Debunk The Debunking

[indiefoot]

If there were big pots of funding setting around for the purpose of looking for new primate species in North America, I would imagine you would be beating the "scientists" off with a switch.

[southernyahoo]

Our carefully worded statements aren't just big words strung together to make us sound pretentious - they really mean something to scientists. The media, of course, paraphrase such statements and distill them into headlines and sound bytes that often convey a different intent than the scientists' actual quotes.

I've seen the same thing happen here with proponents statements. A proponent will say hey look at this track or listen to this sound, then a skeptic says " how do you know it is bigfoot" as if the claim has been made. The proponent/ researchers carefully worded statements are not meant to be twisted either.

[indiefoot]

Those conversations usually end up with "That's why scientists don't take Bigfoot seriously, people posting that sort of thing and claiming it's a Bigfoot"

You start out asking what people think and the next thing you know you've set Bigfootery back a decade, dang.

[Guest Spazmo]

Our carefully worded statements aren't just big words strung together to make us sound pretentious - they really mean something to scientists. The media, of course, paraphrase such statements and distill them into headlines and sound bytes that often convey a different intent than the scientists' actual quotes.

I've seen the same thing happen here with proponents statements. A proponent will say hey look at this track or listen to this sound, then a skeptic says " how do you know it is bigfoot" as if the claim has been made. The proponent/ researchers carefully worded statements are not meant to be twisted either.

Yes, these things have happened, and still do to some extent.

But I think these issues have lessened greatly in recent times, and hopefully can be eliminated from the forum eventually. So far I'm seeing posts of a much better nature (since the relaunch) and am optimistic that this trend will continue.

We don't want to lose quality members such as the both of you, and are working hard in that respect.

[southernyahoo]

Those conversations usually end up with "That's why scientists don't take Bigfoot seriously, people posting that sort of thing and claiming it's a Bigfoot"

You start out asking what people think and the next thing you know you've set Bigfootery back a decade, dang.

I hear ya Indie.

Thanks Spazmo.

Edited December 24, 2010 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

But that's just it. In terms of what can be demonstrated, nothing in all of those sightings, reports, footprints, etc., suggests that there's a better explanation than hoaxing, misidentification, imagination, etc.

That is YOUR opinion. It is not shared by credentialed experts such as Drs Meldrum, Kranz, et al. They have professionally examined the evidence and brought forth many convincing points concerning various aspects of it that have far more evidentiary weight than the blanket dismissals of the "skeptics".

[Guest]

All the "scientists" that I have dealt with on the subject are so busy trying to prove what else it could be, that they can't see what it really is.

I got the impression that they are afraid they will actually have to admit that they are real, if they can't find something else-anything else to explain away what they are seeing & hearing.

Meldrum mentions this phenomion in LMS...there seems to be an instinctive reaction of "this just CANNOT be" for some reason where BF is concerned. Of course, if "scientists" were being true to their professional calling, they wouldn't let such feelings and reactions prevent them from investigating with an open mind...

[Guest]

Isn't that how science works?

Not legitimate science.

[Guest]

Not legitimate science.

Really?

Meldrum mentions this phenomion in LMS...

Do you own stock in this book?

[Guest]

Really?

Really. Legitimate science accepts what the data tells it, rather than come up with ever more convoluted, unsupported theories as to why the data says something other than what it says.

Do you own stock in this book?

It is an excellent, one-stop refutation of many of the most common "skeptic" claims, providing clear and convincing data and argumentation that supports at a bare minimum the potential existance of an unclassified (at present) large North American ape.

Every person with an interest in BF should read it.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Really. Legitimate science accepts what the data tells it, rather than come up with ever more convoluted, unsupported theories as to why the data says something other than what it says.

Yes, and whatever potential theory of existence one wants to believe in, or however suggestive the evidence is to you; You should be ready to reject or correct whatever you hold true should you discover evidence against it.

Is it reasonable to accept something as a fact when it's not clearly supported by the evidence?

Should I accept dermal ridges over casting artifacts. Was Matt Crowley being reasonable?

[Guest]

Is it reasonable to accept something as a fact when it's not clearly supported by the evidence?

In the case of bf, the evidence DOES clearly support at a bare minimum that existence is more likely than non-existence.

Should I accept dermal ridges over casting artifacts. Was Matt Crowley being reasonable?

Frankly, no, as many people have pointed out. His procedures were sloppy (which is scary, since he's a pharmacist...I wouldn't want him handling MY prescriptions that's for sure), and his choice of media too restrictive. The random vaguely dermatoglyphic-esque results are very different from the specifically identified anatomically correct details mentioned by Chillicut and Meldrum (such as in the "scarfoot" track).

Sample refutation of Crowley:

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/final-response-to-matt-crowley.html

Furthermore, in several cases, the dermatoglyphics were noted in the raw footprint BEFORE the casting was made...obviously THAT cannot be the result of "wicking" or other such nonsense. Neither can "wicking" be the explanation when the track is in already wet mud/soil, as the rebutter above points out.

So, no, I'm not impressed by Crowley, any more than I'm impressed by the claims of the Wallace family that Ray was a massive BF track hoaxer that fooled everybody.

Once again, LMS is your friend.

[Guest]

Never knew you supported Wallace tracks as legit. Wow...

[Guest Blackdog]

So that's what it comes down to for you. Lies, misrepresentation, character assassination and a poor reference to a person who was trying to cover her ass for her own shoddy work and accusations of the breaking of federal law.

Credulous... that is what describes you to a tee.

Please, nobody believe Mulder without doing your own research into this.

I am truly sad that this person is given a forum to spread such misinformation without challenge.

I'm done beating my head against the wall arguing with people like this. Isn't the truth the most important thing?

I'll take my lumps and most of this will probably be deleted but for those that have a chance to read this, take my advice and think for yourselves about who is doing you good and who is trying to just feed upon your beliefs just to make friends and allies or whatever.

Maybe there is something out there but lies and misrepresentations are not the truth you are looking for, all it does is muddy the water.

Take this from a guy who started out strongly on the proponent side of the fence and has been disillusioned by my experiences with some people in the "bigfoot community".

[Guest]

Two quick points:

First, this thread is not intended for discussions about people on either side of the fence, keep those elements out please - this is for presenting rebuttal arguments to common debunking positions.

Second, I don't believe Mulder was suggesting Wallace tracks are legitimate, he was I believe refuting claims that Wallace tracks are widely responsible for the track evidence as claimed by the Wallace family - in other words he was saying that the idea that Wallace faked the whole thing is the big hoax, not the obviously identifiable fake tracks. I think Mulder and I are on the same page there.

Edited December 26, 2010 by infoman