Damning For Skeptics

[Guest nycBig]

PAUL BELLONI DU CHAILLU is that where the expression 'baloney' comes from?

[Guest Bullfrog]

At the side of the road, the hoaxer is subject to the gunfire of any and all who carry guns in their cars.

The way it works is the hoaxer runs into the woods the instant the vehicle shows any reaction. The instant the vehicle starts to slow from a normal crusing speed (around here usually 60 - 65 out on the major highways running through the Ocala National Forest), the hoaxer darts into the bushes.

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. The hoaxer isn't going to wait around for him to do that. I imagine very few people would attempt a drive by shooting at 65 miles per hour at a shawdowy figure on the side of the road. By the way, it should be noted that it is illegal to kill any animal whatsoever in the right of way of a highway in Florida. Pulling over and shooting on a highway in an area where deer live at night with a light is the prima facia case for firehunting here. If the wildlife officer is watching its an instant criminal citation, whether a deer be visible or not.

I don't think the majority of bigfoot sightings in general are this kind of hoax. I think most of them are flat out lies. I do think that many local legends and very serious, yet brief, sightings, are of this type.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Bullfrog

[Guest RayG]

While it may be true that hoaxers have died pretending to be bigfoot, I'm finding it hard to find anything online about it. No bigfoot bodies either, but I don't have trouble finding evidence of humans killed by mistaken hunters.

RayG

[Guest parnassus]

Yes and yes, for some. As evidence, I present to you an obituary for Paul DuChaillu (published in The National Geographic Magazine in the July 1903 issue: Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285), the first man to shoot a gorilla and bring the carcass back to science. This occurred 2 years after On the Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin, and 10 years before Darwin published The Descent of Man:

The real problem is when the "skeptic" opposes the appropriate wildlife management authorities from conducting their very first official look into the matter. That isn't skepticism. It's denial and obstructionism.

Well, Hunster, from this article, he went to deepest darkest Africa 150 years ago (not very much like the US today was it?) and collected a gorilla specimen on the first try. Not exactly like Bigfoot was it? He brought it back and the scientists examined it and believed him. There weren't even much in the way of cameras in the 1850's. So some people without photographic images didn't get it right away? wow. Do you think of yourself as Paul Duchaillu? do you have a bigfoot specimen that you've taken to scientists?

[southernyahoo]

Do you think the "skeptics" here would deny or be upset if bigfoot was proven to be a real living animal?

There are some that would still deny if I've read their statements correctly . There is allways the option to opine incompetence or ouright accuse another scientist or the submitting party of fabricating evidence. I think we've both seen that in the past. I guess we'll see when we cross that bridge.

[Huntster]

At the side of the road, the hoaxer is subject to the gunfire of any and all who carry guns in their cars.

The way it works is the hoaxer runs into the woods the instant the vehicle shows any reaction.

Like flashes of red and yellow light from the window.

Yeah. Good plan.

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............

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 27 September 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

Yes and yes, for some. As evidence, I present to you an obituary for Paul DuChaillu (published in The National Geographic Magazine in the July 1903 issue: Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285), the first man to shoot a gorilla and bring the carcass back to science. This occurred 2 years after On the Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin, and 10 years before Darwin published The Descent of Man:

Well, Hunster, from this article, he went to deepest darkest Africa 150 years ago (not very much like the US today was it?) and collected a gorilla specimen on the first try.

1) Yes, the deepest, darkest Africa is much like the deepest, darkest North America today. You just haven't been there. I have. Try the village of Huslia someday. It reminds me of a Hmong village in Thailand.

2) That "first try" was a three year long, non-stop expedition along the lines of the Lewis and Clark expedition. He did it the old fashioned way

3) Our wildlife managers aren't even trying it the new fashioned way

4) It is now shown that today there are some 250,000 lowland gorillas. Who knows how many there were in 1856? It is not suggested by anyone that there are anywhere near 250,000 sasquatches continent wide (or world wide, for that matter)

Not exactly like Bigfoot was it?

As far as the science industry is concerned it is. They knew of the legends and reports (2,800 years old) and ignored them until a real man brought them the goods.

But there were no official wildlife management agencies in 1856, were there?

He brought it back and the scientists examined it and believed him.

What a bunch of heroes.

Sorry if I'm not as impressed as you are.

There weren't even much in the way of cameras in the 1850's. So some people without photographic images didn't get it right away? wow.

It appears that some folks don't get it even with the advantage of movie footage.

Wow.

Do you think of yourself as Paul Duchaillu? do you have a bigfoot specimen that you've taken to scientists?

No and no. All I have for scientists is a stool sample, and it isn't from a sasquatch.

[Guest Sonny]

And, class, in Hunster's post above, we have an example of how to use sarcasm to dodge the facts. Well done, my man.

[Huntster]

And, class, in Hunster's post above, we have an example of how to use sarcasm to dodge the facts. Well done, my man.

Actually, I used facts and sarcasm to address allegations, opinions, and speculation. I saw no facts in parnasus' post.

Perhaps you can outline his "facts" that I "dodged"?

[Guest Sonny]

"I saw no facts in parnasus' post."

Exhibit #2, class: When someone points out your techniques, dodge even more. Put the burden of proof on those calling you on your obfuscations.

[Will]

I've been enjoying his technique for a while now.

Maybe skeptics should try a little harder.

Huntster

Remember the old thread (Is bigfoot moving north because of global warming)

What ever happened to Rod, I havn't seen any post from him for awhile.

That was a great debate

Edited September 28, 2010 by will

[Guest River]

Yes and yes, for some. As evidence, I present to you an obituary for Paul DuChaillu (published in The National Geographic Magazine in the July 1903 issue: Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285), the first man to shoot a gorilla and bring the carcass back to science. This occurred 2 years after On the Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin, and 10 years before Darwin published The Descent of Man:

The real problem is when the "skeptic" opposes the appropriate wildlife management authorities from conducting their very first official look into the matter. That isn't skepticism. It's denial and obstructionism.

Lets take this into specific examples since you feel like the current system is not open to receiving reports of strange animals, or would not respond if there was a real live family of bigfoots discovered to be living. You dont think our current system would accept or provide the neccesary funding to research or protect?

or...

The real issue is, you expect government to support empty claims and literally invest millions into the search for bigfoot based on the current evidence. Is this correct?

If so - which evidence do you feel has merit in it to justify this kind of spending and effort on an already strained budget? We're talking which evidence not in general terms but in a specific example of what you feel was over looked and provided substantial evidence to justify spending. Which story or which foot sprint, hair do you feel is providing that evidenciary providence (link to your sources) making this a sound decision with my money, and everyone elses?

Also, exactly what steps should in your opinion be taken to make this happen and make the commitment to the project. How would you make it happen.

Edited September 28, 2010 by River

[Guest alex]

They spent how much on the Ivory billed woodpecker?

[Guest River]

We're not talking about ivory billed anythings right now - we're talking about bigfoots.

[Guest Sonny]

EXhibit 3: Class, note the use of a straw man by Alex to divert the argument, and RIver's clever way of getting it back on track. Nice illustration, y'all.