• 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.

BLAARGing

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
It seems like hunters would use shucked whole ears or loose kernels.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was going to be shucked before being set out in another location.

Since this occurred in Minnesota where baiting is illegal, I would think that the corn was picked and secreted in this location first before deploying. It's even possible that the corn was raided from a nearby farm.

Here's what happens if you get caught:
http://hmongtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=182&ArticleID=5158&TM=38730.57
Deer baiting is placing food near deer stands or clearings with the intent of luring a deer into close shooting range. It has been illegal to bait deer in Minnesota since 1991.

DNR conservation officers issued 166 citations and 49 warnings while confiscating 135 firearms and bows during the 2012 bow, firearms and muzzleloader big game seasons. It's the highest number of baiting citations and confiscations issued during the deer hunting seasons since the DNR began tracking these violations in 1991.

"It was apparent that a fine and forfeiture of a firearm or bow was not enough to curtail the activity," Soring said. "In order to show the seriousness of the offense, hunters are also subject to license revocation when convicted of baiting deer."

The penalties for baiting include:

• A person may not obtain any deer license or take deer under a lifetime license 1 year after the person is convicted of hunting deer with the aid or use of bait. The DNR's Electronic Licensing System (ELS) will also block a person's ability to buy a license. A second conviction within 3 years would result in a 3-year revocation.

• The revocation period doubles if the conviction is for a deer that is a trophy deer scoring higher than 170 inches.
Click to expand...

If you're witnessed hunting within sight of bait, you'll be charged.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Perhaps it was going to be shucked before being set out in another location.

Since this occurred in Minnesota where baiting is illegal, I would think that the corn was picked and secreted in this location first before deploying. It's even possible that the corn was raided from a nearby farm.

Here's what happens if you get caught:
http://hmongtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=182&ArticleID=5158&TM=38730.57


If you're witnessed hunting within sight of bait, you'll be charged.
Click to expand...

Officer, I was baiting for bigfoot, not deer.
 
Resume said:
Where's your Good-n-Plenty, son?
Click to expand...

Officer, these bigfoots don't touch candy, see here's the Field Guide (takes out book and scribbles in it furiously)

Son, I just saw you make it up and write it down.


Guess you're new to bigfootin' officer.
 
Don't think there's much to the BLAARGing thing?

Straight from the footer's . . . foot:
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50738-houston-we-have-a-bigfoot/page-2
Well, if one is unemployed, then that they would try to make $ off the show would seem to be common sense. Couldn't listen to the whiney show, its good entertainment, and there is alot of BS in this field so I'm not worried about it, except when the STORIES ARE BADLY TOLD! go ahead an LIE your buns off, but make sure there are no holes in the story please. funny, I was going to do a post a long time ago on faking BF stories, but I really felt it would not be a good road to trot down. 20/20 hindsight on that baby.
Click to expand...
ETA: There's a larger context in the thread; seems a footer podcaster was caught in a lie, and there are some amusing apologetics for the lie. Worth the read to get an idea of proponent mindset.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Don't think there's much to the BLAARGing thing?

Straight from the footer's . . . foot:
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50738-houston-we-have-a-bigfoot/page-2

ETA: There's a larger context in the thread; seems a footer podcaster was caught in a lie, and there are some amusing apologetics for the lie. Worth the read to get an idea of proponent mindset.
Click to expand...

I would agree that Bigfoot enthusiasts tell tall tales (lie) and there is quite a bit of fraud and hoaxing involved in Bigfootville, especially in the age of the internet.

But I don't think it is so overwhelming that anyone and everyone involved in Bigfootology is guilty of blaarging by association.
 
jerrywayne said:
I would agree that Bigfoot enthusiasts tell tall tales (lie) and there is quite a bit of fraud and hoaxing involved in Bigfootville, especially in the age of the internet.

But I don't think it is so overwhelming that anyone and everyone involved in Bigfootology is guilty of blaarging by association.
Click to expand...
Very few here have made that accusation.

Tell me, though, given that there is quite a bit of fraud and hoaxing, how do you determine what falls into that cateogry and what does not?
 
jerrywayne said:
But I don't think it is so overwhelming that anyone and everyone involved in Bigfootology is guilty of blaarging by association.
Click to expand...

No one here says everyone. No one here says there are no footie believers. The point of my post that you quoted was to demonstrate how difficult it is to tell the difference between BLAARGer and believer in many cases. If you're going to advise fellow footers to just make up stories (as long as they sound plausible), then folks are going to dismiss the reports out of hand.
 
Drewbot said:
There is a sub-set of Blaarging-Footers that I would call Blaarging-Dupes.

These are the sub-set of Footers who really think there is something out there, and attach themselves to Blaarger-Footers, for the sole purpose of trying to solve whatever they think they saw, or think they heard out in the woods. They are unable to cope with the idea that their minds tricked them, so they sincerely attach the Bigfoot label to their experience, with the hope of one day proving to themselves and others, that they were right, and that their mind wasn't tricking them.

They join groups, which typically contain Blaarger-Footers, and become the willing dupes of the Blaarger-Footers. NAWAC may have several Blaarger-Dupes in their group, or they may have none. The Blaarger-Dupe will go along with Blaarger-Footer scheme, even supporting it, thinking that the Blaarger-Footer is being honest with them. If a Blaarger-Footer says that a Bigfoot must have thrown that rock, then the Blaarger-Dupe will accept that explanation, simply because the Blaarger-Footer would not be lying to them. The Blaarger-Dupe will echo the findings of the Blaarger-Footer, with no intention of being dishonest, which distinguishes the Dupe from the Blaarger-Footer. The Blaarger-dupe sincerely thinks he is working toward the resolution of something that haunts him in some way.

Hash this out and see if I'm on to something.
Click to expand...

I would call these folks True Believers.
 
Resume said:
Don't think there's much to the BLAARGing thing?

Straight from the footer's . . . foot:
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50738-houston-we-have-a-bigfoot/page-2

ETA: There's a larger context in the thread; seems a footer podcaster was caught in a lie, and there are some amusing apologetics for the lie. Worth the read to get an idea of proponent mindset.
Click to expand...

Wag can't stand the fact that these Bigfoot idols are getting caught in their lies. He/she even wants to teach people how to lie properly, which isn't even realistic because when you spend hours talking BS on a podcast, there's going to be obvious holes in the stories you tell.

It seems like the BFF is one really messed up internet forum. Whoever it is that makes the decisions there obviously isn't doing anything about the hoaxers and the people who openly support them. I can't really blame them though, because if they were to clean up the place, there would be hardly anyone left to entertain the credulous/gullible proponents.
 
The Shrike said:
Please find us someone who does think this so that there can be a justification for this thread.
Click to expand...

You are correct in your implication. I apologize. I should be more nuanced. Yes, WP allows that some Bigfoot sightings may be hallucinations and misinterpretations of hunters, while the majority of sighters are blaarging and we cannot trust anything any Bigfoot enthusiast tell us. Yes, Alaska is now falling all over himself asserting to one and all that skeptics here explain Bigfootville by appealing to a beautiful array of possible explanations (although his one-note, "it's all a con job" analysis is just about all he posts). Yes River has his three point explanation for Bigfootville, with sincere Bigfooters coming in a distant third (but, hey, he at least mentions them). Yes, you Shrike always protest that there is more substance to blaargist skeptics than just calling people liars, but you choose not to exercise those other options too much (or at all) when dealing with specific Bigfooters. Etc., etc.

Come on guys. Give us some analysis that doesn't rely on the blaarging meme.
 
jerrywayne said:
You are correct in your implication. I apologize. I should be more nuanced. Yes, WP allows that some Bigfoot sightings may be hallucinations and misinterpretations of hunters, while the majority of sighters are blaarging and we cannot trust anything any Bigfoot enthusiast tell us. Yes, Alaska is now falling all over himself asserting to one and all that skeptics here explain Bigfootville by appealing to a beautiful array of possible explanations (although his one-note, "it's all a con job" analysis is just about all he posts). Yes River has his three point explanation for Bigfootville, with sincere Bigfooters coming in a distant third (but, hey, he at least mentions them). Yes, you Shrike always protest that there is more substance to blaargist skeptics than just calling people liars, but you choose not to exercise those other options too much (or at all) when dealing with specific Bigfooters. Etc., etc.

Come on guys. Give us some analysis that doesn't rely on the blaarging meme.
Click to expand...
Try the other way around. Tell us how to distinguish one from the other.
 
Wow, this thread is tedious and confusing to follow.

Okay, let me get this straight: the claim is being made that some people who portray themselves as Bigfoot enthusiasts, "researchers", or just general "believers", are actually skeptics who are misrepresenting themselves, pretending to "believe in" bigfoot for japes or some other frivolous motivation. Is that correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom