Cotter Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Drew - do you know something that you are not letting on to? I'm not sure if I'm reading into your posts too much, but anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The idea that the beasts are too dedicated, is silly, here you have people out in the woods for 5-6 months, every day, looking for the Bigfoot, but a hoaxer tricking the bigfooter can't show that kind of dedication? It could be really fun for them. I think this level of dedication to the "it could be a hoax so therefore it must be a hoax" scenario rises to the level of skeptical pareidolia, a form of pseudo-skepticism. While I'm certainly not inclined to dismiss the idea of a hoax entirely, the scenario of a dedicated team of hoaxers putting in that much time and effort and putting themselves in the line of fire of a group of people that are armed stretches credulity. I'm sure if we continue this line of thinking we can also start to see veritable armies of blurry hoaxers in blurry pixels in the leaves and shadows. Maybe you can flesh out your it could be a hoax theory by suggesting that it is the MIB or some secret government agency perpetrating it, which could then explain how they are sustaining themselves as a team out in the wilderness without being seen. Very top secret stuff, black helicopters and such.... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 ^That would be a lot more believable to me than the suicidal hoaxer theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Drew - do you know something that you are not letting on to? Clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Drew - do you know something that you are not letting on to? I'm not sure if I'm reading into your posts too much, but anyway.... The only thing I know, is that if someone tells a bigfoot story, he gets pats on the back and accolades. The guy who tells it in terms of what is most likely, gets FAIL! posters put up in regards to his posts. It is not likely that Bipto has found a clan of 'Wood Apes' thriving in the woods of Oklahoma, intentionally instigating encounters with humans. If something lives out there, it isn't going to still be unclassified if it has a habit of picking on the humans. It is likely that Bipto is being tricked, and is rationalizing this hoax into an actual encounter with Bipedal Apemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I agree Bipto is likely being tricked. The question is whether the trickster(s) are human or bipedal apemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Bigfoot is hoaxing, hoaxing is Bigfoot. Query: What in the world motivates someone with this point of view to participate in a community dedicated to the discussion of the bigfoot phenomenon? Are you going to single-handedly save the impressionable masses from our delusional groupthink? Do you view yourself a skeptical Joan of Arc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) It is quite clear that you believe discussing the Bigfoot phenomenon is only acceptable when it is discussed amongst like-minded participants. What you don't seem to get, is that the 'Bigfoot Phenomenon' encompasses more than just hairy Wood Ape stories, and congratulatory pats on the back. I have been here a long time, and it is no secret that I think the 'Bigfoot Phenomenon' is a creation of humans. When the rules state that the forum is only going to welcome people who think Bigfoot is a giant wood ape, and not a product of the human mind, then I will probably not participate in a DISCUSSION of the phenomenon. Edited September 25, 2012 by Drew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Southernyahoo said: "Ok you got me, what is it? Audio Pareidolia?" No, but what is different is that the sounds heard by TBRC members are described as "gibberish", but the voice in the recording does sound like it is saying the words "back away" reasonably clearly. The problem I have is that I don't believe in ghosts and I don't think Wood Apes/Saquatches use English words either... So, we are back to square one - I don't know Edited September 25, 2012 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Drew, I have a level of uncertainty to my position in the larger question of BF or not BF. While I lean toward BF being real (a skeptical proponent) I must say that I'm more interested in discussing the phenomena rather than debating from a fixed point of view. I'm wanting more information (data points or phenomena) to continue to inform my opinion. At least from my point of view the purpose of the BFF is clearly stated as a forum for discussing BF, with skeptical participation welcome as long as you respect the point of view of proponents. I want to hear a good skeptical take on any given phenomena, not only to help inform my opinion about a particular "data point", but to help develop my own critical thinking. Perhaps what many of the members (myself included) are reacting to in your more recent posts is that it seems you are putting forward an uncritical theory that if you stand back and consider the ramifications of what you are proposing is almost comical in terms of the scope of the dedication and professionalism of a group of hoaxers trying to put one over on the TBRC. Perhaps if you would propose something more within the realm of the possible then it might be helpful. For instance, the idea that someone within the TBRC is somehow pulling off these hijinks secretly (at risk of being shot). That begins to become plausible, and can be tested by asking Bipto if they have a log of all member positions at all times and see if everyone is accounted for during these sightings or events. Skepticism is a good thing. Proposing the preposterous doesn't rise to the level of good skepticism IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 It is quite clear that you believe discussing the Bigfoot phenomenon is only acceptable when it is discussed amongst like-minded participants. I beleive my continued participation here proves your assertion to be incorrect. I wasn't challenging your right to be here. My question truly is why do people like you choose to spend your life in a place like this when you probably have better things to do with your time? What do you get out of having conversations with those who you think are deluding themselves? I have my own theories, but I'm honestly curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 the 'Bigfoot Phenomenon' encompasses more than just hairy Wood Ape stories, and congratulatory pats on the back. I have been here a long time, and it is no secret that I think the 'Bigfoot Phenomenon' is a creation of humans. When the rules state that the forum is only going to welcome people who think Bigfoot is a giant wood ape, and not a product of the human mind, then I will probably not participate in a DISCUSSION of the phenomenon. this part plussed by me Drew. I think you put it quite nicely. However, where I think some (myself included) may take issue is how the delivery of your discussion is made. You speak very matter of factly, but with not much evidence to support the very stern stance you take. Hence the reason why I asked if you knew something the rest of us perhaps did not regarding the TBRC's activities in Area X. Granted, hoaxes ARE a possibly, nay, LIKELY scenario in many RFP encounters, but in no such way have ALL encounters been shown to be a hoax. Given this situation at hand (which should be judged alone on its own merits), and given Bipto's seemingly transparent account of events and his avid Q&A with the folks on here, some feel that perhaps the likeliness of hoaxing in this case is very low. Is it still a possibility? It sure is, but weighing the evidence provided by Bipto (however vetted folks think it is) vs. the evidence by others that this is a hoax (which is none). I don't think it unreasonable to come to the thought that very likely they are NOT being hoaxed. I see your points you are making, but this isn't the TBRC's first rodeo, not by far. Please don't take this as a personal attack - I think I'm skirting one or more of the rules with this post, but anyway, I wanted to share my perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I have a level of uncertainty to my position in the larger question of BF or not BF. While I lean toward BF being real (a skeptical proponent) I must say that I'm more interested in discussing the phenomena rather than debating from a fixed point of view. I'm wanting more information (data points or phenomena) to continue to inform my opinion. Big 10-4. But I also like to hear skeptics like Cervelo testing the boundaries more than I ever would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I wasn't challenging your right to be here. My question truly is why do people like you choose to spend your life in a place like this when you probably have better things to do with your time? What do you get out of having conversations with those who you think are deluding themselves? I have my own theories, but I'm honestly curious. That Bipto, is part of the phenomenon. I find it all very interesting, the deluded, the skeptical, the scoftical, the 'bleevers', the just plain crazy! There is something VERY unique going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted September 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2012 The only thing I know, is that if someone tells a bigfoot story, he gets pats on the back and accolades. The guy who tells it in terms of what is most likely, gets FAIL! posters put up in regards to his posts. To the former: patently untrue. If you ever have the (mis)fortune of an actual encounter, be prepared for ridicule should you ever honestly admit to it. To the latter: See 'to the former' above. it is no secret that I think the 'Bigfoot Phenomenon' is a creation of humans. There are plenty of threads devoted to the reality or lack thereof about BF. This thread is about Operation Persistence. However, as noted in the statement quoted above, the words 'I think', meaning that in fact you have no idea. When or if you ever have an encounter whatever you 'think' will go out the window. What do you get out of having conversations with those who you think are deluding themselves? I have my own theories, but I'm honestly curious. I have to admit this has been a question for me too. Bipto, I have said this already but it bears repeating, thanks for your time and patience! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts