alt.hn

3/15/2026 at 10:15:50 PM

A new Bigfoot documentary helps explain our conspiracy-minded era

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-new-bigfoot-documentary-helps-explain-our-conspiracy-minded-era/ar-AA1Yv6px

by zdw

3/16/2026 at 7:55:20 PM

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?

by Bender

3/15/2026 at 11:38:07 PM

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

by emp17344

3/15/2026 at 11:45:16 PM

IMO, that was done years ago.

If you look up that film stabilized [1], it becomes really apparent that it's just a guy in a ape costume. The shaky camera is the only thing that makes it harder to determine what's going on.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI

by cogman10

3/16/2026 at 1:10:32 AM

Read the comments on that video to see how many conclude the opposite!

by adzm

3/16/2026 at 2:26:57 AM

Is the number of people high enough to make them right?

For example if one doctor says I have cancer but 100 electricians say I don't I'm cancer free

by Braxton1980

3/16/2026 at 11:40:39 AM

> Is the number of people high enough to make them right?

The term you are looking for is 'an argument to popularity'. It's one of many such logical fallacies.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

by GJim

3/16/2026 at 3:45:01 AM

9 out of 10 experts agree. It's that last one. That one person is just enough for people to latch on. Then, of the 9, 6 of them get tired of yelling at clouds and quit. The 6 get replaced with those that believe the one so that there's not 7. That goes on for long enough, you get people in charge that do away with vaccinations and measles has a come back.

by dylan604

3/16/2026 at 9:14:08 AM

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. Until someone with an authoritarian streak gets tired of winning debates with lizardmen guy and instead tries to shut him up, or starts suppressing data that doesn't actually support the crazy theory but is kind of inconvenient or complicated to explain.

Then you're screwed because you're letting the conspiracy guy point to an actual conspiracy to suppress his views, which provides evidentiary support for the claim that their crazy theory isn't mainstream because it's being suppressed. Meanwhile you get free speech defenders concerned about a bad precedent coming out to oppose you, and then political lines get drawn over something that never should have been partisan, but now everyone is expected to pick a side. And a lot of people end up on the side of lizardmen guy.

But once it's partisan, people are hopeless at being neutral. If you're on lizardmen guy's side then you're giving him the benefit of the doubt and on the lookout for any fault in his critics, which is how you get way too many people actually believing in lizardmen.

The problem is fundamentally that censoring something discredits you rather than them.

by AnthonyMouse

3/16/2026 at 9:39:51 AM

> 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 measles vaccination) read the scientific literature quite deeply, but come to very different conclusions. Additionally, they often have marked "live and let live" personality traits, which authorities do not like.

Because of their deep intellectual investment in this topic, they often have a much deeper knowledge about the whole topic than working doctors. The only people who are real counterparties for them are actual respected scientific experts on the topic. While these are clearly even more knowledgeable, these actual experts fear the well-read antivaxxers because the latter

- love to show gaps in the whole theoretical frameworks,

- ask really annoying and interesting questions

- etc.

by aleph_minus_one

3/16/2026 at 10:01:04 AM

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 few people (if that), whereas lowering herd immunity affects us all.

The difference between yesteryear, when everyone ignored the nutter ranting about lizardmen in the town square, and today is that the nutters can now find company and reinforcement for their beliefs thanks to the Internet. And ultimately it leads to people like Elon Musk getting high on their own supply of toxic disinformation and causing the death of thousands of people by shutting down USAID because they believe some far-right nutter on X more than what "the establishment" has been saying for decades...

by rob74

3/16/2026 at 10:48:59 AM

> a fear of flying..

Flying is safe, but I think it is not because some rules/regulations or due to "science".

A plane falling out of sky is a pretty big event and cannot be suppressed or silenced. It affects a large number of people at once. If planes starts to fall out of sky often, then the commercial aviation will come to a halt in a month. Given this eventuality, if you want to make money by flying people, it in imperative that there is no other way than to * do everything possible to make sure* planes don't fall from the sky.

If planes could fall out of sky without everyone knowing about it (For example, imagine that when a plane crashes, instead of killing the passengers right away, they only get hit after a month or so, and it is hard to link the deaths with the flight they took a month before), and affecting their business, then I bet that flying will no longer be very safe as companies will start cutting expenses with maintenance etc and paying off regulators/inspectors..

by qsera

3/16/2026 at 10:59:01 AM

A stock market crash is also a pretty big event that cannot be suppressed or silenced, but they still happen regularly. The sad truth is that people (and companies) are greedy and will gladly cut corners with safety if it means making more money. So regulations (and enforcement of those regulations) are needed to prevent a race to the bottom that will eventually lead to a crash. Coming back to aviation, you only have to look at countries like Nepal (https://kathmandupost.com/money/2025/11/10/nepali-sky-remain...) to see what happens when there are no regulations, or regulations are not enforced.

by rob74

3/16/2026 at 11:48:14 AM

>A stock market crash is also a pretty big event that cannot be suppressed or silenced, but they still happen regularly.

I don't see the connection. Are you implying that it should have stopped people from investing?

by qsera

3/16/2026 at 5:23:47 PM

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.

by lithocarpus

3/16/2026 at 9:55:41 AM

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.

Then there's the policy debate on whether vaccines should be mandatory, where people can make some pretty non-crazy arguments that they shouldn't be. Or the question of whether a specific person in a specific circumstance should get a specific vaccine, to which a reasonable answer could occasionally be no. But the people making those arguments aren't even necessarily wrong and having them push back on something when they have a reason to push back on it is perfectly legitimate and the people wanting to stop them are the baddies.

by AnthonyMouse

3/16/2026 at 11:16:12 AM

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 time.

Today Wakefield is on the anti-vax circuit giving talks and continuing to lie.

Measles is a Solved Problem. Polio is a Solved Problem.

But the toons are running the Fed now, canceling science and telling lies. So we'll have to wait until 2028 to get a final death count, assuming anyone is still tracking it.

by ourmandave

3/16/2026 at 7:57:27 PM

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 is also an extent to which problems can be solved in other ways. 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.

by AnthonyMouse

3/16/2026 at 12:13:33 AM

It makes me a little bit sad, I knew it was very unlikely, but I still had hopes just because it would be so cool to find that big foot is real.

by MyHonestOpinon