I'm Giving A Persuasive Speech On Bigfoot!

[Sunflower]

If I missed this point, forgive me. Will you be taking a stance on the no kill or pro kill issue? I'm curious because Yes I am NO KILL and will always be NO KILL and would love it if more people felt like me. I know, call me selfish, what can I say?

[Guest]

It won't help your speech but might help your grade if at the end of the speech you said "This speech was sponsored by Jack links beef jerky "

give the class some and the rest of the bag to the professor(unless he's a vegetarian).

[Guest]

. . . the Jacob creature. Right here on the BFF we discovered the hump was a shadow. This was the main reason some skeptics thought it was a bear.

I don't recall, in any of the countless hours I invested in the Jacobs threads, anyone arguing that the subject was a bear because of some "hump" apparent on the image. Why juvenile bigfoots would lack heels in adolescence but spontaneously generate them as adults is beyond me - and everyone else trained in vertebrate morphology who examined the photos, including the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The Jacobs creature was a black bear.

Harry, the Jacobs photos would be an even worse item to present in a persuasive speech than the PGF. The subject of those photos is clearly a bear to anyone other than a small group of bigfoot proponents. All it would take is someone from your audience asking a question like "I heard that the PGC examined the photos and determined they depicted a bear" and you'd be dead in the water. Suddenly, you would be tasked with providing an entirely new persuasive speech: why your opinion should hold greater weight than that of say Gary Alt of the PGC, who knows more about bears than the bears do! That's just not going to happen. You might end up giving an interesting and thought-provoking presentation, but if you were in my class, I'd fail you for the assignment because you weren't actually persuasive.

Trust me - stick to the stuff that cannot be argued: people claim to see "bigfoots" and have been for a really long time. NO ONE can rebut that.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I'll be doing a book report on the book "Monster" by Frank Peretti, so,I will be doing a bigfoot thing too.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SquatchinNY

[Guest]

I'd say, I'd try to leave opinion out of it. I believe moving to an "opinion" speech will move you closer to fail. Opinion is less persuasive than fact-based argument. If you want to be persuasive, leave as much opinion out of the speech and put in as much strong argument as you can. Just my opinion

[Sunflower]

I'll be doing a book report on the book "Monster" by Frank Peretti, so,I will be doing a bigfoot thing too.

Good book!

[Guest]

I don't recall, in any of the countless hours I invested in the Jacobs threads, anyone arguing that the subject was a bear because of some "hump" apparent on the image.

You're incorrect, the "hump" image was in several threads here and was the single determining factor by a primatologist. The PGC did not determine based on a foot in grass that wasn't clear enough to determine what it actually looked like. I would explain to the class how the proportions are not a bears according to scientists that worked out the size. I would also ask why the PGC couldn't find it when they looked to trap it. Or why they didn't investigate the photo but instead were under great public

pressure for the most logical answer. That's always a bear for them.

Trust me, stick to the stuff that was never proven to be something else. The PGF and Jacobs creature are what made Bigfoot today. MSNBC said the Jacobs creature alone has revived the old topic.

[Guest HarryAbe]

I will be conducting a phone interview with Bill Munns tonight. Thanks for all the advice so far and please keep the ideas coming. I am passionate about this subject and want to do as well as I can!

[Guest]

That's a good person to talk to. Hardcore skeptics and those that don't have an open mind will have you convincing the audience Bigfoot is a big fake. Of coarse it's always something else to them, it has to be. The good sightings always have activity reported by more than one person and sometimes other sightings from the area. That's how we know they are real.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Kerry

[Rockape]

I'd say, I'd try to leave opinion out of it. I believe moving to an "opinion" speech will move you closer to fail. Opinion is less persuasive than fact-based argument. If you want to be persuasive, leave as much opinion out of the speech and put in as much strong argument as you can. Just my opinion

But he isn't trying to win an argument. It's speech class, they could care one wit whether or not it makes a persuasive argument, he'll be graded on arrangement, presentation and how well he speaks and holds the audience. I'd say he has a head start with that last one since it will probably be something different from what they've heard.

[southernyahoo]

Here's some of the hard points I would put in a persuasive argument.

1. Reports of encounters with an undescribed hairy bipedal hominid have persisted for centuries in North America and have been documented in oral legends, news paper articles, modern media and even from a story told by the late President Teddy Roosevelt.

2. Evidence suggesting such a being exists also persists in the form of photo's, video's, tracks, recorded vocalizations and collected hair samples. While no single piece of this evidence can provide proof, biological samples such as hairs cannot be hoaxed, and can provide a cogency in DNA data among numerous samples, which can be proof. The Scientific Community is now engaged with this evidence with talks of publication of the findings looming.

3. Science is taking this mystery seriously, and there may come a time when we all do.

[Guest HarryAbe]

Great points southern!

[Guest HarryAbe]

just hung up with bill a few minutes ago. he is an EXCELLENT person to talk to when it comes to the pgf film. talk about experience and study in one area! i really appreciate him taking the time to chat with me!

[Guest ajciani]

Saskeptic's points are very good to consider.

A speech focusing on Abe's original bullets alone would have required 30 to 40 minutes, just to review the qualities of each piece of evidence. For example, a persuasive speech on why the PGF is not a hoax would require 45 to 60 minutes on its own, as well as a rudimentary understanding of biophysics and humanoid locomotion on the part of the audience, which Abe's audience is unlikely to have. Every time you play a video, you need to include its full run time, plus about 30 seconds to introduce it, and then the time to explain how it links in with your theme. Playing a single 30 second video clip could consume 2 to 3 minutes.

Saskeptic's suggestions are good, but may still end up well over time. If you were to think of a speech in terms of presenting slides, a general rule of thumb is 1 minute per slide. If it takes the audience more than 15 seconds to read the slide, then the slide is too full. You have 6 slides.

Rather than aiming to convince the audience that bigfoot is real by dumping controversial evidence upon them, you might instead want to aim to convince the audience that bigfoot has a plausible explanation in a real creature, already known to or hypothesized by science.

You might consider an outline similar to the one Saskeptic suggested, but trimmed down:

1. Cultures on every populated continent have folklore about a large, hairy wild man. List one example from Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, North America and South America, with native name. This might be an opportune time to point out that bigfoot goes back further than European settlement of N.A. Are these based on a common meme, or long histories of interacting with a real creature?
   
2. How to determine if bigfoots are real; it should be seen, the witness descriptions should be consistent, it should have a physical impact on its environment consistent with a giant man-ape creature, there should already be some place for it in the apes or it may already be known to science.
   
3. Perhaps referencing BFRO "Class A" reports, simultaneously show that modern sightings continue to the present time, and list the common physical features (e.g. hair, occasional odor, stature, facial features, etc.).
   
4. The traits of relict hominids are not definitively known, but (some list of known specimens) may match the general description of bigfoot, including a giant, ugly, hairy human.
   
5. List some of the possible bits of physical evidence; foot prints, hand prints, tree knocks (it's humans or bigfoots), vocalizations of unknown origin, hair samples of unknown origin, tree constructions (too big for humans?), mutilated animals, etc. Just a list, to present that physical evidence does exist. Nothing detailed, or you will run out of time. Note that every piece of evidence has its detractors and promoters.
   
6. A conclusion, which reviews the key points; bigfoots are seen, may leave physical evidence, and could be explained by known or slightly mutant versions of known animals. Which leads to either bigfoot being a real animal, or the bigfoot meme being so ingrained that massive, uncoordinated hoaxing has created all of the physical evidence.
   

Edited September 27, 2012 by ajciani

[Guest]

Pay attention to what HarryAbe has asked for. It's suppose to be a persuasive speech, not Bigfoot on trial. He needs material to influence their attitude and belief, he needs to convey information with feelings if he wants a good grade. Skeptics need to leave their personal feelings out if they are to help with convincing the audience.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Kerry