• 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.

Skeptical Bigfoot Articles

Northern Lights said:
Yes, that is one of many.
Click to expand...


So, you have many experiences to speak of, but nothing more than stories to offer as evidence? And you wonder why no'one takes Bigfoot "research" seriously?

What's the difference between doing "actual" research rather than "internet research?" As far as I can make out, neither one provides any actual evidence of anything, just more stories.

All I ever hear is "well, I'M actually out in the woods, doing the real research... are YOU!"

Nope, but I've found just as much evidence as any "real researcher" has... which, to put it bluntly, is ◊◊◊◊-all.
 
s4zando said:
I, for one, always look forward to your posts, ABP. Your analysis usually riles me up to break several MA agreements as they relate to the BF threads, and that never helps move discussion forward.

Any way you could detail you experience with manipulative techiniques, perhaps in a new thread, if thats called for? Doesn't have to be all-encompassing, but something that develops over time, as a resource?

Ultimately, I know the problem is mine. So no pressure here. I have learned to abide. But I do look forward to your posts on the subject of manipulative tactics.
Click to expand...

Oh golly, thanks. What happened to me personally is that I had a personality defect in being too naiive, trusting, and gullible. So I became a target for manipulative people, who can actually spot you at a distance just by the way you carry yourself with that happy-go-lucky grin and sincere countenance.

It took me years to understand the problem was not with "them". The problem was ME. To really defend yourself against manipulative people, you need to know the science behind personality or character disorders. So I read voraciously and came to understand that the tactics people use, from near harmless bigfoot proponents all the way to serial killer cannibals are exactly the same. I have one very minor article published on this but it got me a nice review from Dr. George Simon, who wrote a very good book called "In Sheep's Clothing, Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People".

These tactics all have names like lie by omission, lie by inclusion of extraneous misleading information, selective memory/attention, guilt-tripping, shaming, etc. so once you learn how to spot a tactic you can see it deployed anywhere.

The biggest mistake people make in working with manipulators is underestimating how underhanded and malicious their intentions are. Most normal people have a conscience and would never perpetrate the kinds of things manipulative people do. So they make the mistake of projecting their own conscientiousness onto people that have no scruples.

The corollary is that people overestimate how smart manipulative people are. It is not intelligence that is required though - it is bad intentions. People with a conscience are "slow" in the respect they are too careful about hurting other people's feelings or being truthful, etc.

We don't want to think of a woo proponent as having bad intentions, but even when they start with what might appear to be a harmless but misguided belief the problem is they have to adopt a raft of manipulative tactics in order to sustain that belief and promote it with others. But since these tactics are all found in the science of personality disorders, they are by definition abusive of other people. So you are essentially training yourself to be a perpetrator of emotional abuse when you enter the woo kingdom.

The objectives it serves are all the same as with the standard kinds of disordered people like narcissists or whatever. The people who write in this field are often emphatic about how, when a manipulator is using an abusive tactic against someone else that nobody knows better than the manipulator himself how outrageous his behavior is. Feigning ignorance about that is a joy they call "duper's delight" - watching the victim twist himself into knots trying to get the manipulator to "see" that what he is doing is wrong. So here on this forum you see that playing out over and over again, with people urging the woo peddler to be reasonable when he knows how unreasonable he is being and gets joy out of it. The holy grail here would be to get a skeptic booted off the forum for breaking the rules on civility. Yet, there is nothing more uncivil than the tactics used by manipulative people to get you angry. But it isn't against forum rules to lie, to practice selective attention, purposefully use logical fallacies, etc.

It actually helps a great deal to always keep in mind that these people are mainly interested in working on your emotions, especially anger. It might be flattery, guilt, or something else but anger is the best on a discussion forum. If you feel anger then it is because that is what they wanted. Don't give it to them. I make the mistake of doing so even when I know better, and I seem to really fall for people insinuating I am being dishonest about something. Once they see you fall for a tactic like that they are going to come back to it over and over again because it works. They categorize people by how they respond to various emotional plays.

Enough for now, but this does fit in with the topic because dealing with proponents is actually more of a psychological science associated with personality or character disorders more than it is a matter of physical sciences.
 
"...lie, to practice selective attention, purposefully use logical fallacies, etc."

That sounds remarkably like some personalities I've clashed with at the BFF.
 
William Parcher said:
...But what does the Denialist seek?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what everyone else is seeking, but 'I'm seeking world domination and to get my own apartment'...through strict adherence to the unflinching codes and principles established by the late great Patty Bigfoot. She was a wise beast long before Patterson had her killed for even thinking about going to the feds. And I think I can make it work for me with just a few minor tweaks. I'm talking the world here.
 
A very good article concerning the cultural history of Sasquatch is "On the Cultural Track of the Sasquatch." by Wayne Suttles. It's an anthropologist's answer to the claim that Native American legends support bigfoot's existence and science ignores them. Basically, Suttles examines various wildman legends of the Pacific Northwest and explains why they aren't the same thing as bigfoot, nor does their existence support the creature's validity. I know you guys aren't typically concerned with cultural issues surrounding Sasquatch, but it's a well written paper that does a great job of refuting one of the key claims of bigfoot mythology.

Another article worth looking into is "Entering Dubious Realms: Grover Krantz, Science, and Sasquatch" by Brian Regal. It's basically a look into the history of bigffot science and all the flaws that are usually found in it. Krantz is the focus and main example. "Images of the Wildman Inside and Outside of Europe" by Gregory Forth is also worth mentioning; it's not focused on bigfoot, but does spend some time discussing how European traditions and popular misunderstandings of science contributed to the creation of bigfoot.

Last semester, I wrote a research paper that compared the bigoot of modern pop culture (while arguing that they were completely different and discussing the implications of both stories), and I used those articles to pretty good effect. Especially the Suttles one, which is closest thing I could find to a real analysis of bigfoot from a comparative cultural angle. I agree with dmaker that there isn't enough research into the subject from people that aren't bigfooters; researching my paper was actually kind of a pain in the butt, and those were the best three articles I could find that actually discussed modern, pop culture, Euroamerican bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. And I'm not criticizing anything you've said. While its true man-made monsters have been a staple throughout history, I'd suggest the modern-day Bigfoot phenomenon (as we know 'her') really didn't come into actual existence until the PGF in 1967. That in fact the only thing it has in common with its purported history (Indian & European tales of 'wild men') is it too is make-believe. I'm pretty sure Roger Patterson had something to do with advancing the notion that "Oh yeah, the Indians saw these things all the time, just look at their stories." But that's his ploy to get you to believe his BS, not the carrying-on of ancient practices and preachings. Or is it? :eek:
 
Last edited:
HarryHenderson said:
Interesting. And I'm not criticizing anything you've said. While its true man-made monsters have been a staple throughout history, I'd suggest the modern-day Bigfoot phenomenon (as we know 'her') really didn't come into actual existence until the PGF in 1967. That in fact the only thing it has in common with its purported history (Indian & European tales of 'wild men') is it too is make-believe. I'm pretty sure Roger Patterson had something to do with advancing the notion that "Oh yeah, the Indians saw these things all the time, just look at their stories." But that's his ploy to get you to believe his BS, not the carrying-on of ancient practices and preachings. Or is it? :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, your basic idea is correct (bigfoot is a modern story with no real connections to past traditions), but the history of bigfoot certainly is more complicated than you said. It really started in the late 1950s, spurred on by the Wallace hoaxes and the public interest in the Himalayan Abominable Snowman (itself a western misinterpretation of local legends). Basically, Wallace hoaxed tracks, people started talking about an Abominable Snowman in America, and all of a sudden bigfoot happened. It has a little bit of precedence in stories influenced by the European wildman tradition (ex: Jacko); although most of those stories weren't linked until the late 50s, they provided a background for the character of bigfoot to exist, mostly through ideas of savages/noble savages and people misunderstanding paleontology (ape-men lived in the past, so ape-men could be running around now). A for Patterson's role, I'm not sure it was quite that big. Yes, the PGF was huge and boosted the public's knowledge of bigfoot, but Patterson was coming into an already existing field and did very little that others had done, besides make that film. As far as I know, most of what he did was just copy other people's (mostly John Green) work; his film was hugely influential and is probably the main reason the public started to believe as heavily, but he wasn't personally responsible for a lot of "research" as far as I know.

The Native American part is completely disjointed from that development. I actually couldn't find out when people started linking them together (I think John Green's stuff from the early 60s is probably when it started), but they're not related at all. The two traditions talk about different things and they serve different purposes (not to mention how different many of the Native wildman stories are from each other). Even when JW Burns published the stories that led him to invent the word "Sasquatch," he did it as a presentation of superstitious Indian stories, not as valid folklore or accounts of phenomena. The two seemingly only became linked as an afterthought because someone, likely John Green, thought it lent his stories credibility. Suttles, in his article, actually calls Green out by name and frames his analysis at answering some of Green's criticisms.

Or at least, that's the basic gist of what my research led me to conclude. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all or to be argumentative, I've just done a lot of research on the subject and want to state what I know. Bigfooters lie about their history/tradition, and I think it's important to call them out on that. Not only is it dishonest, but it's also incredibly disrespectful to the Native traditions they're appropriating and misrepresenting (my paper was for a Native American religion class, so most of my research went towards that). A lot of people have written about all the bad science behind bigfootery, but I think presenting the legend as a modern invention does a lot to hamper its credibility, too. I'm actually surprised so few people have approached it from that angle.
 
Last edited:
ArchSas said:
Not only is it dishonest, but it's also incredibly disrespectful to the Native traditions they're appropriating and misrepresenting (my paper was for a Native American religion class, so most of my research went towards that). A lot of people have written about all the bad science behind bigfootery, but I think presenting the legend as a modern invention does a lot to hamper its credibility, too. I'm actually surprised so few people have approached it from that angle.
Click to expand...

There is a very good, long thread on this in the forum that I am too lazy to find at the moment, as I am more interested in emphasizing the most offensive disrespect to Native traditions.

The most offensive thing I have seen is where various Native personalities or groups have mis-used their own historical culture to promote themselves via a bigfoot platform.

This is related to another thread where we are talking about the character or personality disorders that are inculcated with bigfoot. Lying and abusing native traditions is one thing when done by an outside charlatan. But when it comes from within, it is a treason that is especially harmful because it uses the Native identity to falsely lend additional credence to the lie. Talk about having no scruples...
 
ArchSas said:
Bigfooters lie about their history/tradition, and I think it's important to call them out on that. Not only is it dishonest, but it's also incredibly disrespectful to the Native traditions they're appropriating and misrepresenting (my paper was for a Native American religion class, so most of my research went towards that).
Click to expand...

Society in general does not believe what Bigfooters say when they open their mouth. One healthy indicator that modern culture rejects Bigfooters is that it is generally socially acceptable to laugh at Bigfoot believers in public when they talk about Bigfoot. You will see TV news people laugh and snicker as they report on Bigfootery and its people.

People don't need to worry that Bigfoot believers are misinterpreting human history because our society would never give them the ability to actually do that in any meaningful way.

Any politician would be a fool to let voters know that they have belief in the existence of Bigfoot.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Lying and abusing native traditions is one thing when done by an outside charlatan. But when it comes from within, it is a treason that is especially harmful because it uses the Native identity to falsely lend additional credence to the lie. Talk about having no scruples...
Click to expand...
Scruples or ignorance? Can we safely assume that Native Americans and First Nations peoples on a whole have a clear and deep understanding of what is and is not part of their own sacred traditions?

For example, I met a Sac and Fox young man on a field trip a few years back and we got talking about bigfoot. He went on and on about how Sasquatch is part of his culture; it was evident that the elders of his society were instilling this belief in their young people today. Regardless of what might have been taught 300 years ago, bigfoot is a part of their tradition today.
 
The Shrike said:
For example, I met a Sac and Fox young man on a field trip a few years back and we got talking about bigfoot. He went on and on about how Sasquatch is part of his culture; it was evident that the elders of his society were instilling this belief in their young people today. Regardless of what might have been taught 300 years ago, bigfoot is a part of their tradition today.
Click to expand...

The man may have lied to you about the extent to which his elders and tribe are Bigfooters.
 
The Shrike said:
Scruples or ignorance? Can we safely assume that Native Americans and First Nations peoples on a whole have a clear and deep understanding of what is and is not part of their own sacred traditions?
Click to expand...

Well, if they don't know, we can't give charlatans who aren't part of these groups too much crap for not knowing, can we?
 
ArchSas said:
...It really started in the late 1950s, spurred on by the Wallace hoaxes and the public interest in the Himalayan Abominable Snowman (itself a western misinterpretation of local legends).
...
A for Patterson's role, I'm not sure it was quite that big. Yes, the PGF was huge and boosted the public's knowledge of bigfoot, but Patterson was coming into an already existing field and did very little that others had done, besides make that film.
...
The Native American part is completely disjointed from that development. I actually couldn't find out when people started linking them together (I think John Green's stuff from the early 60s is probably when it started), but they're not related at all.
...
Click to expand...
Again, not being critical on the whole. In the interest of brevity I mistakenly oversimplified my meaning in my last post. Worse, I'm rarely that brief. The late 50's with Wallace and Crew and such was the beginning for sure, but it was still just some suspicious footprints and a few scary stories. Not really even any "sightings". Heck they barely took any pictures of all those Wallace prints. Overall it was barely newsworthy.

Then Roger Patterson arrives on the scene internationally in '66 with the book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist and promptly follows that up a year later ('67) with the PGF. Now prior to that very very little had been written (in book form) on the subject and in fact John Green didn't publish a single thing on the subject until 1968, a year after the PGF. I know that denying Roger Patterson as the true father of modern day Bigfoot is like a sport around here, but who said that has anything to do with reality?! Truth is the PGF doesn't exist, we're not here talking Bigfoot now.

Additionally, I'll guess and say there's a good chance you've heard the famous "approximated" Bigfoot scream/howl, the one that makes your hair stand up, that they now play regularly in/on just about everything on TV that's Bigfooty? It was in fact produced and distributed back between 1967-1971 by, you guessed it, Roger Patterson. So in virtually every TV show and movie about Bigfoot there ever was, and there's been many, they use the PGF and/or that scream/howl in one way or another, yet Patterson's influence in it all was only minor and he "did very little"? Really?
 
HarryHenderson said:
Additionally, I'll guess and say there's a good chance you've heard the famous "approximated" Bigfoot scream/howl, the one that makes your hair stand up, that they now play regularly in/on just about everything on TV that's Bigfooty? It was in fact produced and distributed back between 1967-1971 by, you guessed it, Roger Patterson. So in virtually every TV show and movie about Bigfoot there ever was, and there's been many, they use the PGF and/or that scream/howl in one way or another, yet Patterson's influence in it all was only minor and he "did very little"? Really?
Click to expand...

That's interesting, I've not heard that before. Where did you find this information? I would be very interested in reading more on it. Thanks
 
There are no Bigfoots. Therefore, there are no skeptical Bigfoots. Therefore, there are no articles by skeptical Bigfoots. That's why you can't find any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom