• 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.

Bigfoot Follies: part trois

Cosmic Yak said:
When you linked to the site, you said you had done some research. If it wasn't your research perhaps you should have said so.
Click to expand...


I did do most of the research, we debated it, she wrote the text (from her point of view), and I did the final edit. I own the two domain names so they're my websites, and now you and everyone else here knows it.

Our relationship was kind of like the one Mulder and Scully had on the X-Files. I was the hardline skeptic, and she was the believer. Our debates were very, very interesting to say the least.


Cosmic Yak said:
Why? Is quoting from the site a breach of copyright?
Click to expand...


No, you posted that it was my opinion, and the copyright notice was just to show you that more than one person was involved.

ETA: We have no problem with anyone quoting from my sites, as long as proper credit is given.

-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Yeah, so? How does that disprove the quote I provided?
-
Click to expand...

Amy, I'm just catching up on the sudden kerfuffle in the Bigfoot threads, and found this one to need addressing as I was reading.

First of all you quote Ivan T. Sanderson, a known self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, author, and known Hoaxer. He clearly, knowingly hoaxed the Minnesota Iceman.
FROM: More "Things" by Ivan T. Sanderson, 1969

The very basis of science is a healthy skepticism--one, moreover, that should question the skeptic who denies the existence of anything just as readily as it should question the benighted traveler who dares affirm it
Click to expand...

This statement above is how he sold books, magazine articles, giving a Bigfooter, or other fan of his(for example) a high ground, or holy war to fight against the bad scientists. Convincing laymen to fight for the existence of the Mongolian Death Worm and other such wonders.

Please don't use Sanderson quote to convince me that I shouldn't, only question the person who claims a giant hairy undescribed beast lives in the forest outside the village, but I should, on the contrary, also question the people that ridicule him for not providing any evidence.

It's a silly quote that makes no case for the existence of non existent creatures.

****************************************************I'd like to address this one as well.
AmyStrange said:
Obviously you've never been to or seen the Olympic (not Olympia) Mountain range, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

This is an argument fallacy, the Authority of the Select Few, or something like that, only people who have seen the Olympic mountain range have the authority to determine the existence of an elusive hairy beast. Please do better. you are an actual researcher and know about argument fallacies, right?

***********************************************************I would like to address this Bigfooter fallacy:
As an aside, one of the stupidest retorts I've ever heard was why haven't they ever found a dead body, and the answer to that (as any avid hunter knows) is finding a dead body of any animal in the forest is extremely rare*, and the reason for that is obvious if you really think about it.
Click to expand...

Finding dead animal carcasses it quite normal for an outdoorsman. But even if I concede that finding animals in the forest is impossible, you have to concede that every large north American mammal has been victim of roadkill. Even the rarest mammal in North America, the Florida panther, gets hit by vehicles. Roadkill is one of the factors in the annual census of the creatures. Accidents with all other animals are normal, there is no way a Bigfoot, even if it's body wasn't randomly found by a hunter in the forest, would escape the brunt of a Petrbilt at 70MPH. So many 'sightings' of them crossing roads, and not one gets whacked by a Mack at 2 in the morning. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Amy, I'm just catching up on the sudden kerfuffle in the Bigfoot threads, and found this one to need addressing as I was reading.

First of all you quote Ivan T. Sanderson, a known self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, author, and known Hoaxer. He clearly, knowingly hoaxed the Minnesota Iceman.


This statement above is how he sold books, magazine articles, giving a Bigfooter, or other fan of his(for example) a high ground, or holy war to fight against the bad scientists. Convincing laymen to fight for the existence of the Mongolian Death Worm and other such wonders.

Please don't use Sanderson quote to convince me that I shouldn't, only question the person who claims a giant hairy undescribed beast lives in the forest outside the village, but I should, on the contrary, also question the people that ridicule him for not providing any evidence.

It's a silly quote that makes no case for the existence of non existent creatures.

****************************************************I'd like to address this one as well.


This is an argument fallacy, the Authority of the Select Few, or something like that, only people who have seen the Olympic mountain range have the authority to determine the existence of an elusive hairy beast. Please do better. you are an actual researcher and know about argument fallacies, right?

***********************************************************I would like to address this Bigfooter fallacy:


Finding dead animal carcasses it quite normal for an outdoorsman. But even if I concede that finding animals in the forest is impossible, you have to concede that every large north American mammal has been victim of roadkill. Even the rarest mammal in North America, the Florida panther, gets hit by vehicles. Roadkill is one of the factors in the annual census of the creatures. Accidents with all other animals are normal, there is no way a Bigfoot, even if it's body wasn't randomly found by a hunter in the forest, would escape the brunt of a Petrbilt at 70MPH. So many 'sightings' of them crossing roads, and not one gets whacked by a Mack at 2 in the morning. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I don't know if every single large animal in North America has been hit by a vehicle, but the fact that the evidence proving Bigfoot exist is mostly terrible videos, photos, and unproven anecdotal accounts is one of the many reasons why I find it improbable that they exist.

As far as Sanderson's quote is concerned, it's obvious (to me) that he didn't follow his own advice, but that doesn't prove his quote is meaningless.

In other words, a skeptic who is only skeptical of others (and not his own beliefs) is only half a skeptic in my opinion.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
In other words, a skeptic who is only skeptical of others (and not his own beliefs) is only half a skeptic in my opinion.

-
Click to expand...

Why would a skeptic, be skeptical of someone simply demanding evidence?

Truly, skeptics are only asking for evidence of a creatures existence, why would a good skeptic have to be skeptical of such a skeptic?

Read what I just typed, and tell me you still think a skeptic should be skeptical of a skeptic. Sounds a bit silly now doesn't it?


Hypothetical Conversation:

Bigfooter: I saw a giant hairy ape man outside my house!!
Skeptic 1 (bad skeptic): Do you have any evidence of this?
Skeptic 2 (good skeptic): Do you have any evidence of this, and oh, Skeptic 1, why are you asking such questions, are you a non believer?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Why would a skeptic, be skeptical of someone simply demanding evidence?

Truly, skeptics are only asking for evidence of a creatures existence, why would a good skeptic have to be skeptical of such a skeptic?

Read what I just typed, and tell me you still think a skeptic should be skeptical of a skeptic. Sounds a bit silly now doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a skeptic wanting evidence.

Hell, I'm a skeptic, and I'd like some real evidence also, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe Heironimus's anecdotal evidence (his confession that he wore the suit in the Patterson film) just because it confirms my belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

-
 
 
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Nothing wrong with a skeptic wanting evidence.

Hell, I'm a skeptic, and I'd like some real evidence also, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe Heironimus's anecdotal evidence (his confession that he wore the suit in the Patterson film) just because it confirms my belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

-
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
You posted a quote from Sanderson saying that skeptics should be skeptical of skeptics, then you claim you are a skeptic, and try to reject my interpretation of what you are saying by posting whether you believe Heironimous' evidence?

A skeptic wants a bigfooter to provide evidence.
A skeptic does not claim Heironymous is telling the truth, only posits this as an alternate to the Bigfooters not providing any evidence.

Do you know how hypotheses work?
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
What are you talking about?
You posted a quote from Sanderson saying that skeptics should be skeptical of skeptics, then you claim you are a skeptic, and try to reject my interpretation of what you are saying be posting whether you believe Heironimous' evidence?

A skeptic wants a bigfooter to provide evidence.

A skeptic does not claim Heironymous is telling the truth, only posits this as an alternate to the Bigfooters not providing any evidence.

Do you know how hypotheses work?
Click to expand...


I'd have to have more evidence than just Heironimus' word. I'd like to see a film of him putting on the suit, and even than, I'd need proof it was the same suit.

As a matter of fact, I have doubts that the film itself shows a real Bigfoot.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
I'd have to have more evidence than just Heironimus' word. I'd like to see a film of him putting on the suit, and even than, I'd need proof it was the same suit.

As a matter of fact, I have doubts that the film itself shows a real Bigfoot.

-
Click to expand...

The most important part of the post you are responding to went unacknowledged.

Do you know how hypotheses work?
 
I'd suggest this interlocutor peruse this thread (and others) as most of their demurs are addressed.
 
Drewbot said:
Notice how I gave her a large number of examples, yet I am the bad skeptic because I left off the wolf and coyote. (Cougar is actually a florida panther so I did provide that)
Click to expand...


1) I am not a she, I'm a he using a character in my book as a user ID. It's even in my profile,

2) I never said you were a bad skeptic. As a matter, I believe you.

3) yes, I know what a hypothesis is,

4) thank you Resume.

And finally

5) My belief is that the probabilities that Bigfoot exist are pretty close to nil, but I'm also open-minded enough to realize that I may be wrong.

It's obvious that I'm getting nowhere trying to explain that yes I am skeptical that Bigfoot exist, but at the same time, I also question anything that proves I'm right, and with that said, I see no reason to continue this conversation with anyone.

Although, I might come back if (BIG IF) a real Sasquatch is ever found, which means you may never see me in this thread again.

No disrespect intended, but after all, I've got a book to finish editing.

-
 
When you get out into the wild on a regular basis you will come across dead large animals by default, depending on where you hike. As I said, I wanted to see a mountain lion, so I regularly hiked in areas where they have been sighted, and charted their hunting grounds. I was out there once a week. Had I lived closer it would have been more often. I found two fresh deer-kills within two years, and came across scattered remains about half the time. The big cats were busy then.

There are over 15.9 million hunting licenses sold in the US each year. There are currently 452,689 soldiers serving in the US Army. This means there is a butt-load of dudes running around the forests and deserts of the United States at all ours of the day. They have trail cams, they are great at tracking, they find carcases of animals they didn't kill themselves. Yes, there are a few stories of Bigfoot told by hunters, but I can't think of a better way to keep other hunters out of a sweet spot than to scare people away with a cryptid story.

In the end, in the 21st century there are just too many folks out in the woods these days, and the lack of solid evidence is telling.
 
Heironimus walks just like Patty. He was also filmed in Patterson's documentary style footage. He was friends with Gimlin. It's more than just an anecdote.
 
Benjamin Radford has a very good and comprehensive article in the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Is Bigfoot Dead?

Includes: TIMELINE Bigfoot's Demise in the Twenty First Century. Read this if you read nothing else. What a bunch of scammers and loonies.

And, for added hilarity:

In 2023, Matt Moneymaker, head of the largest organization researching Bigfoot, posted a long piece promoting his upcoming appearance at a Bigfoot conference while complaining that CSI, copublisher of this magazine, has engaged in a decades-long effort to thwart Bigfoot research. Yes, that’s right: The failure of his group, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, to find good evidence of Bigfoot over the past three decades or so is due in large part to the powerful stranglehold that the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has on scientific research. In much the same way that UFO buffs blame their lack of evidence on government conspiracies and coverups, Moneymaker blames shadowy skeptics.
Click to expand...

DEAD AS A DEFUNCT DOOR NAIL MADE OF LEAD

:deadhorse
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Benjamin Radford has a very good and comprehensive article in the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Is Bigfoot Dead?

Includes: TIMELINE Bigfoot's Demise in the Twenty First Century. Read this if you read nothing else. What a bunch of scammers and loonies.

And, for added hilarity:



DEAD AS A DEFUNCT DOOR NAIL MADE OF LEAD

:deadhorse
Click to expand...

Skeptical Inquirer wishes they had the kind of money to endless shut down research into woo. Mostly so they could conduct research into woo.

Anyone can "research" Mr. Foot. ANYONE. Obviously the more money you have access to, the better job you can do, but this doesn't mean you can't get lucky. You need three to five years in a "hot spot" like the Mt. Hood, Oregon area. Four or five trail-cams would be nice, but even one is enough with time, and effort.

The idea that they're being shut down is crap. I can go research a local haunting any time I feel like it. Never had men-in-black tap me on the shoulder to scare me off.
 
AmyStrange said:
I did do most of the research, we debated it, she wrote the text (from her point of view), and I did the final edit. I own the two domain names so they're my websites, and now you and everyone else here knows it.

Our relationship was kind of like the one Mulder and Scully had on the X-Files. I was the hardline skeptic, and she was the believer. Our debates were very, very interesting to say the least.
Click to expand...

So you say, but nothing you have said on this forum shows you to be a 'hardline skeptic'. Also, most of the 'research' on your website is simply a credulous retelling of European interpretations of Native American myths, many of which do not actually talk about huge intelligent apes. It is not first-hand research, nor is it remotely skeptical. I found nothing on that page to suggest skepticism about the existence of Bigfoot: on the contrary, it looked like a long rehashing of all the previous positive claims, without any significant effort to examine the validity of those claims.

AmyStrange said:
No, you posted that it was my opinion, and the copyright notice was just to show you that more than one person was involved.
Click to expand...

If you sign off on research claiming Bigfoot exists, then it looks for all the world like you believe Bigfoot exists.
Do you think the presentation of evidence on your website is balanced and sufficiently sceptical (in the sense of scientific scepticism)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom