You bad bigfooters!!
As much as I hate to admit it, Ms. Hill is right, on this point.
"Bigfooters" do behave badly.
But when was the last time a "Bigfooter" received constructive criticism that amounted to something? It's a two way street.
Ms. Hill is also ignoring the fact that skeptical researchers like me are bashed heavily by the skeptics she calls "scientific". Where is the science in saying that because I look for this animal then that makes me a "believer?" That's the comment all of us have seen on skeptical websites like the JREF. I am not a "believer" I investigate stories told to me by others. I would say roughly 95% of what I investigate; I can make the determination that the witness had a mis-identification. I am honest about that along with many, many other "Bigfoot Researchers" I know.
Do the skeptical Bigfooters get any credit for being skeptical?
Who decides what is "skeptical enough?" Is there a board somewhere we "skeptical bigfooters" should apply? The lines for "Skeptical" are very blurred. Near as I can tell on the JREF - call a "bigfooter" a few filthy names, accuse them of hoaxing and then never admit you go into the field looking - and you're just fine. But, the second you admit you went out into the woods - your skeptical card gets revoked.
How did I do?
Ms. Hill (in her article) discusses the "Paranormal Bigfooters" more than anyone. Yet, she did not make that distinction. There are different "factions" within this community, and I find it unfortunate she didn't point this out considering she claims so much knowledge of the community. She should know.
I do not do field work with any of the people who hold these attitudes or beliefs she discussed. Yet we are all lumped into the same category. That's about as fair as the nastiness she is complaining about toward the authors of this new book out now. But, her comments about the sexism - yeah spot on. But, women within this community have been talking about this for a long time.
Welcome to the party.
You say scoftic, I say, Bigfooter,
Let's quickly discuss the term she used, "Bigfooters". This word was first used a few years back by the JREF skeptical fans, as an insult, to anyone who gets involved in the Bigfoot research or community. So let’s just be honest about this. If it was not meant as an insult on her part then I stand corrected. But, one must ask, why did she even use it? Ms. Hill has been a part of the JREF community for a long time. I use the word, "Bigfooters." But not because I am trying to show disrespect to my fellow researchers, but by using the word, the sting of it, isn't as nasty.
She discusses Bigfoot Blogs. Then the one she points out is ran by someone who doesn't even do field work. Never fact checks anything, and the worst of the comments on this blog are from people connected to the blog itself or in the die-hard skeptical community. I wish she had made note of that. Maybe she doesn't know? Who knows, but, I give her points for having the guts to call them out.
It sure won't make you popular.
Ms. Hill - it's not about the truth - it's about hits...... You have a blog. You should know that. Sensational sells. That's why that blog, no one goes to for any real information, gets the kind of attention it gets.
The owner simply does not care.
I have no real big problems over all with what she has to say but the problems being discussed in this article are on both sides. Skeptics are just as filthy and insulting, in their comments, as bigfooters can be. So, let's be careful throwing stones, the window you hit, could be your own.
There is very little constructive criticism coming from the skeptical community. Sorry but, "your stupid," or "you're a Bigfooter so your opinion doesn't count," doesn't cut it, as scientific evaluation and criticism.
When it comes to women the gloves come off and anything is fair game. But that's in both the Skeptical Community and the Bigfoot Community. What's even worse is women back these men or they say these things themselves. I guess they don't realize that one day those same insults will come back at them?
So, there is equal opportunity, in that for both communities at least. If you can't find it - it's even okay to make it up. But, Ms. Hill is guilty of this herself. I have seen comments she has made about me - yet she has never even spoken to me or contacted me for any information. So exactly what information has she used to come to her conclusions about me? It sure wasn't both sides.
I have never been shy.
She brings up a book - co-authored by Michael Shermer.. Yeah, pretty sure I know what he has to say. But, just as "Bigfooters" have the right to handle their research however they want (there are no rules) then I guess so does Mr. Shermer.
It's just one more opinion.
It is not my intention to pick on Ms. Hill. Like I said, I have few problems with what she posted. But, let's be honest here.
The skeptical community is not full of saints and neither is the Bigfoot community. Either we all learn how to talk to each other, or maybe, we should just stay away from each other. There is little productive conversation coming from either side and a whole lotta finger pointing with neither side having all the answers.
Sorry, but not even the skeptics are perfect. I have seen some pretty lame arguments on the JREF too coming from skeptics who say one thing in the open, and private message me, something completely different.