Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[snoop_doxie]

Linda Sedlak seems to believe that Ketchum will be bringing the DNA proof soon.

She is a BLARGer.

Anyone who still believes that Ketchum has ANYTHING relative to say about DNA
does not know what she has been up to the past couple of years.

If Linda can look past Ketchum's self serving lies and fraud concerning her research,
the she is absolutely a BLARGer.
Does not want to see the truth or know who Melba is in the real world.

Why would any real researcher, with real proof of Bigfoot have to lie about getting
published? Have a friend "buy" a magazine (a lie) call the magazine "De Novo" or
something, and the only scientific paper supposedly published by De Novo is
her ridiculous paper.

Helping Ketchum save the forest creatures? Oh, no. She (Linda) wants to belong to
a club. Like Resume said, it is a social club.

If they want to save the forest creatures, there is a procedure to follow. Like all things
government, there are forms to fill out and sign. I think ABP brought that up and linked
to the form or instructions.

I wonder why Melba has never done that?
Especially now that she has connected them to the Bible.
LOL
Anyone who knows that and still believes in Melba is willfully blind.

Being willfully blind in order to be part of a social club (and help Melba save the forest
people) may not be lying to you, but it is to me.
Lying to yourself is sad, keeping the lie alive to keep the club alive is depressing.

 

[EHocking]

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.

Case in point. Years ago while on safari in Africa I saw Roan antelope. The guide had never seen them in that park in the 15-20 years he'd worked there. I have 3 photos that undeniably identify the animals. They were in view for less than 30 seconds.

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.

And this post helps us understand the bleevers point of view. You acknowledge that misidentification occurs and that memory is fallible to the point of totally inaccurate.

The bleevers a priori stance should not be that bigfoot exists, but that misidentification of real animals occurs and memory is fallible.

But it is not. It is that bigfoot exists, therefore all sightings support that belief.

 

[Tontar]

About cryptids and cryptozoology for just a moment. Cryprozoologists and those who respect them, clam that they are scientific researchers of unclassified or undiscovered animals. They say that in a general sense, as if they are the cousins and brothers and sisters of real zoology, and that because of their work, many species have been brought to light and recognized.

However, I think that's all a crock. I have yet to see any real new species brought to light by cryptozoologists. The new species of salamander, or chipmunk, or starfish, or monkey, all seem to have been brought to the forefront by real zoologists, and not cryptozoologists. That new species of monkey last year, that was finally documented and catalogued, was researched by real zoologists. Where were the cryptozoologists? Where were the Meldrums and Munns's and Colemans, and so on? Where were THEY while all this new species investigation was being worked on?

No, I don't believe that cryptozoologists work hand in hand with science, or even within the confines of the scientific method, to bring to light new species. All the cryptozoological places I have looked into don't feature any news about that new monkey, or that new starfish. They only feature monsters. Not the little monsters either, but the big monsters. Giant lake monsters, giant apes, giant dinosaurs that roam the forests. Cryptozoology is not a legitimate scientific field. Nope, it's a fake field created by people who want to somehow legitimize the fantasy that monsters really do exist.

If cryptozoologists are even close to legitimate, I'd like to see a list of animals (not creatures) that they have catalogued into the science books. Just like the word "creature" means fantasy to me, so does the word "cryptozoology". I'm finally starting to get a handle on the terminology so that I can see what some of these words actually mean. LOL!

 

[The Shrike]

Craptozoologists claim any number of "hits" but are disingenuous when doing so. They conflate "newly desribed" and "cryptozoological" as it suits their needs.

 

[jerrywayne]

To my mind, cryptozoology is Forteanism and not of zoology.

 

[Tontar]

"Craptozoologists"

Hah, I like that one!

 

[Mudcat]

First Nation legends are a convenient bullet-point for enthusiasts but I'd wager that most have only a passing knowledge of those legends as they relate to their enthusiasm. They conveniently overlook most of the hundreds of other legendary creatures that were also the subject of First Nation lodge talk-stories.

There are a lot of facts that Bigfooters overlook about First Nation legends:

1. Most, if not all, of those legends were preserved orally. Any historian worth his salt will know that isn't an accurate way to preserve information.
2. Many of those legends must be shoehorned to fit the modern day Bigfoot.
3. Those legends often contradict what is believed about modern day Bigfoot.
4. Many of these 'Bigfoot' had been portrayed with magical abilities.

 

[Resume]

There are a lot of facts that Bigfooters overlook about First Nation legends:

1. Most, if not all, of those legends were preserved orally. Any historian worth his salt will know that isn't an accurate way to preserve information.
2. Many of those legends must be shoehorned to fit the modern day Bigfoot.
3. Those legends often contradict what is believed about modern day Bigfoot.
4. Many of these 'Bigfoot' had been portrayed with magical abilities.

It's just another example of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[jerrywayne]

To expand on the cryptozoology as Forteana idea:

The acknowledged co-founders of cryptozoology were Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson. Both men were trained zoologists. Sanderson, however, had a late second career as a writer on Fortean subjects, while Heuvelmans later became the first president of the Center for Fortean Zoology.

Cryptozoology is not a recognized scientific discipline, of coarse, so it's interesting to discover who claims to be a "cryptozoologist." On one end of the spectrum, the skeptic Joe Nickell lists on his resume the title of cryptozoologist. On the far other end, we find someone like Nick Redfern, the wide-open, ridiculous, anything goes Fortean who writes occasionally for Cryptomundo (although he does not consider himself a cryptozoologist.) The rest are the usual suspects like Loren Coleman, who's Fortean-like mystery mongering takes him far afield from just mystery animals, and like Karl Shucker, the zoologist who is at home writing for Fortean Times magazine.

The interesting thing about Forteans --- they claim to be pure skeptics. We think of skeptics like Paul Kurtz, Martin Gardner, and Carl Sagan and we recognize the component of science in the modern skeptical movement. But for Forteans, they don't doubt just authority or tradition or religion, they throw science in the mix too. Like any good follower of Charles Fort, they challenge mainstream science by throwing as many natural (and even un-natural) anomalies as they can cull from the record at the scientific establishment.

While science should be challenged, and it welcomes challenge in theory, Forteans find themselves sometimes advancing some pretty silly stuff. Read anything from Redfern to find how far they are willing to go.

Part of the Fortean challenge to conventional science is found in the lore and lure of mystery animals. Just like finding fish raining down from the skies, sightings of sea-serpents and lake monsters and apemen are meant to be a challenge to modern science. Mystery animals are the wildlife anomalies that, added with other anomalies, lead to a Fortean portrayal of the world as far more mysterious, on its surface, than dreamed of by science.

 

[jerrywayne]

A name! The first person you have actually named!

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

I'm happy that you want me to prove she is a believer. I had second thoughts about using her name because she is a sweet, kind-hearted person and I had worried that she might fall victim to a goonish, erroneous smear campaign thanks to me.

Bush Pilot, thanks saving her from a fate she wouldn't deserve by asking me to prove she is a believer.

 

[jerrywayne]

Case in point. Years ago while on safari in Africa I saw Roan antelope. The guide had never seen them in that park in the 15-20 years he'd worked there. I have 3 photos that undeniably identify the animals. They were in view for less than 30 seconds.

And this post helps us understand the bleevers point of view. You acknowledge that misidentification occurs and that memory is fallible to the point of totally inaccurate.

The bleevers a priori stance should not be that bigfoot exists, but that misidentification of real animals occurs and memory is fallible.

But it is not. It is that bigfoot exists, therefore all sightings support that belief.

We are not talking about outdoorsmen who just happen to see something they can't explain. We are talking about believers who have a belief that is not objective, like almost all of us do to varying degrees.

 

[EHocking]

We are not talking about outdoorsmen who just happen to see something they can't explain.

I wasn't either.
I was objecting to

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.

I then gave an example of an anomalous animal sighting, a non-reproducible event and can produce evidence that it occurred. To demand such proof is not unrealistic, it is only something the scientific world demands of every new species claim.

Believing in fanciful stories, blurred photos and faked physical evidence is a much more unrealistic stance to take.

We are talking about believers who have a belief that is not objective, like almost all of us do to varying degrees.

And the point I was arguing, since you acknowledge that the stories are without merit as evidence for BF was that you were criticising the wrong people in your post.

You seem to be berating sceptics for their a priori position that BF is imaginary. Apparently, just because no one has ever presented any credible evidence for large population of 9ft primates existing in N.Am, it is unreasonable to take the position that it doesn't exist.

Yet you don't hold bleevers to task and seem to think that their a priori position that BF is real "just because" is a valid, reasonable and even scientific one to take.

You have it quite, quite backwards.

 

[Mudcat]

It's just another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed. This is also putting aside the possibility that the First Nations people are just telling Bigfooters what they want to hear, similar to how did with people looking for the fountain of youth or El Dorado.

And Bigfooters have a tendency to downplay anyone who points this stuff out, as they put the First Nations people on some kind of pedestal. It's quite baffling but I suppose it's not that far removed from religionists that fail or refuse to examine their holy books too closely.

 

[William Parcher]

Regardless of what went on with the Native Americans there is no evidence that they ever confirmed the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch (same thing). That lack of evidence is evidence in itself. It is data.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I'm happy that you want me to prove she is a believer. I had second thoughts about using her name because she is a sweet, kind-hearted person and I had worried that she might fall victim to a goonish, erroneous smear campaign thanks to me.

Bush Pilot, thanks saving her from a fate she wouldn't deserve by asking me to prove she is a believer.

lol. That was hilarious. And totally ineffective.


Here is another gem from her:

Comment by Linda Sedlak on July 5, 2014 at 9:07pm

I live in Western Kentucky near Madisonville. I have seen a sasquatch known as a Dogman in Texas. However, I have done no real research but I would like to do something safe with another woman, or in a group to be even safer. I'm married, have 3 kids, and 3 dogs and 3 cats All 3 children have left the nest but thankfully I have my pets and hubby still here. Are you doing any research? There are reports of BF being spotted in the area, but they could just be passing through.

http://squatchunlimited.org/profiles/blogs/encounter-in-western-kentucky-june-17-2014?xg_source=activity

This was you BEST evidence!? Here is a person who by their own admission has done no research.

No kidding! Dogman is not bigfoot. It is part dog, part man. What is so hilarious about it is that this is the best you can do.

Your evidence of this hugely under-reported class of true believers (not BLAARGers) is someone who does not even know the difference between dogman and bigfoot! Or the Loch Ness Monster "bigfoot" I suppose.

Thanks for disproving your claim .

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It's just another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Well exactly: it is the defining feature. If we disallow lying then we disallow bigfoot.

Hence the screeching all out of reason against pointing out the myriad of ways lying is practiced in the bigfoot trade by anyone wanting to preserve lying as a tactic.

Lying by commandeering Indian legends and using the false representation to further your own ends is reprehensible on a number of grounds. It is anti-knowledge. It is disrespectful of the actual heritage.

I'm amazed people can even consider a "where's the harm - just having fun" argument with that. Why not just say the Germans built the Pyramids and Egypt is in China? We can all have our own meanings of words too like "expeditions" to hotels.

It isn't that they do no research. They are studiously anti-research. Militantly anti-science. What they gain proficiency in is a whole array of disengenuous attacks on the scientific method. Because applying the scientific method negates bigfoot. Look at all the nasty spiteful things said of ordinary scientists by 'footers from the top of the food chain right down to the posters on BFF.

Showing zero interest in finding bigfoot and 100% interest in gaming it into existence is pretty conclusive.


Edit. Hey here is some more on our nominee for best evidence of true believer over blaarging, Linda Sedlak:

During my life I have encountered a Dogman, a Sasquatch, I lived in a haunted house, and I have seen 3 UFOs, one up close no more than 20 feet from me so I am well aware of the many wonders and terrors this world has for us to yet officially discover.

http://squatchunlimited.org/group/tales-of-wild-men?xg_source=activity

Twenty feet from a UFO.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...Twenty feet from a UFO.

I know she's on skates there, but is 20 feet really close enough for her to take the entire UFO's Sonic Drive-In™ order and actually get it right? I mean, who knows what kind of intergalactic holy hell could have erupted had she got their tater tots and chili cheese fries orders all mixed up.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

This is wonderful - jerrywayne made a beginner mistake a 'footer knows not to make: never let them see the evidence.

So this Linda Sedlak above rattled off six paranormal experiences in one single sentence. A UFO 20 feet away, even.

So let's get to the alleged Sasquatch encounter she had:

Timmy, I had a daylight encounter with my skeptic hubby along for the adventure. We both have post grad degrees, we were in daylight and were only a few feet away from the creature. We saw a black hair covered 7-8 feet tall and several hundred pounds of muscle male stand up and run away from us.

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/07/skeptics-need-to-do-more-research.html


She's not prone to exaggeration and tall tales at all, no. Not with all these qualifications, like membership in UFO and alien boards, wildmen creature sites, dogman, sasquatch and all?

See, remember the story jerrywayne told: someone has an encounter. It changes their life. Then they become a believer.

Well, no - this is the opposite. We have a wide ranging paranormal fan here that has a lot of wild stories and looks also to contradict herself.

So that leaves us at zero evidence for the incessant claim being made and since it was the very best piece of evidence he had - that's pretty damning.

 

[Resume]

This is wonderful - jerrywayne made a beginner mistake a 'footer knows not to make: never let them see the evidence.

So this Linda Sedlak above rattled off six paranormal experiences in one single sentence. A UFO 20 feet away, even.

So let's get to the alleged Sasquatch encounter she had:




http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/07/skeptics-need-to-do-more-research.html


She's not prone to exaggeration and tall tales at all, no. Not with all these qualifications, like membership in UFO and alien boards, wildmen creature sites, dogman, sasquatch and all?

See, remember the story jerrywayne told: someone has an encounter. It changes their life. Then they become a believer.

Well, no - this is the opposite. We have a wide ranging paranormal fan here that has a lot of wild stories and looks also to contradict herself.

So that leaves us at zero evidence for the incessant claim being made and since it was the very best piece of evidence he had - that's pretty damning.

I believe this person is attention-seeking posting as SweetSusiq over at the BFF.

I too have experienced weird things in my life. I lived in a *haunted* house,I know that UFOs exist, and there are at least 3 types of them because I've seen 3 types, and heard there are larger ones that don't come into earth's atmosphere very often. Then I saw a Dogman. I have had enough thrills and chills, and am ready to settle down into a nice quiet uneventful life.

Multiple venues = more attention.

 

[Drewbot]

Jerry Wayne- Do you think Joan believes in Bigfoot?

http://www.joanocean.com/sasquatch.html

Did you know that Sasquatch can:
Read

Write

Shape-shift

Project Their Voice

Create Infrasound that affects the environment

De-materialize at will, or cause you to have an experience of lost time so you think they de-materialized.

Travel 300 miles a day on foot.

Live in well-lighted underground facilities

Contact and live with Star People

Tell us about our past and our future.

Have lived here longer than the human race.