southernyahoo Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Hi SY, Often as a response to the specific particulars in my posts, they often come back as generalizations. I'm not sure why. My specific neighbors claims turns into "everyone"?. This is misleading and strays from my point. I don't want everyone to clam up. Just my neighbors who say outlandish things. What is outlandish? This is the problem and the subject of the thread. The big difference is to know what the general population considers to be outlandish, which some people cannot do. If something seems absurd yet it is still true, it should be reported. Conversely, if something absurd happens and it is reported, I'm going to yell out bullspit as loud as I can. So what's the difference? Why should certain people clam up? Not everyone SY, not everyone. Okay? Not everyone? I will try my best to explain in the next paragraph. So no, I'm not talking about everyone and I'm not talking about anything magical. Do you believe that everything that is said by everyone about flamingos bigfoot is true? Everything? As the topic asks for, I would hope that we can try our best to separate fact from fiction but it a difficult task. Is it fair to say that some people here on the forum have more input data on the subject than the general population as a whole? When something absurd enters the picture, and I mean really absurd (some can't tell the difference) the general population may hear about it and tie it together with the whole bundle and dismisses the subject altogether. <- -That is what I care about most on the subject . A study by them will not take place because of these supposed fictional gems. Would they study it if the absurdities were not present? Still a toss up, but at least it's not a definitive "no". These absurdities are not given by everyone as data. Only some. They don't help when they are probably intended to. They only hurt. So what is an absurdity? What is a fact? Fiction? It's not what we consider to be that matters to warrant an investigation, it's what the general population including "science" will see. If anyone wants me to be more specific about what is absurd, well then you had better be referring to bigfoot as Rickmatt because there is no difference in your eyes. If you don't call it a Rickmatt, well then congrats, you know what absurd means. Science like everyone else will believe what they want, if they are interested in discovering bigfoot they will engage the subject. They would logicly not percieve the subject to be BS entirely because of Rickmatts, just as you don't right? If Scientists can't engage the subject because they can't deal with public perception then they just don't have any stones do they? Science doesn't give bullspit about beliefs anyways right? They care about provable facts derived from evidence and data....If they don't follow this evidence then there is some other force at work. It could be denial from the thought that anything like this would have just fell in our laps by now. Thats the biggest hurdle with bigfoot, they are either the most intelligent non-human thing on the planet or they don't exist. Reason doesn't allow for much inbetween. If these creatures only allow for brief and sporadic observations then the scientists would have their hands tied anyways trying to study them long term to collect data. Science could do alot better with the trace evidence but behavioral study wouldn't come quickly or easily.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I brought up Rickmatt because it caught a larger number of attentions from people nationally for a brief time due to media coverage. If the media and the people are interested and there happens to be something worthy, maybe it would necessitate funding. Haha just kidding. It's not about just science and funding. It's about awareness for the people that are outdoors in the PNW. I would like to think they (I dunno how many are outside in the PNW but I bet it's more than a lot) could accept and get a solid heads up as far as what to look for instead of just giggling when the word bigfoot is mentioned. Is that out of bounds? It always gets negative responses. Is it asking too much? I'm finally starting to think so. Why purposely keep the world from this great thing? There is some decent evidence that should be looked at. This evidence will always be waaaaay over diluted when it's partnered with nonsense. They cannot be separated? They should be dismissed as fast as the nonsense is dismissed? And because the nonsense is dismissed? Like I said, I'm starting to think that people don't want the rest of the world to join the club.
Guest fenris Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Sometimes you do need to take those anecdotal stories as a possible truth and see where that assumption leads. Sometimes, and that is called data mining, but you also have to play it off against the possibilities that the internet plays a role in imitation
southernyahoo Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 If the intention is to get science involved (so that everyone else can join the club) then the only way to do that is with physical biological evidence, it's all fiction without it, and you can't inform anyone with fiction. Science does have to meet us half way and test evidence, and they are doing that, so facts should be coming. The fiction will melt away after the facts arrive.
Guest Lesmore Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) If the intention is to get science involved (so that everyone else can join the club) then the only way to do that is with physical biological evidence, it's all fiction without it, and you can't inform anyone with fiction. Science does have to meet us half way and test evidence, and they are doing that, so facts should be coming. The fiction will melt away after the facts arrive. Don't disagree. Your last sentence..." The fiction will melt away after the facts arrive. ....." makes me wonder...yes, but when will the facts arrive ? Bigfoot stories have been going on for many, many years, expeditions have been launched, men/women of science have got involved....but still...nothing in terms of biological evidence. Does fiction start where facts end ? Edited February 1, 2011 by Lesmore
Guest RioBravo Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Science does have to meet us half way and test evidence, and they are doing that, so facts should be coming. Are you referencing anything in particular, or just the overall state of bigfoot research?
southernyahoo Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Does fiction start where facts end ? I don't personally feel this way but this is how Science treats any field of inquiry. I accept a bit more than what is proven, otherwise I'd have no interest in this subject.
southernyahoo Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Are you referencing anything in particular, or just the overall state of bigfoot research? Both That doesn't mean a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow though. For all I know some wicked scientists could be out to cut our evidence to pieces... but it would still be facts remaining in the end.
Guest Lesmore Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I don't personally feel this way but this is how Science treats any field of inquiry. I accept a bit more than what is proven, otherwise I'd have no interest in this subject. I'm essentially a just the facts kind of guy. But I do admit that I get excited about the possibilities andas with you...it's the possibilities that keep me in the game.
Guest Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Especially when particular details match when talked about from two or more different sources of information..
Guest Lesmore Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Especially when particular details match when talked about from two or more different sources of information.. Two or more sources may match particular details, but still doesn't mean a fact. It get's down to how were those details arrived at from different sources...were they independently arrived at, without prior knowledge...or..... I still believe, that scientific methodology is the best way to separate fact from fiction. Too many possibilities of loose ends...otherwise. Edited February 2, 2011 by Lesmore
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Here is the problem as I see it. We are the problem. The 955 members here and others like us. We are the ones paying attention to the subject. Believe in bf or not we're the ones paying attention and if we can't get certain things right, nobody else will start paying attention (without a body). Yes, a body will solve all but that doesn't mean the puzzle should not be attempted to be solved and hopefully get to the answer. When I say we are the problem, I mean the people that say yes to everything. Now I know that some here say no to everything but there is a big difference. When people who submit their encounter know no matter what they say, it will be met with a resounding "YES", that gives them free licence to say anything, and do they ever. They know that there is no chance at hearing "NO" from certain people. It will always be Yes. Here is an experiment, If you have never said "no" to a blobsquatch (there are too many people that do this to count) go there and do it now. lol It will be liberating. If you are one of the people that sees a blobsquatch swimming in a lava in Hawaii and says "hmmm, I always thought they might be fire retardant" well here is your chance. Go there and now say "I'm sorry my friend but I'm going to have to place this in the "B" pile." Nobody wants to be in the "B" pile. If we add to it, it will eventually shrink and we will be closer to have separated fact from fiction. Even if it's only a little bit, we now moved the subject into a positive direction. Edited February 2, 2011 by FuriousGeorge
Guest dxm2 Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Here is the problem as I see it. We are the problem. The 955 members here and others like us. We are the ones paying attention to the subject. Believe in bf or not we're the ones paying attention and if we can't get certain things right, nobody else will start paying attention (without a body). Yes, a body will solve all but that doesn't mean the puzzle should not be attempted to be solved and hopefully get to the answer. When I say we are the problem, I mean the people that say yes to everything. Now I know that some here say no to everything but there is a big difference. When people who submit their encounter know no matter what they say, it will be met with a resounding "YES", that gives them free licence to say anything, and do they ever. They know that there is no chance at hearing "NO" from certain people. It will always be Yes. Here is an experiment, If you have never said "no" to a blobsquatch (there are too many people that do this to count) go there and do it now. lol It will be liberating. If you are one of the people that sees a blobsquatch swimming in a lava in Hawaii and says "hmmm, I always thought they might be fire retardant" well here is your chance. Go there and now say "I'm sorry my friend but I'm going to have to place this in the "B" pile." Nobody wants to be in the "B" pile. If we add to it, it will eventually shrink and we will be closer to have separated fact from fiction. Even if it's only a little bit, we now moved the subject into a positive direction. Excellent Post!!!! We met the enemy and he is us!
southernyahoo Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Furious your percetion of people saying yes more than no may be off a little. Sometimes people say yes but do this just to hear someone out, rather than no right off the bat. So somtimes you don't hear the no at the end. You may not be hearing all the no's because those reports aren't published. I have one blob I took great interest in because it was mine and I could study it through. I'm still not satisfied it was just a shadow but I don't wave it around as evidence either. There are also people who call BS too early and they may be right in the end that it wasn't a bigfoot, but when objective study occurs they also find out they weren't entirely right either in what they percieved to be reality. I don't start off as yes or no when I choose to investigate something, I save that for afterwards. I can't investigate claims here to my satisfaction, this is a place of anonymity, so bothering with definitive conclusions for claims here without the ability to investigate on location brings us no closer to facts about bigfoot. It was stated on the BFF1.0 that this forum is not an investigative body but a place to discuss Bigfoot, I think it is still true today.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Hi SY, I'm okay with that. I agree with the last part 100%. I actually knew the answer before I posted last. That we would never separate fact from fiction without a body even if I offered a way in it's most simplistic form. Never going to happen. And I'm okay with that. If I didn't try to convince at least one person, I would be guilty of perpetuating fiction. But being the glass is half full type I feel like I did break new ground. In the past, my words would have shut this thread down by a mod by at least page 2.
Recommended Posts