"hoax Confessors"

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Mulder, help me out here. You believe people up to the point of the confession of a hoax, then you disregard the confession and continue believing?

What do you believe when I say?:

I saw bigfoot.

No I didn't.

Did I or didn't I? Just wondering.

[Guest River]

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

Which would those be?

[indiefoot]

The ones who came here from the JREF and constantly get in trouble for being trolls.

[Guest River]

I'm curious which members you feel fit into that category.

[indiefoot]

That would be in violation of posting guidelines, no thanks.

[Huntster]

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.

While they may be welcome, what if they're chicken farmers who pose as scholars, or scholars who pose as chicken farmers? Is deception welcome, too?

[Huntster]

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.

Problems with the crop circle/sasquatch comparison:

1) Crop circles are a recent phenomenon (like the alien abduction phenomenon). There are few (if any) reports of crop circles from 200 years ago.

2) While the crop circle phenomenon was going on, the United States Air Force (the appropriate government agency) was just finishing their decades long investigations (under several different project names) into the UFO phenomenon. American wildlife management agencies have yet to begin any investigation into sasquatchery like the Air Force investigated UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence.

[Guest UPs]

I understand the reasons for wanting to keep your identity private, I do not agree with claiming your are 'x' and posting with the assumed authority of 'x', but then refusing to validate that you are 'x'. To me, this can be abused mostly by the use of referring to yourself a scientist or leo. If you are not willing (I understand this) to verify your credentials, why refer to yourself as a person with those credentials? Some people will use this tactic to bolster their argument by claiming they are an authority when in truth, they could be anyone. I certainly keep this in mind when reading posts.

[Huntster]

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.

You are certainly skeptical of claims of habituation by large, bipedal, hairy creatures. So am I.

We are skeptical of some claims.

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.

I disagree. Even if a really good photo or film footage might spur more interest from science to actually search for the creature, they will still want and even need that carcass.

Unfortuantely, the carcass is scientifically mandated by the most basic rules of science.

[Guest River]

You are certainly skeptical of claims of habituation by large, bipedal, hairy creatures. So am I.

We are skeptical of some claims.

I disagree. Even if a really good photo or film footage might spur more interest from science to actually search for the creature, they will still want and even need that carcass.

Unfortuantely, the carcass is scientifically mandated by the most basic rules of science.

We agree on a few points here n there huntster. If anyone were to present compelling video, for instance portraying a sasquatch doing something impossible for a human to do, or of inhuman size. Something clear that documents the animals existence would most certainly get further interest from science. I've often said - I don't expect proponents to make something out of nothing. (the current body of verifiable evidence) Some compelling video could be the start of that federal investment into the survey. Certainly would give a much needed boost to the bigfoot industry also. (sounds like its time for a new pgf? guys? someone reading this forum rich and investing in projects? haha) I bet with Bill Munns help, and one of the taller/larger members of the forum we could have some fun. If it's properly funded, I'll get in a suit and walk for the camera. (pay me well for my time) I'm also 6' 3". Heironimus claims he was offered 1000 back in 67, so todays equivalent around 6420.00 (calculated to 2009) Heck yeah, lets do this.

Whens the last time someone really tried to duplicate the PGF? (and lets be honest, I dont think it's ever been attempted. We know the circumstances behind the so-called one that was aired) If you were to make a modern bigfoot movie hoax, would you recreate whats been done? or create something new?

I'd make a movie with the intent to create a believable result, not to copy the PGF. I think it's a worth while project.

Bill: how much money would you require to make a suit that would be believeable and also allow the actor the ability to run in etc?

[Guest]

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

I don't believe that we need to be broadly referring to some members that post here as "JREF trolls".

We have lots of members here that post on other forums and, as a moderator, I am not about to categorize them by what they post on other forums. As a moderator, I am only concerned about how, and what, they post on this forum.

I think this should be the last time someone makes reference to any members here as "JREF trolls".

Thanks for your help.

Splash

[Huntster]

Some compelling video could be the start of that federal investment into the survey.

As a fed, I can assure you that the feds won't get involved until they are forced or have other interests in doing so. (I'm not a federal wildlife manager, but I do/did lots of support of federal wildlife managers).

And, really, wildlife management (of "non-migratory" animals) is a state management authority. My ultimate hope is for the states of Washington, Oregon, and/or Alaska to get interested.

Certainly would give a much needed boost to the bigfoot industry also.

I don't care any more for the bigfoot industry than I do for the environmental industry. Maybe even less.

Whens the last time someone really tried to duplicate the PGF? (and lets be honest, I dont think it's ever been attempted.

I think the BBC bankrolled somebody's lame attempt. And it was truly lame.

[Guest]

2) While the crop circle phenomenon was going on, the United States Air Force (the appropriate government agency) was just finishing their decades long investigations (under several different project names) into the UFO phenomenon. American wildlife management agencies have yet to begin any investigation into sasquatchery like the Air Force investigated UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence.

And the respective budgets of the USAF and "wildlife management agencies" make that a valid comparison . . ?

(I'm just trying to keep you occupied, Huntster.)

[Guest]

If you are not willing (I understand this) to verify your credentials, why refer to yourself as a person with those credentials?

Writing just for myself . . .

*I've had people politely ask what I do.

*I've had people badger and berate me as someone obviously inexperienced "in the woods."

*In a couple of instances, I have described my background to make a specific point, e.g., to share the fact that I had delivered a bigfoot lecture on a college campus to illustrate the widespread interest in the topic among real wildlife biologist types.

*I may have posted some comments on the BFF to the effect of "if Meldrum and I have similar levels of education and position, why accept his statements uncritically yet reject mine out of hand?" Reading those comments in context, however, my intent was clearly an illustration of the "argument from authority" fallacy and not a bragging session to bolster my own rhetoric.

So there are times when I've felt it appropriate to provide that perspective, but I always try to make the parallel point that we should judge the merit of comments by the degree to which they make sense and are supported by evidence, not by the gravitas of the person who delivered the comment. There are times when it's important to seek an expert's opinion specifically because that person is an expert, but we always need to vigilant to the propensity to give a so-called expert's opinion greater weight simply because the person is an expert - that's a recipe for committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

[Guest]

Sorry, but the OP contains a strawman fallacy I was addressing: The fact that there are people who claim to have hoaxed bigfoot does not buttress opinion that there is no bigfoot.

Without corroborating evidence that a hoax confessor has hoaxed, there is no mandate to take the confessor's word. That is true. So?

Then why (on this very forum even) do "skeptics" attempt to debunk/dismiss proffered evidence (esp tracks and pictures) by saying (paraphrased) "We know that people hoax BF [evidence]). We do not know there is a BF. Therefore the default explanation for [evidence] must be that it is hoaxed, until an actual BF is obtained.."?

Sorry, no strawman here. If you (in general, not you Sas in particular) are going to bring in hoaxes and hoaxing as a rebuttal to proffered evidence, then it is entirely appropriate to bring in the inherent LACK of credibility of any proffered hoax "confessor".