Skeptical Bigfoot Articles

[ArchSas]

there's been many, they use the PGF and/or that scream/howl in one way or another, yet Patterson's influence in it all was only minor and he "did very little"? Really?

I think I was hurt by attempting brevity, too. To clarify, I meant minor in the sense of inventing the story. The field of bigfootery was around before him, he just used it as a vehicle to make money, which means it was notable enough for Renee Dahinden to pour money into it and Patterson to see an opportunity. I'll agree that he had a huge influence on it (I never said he didn't, only that the PGF was his notable contribution to the field), and that no one would care about bigfoot today without him, but I still haven't seen anything to indicate he "created" bigfoot. Yes, he published a book and made a film, but from what I've been able to find, his book was mostly plagiarism based on newpaper articles (written by other people including John Green), and the film, at least somewhat based on the Roe encounter and filmed an an area of an earlier expedition he had nothing to do with, would have meant little without a precedent and market for such a creature existing in the first place. I didn't know about the sound file, though; thanks for pointing that out, it's interesting.

I could be totally wrong about this, as I haven't exactly looked very much into the time frame between Wallace and Patterson, or maybe it's about how we're interpreting the evidence, but to me, Patterson can't be credited with inventing bigfoot. He definitely brought its attention to public and made it a pop culture phenomena; he can probably even be blamed for what the field is today, but he didn't start it, or create the lore it relies on, outside of the PGF (which is, admittedly the central piece of the bigfootery). To me, it seems like his contributions are mostly related to pop culture and marketing, which is different than actually creating something. That's just my opinion, though; I don't want to get into an argument because we're defining what "created bigfoot" means differently. I think we both agree the whole thing is made up and Patterson is the main reason people care about it today. I don't want to derail this thread and get away from the point I was trying to make:

The main reason I brought up the articles I did are that it seems to me that there are three main claims bigfooters use to support their field: that the PGF is real, that there are "too many" eyewitness for it be fake, and that there's a long oral tradition for the creature. The PGF has been debunked pretty well and there has been a lot of work done describing how unreliable eyewitnesses are. However, that piece about the oral tradition hasn't been addressed very much, and it probably should.

 

[The Shrike]

The PGF has been debunked pretty well and there has been a lot of work done describing how unreliable eyewitnesses are. However, that piece about the oral tradition hasn't been addressed very much, and it probably should.

Welcome to the JREF, ArchSas. Here are my predicted responses of the collective Bigfoot Forums crowd (arguably the least crazy bigfoot site on the Web) to the bolded items from your sentence above:

1) spit-take
2) frothing at the mouth and statements relative to how eyewitness testimony is essential to capital murder cases
3) apoplectic that someone would dare question the validity of the sacred bigfoot stories handed down unbroken from the chick on the Land O' Lakes butter carton.

 

[dmaker]

"3) apoplectic that someone would dare question the validity of the sacred bigfoot stories handed down unbroken from the chick on the Land O' Lakes butter carton."


LOL. nommed

 

[Resume]

The main reason I brought up the articles I did are that it seems to me that there are three main claims bigfooters use to support their field: that the PGF is real, that there are "too many" eyewitness for it be fake, and that there's a long oral tradition for the creature. The PGF has been debunked pretty well and there has been a lot of work done describing how unreliable eyewitnesses are. However, that piece about the oral tradition hasn't been addressed very much, and it probably should.

I think you'll find, much to your chagrin, that there's a lot more work to be done whe it comes to the highlighted and bigfoot enthusiasts. In fact, they seem to reject all information regarding cognitive/memory/confirmation biases.

"I know whut I seen!" Or. "You don't dare tell me what I saw!"

 

[Resume]

"3) apoplectic that someone would dare question the validity of the sacred bigfoot stories handed down unbroken from the chick on the Land O' Lakes butter carton."


LOL. nommed

X 2.

 

[Jerrymander]

For example, I met a Sac and Fox young man on a field trip a few years back and we got talking about bigfoot. He went on and on about how Sasquatch is part of his culture; it was evident that the elders of his society were instilling this belief in their young people today. Regardless of what might have been taught 300 years ago, bigfoot is a part of their tradition today.

Wasn't there a tribe on some island who was introduced to a Beatles song and after some generations came to believe it was one of their traditional songs?

 

[The Shrike]

^Sounds like you're thinking of cargo cults. I don't know of a Native American analogy, and there haven't been that many generations since 1964!

 

[Resume]

^Sounds like you're thinking of cargo cults. I don't know of a Native American analogy, and there haven't been that many generations since 1964!

That's what I thought of immediately. And from your link we get this fitting description of bigfoot research:

Cargo cult science.
The late Richard Feynman described what he called "cargo cult science" by analogy with this phenomenon. It contains many of the superficial trappings of science with little of the substance.[4] These could include the use of footnotes that look like academic references,[5] fancy quantum physics terms or graphs and charts. All combined would happily make a scientific looking document (and might even have an authoritative looking font, rather than something like papyrus) but on examination wouldn't contain anything of scientific merit. Cargo cult science would more commonly be called pseudoscience today.

Perfect.

 

[thines]

Bigfoot paper.

@ ArchSas,
Your paper sounds interesting. Have you thought of submitting it for publi cation, say in the Skeptical Inquirer?

 

[Resume]

@ ArchSas,
Your paper sounds interesting. Have you thought of submitting it for publi cation, say in the Skeptical Inquirer?

Might fit here: http://doubtfulnews.com/submit-a-story/

 

[ArchSas]

@ ArchSas,
Your paper sounds interesting. Have you thought of submitting it for publi cation, say in the Skeptical Inquirer?

I've given some thought to getting it published under some venue. Since I'm still an undergrad, an academic journal is pretty unlikely, so that suggestion of the Skeptical Inquirer is interesting. I'll try looking into it. Do you have any tips about how to get such a thing done?

Might fit here:

Thanks for the suggestion, but that site seems more focused on current news articles; a fifteen-page research paper doesn't seem very much like the kind of content that page is asking for. I'd welcome suggestions (from anyone) about possible ways to get my paper published, though. Preferably somewhere with at least some academic credibility.

 

[thines]

Publishing in Skeptical Inquirer

@ ArchSas,

I'd suggest looking over several recent issues to get a feel for the type of article they publish. The article doesn't need to be written in a highly academic style, but correct references are important.

 

[Resume]

Thanks for the suggestion, but that site seems more focused on current news articles; a fifteen-page research paper doesn't seem very much like the kind of content that page is asking for. I'd welcome suggestions (from anyone) about possible ways to get my paper published, though. Preferably somewhere with at least some academic credibility.

Yeah, you're gonna have to edit that down for most venues.

 

[The Shrike]

^Just a strategic thing I do when preparing a manuscript: I check the most recent issue of the journal in which I want to publish and determine the average number of pages of an article in that issue. (To account for editing and typesetting differences I do this by a word/character count.) Then I whittle my work down to make sure I'm submitting a manuscript that will be shorter than average.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...I'd welcome suggestions (from anyone) about possible ways to get my paper published, though. Preferably somewhere with at least some academic credibility.

Firstly, we're both on the same page. Truly. Second, send it airmail to this Bigfoot clown & comedian shady charlatan pretending he's a scientist. Seriously, do it and do it now. We'll get to see how inquisitive Diaper Don's inquiry - which purports to be a legitimate scientific outlet - really is.

As a side note, Vegas oddsmakers put the line at -6900 on him declining your submission (you know, because it's intelligent and thoughtful and filled with some actual facts etc., and gawd ****** Don will have none of that), but I think the bigger question now is why does Vegas have a line for this? I mean, we're just talking about it now? Okay that's it, I don't care what this forum says, that's just too spooky to be a coincidence. Somebody or someTHING made that happen like that and I suspect his name starts with Bigfoot. Alright fine, THERE IS A BIGFOOT! Oh and nobody lies. Sheesh. Quit pestering me. Wait, what?

 

[The Shrike]

Great idea, Harry.

 

[Jodie]

The biggest mistake people make in working with manipulators is underestimating how underhanded and malicious their intentions are. Most normal people have a conscience and would never perpetrate the kinds of things manipulative people do. So they make the mistake of projecting their own conscientiousness onto people that have no scruples.

The corollary is that people overestimate how smart manipulative people are. It is not intelligence that is required though - it is bad intentions. People with a conscience are "slow" in the respect they are too careful about hurting other people's feelings or being truthful, etc.


It actually helps a great deal to always keep in mind that these people are mainly interested in working on your emotions, especially anger.

Enough for now, but this does fit in with the topic because dealing with proponents is actually more of a psychological science associated with personality or character disorders more than it is a matter of physical sciences.

I don't disagree with your take ABP, but don't you think it can easily work in the opposite way where the unscrupulous project their own disorder onto others ? When you get a high percentage of disordered people in one group all accusing the other members of the same "lie" what would you call that?

 

[Jodie]

A very good article concerning the cultural history of Sasquatch is "On the Cultural Track of the Sasquatch." by Wayne Suttles. It's an anthropologist's answer to the claim that Native American legends support bigfoot's existence and science ignores them. Basically, Suttles examines various wildman legends of the Pacific Northwest and explains why they aren't the same thing as bigfoot, nor does their existence support the creature's validity. I know you guys aren't typically concerned with cultural issues surrounding Sasquatch, but it's a well written paper that does a great job of refuting one of the key claims of bigfoot mythology.

Another article worth looking into is "Entering Dubious Realms: Grover Krantz, Science, and Sasquatch" by Brian Regal. It's basically a look into the history of bigffot science and all the flaws that are usually found in it. Krantz is the focus and main example. "Images of the Wildman Inside and Outside of Europe" by Gregory Forth is also worth mentioning; it's not focused on bigfoot, but does spend some time discussing how European traditions and popular misunderstandings of science contributed to the creation of bigfoot.

Last semester, I wrote a research paper that compared the bigoot of modern pop culture (while arguing that they were completely different and discussing the implications of both stories), and I used those articles to pretty good effect. Especially the Suttles one, which is closest thing I could find to a real analysis of bigfoot from a comparative cultural angle. I agree with dmaker that there isn't enough research into the subject from people that aren't bigfooters; researching my paper was actually kind of a pain in the butt, and those were the best three articles I could find that actually discussed modern, pop culture, Euroamerican bigfoot.

Several of the BF forums have libraries, but I've never heard of these articles, I'll check them out. If they wanted to strive to be truly objective, these articles would be included in those libraries.

 

[Jodie]

Thanks for the suggestion, but that site seems more focused on current news articles; a fifteen-page research paper doesn't seem very much like the kind of content that page is asking for. I'd welcome suggestions (from anyone) about possible ways to get my paper published, though. Preferably somewhere with at least some academic credibility.

I think Sharon would be open to publishing some kind of review with a link to your paper, you should ask her. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[Jodie]

I could be totally wrong about this, as I haven't exactly looked very much into the time frame between Wallace and Patterson, or maybe it's about how we're interpreting the evidence, but to me, Patterson can't be credited with inventing bigfoot. He definitely brought its attention to public and made it a pop culture phenomena; he can probably even be blamed for what the field is today, but he didn't start it, or create the lore it relies on, outside of the PGF (which is, admittedly the central piece of the bigfootery). To me, it seems like his contributions are mostly related to pop culture and marketing, which is different than actually creating something. That's just my opinion, though; I don't want to get into an argument because we're defining what "created bigfoot" means differently. I think we both agree the whole thing is made up and Patterson is the main reason people care about it today. I don't want to derail this thread and get away from the point I was trying to make:

The main reason I brought up the articles I did are that it seems to me that there are three main claims bigfooters use to support their field: that the PGF is real, that there are "too many" eyewitness for it be fake, and that there's a long oral tradition for the creature. The PGF has been debunked pretty well and there has been a lot of work done describing how unreliable eyewitnesses are. However, that piece about the oral tradition hasn't been addressed very much, and it probably should.

Have you checked out William Golding's "The Inheritors"? It was published in 1955. I 've ordered it from Amazon, but based on the excerpts I've read, I wonder if it is a result of pop culture's notion of wild men or whether it influenced what we consider the modern day bigfoot mythology.

You might also consider foreign legends that bigfooters use to back up the existence of bigfoot, it's not just the NA. How similar are these old legends to the descriptions of modern day Yeti's and bigfoot? I don't think I've ever read any research about troll legends/bigfoot sightings, or anything else along those lines.