How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

[Jodie]

Minus 30? Really? How do you cope?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Minus 30? Really? How do you cope?

Whiskey.

 

[GT/CS]

I moved to Denver.

 

[Pacal]

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.

Aside from ignoring that lots and lots of Skeptics have done exactly that. Analayzed in depth the claims and found them to be wanting; what you are suggesting is reversing the onus.

The onus is on those who assert Bigfoot and other such claims. There is no onus on Skeptics to prove the claims false etc. Given the easily established reality that Bigfoot etc., promoters have spectacularily failed to provide "proof" that isn't frauds, misperceptions etc, until they can come up with real evidence the onus remains on them not on the Skeptics.

I also noticed the strawmen.

 

[Drewbot]

Still depressed no one mentioned my Walter Langowski reference.

 

[jerrywayne]

This is wonderful for our BLAARGing study. A denial precedes exactly what you are about to do. I call it pre-denial.

e.g. "Not to be critical, BUT... [followed by highly critical statement].

A person posing as a skeptic first pretends to agree with the skeptics, but then delivers exactly the same line an admitted 'footer uses. "Well, explain THIS one..."

Northern Lights uses exactly the same tactic of "explain this". He is more honest about his BLAARGing though. He doesn't precede the Good 'n Plenty story with how he is the biggest skeptic in the room.

Here's another example:



lol. I learned this in speech class in High School. I agree, but...[disagree].

But it bothered me ethically. I don't like to lie with a smirk on my face.

Here is the umpteenth time you use juvenile emotional manipulation, the "you always" accusation children lay on their parents whenever the child is misbehaving:



This is the tactic 'footers use to put skeptics on the defensive, because when proposing a fantasy animal as real it is untenable to defend that claim with evidence. So you accuse, accuse, accuse and make skeptics deal with this relentless accusation as if you had never made it before.

Shrike mentioned that people "think" you are playing a game because of how easy it is to see through. There isn't any question this is BLAARGing. The faux skeptic, the "real" skeptic, the skeptic who meets the fallacy of the golden middle - just relentless masquerading as the only true skeptic on this board...

What is so fascinating about it is this: since you've used the same tactics the 'footers do and claim that all of your logic in doing so makes you the only real skeptic, then the only true skeptics are 'footers who claim to be skeptics.

Thanks for playing.

Of course I disagree with your silly assertions. In fact, your comments reinforce one of my points. I'm a skeptic, yet I'm converted into a non-skeptic because I don't go along with your all-purpose, and faux, con-man detector nonsense.

I've never claimed to be the "only real skeptic" here; for you to claim otherwise is mistaken or dishonest. I find your linguistic analysis of other people's words sophomoric and too broad to be honestly applied. I also find the over reliance on the dishonesty aspect of Bigfootery here at this forum (as if dishonesty is all there is to it) a poor explanation for all that is going on. Because I disagree with other skeptics does not mean other skeptics are not skeptics. See, I don't think the way you do.

I'll try again to get my ideas across.

If you want to take on Bigfooters, take them on where they live and breathe. Abstract discussions about the fossil record won't do it. Saying we should already have a body won't do it. Saying trackways are hoaxed won't do it. Saying Bigfooting is all an act and a con-job certainly won't do it.

You take them on, on their ground. Recreate the Patterson film -- Patterson did it, a skeptic can too. Recreate a trackway -- a hoaxer can do it, a skeptic can do it too. Have recordings of owls, coyotes, foxes, coon hounds, humans, etc. and place them figurative next to recordings of "Bigfoot"; those "Bigfoot" noises come from somewhere and we ought to show where definitively. We ought to show the origin of certain structures and odd tree limb placements: rather than just say they are natural or human made (and, of course, they are); show it! On and on

Now my thoughts only relate to changing the minds and perceptions of Bigfooters and allied fence-sitters. Arguments made here at this skeptical forum, generally, are well made and thoughtful. They are explanations and arguments that hold up for reasonable individuals not under the influence of the romance of mystery or blind belief, in this case, the "mystery" of or belief in Bigfoot.

I know where the burden of proof lies. I know the Bigfoot enthusiasts' have failed to reasonably support their beliefs. Etc. I'm saying we can keep on giving them our well reasoned arguments and they will keep on ignoring us. They have a certain body of "evidence" in there heads and our arguments go right over their heads. I'm arguing for demonstration over mere argument. Demonstrate rather than talk.

I understand that my suggestions are impractical. No one wants to tackle such demonstrations -- for many practical and personal reasons. Yet Bigfoot phenomena has grown over the decades in part because no one, or no organization, has tackled the practical aspect of the phenomena. Yes, we have someone who creates one footprint and it fools a so-called Bigfoot expert. But we need to have more than this.

There is nothing in my statements above that suggest I'm a faux skeptic.

 

[River]

Of course I disagree with your silly assertions. In fact, your comments reinforce one of my points. I'm a skeptic, yet I'm converted into a non-skeptic because I don't go along with your all-purpose, and faux, con-man detector nonsense.

I've never claimed to be the "only real skeptic" here; for you to claim otherwise is mistaken or dishonest. I find your linguistic analysis of other people's words sophomoric and too broad to be honestly applied. I also find the over reliance on the dishonesty aspect of Bigfootery here at this forum (as if dishonesty is all there is to it) a poor explanation for all that is going on. Because I disagree with other skeptics does not mean other skeptics are not skeptics. See, I don't think the way you do.

I'll try again to get my ideas across.

If you want to take on Bigfooters, take them on where they live and breathe. Abstract discussions about the fossil record won't do it. Saying we should already have a body won't do it. Saying trackways are hoaxed won't do it. Saying Bigfooting is all an act and a con-job certainly won't do it.

You take them on, on their ground. Recreate the Patterson film -- Patterson did it, a skeptic can too. Recreate a trackway -- a hoaxer can do it, a skeptic can do it too. Have recordings of owls, coyotes, foxes, coon hounds, humans, etc. and place them figurative next to recordings of "Bigfoot"; those "Bigfoot" noises come from somewhere and we ought to show where definitively. We ought to show the origin of certain structures and odd tree limb placements: rather than just say they are natural or human made (and, of course, they are); show it! On and on

Now my thoughts only relate to changing the minds and perceptions of Bigfooters and allied fence-sitters. Arguments made here at this skeptical forum, generally, are well made and thoughtful. They are explanations and arguments that hold up for reasonable individuals not under the influence of the romance of mystery or blind belief, in this case, the "mystery" of or belief in Bigfoot.

I know where the burden of proof lies. I know the Bigfoot enthusiasts' have failed to reasonably support their beliefs. Etc. I'm saying we can keep on giving them our well reasoned arguments and they will keep on ignoring us. They have a certain body of "evidence" in there heads and our arguments go right over their heads. I'm arguing for demonstration over mere argument. Demonstrate rather than talk.

I understand that my suggestions are impractical. No one wants to tackle such demonstrations -- for many practical and personal reasons. Yet Bigfoot phenomena has grown over the decades in part because no one, or no organization, has tackled the practical aspect of the phenomena. Yes, we have someone who creates one footprint and it fools a so-called Bigfoot expert. But we need to have more than this.

There is nothing in my statements above that suggest I'm a faux skeptic.

Do you agree that ALL resolved bigfoot claims end in hoax, mistaken identity or deluded claims? If not, please explain ANY other outcome to bigfoot claims. And if so, why should we "play along" with the silliness of bigfoot? I would disagree that any demonstrations are needed to "disprove" bigfoot. Ridiculous!!

In fact, bigfooters need to step up and prove their ridiculous claims. Period. Can't? Too bad.

There is no need to demonstrate how mermaids are false, or how faeries are not real, how vampires are made up. If you cannot understand that bigfoot is a farce in 2015, you might want to take a closer look at your own critical thinking skills.

Why would you feel it is necessary? Instead, try getting bigfooters to PROVE their assertions, instead of trying to prove a negative?? Can't? Too bad. Any efforts as you have described would surely be a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.

If you feel differently, explain why.

 

[Pterodactyl]

I wonder the point of engaging Bigfooters on forums like this or the BFF if you don't find some entertainment value or challenge in refuting their claims. How does one keep an interest in monotonously demanding they "prove it" or repeating " the onus is on you" ?

Obviously, those of us active on forums such as these must enjoy debate or conversation on this topic on some level, so I tend to side with Jerry Wayne if for no other reason than I get tired of simplistic, overarching categorizations drowning out or diluting the clever or well thought out critiques by posters who actually make a concerted effort to refute the footer claims, and don't just fall back on the standard lazy retorts. That's not to say they don't have their place, but it's just not very interesting to read again and again and again. If you feel it's not worth your time to engage these people, then just don't engage these people. Calling someone a liar is a simple claim. What's so bad about taking some more effort to try and prove it?

 

[jerrywayne]

Do you agree that ALL resolved bigfoot claims end in hoax, mistaken identity or deluded claims? If not, please explain ANY other outcome to bigfoot claims. And if so, why should we "play along" with the silliness of bigfoot? I would disagree that any demonstrations are needed to "disprove" bigfoot. Ridiculous!!

In fact, bigfooters need to step up and prove their ridiculous claims. Period. Can't? Too bad.

There is no need to demonstrate how mermaids are false, or how faeries are not real, how vampires are made up. If you cannot understand that bigfoot is a farce in 2015, you might want to take a closer look at your own critical thinking skills.

Why would you feel it is necessary? Instead, try getting bigfooters to PROVE their assertions, instead of trying to prove a negative?? Can't? Too bad. Any efforts as you have described would surely be a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.

If you feel differently, explain why.

Please read my post again. I clearly say that if your goal is to change the minds of Bigfooters, then you must take the game to them, on their terms. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to offer up standard (and credible) arguments that they either don't grasp or do grasp but apparently aren't powerful enough arguments (to them) to dislodge their misguided romanticism, go ahead. If your goal is to change their minds, you will have to do better than just dismiss the whole thing as farce, call them liars, and so forth.

The better issue to raise with my comments would be this, for example: would a spot on recreation of the Patterson film change Bigfooters' minds? I would say yes, to a degree. Some Bigfoot enthusiasts don't think Patterson's film is legit anyway, so they wouldn't find a recreation relevant. Others are fanatical about "Patty" and it would be hard for them to give her up initially. But one plank of the Bigfoot myth would be shattered, namely that no one has been able to recreate the film. And eventually, that fact will tell.

Imagine if every plank in the myth fell, by demonstration. Eventually, it would tell.

You are right, in many cases you cannot prove a negative. But that is not what I'm arguing for. Yes, you cannot prove Bigfoot do not exist, but you could go a long way in demonstrating that Patterson's Bigfoot did not exist, for instance.

So, I think you misread my post or misunderstood my intentions. Yes, Bigfoot is a myth. Yes, it is the burden of Bigfoot enthusiasts to definitively prove Bigfoot. Yes, every known solution renders mundane explanations. But these facts fall flat. There is more interest in Bigfoot than ever before. I'm suggesting we try something else -- take it to them and give them what they are unable to give us -- hard, cold demonstration of fact.

 

[GT/CS]

I wonder the point of engaging Bigfooters on forums like this or the BFF if you don't find some entertainment value or challenge in refuting their claims. How does one keep an interest in monotonously demanding they "prove it" or repeating " the onus is on you" ?

Obviously, those of us active on forums such as these must enjoy debate or conversation on this topic on some level, so I tend to side with Jerry Wayne if for no other reason than I get tired of simplistic, overarching categorizations drowning out or diluting the clever or well thought out critiques by posters who actually make a concerted effort to refute the footer claims, and don't just fall back on the standard lazy retorts. That's not to say they don't have their place, but it's just not very interesting to read again and again and again. If you feel it's not worth your time to engage these people, then just don't engage these people. Calling someone a liar is a simple claim. What's so bad about taking some more effort to try and prove it?

Yeah, it's getting boring. We need a 'footer to do something that is worth discussing.

 

[River]

Please read my post again. I clearly say that if your goal is to change the minds of Bigfooters, then you must take the game to them, on their terms. If, on the other hand, you want to continue to offer up standard (and credible) arguments that they either don't grasp or do grasp but apparently aren't powerful enough arguments (to them) to dislodge their misguided romanticism, go ahead. If your goal is to change their minds, you will have to do better than just dismiss the whole thing as farce, call them liars, and so forth.

The better issue to raise with my comments would be this, for example: would a spot on recreation of the Patterson film change Bigfooters' minds? I would say yes, to a degree. Some Bigfoot enthusiasts don't think Patterson's film is legit anyway, so they wouldn't find a recreation relevant. Others are fanatical about "Patty" and it would be hard for them to give her up initially. But one plank of the Bigfoot myth would be shattered, namely that no one has been able to recreate the film. And eventually, that fact will tell.

Imagine if every plank in the myth fell, by demonstration. Eventually, it would tell.

You are right, in many cases you cannot prove a negative. But that is not what I'm arguing for. Yes, you cannot prove Bigfoot do not exist, but you could go a long way in demonstrating that Patterson's Bigfoot did not exist, for instance.

So, I think you misread my post or misunderstood my intentions. Yes, Bigfoot is a myth. Yes, it is the burden of Bigfoot enthusiasts to definitively prove Bigfoot. Yes, every known solution renders mundane explanations. But these facts fall flat. There is more interest in Bigfoot than ever before. I'm suggesting we try something else -- take it to them and give them what they are unable to give us -- hard, cold demonstration of fact.

My goal is never to change anyones mind. How about "keeping it real" or telling the truth? Sounds like a good, decent goal to me. No need for playing footer games and such to do that. In fact, I've "heard it all before" from footers. How many times are we to hear the same dribble from them and explain over and over again why its wrong, and argue over silly things like bear hairs, or vague impressions left in the dirt? Endless?

Nah... I'll stick to telling it like it is. If you'd like me to take the time to "demonstrate" these things, I'll be happy to with the same budget that is given to Munns to demonstrate his claims. Fork it over, and I'll be glad to refute his book in detail. Otherwise, why bother?

Do you really think YOU or anyone can change a footers mind? If so, please give some examples of this happening anywhere, on any website or otherwise. Frankly, i don't see the amount of demonstrations or money spent doing them making any difference on the fanatics. Maybe you should set an example and do just that and show us your results with that fine effort you're suggesting skeptics make. I'll sit back with my popcorn and watch, and keep telling it like it is. Thanks!

(just the same as i feel no need to disprove vampires, faeries, mermaids)

 

[The Shrike]

I'm suggesting we try something else -- take it to them and give them what they are unable to give us -- hard, cold demonstration of fact.

See posts 127 and 132 (among others in this thread) in which I lay out the case that this has been done. I still don't understand why you think examples like known print hoaxers and known stick structure makers and better ape suits decades earlier than 1967 don't rise to the level of "demonstration of fact" to you.

The issue boils down to this:

Investigator: "What would convince you that bigfoot is real?"
Skeptic: "A piece of a bigfoot."

Investigator: "What would convince you that bigfoot is not real?"
Bigfooter: "Nothing."

 

[dmaker]

I understand where you are coming and from and agree with your premise in spirit. But this has been done numerous times. For example, look at the Sykes study and the televised results. Each and every claim was scientifically analyzed and revealed to be a common animal. We even got to see the news delivered in person to the footers. Were they deflated? Were they discouraged? Perhaps briefly, but not for any real length of time.

Also look at that ridiculous show, The Ten Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty. Again, on television we have footers submitting moss as a hair sample and being humorously corrected by a Phd on TV.

Bigfoot enthusiasts have been shown time and time again that their evidence is weak and that their thinking and methods are all wrong. They don't care. They persist in fantasy land. No amount of real world curtain peeling is going to make any difference.

 

[Resume]

Please read my post again. I clearly say that if your goal is to change the minds of Bigfooters, then you must take the game to them, on their terms.

One of their terms is intellectual dishonesty. The person you once offered here as a paradigm of bigfoot belief has been caught in yet another lie concerning the chronology of her dogman sighting by a fellow enthusiast over at the BFF.

If, on the other hand, you want to continue to offer up standard (and credible) arguments that they either don't grasp or do grasp but apparently aren't powerful enough arguments (to them) to dislodge their misguided romanticism, go ahead

The standard, credible arguments are the best arguments. As one example, you cannot have spent nigh on ten years visiting a ten acre parcel that you claim have been regularly visited by 9-ft apes with nothing to show for it. You’d have plenty of biological evidence, ****, you’d have ole foo itself, even if you were the most inept morons on earth. This can’t be dismissed with a handwave, not honestly.

, I think you misread my post or misunderstood my intentions. Yes, Bigfoot is a myth. Yes, it is the burden of Bigfoot enthusiasts to definitively prove Bigfoot. Yes, every known solution renders mundane explanations. But these facts fall flat.

Facts fall flat when they’re not examined with honesty and integrity. You can’t force those things on bigfoot proponents, they have to come upon them on their own.

 

[Resume]

I understand where you are coming and from and agree with your premise in spirit. But this has been done numerous times. For example, look at the Sykes study and the televised results. Each and every claim was scientifically analyzed and revealed to be a common animal. We even got to see the news delivered in person to the footers. Were they deflated? Were they discouraged? Perhaps briefly, but not for any real length of time.

One fellow whose sample of blonde hairs came back as black bear made the astounding claim that the blonde phase wasn't found in the Sierras where he obtained that sample. This of course is simply not true as it's common knowledge the blonde phase is rather dominant there. If he spent much time as claimed in the area, he would have known that, so he's either lying about his experiences there, or lying about the fact that the blonde phase is common there. Either way, he's lying for footie.

Again, I'm not making the claim that all footers are lying about their belief, but a number of them sure seem to be lying for their belief.

 

[William Parcher]

I also find the over reliance on the dishonesty aspect of Bigfootery here at this forum (as if dishonesty is all there is to it) a poor explanation for all that is going on.

Again. There is that same strawman you use appearing again!

Why do you tell lies about the members of this forum? Does it allow your ideas to work better?

 

[John Nowak]

You take them on, on their ground. Recreate the Patterson film -- Patterson did it, a skeptic can too.

Won't work.

a) They will not admit the Patterson film was recreated, no matter how close you get.

b) Recreating a film does not prove the original film was hoaxed.

b') Especially 40 years later.

 

[Jodie]

Again. There is that same strawman you use appearing again!

Why do you tell lies about the members of this forum? Does it allow your ideas to work better?

Why are you bold face denying that most of you in the BF threads attribute the phenomena to lying/dishonesty? The vast majority of you do, if you doubt it do a term search like "lie" and see how many times it gets posted in these threads.

 

[River]

Why are you bold face denying that most of you in the BF threads attribute the phenomena to lying/dishonesty? The vast majority of you do, if you doubt it do a term search like "lie" and see how many times it gets posted in these threads.

Most of bigfootery is lying/hoaxing. Do you dispute this?

 

[Night Walker]

I also find the over reliance on the dishonesty aspect of Bigfootery here at this forum (as if dishonesty is all there is to it) a poor explanation for all that is going on.

Again. There is that same strawman you use appearing again!

Why do you tell lies about the members of this forum? Does it allow your ideas to work better?

Why are you bold face denying that most of you in the BF threads attribute the phenomena to lying/dishonesty? The vast majority of you do, if you doubt it do a term search like "lie" and see how many times it gets posted in these threads.

Most of bigfootery is lying/hoaxing. Do you dispute this?

WP - Most of bigfootery is lying/hoaxing. Do you dispute this?