How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

[HarryHenderson]

 

[tsig]

I'm with Dinwar on this issue.

Let's argue the issues and arguments revealed and used by Bigfoot enthusiasts. Skeptics here have been masterful over the years in addressing such topics. For instance, Kit and Parcher's examination of alleged Bigfoot trackways in Northern California in the late 1950s is the way to do it. They presented what was needed: a rigorous debunking of a plank in the Bigfoot story.

Nowadays, though, there does seem to be an over-reliance here on the fraud and dishonesty that is undeniable in Bigfootery and using it as a virtual go-to explanation for all things relating to the Bigfoot phenomenon. For instance, not only is Dyer a liar and Standing a hoaxer (and both obviously so), but Meldrum or Bindernagel or anyone that touches the subject is often dismissed as a knowing liar too. Bigfoot proponents come to the skeptics here and we admirably argue with them; then if they don't admit to their errors in reason, some skeptical posters invariably pull out the “you are lying” card and play it.

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? Well, our poster from Alaska has challenged me to produce the name of just one Bigfoot advocate who really believes in Bigfoot. Sounds like HE doesn't believe there are any real True Believers in the pro-Bigfoot camp. The Shrike seems to think an advocate like Meldrum is in it dishonesty because he is not rationally consistent. Parcher has said he assumes any “eyewitness” is lying; it is WP's first option. River has offered that Bigfoot itself is human hoaxing/fabrication/lying and delusion and just “occasionally” misidentification.

Maybe we have different goals here. Once. I reasoned that the Ruby Creek sighting, an early plank in the sasquatch story, was a bear encounter. I was told it was pointless to “shoehorn” a bear into a Bigfoot sighting; another poster offered that a better explanation was to assume it was all just a lie to begin with. One poster even wondered why I felt it was necessary to explain a Bigfoot sighting at all.

For me, I want to explore why, when I was a little kid, no one had any idea that America was home to indigenous, anomalous, giant bipedal apes, and now thousands of people claim to see these apes all over the U.S. and thousands more give the idea of native apes credence. How did this idea, this belief, come about? What's behind it? How did this phenomenon evolve? For instance, how different would things be today if John Green didn't believe two tall tales (Roe and Ostman) and had recognized a bear encounter made into a sasquatch event by Indian superstition at Ruby Creek? And as a former believer, I know what it's like to hold a belief in Bigfoot. I know to dismiss my belief as a knowing lie on my part is bogus as an explanation. I extrapolate my experience to the phenomenon as a whole.

Dinwar's call for rigorous examination of the arguments put forth by Bigfoot advocates is noncontroversial, or ought not be. As a side benefit, perhaps it would help articulate why people believe in such things. And his criticism of the overuse of the “fraud and lying” explanation for Bigfootery has more merit than folks here care to recognize.

People believe such things because humans are poor fact checkers and can compartmentalize their thoughts.

 

[The Shrike]

Jerry, please provide an example of a specific bigfooty claim that you feel hasn't been critically evaluated.

Be aware, as I'm sure you are, that some form of dishonesty associated with the claim is a valid hypothesis to be tested, and that it will be a vastly more likely explanation than "real bigfoot".

 

[Resume]

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? Well, our poster from Alaska has challenged me to produce the name of just one Bigfoot advocate who really believes in Bigfoot.

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?

 

[EHocking]

Indeed.

I've now had a chance to read the article. For those interested in the Cliff Notes version, the authors (Senter and Klein) conducted a morphological analysis of seven centuries'-old illustrations of "dragons". I think two of them are alleged to have been drawn by an individual examining an actual specimen; the remaining five were copies of those original illustrations.

Senter and Klein treated these illustrations as depicting chimeras. They apparently made the assumption that the chimeras actually existed and were examined by the two first-person illustrators, as opposed to simply having been concocted in the minds of the illustrators themselves. Sloppy . . . <snip>

I was struck by the same conclusion.

The authors, rather than applying scientific rigour, accept anecdotes as evidence that their source was

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). The illustration of the specimen that Centensis gave him is therefore likely painted directly from the original specimen.​

The "debunkers" here are using scans or similar of the first hand evidence of the PGF images, and indeed go to great lengths to determine the provenance of the images used.
And yet the OP determines that this paper, which relies entirely on anecdotal evidence, is the benchmark to which we should

The other thing that struck me in this paper is that the authors then "analayse" 2nd or 3rd hand artistic representations as though it was first-hand observations of a specimen. Anyone who is a fan of old wildlife prints will realise that representations of fauna from this era and even later in the 18th and 19th century, are notoriously poor at capturing the true likeness of an animal, especially if that animal is new to the artist.

Here another drawing of an actual animal, done by the same source of the dragon illustration.

I dare anyone to identify this animal just from the anatomical representation above.

Hyena.

The authors (for expediency of the debunk rather than the application of scientific rigour) treat the illustrations as though they are photographs of original specimens and declare definitively that the make up of these creatures depicted are;

decapitated snakes with attached mammal heads. Their wings are the pectoral fins of flying gurnards (Dactylopterus volitans). Their “legs” are the forelimbs of rabbits or canids in reptile-skin sleeves. ...includes the skull of a weasel (Mustela nivalis), the belly skin of a snake, the dorsal and lateral skin of a lizard, and the tail skeleton of an eel (Anguilla anguilla).​

Where the depiction in the illustration does not fit with their definitive conclusion? They declare a solution with no other explanation other than, "we said so".

...its absence in the illustrations can be explained by its having been clipped off...​

The OP fails on these two points: false premise that bigfoot claims have not received actual, critical scrutiny and strawman fallacy that some of us attribute "all" bigfoot claims to lies.

The funny thing is, especially on the second point, is that the paper put forward to rub "our" collective noses in our a priori position actually starts from an a priori position that they are analysing a hoax.

 

[The Shrike]

Civet or genet. Now I'll check the "spoiler" thing . . .


. . . Ha ha! I didn't get it.

 

[Northern Lights]

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? Well, our poster from Alaska has challenged me to produce the name of just one Bigfoot advocate who really believes in Bigfoot. Sounds like HE doesn't believe there are any real True Believers in the pro-Bigfoot camp.

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

 

[dmaker]

^ Yes, you have. I think it is generally believed that the person responsible for discovering bigfoot would reap a hefty amount of fame and fortune. You have expressed financial obligation such as paying for a childs college tuition. You also claim bigfoot contact on more than one occasion in a certain area within several hours drive. Yet you make no serious attempt to reap the rewards of being the person who brings proof of bigfoot. You also claim to perceive no threat to public safety posed by a population of 9 foot carnivorous primates. You alert no authorities to this potential danger.

Sorry, but I cannot help but doubt your sincerity.

 

[tsig]

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

You tell us that you were within a few feet of a candy throwing bigfoot but all you did was sit by the fire.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

NL, remember that "wolf expert" you spun a yarn about? Brilliant, that.

 

[EHocking]

Civet or genet. Now I'll check the "spoiler" thing . . .


. . . Ha ha! I didn't get it.

And yet, in paper cited by the OP as rigourous and scientific, the authors claim that,

The drawings and descriptions are detailed enough to test the pterosaur hypothesis as well as the alternative hypothesis that the specimens are taxidermic composites of parts of different animals​

They go on to definitively ID these composite parts.
Despite not even being able to use their illustrations to identify an actual animal from the illustration of it's physical characteristics.

I think that the authors' "scientific rigour" was more akin to a proponent's attempts at BF science than the rigour that has been demonstrated by the majority of skeptics on these forums.

 

[William Parcher]

Civet or genet.

I guessed the exact same thing. Well, actually civet alone was my guess.

We don't know what the hell happened, but it's possible that the artist had an African civet right there in front of them but either thought or was told that it was a hyena. There are other variations as well that could lead to a drawn creature that is basically proper but with an improper name given in the caption or text.

This one is not terribly different but it does get the name correct...

 

[The Shrike]

I think that the authors' "scientific rigour" was more akin to a proponent's attempts at BF science than the rigour that has been demonstrated by the majority of skeptics on these forums.

Agreed. The authors could have quit while they were ahead and simply demonstrated the multiple inconsistencies with pterosaur morphology. They don't really go off the rails until they try to pigeonhole individual components as pieces of other animals.

 

[EHocking]

Agreed. The authors could have quit while they were ahead and simply demonstrated the multiple inconsistencies with pterosaur morphology. They don't really go off the rails until they try to pigeonhole individual components as pieces of other animals.

The OP's claim is pretty much refuted IMO.

...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.

 

[River]

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

The candy tossing bigfoot is pretty ridiculous, you have to admit that. A huge beast that remains undiscovered throughout mans history, throws candy at you and no one can find the beast. Only the candy it tosses. Sounds legit. You've made claims of encountering the beast multiple times, as an amateur ("insert important title here") yet this huge, candy tossing beast remains undiscovered to the world of science. Almost as if it only existed in the minds of those who play along...

So yeah, if you can truly believe a huge, undiscovered primate is roaming around tossing candy at you, yet remains unclassified... I have a very hard time taking you/that seriously. If you truly believe, you may fit into the deluded category of what bigfoot truly is.

 

[GT/CS]

The candy tossing bigfoot is pretty ridiculous, you have to admit that. A huge beast that remains undiscovered throughout mans history, throws candy at you and no one can find the beast. Only the candy it tosses. Sounds legit. You've made claims of encountering the beast multiple times, as an amateur ("insert important title here") yet this huge, candy tossing beast remains undiscovered to the world of science. Almost as if it only existed in the minds of those who play along...

So yeah, if you can truly believe a huge, undiscovered primate is roaming around tossing candy at you, yet remains unclassified... I have a very hard time taking you/that seriously. If you truly believe, you may fit into the deluded category of what bigfoot truly is.

Plus you want to charge people to go camping in your bigfoot territory.
No, you're not a believer, just another huckster.

 

[Resume]

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

That you imagine the best explanation for a random Good-N-Plenty is footie done it, that your discovery of corn for deer baiting is interpreted as a footie corn cache leads me to believe that at mininum you are deceiving yourself in favor of the bigfoot conclusion.

 

[William Parcher]

your discovery of corn for deer baiting

Resume, do you have any evidence that a six-foot tall pile of corn was discovered by Northern Lights?

 

[Resume]

Resume, do you have any evidence that a six-foot tall pile of corn was discovered by Northern Lights?

Nope. Nor do I have evidence of a Good-N-Plenty, tossed or not.

ETA: There might have been a photo of the alleged flying candy, now that I think about it; perhaps not.

 

[William Parcher]

Nope.

What has caused you to refer to the corn pile as if it were a fact?