"hoax Confessors"

[Guest]

Yeah if you talk the talk ya better be able to back it up with degrees or a badge...

Or What? You gonna get all National Guard Bigfoot Pilot on us? How about sticking to the topic and leaving the comedy to the pros.

Badgers! We don't need no stinking badgers!

[Huntster]

TooRisky, on 15 November 2010 - 08:55 AM, said:

Lemme add anyone who hides their identity, yet is one of the most outspoken critics... Remember that chicken farmer awhile back who said he had his PhD and was such the learned skeptic, LOL what a joke... Yeah if you talk the talk ya better be able to back it up with degrees or a badge...

Yay, an insult and a thinly-veiled callout and we're only on page one!

So are you suggesting that if I furnished you with my diplomas you would suddenly have a deep and profound respect for the opinions I present here on the BFF? I hope not; that would be absurd. Therefore, give up this "better be able to back it up" nonsense, because it truly is irrelevant. Why not judge the content of what people write rather than obsess about who they are and what their background is?

Actually, Professor, I think what TooRisky is discussing is relevant. The individual he/she is mentioning was well known to throw his incredible (and false) qualifications around like a badge. In such a case, and especially since he turned out to be a farce, actually establishing that you are who you claim to be is quite relevant.

And, by the way, I do consider you to have more authority than the average poster with regard to this subject. As a biologist and professor (and I truly believe that you are who you claim to be......and will continue to believe such until evidence establishes otherwise), you clearly have more than the average knowledge of biological subject matter than the average Joe. That (obviously) doesn't mean we have to agree with everything you write, but it does mean (at least to me) that we need to perform more research and put our differing positions into the best possible frame with which to debate you.

[Guest]

Actually, Professor, I think what TooRisky is discussing is relevant. The individual he/she is mentioning was well known to throw his incredible (and false) qualifications around like a badge. In such a case, and especially since he turned out to be a farce, actually establishing that you are who you claim to be is quite relevant.

I'll counter that that individual's over-the-top bravado aside, the actual content of his posts was little different than mine, i.e., we need a slab monkey to establish that there's a bigfoot and claims that we've got one (or something really really close) need to be evaluated through the scientific literature.

[Guest tirademan]

I've got 36 other hoax stories from the past. This is the oldest from 1861. The original Bob H.

I think many people can't accept the reality of sasqatch, so "there MUST be a more reasonable explanation." I think this leads to much speculation as to what the witnesses "actually saw."

I feel this leads to some people accepting the flimsy evidence hoaxers present as corroboration of their supposed deeds.

1861 it's a gorilla guise, 1901 invention of berry pickers, 1909, guy in a buffalo coat, 1930's it's a beaver coat, 1960's it's a gorilla suit...along with several other fake suit explanations, like a fat bootlegger in his wife's fur coat!

tirademan

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 15 November 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

Actually, Professor, I think what TooRisky is discussing is relevant. The individual he/she is mentioning was well known to throw his incredible (and false) qualifications around like a badge. In such a case, and especially since he turned out to be a farce, actually establishing that you are who you claim to be is quite relevant.

I'll counter that that individual's over-the-top bravado aside, the actual content of his posts was little different than mine, i.e., we need a slab monkey to establish that there's a bigfoot and claims that we've got one (or something really really close) need to be evaluated through the scientific literature.

That certainly was his position, but some of us don't wish to put his "over-the-top bravado" and false qualifications "aside". He was a farce. A "hoaxer". Just because he shared your opinion doesn't make his lie any more palatable to the rest of us. Indeed, with all the focus on "Georgia Boys", Biscardi, Freeman, et al, can't we "believers" revel in the reality that a "scientist" hoaxer was exposed, defrocked, and subject to ridicule just like supposed Bigfoot hoaxers?

[Guest]

. . . can't we "believers" revel in the reality that a "scientist" hoaxer was exposed, defrocked, and subject to ridicule just like supposed Bigfoot hoaxers?

Sure, knock yourselves out. I had quite a hearty chuckle myself when I first read of that guy's downfall.

[Guest River]

That is true, but it's also true that many skeptics use hoaxes as part of their argument against the existence of bigfoot. River has done so on the new BFF many times now.

Actually you've taken me out of context. (as you have done with saskeptic before hehe) The argument I've used regarding "sasquatch evidence" is: We can prove some sources for this type of evidence, or rather claimed evidence. That source is a bipedal ape alright - it's a bipedal great ape. We can prove that humans sometimes (note i said "sometimes", for the fourth time haha) fake/hoax this type of evidence. We can prove this many times over. We can "prove" that source, but yet we still cannot prove any sasquatch made any of said evidence. That is quite ironic isn't it? I'm not making the claim that "all" sources for this alleged evidence is human. We can say that some are misidentifications also. Those sources we can prove. Bigfoot, not so much.

That is the point I've made. Please don't take it out of context.

Edited November 15, 2010 by River

[Huntster]

Actually you've taken me out of context. (as you have done with saskeptic before hehe) The argument I've used regarding "sasquatch evidence" is: We can prove some sources for this type of evidence, or rather claimed evidence. That source is a bipedal ape alright - it's a bipedal great ape. We can prove that humans sometimes (note i said "sometimes", for the fourth time haha) fake/hoax this type of evidence. We can prove this many times over. We can "prove" that source, but yet we still cannot prove any sasquatch made any of said evidence. That is quite ironic isn't it? I'm not making the claim that "all" sources for this alleged evidence is human. We can say that some are misidentifications also. Those sources we can prove. Bigfoot, not so much.

That is the point I've made. Please don't take it out of context.

Let's review:

....many skeptics use hoaxes as part of their argument against the existence of bigfoot. River has done so on the new BFF many times now.

Now, isn't your statemnet that some humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence "part of your argument against the existence of bigfoot"?

How did I take anything you have written "out of context"?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Lemme add anyone who hides their identity, yet is one of the most outspoken critics... Remember that chicken farmer awhile back who said he had his PhD and was such the learned skeptic, LOL what a joke... Yeah if you talk the talk ya better be able to back it up with degrees or a badge...

Toorisky, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the notion that some wish to stay out of the public eye. Scholars as well as Chicken farmers are all welcome here too.

Chris B.

[Guest River]

Let's review:

Now, isn't your statemnet that some humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence "part of your argument against the existence of bigfoot"?

How did I take anything you have written "out of context"?

I took the opportunity to clarify my position. Correct, some has an identified source. (human) I think that is a significant point. (said the nurse to the doctor)

[Guest DaveBeaty]

There is one fortean phenomenon that is useful in the argument that sasquatch don't exist: crop circles.

So far, ALL evidence I have seen on the creation of crop circles shows that they are made by humans. If all evidence for crop circles are that they are man-made, then crop circles are a false phenomenon. If all evidence for sasquatch is man-made (hoaxed) then sasquatch is a false phenomenon. The disagreement is over whether all evidence for sasquatch is hoaxed.

The scoftics argument is that if any evidence can be hoaxed, the one must assume it is. All evidence except a body I can cut into (and NOT a film of a body being cut into, that has been hoaxed already) can be hoaxed. Since there is no body I can cut into, all evidence can be, and thus is, a hoax. Since all evidence is hoaxed, sasquatch is a false phenomenon.

The witnesses' counter argument is: Our encounter (plus any physical evidence collected in conjunction with the encounter) is our evidence. We experienced it and collected it firsthand, so we know we didn't hoax it. Not all sasquatch evidence is hoaxed. Therefore, the sasquatch is real, not a false phenomenon.

The sceptic's counter-counter argument: I don't know that you didn't hoax the evidence, and you and I don't know that someone didn't hoax you. The argument stands: The only non hoax-able evidence is a body I can cut into. Without a body, there is no evidence of sasquatch.

The (now frustrated) witness: But I SAW it! And look at all the track casts and hair samples! And what made this sound on this tape?

Skeptic: There is no body.

The only way to convince the skeptic is to show him the body. It doesn't have to be dead. A good viewing does a lot to convince someone that sasquatch exist.

As an aside, maybe I should cut back on coffee after 10 PM

[MagniAesir]

DING DONG... The skeptics calling... All are as usefull as a Avon Rep. at a rodeo...

As a skeptic I do get tired of the daily insults thrown at me here (as a group).

I believe that every post I have entered on this forum shows at least a basic level of respect to others.

There are posts on this forum, that I frankly think are bs but not once have I called it that.

I am interested in the research on the possible existence of Sasquatch.

And frankly a post like this adds nothing to the conversation.

[indiefoot]

Just about every time you hear Ray Wallace's name it's being used.

Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.... wiki

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

[Incorrigible1]

The only way to convince the skeptic is to show him the body. It doesn't have to be dead. A good viewing does a lot to convince someone that sasquatch exist.

Due to my sincere, fairly voiced doubts recently expressed to some claiming habituation by large, bipedal, hairy creatures, I've been miscast as a skeptic. I'm not, entirely. I don't believe it's going to require a body on a slab to significantly move the search for the creature forward. Clear photos, and especially video/film of the big guy will do wonders to cement its existence.

While I, too, grow a little tired at some to the scofftic antics, good photos or footage of the creature are something our entire community has not had the pleasure of diagnosing. Proponents that throw up their hands and proclaim science requires a body on a slab are not entirely correct. We've all had so little decent evidence that even a little will advance the search.

To those that claim extraordinary occurrences, I say prove it. Show us something, show us anything. Pardon me if I doubt your claims. A photo will do wonders. No, of course you're not "required," but if you come here proclaiming remarkable things then prove the barest essentials. Is that too much to ask? Evidently it is, since nothing even half worthy has been proffered.

[Guest fenris]

Due to my sincere, fairly voiced doubts recently expressed to some claiming habituation by large, bipedal, hairy creatures, I've been miscast as a skeptic. I'm not, entirely. I don't believe it's going to require a body on a slab to significantly move the search for the creature forward. Clear photos, and especially video/film of the big guy will do wonders to cement its existence.

While I, too, grow a little tired at some to the scofftic antics, good photos or footage of the creature are something our entire community has not had the pleasure of diagnosing. Proponents that throw up their hands and proclaim science requires a body on a slab are not entirely correct. We've all had so little decent evidence that even a little will advance the search.

To those that claim extraordinary occurrences, I say prove it. Show us something, show us anything. Pardon me if I doubt your claims. A photo will do wonders. No, of course you're not "required," but if you come here proclaiming remarkable things then prove the barest essentials. Is that too much to ask? Evidently it is, since nothing even half worthy has been proffered.

That might actually be expressed in a broader context, it would imho hamper discussion to unduly emphasize ann us and them mentality. After all you have jref trolls and you have skeptics, some more palatable than others