Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel

[William Parcher]

Anyway, each of us will have different opinions on how folks ought to be treated as groups and as individuals. There is room for "smart people" in Bigfootery. I just think that the belief in Bigfoot is not a smart thing.

[Blackdog]

I can only go by what you type, it isn't my responsibility to interpret what you say, you need to be clear.
I have no problem with satire, you gave an example to back up what you said and I didn't see any satire in it.
I still have a problem with your interpretation of maturity though, but we can agree to disagree.

[William Parcher]

So what would you think ought to happen instead - or what would be the mature response? Let's use the news station example. A guy is put on the evening news and he says he saw a Bigfoot. He tells us that it was tall and hairy and sort of like a human but probably not.

Is the mature and proper reaction to say with a straight face, "Thank you sir. The question of Bigfoot is unresolved, but you say you have seen one. It is the responsibility of scientists and other authorities to seek answers to the Bigfoot question. Let's hope they meet their duties on this one." ? Or, what? What do you suggest?

[William Parcher]

I like the idea of asking a question of Bigfoot believers and witnesses. What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to stop believing that Bigfoot exists? Not just to push you to the fence, but to get you all the way over to "it doesn't exist". You can answer any way you like, but it must be limited to 5 sentences.

[manofthesea]

Originally Posted by WGBH

You really think BH can get around like he could 43 years ago?

I think that we're only worried about the 20 seconds or so that Patty was actually filmed sauntering across the sand. Old Bob can handle that, he's a cowboy.

[manofthesea]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I like the idea of asking a question of Bigfoot believers and witnesses. What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to stop believing that Bigfoot exists? Not just to push you to the fence, but to get you all the way over to "it doesn't exist". You can answer any way you like, but it must be limited to 5 sentences.

How about this? What will it take for you to come to grip with the fact that the bigfoot mystery is more than the PGF? Even Roger Patterson quoted Teddy Roosevelt's encounter story.

I think that one of your fellow skeptics ran the IBS, a veritable Library of Bigfoot Congress. They tried to charge money to view the monthly newsletter, which I never read. I just found the site one day, but it was chock full with a plethora of all things footy. Alienfoots, glowfoots, neanderfoots, you name it.

[154]

Parcher,
Do you want to go camping in the most remote place you've ever been?
You can bring Kit.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Yes it does. We both agree that belief in Bigfoot is ridiculous and absurd. Acting on that belief is something worth ridiculing. You've spent years here doing that. Do you want out of the We Ridicule Bigfooters Club?

It's a delusion for the gullible. Nothing wrong with that, eh?

I've spent years criticizing Bigfooters and I will likely spend more years doing it. Here's is where you and I differ on this issue. If your education is not so high and you haven't had the benefit of experiencing much of the North American wilderness, you could well be swayed to belief in Bigfoot. Any criticism I have at that point are based on a person's failure to educate themselves about what actually is out there. I would like to save strongest criticisms for those who really should know better and go around filling people's minds with Bigfoot nonsense.

Case in point, remember the woman that came here and said that she and her husband had encountered what they could only describe as Bigfoot while driving on a dark road at night? Without looking up the details right now, I remember it was one of the southern states and they were close to a penitentiary at the time. First the woman came and then I encouraged her to bring her husband. She felt we'd just say her husband was a sock. They were both highly defensive about being ridiculed and more than anything, the man was highly protective of his wife. There was a definite subservience/dominance thing there.

Anyway, that was just the sort of scenario where I thought strong criticism or ridicule wouldn't help anything. Do I think they saw Bigfoot? Absolutely not. But they still may well have had an experience that we could look at and maybe help find answers for. If we treat them like crap, and they write off skeptics as douchebags and go to the MABRC or wherever, what good have we done?

Bottom line, my policy is that...

a) Bigfoot does not exist. Show me the monkey and I will change my mind and eat crow all day long.

b) Giving serious consideration to Bigfoot's existence does not equal idiocy. I've argued that since I arrived four years ago and have never stopped. My strong ridicule for the idiocy prevalent in Bigfootery should not confuse that.

Quote:

I wouldn't wish them good luck. I would find that to be disingenuous patronizing. I would tell them that no amount of luck will bring Bigfoot into existence. There is something deeply wrong with wishing them luck.

It would be disingenuous and patronizing to you, but it is not for me. I can say bluntly that they're never going to find anything, but what does that do? All it will do is close their ears to anything else I have to say. I say, "Well, I don't think you're ever going to find anything, but I wish you luck, anyway."

There is nothing wrong with being friendly. There is a way to say what one thinks without being a douche or closing off all avenues of communication. I'm finding a lot more success in getting the information I need with pragmatism than with ridicule. I wouldn't have learned anything from Tom Biscardi if I picked up the phone and called him an idiot.

Quote:

It's a benefit to run around saying that the North American forests contain a wild bipedal primate (even though we didn't see one on our recent outings)?

No, not at all. And if you're out there doing so as though you are in the position of an educator, then I will be clacking away on my keyboard about you. If curiosity about Bigfoot was the catalyst that got you in to nature and learning more about the real natural world, I won't necessarily have an issue with it. If that was the only thing that could get you in the woods, yes, then I would have something to say about it.

Quote:

Once you have a public face with Bigfootery, somebody will go back and make a big list of all the names/labels you have called the believers.

I will help:

Creduloid, fortean addict, footer, Bigfoot enthusiast, woo, true believer, Bigfoot nuts, whackos, crazies, turkeypants, etc, etc.

And I would stand by each instance I said someone was a fortean addict or whatever. I am not afraid of someone digging through all the things I've written. I'd be more worried about the typos than whatever term I used to refer to Sweaty or whoever. I would ask, "You don't like the words 'fortean addict'? Well, is there something more appropriate for someone who thinks Bigfoot lives in nearly every state and province, thinks UFO's are being blasted at in orbit, and the ruins of Martian civilizations connected to Earth dot the surface of the Red Planet?"

Quote:

After your presentation in Ohio, 20 people will stand up in unison. Are you calling us liars? Son, are you actually going to stand there at the podium and look me in the eye and call my father a liar?

How do you think I get the chase scenes for the documentary? Seriously, I wouldn't wait for them to stand up. It would be in the presentation itself. The whole concept of calling someone a liar vs not being able to run a DNA test on an anecdote would be be one of the first things I talked about. Am I calling you a liar? No. Not until I had all the facts to allow me to say whether or not the person is telling the truth.

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I like the idea of asking a question of Bigfoot believers and witnesses. What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to stop believing that Bigfoot exists? Not just to push you to the fence, but to get you all the way over to "it doesn't exist". You can answer any way you like, but it must be limited to 5 sentences.

You are setting the standards? Get over yourself son, I'll answer any way I want.
(that's one)

I never said I'm a believer but I have no obligation to be like you just because you think you are the one who sets the standards here.
(that's two)

I'm hated by the general population at the BFF as a scoftic and a trouble maker, I've been suspended multiple times and banned at least once.
(that's three)

Here I might be looked at as an agnostic (or worse, not agreeing with the bash fest that you think is cool) which evidently doesn't meet your standards.
(that's four)

I won't hate, nor will I hate those who hate me. I guess by "the Boss of Bigfoot Threads" standards that ain't good enough.
(that's five right?)

You and many of the folks at the BFF are two sides of the same coin...I'm right, you're wrong. There's no room for reasonable discussion, that's what I get from you and most of the folks at BFF.
(that's six)

Your side and that side of the BFF suck the fun out of discussion and that's why I like to discuss it...it's fun and it keeps me entertained. What is your motivation? To try and show you are superior to people who don't share your viewpoint?
(that's seven)

Again turn off the TV and use your brain, I know you have one.
(that's eight)

That being said, I think the PGF is a hoax, I think people are wasting their time in the woods chasing BF but I don't think it's a waste of time to discuss it.
(that's nine)

If it weren't for subjects like this the JREF wouldn't exist, but I don't see the reason to be as insulting and as condescending as you seem to be.
You just ain't all that, sorry but it's true.
(that's ten and a half, you got your two for one, and hey it's after happy hour)


ETA... that was closer to 12 or 13, but what the hell, I'm feeling generous.

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I like the idea of asking a question of Bigfoot believers and witnesses. What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to stop believing that Bigfoot exists? Not just to push you to the fence, but to get you all the way over to "it doesn't exist". You can answer any way you like, but it must be limited to 5 sentences.

Someone could find a lost clip of the PGF showing Bob H pulling off a Patty mask. Bob Gimlin could admit to a hoax. Someone could find footage of Moneymaker making that butt print in Skookum meadows. Someone could have footage of Dr. Meldrum with wooden stampers on his feet. (Wait, that was on Nat Geo, nevermind) . I could care less about any of that. There is nothing that would ever make me "stop" believing that this animal is real. I know it is.

[WGBH]

Great post there BD.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I make no excuses for myself on this forum. Bigfoot does not exist. Believing that it does is ridiculous. That notion is even more obvious since I joined this forum in 2005.

In 2010, it is more ridiculous for any person to believe in Bigfoot than at any time in the past.

I have to absolutely agree with this. I will hold back the proverbial bitchslap from those who could have a reasonable excuse in believing in Bigfoot, but the more Bigfooters there are and every year that passes by with still no Bigfoots, having the opportunity to legitmately be excused for thinking Bigfoot is real diminishes.

Let me give you an example. When I first came back to Victoria, I saw an ad in the newspaper for a guy giving a talk on Bigfoot and why it is real at one of our public libraries. That guy? No excuse. As soon as I saw that I decided I wanted to go, listen and ask some very good questions when he was done. It wasn't for a couple weeks and I missed it. Point being, that guy, as a schiller of excuses and special pleading, yes, he needs some strong criticism, even straight up ridicule.

When I see intelligent people like Autumn Williams and others faced with another year of no Bigfoot, instead of exploring the concept that there just really isn't any Bigfoots, go and make bids for a Rasberry Award for bad acting on youtube, I find that worthy of ridicule. Williams deserves that ridicule along with every other longtime Bigfoot searcher who throws up there hands and says "What are we doing wrong?" without seriously exploring being wrong about Bigfoot.

People, you're looking for an animal that doesn't exist. That's what's wrong. I have a very selective process for who I criticize. You can be dumber than a stump and I would take extra care to be clear and patient with you. If you really should know better, then I can be pretty hard. Autmn Williams should know better. Melissa Hovey should know better.

John Cartwright should know better? I'm not so sure about that. John remains convinced he saw a Bigfoot and yet he has not the least bit of patience for so-called Bigfoot researchers talking about the creature's appearance, locomotion, diet, behaviour, etc. As he said, "nobody knows $#!%." Intellectually, my desire is to say to John, "John, you really should think hard about letting go of the unbending conviction you saw a Bigfoot in 1982. It was almost thirty years ago, there were a lot of things to screw with your memory in between." But I don't walk in John's shoes and I don't experience the memory he does. Without being a doctor or a specialist, I can't responsibly ascertain the reason for that conviction. In the meantime I can see John is smart enough to pull his hat down and have a nap when somebody gets up to tell you about Bigfoot's mating habits.

What it comes down to is that I don't have a one-size-fits-all bat to swing at people who believe Bigfoot is real. In 2000 I totally thought Bigfoot was real and I wasn't an idiot then. I didn't have all the facts necessary to make the call that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I found those facts and I made that call. If there are new facts introduced, preferably "here is a dead/living Bigfoot," I'll adjust my call to saying Bigfoot does exist, and I'll be happy to have been wrong.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Yet some pretty smart people are religious too. Not me mind you.

That's an extremely valid point, Óðinn. Is the belief in God more worthy of ridicule than believing in Bigfoot? Well, holy crap, that's a thread I want to be a part of. Who's in?

This reminds me of when I saw the video I posted earlier of Kal Korff detailing his falling out with Greg Long over The Making of Bigfoot in which Greg writes on Kal's copy about all the "glory be to god" stuff. I was surprised at first, with all Greg's talk about science and critical thinking, to see him so devout in his Christian beliefs. But if you read Greg's book carefully, you will catch a lot of his Christian mores and values floating around.

Two concepts:

I believe we have not found everything and that it is possible for unknown creatures, even great big ones like Bigfoot, to elude classification by science in modern times.

Paired with...

I believe that when we die it might not be the end. There may be an afterlife and there may be a creator. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe this is not possible.

VS

Bigfoot exists. It is a real creature. Adult Bigfoots are 6-10ft tall. They range in colours from black to auburn to even white. They are nocturnal and omnivorous. They live all over the U.S. and Canada. They will scream and throw rocks at humans, but are generally not an actual physical threat. They exist in the legends of native tribes across North America. Bigfoots are descendants of Gigantopithecus blacki, which was an upright ape from China that traveled the Bering Land Bridge to North America.

Paired with...

God exists. God is real and the Lord Jesus is our saviour. God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Evolution is a lie. God created man from soil and women he created from Adam's rib. This all happened about 4000-6000 years ago. Then God got mad and drowned the world in a flood. That's why we find the remains of extinct animals such as dinosaurs, which did live along side humans. The Loch Ness Monster proves that. If you don't believe in God and accept Jesus as your saviour, or are a man/woman that likes to kiss other men/women, you will burn in Hell in everlasting torment.

I think that would make a good thread. This one is for making a media project on Bigfootery for the Discovery Channel or another group. What do people think?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I like the idea of asking a question of Bigfoot believers and witnesses. What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to stop believing that Bigfoot exists? Not just to push you to the fence, but to get you all the way over to "it doesn't exist". You can answer any way you like, but it must be limited to 5 sentences.

I like this question. I didn't want to ask it to Tom Biscardi when I appeared on Bigfoot Live Radio because Tom is a skilled orator and showman and would use the question as an opportunity to promote himself and his endeavours. Tom ended up being away for that show and I had Java Bob. It would be a good question for Bob. Bob would have answered it by talking about the DNA they claim to have, which he did anyway.

I emailed Bob after the show to thank him for letting me come on, and for rambling on about Bigfoot belief so much and not enough about juicy PGF developements. He said he thought I was great and asked me to come on again. I appreciated the compliment, but what I really appreciated was the information he shared with me about Gimlin and Heironimus that I hadn't heard before.

Those guys are wild. They know the PGF is a hoax , yet they are promoters of Bigfoot, yet they are reviled as hoaxers by much of Bigfootery. Too much delicious irony.

Anyway, you know who I could depend on for some honest answers about what it would take to stop believing in Bigfoot? Sasquatch Watch Radio.

Hey, John, what do you think about you and me going on as guests with Billy Willard and DB Donlon for Sasquatch Watch? We talk about a whole bunch of things. Skeptics, proponents, believers, nuts. People helping, people screwing everything up. We could discuss a whole bunch of things. SWR is a long show. I think we could eat the airtime up easy. I could email DB and Billy and toss it out there. What do you think? Bigfoot Live Radio was dipping the toe in for me. I want to try this more. Besides, it's great practice if Don Keating accepts my proposal to present at the Ohio conference.

One thing I will plead guilty to is that while I'll always love posting at the JREF, I'm hungry to do something more and have a higher impact. I have no interest of being a figure within Bigfootery (and I don't think there is much room for skeptics, anyway), but I would like to be on speaking terms with many of those figures. I mean, if I'm going to spend so much time writing about it, why not?

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Harry,

1) I have no intention of making any conversions or comparing Bigfootery to religion if I am allowed to give a presentation. In that regard, the only thing I can hope for is a mutual dialogue and maybe getting some people to toss some of the lamer arguments.

I have a very specific reason for wanting to be at the Ohio conference. It's not about scoring points for skepticism, but about who will be there and who I can get to sit down and talk frankly with. You know where I'm coming from, right?

2) If I ever thought I could make Sweaty stop thinking the PGF is real, I'd be more delusional than he is. I have no interest in converting a guy like that. Do you really want that dude on your side? Not me, thanks. I simply take satisfaction in pointing out the intellectual weasel maneuvers and cowardice Sweaty is prone to. Patterson is telling people he's going to film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek before he leaves and plays a recording for neighbours of what is supposed to be a Bigfoot in the bushes behind the general store in his neighbourhood when nobody there has ever encountered any such thing, and this is OK with Sweaty.

Creduloid conversion is not necessary. Irrational behaviour being pointed out is all that is required where Sweaty is concerned.

Truly, I apologize for assuming your underlying motive was any kind of Bigfoot Believers Conversion™. I wasn't implying you weren't smart enough to see the ultimate absurdity of such. In my defense, your 'often lengthy and always thoughtful' posts arguing with Sweaty surely aren't from somebody who is, say, indifferent to their content and (potential) effect. But I did forget he isn't really the typical ProFooter™ adversary.

You must already have a hint that nobody wishes you more success with it all than I do. And I really do believe you would OWN Popular Bigfooting™, at least for a time, if you somehow someway proved the PGF a hoax. Yet, something a little short of proving it? Good chance yer gonna be just another point-of-view. And the Own-It-Now™ option doesn't necessarily come with that model. Not that your own personal desires have anything to do with the 'fame and fortune' such a thing would bring.

Simply, and again, I admire your perseverance and fortitude and I can't wait to see the final result. I'll continue the cheerleading - Here's to hoping you become the story instead of just telling the story.

ETA:

Originally Posted by kitakaze

...I'm hungry to do something more and have a higher impact. I have no interest of being a figure within Bigfootery (and I don't think there is much room for skeptics, anyway), but I would like to be on speaking terms with many of those figures. I mean, if I'm going to spend so much time writing about it, why not?

Whoops! But I've faith that if it's somehow thrust upon you anyway, you'll do good with it.

[JcR]

Another year without Bigfoot.



Still many arches and Porcupines to discover.

[Drewbot]

Normal everyday Bigfooters should be more insulted by the crap that the Bigfoot-Elite tries to get by them every year. I believe that some of the Bigfoot-Elite consciously takes advantage of the lower caste of Bigfootry, for monetary, and personal gain. The rest of the Bigfoot-Elite are just plain Kooks. (Hasn't anyone watched Monsterquest)

I don't see how someone can say "There is a Giant Hairy Apeman in the woods, he howls and howls at us, and we try to take pictures of it, but he is oh so elusive, and avoids our efforts by the skin of his teeth. And last year, he snuck through our camp, and someone said that Bigfoot was right out side the tent, and that he was paralyzed. And he would not ever lie, he was an army guy " and not expect people to think they are delusional, or easily manipulated.

I don't think that any honest Non-Bigfoot-Believing person here for example, could go on a Bigfoot 'expedition', with Bigfooters, and not say something about the strategy, or all the stories that the Footers will tell you. Or not present the history of N.A. wildlife to the group.

[WGBH]

[quote=kitakaze;5732231]
Anyway, you know who I could depend on for some honest answers about what it would take to stop believing in Bigfoot? Sasquatch Watch Radio.

Hey, John, what do you think about you and me going on as guests with Billy Willard and DB Donlon for Sasquatch Watch? We talk about a whole bunch of things. Skeptics, proponents, believers, nuts. People helping, people screwing everything up. We could discuss a whole bunch of things. SWR is a long show. I think we could eat the airtime up easy. I could email DB and Billy and toss it out there. What do you think? Bigfoot Live Radio was dipping the toe in for me. I want to try this more. Besides, it's great practice if Don Keating accepts my proposal to present at the Ohio conference.

QUOTE]

DB Donlon has not been the co-host since October. Billy will be straight with you or anyone. I am not interested in doing the radio show myself, If I were, I could be a co-host right now. I am uncomfortable on the air and prefer to keep a lower profile.

You are welcome to e-mail Billy at: bwillard@sasquatchwatch.net

[Dancing David]

Kitekaze, I think it is still a good idea. However speaking to people who have a strong belief requires a very patient and tolerant attitude, if you express an opposing belief. I think you can give a talk at a BF convention, but you will need to practice the patience and neutrality.

Just as when an evolutionary biologist discusses anything with creationists, or people talk about politics there will be very strong emotions.

So during the Q & A you will be presented with many varied levels of intensity and emotional expression. If you practice tolerance, neutrality, listen to them and just stick to your points, then you will get a reputation as a good speaker for BF conventions. I would even suggest that you come up with canned responses and practice them, they should be loaded in neutral non-judgmental language.

Many people will express beliefs they have with very strong emotions, they will have chips on their shoulders and they will sometimes want to argue. The more neutral you are, the more open you are and the more cheerful you are the more they will accept you.

I am lucky to have a very good local NPR station that has two morning talk segments that cover a wide variety of topics. Any time someone is there to talk about a touchy segment there are callers who call in. Take a 'liberal', 'leftist' topic and suddenly there are voices that you never hear calling in, they present talking points, sound bytes and appeals to emotions. They try to derail the conversation, present straw man arguments, appeals to emotion and all sorts of shenanigans. Just the same when the topic is something like evolution or gay rights.

The better speakers do not respond to the emotions, they rerail the conversation and they use a lot a of phrases like 'I don't think I can address that', 'this is a topic where opinions vary', 'this is what I found' and you can tell the ones who have done a lot of talk shows with antagonistic callers.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by WGBH

DB Donlon has not been the co-host since October. Billy will be straight with you or anyone. I am not interested in doing the radio show myself, If I were, I could be a co-host right now. I am uncomfortable on the air and prefer to keep a lower profile.

You are welcome to e-mail Billy at: bwillard@sasquatchwatch.net

Yikes! Shows how long it's been since I tuned in. Why no more DB (unless it's private)? He was good on the air. I would love to come on show where you co-hosted. Billy could do most of the talking. We could talk Bigfoot 2010, Ohio, PGF stuff, Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, all sorts of stuff. I like William's idea of what it would take for one not to believe in Bigfoot. I suspect your answer would be very different from people who don't claim a sighting. I'll drop Billy a line and see what he thinks.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

So what would you think ought to happen instead - or what would be the mature response? Let's use the news station example. A guy is put on the evening news and he says he saw a Bigfoot. He tells us that it was tall and hairy and sort of like a human but probably not.

Is the mature and proper reaction to say with a straight face, "Thank you sir. The question of Bigfoot is unresolved, but you say you have seen one. It is the responsibility of scientists and other authorities to seek answers to the Bigfoot question. Let's hope they meet their duties on this one." ? Or, what? What do you suggest?

I've got a suggestion. Let's say I'm reporter/writer/director all rolled into one.

Questions as the reporter (Tony):

What exactly did you see? And where was this? And what were you doing at the time? Is it possible you could have been mistaken? What if I were to ask you if you were making this up? Do you think you saw Bigfoot? Thanks for sharing your story with us. Lisa?

Cut to anchor 1 (Lisa):

Thanks, Tony. While many groups of enthusiasts across North America maintain belief in and even routinely search for the manape or apeman creatures commonly called Bigfoot or sasquatch, to date, no remains or convincing evidence has ever been collected.

Anchor 2 (Bob):

Now, Lisa, isn't it true that there are supposed to be literally thousands of Bigfoot sightings from all across North America?

Anchor 1:

That's right, Bob. Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Arizona, you name it. And many of these sightings occur in densely human inhabited areas. One Bigfoot enthusiast group, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, states as much as 400 sightings on average per year.

Anchor 2:

400? So why no monkey, Lisa? (laughs) You know, you'd think after all this time we'd have one of these things by now.

Anchor 1:

That's right, Bob. Apparently, Bigfoot is everywhere yet nowhere.

Anchor 2 (addressing viewers):

Have you seen a Bigfoot? Well, we here at KSCOF 11 News want to hear about it. Send us an email at...... Coming up...

And cut to commercial.

That's how I would play news coverage of the average local Bigfoot sighting. Is it very serious? No. Even a little light-hearted? Yes. Give me your average weekend warrior claiming to have seen a Bigfoot, and that's the way I would play it. Give me a flurry of reports by unrelated witnesses in a confined area and I would do a piece asking if the community is being hoaxed. Give me a person with a sasquatch plastered to their grill and then I'll get Walter Cronkite with it.

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Yikes! Shows how long it's been since I tuned in. Why no more DB (unless it's private)? He was good on the air. I would love to come on show where you co-hosted. Billy could do most of the talking. We could talk Bigfoot 2010, Ohio, PGF stuff, Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, all sorts of stuff. I like William's idea of what it would take for one not to believe in Bigfoot. I suspect your answer would be very different from people who don't claim a sighting. I'll drop Billy a line and see what he thinks.

DB did a fine job. He had to leave because of family obligations. He has 3 small children. He is welcome to return. Billy has a new co-host Mike Killen.

I don't believe. I know. Why are my beliefs so fascinating? I don't get it.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by kitakaze to Don Keating

PS - I should inform you that I have in the past been and continue to be a vocal critic on the Internet of Bigfoot existing as a living animal species in Salt Fork State Park and any other place in North America. If you like, I can send you links to some of my commentary. Please be aware that unless a body or body part is presented at your conference I will come away with the same conviction and continue to argue that Bigfoot does not exist.

I added the red parts for more accuracy.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Don Keating returned my email inquiring about my giving a skeptical presentation and conducting interviews at the Ohio Bigfoot conference this year. He said he would have to think about it, given the smarting still felt by Leigh Hart's spoof, and would get back to me.

He'll assign someone to check on you to see what you are all about...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Bottom line, my policy is that...

a) Bigfoot does not exist. Show me the monkey and I will change my mind and eat crow all day long.

No, you can't speak at our conference.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by WGBH

DB did a fine job. He had to leave because of family obligations. He has 3 small children. He is welcome to return. Billy has a new co-host Mike Killen.

I don't believe. I know. Why are my beliefs so fascinating? I don't get it.

No, no. That's what I mean. Your answer would be one of the easy ones.

KK: What would it take for you not to believe in Bigfoot? Five sentences or less.

JC: If I didn't see one. Five words, sucka!

The interesting answers would come from those who don't believe they saw one.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

The interesting answers would come from those who don't believe they saw one.

But also interesting from those who do claim to have seen one. I wonder how many (percentage) of those whose status is Bigfoot Encounter: Yes would actually switch their position on Bigfoot existence and change their status to Bigfoot Encounter: No.

John says nothing would change his mind. But what of folks like Bitter Monk and wolftrax?

[coalesce]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Give me a person with a sasquatch plastered to their grill and then I'll get Walter Cronkite with it.

You're going to need a shovel in order to do that.

Michael

[WGBH]

If I needed or wanted the easy way out, I could have said:

1. "why yes Vortigern and Drew thank you so much for your internet diagnosis, of course it was sleep paralysis."

2. or "Why thank you Jim Flowers for pointing out that I am a liar just looking for attention."

3.or "thank you WP for pointing out that is was a hallucination".

4. or " thank you Kitakza for pointing out I was mistaken and saw a black bear".

Maybe the way I have been treated it would have been much more simple to pick one of those. Problem is, it would be a lie. I saw what I saw. I saw a Bigfoot.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by WGBH

If I needed or wanted the easy way out, I could have said:

3.or "thank you WP for pointing out that is was a hallucination".

That's not an easy out because I never said that. I don't offer an explanation for you. I'm only going to say that you didn't see a Bigfoot. What you may have seen, if anything at all, is trivial to the main issue. Bigfoot doesn't exist for anyone to encounter - no matter who they are.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by kitakaze to Don Keating after WP's suggestions

I should inform you that I have in the past been and continue to be a vocal critic on the Internet of Bigfoot existing as a living animal species in Salt Fork State Park and any other place in North America. If you like, I can send you links to some of my commentary. Please be aware that unless a body, body part, reliable DNA data, or clear imagery with good provenance is presented at your conference I will come away with the same conviction and continue to argue that Bigfoot does not exist.

Just my 2 cents. Otherwise footers might see it as evidence of the misconceptions they have about science, fueled by ignorance, prejudice and misinformation spreading which are so common within bigfootery.

[WGBH]

Hypothetical WP...

[William Parcher]

That's not what hypothetical means. I actually argued against hypnogogic (or whatever) hallucination in your case. Your alleged encounter, as you describe it, is too dynamic and complex to be any hallucination, IMO.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

That's not what hypothetical means. I actually argued against hypnogogic (or whatever) hallucination in your case. Your alleged encounter, as you describe it, is too dynamic and complex to be any hallucination, IMO.

I disagree, I believe hypnogogic hallucinations can be extremely detailed/complex. Look at Alien Abductees for one, or people who think HH are also actually Out of Body experiences. And this doesn't take into account the post-trauma rationalizing that must take place for someone like John to convince himself that he didn't have a hallucination.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I disagree, I believe hypnogogic hallucinations can be extremely detailed/complex. Look at Alien Abductees for one, or people who think HH are also actually Out of Body experiences. And this doesn't take into account the post-trauma rationalizing that must take place for someone like John to convince himself that he didn't have a hallucination.

The primary reason why I discount hallucination is because during the encounter John was moving around inside the deerstand and still kept seeing the Bigfoot outside through the slot. John wasn't sitting still like an abductee laying in bed. Those who hallucinate while driving are sitting still in their seat.

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

That's not what hypothetical means. I actually argued against hypnogogic (or whatever) hallucination in your case. Your alleged encounter, as you describe it, is too dynamic and complex to be any hallucination, IMO.

Wikipedia Definition:
Hypotheticals are imaginary situations, statements or questions.


WP..serious, you need to get a grip. I will not mention your name again if you feel the need to argue over NOTHING. You are about to go on ignore.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The primary reason why I discount hallucination is because during the encounter John was moving around inside the deerstand and still kept seeing the Bigfoot outside through the slot. John wasn't sitting still like an abductee laying in bed. Those who hallucinate while driving are sitting still in their seat.

Right, but they project the occurrences into their 'dream'. For example, someone could be lying on their back sleeping, before sleeping they finished a Beer, and set the can on the floor next to them and fell asleep. While Falling asleep they have a Sleep Paralysis/HH episode, they picture a dark shadow object in the corner, it is ominous, and they think that they are straining to look at the creature, they see the Beer can and try to knock it over to alert someone in another room to the creature's presence. They then wake up, and realize the Beer can is not there, they inquire to the other person in the house, and she says 'I picked up the Beer can right after you set it down'. The Beer can wasn't there during the dream/HH, There was no beast, the person wasn't really turning to look at the beast, they weren't reaching for the Beer can, but they thought they were.

JC may have been asleep on the floor of his Blind while this was going on, his brain remembering every detail of the woods as it existed before he fell asleep, but incorporating the moving creature into the SP/HH episode, everything that 'happened' in his state, may have not happened at all, but upon waking it seemed undoubtedly to him, that it did.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

JC may have been asleep on the floor of his Blind while this was going on, his brain remembering every detail of the woods as it existed before he fell asleep, but incorporating the moving creature into the SP/HH episode, everything that 'happened' in his state, may have not happened at all, but upon waking it seemed undoubtedly to him, that it did.

This is what I suggested when vortigorn99 proposed hallucination. I said something like "not a hallucination... dreaming while asleep instead".

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by WGBH

Wikipedia Definition:
Hypotheticals are imaginary situations, statements or questions.

I think of hypotheticals in a different way.

Quote:

You are about to go on ignore.

That would be an awesome thing to see happen. Kaboom!

[The Shrike]

Just a bit of perspective Kit, from someone who actively engages bigfoot believers on their own turf at the BFF. . .

It matters not how respectful, polite, and downright genteel you may be, some people simply cannot handle being challenged intellectually. They don't like to have to really think about things - it makes them uncomfortable, and defensive. And I'm talking about personalities I routinely encounter on the BFF, most of whom think the BFRO is a bunch of loonies who see bigfoot behind every bush.

At a "bigfoot conference," the attendees are even a broader slice of bigfootery. You may have a small number of level heads - and even a few other skeptics - in attendance, but you'll also have lots of folks who've never engaged in any kind of a bigfoot discussion. So I would worry about "angry mob syndrome" in a situation like that. To take the religion analogy a bit further, picture yourself speaking at an Assembly of God church on Sunday morning, with a 20-minute time slot to use logic and reason to sway the faithful towards atheism. (Hint: have a getaway car waiting for you in case it gets ugly.)

More so than the risk to life and limb, however, the bigger problem is that your probability of successfully getting your message across would be very low. For example, if you present something on the PGF - itself a topic that can takes weeks to unravel - folks will ask about unrelated bigfoot lore, like Native American oral history. So then you've got to address that. Every layer you peel back exposes more deeply held convictions. I think any skeptic would become hopelessly mired in that live format. The result? Bigfooters would brag how they were open-minded and invited a skeptic to speak at their conference, but he didn't really change anyone's mind.

So I recommend distancing yourself from live bigfoot events unless you have really good control over who speaks when for how long and about what. It's not a "look how brave I was to enter the lion's den" thing, it's a "I can't believe I wasted all this time on that stupid bigfoot meeting" thing.
~The Shrike

PS: Thanks (Drewbot?) to whoever posted that "Manbeast" documentary link. That was late 70s, right? Did anyone notice Byrne's remark to the effect that it's frustrating to deal with the "hundreds" of reports he gets each year that go nowhere? Well it's 2010 now. Byrne made that remark more than 30 years ago. There is no bigfoot.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

PS: Thanks (Drewbot?) to whoever posted that "Manbeast" documentary link. That was late 70s, right? Did anyone notice Byrne's remark to the effect that it's frustrating to deal with the "hundreds" of reports he gets each year that go nowhere? Well it's 2010 now. Byrne made that remark more than 30 years ago. There is no bigfoot.

Kit posted that. Page 2 of this thread I believe

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I think of hypotheticals in a different way.




That would be an awesome thing to see happen. Kaboom!

<click>