How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

[jerrywayne]

I read it. It's a classic example of bigfoot science.

I also commented on some of that bigfoot science in a post here.

RayG

Yes. There is Creation Science and there is Bigfoot Science.

Meldrum = Duane Gish

Ketchum = Ken Ham.

Bindernagel = Irwin Corey.

 

[jerrywayne]

I read it. It's a classic example of bigfoot science.

I also commented on some of that bigfoot science in a post here.

RayG

Ray, I read your post and it was excellent.

This has given me an idea. Would it be feasible to create a closed thread that would be the exclusive domain of single "greatest hits" posts from past threads concerning Bigfoot? This would allow any researcher or other interested parties easy access to skeptical critiques without wading through endless threads full of chatter.

Just a thought.

 

[Resume]

Ray, I read your post and it was excellent.

This has given me an idea. Would it be feasible to create a closed thread that would be the exclusive domain of single "greatest hits" posts from past threads concerning Bigfoot? This would allow any researcher or other interested parties easy access to skeptical critiques without wading through endless threads full of chatter.

Just a thought.

Who separates the chatter from critique?

 

[The Shrike]

^Therein lies the problem. Ray's quick and dirty critique of LMS is excellent. It's also 5 years old. The negative reviews on Amazon date back to 2007, when the book was published. Bigfoot skeptics were lambasting Meldrum in 2003 when the LMS documentary aired. I think I started in active bigfoot skepticism online in the late '90s. The information is out there for those willing to seek it.

Meanwhile, all this Meldrum talk is probably misplaced in this thread. If folks want to continue to discuss Meldrum and/or LMS, I recommend we take the conversation to the Meldrum ("America's Bigfoot Professor") thread.

 

[jerrywayne]

Who separates the chatter from critique?

I would nominate Shrike, Ray, and Dinwar, with majority rule.

BTW, it would not be difficult to separate chatter from more substantive posts. Ray's post would be a good measuring post.

The fact that Ray's post is 5 years old is not a reason to argue against my proposal. If anything, a stand alone thread devoted to the best of skeptical critiques would perpetually keep worthwhile comments from fading away.

 

[dmaker]

I would love to have the opportunity to read such a thread.

 

[Resume]

I would nominate Shrike, Ray, and Dinwar, with majority rule.

BTW, it would not be difficult to separate chatter from more substantive posts. Ray's post would be a good measuring post.

The fact that Ray's post is 5 years old is not a reason to argue against my proposal. If anything, a stand alone thread devoted to the best of skeptical critiques would perpetually keep worthwhile comments from fading away.

Yes, I aree. Here is my favorite critique regarding proponent's co-opting Native American narrative and tradition.

. . . apoplectic that someone would dare question the validity of the sacred bigfoot stories handed down unbroken from the chick on the Land O' Lakes butter carton

Simple, succinct, to the point, funny as ****. We can't overlook these.

 

[Carlotta]

I would nominate Shrike, Ray, and Dinwar, with majority rule.

BTW, it would not be difficult to separate chatter from more substantive posts. Ray's post would be a good measuring post.

The fact that Ray's post is 5 years old is not a reason to argue against my proposal. If anything, a stand alone thread devoted to the best of skeptical critiques would perpetually keep worthwhile comments from fading away.

It seems to me that back in the peak of the PGF endless threads, tube had a lot to say about footprints and how he experimented with different stompers. Yes, been lurking a long time.
I still miss Creekfreak. He wasn't even worng! I always wanted to know if he talked like he spelled; has he ever posted a video somewhere?

 

[HarryHenderson]

It seems to me that back in the peak of the PGF endless threads, tube had a lot to say about footprints and how he experimented with different stompers. Yes, been lurking a long time.
I still miss Creekfreak. He wasn't even worng! I always wanted to know if he talked like he spelled; has he ever posted a video somewhere?

The irony police usually ticket that blatant of an offender.

 

[Night Walker]

He seems to have been a stickler for only illustrating things he examined personally.

What is your source for that statement? Imaginative extrapolation?

Belon's "Sea Monk" was drawn from anecdotal descriptions not direct observation - http://www.zmuc.dk/commonweb/JOURNALS/PDF/Vol29-1/Paxton&Holland.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Belon’s depiction of the sea monk provides a fascinating insight into an intellectual world in transition. Rigorous, objective approaches to the study of the natural world for its own sake were developing, alongside a persistent belief in the symbolic, spiritual or occult qualities of animals. The choice made by Belon and his contemporaries not to eject dubious, fantastical creatures from their own published works reveals their trust in the scientific method, as well as something about their conceptions of logic, proof, and the notion of possibility. http://www.ccc.ox.ac.uk/data/uploads/libraryblog/De aquatilibus web version.pdf

 

[The Shrike]

What is your source for that statement? Imaginative extrapolation?

Belon's "Sea Monk" was drawn from anecdotal descriptions not direct observation - http://www.zmuc.dk/commonweb/JOURNALS/PDF/Vol29-1/Paxton&Holland.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Yes, you're right about the sea monk! I did find two sources while learning about Belon yesterday that mentioned his desire to only illustrate from direct observation. One was in regard to his ornithology text in which he omitted several species that he had not directly observed. If you need me to find those specific sources I can, but they're not at my fingertips right now.

 

[The Shrike]

It seems to me that back in the peak of the PGF endless threads, tube had a lot to say about footprints and how he experimented with different stompers.

Pithy quips about butter advertising notwithstanding, I am not worthy of the pantheon of bigfoot skeptics here before me.

 

[Cervelo]

I'm not so sure Meldrum is quite all in with Standing just yet. But even if he is, I still think you are short-changing the True Believer aspect of it. True Believers believe all kinds of things not cogent to non-True Believers. Even scientists (see Duane Gish).

I have gone to the woods on many occasions. I've looked around, if I remembered to, to see if I could find dead or detached tree limbs in odd, apparently placed positions. And old deer blinds. No luck. I've looked up Scouting sites on the web and have found photos of makeshift shelters, but nothing like the things Bigfooters claim are Bigfoot related. We are assuming the answers are there. I just haven't seen anything definitive.

Not sure what part of the world your looking but in Va I could show you "bigfoot tree stuff" all day long.

 

[Belz...]

That is the proper way to do it but dismissing bigfoot claims out of hand saves a lot of time and has a 100% accuracy rate so far.

Precisely. Experience saves a lot of time. So when someone tells you they speak to god, you just laugh at them and say "sure you do, friend. Sure you do.", nod and walk away.

 

[Belz...]

This statement would be true for "Bigfoot claims can be dismissed because the voices in my head say so" as well. Proper methodology trumps accuracy every time. The logic is simple: proper methodology includes mechanisms for self-correction.

Well yeah, obviously. However, how long are we supposed to debunk the claims of bigfoot, which have been around for centuries, I might add ? At some point I just handwave those away and say "bring some real evidence and we'll talk."

 

[jerrywayne]

Not sure what part of the world your looking but in Va I could show you "bigfoot tree stuff" all day long.

I know. I remember you posting an interesting video at BFF to that affect. However, if I remember correctly, you could not definitive explain what caused the pseudo-"bigfoot tree stuff."

While I doubt Bigfoot exist, I do not think it is thoroughly impossible. I guess that is difference between my position and the position of other skeptics here and the cause of disagreement.

If you think Bigfoot is absolutely impossible, then all "stick structures" are non-Bigfoot related by definition. Hence, no need to really get out in the field to document the origin of such structures.

I understand that position. But to Bigfoot enthusiasts and others who are interested in the Bigfoot saga, that point of view is just cheap skepticism. We require of the enthusiast good evidence and often just stop at that request. I think if we are interested in refuting Bigfootery, then we need to counter their claims with sound, and if verifiable, counter-evidence.

 

[Drewbot]

Find a specific wooded place where Bigfooters and Skeptics can agree there is no Bigfoot.

Go into that place and find Bigfoot Structures.

Bigfoot did not build those structures because he does not exist in that specific location.

What conclusion would you draw? That THESE PARTICULAR structures in this specific location were not built by Bigfoot? or That the structures you had previously attributed to Bigfoot, should not be attributed to Bigfoot?

 

[The Shrike]

What counts as that evidence, jerrywayne? Do you need to see live video feeds of every so-called stick structure falling into place in a windstorm or set up as a lean-to from a hiker?

The 'footers have it backwards: It's not incumbent on skeptics to demonstrate that every weird-looking pile of sticks in the woods was left by something that wasn't bigfoot, it's up to 'footers to demonstrate that just one was.

 

[Cervelo]

I've never said Bigfoots impossible...there just zero evidence that it exist or ever did.

It actually very simple....every single tree structure, break, twig ect ect I've seen
has only two explanations a result of human manipulation or natural occurrence.
I see stuff every time I go in the woods that a footer would attribute to bigfoot and some of its very strange but there's no reason to jump to apeman as the culprit.
I just came back from a trip that covered a few NPs and saw tree stuff everywhere and even heard something I've never heard before that scared the crap out of me.
Could it have been Bigfoot....sure... but biggies at the bottom of a long list of most likleys.
This might be the vid you mentioned
http://youtu.be/nRDQJ8fccvA

Here's a classic Bigfoot blocking trails from The Smokies

And my take on it
http://youtu.be/pM3io9-CqNk

 

[jerrywayne]

I've never said Bigfoots impossible...there just zero evidence that it exist or ever did.

It actually very simple....every single tree structure, break, twig ect ect I've seen
has only two explanations a result of human manipulation or natural occurrence.
I see stuff every time I go in the woods that a footer would attribute to bigfoot and some of its very strange but there's no reason to jump to apeman as the culprit.
I just came back from a trip that covered a few NPs and saw tree stuff everywhere and even heard something I've never heard before that scared the crap out of me.
Could it have been Bigfoot....sure... but biggies at the bottom of a long list of most likleys.
This might be the vid you mentioned
http://youtu.be/nRDQJ8fccvA

Here's a classic Bigfoot blocking trails from The Smokies
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/84C36912-F8F1-4104-8AFE-5353B078B7DB.jpg[/qimg]
And my take on it
http://youtu.be/pM3io9-CqNk

Thanks for the info, Cervelo.