Comments on: An Argument That Should Never Be Made Again http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Reality Bytes http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-18522 Reality Bytes Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:34:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-18522 Loren even went so far as to delete a comment of mine offering condolences to the family of Ed Raggozino, director of the classic Bigfoot movie, Sasquatch, The Legend of Bigfoot, who recently passed away and expressing my fondness for his film. What is wrong with this person? Who does that? They're condolences, you petty man. Loren even went so far as to delete a comment of mine offering condolences to the family of Ed Raggozino, director of the classic Bigfoot movie, Sasquatch, The Legend of Bigfoot, who recently passed away and expressing my fondness for his film. What is wrong with this person? Who does that? They’re condolences, you petty man.

]]> By: Reality Bytes http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-18504 Reality Bytes Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:59:56 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-18504 Loren Coleman is comically insecure with his censorship of informed skeptics on Cryptomundo. He has a long history of doing this and whining about skeptics. Recently I was posting detailed comments containing important facts and links about various things such as the fallacy of using "undiscovered" tribes of people to support Bigfoot and Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson's connection to Bob Heironimus. Bob is the only man ever to claim to be the purported Bigfoot in the PGF. Bob G was riding Bob H's horse the day the PGF was filmed and Bob H appears on numerous parts of Patterson's film. Bob H in fact lives nine doors from Bob G and the two are old friends, despite Bob H coming forward. One example of a comment of mine that was approved only to be quickly deleted by Loren was when he posted a video under the title "High Sasquatch Activity" without any other text on Cryptomundo. The video shows nothing but broken trees and rocks and I pointed out it was made by a person that goes by the handle trailriderresearch on youtube who is a well known nut that posts various videos of "plasma UFO's" in the company of Bigfoot. With my post censored readers have no idea that Loren posted a paranormal kook's video. He also deleted one other person's post that referenced mine and was in agreement with it. This is extremely intellectually dishonest of Loren. What is he afraid of? Loren went in and deleted all my comments in his blogs, even going so far as deleting a single sentence comment I made about the Bigfoot Museum in Felton, California letting readers know that museum head Michael Rugg was a gifted and respected dulcimer player. Why so petty, Loren? For some reason Loren seems to be very threatened by informed and knowledgable skeptics. He insists on artless and boring ad homs with his whiney rants on evil "scoftics". It's very nice that Loren can come here and say his piece regarding Daniel's blog on his comments at Cryptomundo being deleted without being subject to the same censorship he does to others. I, too, made the exact same point to Bigfoot enthusiasts there who cited the reams of sightings that people claim to see all sorts of things in high numbers from Gray aliens to Reptoids to Jesus. That comment was also deleted. Apparently the man simply has too much of a vested interest in having people believe in the likes of Moth Man and other cryptids to tolerate knowledgable discourse following his blogs. I think he would do well to have some courage and not shun real discussion so much. Loren Coleman is comically insecure with his censorship of informed skeptics on Cryptomundo. He has a long history of doing this and whining about skeptics. Recently I was posting detailed comments containing important facts and links about various things such as the fallacy of using “undiscovered” tribes of people to support Bigfoot and Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson’s connection to Bob Heironimus. Bob is the only man ever to claim to be the purported Bigfoot in the PGF. Bob G was riding Bob H’s horse the day the PGF was filmed and Bob H appears on numerous parts of Patterson’s film. Bob H in fact lives nine doors from Bob G and the two are old friends, despite Bob H coming forward.

One example of a comment of mine that was approved only to be quickly deleted by Loren was when he posted a video under the title “High Sasquatch Activity” without any other text on Cryptomundo. The video shows nothing but broken trees and rocks and I pointed out it was made by a person that goes by the handle trailriderresearch on youtube who is a well known nut that posts various videos of “plasma UFO’s” in the company of Bigfoot. With my post censored readers have no idea that Loren posted a paranormal kook’s video. He also deleted one other person’s post that referenced mine and was in agreement with it. This is extremely intellectually dishonest of Loren. What is he afraid of?

Loren went in and deleted all my comments in his blogs, even going so far as deleting a single sentence comment I made about the Bigfoot Museum in Felton, California letting readers know that museum head Michael Rugg was a gifted and respected dulcimer player. Why so petty, Loren? For some reason Loren seems to be very threatened by informed and knowledgable skeptics. He insists on artless and boring ad homs with his whiney rants on evil “scoftics”.

It’s very nice that Loren can come here and say his piece regarding Daniel’s blog on his comments at Cryptomundo being deleted without being subject to the same censorship he does to others. I, too, made the exact same point to Bigfoot enthusiasts there who cited the reams of sightings that people claim to see all sorts of things in high numbers from Gray aliens to Reptoids to Jesus. That comment was also deleted.

Apparently the man simply has too much of a vested interest in having people believe in the likes of Moth Man and other cryptids to tolerate knowledgable discourse following his blogs. I think he would do well to have some courage and not shun real discussion so much.

]]> By: SicPreFix http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17611 SicPreFix Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:28:50 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17611 How did you manage to sneak a February 5 post in between two February 3 posts, but before a February 4 post? Must be magic. How did you manage to sneak a February 5 post in between two February 3 posts, but before a February 4 post?

Must be magic.

]]> By: Loren Coleman http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17610 Loren Coleman Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:48:43 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17610 While I feel my friend Daniel Loxton is grounded in his initial discussion of the topic in his blog, allowing for a reasoned rebuttal on the topic, several comment makers have decided to use <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, and to get distracted down a road of personalized unfounded claims verging on near-libel, most of which have been addressed elsewhere previously. I have decided to not engage and respond here any further if this is the direction this posting wishes to go. People are allowed their different points of view, but please respect my right to ignore those that wish to hurdle charges that have no basis in reality. Thank you. While I feel my friend Daniel Loxton is grounded in his initial discussion of the topic in his blog, allowing for a reasoned rebuttal on the topic, several comment makers have decided to use ad hominem attacks, and to get distracted down a road of personalized unfounded claims verging on near-libel, most of which have been addressed elsewhere previously. I have decided to not engage and respond here any further if this is the direction this posting wishes to go. People are allowed their different points of view, but please respect my right to ignore those that wish to hurdle charges that have no basis in reality.

Thank you.

]]> By: rustle http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17605 rustle Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:52:37 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17605 Seriously? The two of you just made ad hominem attacks on skeptics as a group without a shred of evidence nor attribution. But, perhaps you are qualified to answer this question for me; what do billy goats taste like? Seriously? The two of you just made ad hominem attacks on skeptics as a group without a shred of evidence nor attribution. But, perhaps you are qualified to answer this question for me; what do billy goats taste like?

]]> By: Akusai http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17596 Akusai Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:25:35 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17596 Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons why, like Daniel, I've always found guilty pleasure in cryptozoology. It has the potential to actually do science, unlike, say, ghost hunting, because one can make predictions based on the hypothesis "Bigfoot exists." The first book of "mysteries" (read: woo-woo) I ever read was in first grade and it was called, simply, <i>Monsters</i>. It covered bigfoot, Nessie, Ogopogo, etc. and it scared the crap out of me for a year. I am, like Brian Dunning, a "bigfoot hopeful." It would be awesome if it existed. There's just the niggling little problem that it probably doesn't, and probably can't. Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons why, like Daniel, I’ve always found guilty pleasure in cryptozoology. It has the potential to actually do science, unlike, say, ghost hunting, because one can make predictions based on the hypothesis “Bigfoot exists.”

The first book of “mysteries” (read: woo-woo) I ever read was in first grade and it was called, simply, Monsters. It covered bigfoot, Nessie, Ogopogo, etc. and it scared the crap out of me for a year.

I am, like Brian Dunning, a “bigfoot hopeful.” It would be awesome if it existed. There’s just the niggling little problem that it probably doesn’t, and probably can’t.

]]> By: Myron Getman http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17594 Myron Getman Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:24:54 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17594 I would like to note that the above comment is in response to a comment made by Loren Coleman which he requested be removed from the thread. I would like to note that the above comment is in response to a comment made by Loren Coleman which he requested be removed from the thread.

]]> By: Everett Williams http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17567 Everett Williams Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:41:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17567 I cannot imagine a child who was not fascinated with cryptids of one variety or another, but I cannot imagine an adult who cannot distinguish between childish imaginings and reality. While there are definitely the occasional new species to be found in this or that corner of the world, and there are probably things in the deeps of the ocean that we have never and may never see, the idea that there is anything as complex as an undiscovered primate, existing almost in our back yards, is nothing more than a fantasy. This next may sound profane, but is not, so read on. Does a bear shit in the woods...and the obvious answer is...of course it does. Well, so would any other animal living in those woods. If we have feces, then we have DNA, and also a roadmap into what the creature eats. Even if you cannot find the creature, it has to defecate someplace, or leave hair with roots, or an hundred other ways in which it can leave DNA in it's environment that even a modestly good tracker, especially with dogs, can find. If we find DNA, then money will be forthcoming to find the creature from which the DNA comes. It is that simple. The only reason something so simple has not been done is that it would, once and for all, get rid of this whole branch of pseudo-science on which so much time and blather has been spent. No one seems to want that result and I can see that if I had spent my whole life on such nonsense, I would not want that result either, however correct it might be. This is a put up or shut up point. It is not up to the rest of the world to support these extraordinary claims It is up to those who make those claims to support them with the best available evidence, and that evidence is DNA. Do it or shut up. I cannot imagine a child who was not fascinated with cryptids of one variety or another, but I cannot imagine an adult who cannot distinguish between childish imaginings and reality. While there are definitely the occasional new species to be found in this or that corner of the world, and there are probably things in the deeps of the ocean that we have never and may never see, the idea that there is anything as complex as an undiscovered primate, existing almost in our back yards, is nothing more than a fantasy. This next may sound profane, but is not, so read on. Does a bear shit in the woods…and the obvious answer is…of course it does. Well, so would any other animal living in those woods. If we have feces, then we have DNA, and also a roadmap into what the creature eats. Even if you cannot find the creature, it has to defecate someplace, or leave hair with roots, or an hundred other ways in which it can leave DNA in it’s environment that even a modestly good tracker, especially with dogs, can find. If we find DNA, then money will be forthcoming to find the creature from which the DNA comes. It is that simple. The only reason something so simple has not been done is that it would, once and for all, get rid of this whole branch of pseudo-science on which so much time and blather has been spent. No one seems to want that result and I can see that if I had spent my whole life on such nonsense, I would not want that result either, however correct it might be. This is a put up or shut up point. It is not up to the rest of the world to support these extraordinary claims It is up to those who make those claims to support them with the best available evidence, and that evidence is DNA. Do it or shut up.

]]> By: Pete http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17566 Pete Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:43:06 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17566 @Akusai I guess I wasn't quite clear - I agree that the population needs rule out Bigfoot - but a large bipedal primate itself is not an impossible creature (unlike the supposed 'flying rods'); that's the overlapping area that I mentioned, where the physics and biology don't preclude the creature, but ecology and such do. @Akusai
I guess I wasn’t quite clear – I agree that the population needs rule out Bigfoot – but a large bipedal primate itself is not an impossible creature (unlike the supposed ‘flying rods’); that’s the overlapping area that I mentioned, where the physics and biology don’t preclude the creature, but ecology and such do.

]]> By: Myron Getman http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/02/02/an-argument-that-should-never-be-made-again/#comment-17563 Myron Getman Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:11:11 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5963#comment-17563 I think you are missing Sharon's main point -- that the site is going SEO. There is nothing wrong with that. However, as I addressed above, that is represented by the increase in fluff pieces about new birds and the like being discovered. Again, there is nothing wrong with that except for the fact that it has nothing to do with cryptozoology. New species are discovered regularly by Zoologist, Biologist and the like. It is my opinion that the increase in these posts serve two primary purposes: 1) to increase search engine traffic and, therefore, revenue and 2) to associate cryptozoology with established and respected sciences. Additionally, the claim that Cryptomundo is not a revenue source is specious in that every single one of your posts has a donate button located at the bottom and you have posted in the past specifically for the purpose of gathering donations for your museum -- which, I suspect, pays you a salary of some sort. Even if it doesn't you are raising funds via Cryptomundo. I think you are missing Sharon’s main point — that the site is going SEO. There is nothing wrong with that. However, as I addressed above, that is represented by the increase in fluff pieces about new birds and the like being discovered. Again, there is nothing wrong with that except for the fact that it has nothing to do with cryptozoology. New species are discovered regularly by Zoologist, Biologist and the like. It is my opinion that the increase in these posts serve two primary purposes: 1) to increase search engine traffic and, therefore, revenue and 2) to associate cryptozoology with established and respected sciences.

Additionally, the claim that Cryptomundo is not a revenue source is specious in that every single one of your posts has a donate button located at the bottom and you have posted in the past specifically for the purpose of gathering donations for your museum — which, I suspect, pays you a salary of some sort. Even if it doesn’t you are raising funds via Cryptomundo.

]]>