Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#91

Post by joenot443 »

emp17344 wrote: post #2

Supposedly exposes the Patterson-Gimlin film as a hoax, which is a big deal in the Bigfoot community.

I think the biggest thing in question when the Patterson film is discussed is who actually made the (supposedly) Hollywood-quality ape suit.

Sounds like this doc might have a real bombshell though -

> “Capturing Bigfoot,” premiering this week at the South By Southwest film festival, builds to a big reveal: freshly surfaced film that appears to show a woodsy dress rehearsal for one of the world’s most enduring hoaxes. In the new footage—from a Kodak reel dating to 1966—Patterson’s camera tracks a man in costume, his brother-in-law, moving in a similar fashion to the figure in the 1967 shoot

This would be a pretty nice conclusion, to be honest.

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#92

Post by bazoom42 »

graemep wrote: post #60
gdulli wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say that Epstein is a vindication of conspiracy theories, at least not the "Bigfoot" type. Epstein was already in trouble with the law for trafficking over 20 years ago. The pedophilia in the Catholic church was known decades before that. It's shameful that these stories didn't get more attention sooner, but the general veracity of them wasn't in question. The prototypical pedophilia conspiracy theory we d…

> The pedophilia in the Catholic church was known decades before that. Except the proportion of paedophile priests is about the same as the proportion of paedophiles in the general population. There are more paedophiles in schools and social services than in religious organisations - and there have even been more convictions of teachers and social workers, at least tin the UK. The reason you think of the Catholic Chu…

> Except the proportion of paedophile priests is about the same as the proportion of paedophiles in the general population.

I doubt you have any reliable statistics about this, given how many victims keep silent out of fear.

But in any case, the moral failure of the church was not the existence of individual abusers (which indeed can exist anywhere in society), but how on an institutional level known abusers were protected by the curch. Everyone who was part of the cover-up (which went all the way to the top) is complicit.

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#93

Post by lithocarpus »

rob74 wrote: post #72
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not actually how the measles thing happens. > What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine. My observation (in Germany) is rather that many antivaxxer (and sceptics of forced measl…

Those "well-read antivaxxers" are the same as e.g. people with a fear of flying: they spend too much time looking at extremely rare catastrophic outcomes (dying or being seriously injured because of a plane crash or a vaccine side effect) and then think that it will surely happen to them or their children. The only difference is just that when someone who's afraid of flying doesn't take a plane, it only affects very…

This is not a good analogy.

Aircraft manufacturers and airlines have a lot at stake if they let any risks slip through. If anyone dies it will be big news and visible to everyone, with real consequences for the companies responsible.

(I'm in the US so this may only be relevant there)

Childhood vaccines could cause a serious chronic disease in 1% of kids and we would have no way to know because: 1) Many vaccine clinical trials only monitor outcomes for a few days to a couple weeks. 2) Most vaccine clinical trials have no placebo control. If they have do have a control group in most cases the control group gets a different vaccine. 3) Most kids in vaccine clinical trials are also getting 10-30 other vaccine injections during their first two years of life during the period that they're being monitored for the one vaccine in their trial. So the only way this could even produce a signal would be if the one vaccine under trial was the only one that caused harm and all other vaccines did not.

I am not saying that vaccines do cause chronic disease in 1% of kids - just that it seems to me we don't have a good way to know.

Furthermore, even if it was proved that vaccines caused harm, vaccine manufacturers are not liable for harms from vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule.

It's a very different situation from flying.

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#94

Post by inkcapmushroom »

darepublic wrote: post #10
davidw wrote: post #5

There's a Bigfoot trap in Oregon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot_trap I wonder if it gets a mention? It does get a mention in the recent Bruce Campbell movie https://www.ernieandemma.com/ - which looks to be even more poignant with his recent cancer diagnosis :-(

Obviously Bigfoot is too smart to fall for those traps

They were baiting it with carcasses! Everyone knows Bigfoots are vegans and prefer chai soy milk lattes.

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#95

Post by aziaziazi »

inkcapmushroom wrote: post #94
darepublic wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously Bigfoot is too smart to fall for those traps

They were baiting it with carcasses! Everyone knows Bigfoots are vegans and prefer chai soy milk lattes.

As soy is a nut, the chai soy milk lattes may have work. He's an Omnivore, not a Necrophage:

> Bigfoot are omnivores, "They eat both plants and meat. I've seen accounts that they eat everything from berries, leaves, nuts, and fruit to salmon, rabbit, elk, and bear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#96

Post by Bender »

What happens when the majority of people assume anything that looks like bigfoot is some person in a hairy suit and then a scientist creates a human primate or monkey chimera hybrid for the purpose of harvesting human organs and it escapes? Do game departments and law enforcement ignore all the calls? Are we allowed to capture and tame it? Would it be treated as a human or a monkey? Does it get human rights or animal rights? Do the answers change if it speaks English?

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#97

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ourmandave wrote: post #75
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there are two separate issues here. One is the "do vaccines cause autism" sort of thing, which, basically, they don't, but there are a lot of wrong people who think they do for bad reasons. That's the thing where if you try to censor things you're screwing yourself by creating the breeding ground for bad conspiracy theories. And how you get enough people refusing vaccines for bad reasons to cause problems etc. The…

In the "do vaccines cause autism" sort of thing, they don't. But then frauds like Wakefield somehow got a bullshit paper published saying they do and it's off to the toon races. The paper wasn't censored, it was disproven by multiple studies and discredited by investigation. The Wakefield paper studied 12 children (multiple who had siblings with autism) and was funded by lawyers suing the vaccine companies at the tim…

Let's not pretend that nothing was being censored during COVID or that no one remembers it. The backlash is the primary reason we ended up with RFK.

There are also multiple ways to solve problems. If the Wakefield theory is that vaccines using mercury as a preservative can cause autism then you don't even need to challenge it to make it irrelevant. It has memetic power because having mercury in medicine seems intuitively bad and conjures images of 19th century quacks. So all you have to do is use a different preservative. Then you have a one-line killshot any time anyone brings it up -- there's no mercury anymore -- and you don't have to try to explain statistical sample sizes to people who failed high school math.

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#98

Post by rocky_raccoon »

Fricken wrote: post #64
jibal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm willing to believe Well there you have it. That has nothing to do with truth, only an emotional inclination. For instance, you are strongly inclined to believe the claims in the comment you responded to, despite it being almost entirely BS.

Does anybody believe the lone gunman theory with JFK? Nobody buys the official narrative.

Plenty of people do, alongside the preponderance of evidence.

Re: A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

#99

Post by mikert89 »

jibal wrote: post #45
mikert89 wrote: post #18

I used to look down on conspiracy theories, now I think many are actually true, or are mixed with truth. Its really unlikely that a theory circulates widely but has no basis in reality

> Its really unlikely that a theory circulates widely but has no basis in reality No, this is not at all true. For example, the only "truth" of BigFoot is the hoax video that many people are emotionally inclined to think isn't a hoax. The only "truth" in Qanon is the messages that Q wrote. Pizzagate was believed by people emotionally inclined to believe that Hillary drinks children's blood. And on and on. Did the gov…

pizza gate was corroborated by the epstein emails. not all of it, but plenty
Post reply on HN