• 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

River said:
You avoid the obvious point from my post, which says a lot.
Click to expand...

You mean the "show me the bigfoot" part? I think you've mistaken me for a proponent or something...

The next most obvious part of your post is that those bad things Bigfooters are doing - duping for profit and misuse of academic resources - are not enough to cause you or anyone else to actually do anything about other than cry foul on an internet forum with like-minded folk. That's some mighty fine role-playing of moral indignation you got going on there...

Just because someone is selling Bigfoot (or whatever) as a real entity doesn't mean you or anyone else is obligated to buy it. Caveat emptor. If you were really concerned about it then perhaps you should consider actually transforming that into some real-world action to put a stop to it but I suspect that would detract from the joy you receive from simply role-playing indignation...

So why is it that role-playing is "lying" when other people do it but perfectly acceptable when you do it?

Things like role-playing and legend-tripping, then, are experientially honest - eliciting subjectively real emotions and sensations even when (maybe even especially when) the contexts are fiction or fabricated to some degree. I have little doubt that the indignation you experience is real - there is just no evidence beyond the cyber world that your indignation is real. Similarly, Bigfoot is (or may be) a real experience for some people but there is no objective evidence that Bigfoot (or other similar phenomena) really exists other than fakes, misidentifications, and personal accounts - it's the possibilities that make it so interesting...

Reducing the theatrics and personal accounts to "lies" displays a personal investment in a pre-existing position rather than objectivity, is not scientific, is a disservice and disrespectful to those who have actually experienced things that defy logic...

Bigfoot is not a real creature but it is (or at least may be) a real experience (like the Old Hag phenomenon). I think we can do a lot better than dismissing it as 90% lies, 10% misidentifications without even having to leave our computer screens...

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions: Step 1 - get off one's arse...
 
Night Walker said:
You mean the "show me the bigfoot" part? I think you've mistaken me for a proponent or something...

The next most obvious part of your post is that those bad things Bigfooters are doing - duping for profit and misuse of academic resources - are not enough to cause you or anyone else to actually do anything about other than cry foul on an internet forum with like-minded folk. That's some mighty fine role-playing of moral indignation you got going on there...

Just because someone is selling Bigfoot (or whatever) as a real entity doesn't mean you or anyone else is obligated to buy it. Caveat emptor. If you were really concerned about it then perhaps you should consider actually transforming that into some real-world action to put a stop to it but I suspect that would detract from the joy you receive from simply role-playing indignation...

So why is it that role-playing is "lying" when other people do it but perfectly acceptable when you do it?

Things like role-playing and legend-tripping, then, are experientially honest - eliciting subjectively real emotions and sensations even when (maybe even especially when) the contexts are fiction or fabricated to some degree. I have little doubt that the indignation you experience is real - there is just no evidence beyond the cyber world that your indignation is real. Similarly, Bigfoot is (or may be) a real experience for some people but there is no objective evidence that Bigfoot (or other similar phenomena) really exists other than fakes, misidentifications, and personal accounts - it's the possibilities that make it so interesting...

Reducing the theatrics and personal accounts to "lies" displays a personal investment in a pre-existing position rather than objectivity, is not scientific, is a disservice and disrespectful to those who have actually experienced things that defy logic...

Bigfoot is not a real creature but it is (or at least may be) a real experience (like the Old Hag phenomenon). I think we can do a lot better than dismissing it as 90% lies, 10% misidentifications without even having to leave our computer screens...

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions: Step 1 - get off one's arse...
Click to expand...

Then bigfoot is kinda like a thrill ride at an amusement park?
 
Sea Monkeys, dude...

I advertise it with drawings of a happy family of humanoids.
But you'll get eggs of tiny shrimps.

No problems at all. You decided to buy it. Its all your fault.
 
Night Walker said:
You mean the "show me the bigfoot" part? I think you've mistaken me for a proponent or something...

The next most obvious part of your post is that those bad things Bigfooters are doing - duping for profit and misuse of academic resources - are not enough to cause you or anyone else to actually do anything about other than cry foul on an internet forum with like-minded folk. That's some mighty fine role-playing of moral indignation you got going on there...

Just because someone is selling Bigfoot (or whatever) as a real entity doesn't mean you or anyone else is obligated to buy it. Caveat emptor. If you were really concerned about it then perhaps you should consider actually transforming that into some real-world action to put a stop to it but I suspect that would detract from the joy you receive from simply role-playing indignation...

So why is it that role-playing is "lying" when other people do it but perfectly acceptable when you do it?

Things like role-playing and legend-tripping, then, are experientially honest - eliciting subjectively real emotions and sensations even when (maybe even especially when) the contexts are fiction or fabricated to some degree. I have little doubt that the indignation you experience is real - there is just no evidence beyond the cyber world that your indignation is real. Similarly, Bigfoot is (or may be) a real experience for some people but there is no objective evidence that Bigfoot (or other similar phenomena) really exists other than fakes, misidentifications, and personal accounts - it's the possibilities that make it so interesting...

Reducing the theatrics and personal accounts to "lies" displays a personal investment in a pre-existing position rather than objectivity, is not scientific, is a disservice and disrespectful to those who have actually experienced things that defy logic...

Bigfoot is not a real creature but it is (or at least may be) a real experience (like the Old Hag phenomenon). I think we can do a lot better than dismissing it as 90% lies, 10% misidentifications without even having to leave our computer screens...

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions: Step 1 - get off one's arse...
Click to expand...

Once you're done chatting total bollocks, maybe you could suggest how one gets off one's arse and really analyses cryptid assertions...Cheers.

btw, Bigfoot is NOTHING like "old hag syndrome," which is mostly nonsense in itself. Old hag syndrome, for want of a less embarrassing name, is mostly just dreamt up in a sleep-slate, and is perfectly normal, it also only recently took on the "old hag" aspect in recent times, and before that could be almost anything that anyone could ever dream up.

Bigfoot, on the otherhand, is a totally imagined being, that people "see" when they're wide awake. The main ingredient in Bigfoot sightings is either stupidity or outright lies. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people who claim to have seen an old hag in their room at night where either already believers in the paranormal and/or daft and/or lying.
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer:

If you are going to shoot a Bigfoot, please make sure it is a Bigfoot, also, check with local laws regarding discharging of firearms.

I'm sure there are trailer parks in areas that do not allow discharging of Firearms at imaginary creatures.
 
Night Walker said:
You mean the "show me the bigfoot" part? I think you've mistaken me for a proponent or something...

The next most obvious part of your post is that those bad things Bigfooters are doing - duping for profit and misuse of academic resources - are not enough to cause you or anyone else to actually do anything about other than cry foul on an internet forum with like-minded folk. That's some mighty fine role-playing of moral indignation you got going on there...

Just because someone is selling Bigfoot (or whatever) as a real entity doesn't mean you or anyone else is obligated to buy it. Caveat emptor. If you were really concerned about it then perhaps you should consider actually transforming that into some real-world action to put a stop to it but I suspect that would detract from the joy you receive from simply role-playing indignation...

So why is it that role-playing is "lying" when other people do it but perfectly acceptable when you do it?

Things like role-playing and legend-tripping, then, are experientially honest - eliciting subjectively real emotions and sensations even when (maybe even especially when) the contexts are fiction or fabricated to some degree. I have little doubt that the indignation you experience is real - there is just no evidence beyond the cyber world that your indignation is real. Similarly, Bigfoot is (or may be) a real experience for some people but there is no objective evidence that Bigfoot (or other similar phenomena) really exists other than fakes, misidentifications, and personal accounts - it's the possibilities that make it so interesting...

Reducing the theatrics and personal accounts to "lies" displays a personal investment in a pre-existing position rather than objectivity, is not scientific, is a disservice and disrespectful to those who have actually experienced things that defy logic...

Bigfoot is not a real creature but it is (or at least may be) a real experience (like the Old Hag phenomenon). I think we can do a lot better than dismissing it as 90% lies, 10% misidentifications without even having to leave our computer screens...

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions: Step 1 - get off one's arse...
Click to expand...


Honest? You're talking about bigfoot and including that word? haha!

The point no bigfoot exists is very important yes, but it's not the point I was making and you know it. The point is: You dont see people out in the woods with high powered firearms looking for superman in order to collect a huge bounty offered. You dont see universities with space and funds used to study superman. You also do not see people in the woods looking for signs of superman. Why? Because people understand its fiction.

THAT is the point.

Please tell us, how to analyze cryptid assertions. Show us the way. Because obviously you feel like the skeptics have it all wrong.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Disclaimer:

If you are going to shoot a Bigfoot, please make sure it is a Bigfoot, also, check with local laws regarding discharging of firearms.

I'm sure there are trailer parks in areas that do not allow discharging of Firearms at imaginary creatures.
Click to expand...

Good point. That takes care of 95% of the 'footers.
 
Night Walker said:
How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions: Step 1 - get off one's arse...
Click to expand...

Ah, so we've come full circle to the flawed premise of the OP.

In response, I'll come full circle to my reaction to that premise many pages ago and echo the question of others: What exactly would getting off one's arse to analyze cryptid assertions entail?

1. Most of bigfootery takes place on the Internet, with stories shared and boasts claimed. Thus, most bigfoot skepticism takes place on the Internet too. Several of us in this very thread have spent years mixing it up daily with the bigfooters on their own turf.

2. Some of bigfootery exists in books. Skeptics have written books refuting their claims.

3. There have been a couple of attempts to get bigfootery to appear in peer-reviewed journals. Skeptics have also published peer-reviewed journal articles addressing their claims.

4. Some of bigfootery involves people making things, like stompers or furry suits. Skeptics have also made things to test how'd they'd look as plaster casts or grainy films.

5. Some of bigfootery involves giving lectures in which putative bigfoot evidence is discussed. Skeptics do that too.

6. Some specific bigfooty claims have included photographs, audio recordings, etc. I'd wager that some skeptics here spend more time each year analyzing such media as the average bigfooter spends walking around in the woods.

7. Speaking of those woods, my particular form of contribution to bigfoot skepticism is to be a field biologist who's spent decades searching for wildlife in bigfooty habitats.

Having ticked several of the items above myself, I'm quite comfortable with the degree to which I'm on my arse with respect to bigfoot skepticism, and I'm just one of many here who could demonstrate likewise.

To me, bigfoot skepticism begins when one removes one's head from one's arse. It's a lot easier to see what's going on when you do.
 
Northern Lights said:
I did a Google search to see what an owl would look like through a thermal and didn't come up with anything. I've never seen one so I don't know what it would look like.

The image I saw through the thermal was moving much slower so it wasn't anything flying.
Click to expand...

Another perfect example of deceptive language.

When confronted with the idea that he may have seen an owl (A common species in the Minnesota woods) NL goes to the Ol' "I can't find it on YouTube, Therefore it must have been a Bigfoot" excuse.

I have found a video of an owl eating through IR camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7BIboxcew

I would imagine however, that if it wasn't eating, it would be more still, like the owl in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7BIboxcew
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom