Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[Rockape]

I have read your post. If I state that Dr. Matt's theories are crackpot poison, does that mean to you, that I have little respect for Dr. Matt?

 

But statements like that get interjected in discussions where they have no business and are not in response to the subject at hand nor having been solicited by other members posts.

 

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest?

 

Unless he says "a woman claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet", don't use it to counter his point.

 

Pretty simple concept really.

I wish I understood what was so hard about ^^^that.

 

Speaking of being respectful, how about you not telling someone if they could read they would know sasquatch exists.

[norseman]

I just want to say first in this thread before posting further that Dmaker and I had a really long talk and remain friends, I used a quote of his earlier in this thread that he felt that I had taken out of context from the ISF. I apologize to Dmaker for that, he didnt ask me to make a public statement, but I felt compelled to do so here and now.

Now what I want to say is that there is a evidence and then there is proof, big difference. Despite not having proof of existence this forum allows for the possibility that it does indeed exist. Evidence is what proponents use in order to find said proof if there is any to be found. I fully support a skeptic looking at evidence and recognizing mundane explanations for said evidence. Even if I'm on the opposing end of the argument (skookum cast = Elk lay vs. whatever). What I dont support is when a denialist argues that all evidence is a hoax or whatever based on their stalwart stance that in no way can Sasquatch, or any other cryptid hominiod on the planet exist because science would have found it by now.

What if the denialist is wrong? If your constantly looking for the zipper is there a chance to overlook something? We proponents are laymen, we go out, we look (sometimes your horse cracks your ribs and you dont make it out) and I dont think its too much to ask from the skeptic side of the debate to show people some respect about this subject on a forum dedicated to the subject....... that's all I ask. I'm not suggesting you take my tree break find as proof of existence, I know that, I'm just looking for sign that possibly might lead me to proof.

And if in the end, I'm wrong? That's OK too, it was my time, fuel, patience and enjoyment in being in the outdoors........and if you mock me for being a schmuck, I'd appreciate it if you did somewhere other than here. I do not need to be "saved", I get plenty of time in hunting and fishing and leading a normal life, thank you.

Existence of the creature is a open question here, despite the fact that it is not an open question most anywhere else.

[Doc Holliday]

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether the opponent positioning and it's input has any material effect on the matter.  It may ruffle feathers and it might make some uncomfortable but has it ever stopped anyone from pursuing the issue?

I agree, other than some members being offended and leaving on their own, the answer is no. Yet you are trying to weasel out of the real issue, which is that it has stopped members from participating in the BFF, thus injuring it.
 

The bigfoot question is not unlike the old argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So is string "theory", the difference is that dorky fantasies are labeled scientific, when in fact they are not.
 

As far as I know nobody has ever collect a feather from the wing of and angel so there isn't any hard proof.  It seems to be about the same situation for bigfoot belief.

Nobody has ever solved string theory equations either, much less even proposed a way to confirm the theory experimentally, so it's all just belief, just like BF.

The question we are asking here is whether trollish behavior like the one you excibit here, should be tolerated. I think more aggressive moderation is in order.

 

I see this as intimidation. It's a problem.

I have not been here very long but have discovered that skeptics are treated like blasphemers even by members of the steering committee.

 

 

excuse my temerity by asking for "plausible" explanations instead of crackpot theories

^^^ This. This times a thousand.

 

 

intimidation ? funny, but G ,  iirc , is pretty skeptical about the whole BF thing , yet gives it a chance. what he did there was give an example for comparison against the trolling going on that appears to be affecting participation in the "bigfoot house"

 

and blasphemers ......lol, the SC member referred to there is also a skeptic .... well, an actual  skeptic  , as opposed to denialism. 

 

look, ford vs chevy  taste great / less filling , skeptic / "bleever"  whatever.... any given subject and debate the opposing   discussion helps fuel  a forum which  (as long as its respectful and on topic  ) should be  cool. 

 

however, when that opposing side may also include  troll-ish "na na na boo boo im right & you're crackpot crazy " every time combined with possible evidence of target practice on  the BFF then running back to Randiland for counting coup.....

 

well, that's not cool, and a doggone  good reason to open troll season .

 

apparently we'd have more posting from the pro BF side if so many threads didn't devolve into the same snide mockery about existence generating complaints .

 

 yes, there is plenty worthy of mocking in BFery, but we'll never hear the interesting stuff if we run off potential good posts beforehand.

 

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Yes, BF is an open question and a lot of what gets done here lies in finding ways to narrow down the search. To hash out methods that might be beneficial in laying that open question to rest. In that regard I think the Forum has helped spur people into getting more active in that quest as well- ribs and all

Seriously though those that have taken to field work gained the confidence to do so by reading what and how the experienced folks do things. We learn about gear, cameras, wildlife like owls, coyotes, bears, and lots of other valuable data that we normally wouldn't know how to find out for ourselves except by trial and error. Many of us namely myself enjoy the woods so much more now that I observe and hear more things that I've learned about.

The Sasquatch question is indeed an open one if NAWAC is to be believed and since this Forum is a place to learn about how to conduct research and learn about methods then it's a definite win situation. Is there a chance BF doesn't exist? Yes. Is it greater than the chance that it does? Only time and effort will tell.

One thing I have noticed here on the Forum though. Rarely if ever do hardliners on either side of the fence initiate new threads. It seems that once there's an opening in a thread someone else started then the door gets opened and in walks the debaters to begin the dueling anew. IDK, just an MO I've noticed for a couple of years now.

Edited August 26, 2015 by hiflier

[Bonehead74]

I just want to say first in this thread before posting further that Dmaker and I had a really long talk and remain friends, I used a quote of his earlier in this thread that he felt that I had taken out of context from the ISF. I apologize to Dmaker for that, he didnt ask me to make a public statement, but I felt compelled to do so here and now.

Now what I want to say is that there is a evidence and then there is proof, big difference. Despite not having proof of existence this forum allows for the possibility that it does indeed exist. Evidence is what proponents use in order to find said proof if there is any to be found. I fully support a skeptic looking at evidence and recognizing mundane explanations for said evidence. Even if I'm on the opposing end of the argument (skookum cast = Elk lay vs. whatever). What I dont support is when a denialist argues that all evidence is a hoax or whatever based on their stalwart stance that in no way can Sasquatch, or any other cryptid hominiod on the planet exist because science would have found it by now.

What if the denialist is wrong? If your constantly looking for the zipper is there a chance to overlook something? We proponents are laymen, we go out, we look (sometimes your horse cracks your ribs and you dont make it out) and I dont think its too much to ask from the skeptic side of the debate to show people some respect about this subject on a forum dedicated to the subject....... that's all I ask. I'm not suggesting you take my tree break find as proof of existence, I know that, I'm just looking for sign that possibly might lead me to proof.

And if in the end, I'm wrong? That's OK too, it was my time, fuel, patience and enjoyment in being in the outdoors........and if you mock me for being a schmuck, I'd appreciate it if you did somewhere other than here. I do not need to be "saved", I get plenty of time in hunting and fishing and leading a normal life, thank you.

Existence of the creature is a open question here, despite the fact that it is not an open question most anywhere else.

Plussed. Good post, Norseman.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Trogluddite]

....

One thing I have noticed here on the Forum though. Rarely if ever do hardliners on either side of the fence initiate new threads. It seems that once there's an opening in a thread someone else started then the door gets opened and in walks the debaters to begin the dueling anew. IDK, just an MO I've noticed for a couple of years now.

 

This. 

[Rockape]

One thing I have noticed here on the Forum though. Rarely if ever do hardliners on either side of the fence initiate new threads. It seems that once there's an opening in a thread someone else started then the door gets opened and in walks the debaters to begin the dueling anew. IDK, just an MO I've noticed for a couple of years now.

Something else they don't do is pay for a PMP membership to help support the forum. It seems the more annoying "true believers" don't either. Therefore you don't have this problem in the bigfoot section there.

[BigTreeWalker]

I saw that hiflier. I don't know if you were referring to me or Norse since you were talking to him. But plussed just the same.

[BobbyO]

 

Dr. Matthew Johnson is talking about sasquatches hanging around portals and speaking to him in his dreams. Dr. Matt is a "knower", should I respect his claims? He isn't a nobody, he is a SPEAKER at sasquatch conferences who is claiming to have had these experiences. What about these claims by the doctor?

 

Feel free to respect these claims if you wish Redbone but to me these crackpot claims do great damage to the whole field of study. One should be polite to Dr. Matt, to be certain, but his claims are just poison. If the rationalists in the field do nothing to refute these sorts of claims they shouldn't be surprised when mainstream science ignores the search for the monster.

There are a tonne of other words better equipped to describe this Guy other than a "knower" and I don't know any rationalist in this field that accepts this guys claims.

I remember seeing my first video of Matt Johnston and he seemed like a credible guy.  It was refreshing to see someone that articulate.  Then to have it go from where it began to demons and portals was a bit much to bear.  Since the idea of portals as portrayed is so incredibly  "out there" I must conclude that he is the case of being a crackpot who was able to pass himself off as a man of reason only to fall prey to his own foibles.  Yet he saw something but how sound is his mind in the first place after inventing portals?  Does not bode well for the community.

I'd go one further and say it doesn't bode well for the people he treats as a qualified doctor and the people who read his books on "positive parenting" more so than the community.

[Cotter]

 

I have read your post. If I state that Dr. Matt's theories are crackpot poison, does that mean to you, that I have little respect for Dr. Matt?

 

But statements like that get interjected in discussions where they have no business and are not in response to the subject at hand nor having been solicited by other members posts.

 

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest?

 

I remember seeing my first video of Matt Johnston and he seemed like a credible guy.  It was refreshing to see someone that articulate.  Then to have it go from where it began to demons and portals was a bit much to bear.  Since the idea of portals as portrayed is so incredibly  "out there" I must conclude that he is the case of being a crackpot who was able to pass himself off as a man of reason only to fall prey to his own foibles.  Yet he saw something but how sound is his mind in the first place after inventing portals?  Does not bode well for the community. 

 

 

Interesting the Matt J. portal deal is new to me.  Hadn't come across that.

[Cotter]

 

Since 'crackpot' theories are being discussed, along with 'conspiracy' theories.

 

I wanted to share a list of crack pot/conspiracy theories that *GASP* were shown to be true.

 

http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefarious-conspiracies-proven-true/

 

Government lying, hiding, and covering up....it happens......

That list demonstrates that conspiracies are usually busted open relatively quickly. Its a pretty weak list as well some not even really being conspiracies at all.

 

Of course right now none of them are conspiracies, they are true.   "weak conspiracies"  in your opinion.....noted.

 

How long do you think a list of all the unfounded popular government conspiracies in the last 50 years would look?

 

No idea, but just b/c someone makes up a totally fake conspiracy, they all are unfounded?  noted.

If you take an unlikely, but possible, variable like bigfoots existence and combine it with another unlikely variable, the government purposfully supressing/hiding bigfoot for 50-100 years. Thats a crackpot theory.

 

In your opinion.  Besides, non-government entities are doing just fine at keeping the BF phenom in wings.

Again bigfoots existence combined with the evolutionary adaptation like mind speak or ir vision, not seen before in mammals, gets you on the crackpot scale.

 

Well, I don't know if they have that stuff, how do you know?  (Also, there are mammals thought to have IR vision or sensing capabilities, but there are very little studies done to verify or disprove this claim).  So we're back to 'can't exist until science tells me'.  noted.

Could the government be covering up for an ir vision mind speaking undiscovered by the general public for 100 years. Sure its possible. Its also possible most of obamas policies come from the advice of Lincoln's ghost or aliens started the water fluoridation program to eliminate our psychic powers and make us weakened for their future invasion.

 

You think that a gov't attempting to cover up an animal (which it isn't doing a good job at - only suppressing the 'proof') is equivalent to ghosts and aliens?  noted.

 

With that I will bid this conversation adieu.

[Drew]

It is a sad day.

 

You find it more expedient to just rid the forum of people who criticize you, rather than use that criticism to better your argument.

 

Sounds familiar.

 

Edited August 26, 2015 by Drew

[Rockape]

Nothing could be further from the truth Drew. It's about people who ridicule, not criticize.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Agree Rockape. Wrong end of stick. Again. Unsurprisingly.

[Bodhi]

 

I have read your post. If I state that Dr. Matt's theories are crackpot poison, does that mean to you, that I have little respect for Dr. Matt?

 

But statements like that get interjected in discussions where they have no business and are not in response to the subject at hand nor having been solicited by other members posts.

 

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest?

 

Unless he says "a woman claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet", don't use it to counter his point.

 

Pretty simple concept really.

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. I feel I responded to the post with on topic (for the post if not the thread) comments.

You feel otherwise.

Hope we can leave it there with no hard feelings.