• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

jerrywayne said:
Next time you read a post of mine where I say something like, "or we could just call her a liar," please don't imagine that I'm not calm in my deliberation. I added such a comment about Goodall because it is the logical extension, in my mind, of a strain of Bigfoot skepticism found here. I could be wrong, but, if so, I was calmly wrong.
Click to expand...

Clearly reading is a skill. So, just where in the post to which you responded do I imply, so you might infer, that Goodall was lying?
 
Resume said:
Clearly reading is a skill. So, just where in the post to which you responded do I imply, so you might infer, that Goodall was lying?
Click to expand...

Hmm? You are still missing my tone and have this time misunderstood my comments. In my previous post I closed with something like (about Goodall) "Or, is she just a liar?" to which you replied that I should calm down (or some such.)

My comment was in reference to your reply about my earlier post and my alleged lack of calmness (in your eyes.) Read my last post to you again and my comments might make more sense now.
 
Here is an excerpt of what Jane Goodall said in 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/jane-goodall-bigfoot_n_1927876.html
"...Of course, it's strange that there has never been a single authentic hide or hair of the Bigfoot, but I've read all the accounts...
...of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, 'Where is the body?' You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to..."
Click to expand...
These obvious questions are the least we can expect from a 21st century scientist imo. I never heard Meldrum talk like that, but on the other hand, Jane Goodall never made a TV show with Todd Standing.
 
Last edited:
jerrywayne said:
I agree with you about the First Nation stories. Also, I don't think the First Nation folk are guiltless; today, some of them sought out seem to have tailored their myths to mix seamlessly with the contemporary myth of Bigfoot, for fun or profit. (Although I can't prove it.)

Next time you read a post of mine where I say something like, "or we could just call her a liar," please don't imagine that I'm not calm in my deliberation. I added such a comment about Goodall because it is the logical extension, in my mind, of a strain of Bigfoot skepticism found here. I could be wrong, but, if so, I was calmly wrong.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether footers are true believers or not, there is no 900 pound, bean eating, pig flinging monkey living in the wilds/suburbs of America.

Those who claim to have seen one are willfully ignorant or lying for fun and profit.
 
Jerry, folks can be that stupid when it comes to bigfoot, and honestly believe that Rick Dyer was lying about his first bigfoot in a freezer but telling the truth about his second. I just find sincere belief in such nonsense as a less plausible explanation then some sort of lying/con.

This is different, of course, than just bigfoot belief in general. Lots of people sincerely believe, and some may have even had their belief predicated on a brief glimpse of a moose butt or the sight of a guy in a ghillie suit in the woods. But the leaders of bigfootery -the habituators, the Pattersons, the Moneymakers, etc. - it's really hard to imagine them actually believing their own tripe.

As for Meldrum, he's a tough call. As a devout Mormon, he's predisposed to believing in non-evidence for his worldview, and actively ignoring evidence to contradict it. So he could just be that deluded but given what he knows as a scientifically literate person, it gets harder over time to take him seriously. He's at the very least bending the truth for personal gain, and he knows darn well he's doing that.
 
jerrywayne said:
I guess I misread the tone of your post. My apology.

Of coarse, it didn't help that your first post practically called me a liar.
Click to expand...

You practically did lie. :)

This is a skeptic board.

The default position for extraordinary claims is, "We don't believe that."

I'm not sure why that is unexpected.

If some members stretch that to, "You are lying about that."

I think it goes with the territory.

Besides, when someone calls you a liar about a matter that should be factual, it is typically easy to rebut, or at least partially rebut.

It never seems to happen with bigfoot, though. The rebuttal never quite makes the grade.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot stick structures

This is my kind of Bigfooter. He questions the lore. In this case, stick structures.

http://tristatebigfoot.blogspot.mx/2011/11/bigfoot-stick-structures-nests-and.html

I didn't know about the "wet noodling" phenom. I'm thinking the more complicated structures may be old blinds used by hunters or old lean-tos put together by scouts camping.

Does anyone else have ideas about what is going on with such structures, which unlike Bigfoot, we can be sure exist?
 
LTC8K6 said:
You practically did lie. :)

This is a skeptic board.

The default position for extraordinary claims is, "We don't believe that."

I'm not sure why that is unexpected.

If some members stretch that to, "You are lying about that."

I think it goes with the territory.

Besides, when someone calls you a liar about a matter that should be factual, it is typically easy to rebut, or at least partially rebut.

It never seems to happen with bigfoot, though. The rebuttal never quite makes the grade.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of lying? To say that you don't believe a person's claim is the equivalent to saying the person is a liar seems incorrect to me.

So, if someone told you he/she read Meldrum's book and found it compelling, is that person lying because you would not find the book compelling (because, there is no Bigfoot to begin with)? Or, do you have other options in your assessment of the reader?
 
The Shrike said:
Jerry, folks can be that stupid when it comes to bigfoot, and honestly believe that Rick Dyer was lying about his first bigfoot in a freezer but telling the truth about his second. I just find sincere belief in such nonsense as a less plausible explanation then some sort of lying/con.

This is different, of course, than just bigfoot belief in general. Lots of people sincerely believe, and some may have even had their belief predicated on a brief glimpse of a moose butt or the sight of a guy in a ghillie suit in the woods. But the leaders of bigfootery -the habituators, the Pattersons, the Moneymakers, etc. - it's really hard to imagine them actually believing their own tripe.

As for Meldrum, he's a tough call. As a devout Mormon, he's predisposed to believing in non-evidence for his worldview, and actively ignoring evidence to contradict it. So he could just be that deluded but given what he knows as a scientifically literate person, it gets harder over time to take him seriously. He's at the very least bending the truth for personal gain, and he knows darn well he's doing that.
Click to expand...

I would agree with the thrust of your comments here.
 
jerrywayne said:
What is your definition of lying? To say that you don't believe a person's claim is the equivalent to saying the person is a liar seems incorrect to me.

So, if someone told you he/she read Meldrum's book and found it compelling, is that person lying because you would not find the book compelling (because, there is no Bigfoot to begin with)? Or, do you have other options in your assessment of the reader?
Click to expand...

An opinion on a book is not a factual claim. It's an opinion. It is neither true nor false. It just is.

If I say that I own a Ferrari, that is a factual claim that is either true or false.

If you say you saw a bigfoot, that is also a factual claim that is either true or false.

If you say you think you saw a bigfoot, that is a different claim.

If it is my opinion that someone is lying, I will generally phrase it that way and I will have evidence to support that opinion.

If I am certain a person has told a lie, then I will generally phrase it that way, and I will have the proof at hand.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out lies.

There is nothing wrong with speculating that a claim might not be truthful.

If I speculate that a claim might be horse dung, then the claimant will surely counter that speculation with evidence, right?

If I call someone a liar, and they aren't one, then they will embarrass me with proof, right?
 
LTC8K6 said:
An opinion on a book is not a factual claim. It's an opinion. It is neither true nor false. It just is.

If I say that I own a Ferrari, that is a factual claim that is either true or false.

If you say you saw a bigfoot, that is also a factual claim that is either true or false.

If you say you think you saw a bigfoot, that is a different claim.

If it is my opinion that someone is lying, I will generally phrase it that way and I will have evidence to support that opinion.

If I am certain a person has told a lie, then I will generally phrase it that way, and I will have the proof at hand.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out lies.

There is nothing wrong with speculating that a claim might not be truthful.

If I speculate that a claim might be horse dung, then the claimant will surely counter that speculation with evidence, right?

If I call someone a liar, and they aren't one, then they will embarrass me with proof, right?
Click to expand...

If we are talking about sightings of anomalous animals, we are talking about non-reproducible events. You may find the claimed event fanciful, even impossible, but to demand proof of the claimed event is unrealistic on its face. And to claim the person is knowingly lying because they do not meet your unrealistic expectation of evidence is, to my mind, a faulty line of reasoning.

Your posts have helped me understand a certain point of view. Sticking to just sightings, the beginning and end of a certain skepticism (I won't say it is necessarily a general skeptical viewpoint) is that Bigfoot does not exist, therefore, the sighting claimant is not telling the truth, he can't be, therefore his claim is not true, therefore he is saying something untrue, therefore he is lying. Does this sketch fairly represent your view?

And speaking of "sightings," even in daily life, I find people misperceive events a lot. Somewhere above in the thread I recount how I thought I saw a giant, really giant, garden spider one time.

And I like to tell this story because it illustrates how expectations can actually change, in your mind, what you are seeing. At work, once, during lunch hour, a co-worker came walking by my desk, took a look at my up-side down hat with work gloves inside, and said, "that's a good-looking hamburger you've got there." When I said "what?," he stopped, took a second look, and turned red. He couldn't have been more than 10 ft. away when he mistook my hat and gloves for a hamburger. It was lunchtime and he had food on his mind.
 
A brief or cursory observation of something common that upon closer inspection is resolved is one thing. To have a brief observation of something where your initial impression is that of something entirely uncommon, i.e. a bigfoot, and you choose to accept that conclusion with no attempt to resolve it further by getting a closer look or to honestly asses more likely conclusions is, imo, a form of dishonesty commonly found in bigfooting.

ETA: This is not the same as flat out lying perhaps. For the person claiming that they likely saw a bigfoot, they are not truly lying in their mind. They chose not to get a closer look. They chose not to resolve the issue further. They probably know that to do so would reveal the object as something common. But they can honestly say that they are not lying because they are not laying claim to a full on, unobstructed, prolonged viewing of a bigfoot. They are instead in that, "well it was big, and furry, and could not have been a bear" class of witness. Are they lying? Perhaps not. Is it dishonest? I believe so.
 
Last edited:
^Exactly. Hamburgers, hats and gloves do exist. The misidentification while funny is understandable. Misidentifications concerning bigfoot are far less understandable and belief is easy to blame imo if we are talking about "today's top players" .Their bigfoot is supposed to be a flesh and blood animal, not a spiritual being, and we are in 2014. Honesty would command pro or semi-pro bigfooters to ask themselves "where is the body?" "you know, why isn't there a body?" and answer at least "maybe they don't exist" even if "I want them to", like Jane Goodall. Instead of that, they dodge the question with lame excuses and go on with their game.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
A name! The first person you have actually named!

So now prove it. How has she proven to believe?
Click to expand...

I'm betting this is she:
http://squatchunlimited.org/profile/LindaSedlak

I am an avid Sasquatch researcher and a believer in this species.I have been following the Ketchum and Sykes studies,and I am helping Ketchum with ideas on how to protect the species from harm after it is revealed to the world as truly existing.I would like being a part of your group to gain more knowledge about Sasquatch, and to have more people to work with when the DNA is released which will occur very soon.
Click to expand...
I see some very bad reasons to believe.

ETA: Squatch Unlimited sure looks like more social club than research organization.
 
Last edited:
jerrywayne said:
If we are talking about sightings of anomalous animals, we are talking about non-reproducible events. You may find the claimed event fanciful, even impossible, but to demand proof of the claimed event is unrealistic on its face. And to claim the person is knowingly lying because they do not meet your unrealistic expectation of evidence is, to my mind, a faulty line of reasoning.

Your posts have helped me understand a certain point of view. Sticking to just sightings, the beginning and end of a certain skepticism (I won't say it is necessarily a general skeptical viewpoint) is that Bigfoot does not exist, therefore, the sighting claimant is not telling the truth, he can't be, therefore his claim is not true, therefore he is saying something untrue, therefore he is lying. Does this sketch fairly represent your view?

And speaking of "sightings," even in daily life, I find people misperceive events a lot. Somewhere above in the thread I recount how I thought I saw a giant, really giant, garden spider one time.

And I like to tell this story because it illustrates how expectations can actually change, in your mind, what you are seeing. At work, once, during lunch hour, a co-worker came walking by my desk, took a look at my up-side down hat with work gloves inside, and said, "that's a good-looking hamburger you've got there." When I said "what?," he stopped, took a second look, and turned red. He couldn't have been more than 10 ft. away when he mistook my hat and gloves for a hamburger. It was lunchtime and he had food on his mind.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary to reproduce the sighting of a 900 pound hairy biped to provide evidence of the sighting. Pictures could be taken, for example. Signs would be readily available in most cases, if the sighting actually occurred.

If I told you there was an elephant standing in the woods over there a minute ago, eating the bark off of a tree, it wouldn't be necessary to reproduce anything. We could go over there, and we'd know an elephant had been there.

I judge each report/case as it comes along. So no, you haven't really represented my point of view at all.

However, the objective default position on extraordinary claims is always "no". Particularly when nothing is presented at all to verify said claim.

In fact, I just realized that I have no idea what you have been talking about, and no idea where you are going with your line of thinking.

Just to be clear, we are talking about bigfoot, which is seen all the time, everywhere. Until you actually try to find one...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom