Leaderboard

According to the gospel of DWA and Saint Bindernagel. Don't be offended please. As I said I enjoy your nearly 10000 posts of the same nothing new to report.

This topic in now unlocked. We had to do a bit of cleanup. This can happen when members ignore the BFF posting rules, which are found at this link: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/29306-bff-rules-guidelines/ I encourage everyone to take a peek. And keep them in mind. This is not an easy site to manage. Its very large and there are thousands of threads. On top of that, we like to keep it clean. I would also like to point something out. Its a site about Bigfoot. There's a lot of implications with that, enough said. FWIW, the Staff here are not focused on proponents or skeptics and we don't have any agenda in that regard. We do however have an agenda when it comes to following the forum rules. That matters a lot to us, as those rules are what allow this site to be the best place to find out about things BF on the web. We intend to keep it that way. But we need your help- and here is how that works: 1) follow the forum rules 2) if you encounter a post that seems to be a violation, report it. 3) after reporting the post, overcome the temptation to also react to that post in any way- if you fail in this regard, it can mean that your posting privileges might get suspended, just like the original offending post of 2). Please keep this in mind while posting.

All I hear in that statement is a lot of excuses and whining as to why Biology WILL NOT accept a new species without rigid qualifications. This field isn't quantum physics, In Biology we can dissect a specimen in a lab....it's all right there before us to discover. And these rigid qualifications are why Pixies and Unicorns are not real animals.....but folklore. And if you took your specimen to the Smithsonian or any major University biology dept? You would not need to show it to millions of skeptics. Just one Ph.D. In biology would do. I blame much of this on Bindernagel as he has spread this anti science rhetoric around. But it's simple. You need PHYSICAL proof that the animal exists before science will take this seriously. Too many Todd Standings and Rick Dyers in the world. If your squeamish about killing the creature then invest in hair traps and biopsy darts. This is not a personal attack, this is something I feel needs to be said in order for this field to move FORWARD. We are not going to change anything by sitting around bellyaching about how the system is rigged against us. We need to produce physical proof.

No. I read it in a Book.

Ah, c'mon, man ... we've already seen her without lingerie ...

What kinda perv in his right mind would ever.....oh......DOH! Maybe he was bored.....

Didn't someone say something about insufferable?

(I've gotten sideways with two posters - and it's a continual work in process - long in the process. A gift that keeps on giving.) I don't have a problem with those who don't believe in the existence of Bigfoot. I really don't. I do find scoffers irritating, not for their disbelief, but for their irritable manner. Let me give you an example, and I hate to single this person out, but I like them and here's what they said: MagniAesir: ". . . I do not believe that Sasquatch exists, however, scientific curiosity makes me try and explain how a sasquatch would come into being if I am wrong and they do exist. I neither hope a sasquatch exists or does not exist, I just want to know the answer." Now this gentleman is a non-believer, a skeptic, and I find not a whiff of anything objectionable whatsoever - rather - I find his skepticism admirable. Rockape, you may find this odd, but I too am skeptical of many narratives. However, when someone relates a narrative, I'm looking for a few nuggets that I'm familiar with - that lend enough weight to throw their narrative firmly down on the side of believable. Someone says, "I saw a Bigfoot." I tend to blow that off until such moment there's a detail or two they share that I'm very familiar with - and then I tend to believe their narrative. It's funny when I've talked to some of what I'd call - some of the low-key, but very knowing BF experiencing personalities - we share and discuss some things others will never hear or read. They're initially trying to pick out nuggets in what I'm saying to determine if I'm FOS, and I'm picking out nuggets in what they're saying to determine if they're FOS (full of squat). Once we realize neither of us is FOS, then we can open up. Only then. So technically, I'm a skeptic. Until I know without reserve, otherwise. There are posters here that within their narrative, I go, "that happened, and that little detail is something everyone else will gloss over." Others, just rely on generalities, habit, preconceived notions, erroneous critical thinking, demonstrate tactical ignorance, and can't for their lives discern the important details contained within a narrative, that if they'd think for a moment, may help them in their own efforts. If this makes me contrary, I'll take it.

Why ya' gotta be like that? I'm sorry that there are those who don't believe that have pissed you off, but people who say they have actually seen a BF have to realize those who haven't have damn good reason to be skeptical or refuse to believe. That's just the way it is. There have been too many hoaxes and fakes to accept things at face value when it comes to BF. And you make the same mistake so many others do, there is a difference between a skeptic and a scofftic/denialist. Scofftics/denialists have a closed mind and will not even entertain the possibility BF exists. Skeptics, which I am myself, question things offered with an open mind. Wadding everyone who questions or doubts into the same ball as scofftics/denialists is the same thing scofftics/denialists do when they wad believers/skeptics into the same ball that believes all the wild stories about BF. And yeah, there would be a few who try to continue denial even with an entire body examined by top scientists. I think there are people who still believe the earth is flat. Some people you just can't do anything with, but when it comes to established scientific fact, the naysayers voice is a fringe element and generally deemed unworthy of the time of day. A body or body part, DNA confirmed by science cannot be denied by reality. It will become scientific fact.

Yet again, so uninformed.

Norse, what you hear and what is written often has nothing in parallel, as in this case. In the pursuit of simply saying something argumentative, the real topic of the post was what's considered "proof" in the "SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY," and how proof differs depending on what discipline of science one may consider.' Rather than just calmly consider the concepts - and so far you have shown no inclination nor ability to, the measures of proof in SCIENCE varies, whether you can grasp that or not. Here's what is maybe going over your head - SCIENCE is a very broad area, and proofs, depending on disciplines - are wide and varied. If I took a specimen to the Smithsonian - it would likely disappear as other anomalous skulls and skeletons have disappeared. And no, the word of just one Ph.D biologist won't do. Scores of large skull, and entire skeletons of gigantic, odd hominids have been taken to the Smithsonian, not one is on display, and they say they have none for examination in the storage rooms. You further ignore that SCIENCE often is invested in preferred narratives - they have a narrative, and will only alter their peer-approved, sanitized, narrative with kicking, screaming, and gnashing of teeth. How can I say this? I have other interests and have seen it time and again. I've seen them do a study, test, find the results troubling, retest, same results, over and again for weeks, and rather than admit and present the proven evidence - they'll trash the entire work they've been getting identical results on - over weeks and weeks. Yes, the system is rigged against us, but you will lose even if you're successful in getting one, and then attempt to do things as you propose. My universe is not limited to these things. "If you're squeamish about killing the creature then invest in hair traps and biopsy darts." You actually said that. Quick question - if I never had a problem legally hunting and taking human predator scalps, what, pray tell, makes you think I'd have a problem taking one of these? Yuchi and I don't agree on the kill/no kill thing, but I have the highest respect for his position because he actually has good reasons for changing is position from the kill column, to the no-kill column. Very good reasons that I actually understand, as he's actually been up close and it got personal - whoa! - just like me. Yuchi actually knows - not guesses - but KNOWS exactly what these things can do and are capable of doing. It's almost getting to be comical as a few of those who may believe, but never got up close and personal are the BF community's biggest experts. This is not a personal attack - but to move forward - the community better be getting the basics right. And I'm not seeing it.

I'd be curious how high the percentage of science is that relies entirely on observations. Then I'd be curious on how high the percentage of science relies almost entirely of mathematical calculations/mathematical theories - which attempt to explain, but never quite do - for behaviors based on observations. Even these mathematics of a lot of "scientific" calculations are a compromise, but inaccurate. They tend to "average" things away which by definition is very unscientific if one wishes to fully understand and fully explain the mechanisms they're using to "cover" a whole lot of other things going on. In law, it's a fairly common practice to find a man guilty of first degree murder and even sentenced to death based on eyewitness accounts. Life or death decisions are made on observations and subsequent identifications of people, and even describe what this person actually did. There may be a little bit of circumstantial evidence, but not even enough to arrest a suspect on - until eyewitness testimony closes the deal. Then we have scientists who for their own personal reasons - frequently from a position of elitism - refuse to accept generally accepted evidence, even a preponderance of evidence, and demand that their own personal preference will be the only evidence they'll accept. Gets back to their artificially contrived assumption of grandeur - which is most unscientific. In microbiology, observations on effects on microbes are almost the entire basis for satisfactory evidence levels that attain the status of proof. But that same "scientist," even with a Ph.D, may assume mistakenly that electricity flows through an electrical wire. It doesn't. Yet he's a scientist. He's just wrong. The many splinters and varying disciplines within the large "field of science" has different levels of evidence required to be considered proof. A microbiologist will have different levels of observations that are considered "proof" than say, an electrical engineer, which would be different from an anthropologist, which would be different from a materials physicist. The biological, geological, anthropological, and archaeological sciences are mighty free in their speculation - and there need not be any proof whatsoever - merely acceptance of their postulations being accepted by their small circle of kindred spirits. So when I hear of someone telling me they need "proof," they're really not saying they need actual "proof," what they're saying is that they are so uninformed about the reality of anything to do with the past, or biological entities - and how much blatant speculation occurs daily in those disciplines - that they have no real idea of exactly what they're demanding. If I got a body, and from that body took ten different tissue samples, scores of up close photographs, even of taking the tissue samples - accompanied by sworn statements by a medical doctor, an anthropologist, a MRI radiologist, a DNA specialist, a state medical examiner, and three solid citizens that this beast was truly dead, and their examinations were careful and real, that would not satisfy a tenth of the so-called skeptics. No. They'd demand a personal examination - or it doesn't count. Ten million personal examinations - which isn't practical - but that's the level some so called skeptics would demand in terms of "scientific proof." Ran into this problem already in another field. It's just a lot of folks who I think are bitter as they weren't breast fed, they feel they got a raw deal on that, they were probably dressed funny and made fun of in school, girls wouldn't give them a tumble, so they pursued other interests that include unyielding, unrealistic levels of "proof" that just happens to suit their contrary nature. They are to be pitied. They don't even know what they don't know. That's one sorry state of existence.

And reading about one does not make you an expert or a scientist. Sorry, you do not get your honorary scientist badge by posting the word "science" 1000 times on this message board. Your posts are essentially a practice in futility. No one has blown more hot air on a message board than you, you have posted 9,344 posts on here, I'd wager about 100 of them were actual useful valid information.

Whats idiocy is your claim to have read so much about BF and BF reports, yet you have missed or ignored the fact that I have talked more than once on this VERY SITE about my own experience with a creature I believe to be BF. I do not crucify anyone and I am one of the thousands of "others" As far as skeptics go, I am skeptical of people that claim to have intimate knowledge of these creatures social construct, diet, habits, habitats, etc. There are definitely more people out there that know a LOT more about them than me, but as a yet unclassified animal I am skeptical about people that make absolute claims about them other than existence. For a "man" that comes across as a know it all, and self admittedly "all that he knows" is from reading, until you have educated yourself enough to know who is and is not a BF skeptic on this forum, I give you no more credence or attention. As far as I am concerned you care about nothing more than down talking people and standing on your soap box. I bid you good'day sir.

(1) Negative, the premise of skeptics is to question theory and ideas until actual PROOF is provided. The fact that they disagree with you is what makes you feel this is the premise and makes you so defensive. A true skeptic only requires more proof or evidence of BF than the eye witness accounts you seem to hang your hat on. You are on such a high horse about your beliefs and ideas that you view anyone in disagreement with you as an inferior. THAT is a major character flaw of yours. (2) blah blah blah, reports reports reports, this is the same ol' saying you have in EVERY SINGLE POST. Reports are a good starting point, a possible good base to begin hypothesizing on location, habits, etc. They are not PROOF of BF as you seem to think. (3) No, the evidence does not back up ANY CLAIM, it may strengthen a theory or hypothesis, but until one is on the slab it does not do what you claim. It gives you a direction to shoot for, it is not a bulls eye as you think. (4) Everyone on this forum from skeptic to proponent have heard you preach the same ol' rhetoric's time and time again about "evidence", you have no "evidence" you have the BFRO reports and other like sites that have reports on them. You oversell yourself as a "scientist" and an expert. You have read reports and a few BF books, I believe thats as far as it goes. DO something besides preach about reports, then come talk about being a scientist.

Agreed Sasfooty, some things we might term supernatural are actually natural, like say infrasound. Or perhaps even orbs that fly about in the woods, they might be something also undiscovered and quite natural. I do not doubt your experiences, I just have to try to explain them in the "natural-natural" until I discover otherwise. If you find in necessary to look at the spiritual aspects of the matter to better explain your experience, by all means do so. I do not discount that something of that nature could be involved, whether in terms of the creature itself, or the attachment of the spiritual realm to the creature. I would think that something of its nature and abilities might also have a connection in the spiritual realm as we humans also do. On the other hand, reading sighting reports and my own experience has only pointed to that fact that, like other animals, these creatures exhibit predictable behavior, have very natural habits, and seem to be engaged in the flesh and blood reality of this dimension. Now whether they interact in any other fashion with those other dimensions of reality I cannot say.

You guys didn't drum anyone out - they found many posters here to be uninformed, rude, and very limited in their thinking - and they LEFT. I never said anything about being a expert on Bigfoot. Now if you're bestowing that title on me yourself - I'd have to turn it down. I've made it clear - I'm not a BF enthusiast - I'm not a BF hunter - I'm not a BF researcher - and stated clearly - I don't even like these things. That must be irritating - and emotion can sometimes work against you. Going to what? Drum me out of here? Because I served in the military? And share the field proven reasons you're maybe not seeing anything? Oh! I get it! You're the BF expert! Who would have guessed? Keep doing it your way. It seems to be working so very well.