• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      T shirt fund drive   07/17/2018

      norseman has designed a t shirt and started a fund drive on custom ink. He is going to split the proceeds between the BFF and Project Grendel.  "We all owe this website a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our community and history would not exist without it. As far as the Project Grendel proceeds, I would like to see it go towards the purchase of a thermal scope."
      -norseman     https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sasquatch-hunter
Big Stinky

Stacy Brown latest skumk ape photo/video

32 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, MIB said:

^^^ Scoftics take note: a proponent just assessed evidence and found it lacking.    Remind me .. what is it scoftics contribute that is of value again? 

 

MIB

 

rufus.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MIB said:

^^^ Scoftics take note: a proponent just assessed evidence and found it lacking.    Remind me .. what is it scoftics contribute that is of value again? 

 

MIB

 

Followed by three value filled contributions...haha ! ;);) 

 

19 hours ago, Starling said:

If you're referring to sceptics, their role is to point out no one's handing out medals for not being so credulous that you think A.L.F. there is a genuine bigfoot.

 

18 hours ago, dmaker said:

At least it's not an alligator leg bone. 

 

1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

rufus.jpg

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I get what I am convinced is a PGF or better quality video,  I am going to post it here and simply say I think it has to be a man in a costume.  It just cannot be real.   And just let the fur fly since a picture or video cannot prove anything anyway.   Skeptics will immediately agree with me and those with any honesty will say they are not so sure.    I am not going to do a repeat of Bob Gimlin and spend the rest of my life defending myself from the charge of being a hoaxer.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SWWASAS,

 

Bob told me a few years ago he was no longer concerned with what skeptics thought, he said he knows he can't change their minds, to each their own more or less.

 

Pat... 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skeptics keep us honest, SW, but don't equate them with those who seem to run in schools, appearing suddenly with dorsal fins knifing through the surf to exact their toll. I no longer even notice the "you have chosen to ignore comments by xxxxx" anymore as I read through a thread and didn't realize these shallows had been targeted until the top of this page. I choose not to enable those voracious appetites which are satiated only by recognition.

 

Bob is a smart, as well as a very good and decent gentleman, Pat.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Bob relates the early years after the film release to you privately,  the treatment by the local people in town was really bad.    Bank tellers, etc would give him crap.  There is a lot of hurt there that he does not talk about giving presentations.   .     Now he is celebrated at conventions etc but it was not that way in the early years.

 

   I don't see that some skeptic calling me a hoaxer or fabricator is keeping me or anyone else honest.  It is just nasty disrespectful behavior based on their belief system.   I was a skeptic myself at one point but did not have a driving need to be nasty to people who did not agree with me or had experienced things I had not.    I am still skeptical about a lot of the woo woo stuff but still listen to it.      Fortunately most individuals involved with that kind of attack the individual behavior have gotten themselves banned.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SWSSASASWS:

 

I'm sarcastic. That's my apology.

 

Funny thing is I've never heard of Patricia Patterson's complaints of being harangued over the film, but 

 

This isn't the thread.

 

The stacey brown photo is a year old and an obvious fake btw.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what is think to see

 

bfcmpltn.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 9:56 AM, SWWASAS said:

... I don't see that some skeptic calling me a hoaxer or fabricator is keeping me or anyone else honest.  It is just nasty disrespectful behavior based on their belief system.   I was a skeptic myself at one point but did not have a driving need to be nasty to people who did not agree with me or had experienced things I had not.    I am still skeptical about a lot of the woo woo stuff but still listen to it.      Fortunately most individuals involved with that kind of attack the individual behavior have gotten themselves banned.  

 

I think we may have a different definition of skeptic, SW. The U.S. English Oxford Dictionary lists this first: "1  A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions." As an example, I question and doubt the accepted meme of anthropogenic global climate change, but should I discover information sufficient to convince me that it is other than a political power play I'm open to reconsidering that view. Likewise, I am convinced by both personal experience and the preponderance of evidence in the existence of Sasquatch, but will not uncritically accept every piece of purported evidence put forth because I would like it to be authentic. To my mind, honest skepticism simply means applying critical thinking skills and common sense to a problem.

 

When an individual's posts reveal a continuous pattern of denial without addressing salient countervailing arguments and, in my opinion do not contribute to or actually detract from the discussion, I consider that individual to be a "scoftic". It doesn't require that they engage in ad hominem attacks to fit my definition, only that they do not engage in actual discussion. Those I refuse to encourage or enable and they are added to my "ignore" list; I become aware of their comments only when quoted in another's post. When a thread becomes bogged down with what amount to "are so, are not" posts I find greener pastures. Hopefully that clarifies my last post.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airdale,   I really think we are on the same page and your last paragraph details the problems with some people.     

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find NathanFooter !

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 5:56 PM, SWWASAS said:

  Skeptics will immediately agree with me and those with any honesty will say they are not so sure.    I am not going to do a repeat of Bob Gimlin and spend the rest of my life defending myself from the charge of being a hoaxer.  

 

 

After the initial disappointment of the film not being accepted by scientists....Bob Gimlin would have been better off by just laughing at those who scoffed at the film, and said to them..."You think it's a guy in a suit....then try replicating it. And, good luck with that!"  :lol: 

 

 

12 hours ago, Airdale said:

When an individual's posts reveal a continuous pattern of denial without addressing salient countervailing arguments and, in my opinion do not contribute to or actually detract from the discussion, I consider that individual to be a "scoftic". It doesn't require that they engage in ad hominem attacks to fit my definition, only that they do not engage in actual discussion. 

Those I refuse to encourage or enable and they are added to my "ignore" list; I become aware of their comments only when quoted in another's post. When a thread becomes bogged down with what amount to "are so, are not" posts I find greener pastures. Hopefully that clarifies my last post.

 

 

That's the way to approach the issue of scoffers, and trolls, on a Bigfoot discussion board, Airdale.  :thumbsup:   Just tune them out.

Edited by SweatyYeti
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why post it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.