• 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.

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

William Parcher said:
What has caused you to refer to the corn pile as if it were a fact?
Click to expand...

I find it an amusing assertion: That a pile of corn in a deer hunting area could be promoted as a footie food stash rather than the much more obvious deer bait, which is what it is, if in fact it was. It's almost as if these folks never get out.
 
Last edited:
"Do skeptics here really believe almost all Bigfoot phenomena is attributable to knowing lies and fraud/hoaxing, just liars lying to other liars and no one really believing any of it?"

I am one of those that have pushed this idea. My quick and easy test for lying is when someone claims a detailed siting. A detailed siting means it is not a misidentification - so when someone claims to have seen one - they are lying. Regardless of what George Kastanza says, even if they "believe it," they are lying. The "grey area" is when someone says they believe, but have yet to have a "confirmed" siting. IMO most of these are also game players... a few are dupes. It is all just a SNIPE HUNT taken to the extreme.


"How about me? Have I ever written anything on these forums that would be considered that I don't believe?"-NL

Technically - you are still in the "grey area" - I don't recall a detailed siting, but you claim to be convinced that you saw one in a thermal. Of course, the record button wasn't working or the batteries went out, so it is only a story.

Like so many ALL others to date - there is either some excuse for why you don't have "THE EVIDENCE" or you have "THE EVIDENCE" but are keeping it secret for now.

I again reference an old post on the BFF: in summary, the guy investigated many bigfoot sitings. Two of them were victims of a known hoax, 1 of them mis-identified a bear track and the rest admitted they were just making it up once they were challenged.

Addressing all of the stories only feeds the game. I see very little to make me consider that the majority of people who are active in Footin' really believe it.
 
Regardless of the proportion of alleged encounters that are fabricated or genuinely related, the heart of this thread concerns the "rigor" invested in addressing bigfooty claims. The linked paper is held up as an ideal of that rigor, but the analysis therein is actually quite superficial. The authors examined stylized illustrations of "dragons" and visually compared apparent features in the illustrations to known morphology of pterosaurs (to rule them out) and to pieces of several extant creatures (to rule them in, i.e., to speculate on the animals that were used to create the chimaeras apparently depicted in the illustrations).

The premise fails in comparison to what is actually greater rigor regularly on display here and from bigfoot skeptics elsewhere. For example, how would folks rate the rigor invested in the OP paper compared to that invested by folks here on items like the Skookum Cast, Jacobs' Creature, or PGF?

The best bigfoot analogy I can come up with for a direct comparison to the OP would be comparative anatomy speculation leveled against Myrtle Roe's sketch of the creature her dad William claimed to have seen in 1958. It's an illustration of something someone once claimed to have seen.

From my knowledge of comparative anatomy, I have rejected the hypothesis that Roe saw a pterosaur. But what did he see? Did he see anything at all? Was he hallucinating, yarn-spinning, misidentifying something else, or did he encounter a real bigfoot?

The best we can do to match the rigor we're supposed to be applying is propose parts of the image that might match known animals. Here's one. I find the thickness and shape of the neck on Roe's bigfoot to look a lot like that of a grizzly bear, and the way the bear in the photo is holding its wrists could be construed as the shape of big, pendulous breasts in profile. The dished face and odd "smile" on the bigfoot are kind of ursid, too.

So IF Roe saw anything at all, I think a decent case can be made that he saw a grizzly bear, misconstrued some things, and let his faulty memory fill in details of things he didn't actually witness.

How's that? Rigorous enough?
 
The Shrike said:
So IF Roe saw anything at all, I think a decent case can be made that he saw a grizzly bear, misconstrued some things, and let his faulty memory fill in details of things he didn't actually witness.

How's that? Rigorous enough?
Click to expand...
But within seconds of seeing a grizzly standing upright it will drop to all-fours and start walking or just stay there. At that instant you see a bear regardless of how "Bigfootish" it looked when standing.

IMO, any really honest mistakes (misidentification) of seeing a Bigfoot are most predominantly when a person sees another person, and not some other animal. Is there any reason why Roe could not have seen a person and then mistakenly (but honestly) described it as an upright hairy apeman?
 
Realizing he had stumbled on something of great scientific interest, Roe leveled his rifle at the creature to kill it; however, he changed his mind because he felt it was human. In the distance, the creature threw its head back on two occasions and emitted a peculiar noise that Roe described as “half laugh and half language.”
Click to expand...
Out of the mouth of a grizzly bear? And it was walking away bipedally after seeing him.


Roe’s examination of feces in the area, which he believed was from the creature, convinced him that it was strictly vegetarian.
Click to expand...
Like any good Bigfooter, Roe had no evidence to show, only a story of once seeing the poop of a hairy ape.
 
But nevermind my musings about Roe making an honest mistake. I firmly believe that his encounter was a fabrication.
 
While not profound, the OP exposes the reality of something the entire underlying premise of science itself tries so hard to avoid, human fallibility. Had Dinwar done a little more "rigorous" investigation himself, say like reading some of these threads further back than just 3 months, he'd have "got" numerous things about how it really is here, including the clue that he was "the newbie" (in this area of discussion) and that in fact WE, more than most any other agency of any affiliation, treat all Bigfoot claims with the required skepticism, but not in a thousand years would we be so arrogant as to not admit "defeat" the literal second some smiley dude from Kentucky in a '74 Pacer drags in an actual beast worthy of the designation Bigfoot. In the meantime, everything short of that degree of "proof" will be pointed and giggled at like it's always been until it bleeds the truth. I'm just not sure how much more honest we could be.

It's as if he picked the literal opposite group he should have to accuse of such. :boggled:
 
Dinwar said:
The big thing here these days seems to be cryptids (and more specifically bigfoot). I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds, and for actually looking at the claims. Apparently, this is not how one is "supposed" to do such research.

Well, it turns out that my methodology is the correct one.

A recent article in Paleontologia Electronica discusses three ancient cryptids, specifically late-surviving pterosaurs. The conclusion is pretty obvious from the start--none of these were real--but the methodology is the part that's important. These researchers actually took the time to analyze the claims, and to assess the evidence in a rigorous and scientific manner.

The benefit of doing so is twofold. First, the advocates of late-surviving pterosaurs now have to fight this battle on the proper field: peer-reviewed literature, where experts assess the data and everything is in the open. It's not that the authors don't allow for criticism--in fact, the peer review process demands critical review, it's built in. Rather, it puts everyone on a level playing field. Second, it demonstrates proper scientific analysis at the same time that it rips apart an absurd claim. This not only demonstrates the cryptids to be false, but it also demonstrates how to go about assessing data on one's own. It can serve as an introduction to proper methods for evaluating claims among the cryptid community, where as "All bigfoot advocates are liars and frauds" can't.

Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things. I've got two books on dragon taxonomy; it's sometimes fun to do something entirely frivolous in a very serious manner. And frankly, if you don't like research, don't go into science or involve yourself in scientific discussions.

This article is doing what this website proports to do, but it does so far, far better. It is the standard we should aspire to.
Click to expand...

Dinwar said:
~sigh~ I'm done. I really am. Apparently discussing rhetorical tactics is beyond folks here.
Click to expand...

Drewbot said:
This is called a Rage-Quit.
You need not address any more questions to Dinwar.
Click to expand...

He started out telling us how dumb we were and got mad when we wouldn't agree with him.
 
EHocking said:
Here another drawing of an actual animal, done by the same source of the dragon illustration.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26615483a08a282fa.jpg[/qimg]
I dare anyone to identify this animal just from the anatomical representation above.
Hyena.
Click to expand...

Who did that illustration of a hyena? What's your source for it?

Most Pierre Belon's illustrations are very good. As is his 1557 illustration of a hyena...

I can't find anything on Francisco Centensis or his illustrations...
 
Dinwar said:
The big thing here these days seems to be cryptids (and more specifically bigfoot). I have been criticized for having the audacity to not assume all claims come from frauds, and for actually looking at the claims.
Click to expand...

No, the audacity is in this lie right here. Lol - talk about standards we should aspire to! Haw!

It is audacious because of how often this lame strawman is trotted out, debunked, and trotted out again as if it had never been seen before.

Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Gaming is defined by this very behavior: assume a false alternate reality and play the role you have assigned yourself.

The BLAARGing rule we as skeptics must always keep in mind is that the person playing the game knows he is lying. Nobody knows better than he does. But he can never admit to this. It is tautological: Alternate reality gaming differs from live action role playing. In Alternate Reality gaming we never admit we are playing a game.

We see this incessant straw man peculiar to a few posters. It is an odd thing to see them so obsessed with this straw man. It is to the point of definitional with them: a skeptic is a person who believes that all bigfoot claims are lies, not one exception since the beginning of time. lol.

And you have to ask why. It always comes back to duper's delight. If you buy into a troll's con game, he wins in his world of "I'm smarter than you because I can deceive you". I may not win arguments, but I can affect you emotionally. I can piss you off, I can make you defensive, etc.

The way you analyze not just cryptid assertions, but almost anyone participating in a cryptid discussion is by who is using emotional manipulation vs. who is not. It is fascinating that skeptics for a long time bought into the con games of cryptid peddlers and argued with them as if they were actually serious about their claims. They also bought into a really common BLAARGING role of the "true skeptic", the "golden mean" and its variants.

Talk about futility. Just like your opening straw man - you don't believe that yourself. Multiple people asking you to substantiate that claim have been ignored, the abusive tactic of selective attention. That is the purpose of the OP - to be abusive and seek enjoyment out of it. Slapping people in the face and then telling them what behavior they should aspire to. A person with this insight can understand what a kick a person with this kind of mentality gets out of it.
 
Last edited:
Night Walker said:
Who did that illustration of a hyena? What's your source for it?
Click to expand...
The answer was in the post you actually quote.
Here another drawing of an actual animal, done by the same source of the dragon illustration.​
But it looks like my 16th c French isn't up to par.
This would seem to be an animal that was formerly called a Hyena?

Anyone?
https://books.google.com.au/books/r...rintsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA110

Regardless, the authors are using 3rd hand (at best) illustrations as though they were photographic representations of an actual specimen of a dragon.
 
EHocking said:
But it looks like my 16th c French isn't up to par.
This would seem to be an animal that was formerly called a Hyena?
Click to expand...

So the illustration of Bellon's "hyena" that you provided was probably known at the time as being a "hyena" (like WP said above) but was probably a civet - if so, it is a pretty good likeness:

vhgpk0.jpg


The question, then, becomes whether or not the "dragon" illustrations were drawn from direct observation. The authors make the case that two illustrations were first-hand:

In 1557 French naturalist Pierre Belon published a book of drawings of organisms that he had seen during a voyage to various parts of the Middle East (Belon, 1557). He included those drawings in a subsequent book in which he described the journey and the people, animals, and plants that he encountered (Belon, 1588). In Egypt he saw “bodies, embalmed and all complete, of certain winged serpents, which had feet, that they say fly from the part of Arabia in Egypt, of which one can see a portrait above...” (Belon 1588, translated from French by P.S.). His drawing, published in both the 1557 and the 1588 books, is reproduced here (Figure 1.1).

Belon is regarded as one of the forefathers of comparative anatomy - is there anything to suggest that he was prone to make up facts to suit?

Aldrovandi had his illustrators produce a series of paintings of which line-drawing copies were included in his books. This series of paintings, which is now called the Tavole di animali, remains unpublished in print, but photos of the entire collection are now posted online (Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna, 2013). Painting 140 of volume 4 of the Tavole (Figure 1.4) is of a specimen that Aldrovandi described, with an accompanying drawing (Figure 1.5), in Serpentum et Draconum Historiae (Aldrovandi, 1640). According to Aldrovandi’s description, “in the year of our Lord 1600, a true mummified African [ aethiopicus : in reference to lands south of Egypt] dragon was given as gift by Francisco Centensis to the most illustrious Ulisse Aldrovandi...it had, moreover, five prominent and conspicuous protuberances on its back, which were lacking in the dragon of Belon; it also had two feet armed with claws, and was depicted with small ears. The entire body was decorated with green and blackish scales. It bore two wings suitable for flying, and a long and flexible tail, straight with dull yellow scales, such as were visible on the stomach and throat. The mouth was armed with sharp teeth. The lower part of the head was flat next to the small ears. The pupils of the eyes were black with a pale yellow circle. Finally, the two nostrils were visible and open” (Aldrovandi, 1640, translated from Latin by D.K.).

Aldrovandi insisted that his illustrators illustrate specimens directly, depicting what they saw in front of them so as to ensure accuracy rather than taking artistic liberties (Olmi, 2007)

I can't find anything on Francisco Centensis but, given that there was a tradition of skillful taximdermic fabrications, it is not unreasonable that both these illustrations were, indeed, drawn from direct observation (and the other illustrations were copied from the originals). And if that is the case, then the authors take the next reasonable step in attempting to identify the component parts of the chimera...

Surely, that is better than simply dismissing all the illustrations as being fictional from the start...
 
Night Walker said:
Surely, that is better than simply dismissing all the illustrations as being fictional from the start...
Click to expand...

From the start, probably not, but it should be a recognized alternate explanation.

If we assume that physical specimens were drawn from direct observation, we still lack the ability to gauge how accurately they were rendered. For example, are we to believe that the dragons' tails ended in coils as pictured? If not, then we recognize that there is artistic license on display in those illustrations which makes matching their component anatomy to known animals even more problematic.
 
The Shrike said:
From the start, probably not, but it should be a recognized alternate explanation.
Click to expand...

Not if there already existed a tradition of taxidermic fabrications at the time (there was) and if there is some reasonable historical provenance for how the illustrations originated (there is)…

The Shrike said:
If we assume that physical specimens were drawn from direct observation, we still lack the ability to gauge how accurately they were rendered. For example, are we to believe that the dragons' tails ended in coils as pictured? If not, then we recognize that there is artistic license on display in those illustrations which makes matching their component anatomy to known animals even more problematic.
Click to expand...

We are able to gauge Belon’s skill and accuracy by examining his other illustrations – they are generally very good and Belon is well respected among the pantheon of comparative anatomists…
 
Resume said:
Yes, and one that you provided, the person that posts as SweetSuziQ at the BFF told quite an interesting dogman story, one that changed with each telling. Do you think she was being completely honest? Additionally, do you think she was being completely honest in her advocacy of the dogman vs bigfoot war discussed in a thread that was eventually suspended? Will you ever answer my question regarding belief, delusion, and dishonesty, how all three can be part and parcel of a proponent's psychological profile?
Click to expand...

I've been away from BFF for a while so I can't address your specific questions. From the SweetSuziQ I saw at BFF and elsewhere, I would say she believes every bit of what she says she does.

I would agree that belief, delusion, and dishonesty can co-exist in the same individual. I had thought you were making distinctions between individuals who claim sightings, such as some are delusional and some are dishonest and a few are sincere, but mistaken, true believers. I thought you were overloading sightings in the dishonest/delusional category.

Unless I'm misunderstanding comments made over threads and time, I am saying that the idea overused here is that virtually everyone who claims a sighting or says they believe sighting accounts, or say that they accept various track finds as real, or fill books with arguments meant to convince people that Bigfoot are real, etc., are KNOWINGLY lying. By that I mean, they lied when they claimed to have seen a Bigfoot, they lied when they say Bigfoot sighting reports convinced them, they lied when they claim they are convinced that tracks are good evidence, they understood they lie when they write books and arguments to give credence to Bigfoot.

If I'm right about the overuse of the "lie meme" here (or am I just LYING about the "lie meme), I think what is happening here is reflective of a cyber short cut to argumentation as well as a mirror of larger society. It seems that everywhere you look nowadays, people are calling other people liars. This is especially true in the sphere of politics. Remember when Pres. Obama was giving a state of the union address early on in his first term and a Republican congressman yelled out "You lie"? Facebook memes abound with this sort of thing from all political points of view.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom