• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Valley of the Wood Apes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jodie said:
It's one thing to read the asinine report, quite another when you have someone that sounds intelligent, forthright, and definitely not the typical redneck that you encounter in bigfootery when meeting them in person. My guess is she was taken in by the sales pitch, we are all fallible human beings, she simply let her bias win over common sense in this particular episode. I don't think it takes away from her overall approach to the weird in general.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think it does. If all it takes for you to fall for garden-variety woo is grammar and good teeth, then I'm not all that sure how deep your skepticism ran in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
we are all fallible human beings, she simply let her bias win over common sense in this particular episode.
Click to expand...
Sharon basically said, "Hold on a minute, we might have Bigfoot. This is different, and we should watch what's going on with these people".
 
BB is very well spoken. He did a podcast for years and has a tendency to play the skeptic if it's someone elses' claims. I doubt Ms. Hill knew that going in and I can see how she fell for his sales pitch. I'm not holding that one incident against her when everything else she writes about seems to have an even handed approach.

When you are at work, or going about life in general, has every decision or opinion you've ever had or made been correct? The answer is a resounding NO. Then why hang this person's reputation when you yourselves can't maintain that standard?
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
BB is very well spoken. He did a podcast for years and has a tendency to play the skeptic if it's someone elses' claims. I doubt Ms. Hill knew that going in and I can see how she fell for his sales pitch. I'm not holding that one incident against her when everything else she writes about seems to have an even handed approach.

When you are at work, or going about life in general, has every decision or opinion you've ever had or made been correct? The answer is a resounding NO. Then why hang this person's reputation when you yourselves can't maintain that standard?
Click to expand...

Meh.
If you only beat your wife once you're still a wife beater.

If you are claiming the title of "skeptic" people tend to hold you to a little higher standard of rational analysis and discourse too.
A good first set to restoring credibility would be to admit the mistake and learn from it. Not double down and then stomp off in a huff.
 
I don't remember her stomping off in a huff. I went back and reread what I could find of her blog posts about NAWAC. What I saw was more or less a conclusion that more investigation/research needed to be done. As for being held to a higher standard, why? Isn't that one of those conditions in debate where authority shouldn't matter, assuming you hold skepticism as the perspective from a higher authority?
 
Jodie said:
I don't remember her stomping off in a huff. I went back and reread what I could find of her blog posts about NAWAC. What I saw was more or less a conclusion that more investigation/research needed to be done. As for being held to a higher standard, why? Isn't that one of those conditions in debate where authority shouldn't matter, assuming you hold skepticism as the perspective from a higher authority?
Click to expand...

The lady runs a website devoted to skepticism and debunking woo.

She more or less tacitly endorsed the findings of a bigfoot research team.

It's the stupidest thing ever.
 
That's not how I read it. Has her readership suffered as a result? It doesn't appear to be the case so I'm going to assume that you guys represent a tiny minority that thinks she some how compromised her standards.
 
There were some NON-ISF/JREF skeptics on that comment thread asking for clarification.

She didn't just throw us under the bus.
 
If I recall correctly, she did some podcasts with BB, suggesting a relationship, and was offended at the suggestion, as if relationship only has one definition.
 
Jodie said:
When you are at work, or going about life in general, has every decision or opinion you've ever had or made been correct? The answer is a resounding NO. Then why hang this person's reputation when you yourselves can't maintain that standard?
Click to expand...
We're not talking about everyday errors. We're talking about Bigfoot. It's a colossal error to side with Bigfoot belief.

Once again you come to the defense of Bigfootery and woo beliefs.
 
Gaslighting.

No really, when you were listening to Brian Brown's podcasts and interacting with him on JREF it was just your imagination how pathetic it was.

You were really listening to the most awesome, convincing salesman that ever lived.
 
If the ware you're peddling is your skepticism, then a lapse in even the perception of your commitment is damning. The good news is that it's easily rectified with 1) a mea culpa and explanation that even seasoned doubters need to keep constantly vigilant to guard against their own biases, or 2) a statement of the reason for lending an air of possibility to the reports followed by specific benchmarks you'd need to see to determine if there really could be some merit to those reports.

To my knowledge, Sharon has done neither of those things, and it has cost her some skepticred.
 
The Shrike said:
The good news is that it's easily rectified with 1) a mea culpa and explanation that even seasoned doubters need to keep constantly vigilant to guard against their own biases
Click to expand...

The only way out, and sooner is always better than later, which is better than never.
 
William Parcher said:
We're not talking about everyday errors. We're talking about Bigfoot. It's a colossal error to side with Bigfoot belief.

Once again you come to the defense of Bigfootery and woo beliefs.
Click to expand...


No Parcher, what I read was that she didn't think that BB was hoaxing and that she felt that something else was going on that needed further research or explanation. I don't recall her ever accepting bigfoot as the cause for what was going on at Area X.

Anyway, I haven't seen any change in her "skepticred" as a result of her stance on NAWAC or Area X in general. What I did notice is that she never revisited the topic again so she must have some idea that she was hood winked.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
No Parcher, what I read was that she didn't think that BB was hoaxing and that she felt that something else was going on that needed further research or explanation. I don't recall her ever accepting bigfoot as the cause for what was going on at Area X.

Anyway, I haven't seen any change in her "skepticred" as a result of her stance on NAWAC or Area X in general. What I did notice is that she never revisited the topic again so she must have some idea that she was hood winked.
Click to expand...

She went full woo-woo, never go full woo-woo.

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/03/fou...ma-yields-intriguing-and-unexplained-results/
I’ve seen hundreds of hoaxed Bigfoot reports but this deserves a higher level of attention due to the duration and number of participants as well as the location and degree of careful record keeping. Could it be a hoax or are the NAWAC being hoaxed? Possible but not probable. We ask for careful research into a phenomenon so we when get it, it is only right to not assume fraud for no good reason but to take a measured look at what is presented. There are questions here to be answered. To dismiss it is to be a denialist. Practical skepticism is warranted. Pathological dismissal is not. I, for one, would like to know what is going on.
Click to expand...

We denialists know what is going on.
There is no need to investigate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom