Jump to content

Campsite Destroyed


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest ChasingRabbits

Not sure how you do this scientifically. Its more like looking for specific patterns which I have already outlined. This is not really about BFRO reports, but Blogtalk talkers who spew huge flaming piles of BS.

 

And it will be subjective to whomever looks at which storie(s). BUT, as I have stated, there is a huge flaming pile of Blogtalk BS. Needs to be called out, says me.

 

I guess I'm thinking of looking for the ''low hanging fruit'' here. Obvious signs of nonsense. The Blogtalk I was listening to last night would be an excellent example:

 

You think this guy is straight up?

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/midnightwalkers/2014/04/17/thom-cantrall--washington-author

 

What I wrote applies to ALL documented encounters whether it's on the BFRO site or in books or on podcasts.

 

ALL encounters have to be analyzed for Big Foot behaviors (ex. nocturnal/diurnal, time of year, location, odor/no odor, tree knock, rock knocks, solitary creature/multiple creature, etc.) From that data statistical models can be used to ascertain the probability of that variable. Knowing this information will "scientifically" establish if the encounter is most likely real versus bogus.

 

For example, if data analysis shows there is a near equal number of nocturnal sightings and diurnal sightings, then there's no way that one can rule out the authenticity of an encounter based upon the hour of the day. This means too that the people who say "Big Foot is nocturnal" or "Big Foot is diurnal" are not basing their statements on the evidence, but rather opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but who is going to do this? And will it be kept a secret so people can't read into it, and come to a ''more correct'' story?

 

There is plenty of low hanging fruit.

 

As stated, I'm going with a 50% baseline false nonsense. That way my expectations are curbed to a known quantity X, and I start looking at the report and looking for nonsense.

 

Actually, Dr. Meldrum just gave a talk and stated issues with the hoaxers, too much BS, so I'm in good company, of course.

Edited by Wag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just looking over this discussion and I can see both sides of the issue.

 

How can we accuse somebody of hoaxing without definite proof? By the same token, should hoaxers be allowed to profit, because we don't have hard proof of their hoaxing?

 

Look at Todd Standing; there's no hard proof that he's a hoaxer. Nobody has produced any evidence. There are plenty of theories of how he may have created the creatures in his videos but there's no hard evidence to the contrary.

 

I think the issue with Sasquatch Chronicles, is that they're making money off their stories. Normally, anybody that relates an outlandish story about Bigfoot, has nothing to gain but attention. In the case of SC, we may not have any hard evidence, but there is a motive, in the form of profits generated from advertising.

 

Wes, Woody and company are in the business of attracting listeners and have built their entire show on the basis of a violent and dangerous Bigfoot. This creates the need to continue with more and better, dangerous encounters. Considering that Bigfoot encounters are not the most common occurrences, not to mention that violent or dangerous encounters are even less frequent; it's easy to understand why many of their claims would be called into question.

 

Can I prove they're hoaxing? NO; but I also can't prove Todd Standing was hoaxing...

 

What has been established, are inconsistencies, from their personal encounter, as well as a series of stories and claims that are beyond extraordinary and cannot be substantiated.

 

What can be proven is they have profited from these stories by increasing their listener base, selling advertising and memberships.

 

It's because of both, the inconsistencies and the money they have made, that the show is being called into question, along with many of their "special" guests.

 

When Wes & Woody had the show, addressing the criticism from the community, they never took the time to clearly explain many of the claims they or their guests had made. Instead, they acted insulted and took a self righteous approach to the questions and accusations. They had the opportunity to set the record straight and decided to play the martyr card instead. This particular episode is what cost them their credibility because they showed their true colors in their attitude towards the community; not to mention the really nasty comment made about Rene Dahinden.

 

We don't have a Bigfoot police and its up to members of this community to ask questions and to hold each other up to a higher standard. One of the reasons, the rest of the world does not take this mystery seriously, is because of the many ludicrous claims that have been made over the years, with no substantiated results. Not too long ago, we had the the "Daisy in the box" story, from a presumably, a very reputable source that ended up being a complete fabrication. Keep in mind that the person responsible for the "daisy in the box" hoax, had been posting outlandish stories for years, before the truth finally came out. Over the years, all of the crazy and exciting stories about Bigfoot, have resulted in a big disappointment and I'm not sure why the SC version would be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think lots of people posted the same mask Todd Standing used, I'm not that into his stuff, so I don't know.

 

I know Ketchum stupidly endorsed his/the (?) Chewbaca mask BF. LoL, and I think she sounds credible when she is on Coast to Coast.

 

And I keep saying: Low hanging fruit. As in the blogtalk I posted, that's an excellent example of low hanging fruit. But, looks like this is going to be a highly individualistic endevour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

Look at Todd Standing; there's no hard proof that he's a hoaxer. Nobody has produced any evidence. There are plenty of theories of how he may have created the creatures in his videos but there's no hard evidence to the contrary.

 

Some of the photos he's released are pretty obviously fake. If that's not evidence of fakery, I don't know what is.

 

With Sasquatch Chronicles, their stories don't make sense. Even if one accepts that Bigfoot exists, the people on that show are constantly claiming things that don't happen in the real world. My interpretation of them is that they are making up stories for fun and attention. It's like a hobby for some people, including a lot of the people here on the BFF.

 

If something sounds like fantasy, it's usually because it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OS

 

That's my point, in a nutshell...

 

Even though there's no hard evidence, there are some stories that are "obviously" not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

It has occurred to me that the show might be produced by skeptics for their private entertainment.     There are tantalizing hints at strangeness or is it a private joke?        They reference Yacolt Mountain on their own encounter which is 11 miles away from where they say it happened.    No one seems to have called them on that on the air so they have gotten away with that.  That would be good for a laugh.     The name of the Mountain behind the GPS coordinates is Jack Mountain.     You don't know Jack?     They also reference a Muppet Mountain that I cannot locate on my maps.     Muppet as in Todd Standing Muppet?    Youtube is full of videos making fun of Bigfooters.     Is it a big private joke where they make up stories about federal agents and conspiracy,  then laugh till they hurt over a few beers?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wrote applies to ALL documented encounters whether it's on the BFRO site or in books or on podcasts.

 

ALL encounters have to be analyzed for Big Foot behaviors (ex. nocturnal/diurnal, time of year, location, odor/no odor, tree knock, rock knocks, solitary creature/multiple creature, etc.) From that data statistical models can be used to ascertain the probability of that variable. Knowing this information will "scientifically" establish if the encounter is most likely real versus bogus.

 

For example, if data analysis shows there is a near equal number of nocturnal sightings and diurnal sightings, then there's no way that one can rule out the authenticity of an encounter based upon the hour of the day. This means too that the people who say "Big Foot is nocturnal" or "Big Foot is diurnal" are not basing their statements on the evidence, but rather opinion.

 

There's no mystery there, just people who refuse to believe it. Roll the dice and let the arithmetic to do its thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OS

 

That's my point, in a nutshell...

 

Even though there's no hard evidence, there are some stories that are "obviously" not true.

Like which ones? Took a while for paying customers to spot Sas Chron moon thingy. I pointed out the camper-smasher was BS, and the post above, good lord, el wacko-land. Thats not to say this guy didn't see something, but then they have to pile on the BS because they never get a second sighting, experience, or whatever. 20 years of Bigfooting with NOTHING to show. That might get to some people, and they start making stuff up.

It has occurred to me that the show might be produced by skeptics for their private entertainment.     There are tantalizing hints at strangeness or is it a private joke?        They reference Yacolt Mountain on their own encounter which is 11 miles away from where they say it happened.    No one seems to have called them on that on the air so they have gotten away with that.  That would be good for a laugh.     The name of the Mountain behind the GPS coordinates is Jack Mountain.     You don't know Jack?     They also reference a Muppet Mountain that I cannot locate on my maps.     Muppet as in Todd Standing Muppet?    Youtube is full of videos making fun of Bigfooters.     Is it a big private joke where they make up stories about federal agents and conspiracy,  then laugh till they hurt over a few beers?   

Uhm, didn't you find a blue muppet somewhere in there? Or was that your joke?

Edited by Wag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

I did find a blue muppet across the valley from the Wes and Woody location.    Are they following me?    Maybe they are the Government agents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Sure did not leave the muppet for me.    My returns to that location are entirely random and not predictable.    I go a lot on intuition, especially if I have not had an contact in an area.    While the concept has merit, sitting around peering through a telescope all day is not my idea of fun.     Some day I am going to get a high res electronic camera, where I can feed it to a computer, and sit and watch the computer screen and have it continuously recording in case something does move in the field of view.     I think there is probably software that could be used that would detect movement.      I have a webcam in a house that sends me an email when it detects movement so I am sure that such things are available.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did find a blue muppet across the valley from the Wes and Woody location.    Are they following me?    Maybe they are the Government agents. 

 

 

Blue muppet? I have no idea what you are talking about, but I would agree except we’d both be wrong so let me put it this way. The beauty of being humans is our ability to think.  And with thought comes opinions.  Everything's relative, and just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't (or didn't) exist or that each of us will grasp the reasoning, or understand the motive taking place until you experience it personally.

I could totally envision a booger doing a Lewis CK routine.

 

Sorry Diana S, I'm almost afraid to ask, but I'll roll the dice take the bait and ask anyways what is Lewis CK?

Maybe they left it, or knew someone who did?!

 

 

@Airdale how did we go from Campsite Destroyed and SC to blue muppets?

Edited by Gumshoeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...