's a crock. You've no more a grip on reasonableness than Tweety and based on your history here I'd argue less so. The people here really do understand plenty, including what is reasonable. Your forever pretending people don't lie because you lack understanding of the reasons they would do so is not "reasonable".
You've literally turned Occam's Razor on its head. Because on your street you're a lot more "reasonable" than the GEE Club?
Hi Harry. Figured you for a rant.
If we set down to write a list of foolish things people believe in sincerely, we would never finish the list, no matter how long we lived. Why you and a few others want to exempt Bigfoot believers from this list, I honestly do not know.
The difference between you and me, I'm guessing, is that you always found the idea of Bigfoot to be pure nonsense. Me, on the other hand, I used to be a Bigfoot enthusiast and was for decades in my youth. I'm guessing you will find other ex-enthusiasts here are not too keen on the GE as an overriding explanation either. We know what it's like to believe in Bigfoot.
For example, one of your brethren in the GEE Club and I addressed the issue of John Green. In GEE fashion, he claimed Green never really believed in Bigfoot and was just pretending to. I found this assertion ridiculous; even professional skeptics who have written about Green don't doubt his sincerity. Your comrade mentioned that Green claimed to believe in the Ostman tale and no one could really believe such a story, so Green was lying about accepting the account. I know your comrade didn't know what he was talking about because when I was a Bigfoot enthusiast I believed Ostman's story.
About NAWAC, if they are being hoaxed, as true blue believers I can readily see how they are rationalizing their failures. I'm willing to say that a few of them, if things never change (and they never will because there are no "wood apes"), will go to their graves believing they encountered the Great American Ape.
Are they stupid? Is a devout Catholic or Protestant stupid? Your analysis would make sense to me if you had a bunch of neutrals or agnostic seekers examining the issues at Area X and experiencing nothing but failure over the years, they ought to conclude there are no wood apes. But that is not what we have at Area X. We have a devout group experiencing the mysterious and refusing to admit it's all bogus because to admit that is to render their precious beliefs null . Not to rile you further, but there's something you don't understand about believers in Bigfoot: they really don't think it's likely their quarry will be brought in. It's quasi-mystical, seen and tracked but never found. It's religion, man.
Also, you really haven't come up with a good motive for all this Area X stuff being a hoax perpetrated by NAWAC itself. Is it money? No, they're probably losing money. Tax write-offs? Get serious. Fame? Where? Expecting a big book and movie pay-off later?
As far a my piping in with my take on GE and GEE every once in a while, I do so because ever so often the GEE Club lays it down thick as if the Club had the definitive answer to the Bigfoot "mystery." You're especially guilty of this. GE has its place, I'll admit, but Belief Blindness as an explanation covers more and places Bigfootville in the known universe of strange ideas wholeheartedly believed in, not some special outlier.
Last edited:
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
No. To present the region as a place where you might encounter Bigfoot. Hike, camp, seek...
Motels, cabins, restaurants, gas stations, land lots ... revenue.
Hasn't hurt Loch Ness.
comncents
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 272
Jerrywayne, you should go back and read some of the encounter stories. Wood apes dropping out of trees. Being charged from behind, spinning to get off a hip shot and then calling for the extraction team. These are not mistaken shadows. They are extra tall tales. Games
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
I allow for some falsification. Read my comments again. But, again, even the incidents you cite -- read them again, there is an ambiguity to them. Outright fraud would be more exciting.
Cervelo
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,538
You sure sound like someone whose still a believer, just for clarification....
Are you still hoping Bigfoots real?
Are you suggesting the NAWACKIES are anything other than hoaxers or being hoaxed?
This is all terribly naïve. These guys are playing cargo-cult wildlife research. It looks legit, but after you scratch off the surface, you're holding a losing lottery card. That stupid monograph is nothing but campfire stories; nothing but stories after 10+ years at the wood monkey hotspot of the world. This is pseudoscience with a snicker.
That Minnesota guy they invited down was an obvious attempt at seeming legit:
That's what this is, carnie-cult science.
Why would they be doing this? Fun and profit. How much of either, who knows, but Mom-Jeans Gimlin seems to enjoy flitting about the country, speaking at footie convos. All these folks have to do is spit out stories and you get an air ticket, hotel, per diem, and your fee. Not bad for doing next to nothing.
There's enough ******** being shoveled her to cast a stink over the whole operation; it's not up to skeptics to spray the Febreze.
That Minnesota guy they invited down was an obvious attempt at seeming legit:
They went to a prearranged location and what ho, had an immediate sighting. C'mon. Later, rock-clacks and hoots and whoops; he was played like a rube by carnies.
That's what this is, carnie-cult science.
Why would they be doing this? Fun and profit. How much of either, who knows, but Mom-Jeans Gimlin seems to enjoy flitting about the country, speaking at footie convos. All these folks have to do is spit out stories and you get an air ticket, hotel, per diem, and your fee. Not bad for doing next to nothing.
There's enough ******** being shoveled her to cast a stink over the whole operation; it's not up to skeptics to spray the Febreze.
This is all terribly naïve. These guys are playing cargo-cult wildlife research. It looks legit, but after you scratch off the surface, you're holding a losing lottery card. That stupid monograph is nothing but campfire stories; nothing but stories after 10+ years at the wood monkey hotspot of the world. This is pseudoscience with a snicker.
That Minnesota guy they invited down was an obvious attempt at seeming legit:
That's what this is, carnie-cult science.
Why would they be doing this? Fun and profit. How much of either, who knows, but Mom-Jeans Gimlin seems to enjoy flitting about the country, speaking at footie convos. All these folks have to do is spit out stories and you get an air ticket, hotel, per diem, and your fee. Not bad for doing next to nothing.
There's enough ******** being shoveled here to cast a stink over the whole operation; spraying Febreze over the whole thing seems appropriate. When this groups acts as if they actually believe they're in wood monkey paradise is when I'll believe they're believers. Right now they're carnies looking for rubes.
That Minnesota guy they invited down was an obvious attempt at seeming legit:
They went to a prearranged location and what ho, had an immediate sighting. C'mon. Later, rock-clacks and hoots and whoops; he was played like a rube by carnies.
That's what this is, carnie-cult science.
Why would they be doing this? Fun and profit. How much of either, who knows, but Mom-Jeans Gimlin seems to enjoy flitting about the country, speaking at footie convos. All these folks have to do is spit out stories and you get an air ticket, hotel, per diem, and your fee. Not bad for doing next to nothing.
There's enough ******** being shoveled here to cast a stink over the whole operation; spraying Febreze over the whole thing seems appropriate. When this groups acts as if they actually believe they're in wood monkey paradise is when I'll believe they're believers. Right now they're carnies looking for rubes.
dmaker
Graduate Poster
Really? I'm surprised. I thought almost everyone, including most footers, dismissed the Ostman story as fairy tale. Not terribly important, however.
You struggle to accept why someone would pretend to believe in bigfoot. Or perhaps, more accurately, you hesitate to substitute pretense for belief as a default position. I don't share your struggle, but I understand your point. Aside from being fun, bigfooting provides identity for some people. An identity that is beyond their reach otherwise. Suddenly they can be avant garde researchers and brave, intrepid bushwackers and explorers. This is pretty common behavior for some people, I think. Look to the huge number of stolen valor examples available today. Some of these people were leaders in their communities, including clergymen. They all lied about the details of their service, or about having even served at all. They pinned fake medals to unearned uniforms and basked in their false glory. I see many parallels with bigfoot enthusiasts.
The bigfoot community is almost completely accepting of any claimed bona fide. One not worry about scrutiny. In fact, quite the opposite. Munns is proclaimed as a world class costume genius by bigfoot enthusiasts. Meldrum, a leader in his field. And so on.
This has all been hashed out before. I don't think it is too difficult to imagine a slew of reasons why someone might pretend to believe in bigfoot. Not to say, however, that all enthusiasts are lying. But I think the vast majority do not truly believe. I think the average bigfoot enthusiast believes in bigfoot and all supporting stories and lore about as much as the average Christian believes you can survive in the belly of a whale.
Last edited:
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
Not once have I proposed there's no "true believers" in Bigfoot. We've been talking about NAWAC here.
But I didn't (find the idea of Bigfoot to be pure nonsense) for the longest time actually. I've been a Bigfoot "enthusiast" since 1970 and while I never "attained" that 100% real beast enlightenment, I certainly believed Bigfoot was possible because everybody couldn't be lying about it, could they? I was deep enough into it to be a mod at the old BFF for a spell. Curiously that experience was the path to true enlightenment. And once again you're trying (perhaps innocently) to apply "reasonableness" to something you don't wholly understand as the sole means to understand it. Few things are so simple. John Green was a writer and so-called newspaper man who knew a "good story" when he wrote one. And it becomes an even better story when he realizes it can potentially be exploited beyond the confines of Agassiz, BC. For money even.
"WHAT, some guy named Roger Patterson just made a movie of the same beast I've been pushing on these poor people? Are you ******* ******** me?" John Green 1967
Umm, I'm not railing against the Bigfoot guy who just can't let it go because he heard a twig break once and it could only have been Bigfoot. My problem is having an entire group of them, "researchers" as they call themselves, pretending to be that same kind of guy. While it's possible we might have misunderstood, there's no proof they're in OK doing only theoretical research. The signs (mostly their own words) say they're supposedly doing a whole bunch of empirical research, e.g. studying the subject's scat droppings or its footprint castings or what hair products they use etc. Am I wrong, have I misread what they're up to? No? Then where's all this "research" they've been doing? Wrapped in a stupid 229 page wall of words excuse as to why they've not gained any actual knowledge yet? Really? They're surely not trying hard enough.
So basically that's your argument they're "stupid" and not lying?
The crux of my previous post's argument; your thinking that applying "reasonableness" to it gives the best answer because "reasonableness" doesn't offer ambiguity and uncertainty. It apparently doesn't offer any understanding either of why somebody would want to go hang out with Furries of like mind in a rural, sparsely populated area of SE OK. Think it's possible any of them have drug/chemical dependencies? Think it's possible any of them could hate their wives (or their lives)? Think any of them have superiority/inferiority complexes? Mental illness? Brain damage? Schizophrenia? A girlfriend? No?
Yeah, well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one good buddy.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Like jerrywayne, I struggle a bit with the BLAARG hypothesis. Is it more likely that someone believes something ridiculous or pretends to believe something ridiculous? A few billion religious people on this planet suggests that the latter is alive and well, despite specific instances in which we might legitimately conclude that the subject has to be in on some kind of con. Surely there are more religious people than there are LARPers, unless we want to get cynical and classify the vast majority of religious people as LARPers, but that's a subject for another thread.
Take Meldrum (please!) for example. I've been back and forth on that guy a dozen times. All the objective evidence suggests that he knows damn well there's no bigfoot but he's riding this wave for celebrity, money, and perhaps even hairy chicks. This nagging tickle at the back of my head, however, keeps reminding me that this dude is a devout Mormon. He professes to believe things far stranger than bigfoot, and his religious beliefs even reinforce the notion of races of hairy giant people (Nephilim and the like). So ya, he really could be that stupid, based on other stupid stuff he believes. Stupid isn't even the right idea though. It could be extreme motivated reasoning to prop up a position of faith.
So are the NAWACkies liars or losers? I think there's room for both among their ranks.
Take Meldrum (please!) for example. I've been back and forth on that guy a dozen times. All the objective evidence suggests that he knows damn well there's no bigfoot but he's riding this wave for celebrity, money, and perhaps even hairy chicks. This nagging tickle at the back of my head, however, keeps reminding me that this dude is a devout Mormon. He professes to believe things far stranger than bigfoot, and his religious beliefs even reinforce the notion of races of hairy giant people (Nephilim and the like). So ya, he really could be that stupid, based on other stupid stuff he believes. Stupid isn't even the right idea though. It could be extreme motivated reasoning to prop up a position of faith.
So are the NAWACkies liars or losers? I think there's room for both among their ranks.
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
I agree, and I expanded on this in the "Roger Patterson Belief" thread. While the BLAARG angle is good for explaining some of what goes on, it's a bit of a case of tarring it all with the same brush, it's too easy and convenient an explanation, imo.
We know con-men exist, and we know liars exist, but we also know that believers in weird stuff exist and have done since the dawn of time.
E.T.A. I honestly don't follow the whole "Bigfoot Gang of OK," so I've no real opinion on them, apart from them being in need of a few women and possibly a new hobby, but from what I've read, they do seem to be a few clowns short of the full circus, whether or purpose or by accident.
Last edited:
There is room for both, and who knows which side tips the scales? I also think you can be playing pretend bigfoot science, and still believe. I think you can make up a sighting just to fit in with the rest of the knowers and still believe. This is where delusion begins, the human tendency to fool yourself. As the philosopher Costanza one sagely opined, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
- Status