Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Correa Neto]

Nobody's happy when I call-blast out my back door.

Man, the above sentence can be terribly misinterpetated...


Note to self: if interpretation of sentences is as dependable on cultural background and bias as myth interpretation, I may have some serious issues... Where's that shrink phone number?

 

[carcharodon]

Hi, Rimmer. Well we're still not at a lack of pathetic trolls but thanks for pitching in.You might want to try checking the posts between Hairy Man and before you continue talking out your butt. As far as having mastered hypocrisy, I'm not quite there yet:

Yes you are son. You bitched about posters 'gossiping' about other posters out of context.......................and you then do exactly the same. My, your alzheimer's is really worrying, Snitch.

Let me help you with your second thoughts, Rimmer. You, like Sweaty, are a complete and totally pathetic troll.

My, such wit/repartee. Must have waited a whole hour to come up with that gem, hey?

I have a life, thank you, and I'm quite sure to my own personal satisfaction that it's far more interesting than yours.

Doubt it. I don't waste time stalking people on message boards, following them to all sorts of threads and then reporting them for things I will later be doing myself. LOL. That's you, son.

Part of it includes spending time participating in discussion here.

'Part' of it? You spend so much time here that you can't be doing anything else in your life.

I wouldn't characterize my participation as holding court like a great sage as with even the most cursory examination one can see that there are other members far more eloquent and articulate than I.

Hmmmmm, then why do you alone see fit to castigate and report those you dislike and to troll/stalk various threads in some kind of vigilante vendatta to stamp out those you deem your enemies??? I don't see Diogenese doing it. Or Desert Yeti, or...........! Nope, just you! You seem to be the self appointed great sage of the forum.

As for your advice, since it was neither friendly nor warranted, I think I'll pass.

Shame that. You report me just for telling you to "go choke" but you are happy to ridicule people's private lives and to be a complete and utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ in many other respects...but that's ok?

Back to your trolling.

Back to your reporting? Bck to you telling tales to teacher??

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:

I did address your argument directly.

I said:

That was in response to your statement:

I agree with you....that we can't know their motivations.
What I've been saying is simply that we don't need to know someone's true motivation behind filing a sighting report.
The report constitutes "evidence for Bigfoot's existence" if, after an investigation, there's no apparant motive such as money, need for attention, etc,....because there is then some reason to think they may indeed be telling the truth.

Well, I am sorry to say this, but you have not actually adressed my arguments directly.

1. You talked about witnesses being sincere. I said you can't really know if the witness is actually being sincere or not. I will be more condescendent and say most investigators and interviewers can not really probe a witness's sincerity. The best they can say is that he/she seemed sincere. You have not addressed this point.

2. The second point is that even if the witness is sincere, even if he/she really believes that experienced an encounter with a bigfoot, this does not automatically means he/she saw a real bigfoot. It just means the person believes his/hers experience was real. There are other options such as false memories, misidentifications, etc. You have not addressed this point.

3. You said the report of a long bigfoot encounter is more reliable than one that is merely a fleeting glimpse of a hairy creature. I said not necessarily, given the reasons exposed at (1), among other reasons exposed along the bigfoot threads. You have not addressed this point.

You are now claiming there's no actual need to know the motivations of an alleged witness for filing a report. You are also claiming that if after an ivestigation no aparent reason for suspect it was a hoax shows up there is some reason to consider the person may be telling the truth. Well, besides the obvious contradictions in your statements, note that one can not really probe the sincerity of a person (item 1) and that a witness may really believe he/she saw a bigfoot but he/she may not have actually seen one (item 2). I also consider that it is quite unlikely that the average "bigfoot investigator" interviewing a witness (quite often by phone or e-mail) will be really able to probe if the individual really had no motivations such as a laugh, profit, need for attention, etc. when reporting his/hers alleged encounter. Thus, sighting reports are not reliable evidence. Not even piles of them are.

I suggest you to read a bit about the problems with eyewitness reports. Some -if not all- of your misconceptions on how reliable and trustworthy they are may be cleared afer reading some of the following:
G Reed, 1972. 'The Psychology of Anomalous Experience' (Hutchinson).
HE Ross, 1974, 'Behaviour and perception in Strange Environments" (George Allen & Unwin).
EF Loftus, 1979. The malleability of human memory American Scientist, 67, pp312-320.
JE Rodgers, 1982. ‘The malleable memory of eyewitnesses’, Science 82, June, pp32-35.
KA Deffenbacher, 2005. Eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, pp 243-260

 

[carcharodon]

Sweaty believes he has evidence that I have hostility problems. I believe I have evidence that could show that Sweaty's bat$#!% insane. We've all seen evidence that indicates he's not an adult. Anybody have a scale? I need to weigh it all and measure the probabilities.

Ah Snitch, another thoughtful, intelligent post from you. I'm really learning so much science here. You come up with soooooo many clever, thought provoking insights. My god, I'm not worthy of this motherload of knowledge from the great sage of JREF forums.

I have to go to bed now and dwell on all this amazing and incredible information.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...

My first question would be why thus far we have no accounts of sasquatch harvesting clams in Netarts Bay and if such activity is indeed happening, why has it escaped the attention of the officials in charge of monitoring this habitat.

Kitakaze, some eager footers by now are probably claiming this sighting "proves" or brings more confidence to the "bigfeet-are-real-creatures" claim.

They will point you the recent work on Australopithecus robustus (AKA Paranthropus) that indicated clam-like mollusks may have been part of their diet. Some will even try to ressurrect the aquatic ape theory.

And they will mistake their wild speculations as "proof", "evidence" or "sound conclusions".

But they will not bother paying attention to the poor visual conditions at the time of the sighting... An indication that a misidentification may have happened.

 

[Correa Neto]

Being that I'm HALF Irish, I claim special expertise in the doings of Leprechauns. Indeed, to preserve this endangered species, I have set aside my backyard as a LEPRECHAUN WILDERNESS PRESERVE. From time to time, after drinking too much diet Mountain Dew, I think I see a glint of light coming from my back yard, reflected off my antequated computer monitor. But every damn time I turn around to see the source of this occult light, I see nothing but backyard blackberry brambles, waiting to be trimmed. Deep down though, I know it to be from the gold that the little bugger is furtively clutching...

But you must understand, the density of the blackberry brambles acts as the perfect habitat for such a creature, being at the top of the food chain and having no natural predators. Indeed, we should actually EXPECT the total lack of bones, bodies, teeth, and clear photographs of my backyard Leprechaun.

Leprechaun lore goes way, way, back in the oral tradition of MY PEOPLE, so for you to dispute my musings on Leprecauns makes you a big meany-head, and borders on racism.

Don't make me grab my shillelagh..

Hey Tube, don't you get a little uspet when someone picks a piece of your cultural heritage makes some cherry-picking and distorts? Like saying leprechauns are small hominids unknown to science?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip... Yes, I am in complete agreement that there are scientists in the field M-F during the summer. We run botany, wildlife, fisheries, archaeology, and hydrology crews every summer (including camera and DNA traps for furbearers). And yes, some of these scientists have had sightings and/or other events.
...snip...

Hairy Man, could you do me a great favor?

Please tell Huntster that there are indeed scientists doing fieldwork at "bigfoot country". One of our countless discussions was regarding this topic. He claimed more than once scientists are not "out there". Maybe he will hear you...

I brought this on because it is one of the most outrageous false claims I ever heard. Please forgive me the argument from authority, but I know a lot of biologists, I am married with one and and more than once helped them doing field work, so I am pretty aware of their work. Maybe he will hear someone he does not considers a close-minded denialist (those are the kind words).

It would be nice to see one less lame argument being repeated elsewhere... It would actually avoid embarassments for those who defend the position that bigfeet are real animals.

I'm not sure, but I think LAL also once made a similar claim. But I may be wrong in this case.

 

[carcharodon]

Hairy Man, could you do me a great favor?

Please tell Huntster that there are indeed scientists doing fieldwork at "bigfoot country". One of our countless discussions was regarding this topic. He claimed more than once scientists are not "out there".

He actually claimed there are not sufficient amounts of scientists/researchers spending sufficient time specifically searching for sasquatch.

The odd 'scientist' (or anybody else for that matter) having a happenstance encounter is not really equivalent to a dedicated exhaustive programme involved in the ongoing search for this animal.

Huntster did not claim no 'scientists' were out in 'bigfoot' country. He knew full well that the likes of Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel etc etc (all 'scientists') are/were sometimes out in 'bigfoot country'.

I brought this on because it is one of the most outrageous false claims I ever heard.

Really? So what dedicated and exhaustive proper scientific sasquatch research programmes (such as Huntster was advocating) do you know of then? Do you know of any that are out like, say, six months of the year in the field??

I think it's pretty offside of you to alledge a poster no longer posting here to defend himself was claiming something he never actually did. Well offside in fact. Still, to be expected here. Any cheap shots will do here I suppose. I've experienced these false allegations myself. Time and time again actually.

 

[Correa Neto]

He actually claimed there are not sufficient amounts of scientists/researchers spending sufficient time specifically searching for sasquatch.

...snip...
I think it's pretty offside of you to alledge a poster no longer posting here to defend himself was claiming something he never actually did. Well offside in fact. Still, to be expected here. Any cheap shots will do here I suppose. I've experienced these false allegations myself. Time and time again actually.

Spare us the the drama and the ad homs.

Show where I was disrespectfull to Huntster in my previous post. Show me where I lied, made a cheap shot or false accusation. Prove your accusations.

Present links to where his claim was "there are not sufficient amounts not scientists/researchers spending sufficient time specifically searching for sasquatch" and not that wildlife professionals are not where they should be to find bigfoot. Prove your point without any semantic game, evasion, obfuscation, etc. and I will eat the crow.

I can present links to back what I wrote. Can you prove what you wrote?

You have three options:
Option 1: Prove your claims regarding my false accusations, cheap shots, etc. regarding Huntster at my previous post.
Option 2: Remove the claim. Show you have honor, admit you were wrong, crossed the line and made an unsubstantiated accusation. We'll move on and forget the issue, since everyone can make a mistake.
Option 3: Sully or try some maneauver using tactics involving obfuscation, diversion, semantic games, etc., pretending you never made unsubstantiated accusations against me. In this case you will be exposed as a liar, someone without honor or ethics, someone who makes false claims and false acusations.

I await the evidence you must present to back your claim or an "I'm sorry" post.

 

[Steve H]

Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's enough woo fodder (dubious footprints/film, squabbles over investigative techniques or lack of same, et al) for some to try to keep a myth alive in this and other forums but - and I'm sure it's been brought up before - there's no actual Bigfoot, dead or alive, to put this issue to bed once and for all. It reminds me of the UFO debates I used to engage in where all that's needed to qualify it is the one thing that never seems to happen.

The only way such a creature could exist would be if Jacques Vallee was correct and this animal is but one manifestation of his ultra-dimensional "tricksters" and I'd like to think not even the most dedicated Bigfoot advocates are desperate enough to go there. Think about it - if even some of the Bigfoot lore/anecdote is to be taken literally and it's range is what it supposed to be we should at least have a microbe of Bigfoot poop, if not actual remains, to confirm it's existence by now but, outside of excuses for it's non-confirmation and bickering over minutiae, we have nothing and there's a reason for that - Bigfoot doesn't exist. Like it or not that is the way it is.

I'll let y'all get back to your bickering now ..

 

[kitakaze]

Yes you are son. You bitched about posters 'gossiping' about other posters out of context.......................and you then do exactly the same. My, your alzheimer's is really worrying, Snitch.

I'm touched, Rimmer. Was I referring to another poster out of context?

As for the rest of your post, I'd be more inclined to take you and your wounded pride mewlings more seriously if it weren't for the fact that first, in the entire time of my membership here I've only reported somebody once. The 'go choke' wasn't what prompted me to report you, but you know that. It was you telling another member to shove something up their bum in more explicit way and refusing repeated appeals to chill out. Regardless, it's quite entertaining how you continue to obsess with it. I would say that seeing as 4 of your 5 recent posts to dat are whining to me, it is you who are following me. Now if your through trying to snuggle, this forum is rough territory and I've got vigilante work to do.

 

[kitakaze]

Man, the above sentence can be terribly misinterpetated...


Note to self: if interpretation of sentences is as dependable on cultural background and bias as myth interpretation, I may have some serious issues... Where's that shrink phone number?

You interpreted it just fine. If you still feel you have any issues, Sweaty or carcharodon seem particularily willing to help.

 

[kitakaze]

For anyone trying to play the 'not enough scientists in bigfoot areas for long enough' card please consider the following:

Let's have a look at Canada's rarest (and one of the rarest in the world) mammal, the Vancouver Island Marmot. The VIM inhabits what is purported to be one of the best traditional hot spots of sasquatch activity in all of North America, just ask Bindernagel. Every aspect of the VIM, it's habitat, predators, and other related aspects is exhaustively, exstensively, and continually reasearched in the field. And you guessed it, no sasquatches.

Let's have a look at some links:

Notes on the Vancouver Island marmot. By Andrew A. Bryant, Chief Scientist, Marmot Recovery Foundation. (Excellent starting point, don't miss literature cited.)

The Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Foundation.

Science pages of the above link. (Wow! How'd they do all that exhaustive research and miss the sasquatches!?)

VIM's communicate in a sophisticated way. (Wonder if a 'sasquatch is comin' to eat yo' a$$' -type call is in their vocabulary? Here's the answer.)

I now await the mandatory proponent footwork post claiming BF was probably never on Vancouver Island anyway (don't tell Bindernagel) or how being fearful of the people they were always successful in their evasion which of course totally contradicts footer claims elsewhere, such as here:

There are reports of these animals beating a hasty retrreat, hanging around checking out the witness or witnesses, going on about their business in an unconcerned sort of way, and even a few reports of possible aggression, so where is this "very fearful of humans" coming from? Black bears exhibit the same sort of behavior.

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy Man, for when you get back, here's a story from your neck of the woods I'm curious if you're familiar with:

Bigfoot: Hair found near Burst Rock, Stanislaus National Forest, California.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
If you think that habitat loss has already harmed the Bigfoot population, and will continue to do so...then you must also think some other things.

A) Is habitat loss killing Bigfoots outright?
B) or is it causing them to move their territories?
C) or both?
...snip...

Well, the number of sightings seems to be increasing. Lets suppose bigfeet are real creatures. This could then be explained by a relatively stable bigfoot population and an increase in the number of humans wandering at their "house". This would increase the odds of a sighting.

However, this would also increase the odds of obtaining good imagery and a specimen...

 

[William Parcher]

Nervous getting busted like Kramer with shellfish? Yes. Nervous approaching large amazing species of animal never before encountered by us? Meh, we wear Depends.

All of the sighting reports on BFRO, Bigfootencounters, etc. are fiction. There may be a few that were genuine misidentifications (bear, human, shadow... or whatever else), but it is quite obvious that the bulk of them are intentionally created fabrications. Many are examples of good creative writing and others pretty much suck. That's because the door is open for nearly anyone to submit their own Bigfoot fiction. It could be regarded as a kind of writing contest. The ultimate goal and prize is to get your fabricated sighting report posted on BFRO et al. If Bigfootery itself takes a shine to your story and it becomes the buzz on internet forums and gatherings, then it's an even bigger prize that could be known as "Audience Appreciation Award".

So the BFRO et al is sort of like an agent for fiction writers who make Bigfoot their topic. It is the ultimate clearing house and database for Bigfoot fiction. The only thing it has to do is to represent the whole thing as not being fiction. The possibly unanswerable question that I have is... Does the BFRO and others fabricate some of its own Bigfoot fiction (reports) as well as some of the follow-up interviews with "witnesses"? None of these witnesses ever saw a Bigfoot, and so any genuine interview is a conversation with a motivated fiction writer. It should not be surprising at all if the writer appears sincere and credible. Watch JK Rowling when she makes appearances, book readings and interviews. She does not appear to be a hoaxer or a liar. Yet, Harry Potter does not exist. When she answers children's questions about the characters, she is lying to them is she not? When those kids dress up as those characters for Halloween, is it because they have been scammed by hoaxer Rowling? Bigfootery is the same thing, but instead of kids it's a bunch of adults. It's fiction written large with a huge dose of audience participation. Bigfootery is for Bigfooters, just like Harry Potter is for Harry Potter fans.

The clam-digger report is a charming piece of Bigfoot fiction. It does contain many red flags that reveal its fabrication, but it is still great fun. A lucky couple got to see two young Bigfoots on the beach! A skeptic could never even wish for such luck.

 

[kitakaze]

William, I agree. Over the years reading through mountains of reports I've definitely come across many that smacked of an enthusiastic writer practicing his craft under the auspices of a true encounter. I've actually suspected for sometime now that there is at least one person out there doing it as a hobby and has gotten quite good at getting these 'reports' onto various websites and thereby affecting countless footers' imaginations.

Who couldn't appreciate the motivation in that? The more I think about it now, the more it makes sense to me. How many times have you been reading a report that echoes the PGF in some way or some other well known BF event. Little tells that show someone skillfully practicing their craft as opposed to just the details one would expect repeated were you looking at a real animal. I can't prove it but reports that echo Patty's full torso turn to the camera are highly dubious to me.

Of course the proponent will simply explain it as that being the way they turn but I'm not convinced. Someone out there is incorporating every bit of information that lends credibility to their stories and using them in these submissions.

This is a very interesting line of thinking that I think we should definitely pursue further.

 

[William Parcher]

Yeah, the reports are obviously fiction. I don't know how one pursues this line of thinking (as you say), other than to evaluate each report and give it critical analysis. A kind of forensic inquiry.

The BF sighting reports have always reminded me of the published "letters" to Penthouse Magazine. I snuck my dad's copies as a kid, and read them when he wasn't around. The letters are meant to create sexual fantasy in the mind of the reader by taking them right to a supposed fantastic sexual encounter that happened to the writer. Some may actually be true, but it makes no difference either way. They typically sound like this: "My boss at work is a gorgeous middle-aged blond with an amazing figure. I've thought about screwing her many times, but never pursued it and we have always had a good professional relationship. But last Tuesday changed everything. Stacy came into my office at about 3pm, giving me a look that she has never gave me before. A button was undone on her blouse that had never before been outside of the confines of the hole designed for it. My mind was spinning with confusion, but my instant hard-on told me the ultimate truth about what was going on and how the coming evening might play out. She parted her sultry lips to say...."

 

[William Parcher]

Skunk Ape Tracker Seeks to Protect the Creature

Dave Shealy, 43, claims he saw his first skunk ape -- a creature similar to an orangutan or gorilla but with a foul odor -- in 1974 and has been searching for more ever since. "All of a sudden there was this big, hairy creature walking like a man through the marsh," said Shealy while on a cigarette break from fixing a water pump at his Trail Lakes Campground, some 70 miles west of Miami. "I didn't see another one until the summer of 1997."

He is not alone in his belief in the skunk ape. There was a wave of sightings in the 1970s, all describing the creature as about seven feet tall, weighing about 300 pounds (136 kgs), and bringing a foul odor as it emerged from the swamp.

But the U.S. National Park Service, which runs the 720,000 acre Big Cypress National Preserve where Ochopee is located, says there is no evidence that any such animal exists. Big Cypress spokesman Bob DeGross said there had been no confirmed sightings.

Shealy said he aims to prove skunk apes do exist and get them government protection, partly to atone for crimes committed in his youth. He spent three years in prison after being caught in 1987 in the swamp acting as a lookout on a $13 million shipment of Columbian marijuana.

But critics claim Shealy's photos are fake and question his sanity -- and motivation. "I get a lot of nasty e-mails," Shealy said. "But I don't see my critics spending months in the swamp proving me wrong."

"People think I do this to make money, but what I raise is not enough to cover my research." He estimates he needs $250,000 to complete that research. "With that, I can prove skunk apes are out there," Shealy said. "Then I can get them the protection they deserve."

 

[Correa Neto]

This was posted (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76175) at the R&P subforum:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png
Substitute "Faith" by "Bigfoot Research" (or a similar term), add a red foot and you'll get the modus operandi of some "bigfoot investigators".