Damning For Skeptics

[Guest UPs]

Drew, do you consider these examples to be ' up close and personal' as river asked? In your first example, proper vetting would lead to it being a stump. In your second example, this is entirely probable. The most simple explanation is they saw what they described, but that does not conform to the pseudo skeptical view. There are a small percentage of sighting reports that include supporting evidence (tracks for example) that were properly vetted. These have not been dismissed by factual evidence nor have they been proved by the same. UPs

[Guest]

Either there are a whole bunch of them, or the many thousands of sighting reports are all mis-identifications or lies.

BINGO!

By the "skeptics" OWN LOGIC, if BF sightings are in part or in whole explained by hoaxers AND some hunter SHOULD have shot one by now, then we should have had a hoaxer turn up with "terminal lead poisoning" by now...

[Guest]

Yes. Or is everything always a one way street?

Remember the #2 sign of a psuedo-skeptic: Double standards in the application of criticism.

[Drew]

BINGO!

By the "skeptics" OWN LOGIC, if BF sightings are in part or in whole explained by hoaxers AND some hunter SHOULD have shot one by now, then we should have had a hoaxer turn up with "terminal lead poisoning" by now...

Show where hoaxes are claimed to be more than a small fraction of BF sightings. I have stated that most sighting reports are fabrications.

Why would a hunter shoot a hoaxer? Most people wouldn't risk their freedom in order to shoot some guy in a gorilla suit., and furthermore, most hoaxers are not going to be hoaxing in hunting areas, and also would probably be accompanied by a cameraperson.

[Guest]

You do know that presenting a second false dilemma in no way strengthens the first, right?

2. Double standards in the application of criticism.

Sorry alex, you're going to have to restructure that into something that resembles a valid argument so I know exactly what it is I'm trying to debate.

RayG

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

Dodging? The only thing I'm dodging are the fallacies that litter your original "case." False dilemma and an informal straw man.

I mean this in all seriousness and with respect: find your nearest college and enroll in a a critical thinking course. There are often traveling seminars.

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

Show where hoaxes are claimed to be more than a small fraction of BF sightings. I have stated that most sighting reports are fabrications.

Proof?

Why would a hunter shoot a hoaxer? Most people wouldn't risk their freedom in order to shoot some guy in a gorilla suit., and furthermore, most hoaxers are not going to be hoaxing in hunting areas, and also would probably be accompanied by a cameraperson.

Funny, I don't see that many BF reports mentioning a cameraperson following it around...

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mulder

[Huntster]

Oy. OK Huntster, so what is your plan to get those negligent wildlife agencies (and which one, please) off their collective duff to "investigate bigfoot" or something?

I don't have a plan to make officials respond to their responsibility. I have no responsibility or authority to do so.

But I can continue to profess the truth. Maybe they'll hear it and figure it out.

As for what you want them to do, I think you've suggested a commando-style, stealth expedition to British Columbia, right?

I have suggested a rapid response to a current high quality report utilizing military assets in a training mission deployment in order to have some of the best resources available at short notice in order to eliminate "gear up" costs, but I realize that cooperative coordination between a wildlife management agency and the military is as tall an order as getting the wildlife management agencies to even look into the matter (even though it happens all the time):

A military-funded tracking study of Anchorage grizzly bears found that these large, intelligent omnivores don't just make quick trips to the city's edge and then retreat to some remote wilderness up in the Chugach Mountains.

They spend the summer close to people, largely out of sight in parks and on military land. Some of them seem as adept at urban life as any traffic-savvy moose from the neighborhood.

"It's kind of startling to realize these brown bears are in our midst," said state research biologist Sean Farley, who oversaw the research.

Sounds pricey, but I'm sure the money could be found if the right people were committed.

The above mentioned bear study wasn't cheap. We had Pavehawk helicopters flying all over the place darting bears. Over 50 bears were darted and collared.

So, when can they stop the effort to your satisfaction?

Some time after they start, and when they have some responsible results to report.

How much bigfoot hunting would be enough for you to cease banging on that the wildlife agencies had in fact investigated it?

Enough to make it plain that they actually engaged in a responsible effort.

You're a no-nonsense guy and you know how to get things done, so surely there should be some kind of an exit strategy laid out in advance.

Well, let me refer to the recent wolf "research" on Ft. Richardson, Alaska. After "Army" wolves (the Ship Creek and Elmendorf packs) began eating Eagle River resident's pets (sometimes right off the leash while the pet owners were at the other end of the leash) then retreating onto safe government land, the government decided to "study" the problem. They decided that the best way to "study" the problem is to do like what they did with the bears; put satellite collars on the wolfs. The problem is that you will not have any success flying around in helicopters darting wolves. They're way too smart for that, and they tend to hang out under cover; in the forest (unlike the brown bears, which can be found above timberline for a good part of the year). No problem, right? Trappers catch them all the time (in killer and leghold traps). But they need to catch them alive and unharmed. So they hired a good friend who was a wildlife trooper and trapper in his own rights.

It has been 3 years, and they have yet to catch a single wolf (at least caught "enough" to get a collar on...........). Oh, they've caught wolverines, dogs, etc. But no wolves. Too smart.

Have they thrown in the towel?

What do you think?

Not trying to bait you into any kind of an evil skeptical trap or anything, I'm just trying to get us past the logjam. (And when I wrote "the right people were committed" I wasn't making an off-color statement about anyone's mental health!)

I know. You're not the average JREF kook.

But I wouldn't advise letting them influence you, either............

Edited September 29, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Huntster,

OK, so there's plenty of money to do the type of investigation you're looking for, and precedent for wildlife agencies to team with military. (I've been involved with some myself, though nothing so sexy to have involved helicopters darting bears.) I'm with you so far.

You're not comfortable describing how much investment is enough to declare it investigated. Like porn, you'll know it when you see it. Okay.

You're looking for a rapid response team to deploy to "current high quality report"s. Let's work on that for a bit. Is this the "sasquatch database" idea you've described? You want some wildlife agency (e.g., USFWS, CWS) to develop and maintain a centralized database of bigfoot reports, kind of like the BFRO but less crazy? Okay, that can be done, I guess. Can you expound a bit on what you actually mean by "current" and "high quality?"

[Huntster]

You're not comfortable describing how much investment is enough to declare it investigated. Like porn, you'll know it when you see it. Okay.

And like porn, you'll know it when your in it. In other words, once they invest themselves into the phenomenon, they'll know when they've given it a fair investigation.

You're looking for a rapid response team to deploy to "current high quality report"s.

I believe that any valid investigation should involve such an effort.

Let's work on that for a bit. Is this the "sasquatch database" idea you've described? You want some wildlife agency (e.g., USFWS, CWS) to develop and maintain a centralized database of bigfoot reports, kind of like the BFRO but less crazy?

Not necessarily, although a long term database collection should also be part of an official review of the phenomenon.

What I mean by "current high quality reports" is a series of reports from a specific area that together make up a series involving several witnesses, and often law enforcement authorities as well. For example, the Bluff Creek area from 1958 - 1967, Gray's Harbor from 1969 - 1982, Bossburg in 1969 and 1970, or Skamania County in 1969 - 1972 (Hell, that place is a steady stream of reports........).

[Guest]

So is Skamania County your best bet for a current relative hotbed of activity?

[Drew]

I thought Bossburg was Ivan Marx's deal. Wasn't he a hoaxer?

[Huntster]

So is Skamania County your best bet for a current relative hotbed of activity?

Referring to the BFRO database (which is the largest and longest maintained database of reports), Skamania and Pierce Counties in Washington state boast the most reports of all other counties in the US (each have 52 reports), regardless of county size.

I would describe both counties as the best bet for consistent activity, contain what I would describe as ideal sasquatch habitat, and would likely be counties where sasquatches currently reside. However, neither presently offer any current series of possibly related reports. Thus, I would describe either county (and neighboring Thurston, Lewis, and Yakima counties, btw, also offer lots of reports) as a good place to search as a matter of course, but not in a rapid deployment fashion.

[Guest Bullfrog]

Quote

I imagine there are a fair number out there that would pull over, get their rifles out, and look at the "whatever" 100 yards down the road though their rifle scopes if they saw it, but again that requires that the vehicle stop, the observer get out their gun, and then train it on whatever they are looking at.

Notice all the road signs with bullet holes in them? That's how I reckon they get that way: the car slows to a stop, the rednecks disembark, casually open the trunk, get out the beer and guns, and blaze away while slamming a few (everybody knows it's illegal to drink and drive). Then they get back in and travel to the next road sign.

So if they see a sasquatch on the way, yeah, it might take 'em a while, so your brilliant hoaxer can run into the woods and make good his well planned escape.

You hoaxers are a brilliant lot............

Don't know about the "you hoaxers" part. I never said I endorse what they do. I'm just pointing out that its a reality, good, bad, or indifferent.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Bullfrog

[Huntster]

Notice all the road signs with bullet holes in them? That's how I reckon they get that way: the car slows to a stop, the rednecks disembark, casually open the trunk, get out the beer and guns, and blaze away while slamming a few (everybody knows it's illegal to drink and drive). Then they get back in and travel to the next road sign.

So if they see a sasquatch on the way, yeah, it might take 'em a while, so your brilliant hoaxer can run into the woods and make good his well planned escape.

You hoaxers are a brilliant lot............

Don't know about the "you hoaxers" part. I never said I endorse what they do. I'm just pointing out that its a reality, good, bad, or indifferent.

1) The "you hoaxers" part was because you claimed that you knew them

2) I don't know anybody who has claimed to do such a thing, nor do I know anybody personally that is dumb enough to attempt such a thing, and I know some pretty dumb folks

3) If it's a reality, it's as rare as a real bigfoot

4) It is not good or indifferent. It's a real bad thing. Deadly. Dumb.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Hey, if the government can collect a database on U.F.O.'s and study the phenomenon and put it in a nice "Blue Book," they should be able to investigate some sasquatch sightings.

[Guest parnassus]

I thought Bossburg was Ivan Marx's deal. Wasn't he a hoaxer?

Hey, that was the Pantheon of bigfootery, back in 1969. They were all there, except Paul Freeman.

Patterson, Marx, Krantz, Green, Wallace, Dahinden. I don't know..?Biscardi...... They had bigfoot trapped in a cave...may still be there.

Edited September 29, 2010 by parnassus