Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

[AlaskaBushPilot]

And your current position on the subject clearly reflects your pre-existing cultural prejudices/beliefs/biases just as it does for many on the other side of the fence, does it not?

Outstanding, thanks! Because it is a perfect example of exactly the same manipulative tactic often used by the 'footers - a type of projection where the behavior of the manipulator is projected on to the skeptic.

The first value of this tactic is to put the target on the defensive. So I am supposed to get all defensive and explain why there really is a difference between what I am doing and say - Moneymaker. But I am not going to grant you that satisfaction because I've got training in this area and relish instead identifying exactly what you are doing.

I don't doubt that Bigfoot is a human-phenomenon rather than a biological one but perhaps it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge on at least some aspects of the human experience...

Now the first part of this statement is important because it is a form of denial. All manipulative people learn to say for example that they don't want to be unkind [followed by unkind statement] or negative [followed by negative statement].

It is a cunning tactic for the untrained, more or less to say that we should not believe what our eyes are seeing and our ears are hearing. We should believe the manipulator who promises he really has no doubt whatever that bigfoot is utter rubbish...

Then you deliver the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion: if we stick with the premise that you just delivered in the form of a denial (bigfoot is rubbish) - then how can one possibly accuse me of being the same as Matt Moneymaker? It is obviously ludicrous.

But the false conclusion you've drawn is deceptive for changing the accusation too: the stronger form delivered earlier is "ABP is the same as Moneymaker". But the mealy-mouthed conclusion is actually meaningless word salad about how we have limitations in SOME aspects of human behavior. heh.

I was not under the impression that my knowledge was infinite. lol.

What happened here is that you started off with a rhetorical question that had the premise all of us came to bigfoot under the belief that it was reasonable. I disagreed with that, and you employed what the shrinks call a "defense mechanism". You diverted us from the premise under consideration, evaded my counterpoint, and tried to put me on the defensive with the projection tactic: You're the same as Matt Moneymaker.

Finally, it takes a LOT more horsepower to deal with manipulative tactics than it does to use them. Just look at all of the writing I just did as compared to you claiming I am Matt Moneymaker reincarnated. That is one of the reasons it is so much more attractive to the lazy to be a fake bigfoot scientist than a real PhD primate field researcher. One merely takes lying and a few basic manipulative tactics. The other takes many years of difficult intellectual work.

So, thanks for playing. My point was just one example of a fact: a tremendous number of people think bigfoot is an extremely stupid belief the first time they hear of it. I don't know anyone in my circle that has a different opinion from me: not only is it stupid - but it is so far out of reality that the curiosity is why someone with any kind of woodland knowledge would be a believer.

 

[William Parcher]

Which of us (ie those with a skeptical interest in Bigfoot) were not initially attracted to the subject by its perceived plausibility?

I wasn't.

Are there any limits to perceived plausibility? I like to use extant Tyrannosaurus rex as an example. It only needs fresh air, space and nummy food. I can imagine them eating Mastodons right now and chasing but never catching Bigfoots. All that going on in the vast wilderness out of our sight. Does that cross the line of plausibility? If so, just what is that line and what does it look like and where is it located?

 

[Resume]

Which of us (ie those with a skeptical interest in Bigfoot) were not initially attracted to the subject by its perceived plausibility?

Bigfoot came to my attention at the time when I and a small group of friends began to explore the outdoors as hunters, anglers and gatherers. Our first reaction to the still photos in either Argosy or Saga was of course "Cool story bro." Our experiences in northern Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota told us that such a creature was unlikely there, but say the PNW? Upon further review, well, such specificity of habitat would make it even easier to locate and document, not more difficult.

Remember this article was written in 1990 - before the second coming of Bob Gimlin (to promote the supposed-authenticity of the PGF of which he is part-owner to the rights) and before the internet-induced resurgence of Bigfoot-research as a hobby - and considering all the things that has gone on within the world of Bigfoot in the last 24 years it would be harder to make that claim now.

It's not possible to make that claim now.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I wasn't.

Are there any limits to perceived plausibility? I like to use extant Tyrannosaurus rex as an example. It only needs fresh air, space and nummy food. I can imagine them eating Mastodons right now and chasing but never catching Bigfoots. All that going on in the vast wilderness out of our sight. Does that cross the line of plausibility? If so, just what is that line and what does it look like and where is it located?

I like this thread. The tactic exploited by the 'footers here is actually called "Plausible Deniability": I am not faking belief because it is plausible that a reasonable, intelligent, honest person could have the belief.

People that have a conscience readily embrace plausible deniability. Their first reaction is to give a big benefit of the doubt, and even do the 'footer's work for them by inventing "just so" stories for how a person could fall into bigfoot belief with even the most sincere, skeptical mindset.

We have to keep coming back to actions not matching words. For example, the most important strategy on a bigfoot expedition is sabotage. The batteries failed. I forgot to turn the recorder on. I was shaking the camera. I was too scared to look out the window (NAWAC). I never came back to the spot where I saw a herd of three hundred.

Each of these individual tactics, taken alone, might pass the plausible deniability test. But after a thousand expeditions since 1950 or whatever it is, then it becomes statistically impossible to be anything except a global strategy: plausible deniability is an over-arching manipulative principle that spans bigfoot expeditions, bigfoot screeds, and the actors playing in the Bigfoot Alternate Reality Game.

 

[Night Walker]

Outstanding, thanks! Because it is a perfect example of exactly the same manipulative tactic often used by the 'footers - a type of projection where the behavior of the manipulator is projected on to the skeptic.

The first value of this tactic is to put the target on the defensive. So I am supposed to get all defensive and explain why there really is a difference between what I am doing and say - Moneymaker. But I am not going to grant you that satisfaction because I've got training in this area and relish instead identifying exactly what you are doing.

Now the first part of this statement is important because it is a form of denial. All manipulative people learn to say for example that they don't want to be unkind [followed by unkind statement] or negative [followed by negative statement].

It is a cunning tactic for the untrained, more or less to say that we should not believe what our eyes are seeing and our ears are hearing. We should believe the manipulator who promises he really has no doubt whatever that bigfoot is utter rubbish...

Then you deliver the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion: if we stick with the premise that you just delivered in the form of a denial (bigfoot is rubbish) - then how can one possibly accuse me of being the same as Matt Moneymaker? It is obviously ludicrous.

But the false conclusion you've drawn is deceptive for changing the accusation too: the stronger form delivered earlier is "ABP is the same as Moneymaker". But the mealy-mouthed conclusion is actually meaningless word salad about how we have limitations in SOME aspects of human behavior. heh.

I was not under the impression that my knowledge was infinite. lol.
What happened here is that you started off with a rhetorical question that had the premise all of us came to bigfoot under the belief that it was reasonable. I disagreed with that, and you employed what the shrinks call a "defense mechanism". You diverted us from the premise under consideration, evaded my counterpoint, and tried to put me on the defensive with the projection tactic: You're the same as Matt Moneymaker.

Finally, it takes a LOT more horsepower to deal with manipulative tactics than it does to use them. Just look at all of the writing I just did as compared to you claiming I am Matt Moneymaker reincarnated. That is one of the reasons it is so much more attractive to the lazy to be a fake bigfoot scientist than a real PhD primate field researcher. One merely takes lying and a few basic manipulative tactics. The other takes many years of difficult intellectual work.

So, thanks for playing. My point was just one example of a fact: a tremendous number of people think bigfoot is an extremely stupid belief the first time they hear of it. I don't know anyone in my circle that has a different opinion from me: not only is it stupid - but it is so far out of reality that the curiosity is why someone with any kind of woodland knowledge would be a believer.

So you accuse me of “manipulation” and “projection” like other ‘footers but reject the notion that that is what you are doing as well? The beauty/ugliness of cultural prejudices/beliefs/biases is that they are relatively easy to spot in others but not so easy to identify in oneself and, like it or not (obviously not), you demonstrate it just as well as the extremists from the other side of the fence. It is apparent that such immovability cannot be reasoned with and it is unfortunate because it tends to stifle discussion rather than promote it.

It should not be forgotten that there ARE genuine people devoted to searching for Bigfoot and seeking an honest understanding of their experiences (albeit these would seem to be in the minority) and I don’t think it is any more helpful to dismiss them as “manipulators” or "stupid" than it is to believe them uncritically.

The approach taken by folkloric studies is that it attempts to document and understand the human experience of Bigfoot rather than to get bogged down in arguing the dichotomies of fact-fiction, truth-lies, “it’s real”-“it’s not” and could be of great benefit to us all (ie those of us with an interest in understanding Bigfoot)…

 

[TjW]

Since there isn't any bigfoot, perhaps you mean the human experience of pretending there's a bigfoot. Similar to the human experience of pretending there's a Santa Claus. Or the human experience of pretending there's a Tooth Fairy. Or the human experience of pretending there's a snipe that can be caught in the dark woods with a gunny sack and a candle. Or the human experience of pretending there's a spirit that appears if you say the words "Bloody Mary" some number of times.

I'm certain there are humans who are searching for an honest understanding of their experiences of all of these folkloric activities.
But without arguing the dichotomies of fact/fiction, truth/lies, "it's real"/"it's not" I have to say that I have grave doubts about either their honesty or their mental health if they're older than about twelve.

 

[dmaker]

It should not be forgotten that there ARE genuine people devoted to searching for Bigfoot and seeking an honest understanding of their experiences (albeit these would seem to be in the minority) and I don’t think it is any more helpful to dismiss them as “manipulators” or "stupid" than it is to believe them uncritically.

Aside from the casual glimpse of a deers behind, which group would this apply to? If someone is claiming the type of experience that includes an up close encounter with something that they describe in complete detail and could never be mistaken for anything else, then what understanding do they seek? It seems to me that the only two possible explanations are an elaborate hoax or a psychotic episode. If the latter then they are certainly not seeking any honest understanding. At the mere whisper of mental illness or sleep paralysis they bristle like a cornered animal.

 

[Night Walker]

I reckon that it is fairly obvious that pretend and make-believe have played significant roles in the creation and perpetuation of the Bigfoot mythos. In fact, imagination may well be the largest factor when it comes to experiencing Bigfoot but there is a dearth of material devoted to understanding it.

As for who is genuine when it comes to Bigfoot and who is not - that is often as hard to define as it is to separate belief from make-belief. ABP's ideas on manipulation are definitely applicable to many advocates but is also unfair and inaccurate to tarnish all who have had a Bigfoot experience (or all who do not fall in line with this view) with the same brush.

I don't think the "genuine" tag can be attributed to Bigfoot-groups per se simply because the history of Bigfoot-research suggests otherwise and because of the dynamics to conform that operate within those groups - even if only one of them is engaging in shenanigans then the rest are somewhat disingenuous to rule it out considering it is always a very real possibility.

But there are a small minority of individuals - witnesses and researchers - who are open in their approach and their attempts to understand their experiences. If there is some genuine phenomenon going on in regards to Bigfoot that is being overlooked then it is on these people that we need to concentrate if we want to understand Bigfoot ourselves.

Personally, I come from more of a believer-background than a skeptical one yet I have found skepticism is an infinitely better approach when it comes to understanding Bigfoot (and the paranormal in general). Those who are open about their own Bigfoot approach and experience(s) stand to gain tremendously from the skeptical approach (and in doing so we can learn from them) but we are only driving them away and ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot when our own skepticism slides into cynicism...

 

[rockinkt]

So you accuse me of “manipulation” and “projection” like other ‘footers but reject the notion that that is what you are doing as well? The beauty/ugliness of cultural prejudices/beliefs/biases is that they are relatively easy to spot in others but not so easy to identify in oneself and, like it or not (obviously not), you demonstrate it just as well as the extremists from the other side of the fence. It is apparent that such immovability cannot be reasoned with and it is unfortunate because it tends to stifle discussion rather than promote it.

Ummm...ABP gave a detailed analysis of what you were doing; and, by using your own words, showed us specific examples.
Perhaps you could grace us with the same type of explanation as to how you arrive at the conclusion that APB is operating under cultural prejudices/beliefs/biases .

To me - APB's claim that sasquatches are a social construct is based on a long time spent in the real bush and finding absolutely nothing that would make him think sasquatches could be real.
edited to add: I also think he has a firm grasp of the purported evidence and finds it totally lacking.

The approach taken by folkloric studies is that it attempts to document and understand the human experience of Bigfoot rather than to get bogged down in arguing the dichotomies of fact-fiction, truth-lies, “it’s real”-“it’s not” and could be of great benefit to us all (ie those of us with an interest in understanding Bigfoot)…

my bold

There is no "human experience of Bigfoot".
"Folkloric" is just a nice way of saying "tall tales".

 

[dmaker]

Night Walker, what do you consider a bigfoot experience to be? And how do any of the skeptical responses fail to serve those seeking honest answers?

 

[Night Walker]

You guys are all more experienced in your knowledge of the Bigfoot, in your knowledge of science and skepticism, and your debating skills than me – if you cannot examine the following response objectively and point out the logical fallacies, biases, and flaws or whatever for yourself then I am certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise:

Outstanding, thanks! Because it is a perfect example of exactly the same manipulative tactic often used by the 'footers - a type of projection where the behavior of the manipulator is projected on to the skeptic.

The first value of this tactic is to put the target on the defensive. So I am supposed to get all defensive and explain why there really is a difference between what I am doing and say - Moneymaker. But I am not going to grant you that satisfaction because I've got training in this area and relish instead identifying exactly what you are doing.

Now the first part of this statement is important because it is a form of denial. All manipulative people learn to say for example that they don't want to be unkind [followed by unkind statement] or negative [followed by negative statement].

It is a cunning tactic for the untrained, more or less to say that we should not believe what our eyes are seeing and our ears are hearing. We should believe the manipulator who promises he really has no doubt whatever that bigfoot is utter rubbish...

Then you deliver the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion: if we stick with the premise that you just delivered in the form of a denial (bigfoot is rubbish) - then how can one possibly accuse me of being the same as Matt Moneymaker? It is obviously ludicrous.

But the false conclusion you've drawn is deceptive for changing the accusation too: the stronger form delivered earlier is "ABP is the same as Moneymaker". But the mealy-mouthed conclusion is actually meaningless word salad about how we have limitations in SOME aspects of human behavior. heh.

I was not under the impression that my knowledge was infinite. lol.

What happened here is that you started off with a rhetorical question that had the premise all of us came to bigfoot under the belief that it was reasonable. I disagreed with that, and you employed what the shrinks call a "defense mechanism". You diverted us from the premise under consideration, evaded my counterpoint, and tried to put me on the defensive with the projection tactic: You're the same as Matt Moneymaker.

Finally, it takes a LOT more horsepower to deal with manipulative tactics than it does to use them. Just look at all of the writing I just did as compared to you claiming I am Matt Moneymaker reincarnated. That is one of the reasons it is so much more attractive to the lazy to be a fake bigfoot scientist than a real PhD primate field researcher. One merely takes lying and a few basic manipulative tactics. The other takes many years of difficult intellectual work.

So, thanks for playing. My point was just one example of a fact: a tremendous number of people think bigfoot is an extremely stupid belief the first time they hear of it. I don't know anyone in my circle that has a different opinion from me: not only is it stupid - but it is so far out of reality that the curiosity is why someone with any kind of woodland knowledge would be a believer.

For an example of a negative bias that you may not acknowledge just turn your attention to the title of this thread:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

Can you see it? Look again:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

“Or Worse”? Why is it “or worse”?

Role-playing and playground pretend are among the great joys of childhood so why the hell should it be considered to be the skeptical equivalent of evil incarnate in adulthood?

People generally don’t do things they consider to be wrong – its just human nature to be able to rationalise our actions no matter how extreme they may appear to others. So in this discussion about Bigfoot that focuses on role-playing and playground pretend instead of continually discussing Bigfoot in terms of negative terms – manipulation, stupidity, gullibility, dishonesty, etc, etc – how about we start by losing this negative bias and start thinking about the positives of Bigfoot (without falling into cynicism)? Try to uncover or rediscover that childhood joy of imagination and of Bigfoot that people experience (again without falling into cynicism) because perhaps something as simple as that innocent joy could well be driving the whole damn phenomenon…

 

[Resume]

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

Can you see it? Look again:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

“Or Worse”? Why is it “or worse”?

Worse would be gulling the credulous for profit. Say $300 to $500 for a weekend of woodknocking and nonsense howling in the woods.

Worse would be pandering to person's mental health problems concerning a shape-shifting bigfoot that communicates telepathically; rather than encouraging that person to seek help, these folks are often instead urged farther down the rabbit hole.

Worse would be neglecting family to pursue this crap and I am led to understand that divorce is not uncommon among the truly bigfoot bitten.

Innocent joy? I hardly think so.

ETA: Worse is perpetrating an impossible biological fantasy rather than promulgating a true understanding of the facinating biological diversity of the North American continent. We need more biologists and less cryptozoologists. The truth is important.

 

[John Nowak]

Role-playing and playground pretend are among the great joys of childhood so why the hell should it be considered to be the skeptical equivalent of evil incarnate in adulthood?

There's an enormous difference between play and self-deception.

If "squatching expeditions" were about camping trips where the guests snuck around with cameras and competed for the best photo of a guy in a bigfoot costume, nobody would have a problem with it.

But that's not what seems to be happening. Instead, you've got a large number of people who have taken their curiosity and wonder and attached it to the ridiculous notion that there's an undiscovered nine-foot hominid tramping about in North America. It's a pathetic waste.

 

[tsig]

You guys are all more experienced in your knowledge of the Bigfoot, in your knowledge of science and skepticism, and your debating skills than me – if you cannot examine the following response objectively and point out the logical fallacies, biases, and flaws or whatever for yourself then I am certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise:




For an example of a negative bias that you may not acknowledge just turn your attention to the title of this thread:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

Can you see it? Look again:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

“Or Worse”? Why is it “or worse”?

Role-playing and playground pretend are among the great joys of childhood so why the hell should it be considered to be the skeptical equivalent of evil incarnate in adulthood?

People generally don’t do things they consider to be wrong – its just human nature to be able to rationalise our actions no matter how extreme they may appear to others. So in this discussion about Bigfoot that focuses on role-playing and playground pretend instead of continually discussing Bigfoot in terms of negative terms – manipulation, stupidity, gullibility, dishonesty, etc, etc – how about we start by losing this negative bias and start thinking about the positives of Bigfoot (without falling into cynicism)? Try to uncover or rediscover that childhood joy of imagination and of Bigfoot that people experience (again without falling into cynicism) because perhaps something as simple as that innocent joy could well be driving the whole damn phenomenon…

Instead of trying to have a discussion you have decided to play the "Indignation" card.

You're right in ABP's schema.

 

[TjW]

You guys are all more experienced in your knowledge of the Bigfoot, in your knowledge of science and skepticism, and your debating skills than me – if you cannot examine the following response objectively and point out the logical fallacies, biases, and flaws or whatever for yourself then I am certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise:




For an example of a negative bias that you may not acknowledge just turn your attention to the title of this thread:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

Can you see it? Look again:

Bigfootin': Role-Playing, Playground Pretend, or Worse?

“Or Worse”? Why is it “or worse”?

Role-playing and playground pretend are among the great joys of childhood so why the hell should it be considered to be the skeptical equivalent of evil incarnate in adulthood?

People generally don’t do things they consider to be wrong – its just human nature to be able to rationalise our actions no matter how extreme they may appear to others. So in this discussion about Bigfoot that focuses on role-playing and playground pretend instead of continually discussing Bigfoot in terms of negative terms – manipulation, stupidity, gullibility, dishonesty, etc, etc – how about we start by losing this negative bias and start thinking about the positives of Bigfoot (without falling into cynicism)? Try to uncover or rediscover that childhood joy of imagination and of Bigfoot that people experience (again without falling into cynicism) because perhaps something as simple as that innocent joy could well be driving the whole damn phenomenon…

There's part of your defense mechanism kicking up again: There's nothing in the "or worse" phrase that reflects on role playing or playground pretending. But there are worse things than those things, of course.

Could it be that fraud is worse than role-playing? Yes, I believe it is. Does that somehow make role-playing a bad thing? No, it doesn't.

But you then beat up the strawman position that critics of bigfootery are somehow against imagination and the joys of childhood. Well done. Well defended.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

So you accuse me of “manipulation” and “projection” like other ‘footers but reject the notion that that is what you are doing as well? The beauty/ugliness of cultural prejudices/beliefs/biases is that they are relatively easy to spot in others but not so easy to identify in oneself and, like it or not (obviously not), you demonstrate it just as well as the extremists from the other side of the fence. It is apparent that such immovability cannot be reasoned with and it is unfortunate because it tends to stifle discussion rather than promote it.

It should not be forgotten that there ARE genuine people devoted to searching for Bigfoot and seeking an honest understanding of their experiences (albeit these would seem to be in the minority) and I don’t think it is any more helpful to dismiss them as “manipulators” or "stupid" than it is to believe them uncritically.

The approach taken by folkloric studies is that it attempts to document and understand the human experience of Bigfoot rather than to get bogged down in arguing the dichotomies of fact-fiction, truth-lies, “it’s real”-“it’s not” and could be of great benefit to us all (ie those of us with an interest in understanding Bigfoot)…

You have continued to evade and divert from having your premise soundly rejected: that we all come to bigfoot thinking it reasonable. This is obviously extremely important for you to retain despite being proven false decisively.

That is why what you are doing is manipulative. The moment you acknowledge you have been proven wrong, it would be appropriate to speak on any subject you like.

You are currently diverting us with the fallacy of "argument to moderation". The target is painted as an extreme, unreasonable person. The speaker is in the "golden middle" - unreasonable people on one end, unreasonable people at the other extreme, and the one reasonable person... the speaker.

And actually, no - you are being quite unreasonable. Because a reasonable person who asserts a premise and who is proven wrong - he acknowledges so. I welcome you to acknowledge the premise you asserted is false.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Instead of trying to have a discussion you have decided to play the "Indignation" card.

You guys are good.

More than one person has done this diversionary interference on this forum too - we're actually making very good advances in the study of bigfoot psychology. The most important technical grounds upon which we have advanced is standing on the shoulders of previous science instead of just speculating.

This application of Live Action Role Playing, and I think more specifically Alternate Reality Gaming - this is an exciting development that was not of my making. I forget who brought it up first, but boy it's lookin' good.

So the indignation card: how ironic that the speaker actually claimed I was stifling discussion when it is the speaker himself that is blowing giant columns of smoke here to throw us off the scent.

We have discussed ad nauseum, hundreds upon hundreds of pages everything EXCEPT Alternate Reality Gaming. This is the very thing that is most urgent for us to study, not returning to topics we have covered a thousand times.

Think of how unreasonable it is scientifically to demand we exclusively discuss the 1% or whatever it is of people that really believe instead of the 99% that are playing an Alternate Reality game. Our discussant is trying to paint us as crazy for wanting to discuss the 99% and pretending that we have not acknowledged the 1% over and over and over again without him here to continue repeating it.

But when you are too close to the bone...when you have hit a nerve - this is what you are going to get. It is tautological: denying that bigfoot is an Alternate Reality Game is what MAKES it an alternate reality game. lol. This premise we have proven false (Everyone comes to bigfoot thinking the belief reasonable) is antithetical to it being an Alternate Reality Game. So it is important to never concede on this.

 

[LTC8K6]

Try to uncover or rediscover that childhood joy of imagination and of Bigfoot that people experience (again without falling into cynicism) because perhaps something as simple as that innocent joy could well be driving the whole damn phenomenon…

You just can't show us the monkey, or any sign of the monkey, can you?

You'd like us to just pretend and go along, wouldn't you?

BTW, my childhood experience with bigfoot movies and books involved fear of the woods, not innocent joy, iirc.

 

[Night Walker]

Let’s be clear: I am confident that Bigfoot does not exist – there is certainly no objective evidence that indicates otherwise and lots of objective evidence to indicate that Bigfoot is a human-construct. You guys (Bigfoot-skeptics) are correct in stating Bigfoot’s tangible non-reality.

Where you guys may be wrong is in your continued insistence that those who perpetuate the Bigfoot legend are doing so for sinister and /or mentally-unhealthy reasons. If these truly be the case then where is the objective evidence to support it?

If people are paying “$300 to $500 for a weekend of woodknocking and nonsense howling in the woods” and getting ripped off then can you please direct me to evidence of all the Bigfoot-researchers who have been prosecuted for fraudulently charging innocent people to search for something which does not exist? If there are no such cases then could it perhaps be that it is in fact not wrong to do so? Is to too outrageous to consider that one’s personal objection (bias) to this may actually be faulty considering that it is objectively at odds with your own country’s legal precedents?

If Bigfooters are delusional because they claim to see that which is not there then can you please direct me to the medical records or whatever which objectively confirm that this is so? Which ones can be considered to be clinically delusional via independent and objective assessment from qualified health practitioners? It could be argued that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” but of course that is the very same argument Bigfooters use to justify their own (incorrect) position that Bigfoot is elusive (rather than illusive or allusive).

Lacking objective evidence of Bigfooters’ sinister and /or mentally-unhealthy intent is it not then inaccurate (and perhaps even more than a little disingenuous) to persist with these false arguments? If you guys are wrong in this matter then perhaps you have overlooked something simple in the Bigfoot puzzle…

Perhaps I have played the “indignation” card, do fit right in ABP’s manipulative schema, am guilty of using logical fallacies, and attempted to evade a protracted and pointless debate. If that is the case (and you all make such convincing and impassioned arguments) then I put my hand up here to confess: “Yes, guilty – that’s me or at least sounds like something I have done and would still do”.

But which of you are not guilty of the very same things as evidenced in your own position and responses? I would like to point out that not one of you was willing or able to turn your high-powered critical skills upon your own position and responses let alone to that particular response from APB which I encouraged you to do.

Not. One.

If you guys are not unduly negatively biased towards Bigfoot-enthusiasts then I ask where are all the positive Bigfoot discussions – ie about the good that can come about by searching for that which does not exist? If you are hyper-imaginative about the perceived dangers (ie no objective evidence) of Bigfooting (fraud, encouraging the deterioration of mental health, neglect of family, etc) but cannot care to think of any possible positives then are you not once again demonstrating your own negative bias in this regard along with a cognitive blindspot that prevents you from perceiving (let alone acknowledging) that you even have such biases?

If you guys are being unduly negative towards Bigfoot-enthusiasts then is it not unreasonable to ponder whether this negative bias is getting in the way of a better understanding of the Bigfoot phenomenon?

If my point of view on these matters is valid then I would relish the opportunity to see where it goes, if not then please continue to slay me with your counterpoints and my own logical fallacies and I shall withdraw chastened from this discussion with my tail fixed appropriately between my legs…

 

[manofthesea]

Thought I'd start this out to avoid derailing other threads.

So, what do youse people think?

I guess I'll add that role-playing is NAWAC-ing off while playground-pretend is having all them happy footies dancin' on the lawn.

I think that people who are obsessed with bigfoot, yet profess skepticism, also qualify as bigfooters.

So, are you role-playing, playground pretending or worse?