Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[William Parcher]

If there was going to be confirmation, we would have it by now..

I'm not trying to get anyone to give up their belief.. I'm just having fun showing them why their evidence is not evidence.

You wouldn't be able to get them to give up belief, no matter what you do.

Your "fun" is only shared by skeptics. You are not showing any believer that their evidence is not evidence. You will have to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, because believers believe that the burden of proof is now on skeptics.

In spite of the advances of science and rationality... skepticism has hardly made a scratch or dent in humanity and the human condition.

 

[RayG]

I'm just having fun showing them why their evidence is not evidence.

I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943



RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

I disagree, William. There are people at this board who have changed their minds about a few things.

I have changed my mind about the P/G film. I was unsure about it. Now I am not. It was that Laverty photo of a Patty footprint that did it. I am sure I have seen it before, but I never really gave it much thought. The discussion here caused me to examine it for the first time.

I think most folks will agree with my explanation of how that Laverty print was made.

I took a few things for granted as true about bigfoot and the search for same. Turned out they were only true among the believers.....

There are also lots of people who are reading these boards and trying to decide.

I believe when/if they read these threads, they will see who is dealing fairly with the issue, and who isn't.

They will see whether or not they should "Read Krantz".

That's enough for me, even if they don't change their mind. I learned something, at least.

That goes for other topics as well.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943

Sweet link, Ray. That BFF is sort of like an Internet insane asylum. Is it your hobby to hang around there? Hoping that the first chunk of Bigfoot flesh found will be posted about there before the major media or science news venues?

The recordings of Bigfoot in that thread are precious, because these are the vocalizations of an undiscovered giant ape.

Skeptics should listen in to "The Talker".

I believe I translated what this Bigfoot is saying...

"This is not proof of the Bigfoot. Is it?"

Anyway, the text and correspondence in that link should not be taken lightly. It shows that intensive research into the "real life" PNW Chewbacca is not some silly waste of time.

Have a listen to a recording of a communicating Bigfoot.

I do have to admit that I could be wrong. The Bigfoot might be saying...

"This is not evidence of the Bigfoot. Is it?"

 

[Thurkon]

I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943



RayG

I try, I really try, to go over to the Bigfoot forums and see the other side of the picture every now and then. See if I'm missing something. Turns out I'm not.

That has got to be the biggest collection of knuckleheads and mindless cheerleaders on the planet.

There's this gem:

If you want geek speak, you could say that "If the number of sightings that are accurate is greater than 0%, then the creatures exist. So if there are 3,000 sightings, and 0.033% are correct, then it exists. "

If. If.

Have you ever read such a meaningless statement? Does the sentence above actually mean or prove anything?? It sure got lots of applause from the peanut gallery over there.

Why would quanitity of reports matter, when little other evidence exists? How many of the numerous reports of witchcraft in the Middle Ages are accurate? How about the much more numerous reports of aliens and abductions, which Lu discounts?

 

[LTC8K6]

William, you just trashed all my beliefs about people learning something in my previous post with that link....

A guy mumbles into a recorder and they try to make a bigfoot touchdown with it......

I dunno. What can you say?

I am whitey, it's all my fault and I just don't understand.

I have always admired the ways of the Native Americans. I realize, they also had possessed some of the same violent characteristics that other races had, but their abilities to understand the world and all of it's beauty, has always been something purely mystifying to me. They gave life to all things. Rocks, sky, mountains. Things that other's took for granted. It is no small wonder, that these creatures would become part of this heritage and be able to live along side of the 'People'. Whites no of nothing except the acquisition of 'property' and the sin of an overpowering, all encompassing, greed. It is no wonder, these creatures distance themselves from human beings, as they must do.

I hope that one day, and I hope it will be soon, they will look upon me, and feel the shame I have for being what my heritage has bestowed upon me, and know that they have finally found a white man who knows the meaning of trust and honor.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943



RayG

Very interesting thread..

" Who Cares?, Why Please the Scientific Establishment? "

There are some informed posters over there, but sadly there is too much " I want it to be true .. "

 

[Thurkon]

The recordings of Bigfoot in that thread are precious, because these are the vocalizations of an undiscovered giant ape.

Skeptics should listen in to "The Talker".

That recording is precious.

So is the report by Richard J. Klich, Director of the Speech Science Laboratory:

By taking these frequency measurements and using them in various formulas, I estimated that the length of the subject's vocal tract was about 17 centimeters. This is the average length of males who are about 6 feet tall or a little shorter.

Heh heh. Another short Foot? You don't say? Where are all the tall Bigfeet?

 

[William Parcher]

I want it to be true ...

Obviously, I don't think that Bigfoot is real. But additionally, I really hope that I am right. Some say that they hope that Bigfoot does exist because it would be such an interesting creature to have as a reality.

I hope that Bigfoot does not exist, because proof of the reality of Bigfoot would show that scientific rationality, reason and skepticism are not worth Jack-squat on this planet.

 

[RayG]

Sweet link, Ray. That BFF is sort of like an Internet insane asylum. Is it your hobby to hang around there?

Hey, everybody's gotta have a hobby.

Actually, I've had an interest in bigfoot for many many years, and that board is about the only one that looks at anything skeptically. You should see how some of the blobsquatches are torn apart over there. There are some die-hard 'believers' over there that accept anything as proof of bigfoot, but there are also some folks who are pretty adept at spotting BS in a report when they see it. It seems to be a good mixture of folks, a few staunch skeptics, a few staunch believers, and lots of folks somewhere in the middle. (Did I mention the romantics, who see bigfoot in every stump, every dark shadow, every noise in the woods...etc.)

Hoping that the first chunk of Bigfoot flesh found will be posted about there before the major media or science news venues?

Nope. I've even stated I don't care WHO brings in evidence, as long as it's solid evidence. A body would do quite nicely.

The recordings of Bigfoot in that thread are precious, because these are the vocalizations of an undiscovered giant ape.

I seldom listen to any recordings. No matter what vocalization they get on tape, if they didn't SEE the culprit making that vocalization, it's pretty much worthless. (Even then it might be worthless, depending on the witness.)

Excuse me if I don't check out the recording link you gave, it's probably worthless anyway.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

You should see how some of the blobsquatches are torn apart over there. There are some die-hard 'believers' over there that accept anything as proof of bigfoot, but there are also some folks who are pretty adept at spotting BS in a report when they see it. It seems to be a good mixture of folks, a few staunch skeptics, a few staunch believers, and lots of folks somewhere in the middle.

Ray, I must have now looked at about 200 threads on that forum. It seems that they are generally rough on vocal and determined skeptics. I noticed that some administrators will launch personal insults at those who argue that the PGF or Bigfoot are illusions. The vigorous skeptics seem to vanish suddenly after repeated volleys from the believer cult vitriol.

Ray, who are the staunch skeptics (who consistently post that Bigfoot is really only a myth) that are a regular part of the daily BFF "mixture of folks"?

 

[RayG]

I try, I really try, to go over to the Bigfoot forums and see the other side of the picture every now and then. See if I'm missing something. Turns out I'm not.

That has got to be the biggest collection of knuckleheads and mindless cheerleaders on the planet.

I found the other boards were usually worse, so that's why I've stuck with the BFF. At least they don't boo and hiss if you bring up something skeptical.

Why would quanitity of reports matter, when little other evidence exists?

It doesn't, and I can't believe that everyone over at the BFF places greater importance on quantity than quality. (I know I don't.)

How about the much more numerous reports of aliens and abductions, which Lu discounts?

Exactly the point I was trying to make to LAL over there back in June.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876

Quantity don't matter diddly...it's quality that counts.

RayG

 

[RayG]

I hope that Bigfoot does not exist, because proof of the reality of Bigfoot would show that scientific rationality, reason and skepticism are not worth Jack-squat on this planet.

Not at all. Would you say that if they discovered a new planet? Why not? If they discovered a new species of insect, plant, or animal somewhere? Why not?

I'm sure there will be a great many more discoveries, continuing long after I'm no longer alive to see them. That doesn't mean scientific skepticism blows chunks, or sucks.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Ray, I must have now looked at about 200 threads on that forum. It seems that they are generally rough on vocal and determined skeptics. I noticed that some administrators will launch personal insults at those who argue that the PGF or Bigfoot are illusions. The vigorous skeptics seem to vanish suddenly after repeated volleys from the believer cult vitriol.

Ray, who are the staunch skeptics (who consistently post that Bigfoot is really only a myth) that are a regular part of the daily BFF "mixture of folks"?

Well, there are hardly any 'staunch skeptics', by YOUR definition, that believe bigfoot is only a myth. Terry might be one, but I was thinking more of skeptics like myself, who maintain that though bigfoot is a possibility, the present evidence does not provide adequate proof. There are a handful of those folks over there, tube, for example.

None of the posters in this thread:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12209
showed any animosity towards the article by skeptic Benjamin Radford. (but then the thread saw very few posts)

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

Not at all. Would you say that if they discovered a new planet? Why not? If they discovered a new species of insect, plant, or animal somewhere? Why not?

I'm sure there will be a great many more discoveries, continuing long after I'm no longer alive to see them. That doesn't mean scientific skepticism blows chunks, or sucks.

Ray, you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.

Newly discovered species are not analogous to Bigfoot. Any evidence for the existence of these species has not been argued about as Bigfoot has.

I am thrilled at each new animal that is found in the world. It is directly from the conventions of real science that we are even able to define what is a "new species".

What I meant was: There has been a preponderence of evidence presented for the existence of Bigfoot. Science, rationality, reason and skepticism holds a negatory view of this presented evidence. If somebody rolled into Yakima with a Bigfoot carcass on their hood, it would bring into question the validity of doubting anything that was not supported by physical evidence. It would also bring doubt to methods of evaluating any kind of evidence.

If Bigfoot shows up.... human rationality gets a big fat lip. Why? Because it seems that we know about myths. But suddenly we have no clue what a myth really is. Watch your ass, so that you don't get poked by an angry unicorn.

 

[William Parcher]

Well, there are hardly any 'staunch skeptics', by YOUR definition, that believe bigfoot is only a myth. Terry might be one, but I was thinking more of skeptics like myself, who maintain that though bigfoot is a possibility, the present evidence does not provide adequate proof. There are a handful of those folks over there, tube, for example.

None of the posters in this thread:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12209
showed any animosity towards the article by skeptic Benjamin Radford. (but then the thread saw very few posts)

Ray, the staunchest skeptics wouldn't waste their freaking time blibber-blabbing on that forum. What they seem to mostly have is skeptical agnostics. If anyone posts that the PGF is a hoax, their skin aquires a coating of tar and feathers.

Since you are one who dances-on-the-piano-strings of BFF... can you link to anyone there who firmly believes that Bob Heironimus really was the guy in the "Patty Costume", in addition to believing that Bigfoot is pure myth?

 

[William Parcher]

Ray, you have got to be kidding if you think that true disbelievers live and regularly post on BFF. Who over there regularly argues about the authenticity of the PGF (arguing that it is fake) as oppsed to saying that it might be a hoax?

Have you noticed the general forum treatment and regularity of postings by Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head and Avindair?

 

[William Parcher]

Support for members of the BFRO and the work they've done does not=support for Matt Moneymaker.

Good grief. What a joke. People are treating this exodus of BRFO supporters as if it were worthy of any attention. WTF?

Matt Moneymaker has been running a pay-per-view carnival ride of a bogeyman that doesn't exist. If people pay some guy to take them on a giant stinky monkey expedition in the USA... who is zooming who? Nobody invented crudulous people, they only give them what they are looking for. Bigfoot is a myth. MM is running outdoor camping and hiking trips for those who want to look for the non-existent. Now a bunch of folks connected with this want to disengage in a public way. Ha ha. Imagine people complaining about a Halloween Spook House because the owner started getting weird because it turned out that they really didn't have any ghosts inside.

Step back and look at the BFRO and its expeditions. Do you think that Moneymaker really thinks that Bigfoot exists? Do you think that he is stupid enough to think that? His deal is completely set up for a mythical animal game for adults.

I'm not sure that skeptics truly understand the full scope of the genius and insanity that is The World of Bigfoot..

 

[RayG]

Ray, you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.

Likely. It seems you're saying it's impossible for bigfoot to exist, because it's a myth. So be it, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't take such a hard-core approach. I don't believe bigfoot exists, especially considering the questionable 'evidence' used to support its existence. I do however, leave the window of possibility open, as I do for many things. That doesn't mean I expect future proof to materialize, only that I'm open to the possibility.

Any evidence for the existence of these species has not been argued about as Bigfoot has.

Keep those words in mind...

What I meant was: There has been a preponderence of evidence presented for the existence of Bigfoot.

I disagree. There are claims of evidence, but certainly nothing that science has even remotely agreed upon.

Science, rationality, reason and skepticism holds a negatory view of this presented evidence.

Exactly as it should, and for good reason. Someone claiming bigfoot plunked his ass down in mud (and dragging in a huge plaster cast) is quite different from someone proving bigfoot plunked his ass down in mud (and dragging in a huge dead body).

If somebody rolled into Yakima with a Bigfoot carcass on their hood, it would bring into question the validity of doubting anything that was not supported by physical evidence. It would also bring doubt to methods of evaluating any kind of evidence.

How so? It would seem to be the case of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. If someone were to bring in the actual flesh and blood foot, that differs greatly from someone bringing in a track cast. Should science accept the track cast as proof? No, and rightly so. Should science accept the actual foot? It would be hard not to. I don't see how science deserves a fat lip because it won't accept an extraordinary claim at face value. It doesn't, and it shouldn't.

If Bigfoot shows up.... human rationality gets a big fat lip. Why? Because it seems that we know about myths. But suddenly we have no clue what a myth really is. Watch your ass, so that you don't get poked by an angry unicorn.

And that brings us full circle back to your own words: "Any evidence for the existence of these species has not been argued about as Bigfoot has."

I wasn't aware that unicorns (or fairies, gremlins, gnomes, dragons, elves, trolls, or leprechauns) were being argued about as bigfoot has.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Ray, the staunchest skeptics wouldn't waste their freaking time blibber-blabbing on that forum. What they seem to mostly have is skeptical agnostics. If anyone posts that the PGF is a hoax, their skin aquires a coating of tar and feathers.

I would say if anyone claims the PGF is a hoax without supportive evidence, then they indeed get the sticky treatment.

Some of us have questioned, and continue to question, claims regarding IM indexes, weight, height, and other issues regarding the PGF. I don't recall ever being tarred and feathered because I question the so-called 'evidence' related to the PGF. I came close a couple times when attacking the so-called 'scientific' approach of the BFRO, though more recently some of my concerns about the BFRO have become reality.

Since you are one who dances-on-the-piano-strings of BFF...

Not sure I understand what you mean by that, can you clarify?

.. can you link to anyone there who firmly believes that Bob Heironimus really was the guy in the "Patty Costume", in addition to believing that Bigfoot is pure myth?

You mean those 'staunch skeptics' as YOU define them? I already pointed out one that still posts (Terry), there are many others who are skeptical but don't necessarily believe bigfoot to be a myth. If you have irrefutable proof that Heironimus was the guy being filmed that day, by all means present it. I won't just take his word for it.

I'm certainly in no position to determine who, among the remaining 2,033 members is a rabid skeptic and who is not.

There are many claims about bigfoot that I consider nothing more than myth -- teleportation, telepathy, from another dimension, shape-shifter, etc. -- but I don't understand why a skeptic must believe bigfoot itself to be pure myth.

RayG