Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
dmaker said:
I wish I was still a member there just so I could LOL all over that thread.
Click to expand...

It strikes me that he was so eager for a gotcha moment that he **** all over himself; then, he blames everything but his own credulity. It's also an excellent example at how easy it is to fool oneself when one wants to believe so desperately. Or at least to have one's footie fantasies vidicated, and to be proven right; he must've had a woodie as he posted up that obvious April Fool's nugget.

This deliciously ironic little escapade should give him pause, but no, he'll still bluster on as incorrectly, unskeptically, and unscientifically as ever, yet still claim to be the one true scientist, skeptic, and bigfoot expert. Hopefully, posters like that Rockape will shame this nitwit at every opportunity.
 
Last edited:
gabeygoat said:
seriously, i was feeling sorry for you for awhile, maybe i still am, but using that biased garbage as evidence is just embarrassing. It's tv folks making all southerners into some sort of grotesque garbage character. I wish trash like that wasn't around. it just reinforces stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Of course their "live action" scenes are scripted but I don't feel the characters on the show portray Southerners in a negative way. I see guys like that routinely. I think it's funny and entertaining as well. Do you really think everyone tunes in to "The Turtleman" because they're interested in watching animals being captured? Ernie and Neal are the draws for the show simply because they don't try to portray anything than they actually are in day to day life. It's honest and entertaining.

Don't tell me you've never seen an episode of "Squidbillies" on adult swim. If you can't get a good laugh out of these shows, you really need to lighten up.
Chris B.
 
I'm still laughing a bit today when I think that the Alberta Conservation Association trolled DWA into thinking a person in a cheap and cheesy costume was bigfoot. Makes me proud to be Canadian today :)

His only defense so far? Well, harumph, uhm, er, they shouldn't be making fun of bigfoot. And then some nonsense about why don't more Canadians know about Bindernagel? WTF?
 
Last edited:
^ LOL. Me too. I suspect he comes here, but doesn't have the confidence in his crap to actually engage. Otherwise, he loves, loves to preach the bigfoot gospel. Why not here? He engages all kinds of skeptics and dissenters on places like the BFF and Cryptomundo. But not here? I call foul.

The best part of his response to the ACA troll?

"... plus a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes..."

Too damn funny. Best April Fools ever. I hope that DWA and Munns get together and send a harshly worded letter to the ACA.
 
dmaker said:
^ LOL. Me too. I suspect he comes here, but doesn't have the confidence in his crap to actually engage. Otherwise, he loves, loves to preach the bigfoot gospel. Why not here? He engages all kinds of skeptics and dissenters on places like the BFF and Cryptomundo. But not here? I call foul.

The best part of his response to the ACA troll?

"... plus a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes..."

Too damn funny. Best April Fools ever. I hope that DWA and Munns get together and send a harshly worded letter to the ACA.
Click to expand...
He doesn't engage here because he couldn't get away with saying stuff like this:
4. The activity is real but the team members are completely incompetent and can't achieve their goal. This speaks to not knowing much about the "incompetence" (such as just a couple examples Jane Goodall's and George Schaller's, and the "Planet Earth" team that couldn't find herds of animals the size of cattle in the Gobi Desert...for weeks, with motorized transport) that has led to all we know about animals. I would agree with you on this: animals make us look pretty incompetent when we are looking for them. Shoot, just deer. North America is pretty much made of deer. Every hunter should have ten by eight a.m. the first morning of deer season. Doesn't work out that way, does it.

Again, the skeptics need to understand that what they think really doesn't matter. If one isn't informed, it just doesn't. That's the way science works.
Click to expand...
on the very next day after he was publically humiliated by actual scientists with a sense of humor, and who are indeed informed enough about footery to know how to pull a footer's leg.

Keep readin' them reports, dummy.
 
I'd imagine that feeling you get when you realize you got trolled by actual scientists is almost too much to bear. DWA doesn't have a lot of confidence in the animal's existence, but who can blame him though? He displays signs of intelligence, but when it comes to the evidence for Bigfoot, it sometimes goes out the window. If he were to see one tomorrow, I doubt he would be susceptible to such an amateur hoax.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
I'd imagine that feeling you get when you realize you got trolled by actual scientists is almost too much to bear. DWA doesn't have a lot of confidence in the animal's existence, but who can blame him though? He displays signs of intelligence, but when it comes to the evidence for Bigfoot, it sometimes goes out the window. If he were to see one tomorrow, I doubt he would be susceptible to such an amateur hoax.
Click to expand...

See one what?
 
One of the things you are going to find by looking into the claims about old bigfoot/creature sightings used by con-men like Green, Dahinden and others was exactly this: April Fool's stories that they could "truthfully" cite, but neglect to mention they were on April Fool's day or even announced as practical jokes in a later edition of the paper they were citing.

I ran into this when I was researching the claim those two made about an alleged Hudson's Bay Company report on bigfoot. In that case the story was a complete fabrication, so we have known hoaxes, April Fool's jokes, and fabrications underlying this illustrious history of bigfoot.
 
As we all remember, Melba Ketchum (DVM) cited a yeti April Fool's joke in her paper.
http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/yeti.html

http://skeptophilia.blogspot.com/2013/02/an-end-to-squatchery-ketchum-screws-up.html
(1) Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004) This paper is a well-known April Fool's joke, which places Sasquatches in the same clade as... horses and zebras! But if that wasn't enough to clue you in that it's satire, there's a footnote with the following: "More significantly, however, this study indicates that evolutionary biologists need to retain sense of humor in their efforts to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships. Happy April Fool’s Day !" Did Ketchum not even look at this paper? Because my 10th graders in Introductory Biology would have recognized it was a joke, even without the tag line. Oh, and did I mention that Ketchum's specialty is... horses?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oh hey, thanks for that because it also indicates that she used Bindernagel's books as her source for citations, and also blames the non-existent referees for her paper, making her include "any and all" references.

Here are some more examples, as far back as 1839 on the "Hairy Wild Men":

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wild-men/

He mentions Green too, who pulled a Sharon Hill: his first story about Sasquatch was apparently in the re-telling of an April Fool's joke. But he saw the money in bigfoot pulp fiction and became a purveyor of jokes/pranks/hoaxes as if they were real, distorting Indian legends to that purpose and so forth.
 
I enjoyed how Ketchum blamed the scientific establishment for forcing her to put in references, so it is not her fault if some of these were literally jokes. She didn't want to do it anyway, so what is wrong if she just grabbed whatever she could find in response, whether she read them or not?

Under this criterion, I presume that other manifestations of the scientific establishment, such as running controls, being skeptical of your own conclusions, and looking for alternative explanations of what you have observed, are similar annoying, meaningless, pointless endeavors that are only little rituals required to join "the club." The rest of the paper IMHO appears to confirm this concept.

I was curious if the "peer-reviewed" journal in which this work was published had published anything afterward (i.e. in the last 3 years). From what I can tell, other than one other article from Ketchum, the answer is no. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! This is an interesting idea too: If I acquired a journal to publish my own work, I would probably at least make some effort to add to its credibility by publishing other people's work also. But apparently they couldn't be bothered. Or perhaps no one else wanted to.
 
I enjoyed how Ketchum blamed the scientific establishment for forcing her to put in references, so it is not her fault if some of these were literally jokes. She didn't want to do it anyway, so what is wrong if she just grabbed whatever she could find in response, whether she read them or not?

Under this criterion, I presume that other manifestations of the scientific establishment, such as running controls, being skeptical of your own conclusions, and looking for alternative explanations of what you have observed, are similar annoying, meaningless, pointless endeavors that are only little rituals required to join "the club." The rest of the paper IMHO appears to confirm this concept.

I was curious if the "peer-reviewed" journal in which this work was published had published anything afterward (i.e. in the last 3 years). From what I can tell, other than one other article from Ketchum, the answer is no. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! This is an interesting idea too: If I acquired a journal to publish my own work, I would probably at least make some effort to add to its credibility by publishing other people's work also. But apparently they couldn't be bothered. Or perhaps no one else wanted to.
 
Well Milinkovitch et al. (2004) actually isn't an April Fool's joke. They actually analyzed the samples and determined them to be from a horse. The joke part was instead of just reporting that finding, they published a paper that concludes that "yeti"s must be horses, which was a cute way to present it.

The paper is not a prank in which the reality of yeti is claimed; it's obvious to anyone who reads the paper that their yeti sample was really just from a horse. Thus, the embarrassing thing for Ketchum here is not that she fell for some kind of hoax, it's that she did not read the paper she cited!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom