New Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Good

About Starling

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Paranormal subjects, cryptozoology

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?

Recent Profile Visitors

217 profile views
  1. Absolutely...thousands of them. Because when someone catches something they can't immediately identify out of the corner of their eye and there's a go-to ready made archetype that the average person has a psychological pre-disposition towards (as most, even the most rational, of us do) when it comes to folklore...then yes...that absolutely could explain many thousands of sincere bigfoot sightings. You add a natural eye witness capacity to subconsciously add details to an experience and then emotionally invest in these new memories and've got thousands of apparently genuine hairy giant sightings. Add some individuals prone to even greater exaggeration and invention...and now we're really off to the races. DWA has me on ignore because even small mention of this psycho-social phenomenon as a possible explanation Is enough to make him balk at the idea and look the other way. However we know a lot more about this and have tons more peer reviewed science about this than we do the mythological bigfoot.
  2. It's ironic indeed that DWA references to Piltdown man and makes allowance for the 'sophisticated hoaxer.' Old Meldrum says the clincher for him becoming a believer was finding tracks that provided evidence of some anatomical feature that spoke of verisimilitude - WITHOUT at the same time recognising the field was replete in resourceful pranksters that might well have anticipated the need for precisely that kind of forensic detail. Underestimating the tremendously wily nature of your fellow man in a subject like this is something even a credentialed scientist can do quite easily. ( there's, allegedly, a physics professor out there who's bought into the moon landing hoax...going against the entire scientific community...more fool him!) Everyone's vulnerable to a scam once in a while. Dmaker's point is well made. And no proponent has managed to come up with any good refutation that isn't a silly word salad full of excuses. The proponents want their cake and eat it, too. Either you have credible evidence the animal exists or you don't. DWA hilariously suggests that scientists would rather have there findings assessed in some kind of public court of the people - which is tantamount to saying Bigfoot evidence should be judged by rigorous exposure to the same human nature-lead, non-scientific social factors he denies might have something to do with creation of the myth/phenomena to begin with. Utterly, utterly contradictory and utterly preposterous. I welcome scientists who treat the subject seriously and science wouldn't be doing its job if there weren't a few Meldrums about...but don't be a hypocrite and say the rules of science must make exceptions some time. We don't see peer reviewed papers that pass muster on the subject because there's ample evidence that what evidence there is is hopelessly contaminated by all too human mischief. This is a FACT and the following fact that has science demand, quite reasonably 'Make me a liar' leaves proponents angry and annoyed because, surprise surprise, they categorically cannot.
  3. Good science is seldom restricted by what is or Isn't seen as reputable. If something is there to study then scientists will study it. If your evidence continually fails to come up with the apparently obvious answer then frequently it will point at something more subtle and difficult to define. There are no papers worthy of peer review in Bigfoot world because the data is so poor and can be easily accounted for with sociological factors. Just because someone presents as a credible witness doesn't mean they don't have their own complex reasons for not telling the truth or being mistaken. This one fact alone is something proponents can't seem to get their heads around. 'They can't all be mistaken or lying right?' Um...yes...yes they can. There's loads of precedent and when I point this simple fact out some proponents can't compute and instead of engaging with my argument they put me on ignore. Enough said.
  4. Man you just keep banging that gavel on your fingers. You treated me with contempt DWA so don't expect any further respect from me.
  5. Plenty of substance but to use your argument you'll never find if you don't look. The degree of woolly minded denial here is worse than I thought.
  6. Um..please Sir, I have a few questions, Sir! Why do you continually whack your own fingers with that gavel, sir? Why do you do so repeatedly sir? Why do you howl so comically when you do so? Please Sir, why do you suffer so from a painfully misguided sense of your own grasp of a subject when you can't back it up with any credible data? Why do you Labour away at keeping up the pretence your knowledgeable and competent when it's clear to all and sundry rational thinkers that you're as bumbling as a rodeo clown? Why do you make sweeping, grandiose statements about science when it's clear what you know about the subject you could comfortably write on the back of a postage stamp? But please, Sir, just answer this one question if you will...if you're so very right then why can't you point to any peer reviewed works in the relevant fields? And your obfuscation time!
  7. So if DWA has put me on his Ignore list and then writes posts alluding to everyone on his ignore list is that the sound one hand clapping?
  8. Wow. He is a big fella, isn't he? More chub than chunk. It takes me back to my 'calories consumed' issue. You have to wonder how such a massive animal can remain wonderously stealthy and elusive when he's carting a load like that. One has to imagine they're almost supernatural light on their feet to make tip-toeing through the undergrowth such a breeze. Perhaps he's gone rogue, though? Got himself kicked out of the tribe for eating too many berries and snaffling more than his fair share of deer: "Right...that's enough, Ugwart! It's 'all you can eat'....not all you CAN eat!'
  9. Fifty years,eh? And look how far you and the other correct and proper smart people have moved the dial with all that luxurious research time. Not at all. No further than any genius (and oh how many tried!) who tried to make Nessie more than just a convenient talisman for the local tourist board. The arrogance of self-supposed competence coupled with the insight of a flea. The terrible irony of claiming intellectual ownership of a huge hairy hominid whilst having no capacity to understand the basics of human nature in either it's micro or macro forms. What a magnificent peanut! I'd have happily met you somewhere in the middle, you know. That's where most conversations take place. As I said, I can see the merit in some of your arguments. But this monolithic conceit and utter contempt for any other thought on the subject is, frankly, terminal. (I was warned!) So your opinion becomes less something I should be amazed and respectful of and now I just, inevitably, see it as amusing. You see I mistakenly thought you were forceful and opinionated because your point of view was one that would come into focus. Now I see the truth of it. This isn't about Bigfoot at all. This is just about an infantile pseudo -intellectualism strutting about lecturing lesser mortals who are too dim-witted to see the magnificent truth only you and a select few are privy to. Unfortunately, as others have all too accurately doesn't work the way you explain it, DWA. Science doesn't care about your mountain of reports because the more there are without accompanying evidence more compelling than the spittle of moonshine you and your fifty years have managed to come up with the more they point towards only one thing. Prove me, wrong is your hollow, desperate cry. Well, (cracks opens beer and puts feet up with serene smile) I don't need to. I'm more than satisfied I have my answer now. And I can thank you for that. You really have been an education. You ain't got nothin. And there simply isn't a line long enough to plumb the depths of your credulous gullibility.
  10. credu|lous [ˈkrɛdjʊləs] ADJECTIVE having or showing too great a readiness to believe things. "a ceremony staged for credulous tourists" synonyms: gullible · naive · impressionable · trusting · over-trusting · over-trustful · exploitable · dupable · deceivable · easily deceived · easily taken in · easily led Trusting in people as individuals is one thing but trusting the mercurial products of human nature is quite another. The spectrum of fantasy and deceit in the human social animal is enormous and cunning that as blind watchmaker go, it's a much bigger subject than Bigfoot will ever be. Show some humility in the face of it or live in the valley of delusion your whole life.
  11. This. For those who see the cart correctly positioned behind the horse, the only mystery is why Barnum's statement that there's one born every minute Isn't more clearly in focus for those that have happened to have been born in that qualifying category. Addendum: Plenty of forensic evidence for Grey's. Plenty. Recovered implants, physical marks on abductees, the usual indistinct video footage, endless consistency in reports (something you in your misguided approach hold a lot of store by). In other words exactly the same vast but inconclusive pool of evidence as there is for Bigfoot. But, no, science has failed us there as well. Only it has not. A psycho-social explanation accounts not only for the evidence but also the frustratingly ambiguous nature of what evidence there is and the miraculous abilities of the supposed subject. The razor categorically doesn't slice on the proponents side of the fence. In a way this is understandable as myopia tends to make people narrow thinkers. In fact I'd go as far as to say that by DWA's standards there's more accumulated evidence for the existence of Grey's than any other 'unproven' in history. What this doesn't prove is that they don't, like Bigfoot, fall neatly and very comfortably into the same mythical strata of human consciousness previously occupied by gnomes and leprechauns. He can pat himself on the back all he wants, but until he proves just one of his beloved reports an accurate reflection of the REAL physical world we all occupy, he might as well be chasing little green men, godzilla or the fabled unicorn.
  12. Except when you clearly aren't.
  13. DWA, in all seriousness, how can you complain that people are not looking at the evidence, especially when you're saying no other unproven subject has a higher volume of consistent stories than Bigfoot...then completely ignore them when they point at this...? I'll wager there is much more documented 'evidence' as it's coalesced around the existence of Greys than there is Bigfoot. The details in modern abduction stories going back to, say, the Betty Hill case of the 1960s has just as much consistency and exists in (I'll wager) higher volumes than sasquatch sightings. But when this is pointed out to you, you refuse to even look, saying it's not applicable. Why not? State your case for this or you don't have one. You continue to make your hackneyed claim that there's no other 'unproven' don't want to look at this other mythology as what it is: counter-evidence to your demonstrably false claim and supporting evidence for mine. Those blinders you're wearing have left you blind.
  14. You forgot to include the part about how you were sticking your fingers in your ears. So much for discussion and dialogue. Condescension personified.
  15. No consistency problem at all. It took all of ten or twenty years for the early space contactees to stop reporting tall, blonde hair humanoids from Venus to the post-Betty & Barney Hill contact case (that is post Outer Limits episode - the Bellero Shield episode) and start reporting the more plausible short, almond eyed creatures we now refer to as the Grey's. For the majority of the period since then they have become the gold standard in ufology abduction cases. They follow the same consistent pattern with so many reports describing the same details, the same experiences and the same little critters. So much so that their image had become synonymous with ETs. Psycho-social feedback in action.