Damning For Skeptics

[Guest parnassus]

2. Double standards in the application of criticism.

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

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

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

Proof?

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

112

167b

108

213f

10-10

10-35

10-22

Edited September 29, 2010 by parnassus

[Huntster]

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.

And "Blue Book" illustrates that "government investigation" can still leave much to be desired:

The Captain Ruppelt era

According to Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, by the end of 1951, several high-ranking, very influential USAF generals were so dissatisfied with the state of Air Force UFO investigations that they dismantled Project Grudge and replaced it with Project Blue Book in early 1952. One of these men was Gen. Charles P. Cabell. Another important change came when General William Garland joined Cabell's staff; Garland thought the UFO question deserved serious scrutiny because he had witnessed a UFO[2].

The new name, Project Blue Book, was selected to refer to the blue booklets used for testing at some colleges and universities. The name was inspired, said Ruppelt, by the close attention that high-ranking officers were giving the new project; it felt as if the study of UFOs was as important as a college final exam. Blue Book was also upgraded in status from Project Grudge, with the creation of the Aerial Phenomenon Branch.[3]

Ruppelt was the first head of the project. He was an experienced airman, having been decorated for his efforts with the Army Air Corps during World War II, and having afterwards earned an aeronautics degree. He officially coined the term "Unidentified Flying Object", to replace the many terms ("flying saucer" "flying disk" and so on) the military had previously used; Ruppelt thought that "unidentified flying object" was a more neutral and accurate term. Ruppelt resigned from the Air Force some years later, and wrote the book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, which described the study of UFOs by United States Air Force from 1947 to 1955. Swords writes that "Ruppelt would lead the last genuine effort to analyze UFOs"[4].

Ruppelt implemented a number of changes: He streamlined the manner in which UFOs were reported to (and by) military officials, partly in hopes of alleviating the stigma and ridicule associated with UFO witnesses. Ruppelt also ordered the development of a standard questionnaire for UFO witnesses, hoping to uncover data which could be subject to statistical analysis. He commissioned the Battelle Memorial Institute to create the questionnaire and computerize the data. Using case reports and the computerized data, Battelle then did a massive scientific and statistical study of all Air Force UFO cases, completed in 1954 and known as "Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14" (see summary below).

Knowing that factionalism had harmed the progress of Project Sign, Ruppelt did his best to avoid the kinds of open-ended speculation that had led to Sign’s personnel being split among advocates and critics of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. As Michael Hall writes, "Ruppelt not only took the job seriously but expected his staff to do so as well. If anyone under him either became too skeptical or too convinced of one particular theory, they soon found themselves off the project."[5] In his book, Ruppelt reported that he fired three personnel very early in the project because they were either "too pro" or "too con" one hypotheis or another. Ruppelt sought the advice of many scientists and experts, and issued regular press releases (along with classified monthly reports for military intelligence).

Each U.S. Air Force Base had a Blue Book officer to collect UFO reports and forward them to Ruppelt[6]. During most of Ruppelt's tenure, he and his team were authorized to interview any and all military personnel who witnessed UFOs, and were not required to follow the chain of command. This unprecedented authority underlined the seriousness of Blue Book's investigation.

Under Ruppelt's direction, Blue Book investigated a number of well-known UFO cases, including the so-called Lubbock Lights, and a widely publicized 1952 radar/visual case over Washington D.C.. According to Jacques Vallee[7], Ruppelt started the trend, largely followed by later Blue Book investigations, of not giving serious consideration to numerous reports of UFO landings and/or interaction with purported UFO occupants.

Astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek was the scientific consultant of the project, as he had been with Projects Sign and Grudge. He worked for the project up to its termination and initially created the categorization which has been extended and is known today as Close encounters. He was a pronounced skeptic when he started, but said that his feelings changed to a more wavering skepticism during the research, after encountering a few UFO reports he thought were unexplainable, according to what is often said on web pages. The book he wrote (Close Encounters) stated the opposite and explains how such misinformation arises.

Ruppelt left Blue Book in February 1953 for a temporary reassignment. He returned a few months later to find his staff reduced from more than ten, to two subordinates. Frustrated, Ruppelt suggested that an Air Defense Command unit (the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron) be charged with UFO investigations.

Robertson pane

In July 1952, after a build-up of hundreds of sightings over the previous few months, a series of radar detections coincident with visual sightings were observed near the National Airport in Washington, D.C. (see 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident). Future Arizona Senator and 2008 presidential nominee John McCain is alleged to be one of these witnesses.

After much publicity, these sightings led the Central Intelligence Agency to establish a panel of scientists headed by Dr. H. P. Robertson, a physicist of the California Institute of Technology, which included various physicists, meteorologists, and engineers, and one astronomer (Hynek). The Robertson Panel first met on January 14, 1953 in order to formulate a response to the overwhelming public interest in UFOs.

Ruppelt, Hynek, and others presented the best evidence, including movie footage, that had been collected by Blue Book. After spending 12 hours reviewing 6 years of data, the Robertson Panel concluded that most UFO reports had prosaic explanations, and that all could be explained with further investigation, which they deemed not worth the effort.

In their final report, they stressed that low-grade, unverifiable UFO reports were overloading intelligence channels, with the risk of missing a genuine conventional threat to the U.S. Therefore, they recommended the Air Force de-emphasize the subject of UFOs and embark on a debunking campaign to lessen public interest. They suggested debunkery through the mass media, including The Walt Disney Company, and using psychologists, astronomers, and celebrities to ridicule the phenomenon and put forward prosaic explanations. Furthermore, civilian UFO groups "should be watched because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking… The apparent irresponsibility and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be kept in mind."

It is the conclusion of many researchers[6][8] that the Robertson Panel was recommending controlling public opinion through a program of official propaganda and spying. They also believe these recommendations helped shape Air Force policy regarding UFO study not only immediately afterwards, but also into the present day. There is evidence that the Panel's recommendations were being carried out at least two decades after its conclusions were issued (see the main article for details and citations).

In December 1953, Joint Army-Navy-Air Force Regulation number 146 made it a crime for military personnel to discuss classified UFO reports with unauthorized persons. Violators faced up to two years in prison and/or fines of up to $10,000.

Aftermath of Robertson panel

In his book (see external links) Ruppelt described the demoralization of the Blue Book staff and the stripping of their investigative duties following the Robertson Panel. As an immediate consequence of the Robertson Panel recommendations, in February 1953, the Air Force issued Regulation 200-2, ordering air base officers to publicly discuss UFO incidents only if they were judged to have been solved, and to classify all the unsolved cases to keep them out of the public eye.

The same month, investigative duties started to be taken on by the newly formed 4602nd Air Intelligence Squadron (AISS) of the Air Defense Command. The 4602nd AISS was tasked with investigating only the most important UFO cases with intelligence or national security implications. These were deliberately siphoned away from Blue Book, leaving Blue Book to deal with the more trivial reports.

General Nathan Twining, who got Project Sign started back in 1947, was now Air Force Chief of Staff. In August 1954, he was to further codify the responsibilities of the 4602nd AISS by issuing an updated Air Force Regulation 200-2. In addition, UFOs (called "UFOBs") were defined as "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object." Investigation of UFOs was stated to be for the purposes of national security and to ascertain "technical aspects." AFR 200-2 again stated that Blue Book could discuss UFO cases with the media only if they were regarded as having a conventional explanation. If they were unidentified, the media was to be told only that the situation was being analyzed. Blue Book was also ordered to reduce the number of unidentified to a minimum.

All this was done secretly. The public face of Blue Book continued to be the official Air Force investigation of UFOs, but the reality was it had essentially been reduced to doing very little serious investigation, and had become almost solely a public relations outfit with a debunking mandate. To cite one example, by the end of 1956, the number of cases listed as unsolved had dipped to barely 0.4 percent, from the 20 to 30% it had been only a few years earlier.

Eventually, Ruppelt requested reassignment; at his departure in August 1953, his staff had been reduced from more than ten (precise numbers of personnel varied) to just two subordinates and himself. His temporary replacement was a noncommissioned officer. Most who succeeded him as Blue Book director exhibited either apathy or outright hostility to the subject of UFOs, or were hampered by a lack of funding and official support.

UFO investigators often regard Ruppelt's brief tenure at Blue Book as the high-water mark of public Air Force investigations of UFOs, when UFO investigations were treated seriously and had support at high levels[8]. Thereafter, Project Blue Book descended into a new "Dark Ages" from which many UFO investigators argue it never emerged[8]. However, Ruppelt later came to embrace the Blue Book perspective that there was nothing extraordinary about UFOs; he even labeled the subject a "Space Age Myth."

I don't rail for the government to investigate because I believe they'll do a more consciencious job than the amateurs. I do it because it's the government's responsibility to do so, they are quietly shirking that responsibility, and I do it because there is the remote possibility that, with just a few more resources than the amateurs have, a sasquatch might just fall into their silly laps.

There is nothing to prevent them from screwing it up just like they screwed up Blue Book, and for much the same reasons; they don't want the public to know what they've learned........

[Huntster]

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

He hoaxed his film, but there is no proof that he hoaxed the footprints. Indeed, he didn't have the intelligence to hoax the crippled print.

[Guest RayG]

2. Double standards in the application of criticism.

Pointing out a second fallacy is now considered a double standard?

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

How is asking for an argument to be properly clarified/structured resorting to ridicule or an ad hominem attack? Further, why would you consider that request for clarification an argument?

RayG

[Will]

I will give you two examples, they both happened to me, after I was interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon.

1. I was hunting in the pre-dawn morning, sitting in my tree stand in Northern Michigan. The light was starting to come through and I was starting to see details on the ground, the sun wasn't up yet, I looked out in the field, and saw a freaking Bigfoot standing in the field 80 yards away, black, swaying back and forth. I kept an eye on it, and it wasn't moving, I thought it knew I was there and was keeping an eye on me. The light got brighter, and I saw it was a burned stump, about 6 feet tall, sitting in this field, and that my pine tree was swaying in the wind giving me the illusion of the thing moving.

2. I was driving on a dirt road in Clare county MI. About a 1/4 Mile in front of me, I saw a black creature crossing the road, the profile was Bigfoot! I hit the gas and tore after it so I could see it better, grabbed my camera off the passenger seat, and about 1/8th of a mile later realized it was an old man in a black parka and pants, hood up, crossing the street to his mailbox. He gave me a wave and I kept driving on past him.

I think this happens all the time to people, 99% of the time the person ignores it, but once in a while the person sees something like the old guy, drives up there and he is gone, well, to them, the last thing they saw was Bigfoot.

The rest are just made up stories or other rarer phenomenon.

Thats great Drew.

Did you ever read John Cartwrights story. I think It was pretty real to him. He watched it right in front of him for something like 5 minutes.

I guess he saw some other big fat hunter pulling limbs full of leaves through his mouth.

Thats just one of thousands.

I'm sorry your sighting was a misidentification.

So I guess you dismiss everyone elses.

Seems like kind of shallow thinking. No offense, but I think you need to reexamine some of these claims.

[Huntster]

The rest are just made up stories or other rarer phenomenon.

Is this one a made up story? It sure isn't a misidentification.

[Guest RioBravo]

Hunster and Saskeptic, please keep conversing about how a potential government investigation might proceed.

I think you two may be on to something...

[Guest alex]

Drew, the "rest are just made up", biggest cop out ever, lamest excuse too, some skeptic you are

[Guest walkabout]

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

Well played.

[Drew]

Is this one a made up story? It sure isn't a misidentification.

Too bad they didn't have cameras on cop cars back then, of course, now we know a cop will never see a Bigfoot in the road, since they all have cameras on the dash now.

I'm sure it isn't a misidentification. I can only narrow it down to 3 possibilities, made-up (description similar to PGF), hallucinated, or guy in a suit. In that order of likelihood.

[Guest]

Hunster and Saskeptic, please keep conversing about how a potential government investigation might proceed.

I think you two may be on to something...

Back on the old BFF, Huntster and I went down this rabbit hole once (he and I spend a lot of time in rabbit warrens)and the thread evolved toward a similar resolution: making the case to wildlife agencies that it's their responsibility to invest some effort in bigfoot field work and outlining for them some specifics on what they should do. Huntster, I seem to recall something about you linking up with some other folks (Hairy Man's group perhaps?) to try to seriously pursue this angle. Is that accurate and, if so, did you make any progress?

What I'm reading is that Skamania Co, WA probably offers the most likely combination of habitat and a history of sightings to make sense as a place to, by default, have a plan in place to respond the next time there is a spate of sightings. Is that right?

[Guest River]

I'm making and reinforcing my claim:

The official wildlife management authorities have not investigated this phenomenon at all, yet the government has invested millions in investigating something even more devoid of <adjective> evidence ("compelling", "convincing", "irrefutable", etc) like extraterrestrial intelligence.

Strawman. Also, yes.... reports have been investigated by

and wildlife agencies. Want an example look at the

Yes. The bigfoot which official wildlife management authorities have not investigated at all, yet the government has invested millions in investigating something even more devoid of <adjective> evidence ("compelling", "convincing", "irrefutable", etc) like extraterrestrial intelligence.

Strawman. Lets stick to the point here about why we should invest in the search for sasquatch, not about what government is or is not spending on currently. Lets talk about why and how much SHOULD be invested NOW.

Sorta' like flying saucers reported all over the world. Since the Barney and Betty Hill event, those little green (grey?) men even abduct humans like sasquatches are reported to do. Certainly appears to me to be an equally important thing to investigate.

zzzz Straw..........man

I agree. Politicians remind me of.............people like you.

Thats awesome because I thought we were trying to come to some conclusion about why "government" agencies should invest millions into the search for bigfoot. and psst, I'm definitely not an example of a politician, or politically correct in any fashion haha

It was a known animal. It still was a known animal; even after millions has been spent.

Much easier justifying cost for an animal that exists....

Nope. It's not a distinction. It's a parallel.

Interesting... no distinction between known and existing animals and unknown or unclasssified ones (that i might add have been the subject of many hoaxes) That is noted...

I still find it ironic that you will not conceed the distinction.

Both, really, but organizations like Cornell, Colorado State University, Audubon Society, the National Geographic Society, etc., have no responsibility to research anything they don't feel like researching. State wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service do. Even if they don't feel that they want to do so in-house, they can contract with academic or other organizations to do so. They do it all the time. Colorado State University performs all kinds of contract research, environmental remediation, etc for the government agency I worked for, and did so for years.

Lets talk about my bolded. Given the current evidence, you feel like US Fish and Wildlife Service should be obligated to invest in the search for sasquatch? How much should be invested into this search? We need numbers if you're asking for a grant or proposing something. Give me a number to work with.

All the existing evidence: aboriginal historical accounts, trace evidence like footprints/trackways, unidentifiable scat and hair next to nests that resemble gorilla nests in old growth PNW forests, eyewitness testimony (especially that from law enforcement personnel), etc.

You feel that all the existing evidence is authentic and should validate the search? So far to date - all evidence of sasquatch has been explainable by other means. There has been no biological proof of such an animal existing. When you say: "footprints/trackways, unidentifiable scat and hair next to nests" How come none of this can be proven to come from a sasquatch? If its real scat/hair/nests why does none of it prove the existence? Why are we arguing that this is "evidence" of a sasquatch? It has been proven that this "evidence" can be fabricated, or misidentified. It has not been proven that any of this "evidence" comes from a real live or dead sasquatch. Zippo, none.

Why do you keep mentioning hair/scat/nests when none of it can be proven to come from a sasquatch? could be aliens for all we know.... and it would be just as ignorant to assume so.

1) casted by the Grey's Harbor sheriff's department

2)Deputy Verlin Herrington's sighting report[/url]

3) The Eric Muench nest find on Prince of Wales Island, complete with hair and scat samples at the site

4) The Bossburg trackway[/url]

5) The Patterson/Gimlin event

There are many, many others.......

Ok, lets go into court or congress, or a board meeting with those examples of bigfoot evidence. This should be strong enough to make the case to justify spending millions of tax payer money right?

You have eye witness testimony

You have a couple of footprint casts (which has never been proven to come from a real animal, but we have proven people hoax these)

You have Ivan Marx involved in one of your examples as well. I dont have to say anymore about him.

You listed some scat/hair samples. Great, this should yield some DNA so this argument should be over. Where are the results? Let me guess.... there are no results... or the results are inconclusive. check.

You have the PGF. Ok, so this is the evidence we're going to present at this hypothetical meeting.....

BTW, this "my money" BS is just that: BS. Frankly, I disapprove of the man-made global warming expenditures. Join the rest of the nation in pounding sand when government spends money you don't like. It's their responsibility to manage wildlife, and they have so far spent the grand total of $0.00 with regard to this matter while spending many millions on SETI, the ivory billed woodpecker search, and a colorful potpourri of other silly money dumps.

Where does the money come from Hunster? If its not from me and you (and anyone else paying taxes) then who and where is it from? Where should the funds come from to fund the search for sasquatch?

Alright so lets do this up.... lets go into court/congress/meeting room with the "evidence" you listed as puported to be "providing that evidenciary providence" to justify spending millions on this search.

How many millions are you willing to spend right now of governments money on the search for bigfoot? Remember now, this comes from everyones tax dollars, and you're selling this to congress, or to wild life officials. Give it your best shot. What do you think the outcome would be of such a meeting given your "evidence" that you offer? You dont think it would be irresponsible to spend that amount on such a search considering todays budget? Lets keep it real here...

Edited October 1, 2010 by River

[Guest alex]

Too bad they didn't have cameras on cop cars back then, of course, now we know a cop will never see a Bigfoot in the road, since they all have cameras on the dash now.

I'm sure it isn't a misidentification. I can only narrow it down to 3 possibilities, made-up (description similar to PGF), hallucinated, or guy in a suit. In that order of likelihood.

So there is no 4th option in your narrow view?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 September 2010 - 02:37 PM, said:

Is this one a made up story? It sure isn't a misidentification.

Too bad they didn't have cameras on cop cars back then

Excellent point. But, considering the PG film, do you really think that would make a difference?

of course, now we know a cop will never see a Bigfoot in the road, since they all have cameras on the dash now.

All of them do?

I'm sure it isn't a misidentification. I can only narrow it down to 3 possibilities, made-up (description similar to PGF), hallucinated, or guy in a suit. In that order of likelihood.

Yup.

Or it was a sasquatch. That possibility probably fits between "made-up" and "hallucinated".

Or maybe even at the top of the list................

[Huntster]

Back on the old BFF, Huntster and I went down this rabbit hole once (he and I spend a lot of time in rabbit warrens)and the thread evolved toward a similar resolution: making the case to wildlife agencies that it's their responsibility to invest some effort in bigfoot field work and outlining for them some specifics on what they should do. Huntster, I seem to recall something about you linking up with some other folks (Hairy Man's group perhaps?) to try to seriously pursue this angle. Is that accurate and, if so, did you make any progress?

I've made no commitments to do such, but I'm considering doing so on my own terms at a time in the future. I had toyed with the idea of applying for a permit to harvest a sasquatch, but I think that would be counterproductive at this point. It would be best to apply pressure to an agency for specific performance first, then when they balked, applying for a permit for myself to do it.

What I'm reading is that Skamania Co, WA probably offers the most likely combination of habitat and a history of sightings to make sense as a place to, by default, have a plan in place to respond the next time there is a spate of sightings. Is that right?

Makes sense to me:

1) It has a long history of consistent reports, many of them being of high quality

2) It offers ideal habitat (dense, montane forest and high precipitation)

3) It is fairly accessible, unlike the BC or SE Alaska coast and the Canadian Coast Range

4) Local law enforcement agencies and county officials have actually enacted legislation regarding sasquatches, indicating at least some official attention to the phenomenon

5) Sheriff Bill Closner (shown on page 2 of this newsletter in a 1969 photo) was still sheriff of Skamania County as of 2007 (I don't know if he's retired now................), and may be very cooperative