Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Dinwar]

There is an easy test...once a believer claims a detailed, in the flesh, I know bears and it wasn't a bear, long hairy arm giving a backrub to a hairy back, encounter - they are BLAARGers.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I mean, certain encounters are sure to be fabrications, but I know how much stories can change with the telling, and still be honestly believed. I think at least a portion of them are fooling themselves.

And I'm extremely hesitant to take the stand "specific claims are proof of fraud". It's too close to pseudoscientific reasoning, and I'm not willing to go down that road.

 

[Correa Neto]

This presupposes that the bigfoot believer is dishonest about their belief. While I'm well aware that many are, I maintain that assertions of dishonesty have the burden of proof. We cannot--or at least should not--assume that the bigfoot believer is dishonest by default.

You are not wrong - but that doesn't mean you are right.

Depending on the claim and the behaviour, dishonesty is a valid -if not the most plausible/probable- explanation. Some claims are just too far fetched, some arguments have been presented and brought down in flames so many times that I feel people following such trends are dishonest or/and very ignorant/naïve. Call me a cynic if you will - I even admit I am one - all these years watching bigfootery microcosm brought me to this position.

None of what you mention would be prevented by the NDA discussed in this forum. Statements of ecology--such as "area heavily trafficed by vehicles and pedestrians, located within a half-mile of ag fields and less than two miles from a small town" don't give enough locality data to matter (nearly all rural areas in Ohio, Alabama, and the Great Valley in California match this description, in my experience), but they provide ample information to rule out pristine wilderness and the like. That's one thing few people count on: those of us who have our professional lives dictated by NDAs are pretty good at determining their limits, and working around them.

Again, you are not wrong - but that doesn't mean you are right.

One thing all these years watching woologies showed me is that their paladins love legal stuff like NDAs and legal threats to protect themselves from those which expose (or may expose) their frauds. They try to take shelter underneath the laws. Just check the number of legal threats JREF received along the years. IIRC, even inside bigfootery these things are common - footers threatening footers with law suits.

 

[Dinwar]

Some claims are just too far fetched, some arguments have been presented and brought down in flames so many times that I feel people following such trends are dishonest or/and very ignorant/naïve.

I'll agree with everything but the highlighted portion. The thing is, WE know they have been disproven over and over again. THEY, however, may not know that. It's like Creationists: your average Creationist honestly believes what they're saying, because they've been duped by dishonest con artists and are too ignorant to know any better. Only in the case of bigfoot, it's a combination of con artists and their own mental errors (again, no insult here--the errors are ones we are all prone to).

 

[clayflingythingy]

However, I'm also not one who believes all bigfoot believers to be liars.

I would have been more accepting of this statement years ago when I first started lurking these threads and the old BFF.

Today, I feel anyone making a BF claim is a liar until proven otherwise.

 

[Mudcat]

Drew might be the only skeptic here who has gone Bigfootin' with a Bigfooter.

I did, once. I wasn't invited back however.

 

[Dinwar]

I would have been more accepting of this statement years ago when I first started lurking these threads and the old BFF.

Today, I feel anyone making a BF claim is a liar until proven otherwise.

The Clinician Fallacy.

 

[Correa Neto]

I'll agree with everything but the highlighted portion. The thing is, WE know they have been disproven over and over again. THEY, however, may not know that. It's like Creationists: your average Creationist honestly believes what they're saying, because they've been duped by dishonest con artists and are too ignorant to know any better. Only in the case of bigfoot, it's a combination of con artists and their own mental errors (again, no insult here--the errors are ones we are all prone to).

Then these folks would fall under the ignorant/naïve labells. Or blinded by belief/faith/dishonest people if you want to add an extra one. Lots of footers are creationists, BTW.

We had diverse types of footers here. Hoaxers/conmen, enthusiasts, researchers, trolls, "knowers", even contactees. I believe (note the word "believe") some are a blend of one or more types. The higher you are within bigfootery, I feel, the higher are the odds of not believing in bigfoot.

 

[eerok]

Then these folks would fall under the ignorant/naïve labells. Or blinded by belief/faith/dishonest people if you want to add an extra one. [...]

This is a much more reasonable position than some I've been seeing here. I think that the claim "all bigfoot believers are liars" is both ridiculous and unprovable. Some people are just nuts, or as you say, naïve and/or ignorant. And/or they're following the dumbass anti-science meme that has some traction among flakes.

We had diverse types of footers here. Hoaxers/conmen, enthusiasts, researchers, trolls, "knowers", even contactees. I believe (note the word "believe") some are a blend of one or more types. The higher you are within bigfootery, I feel, the higher are the odds of not believing in bigfoot.

I think that there's a many-layered social thing going on in bigfootery. Needs are filled, and that's what matters to them. Some are lying rather blatantly, hoaxing and joking, and some are lying more to themselves. I think that one can't dismiss it all as just simple lying, because it's not simple at all.

And once again, I must insist that the crazy ones aren't lying.

 

[HarryHenderson]

I think that there's a many-layered social thing going on in bigfootery. Needs are filled, and that's what matters to them. Some are lying rather blatantly, hoaxing and joking, and some are lying more to themselves. I think that one can't dismiss it all as just simple lying, because it's not simple at all...

Firstly, there seems to be a misconception that everyone here, instead of just William Parcher, thinks Bigfooters are "lying" 100% of the time.

Secondly, I think it's been a little while now that we've agreed there's a singular, all encompassing activity that is the real engine of all this present-day Popular Bigfooting: BLAARGing. It's literally everything you just described and more. A major precept being not just that you're allowed to lie, but that it's expected if you want to score "points". It's all part of the game. For example, ChrisBFRPKY comes in here righteous as a mutha ****** not because he thinks he's right as far as the cosmic truth - "that's for the scientists to figure out" - but right as far as how good he's playing the game. Chicks dig results and he gets results.

 

[Dinwar]

Firstly, there seems to be a misconception that everyone here, instead of just William Parcher, thinks Bigfooters are "lying" 100% of the time.

You have misunderstood. The default on this forum is certainly that people saying they've seen bigfoot are lying--several people have admitted as much. That is a very serious problem, for two reasons. First, it's logically indefensible; it presupposes knowledge we don't have, and ignores the fact that this forum only experiences a self-selected subset of bigfoot believers. Second, it more or less ensures that we've alienated every bigfoot believer before they post, meaning that we've effectively shut down any chance we have of presenting the real data in a way that will actually make a difference. Both are serious problems. The second defeats the purpose of an allegedly educational forum, and the first corrodes one's thinking over time.

Secondly, I think it's been a little while now that we've agreed there's a singular, all encompassing activity that is the real engine of all this present-day Popular Bigfooting: BLAARGing.

Funny. I don't recall agreeing to any such thing. And I KNOW that the bigfoot community will reject this as the unwarranted assertion it is.

Then these folks would fall under the ignorant/naïve labells. Or blinded by belief/faith/dishonest people if you want to add an extra one.

Ignorant and naive I'll give you. They are ignorant of biology, and naive in as much as they underestimate the errors of their own cognition, perception, and recollection.

The whole "blinded by" bit is way too far, though. "Ignorant" and "naive" are agressive terms (you and I both know they're value-neutral, but others do not). To call someone "blinded by" is to accuse them of shutting down their thought process, and again, without evidence for this I simply cannot accept that conclusion. And again, they by their nature essentially ensure that those we are trying to reach never hear us. Even the peanut gallery is going to react badly to this. Who's going to come here and honestly ask about an experience they had when they know that people are going to jump down their throats and call them, essentially, deluded just for not knowing what else to call their experience?

If I had come here years ago and said I felt like there was a shadow person following me everywhere I went, who got very angry when I read certain things, I would have been dismissed as blinded by my belief in the supernatural, or deluded, or whatnot. The reality is it's a known psychological issue, specifically an error in the process within the brain that determines sense of self/location of self. It's been replicated in labs--and the results are identical to what I've described. What happened to me was real, and the symptoms I've described are accurate--but with attitudes like those presented in this thread I'd never have come here to discuss it, because I'd know no one would take it seriously enough to actually listen. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those who honestly believe they have seen something that contradicts the beliefs of Skeptics. The honest ones often simply don't know what else to call what happened to them--and it's our obligation to give them that vocabulary and information.

The higher you are within bigfootery, I feel, the higher are the odds of not believing in bigfoot.

No argument there. Those who are making bank on the idea cannot claim ignorance or innocence. If you've got time to write a book about bigfoot, you have time to do the research--and any honest examination of the research will inevitably lead to the dismissal of this hypothesis.

 

[eerok]

I think it's been a little while now that we've agreed there's a singular, all encompassing activity that is the real engine of all this present-day Popular Bigfooting: BLAARGing. It's literally everything you just described and more. A major precept being not just that you're allowed to lie, but that it's expected if you want to score "points". It's all part of the game.

The highlighted needs to be backed up. If people were too busy/apathetic to argue your point in past arguments, that doesn't mean that you've actually achieved a "win" in any case. Welcome to the internet.

No one is suggesting that there's no lying about bigfoot, or even that that's not the case most of the time, but I challenge you to support the assertion that all bigfoot belief is lying, because I think that this is nonsense. Some bigfoot believers are crazy, deluded, fooled, or downright ignorant/stupid. You can't just dismiss that.

Do you really think that you can support the claim that all bigfoot witnesses are liars? I think this is not true, because I'm not willing to make such huge, unsupported assumptions about the motivations of bigfoot believers.

I don't understand why anyone would make a big deal about arguing something as sketchy as this. Feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Dinwar]

....but I challenge you to support the assertion that all bigfoot belief is lying, because I think that this is nonsense.

As I said, it's the clinician fallacy. All that anyone sees here are the liars and frauds; the people genuinely mistaken aren't likely to come, and if they do they won't stick around long. So the sample is self-selected for only the worst among the bigfooters. Since that's all anyone here interacts with, they begin to believe that that subset is the set--they think that what they're seeing is the norm for bigfoot believers.

Think of it like medicine. A doctor in a clinic is only going to see the worst cases of any given disease. The cases that aren't so bad simply stay home. So over time, the doctor begins to believe that the normal symptoms of the disease are what he sees--despite the fact that he only encounters the worst cases.

 

[Correa Neto]

This is a much more reasonable position than some I've been seeing here. I think that the claim "all bigfoot believers are liars" is both ridiculous and unprovable. Some people are just nuts, or as you say, naïve and/or ignorant. And/or they're following the dumbass anti-science meme that has some traction among flakes.



I think that there's a many-layered social thing going on in bigfootery. Needs are filled, and that's what matters to them. Some are lying rather blatantly, hoaxing and joking, and some are lying more to themselves. I think that one can't dismiss it all as just simple lying, because it's not simple at all.

And once again, I must insist that the crazy ones aren't lying.

Even more complex, I think. Crazy people can tell lies too.

On a more serious note, some may be telling or supporting "honest lies". They know that particular stuff is bogus; they think however the ends justify the means and that one or two particular bits of fakery were required to "keep the flame alive".

 

[Cervelo]

Hey folks!
Just a brief update on yesterday's hike with Chris.
Awesome day to be out and got to see some great countryside. Total distance covered was about 3miles out and 3miles back to a river. Got to see one stealthy buck that was definitely a great practitioner of the "stand still and your invisible" club....great eye on Chris's part to see him. When he finally spooked we found out why he stood his ground... The doe he was following became "visible"!
While not covering alot of ground as we walked and talked we did discuss many aspects of the Bigfoot "evidence" and you might be surprised as I was how skeptical Chris really is.
We hiked out in the dark which is always a blast and did hear one cool unknown...sounded canid/foxy to me.
Chris was kind enough to drive me over to the Mommoth Cave visitors center so I could get my bearings straight for today's touristy adventures.
Still pissed Chris wouldn't let me buy him dinner (just kidding Chris) and he shared some other stories that were a blast to hear.
Chris I would just like to thank you for being a fantastic host and confiding in me!

 

[Correa Neto]

Ignorant and naive I'll give you. They are ignorant of biology, and naive in as much as they underestimate the errors of their own cognition, perception, and recollection.

They are also naïve and/or ignorant enough to be fooled by the top-ranking footers. Sometimes even willingly, I would say. They know that guy hoaxed, but hey, maybe this time it’s the real deal. Can’t be sure… Patterson was a conman, but hey, he god lucky and filmed a real bigfoot, so…

The whole "blinded by" bit is way too far, though. "Ignorant" and "naive" are agressive terms (you and I both know they're value-neutral, but others do not). To call someone "blinded by" is to accuse them of shutting down their thought process, and again, without evidence for this I simply cannot accept that conclusion. And again, they by their nature essentially ensure that those we are trying to reach never hear us. Even the peanut gallery is going to react badly to this. Who's going to come here and honestly ask about an experience they had when they know that people are going to jump down their throats and call them, essentially, deluded just for not knowing what else to call their experience?

But some are actually shutting down part of their thought processes. Confirmation bias is nothing than being blinded by belief or faith. Many – if not most- alleged eyewitnesses who come here are not looking for an actual debate, for actual answers. Assuming they actually experienced something, they will only accept “bigfoot” as answer.

What other term would you use other than blinded by faith and belief?
Some, you just can’t avoid to offend them. At the moment you say “bigfoots are not real” you are already offending them.

If I had come here years ago and said I felt like there was a shadow person following me everywhere I went, who got very angry when I read certain things, I would have been dismissed as blinded by my belief in the supernatural, or deluded, or whatnot. The reality is it's a known psychological issue, specifically an error in the process within the brain that determines sense of self/location of self. It's been replicated in labs--and the results are identical to what I've described. What happened to me was real, and the symptoms I've described are accurate--but with attitudes like those presented in this thread I'd never have come here to discuss it, because I'd know no one would take it seriously enough to actually listen. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those who honestly believe they have seen something that contradicts the beliefs of Skeptics. The honest ones often simply don't know what else to call what happened to them--and it's our obligation to give them that vocabulary and information.

You claim to have seen a giant glass spider. I claim to have seen a two-headed guinea fowl, a horses’ rear end morphing in to a road sign and people crossing highways where there was nobody. What are the differences between us and the honest bigfoot eyewitnesses? Some of these cognition errors were corrected during the experiences and critical thinking brought them to the places they actually deserve. Open mind, critical thinking, lack of emotional attachment to the experiences.

 

[dmaker]

You have misunderstood. The default on this forum is certainly that people saying they've seen bigfoot are lying--several people have admitted as much. That is a very serious problem, for two reasons. First, it's logically indefensible; it presupposes knowledge we don't have, and ignores the fact that this forum only experiences a self-selected subset of bigfoot believers. Second, it more or less ensures that we've alienated every bigfoot believer before they post, meaning that we've effectively shut down any chance we have of presenting the real data in a way that will actually make a difference. Both are serious problems. The second defeats the purpose of an allegedly educational forum, and the first corrodes one's thinking over time.

Funny. I don't recall agreeing to any such thing. And I KNOW that the bigfoot community will reject this as the unwarranted assertion it is.

Ignorant and naive I'll give you. They are ignorant of biology, and naive in as much as they underestimate the errors of their own cognition, perception, and recollection.

The whole "blinded by" bit is way too far, though. "Ignorant" and "naive" are agressive terms (you and I both know they're value-neutral, but others do not). To call someone "blinded by" is to accuse them of shutting down their thought process, and again, without evidence for this I simply cannot accept that conclusion. And again, they by their nature essentially ensure that those we are trying to reach never hear us. Even the peanut gallery is going to react badly to this. Who's going to come here and honestly ask about an experience they had when they know that people are going to jump down their throats and call them, essentially, deluded just for not knowing what else to call their experience?

If I had come here years ago and said I felt like there was a shadow person following me everywhere I went, who got very angry when I read certain things, I would have been dismissed as blinded by my belief in the supernatural, or deluded, or whatnot. The reality is it's a known psychological issue, specifically an error in the process within the brain that determines sense of self/location of self. It's been replicated in labs--and the results are identical to what I've described. What happened to me was real, and the symptoms I've described are accurate--but with attitudes like those presented in this thread I'd never have come here to discuss it, because I'd know no one would take it seriously enough to actually listen. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those who honestly believe they have seen something that contradicts the beliefs of Skeptics. The honest ones often simply don't know what else to call what happened to them--and it's our obligation to give them that vocabulary and information.

No argument there. Those who are making bank on the idea cannot claim ignorance or innocence. If you've got time to write a book about bigfoot, you have time to do the research--and any honest examination of the research will inevitably lead to the dismissal of this hypothesis.

I agree with most everything that you said. I don't believe all bigfooters are lying, just the vast majority of them. Fools or frauds is pretty much what it comes down to. I don't think that there is a high chance of any honest person coming here post encounter looking for answers. From what I have seen here we get nothing but people like Chris and Northern Lights. They have no intention of defining their experience in rational terms with, or without, assistance from any skeptical response.

They come here to parade their beliefs in front of us. They want to see if they have an answer to every skeptical response or they just want to laugh at us while we honestly try to provide real alternatives. It's like a whetstone for their beliefs. They come here and we highlight the weak points in their pro-bigfoot nonsense and then maybe the poppycock gets fine tuned a bit for future telling. There is no honest inquiry occurring.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Hey folks!
Just a brief update on yesterday's hike with Chris.
Awesome day to be out and got to see some great countryside. Total distance covered was about 3miles out and 3miles back to a river.

Was it the Green or the Barren?

Was it public or private land?

Was it a gravel covered road? Or a two track dirt road suitable for tractors, ATV's, Jeeps? Or a hiking path suitable only for foot travel? If a hiking path, was it a maintained path found in parks, etc. or one simply made by constant use?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...From what I have seen here we get nothing but people like Chris and Northern Lights. They have no intention of defining their experience in rational terms with, or without, assistance from any skeptical response.
...snip...

Bit worse. We also got loonies fringe bigfooters like Beckjord and Historian, hoaxers like Bulletmaker, plants like Nograd, "researchers"/enthusiasts like Bill Munns, Melissa and Hairy Man plus one too many trolls. And the occasional enthusiast who turned to the dark side (Vortigern).

 

[MikeG]

I agree with most everything that you said. I don't believe all bigfooters are lying, just the vast majority of them. Fools or frauds is pretty much what it comes down to...........

Careful! I posted to this effect in the Patterson/ Gimlin thread and had AlaskaBushPilot calling me names: Gamer, Blaarger (whatever that is) and so on. If you aren't 100% with him, then you are, in his world, 100% against him.

 

[Dinwar]

From what I have seen here....

And herein lies the problem.

Cervelo: Could you describe the habitat for us? What kind of terrain was it? How dense were the plants? How close were you to human habitation (was it within a few miles? a few hundred yards?)? Was the vegetation mostly undergrowth or mostly large trees? Was there an obvious source of water?

I've been to the Mammoth Cave area a number of times. There is some good habitat, but it's hardly a remote area as I recall. Then again, those cave systems go everywhere. so you may not have been at the same entrance as the ones I've been to.