• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptical Bigfoot Articles

dmaker

Graduate Poster
dmaker
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
1,738
Location
Ontario, Canada
This may seem like a slightly strange request but I was approached by a BFF staff member and asked if I would like to contribute content to the Skeptic's Corner section of the BFF Virtual Library. There are a meager 5 articles there right now and there has been no new content since Nov 2012.

I have no idea if many members view the content but I do appreciate the offer to refresh the area. Who knows, maybe someone might read it? It certainly cannot hurt. The entries are not open to comment or attack. I would have write access, and other members can read at their leisure.

I sent a brief note to Sharon Hill and she seemed keen to have some of her stuff linked. I will see what her and I can do about getting permission to post entire articles rather than just links. I don't have a lot of experience in posting other people's content like this so I am leery of stepping on toes or breaking copyright laws, etc. So I am going to proceed cautiously.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I find the problem with bigfoot skeptical content is that there is simply not that much of it to be found.

Thanks
 
Since anecdotes seem to make up the bulk of what bigfoot enthusiasts term evidence, the first thing you might want to address is the unreliablility of eyewitness testimony. Links discussing cognitive, memory and confirmation biases, sleep disturbance and other neurological issues are numerous on the net; who knows, maybe someone will learn something.
 
If you're putting together an original article, you should mention megafauna.

Wikipedia has a good article on the extinction of megafauna. It would be very, very difficult for a large animal to live in close proximity to humans. And no species of hominid survived contact with h. sapiens.
 
An original article would be great, I agree. Not sure that I have the time or the biology chops to put it together to be honest. My post secondary was in humanities.
 
dmaker said:
An original article would be great, I agree. Not sure that I have the time or the biology chops to put it together to be honest. My post secondary was in humanities.
Click to expand...

You don't need the chops; just quote the ones with the chops. Maybe some e-mails dashed off to university bio profs concerning the likelihood of megafauna going uncatalogued.
 
That sounds like a decent idea Resume. I can post some other articles but in the meantime put together something else.
 
Skeptoid has some amusing blog posts on the Bigfoot Bounty TV series, where pairs of contestants went out looking for evidence of bigfoot and (unusually) received a skeptical analysis afterwards.
 
Try to run a proper study to find out what percentage of people who declare "Bigfoot exists" later change that to "Bigfoot does not exist".

I'm afraid the biggest wastes of time and effort are these here listed in order:

1. Trying to confirm the existence of Bigfoot.
2. Trying to convince people that Bigfoot does not exist.
 
William Parcher said:
Try to run a proper study to find out what percentage of people who declare "Bigfoot exists" later change that to "Bigfoot does not exist".

I'm afraid the biggest wastes of time and effort are these here listed in order:

1. Trying to confirm the existence of Bigfoot.
2. Trying to convince people that Bigfoot does not exist.
Click to expand...

Much larger chance of the latter than former, wouldn't you say?
 
Well yes but my observation is that the conversion rate is exceedingly small. If Bigfoot skepticism and critical thinking were a medication it might not get approved for general use because of the efficacy being next to worthless.
 
^^ Understood WP. Which would make any attempt at making skeptical bigfoot material available to footers most likely a large waste of time and effort. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think and all that...

I believe that was your message?
 
Skeptics make the mistake of thinking that the Bigfoot issue is just a question of the existence or nonexistence of a hypothetical animal. The problem is that believers don't treat it as simply that. The problem is that Bigfoot makes them feel good. Feel smart. Feel empowered. Feel privileged. Feel closer to their God. Etc.
 
Once the BFF has a nice collection of skeptical articles their members can start creating counterarguments for each point. Then everything will be as they like it. The skeptics brought their best and we met them head on. We know we won because we still see Bigfoot in the forest. The skeptic cannot win. The reason for that is because Bigfoot exists. That's why we gather here at BFF.
 
William Parcher said:
Once the BFF has a nice collection of skeptical articles their members can start creating counterarguments for each point. Then everything will be as they like it. The skeptics brought their best and we met them head on. We know we won because we still see Bigfoot in the forest. The skeptic cannot win. The reason for that is because Bigfoot exists. That's why we gather here at BFF.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said in this post. Well done.

What I find disappointing is that this subject turns into a contest where a winner must be declared, and thumping of chests can occur. Personally, I would much rather have it be a collaborative effort whereas we work together, but it is what it is.
 
Northern Lights said:
I agree with everything you said in this post. Well done.

What I find disappointing is that this subject turns into a contest where a winner must be declared, and thumping of chests can occur. Personally, I would much rather have it be a collaborative effort whereas we work together, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

It isn't a contest and there is no winner. It's a binary question of existence.
 
William Parcher said:
Once the BFF has a nice collection of skeptical articles their members can start creating counterarguments for each point. Then everything will be as they like it. The skeptics brought their best and we met them head on. We know we won because we still see Bigfoot in the forest. The skeptic cannot win. The reason for that is because Bigfoot exists. That's why we gather here at BFF.
Click to expand...


You are certainly hitting the centre of the target. But I do believe there is some middle ground to be won. The fence sitters, if you will. If no one is presenting skeptical arguments for them to review then they are more likely, in my opinion, to drink the bigfoot kool-aid on offer.

We have seen this echoed here before. I went to the BFF originally a few years ago out of a sense of outraged curiosity. I had watched an episode of Finding Bigfoot and was sitting there mouth agape as MM, Bobo et al pronounced all of their bigfooty "facts". I could hardly believe that something like bigfoot had been truly discovered yet somehow missed the mainstream news. So like any curious person I rushed to Google. Searches will quickly lead you to the BFF where there was no shortage of people to tell you that yes bigfoot was in fact real, but not acknowledged by evil mainstream science. I was treated to no end of coyote howls and bird calls and blobsquatches as evidence. I could watch Dr. Jeff on TV talking about how real bigfoot is. And he has a phd after all! For the average lay person that can be thought provoking. At least on the surface.

It's at this point that I think an individuals inherent critical thinking or bent for skepticism comes into play. The more gullible are going to happily jump off that fence into the warm embrace of his/her new social group confident that they have sussed out the truth of the matter and can now spend weekends running around the woods banging on trees and putting goodies into gifting baskets. While those of us that went the other way were perhaps more influenced by the skeptical argument than the proponent propaganda. I have said before that posts by The Shrike were instrumental for me to fill in the gaps that I don't have. Having a qualified biology phd making counter arguments at a place like the BFF was fantastic. At this point I can only speak for myself confidently and simply wonder what happens with other people. I am sure that even without an exposure to counter arguments by folks like The Shrike and articles by Sharon Hill and Dennett and others that I would have eventually ended up where I am now. I like to think so anyway. I think the lack of real evidence would have stripped away the veneer and I would have arrived at my current position regardless. So maybe skeptical opinion only greases the wheels in this case and people are predisposed to where they are going to end up anyway. Who knows?

Can it hurt to offer somewhere to read some skeptical thoughts? Certainly not. Will it do any good? Hard to tell. I do think, though, that if any middle ground is to be won it is in presenting the skeptical argument in actual discussions. People need to see the counter points being made and rebuttals being destroyed. Some can see this, some are too blinded by belief to see it when it does happen. But I think discussion is the most effective over all.
 
Last edited:
This is the classic Win-Lose scenario that Bigfooters try to put skeptics into.

They tried to get Dfoot to build a costume, then they could shred his results no matter what the suit looked like to normal people. It would not pass muster to the Bigfooters no matter how good of a suit it was.

They try to get you to write some articles, then find obscure, outlandish Bigfooter responses to your articles, no matter how good your article will be, they will not look at the facts, just destroy it with convoluted Footer-logic.

You can't win.
 
William Parcher said:
Skeptics make the mistake of thinking that the Bigfoot issue is just a question of the existence or nonexistence of a hypothetical animal.
Click to expand...
For rational people it is.

William Parcher said:
The problem is that believers don't treat it as simply that. The problem is that Bigfoot makes them feel good. Feel smart. Feel empowered. Feel privileged. Feel closer to their God. Etc.
Click to expand...
Yes. Their problem.
 
Thank you! FINALLY! Another Bigfoot thread! Sheesh, we've been waiting and waiting and for like a couple hours or so, but absolutely nada NOTHING. And then POOF, just like that thar she blows. Like the time when PetesPeat posted the realization we had completely forgot about the plastic inner lining zipper in the upper left sleeve of Patterson's first trial suit, the one he used solely to scare his local Yakima neighbors. It was immediately back to the forum drawing board for ALL of us. We didn't know where to go or who to talk to anymore. The confusion was unbearable. For a moment there it was like maybe Bigfoot actually did exist. We figured it out of course, it was a broke Pitman arm on Patterson's '69 Firebird. But still, I remember the fallout. It was brutal! I still call William Parcher, William Parcher and Drew, Drew because of it.

It happens that way sometimes though. You close your eyes and you wish and you wish for something 'til you can't wish fer it no more, and then, if you were good, and if you wished enough, and if you really believe, it all really does come true. I wished like that for a new Bigfoot thread and I'll be dog gonned here it lay. And hey I'm just the messenger. It's like a new law or something. I read about it on the Internet. JREF I think.

Regardless, from all of us down here at NEWSe7en! Bigfoot headquarters, thank you to you and your crew for making it happen. :p
 
One huge element that is missing from the whole Bigfoot thing are confessions and stories from admitted Bigfoot hoaxers and liars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom