Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[clayflingythingy]

More on Jerrywayne's superstar "true believer not BLAARGer" (Linda Sedlak) completely contradicting herself:




[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wFxZmVNoIjA/U7Iv76roq5I/AAAAAAAAExM/3IrTZXDSoFc/s1600/dogman-encounter.jpg[/qimg]


http://dogmanresearch.blogspot.com/2014/06/dogman-sighting-lawrence-kansas.html


Here she is directly contradicting herself on the same story:




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

In another version he hides behind a tree after running away.

Not much difference there at all, no - being chased by it on the one hand and on the other hand the animal running away from you.

Much larger than 'yer run-of-the-mill Sasquatch too. What - three or four thousand pounds maybe? And her reward was she got to do a radio show.

That's what lying will do for you, and in the bigfoot world nobody cares if your lies are self-contradictory.

And why does JW think this is a case of "honest" belief and not a liar/hoaxer?

JW, again, why is it so important for you to believe that the BF world is made up of honest people who misidentify what they see?

 

[Correa Neto]

In cases like this, especially when all we know comes through texts scattered along the www, personally I think its very hard to dismiss the possibility of some sort of psychological issue.

Mind you, it may also be mixed with intentional hoaxing in all sorts of complex ways...

 

[Mudcat]

JW, again, why is it so important for you to believe that the BF world is made up of honest people who misidentify what they see?

I used to believe in ghosts because of personally witnessing some phenomenon that I misidentified as being ghostly encounters until I started closely examining my experiences so it makes sense to me that the witnesses of the paranormal, Bigfoot, UFOs, supernatural, et cetera are made up largely of people misidentifying more ordinary phenomenon.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I used to believe in ghosts because of personally witnessing some phenomenon that I misidentified as being ghostly encounters until I started closely examining my experiences so it makes sense to me that the witnesses of the paranormal, Bigfoot, UFOs, supernatural, et cetera are made up largely of people misidentifying more ordinary phenomenon.

While the true numbers remain unknown, the contention here in this forum is that it's hardly anyone who's "misidentifying more ordinary phenomenon." The WP™ sponsored premise is that around 90-98% of Bigfoot "encounters" involve outright "deception" in some form/manner e.g. LARPing, BLAARGing, lying, hoaxing, pretending while acting in a TV show, etc. Leaving "true belief" and "honest misidentification" just barely fractions of the total. You don't agree?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

In cases like this, especially when all we know comes through texts scattered along the www, personally I think its very hard to dismiss the possibility of some sort of psychological issue.

Mind you, it may also be mixed with intentional hoaxing in all sorts of complex ways...

Well, this is rife for attack by BLAARGers because it can be dishonestly portrayed as saying someone is clinically insane.

You didn't say that of course, and the "issue" can be no more serious than a strong but not debilitating need for this kind of attention (I was almost eaten by a monster).

You can do a pretty bang-up job at actually BEING scared without any lying. That's pretty much a daily game here with us - spooking everyone else.

But the BLAARGer is totally making the story up. They are not scared at the time it is allegedly happening. There may be some morsel of truth in it, like they are looking for the first dark spot in the woods (from the safety of their car on a public highway) to weave into a story about the scariest thing that ever happened to them. There really was a dark spot in the woods. But the being scared part, no - not at all. The Area X people - they aren't seeing or hearing anything out of the ordinary. Are they scared? No, they are lying about being scared.

It would be fascinating to see those clowns on tape inside that cabin. Their real Monty Python moments. That's why they can't show any of it despite having gone in there with loud sirens about doing just that. What it would look like is either bad acting about being scared or them joking about what kind of idiot would believe them.

Along with the Parcher Quotient 2% if I am citing that accurately, none of those people are scared in the slightest at what they say happened. It is an odd game where BEING scared measures ZERO against the claim that it was the scariest thing that ever happened to you.

I find that pretty odd. A psychological issue that does not mean crazy, but it's out there.

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, this is rife for attack by BLAARGers because it can be dishonestly portrayed as saying someone is clinically insane.

You didn't say that of course, and the "issue" can be no more serious than a strong but not debilitating need for this kind of attention (I was almost eaten by a monster).

Would not be the first time woomongers cry something like "SKEPITCS SAID U R ALL CRAZIES!" Its a common fall back position.

The "issue" may even be mild, temporary or even a one-time event. It doesn't matter - some will grab the fact that we pointed this as a possible explanation for some cases and twist it to the "SKEPITCS SAID U R ALL CRAZIES!" cheap trick. The folks with crazy tall tales will then become the poor victims of evil skeptics and their whacky story no longer will be at the spotlight for questioning.

You can do a pretty bang-up job at actually BEING scared without any lying. That's pretty much a daily game here with us - spooking everyone else.

But the BLAARGer is totally making the story up. They are not scared at the time it is allegedly happening. There may be some morsel of truth in it, like they are looking for the first dark spot in the woods (from the safety of their car on a public highway) to weave into a story about the scariest thing that ever happened to them. There really was a dark spot in the woods. But the being scared part, no - not at all. The Area X people - they aren't seeing or hearing anything out of the ordinary. Are they scared? No, they are lying about being scared.

It would be fascinating to see those clowns on tape inside that cabin. Their real Monty Python moments. That's why they can't show any of it despite having gone in there with loud sirens about doing just that. What it would look like is either bad acting about being scared or them joking about what kind of idiot would believe them.

And all we have are their own accounts of the "facts"...
Dare to question? You'll get a
"SKEPITCS SAID U R ALL LIARS!"

Its the very same fall back "SKEPITCS SAID U R ALL CRAZIES!" maneauver.

I find that pretty odd. A psychological issue that does not mean crazy, but it's out there.

I'm no expert on this brain stuff. Mind you, rocks are my thing and they have no brains at all, but according to the shrinks, not all mental issues are equal to insanity. But you know, "SKEPITCS SAID U R ALL CRAZIES!"

 

[Drewbot]

There is an internal mechanism for dealing with this.
When I would try to question the 'witnesses' at the BFF or other forums the forum management and other Footers would immediately shift the thread to bashing me for asking such questions.

Question: Are you taking any medications for Depression, Sleep Disorders, or other potential mind altering substances.

RESPONSE: You can't ask personal medical information! That is a horrible thing to have to say to an honest witness who came forward.


I told them that it should be OKAY to ask the question, whether they want to answer it is not required however.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

And why does JW think this is a case of "honest" belief and not a liar/hoaxer?

JW, again, why is it so important for you to believe that the BF world is made up of honest people who misidentify what they see?

Well it's of singular note that after demanding the floor, shame on us for not allowing talk about truthful sightings that when we FINALLY get him to name his best example - it turns out not just lame but especially so, and our interlocutor is absent from the thing he insisted talking about.

This is something we really would like to know. Is it the 2% or is it nearly nobody at all? Most of us came to this realization about BLAARGing over a long period of dealing with it, discussing it, and finally applying the right science to it.

So it has been a surprise to me at least how little evidence there is for anyone actually believing what they are saying. And I am willing to say that the answer to the above question is also different than you would expect.

BLAARGing roles are all over the map. You can find a niche to BLAARG from without being a 'footer. On the "skeptic" side too. You can play the skeptic who believes 90% of it is bona-fide sightings meaning they saw exactly what they say they saw.

You can play the skeptic that holds out reasonable belief in TheMelba's work. We had one here that brow-beat people for not waiting until her work was done, as if centuries of history and the fact she and her associates were so bizarre didn't matter. No, we don't have to give the benefit of the doubt to every new set of antics by the 'footers. That's being a nitwit.

Bigfoot is a platform to operate from as a "believer" or alternatively being the "skeptic" who isn't an extremist about his skepticism. I see that role pretty commonly. Chastising most of us for being too extreme in our skepticism. Pursuing the false golden mean strategy: Skeptics too extreme one way and 'footers too extreme the other. True skepticism is bigfoot half existing. The person does not believe what they are saying themselves. It's just point-scoring for their own BLAARGing character.


A marketing brand can have no relation whatever to the thing it is marketing. Beer is not a horse and horses play no part in beer production. If you ask the fans of this beer to justify this connection between the horse and the beer they're just going to get angry at you. This is an image we are fronting here, so just get lost with your demands for proof this marketing image has anything to do with reality. How dare you insult our horse. This is such a nice horse. How can you say our horse is a lie? Etc.

Then leave the room.

 

[bruto]

Given that I'm participating in a few other threads where people are seriously arguing that the universe is consciousness, gay marriage is a fearsome fakery that should never come about, and God drowns us in evidence we'd see if we did not hate him, and so forth, I must confess that I suspect at least some people really do believe in bigfoot, because....well, people are people.

 

[William Parcher]

Nobody doubts that there are some people who really do believe in Bigfoot.

 

[William Parcher]

Question: Are you taking any medications for Depression, Sleep Disorders, or other potential mind altering substances.

Drew, you really like the idea that hallucinations are a part of Bigfootery. I don't think you like the idea that hallucination theory is not prominently cited or speculated by other Bigfoot skeptics.

Nobody doubts that there are some people who had a hallucination(s) and then consequently really do believe in Bigfoot.

 

[Mudcat]

While the true numbers remain unknown, the contention here in this forum is that it's hardly anyone who's "misidentifying more ordinary phenomenon." The WP™ sponsored premise is that around 90-98% of Bigfoot "encounters" involve outright "deception" in some form/manner e.g. LARPing, BLAARGing, lying, hoaxing, pretending while acting in a TV show, etc. Leaving "true belief" and "honest misidentification" just barely fractions of the total. You don't agree?

Maybe I'm naïve but I don't believe that is the case at all. So I respectfully disagree that it is true.

 

[EHocking]

M3 too.

In fact, I doubt that William Parcher agrees that it is true either.

 

[Drewbot]

Drew, you really like the idea that hallucinations are a part of Bigfootery. I don't think you like the idea that hallucination theory is not prominently cited or speculated by other Bigfoot skeptics.

Nobody doubts that there are some people who had a hallucination(s) and then consequently really do believe in Bigfoot.

That post was more about the infrastructure of Bigfoot.
There are no other woo-crypto subjects that have as large of a built in structure ready to accept witnesses and liars. This was to illustrate the largest forum willing to intercede on behalf of the witnesses under relevant questioning.

The guy who saw Mothman doesn't have this type of protection when he claims to see such a monster.

 

[The Shrike]

I think it might be something like this:

There is a population of people who truly believe in bigfoot. Let's call them A.

There is a smaller population of people who claim to have seen a bigfoot. Let's call them B.

There are some members of population A in population B but B is not a strict subset of population A. It is, in fact, dominated by population C which is comprised of people who claim to have seen a bigfoot but do not actually believe in bigfoot.

Population C is disproportionately important in bigfootery because these people not only make up the majority of the claims, but they are the ones pushing the growth of population A. This includes your Pattersons, Biscardis, Meldrums, Byrnes, etc.

 

[William Parcher]

In fact, I doubt that William Parcher agrees that it is true either.

I'm not sure what is being proposed that I wouldn't or would agree with.

 

[William Parcher]

There are no other woo-crypto subjects that have as large of a built in structure ready to accept witnesses and liars. This was to illustrate the largest forum willing to intercede on behalf of the witnesses under relevant questioning.

I can't think of any crypto-creature belief community that routinely tosses out witnesses and liars.

I think that there may be a number of Bigfoot believers who would say that the PGF is the only really valuable evidence for Bigfoot and that it shows the existence of Bigfoot even if you throw away everything else that is proposed to be Bigfoot evidence.

The guy who saw Mothman doesn't have this type of protection when he claims to see such a monster.

Is there a Mothman believer forum where you have seen a total lack of "protection" for the witness(s)?

 

[Drewbot]

I can't think of any crypto-creature belief community that routinely tosses out witnesses and liars.

I think that there may be a number of Bigfoot believers who would say that the PGF is the only really valuable evidence for Bigfoot and that it shows the existence of Bigfoot even if you throw away everything else that is proposed to be Bigfoot evidence.



Is there a Mothman believer forum where you have seen a total lack of "protection" for the witness(s)?

The Bigfoot community is Acceptance. These people want acceptance before anything else. No other Crypto animals have an acceptance structure on the scale of the Bigfoot. There is no forum for Mothman period, so of course there is no Mothman acceptance.

 

[William Parcher]

No other Crypto animals have an acceptance structure on the scale of the Bigfoot.

How is the acceptance structure of the Cadborosaurus believer community different than that of Bigfoot?

There is no forum for Mothman period, so of course there is no Mothman acceptance.

They just had a Mothman Festival. There is no Mothman belief?

 

[Drewbot]

There are clearly more Bigfooters than Mothmanners.

The acceptance of other Footers allows Bigfooters to rationalize their belief. "Well look at all these other people who saw a bigfoot, I am not crazy, there really is a Bigfoot out there."

It's like religion in that aspect. There is no supportive infrastructure for Zeus Belief in the United States, if there was, perhaps more would be drawn to such a religion.