Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Why do it? You've already said that you are convinced that fabricated sightings are in the BFRO database. What happens after you get your sighting posted there? Do you just laugh to yourself, knowing what you already knew?
Click to expand...
Well, again, I am trying to stress that I was saying all along it wasn't something I've given proper thought to, hence, it being a brainfart. But as for the reasoning, which also wasn't thought through, I was thinking that while I'm quite certain that hoaxed reports are on the BFRO's database I also have no way of proving that. But to make it very clear what generated that brainfart it was having the recent discussion of hoaxed reports, which got me thinking about about the footer concept of skeptics trying to sabotage the truth of bigfoot that I alluded to in post #3013. Then, some cool creative writing by you in this post gave it jingle in my mind, and finally LTC's reference to track planting was what brought about that lemon. It's certainly not the only time I've recently had an idea that I didn't fully think through. I tend to pursue quite a few lines of thought on BF skepticism matters and sometimes it's easier to bounce some of them off here and see what stinks as opposed to wasting too much time on a dead-end.
William Parcher said:
It's not just about the stupidity, it's about real dangers to your privacy.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Thanks for the strong coffee.
William Parcher said:
It's only a laughing stock to strong skeptics. Bigfootery is for Bigfooters. It's a religion to many, and some of them will rain hellfire on you for screwing with their church. The BFRO looks like a joke to skeptics, but it is an institution to many devoted believers.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with the last statement but I think I could also fairly say that the first statement could be interpreted by me as casting your informed understanding of bigfootery in doubt. That said, I think you've articulated many insights that show otherwise but you should keep in mind that the BFRO is not only a laughing stock among strong skeptics but among many proponents as well. I know this from spending a very long time listening to their views. Just ask Kathy:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2345622#post2345622
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2348588#post2348588
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2348768#post2348768
William Parcher said:
Do you hate Bigfoot believers or something? Do you think a silver bullet will bring down the House of Bigfoot? Have you ever watched the debate war between evolutionists and creationists? The only tangible result are changes in school curricula policies. Bigfootery is not even close to being a grand social problem or issue. The public media already is outwardly skeptical about Bigfoot. Watch some local news clips when they report Bigfoot sightings. The reporters and anchors will often snicker, laugh with each other and make innuendos. What's interesting is that they almost never do that when reporting mainstream religious topics. They can joke about Bigfoot believers, but watch them keep a straight face when speaking about what The Pope recently said.

Bigfootery is obviously jealous of the significance and respect paid to other belief systems in the media. They are very vocal about how Tom Biscardi always seems to get the limelight. Mostly they say that that kind of coverage makes the "field of Bigfoot research" look bad to the public. They are constantly mumbling to each other about strategies to bring public legitimacy to their belief. It is completely unneccesary and self-serving to send a zinger bomb into the BFRO. Their devotion to the belief will justify some of them throwing the bomb right back in your face.
Click to expand...
It's very interesting where we can see in these discussions where our personal experiences have brought us and where our views intersect and diverge in terms of our views on bigfootery. I, for the most part, am in full agreement with you on many points you've made including the bigfootery/religion analogies. I'm afraid though, that the attractiveness of the comparison doesn't prevent it from having certain inherent flaws. I consider those flaws to be the people such as myself, or others such as Drapier, Vulcan, Ray, and Correa whom I believe have always approached the subject with a spirit of critical thinking but somewhere in the process of educating ourselves on the matter may have not found ourselves as skeptical as we currently are. I guess I'm just trying to be mindful of the grey area and how one finds themselves there.

I would hope that throughout the time that I've spent here I've made it quite clear that I don't hate footers and am nowhere near it. In one key area where we may differ, while I certainly agree that there is no silver bullet for bigfootery and in many ways I wouldn't want one, you seem to make an argument for the perpetuality of bigfootery and I join you in commenting on how that perpetuation occurs but I also think that we can see a significant affect of the rise of bigfoot skepticism in that sub-culture. I think this is apparent when observing such places as the BFF and is the reason why I've elsewhere made mention of the observation of many long-term members now having become skeptics. I guess what I'm hoping for is for bigfoot to become more like Santa Claus in a way. I mean in the way that it's a treasured myth that we cherish and hold up and infuse in our culture but one that we don't get take too seriously and enjoy it for what it is.

To bring it back to the religion analogy. I'm as appreciative of footers as much as I am of Christians. Just not the ones who thump books and act like everybody else is out to lunch.

BTW, #3060- nice post.
 
Hi Hairy Man. I'm just wondering if you have seen or contributed to these Stanislaus National Forest reports:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/watershed/cswa/cswa_master.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/publications/emigrant-direction.pdf

Obviously, I'm just following a 'how'd they miss the sasquatches?' line of thinking similar to the Vancouver Island Marmot one.

Here's a couple of Stanislaus National Forest info links for anyone who's interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaus_National_Forest

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/
 
kitakaze said:
Hi Hairy Man. I'm just wondering if you have seen or contributed to these Stanislaus National Forest reports:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/watershed/cswa/cswa_master.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/publications/emigrant-direction.pdf

Obviously, I'm just following a 'how'd they miss the sasquatches?' line of thinking similar to the Vancouver Island Marmot one.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/
Click to expand...

Yep, I was involved (as were my employees). However, there is a big difference from the marmots...that was an actual on-the-ground survey. These documents are what we call "planning" documents or management directions where we gather info we already know and design standards, guides, and objective for very large areas that must be followed by smaller, on-the-ground projects later. No on-the-ground survey happened for those documents...that occurs later during site specific projects.

For example, CSWA is the entire Stanislaus River Watershed...and the Emigrant is the entire Emigrant Wilderness. Someone planning a 1,000 acre fuels reduction project in the CSWA area would take the CSWA document and apply the goals, standards, objectives identified for that area/type of project. We would then go out and survey that 1,000 acres for biology, archaeology, botony, fisheries, etc. (not the entire watershed or wilderness). Does that make sense what the difference is?
 
Thanks Hairy, that makes perfect sense. I can see how that would be quite different from the VIM example. That leads me to ask you if you are aware of any field studies in Stanislaus that one would think might result in sasquatch detection.

I'm now rummaging around the net to see if I can find any examples related to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. At the moment I'm going cross-eyed reading about the Wind River Experimental Forest. If anyone is interested in assisting, by all means, please do so. I was going to chase after snowshoe hare studies or maybe wolverines but it would seem that an endangered species in a specific purported BF location is the way to go.

Again, for transparency, the spirit is not to say 'ha ha, you idiots! There's no sasquatches there' but rather to inquire as to why they weren't detected when they should have been like in the VIM case.
 
Sounds familiar. I recall looking at surveys done in Alaska and elsewhere and wondering how they missed bigfoot and his tracks.

Apparently bigfoot receives e-mails about the surveys done in the woods and lays low....except when the BFRO traipses into the area making a racket and stinking up the place...
 
Well, outside of another island, you probably aren't going to find something that matches your marmot study exactly. As you can see, we have nearly 900,000 acres on just our forest (and most of the Sierra's are NFs and with parks, that's well over 10 million acres total). That's a whole hell of a lot of land! (and that doesn't count NF in Oregon or Washington).

The largest surveys I personally have ever been involved with (after 17 years) is after large forest fires when they need to get the burned trees out. Those can be can be up to 25,000 acres needing survey...but since the acres are burned...they sort of aren't bigfoot habitat any longer.
 
Hairy, do you ever have any contact with Bindernagel? If you do, maybe you could mention the VIM point to him as I think it'd be very interesting to hear his thoughts on the matter that he might share with you. After all, his advocacy is based on his Vancouver Island BF experience. Back when I was a fierce proponent and living on the island I nearly dropped in on him but I chickened out thinking he wouldn't want to be bothered by some kid with an over developed BF interest.

Oh yes, and that reminds me. Do you ever remember a real woo-woo bigfoot recovered from forest fire anecdote? I'd try to find it now but of course I'm looking elsewhere.
 
I haven't talked to Bingernagel since 2003, but if I ever do...

Yes, that would be the famous event from Winnemuca, Nevada...it's in Thom Powell's book, The Locals. I have debunked that claim many times. I worked on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada for four years prior to coming here and when the report came into the BFRO, I called my contacts who were on that fire, had access to who the federal employees where that were there (the witness claimed to be a fed and wasn't), etc. It is major woo (although I'm unsure what "woo" is other than it is similar to the sound I make when I stick my head out the window while going 60 mph).
 
Correa Neto wrote:
12) Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" ...
Click to expand...
And then provide an example....

Diogenes wrote:
So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."
Click to expand...

Translation....."My mind is closed." :D
 
SweatyYeti said:
Correa Neto wrote:
12) Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually Correa did not write that. Of course if you made any effort to properly quote than you wouldn't have problems like that, would you? I'll call that my 'catch of the hour'.:D
SweatyYeti said:
Translation....."My mind is closed."
Click to expand...
It's rather odd seeing the Semantic Prancer branch out into translation in such odd fashion. Okey doke, I've got something you can translate:

So far, I'm not aware of any reliable evidence of bigfoot anywhere in the world. I'm very open-minded to see some, though.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Calling it a 'catch of the year' seems to imply that you think there are not other cases where you have not been clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

I love that line, kitty.

It's soooo........pointless.

Actually...I think I was implying that there may be a case, or two, where perhaps I might have stated something which, though ambiguous...was also in a way clear enough to be interpreted both correctly by those who might understand it...and also incorrectly by most who may not quite understand all that it implied, stated, and infered by the use of proper English....in accordance with
a standard English dictionary, that is.

Do you know what I mean? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 wrote:
What evidence for bigfoot cannot be seen in different ways by reasonable people?
Click to expand...
There certainly is room for different assessments of the evidence...within limits.

Scientific analysis of any piece of evidence is not that subjective a thing that two completely opposing assessments of it can both be "correct".

That quote of Greg's says ONLY one thing...."My mind is closed."

Note: That's o.k. with me....I'm not protesting it...just making a point of it.
 
Hairy Man said:
I haven't talked to Bingernagel since 2003, but if I ever do...
Click to expand...
...I'm not going to grab him by the biologist beard and scream Vancouver Island Marmot related obscenities?:D Sorry, the ellipsis was just too tempting.
Hairy Man said:
Yes, that would be the famous event from Winnemuca, Nevada...it's in Thom Powell's book, The Locals. I have debunked that claim many times. I worked on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada for four years prior to coming here and when the report came into the BFRO, I called my contacts who were on that fire, had access to who the federal employees where that were there (the witness claimed to be a fed and wasn't), etc. It is major woo (although I'm unsure what "woo" is other than it is similar to the sound I make when I stick my head out the window while going 60 mph).
Click to expand...
OK, another big notch on the 'Kathy is cool' belt. You know, of course, that we're trying to prime you for double agent work, right?:D

BTW, I haven't picked up on it elsewhere but I was curious about the night vision experience you mentioned. I'm thinking specifically about how if it was thought to possibly be another person, how would that not be resolved?
 
belz wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
Do you still think evidence has nothing to do with probabilities?
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said. Did you miss that ?
Click to expand...

So your answer is "Yes".
You think that "evidence" has nothing whatsoever to do with "probabilities".

Once again...from Wikipedia...
" One approach is to reflect difference in evidential support by assigning probabilities to these probabilities (so-called metaprobabilities) in the following manner:...."

O.k....I'll go with Wikipedia on this one.....and not you.
 
I actually haven't seen any scientific evidence at all that even remotely supports the idea of bigfoot.

My guess is that I have seen whatever any believer would put up as an example of such evidence.

One of the things that made me suspicious of footery was an oft printed quote from Osman Hill which appeared to support the idea that Patty was a real sasquatch.

Then I found the whole quote....
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Once again...from Wikipedia...
" One approach is to reflect difference in evidential support by assigning probabilities to these probabilities (so-called metaprobabilities) in the following manner:...."

O.k....I'll go with Wikipedia on this one.....and not you.
Click to expand...
.
.
 Wow Sweaty, you might want to actually read the whole Wikipedia entry and not just the shiny parts that attract you.

If we're picking bigfoot from a box, your Wikipedia link is ideal for determining the probability of the next bigfoot.

One criticism levelled at the Bayesian probability interpretation has been that a single probability assignment cannot convey how well grounded the belief is—i.e., how much evidence* one has. Consider the following situations:
  1. You have a box with white and black bigfoot, but no knowledge as to the quantities
  2. You have a box from which you have drawn n bigfoot, half black and the rest white
  3. You have a box and you know that there are the same number of white and black bigfoot
The Bayesian probability of the next bigfoot drawn being black is 0.5 in all three cases. Keynes called this the problem of the "weight of evidence". One approach is to reflect difference in evidential support by assigning probabilities to these probabilities (so-called metaprobabilities) in the following manner...
Click to expand...
.
.
And the Wiki page continues with the mathematical formulas involved in picking your bigfoot from a box.

And the evidence* referred to is:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theorem or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.
Click to expand...
.
.
Not surprisingly Sweaty, you seem to be confusing mathematical probabilities with logical possibilities.

How goes your pointy-headed experiment? You are experimenting, right? How about your list of reliable evidence? You do have a list of reliable evidence, right?

RayG
 
LTC8K6 wrote:
I actually haven't seen any scientific evidence at all that even remotely supports the idea of bigfoot.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "scientific" evidence?
 
RayG wrote:
And the evidence* referred to is:


Quote:
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theorem or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.

.
.
Not surprisingly Sweaty, you seem to be confusing mathematical probabilities with logical possibilities.
Click to expand...
Can you explain what you mean by "logical possibilities"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom