Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

[William Parcher]

I know my views about the nature of Bigfoot phenomena are not generally accepted here. Here, the idea is that most of the phenomena consists of lies, hoaxes, and lies (Harry, is that you?) This has always puzzled me. While it is true that lying and hoaxing are important parts of the creation and continued perpetration of the Bigfoot myth, like most myths, to reduce it all, or most of it, to knowing dishonesty is a convenient, but insufficient, explanation.

I want to bring your attention to the Squamish BC hiker video.

It might be easy to say that this is a classic misidentification where somebody sees another person and thinks it is a Bigfoot and reports it as a Bigfoot. But in my opinion this is a hoax.

How do you think the BFRO would classify this encounter? What about John Green or other encounter database keepers? What would happen if there was no video but instead only the detailed story of the witness(s)?

IMO, Bigfootery would and will intentionally describe this as a misidentification. IMO, a great number of apparent or likely misidentifications are actually hoaxes at their root.

IMO again, more than 90% of Bigfoot encounter stories are intentional fabrications by the claimant. A dishonest misidentification is not a misidentification - it's a lie.

 

[The Shrike]

It might be easy to say that this is a classic misidentification where somebody sees another person and thinks it is a Bigfoot and reports it as a Bigfoot. But in my opinion this is a hoax.

On what do you base that opinion? Just looks like a couple of ignorant guys on a mountain to me.

 

[William Parcher]

IMO the witnesses realized that it was a person. IMO the video is edited and the presentation is such that the audience is intentionally being fooled into believing that the witnesses truly believe this is a Bigfoot.

Releasing the video two years after it was filmed is more support for my position.

 

[William Parcher]

"good thing we brought beers..."

Yeah that kind of joking during the filming reminds me of the famous Memorial Day Video. People in the group that submitted the video are heard saying stuff like "I'm drunk" "looks like a white boy" and "his nutsack (scrotum) would make a purse".

Those people didn't think it was a Bigfoot but later went on to argue for that. So for me it was a hoax because the witnesses are lying.

 

[The Shrike]

^Fair enough, although I've done some pretty wacky stuff* while in the field conducting otherwise serious research. I guess I'm less inclined to read much into the behavior of the guys taking the footage.


*might include such things as pole dancing on a signpost, challenging a bull matador-style, tossing bones up in the air to recreate a famous scene from a sci fi classic . . .

 

[jerrywayne]

^Fair enough, although I've done some pretty wacky stuff* while in the field conducting otherwise serious research. I guess I'm less inclined to read much into the behavior of the guys taking the footage.


*might include such things as pole dancing on a signpost, challenging a bull matador-style, tossing bones up in the air to recreate a famous scene from a sci fi classic . . .

Dang Shrike. Didn't figure you for a drinker.

 

[jerrywayne]

I want to bring your attention to the Squamish BC hiker video.

It might be easy to say that this is a classic misidentification where somebody sees another person and thinks it is a Bigfoot and reports it as a Bigfoot. But in my opinion this is a hoax.

How do you think the BFRO would classify this encounter? What about John Green or other encounter database keepers? What would happen if there was no video but instead only the detailed story of the witness(s)?

IMO, Bigfootery would and will intentionally describe this as a misidentification. IMO, a great number of apparent or likely misidentifications are actually hoaxes at their root.

IMO again, more than 90% of Bigfoot encounter stories are intentional fabrications by the claimant. A dishonest misidentification is not a misidentification - it's a lie.

I would agree with you about the prevalence of dishonest sighting reports. This aspect of the saga is not the interesting part to me. I'm more fascinated in the belief itself and not the phony stuff.

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.

If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.

 

[Resume]

If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.

Take a look at the latest bigfoot nonsense:
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/05/another-wildlife-biologist-comes.html#moretop.

One has to wonder who's ********ting whom, the alleged biologist putting one over on the BFRO, or is the BFRO just ********ting everyone? Or is it a combination? One things for certain, ******** is being slung.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.

Demonstrate for us exactly where this has happened if you assert it to be so common.

This is a manipulative defense well known to con-men: They use guilt-tripping and shaming to prevent people of good conscience from correctly calling them out on their lies. The worse their behavior is; the more outrageous the lie - the more the skeptic is in danger of being guilt-tripped over stating the truth. You can call Ted Bundy a merciless, sick mass murderer because that is exactly what he was. It is not "name calling".

I really want to hear about these arguments we have "largely unmet". Boy, sounds like there must be a lot of great bigfoot evidence we just don't want to hear about...

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Take a look at the latest bigfoot nonsense:
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/05/another-wildlife-biologist-comes.html#moretop.

One has to wonder who's ********ting whom, the alleged biologist putting one over on the BFRO, or is the BFRO just ********ting everyone? Or is it a combination? One things for certain, ******** is being slung.

lol. Hillsborough County population - 1.3 million. The Spanish mapped the area five hundred years ago.

I noticed there is no name given for the person claiming to have seen the bigfoot. I wonder what proportion of these reports are anonymous like this. Talk about complete lack of verifiability. I doubt it was a wildlife biologist.

 

[Resume]

Then there's the BFRO report and the Google Earth image:http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=42978

Cypress Creek Nature Preserve:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/areas/cypresscreek.html
7400 acres . . . of biking, in-line skating (?) and equestrian trails nestled in between suburban Pasco County sprawl.

 

[The Shrike]

Dang Shrike. Didn't figure you for a drinker.

Who said anything about drinking? Those events were just simple matters of having fun in the moment.

 

[rockinkt]

I would agree with you about the prevalence of dishonest sighting reports. This aspect of the saga is not the interesting part to me. I'm more fascinated in the belief itself and not the phony stuff.

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet.

If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.

Give me an example of an argument that Meldrum, Munns, or Krantz has put forward that has not been dissected on this board.
Don't know why you insist on defending these liars and con-men - but give your head a shake.

Edit - APB beat me to it.

 

[William Parcher]

I doubt it was a wildlife biologist.

Maybe fast and loose with the credentials.

First, I'll start with the fact that I have never put much stock into the Bigfoot phenomenon.

Sounds like Penthouse Magazine letters. "I never thought that my teacher would take off her clothes when we were finally alone..."

I have degrees in wildlife management and wildlife biology and I have been working as a biologist for the last 17 years...

I am an avid birdwatcher...

I immediately noticed that all the birds around me had stopped chirping...

YOU ARE BUSTED!

No avid birder or wildlife biologist would say "birds stopped chirping". They would be more specific and use different terms like "the scrub jays stopped their calling".

But it's even worse than that. The birder biologist never mentions the extreme oddity of not hearing ALARM CALLS from the birds instead of total silence.

So all the insects which were making noises (these would presumably be grasshoppers, crickets, katydids, cicadas, etc.) suddenly stopped including the ones up in the trees?

YOU ARE BUSTED!

These are the lies that keep Bigfootery enjoyable for Bigfoot believers.

 

[Drewbot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdctK7LzA0Y

Paid expeditions are they worth it?

 

[mustbeso]

Why do all the people on this video, especially Rev. Jeff, sound like used car salesmen/gameshow host? The wholle of professional Bigfoolery seems to be to get to be the biggest fish in the small pond that is bigfoot in general and knowing the wink and nod system to do that very thing. I am amazed that so many websites, podcasts, books, etc. can exist and, apparently, sustain themselves. In this video, they make what most of us call camping/backpacking into a prohibitively expensive, danger laden thing that only the most skillful bigfooler should undertake. It's still just camping.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Maybe fast and loose with the credentials.

No doubt in my mind. For example, the assertion that he taught a college course in bears. I doubt there is a course in bears in the entire Florida higher educational system, and I am dead certain nobody with just an undergraduate degree would be teaching one.

No avid birder or wildlife biologist would say "birds stopped chirping". They would be more specific and use different terms like "the scrub jays stopped their calling".

Interesting observation. I thought the bit about the insects all stopping was his jumping the shark moment too. Not one mosquito buzzing.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Then there's the BFRO report and the Google Earth image:http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=42978

Cypress Creek Nature Preserve:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/areas/cypresscreek.html
7400 acres . . . of biking, in-line skating (?) and equestrian trails nestled in between suburban Pasco County sprawl.

Over the last 500 years this exact area has been used intensively with logging, road construction, and now recreation. Innumerable studies have been done listing all plant and animal species. There are regular surveys being done with fauna, soils, groundwater etc. and it is incredible really that anyone in their right minds would pretend that the very largest animal of all would be overlooked in half a millennia of use and study.

THIS is what we need to be studying - not bigfoot. Studying the science of personalities choosing to operate in an entire world of make-believe.

An example of their land use plan referencing dozens of other studies:

http://hillsboroughcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/9196

 

[tsig]

I would agree with you about the prevalence of dishonest sighting reports. This aspect of the saga is not the interesting part to me. I'm more fascinated in the belief itself and not the phony stuff.

My criticism of some skeptical "arguments" settles around the notion that virtually all of the sasquatch saga is knowing dishonesty. So we recognize the phony Smeja or Ostman and then treat Meldrum, Munns, Krantz, etc. as if they were made of the same stuff. We largely ignore their arguments if favor of name calling: he's a liar; he's a nut; he's a nutty liar, etc. All the while -- their arguments are left largely unmet. If I had to pick one word that would define Bigfootology or Bigfootery in all its glory, it would not be dishonesty, it would be gullibility.

Arguments? Could you post those arguments?


If they had a monkey we'd have no arguments.

 

[Resume]

Over the last 500 years this exact area has been used intensively with logging, road construction, and now recreation. Innumerable studies have been done listing all plant and animal species. There are regular surveys being done with fauna, soils, groundwater etc. and it is incredible really that anyone in their right minds would pretend that the very largest animal of all would be overlooked in half a millennia of use and study.

THIS is what we need to be studying - not bigfoot. Studying the science of personalities choosing to operate in an entire world of make-believe.

An example of their land use plan referencing dozens of other studies:

http://hillsboroughcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/9196

Notice that there is no bigfoot listed under Descriptions of Special Status Species. One would imagine that a 9ft, 600lb upright primate would qualify for special status.

Bigfoot enthusiasts do have a point though; science is ignoring an interesting phenomenon: the bigfoot True Believer™. The juvenile apologetics and special pleading these folks get up into is facinating as most seem to be full-grown adults.