BLAARGing

[jerrywayne]

Some ISF Bigfoot skeptics have settled on an explanation for the behavior of Bigfoot enthusiasts, called BLAARGing in shorthand.

As I understand their arguments, I find the BLAARGing concept or meme inadequate and reductionist as a tool to understanding Bigfoot phenomena generally. The concept may have merits in a limited use, but it is overdone and overused in my estimation.

So as not to possibly misrepresent the skeptics who apply the BLAARGing concept, I would appreciate it if the skeptics who endorse this concept or meme please take the lead and explain it fully and make a case for it.

 

[Butter!]

What are you talking about.

Could you give some more details for the unfamiliar amongst us?

 

[Resume]

Some ISF Bigfoot skeptics have settled on an explanation for the behavior of Bigfoot enthusiasts, called BLAARGing in shorthand.

Straw.

Behavior of some bigfoot enthusiasts.

So as not to possibly misrepresent the skeptics who apply the BLAARGing concept . . .

Too late.

 

[Resume]

What are you talking about.

Could you give some more details for the unfamiliar amongst us?

Bigfoot Live Action Alternative Reality Gaming. Bigfoot proponents as role players: the expert, the adventurer, the habituator, then academic, etc.

They seem to take on these roles for status, perhaps profit, attention; some of us feel some of them actually believe in footie, some of us not.

 

[William Parcher]

The idea is that a person can pretend to believe in something (Bigfoot for example) and insist that they believe... but not actually believe. They do it for fun or amusement or for money or any other reasons.

 

[kitakaze]

I have not been around much in the past couple years being mostly in the thick of it on and off at the BFF, but the BLAARG term is a new (to me) term for an idea that I've had for some time now. I actually had to search the term BLAARG to get the source of the acronym. I have for many years now simply called it Woods & Wildmen after the classic table top RPG Dungeons & Dragons. I made that term after early discussions in which we noted the adult role playing game aspects of the cult of Bigfootery, and it was a natural fit in terms of the subculture of D&D and Bigfootery.

I would say it's a reductionist concept to suggest that actual belief is not the majority of Bigfoot enthusiasts. I have no doubt whatsoever the SweatyYeti's and DWA's out there really think Bigfoot lives all across North America. I have no doubt their worship for Kim Jong Patterson is genuine.

Organized groups like my old favourite the MABRC and the rather more boring NAWAC are on the other hand most certainly up to their night vision goggles in Woods & Wildmen. That is where the Civil War re-enactor comparison fits well. For people like that, the Melissa Hovey types, actual belief in Bigfoot is completely peripheral to the main point of Woods & Wildmen, which is to enter into a codified subculture complete with its own language and rules of behaviour, spoken and unspoken.

I would say that within communities like the BFF, actual belief is the majority, whereas when it comes to the people actually forming groups and smacking trees and screaming at each other in the night, Woods & Wildmen/BLAARGing is far more common.

 

[Resume]

Organized groups like my old favourite the MABRC and the rather more boring NAWAC are on the other hand most certainly up to their night vision goggles in Woods & Wildmen. That is where the Civil War re-enactor comparison fits well. For people like that, the Melissa Hovey types, actual belief in Bigfoot is completely peripheral to the main point of Woods & Wildmen, which is to enter into a codified subculture complete with its own language and rules of behaviour, spoken and unspoken.

I would say that within communities like the BFF, actual belief is the majority, whereas when it comes to the people actually forming groups and smacking trees and screaming at each other in the night, Woods & Wildmen/BLAARGing is far more common.

One most also acknowledge that many of the habituators, and those folks pretending to be bigfoot experts like Coonbo and Branco are most certainly making up stories (footie jr.s bouncing on trampolines/ footie sr.s raping the livestock) but they in fact may harbor some sort of belief in the cryptid.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

People are taking this meme and turning it into something it isn't. BLAARGing is basically pretending to believe in Bigfoot or pretending to do actual Bigfoot research. Giving footers the benefit of the doubt isn't BLAARGing in my opinion. Good examples of BLAARGers are Rhettman Mullis, Yuchi1, ChrisBFRPKY, Branco and a good portion of the BFF. All of them are probably Bigfoot skeptics and down-to-earth people.

 

[dmaker]

Also don't forgot seemingly earnest witnesses like Nathan Footer who claim a prolonged sighting in such detail that it must be one of a very short list of possibilities:

hoax
hallucination
lie

Nathan is simply one example, but his case does also perhaps suggest the notion of unconscious BLAARGing. He was on Finding Bigfoot afterwards and is now joining the ground crew of the Falcon Fiasco. All of this, of course, in lieu of pursing college or a trade. Unless one considers BLAARGing a trade?

For me, the BLAARG definition fits for many enthusiasts. Examples where the details of a sighting are just too much to be explained by mistaken identity. Or for the countless other examples where words and actions do not line up. Such as when enthusiasts claim regular contact with bigfoot but make no serious attempt to collect evidence for testing, nor do they alert the authorities that there is a group of 9 foot predatory monkeys in their local picnic area(s).

By kits response, I gather that he feels that many of the armchair type enthusiasts are true believers. Those that do not lay claim to a sighting. Even then, I have to doubt. I think many of them just enjoy the role of anti establishment maverick ( in their head at least), oblivious to the tin foil hat image they actually project.

Perhaps, ironically, I am too credulous when it comes to believing in our inherent incredulity as a species. The more I ponder the BLAARG theory, and the more I observe Footery, the better the two fit.

 

[kitakaze]

I think Roger Patterson is a great example in that regard.

I think William Parcher and I know for sure Phil Morris are of the position that Roger Patterson never for a moment believed Bigfoot actually existed and was in the Woods & Wildmen game early purely to get his piece of the pie he had no interest in doing like working schmoes.

I personally think however that Roger did indeed passionately believe and it was in this belief that he could justify to himself the need to make a hoax film that would further the cause for the search for proof. Bigfoot enthusiasts like to use the child-like logic that a hoaxer would not be duped. Hoaxers dupe each other all the time and Patterson was himself duped on a number of occasions. I think Roger not only believed, but he also new intrinsically the value of adult role-playing. I mean, we're talking about the guy who made Gimlin wear the wig and pretend to be the wise native tracker. It was so important to him that he had an impostor replace Gimlin rather than let Gimlin get away with staying at home and collecting 1/3 profits.

 

[Resume]

People are taking this meme and turning it into something it isn't. BLAARGing is basically pretending to believe in Bigfoot or pretending to do actual Bigfoot research. Giving footers the benefit of the doubt isn't BLAARGing in my opinion. Good examples of BLAARGers are Rhettman Mullis, Yuchi1, ChrisBFRPKY, Branco and a good portion of the BFF. All of them are probably Bigfoot skeptics and down-to-earth people.

I think you overshot.

 

[Resume]

I think Roger Patterson is a great example in that regard.

I think William Parcher and I know for sure Phil Morris are of the position that Roger Patterson never for a moment believed Bigfoot actually existed and was in the Woods & Wildmen game early purely to get his piece of the pie he had no interest in doing like working schmoes.

I personally think however that Roger did indeed passionately believe and it was in this belief that he could justify to himself the need to make a hoax film that would further the cause for the search for proof. Bigfoot enthusiasts like to use the child-like logic that a hoaxer would not be duped. Hoaxers dupe each other all the time and Patterson was himself duped on a number of occasions. I think Roger not only believed, but he also new intrinsically the value of adult role-playing. I mean, we're talking about the guy who made Gimlin wear the wig and pretend to be the wise native tracker. It was so important to him that he had an impostor replace Gimlin rather than let Gimlin get away with staying at home and collecting 1/3 profits.

So is lying for footie a subset of BLAARGing? I think a case can be made.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

I think you overshot.

Perhaps, but I think there may be some sort of internal issue that drives them to do what they do.

 

[jerrywayne]

Straw.

Behavior of some bigfoot enthusiasts.


Too late.

Read my OP again. I said "an" explanation, not the explanation.

The problem, though, is that the BLAARGists overplay this explanation to the extent that other explanations, such as Bigfooters looking at evidence through "squatchy glasses" (true believer gullibility or wish fulfillment), are relegated to the back bench of explanations. Even in your own diagnosis of Bigfootery, true believers doing true believer stuff ranks a distant third and last on your list of options in explaining the Bigfooter's mindset.

Also, early on in other threads I mentioned that some posters were reducing Bigfoot phenomena to knowing dishonesty. People defending BLAARGing then accused me of either lying or BLAARGing, or perhaps both. I was inexact, because some folks, like yourself, allow some Bigfooters their true beliefs, my view could be loopholed by BLAARGists. So let me be clear: I think BLAARGists overplay this concept to the extent they distort what is really going on, generally, in Bigfootville. It is reductionist, but not an absolute reduction.

So far, I have to say I agree with Kit, mostly. I disagree only about to the extent Bigfoot field researchers don't really believe their own stuff. I will say, if BLAARGing is a good explanation, it relates more to field researchers than to the average Bigfoot enthusiast.

 

[jerrywayne]

I think Roger Patterson is a great example in that regard.

I think William Parcher and I know for sure Phil Morris are of the position that Roger Patterson never for a moment believed Bigfoot actually existed and was in the Woods & Wildmen game early purely to get his piece of the pie he had no interest in doing like working schmoes.

I personally think however that Roger did indeed passionately believe and it was in this belief that he could justify to himself the need to make a hoax film that would further the cause for the search for proof. Bigfoot enthusiasts like to use the child-like logic that a hoaxer would not be duped. Hoaxers dupe each other all the time and Patterson was himself duped on a number of occasions. I think Roger not only believed, but he also new intrinsically the value of adult role-playing. I mean, we're talking about the guy who made Gimlin wear the wig and pretend to be the wise native tracker. It was so important to him that he had an impostor replace Gimlin rather than let Gimlin get away with staying at home and collecting 1/3 profits.

Your statement on Patterson is maybe the best I've seen. I guess it's because I always thought the same thing.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It's real simple, the many many Bigfoot enthusiasts who claim to have had clear sightings of a creature of fiction are quite obviously telling porky pies. That's not to say that there are no "genuine" believers, or that people can't have a case of mistaken identity when it comes to some sighting reports. But for the vast majority of people, this simply isn't the case. We have people claiming all kinds of bollocks when it comes to Bigfoot, such as clear, detailed sightings, habituation, gift-giving etc etc, yadda yadda... Clearly these people are taking the biscuit, either they're mentally handicapped, or they're telling porkies. Thus: BLAARGing.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Some ISF Bigfoot skeptics have settled on an explanation for the behavior of Bigfoot enthusiasts, called BLAARGing in shorthand.

As I understand their arguments, I find the BLAARGing concept or meme inadequate and reductionist as a tool to understanding Bigfoot phenomena generally. The concept may have merits in a limited use, but it is overdone and overused in my estimation.

So as not to possibly misrepresent the skeptics who apply the BLAARGing concept, I would appreciate it if the skeptics who endorse this concept or meme please take the lead and explain it fully and make a case for it.

Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Gaming.

Your opening post is an example of BLAARGing. Your alternate reality is the pretense this forum has one explanation and one alone for the entirety of the bigfoot phenomenon.

Look at your behavior instead of your words: you took the lead and misrepresented it after having been corrected on it dozens of times by most of us here - while saying you want a proponent to take the lead so it won't be misrepresented. Your actions are the opposite of your words.

That is how you unmask role-players. Every mighty bigfoot hunter runs away just as they are on the cusp of the greatest discovery since strippers. The behavior shows they do not believe.

Thank you for demonstrating in the OP what BLAARGing is, and the important point that role-players do not all have to pretend they believe in bigfoot.

Your pretense is the most common form of BLAARGIng: the fallacy of the golden middle. The actor (you) paints skeptics as extremely unreasonable people, 'footers as the other end of the extreme, and the actor is the one reasonable person in the room.

Just don't think for a minute that I believe your role-playing. The role-playing is extremely important to you, sure - it is a remarkable case study in BLAARGing.

You couldn't possibly get this "understanding" by being at this forum and even if you did, all it would take is one correction and you would never misrepresent it again. Yet years have gone by with you misrepresenting it. So we can conclude that this fantasy role is very, very important to you.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Straw.

Behavior of some bigfoot enthusiasts.


Too late.

Exactly

 

[jerrywayne]

The idea is that a person can pretend to believe in something (Bigfoot for example) and insist that they believe... but not actually believe. They do it for fun or amusement or for money or any other reasons.

This is my understanding of BLAARGing.

For further explanation and correct me if I'm wrong -- You are saying that perhaps a person claiming to believe in Bigfoot is making that claim because he does not believe in Bigfoot.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

People are taking this meme and turning it into something it isn't. BLAARGing is basically pretending to believe in Bigfoot or pretending to do actual Bigfoot research. Giving footers the benefit of the doubt isn't BLAARGing in my opinion. Good examples of BLAARGers are Rhettman Mullis, Yuchi1, ChrisBFRPKY, Branco and a good portion of the BFF. All of them are probably Bigfoot skeptics and down-to-earth people.

You're not going to add yourself to that list then, mate? No? Ok. Just sayin'...