Current State Of Affairs

[Guest]

It's very simple. There are standards established to demonstrate unequivocably that something is real, and what that something is. In the case of bigfoot and similar creatures from all over the world, that standard has not been met. This is objectively true. It's not skeptic drama or rhetorical worldviews or people unwilling to believe in zebras that are the collective pebbles in the proponents' shoes, it's that there's no proof of such creatures. Should the proof materialize, then we will be able to demonstrate and describe bigfoots, and that would be a glorious day of discovery that I would celebrate

most heartily. Why people here think that skeptics wouldn't want Bigfoot to be proven real is beyond me.

[Guest Cervelo]

You have every right to be here Larry, but if you could care less about the evidence, why even bother? Just curious.

The only reason I bothered to begin with was to see if there were other people here who have had experiences similar to mine. As it turned out there are a few. So that has helped me to get a better understanding of my own personal experiences.

I come here as someone who has not had an experience, looking for evidence to keep my hope alive that BF does exist. It kind of upsets me when someone who claims they KNOW BF exists are not willing to help me KNOW. I understand that it's nearly impossible to share here without the drama from the skeptics and even proponents at times. But dang, it's frustrating to me and I bet others like me who look for any evidence to keep our hopes alive.

What evidence would you have me gather for you that hasn't already been presented by many credible researchers, chelefoot?

I have clearly stated more than once that I am not a "researcher" nor am I a "habituator". This all came completely out of left field for me.

As to the majority of the so called skeptics here, BobbyO already hit that nail on the head in the first reply to Old Dog.

Their phony proclamations of "bring me a body and I will believe" are complete BS. That's because their entire materialist worldview would be shattered, so the cries of "HOAX" would begin immediately after someone produced a body. Nothing is going to change their stance that you're either a lying hoaxer or a delusional nutcase if you claim to know something that falls outside of their perception of what is normal and crosses over into their personal fear based definition of the "paranormal".

But if you still believe that you need additional evidence to keep your "hopes alive", I'm not going to be able to help you.

^^^

It's a post and many like this that has brought us to this point, condescending, insulting and combative(but all within the rules)..and I fully realize this is the pot calling the kettle black

But I learned the tactic from the very fourm members you've made contact with "the knowers" PGF'ers ect ect that got it all figured out..ahh sure!

Early on I made the suggestions as to what was "most likley" based on my outdoor experience and was promptly dismissed as just another ingnorant skeptiod.

I figured out real quick there was nothing that was going to be learned from the forum about Bigfoot, but at least a few with limited outdoor experience might benefit from what I know about the outdoors....it's a great place to spend time and the most dangerous thing out there is most likley yourself, go out and enjoy it there's very little to fear and I guaranteed you'll make a great discovery...even if its not biggie

I've had my own experience that I'll go to my grave believing it was no man, but that doesn't make it reality, just my belief....so nothing would make me happier than for Bigfoot to be real!

See there's really only one sides mind that's made up

Edited July 6, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest LarryP]

it's that there's no proof of such creatures

 

 

 

And this is where it always goes.

 

You're making a subjective statement as if it's an objective statement.

 

The reason it's a subjective statement is because you've failed to even mention all of the evidence that contradicts your claim that there is "no proof".

[norseman]

I absolutely think there are some skeptics who are not going to be happy with a discovery. Why? Because they have entrenched themselves so deeply into the fight, for so long, it has become apart of who they are. And calling believers idiots for believing, only for the thing to be real would be a definite source of embarrassment for them!

No I have no allusions that there will be skeptics out there that may even get nastier the closer that discovery comes into the spotlight as well....

[Guest Cervelo]

I don't think the discovery of new species sneaks up on one...from a scientific standpoint they either are proven to exist or not.

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

It's a post and many like this that has brought us to this point, condescending, insulting and combative...and I fully realize this is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

 

 

 

 

If you found what I wrote to chelefoot to be "condescending, insulting and combative" then that's your problem, not mine.

 

Because it was not intended to be any of those.

 

So the pot is projecting onto the kettle.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^

LarryP,

Well you stated that people in this forum are making phony proclamations about bringing in a body...what do you mean by phony?

Oh yeah then you said those proclamations are BS....how should one interpret that?

Please explain what your intentions were?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Cervelo

[norseman]

I don't think the discovery of new species sneaks up on one...from a scientific standpoint they either are proven to exist or not.

If we are shooting at it then yes. But a DNA study or hair sample study, etc? Then no.....we get hundreds of pages of ranting and bickering as we wait for the results.

[Guest]

The skeptic is skeptical for very good reason, the hard evidence where this animal is concerned is poor at best.

 

On the contrary, there evidence is very GOOD, esp the detailed scientific observations made by people like Dr Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Howe, Swinder, Schaller, et al.

Is it dispositive proof? I wouldn't go that far, but it is very much more likely that BF exists than that it does not.

There are skeptics on this forum who simply would not believe that these animals existed if one came up and tapped them on the shoulder and proceeded to roar in they're faces, they would say it was a gust of wind and thunder then go and buy some glasses as they would think their eyes were failing.

These are the same "skeptics" who pull out the old "we don't need to prove anything, BF does not exist, prove us wrong" nonsense.

For them, simply saying "I do not accept" is sufficient reason to discard any proffered piece of evidence with no work being required of the "skeptic" to support their doubt.

Neither of these two people are ever gonna find mutual ground as their stances are at completely different ends of the subject in question.

It isn't proponents' fault if some people refuse to follow their own rules.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

I present my mentor/Yoda of debate tactics for BFF....thank you Mulder!!!

[Guest LarryP]

Cervelo, I was making the same point as BobbyO and norsemen made about how there are some "skeptics" who will never concede that BF exists.

 

Because as norsemen pointed out, to do so would be a "definite source of embarrassment for them".

 

Anyone who claims that there is absolutely no proof that BF exists without even acknowledging that any evidence even exists to the contrary, is never going to welcome the news that BF does in fact exist.

[Guest Cervelo]

LarryP,

Here's exactly what you said,

"Their phony proclamations of "bring me a body and I will believe" are complete BS. That's because their entire materialist worldview would be shattered, so the cries of "HOAX" would begin immediately after someone produced a body. Nothing is going to change their stance that you're either a lying hoaxer or a delusional nutcase if you claim to know something that falls outside of their perception of what is normal and crosses over into their personal fear based definition of the "paranormal"."

I don't see how anything you've said so far explains the part about me or anyone else claiming only a Bigfoot body will suffice as proof is being phoney or BS....first just as discussed you may as well have said anyone making this claim is lying just to make a point...but of course you can't...hence the skirting of the rules well done!!!....second you state that its a BS claim, so once again how can this be anything but dismissive and condescending ironically the same thing you accuse the skeptics of being!?!

I find your position astounding and offensive on many levels as well as the true definition of a hypocritical postion.

But again I'm use to it from a "knower" nothing really new!

If you have an explanation that better states your postion or can clarify your statements in some way that differs from what they appear to be, I would love to be able to apologize for my misinterpretation, but for you to insinuate that it's out of context I find rather disingenuous.

I hope I've made you proud Mulder!!

Edited July 6, 2013 by Cervelo

[norseman]

Well, a body is going to be the last word...........and yes everyone not only skeptics will be forced to recognize that. So I think this is where Larry and I differ in our thinking........

 

But I say just because the species is recognized SOME skeptics, while being forced to recognize it, will NOT be happy about it

[hiflier]

Hello All,

DeeFENCE! DeeFENCE! DeeFENCE! I've seen way to much defensiveness about. As in any good worthwile game or pursuit there needs to be a good sound OFFENSE. That requires a plan of sorts and an identification of the objective by listing strengths to overcome and weaknesses to exploit. In the game of "let's prove Sasquatch" the rules are the same. This Forum is having trouble getting out of the locker room and it would seem that no amount of pep talking will accomplish that. Players that talk about winning a game or why it can't be won are a dime a dozen and until the talking is over no one will ever get to the field to actually play the game and put into practice any plans for winning it.

Ok, not a very good analogy because I basically fall on my face creating them BUT the principles behind it....well you get the picture. Staying here for some might be all that's desired. Some stonewall entirely every step of the way just for the sheer joy of showing their intellectual debating strength; not because they wish to see progress at all perhaps as progress will end the debate (and the fun of it) which is a game in itself that I too enjoy. However, the endgame could very well be in the skeptics camp with a no-SSQ result of any serious efforts to prove otherwise.

Going after Meh-Teh is the only way to settle the issue. There are those doing that now and some planning hard to do the same. One would think that some real support from both sides of the issue would be nothing short of a positive, progressive, and well-meant intent at resolving years of dispute. I would really enjoy seeing the Forum grow up a bit by seeing the forest rather that hashing it out tree by tree.

Edited July 6, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

Smithsonian Magazine  July/August 2013 Issue, pg. 20:

     *  91%  is the estimated percentage of marine species that have NOT yet been identified.

 

     *  86%  is the estimated percentage of land species  that have NOT been identified.

 

 

 

 

   So, considering this and all the recently discovered primates, I like the chances of discovery, thank you.