Current State Of Affairs

[Guest guillaume]

What does your Soc Psych class tell you about a soldier that is painting a target so that a 2000 lbs laser guided bomb can eviscerate what the soldier has been tasked to destroy?

 

Perception and memory are not reliable, but this doesn't mean that people can't perform well using their senses.  It means that we can be fooled, and we can fool ourselves.

 

1) Not all humans are poor observers.

2) Physical evidence is the proverbial nail in the coffin.

3) People in positions of power can make it uncomfortable for underlings to report what they saw.

4) If you want to be a good observer......do not assume anything. Just report what you saw, heard or smelled and then stand behind it.

 

1) You need a way to separate the good observers from the poor observers.  That's one reason scientific method was invented.

2) Good physical evidence (ideally a living specimen) would make all the difference

3) If you're referring to mainstream science, not really.  There are thousands of qualified profs with tenure who have nothing to fear from backing bigfoot stuff--they just don't believe it because the evidence isn't there.

4) Sure.  But you might be wrong.

[hiflier]

 

Hello denialist,

 

I predict that within a year all will be moot anyway. We will have a type specimen and a new chapter will begin.

Another "Year of the Bigfoot" proclamation.  And when, inevitably, there is no bigfoot specimen procured by the end of said year, what then?  Will you question the existence of the animal?

Didn't know there were other "proclamations". For the record though? I question the existence of Sasquatch now, today, at this moment. This time next year? Well, you have my answer on that one. On second thought I do NOT question SSQ's existence. Thanks for helping me clarify that one

Edited July 8, 2013 by hiflier

[Old Dog]

To quote "The Talking Heads".

 

 

"Same as it ever was..."

[Guest LarryP]

 

   Pretty sure I did NOT compare BF to the Higgs particle. Just made a stated fact that his theory was rejected in 1964 and on July 4  2012 was finally proven. You made the inference. A familiar story through the ages to be sure!

   As for BF evidence there have been hundred's of eyewitness testimony from special forces and  other members of the military, as well as Law Enforcement. Tell one of them you don't believe them. My favorite is of a team of special forces on a training mission in Alaska in the middle of nowhere that came across a long line of tracks.

 

Really? What makes someone in the military any more reliable as a witness as anyone else? Nothing, that's what. 

 

 

Ever heard of a "forward observer" ?

[Guest]

I have no issues with witnesses, "mere" believers, knowers, or honest skeptics.  My issues are with the scoffers masquerading as skeptics who are here adding nothing of value but asking disingenuous questions to derail debate, harassing people into silence, and so on.  They are quite good at staying just inside the boundaries of acceptable conduct while still achieving their purposes.

 

Quoted just for general awesomeness. 

[Guest]

Based on my experience, I'd say there are five groups involved in this "community" of bigfoot enthusiasts (not just the BFF). Think of it as the bigfoot version of the Kinsey Scale.

• Witnesses - They *know* these animals exist because they believe they've seen them or interacted with them. Of course, some of these people are wrong, but not all are (since I'm one of them).
• Believers - No personal experience to give them reason to believe, but they either know enough people who are in group one or have accepted the preponderance of the evidence available.
• Fence-sitters - They're not saying bigfoot are real, they're not saying they aren't. Since *they've* never seen one, they can't commit (though they accept that bigfoot are possible).
• Skeptical leaners - I hate even using the work "skeptic" here because all these groups *can* be skeptical (and should be at all times), but these guys generally come down on the side of bigfoot being implausible. Not impossible, perhaps, but not likely. I'm actually a big fan of these guys because they keep many of us honest.
• Scofftics - Bigfoot is impossible and those who think otherwise are delusional. I still can't figure out why they're even involved here or anywhere when it comes to this topic, but they are.

I think people can slide between two to four and back again, but once you're in group one, you're usually there to stay and group five is unreasonable, IMO. One and five are totally incompatible for obvious reasons and even one and four can have issues depending on the individuals. One and two are natural allies while those in group four will occasionally ally themselves with five but shouldn't because it just pisses off one and two to no end.

I say this because I think MIB's post from the 4th is spot-on. This is a discussion forum. Period. From way back in the crusty old days of the early BFF 1.0, people always wanted it to be more, but it's not and never will be. It's a moderately controlled scrum. It's a reflection of only those people willing to participate. It's the closest approximation we have of the entire enthusiast community, but there's a ton of stuff happening out there that's not on this radar screen. It's a perpetual motion machine powered by the dynamics of those groups I mentioned above. It will NEVER come to a conclusion on this subject. It's not that it's designed not to, it's that it's fundamentally unable to. A million monkeys with typewriters may eventually produce Shakespeare, but the BFF will always be just what it is now. It may be improved along the margins one way or another, but it's only a web forum and is therefore structurally incapable of being more than it currently is.

The only way to "solve" this mystery is to get out in the field. It will not happen here. Ever. Not that that's a bad thing as long as you can accept this fundamental shortcoming.

Edited July 8, 2013 by bipto

[Guest]

In thinking on this a bit more, I'd amend my scale above to steal from Kinsey more forthrightly. 

 

0 - Witnesses

1 - Believers

2 - Predominantly believe, more than incidentally skeptical

3 - Fence sitter - neither believe nor disbelieve

4 - Predominantly disbelieve, more than incidentally inclined to believe

5 - Skeptical (still need a better word for this)

6 - Scofftic

Edited July 8, 2013 by bipto

[WSA]

May I suggest for Category 5:  Pure Objectivist?

 

And there is not a thing wrong with that perspective, as you said, but it has to be acknowledged some in this category do not even trust their own subjective impressions of the evidence. You could sub-divide here too, between those who would consider some forms of objective evidence as proof, and those who would only consider a body to be definitve. Call the second sub-division Corpus Advocates.

[Guest]

The last line of that article said it all : “You can never prove something is right, you can only ever prove something is wrong,†said Murray. “All we can do is rule out more and more alternatives.â€

[Guest]

The last line of that article said it all : “You can never prove something is right, you can only ever prove something is wrong,†said Murray. “All we can do is rule out more and more alternatives.â€

Or you could bring in a body and settle the matter once and for all.

[Guest]

Why do you "skeptics" constantly say crap like "bring me a body" or "got Monkey"? I am a skeptic when it comes to the Mothman and Lizard Man(and I live in SC) but I have no interest in spending hours every day  asking people if they got Lizard? or Mothman? Why are you here? I would love to know.. My father in law would be a "predominately disbeliever", but he enjoys going footing with me because we get to go kayaking, hiking, exploring, etc. and he doesn't constantly ask me when I see him stupid crap like "got monkey?" Skeptic is too nice a word for you

[Guest]

In my opinion, there are two kinds of bad skeptics (and again, "skeptic" is the wrong word). One is the kind who is secretly fascinated in the subject but is feeling guilty that they'd entertain the possibility so they take out their internal angst on the rest of us. The other is a sociopathic troll who lives to torment others. Neither will ever add anything of value to the cause.

Edited July 9, 2013 by slabdog
Edit

[slabdog]

Staff warning.

Combative, inflammatory back and forth will not be tolerated and will result in:

1) locking this thread

2) discipline.

Don't do it.

By all means, feel free to engage in spirited and civil debate.

Do not engage in behavior that is outside the rules.

[norseman]

Why do you "skeptics" constantly say crap like "bring me a body" or "got Monkey"? I am a skeptic when it comes to the Mothman and Lizard Man(and I live in SC) but I have no interest in spending hours every day  asking people if they got Lizard? or Mothman? Why are you here? I would love to know.. My father in law would be a "predominately disbeliever", but he enjoys going footing with me because we get to go kayaking, hiking, exploring, etc. and he doesn't constantly ask me when I see him stupid crap like "got monkey?" Skeptic is too nice a word for you

 

Well now hold on......I don't think this is anything you need to feel personal about.

 

The term "Got Monkey?" comes from the term "Slab Monkey" or a dead Sasquatch laying on a examining table in a morgue or university, or more the more scientific term "Type Specimen".

 

A Slab Monkey should be the goal of Bigfootdom, this is how science works and it's how you can take the football and shove it right down the skeptics throat. In football analogy terms it's a touch down.

 

What skeptics are at fault of is that they think that touchdowns appear out of thin air. And seem to ignore the process of slugging through the mud down and down trying to drive the ball towards the end zone. What's worse is that when the anti kill crowd gets the ball hiked to them? They just run around in circles in the back field. And when the hoaxers get the ball hiked to them, they run the ball the opposite way and we lose yardage. The only people that have a chance to complete a hail mary pass? Are the ones that go looking for the creature with rifles in their hands............. No matter how barbaric or brutal or unfair you think the game is? This is the reality of the situation..........and the only way to end the game once and for all is to score a touchdown.

 

And I love skeptics? Why? Because it should light a fire under our butts. They are the fat guy that has painted his body in the colors of your enemy and sneers and laughs at you each time we fall down!!!!!!!! What's not to love about that?!!!  I wanna see that guy hold his head in his hands and rip his giant "were number one" foam finger into shreds!

 

When they say "Got Monkey?" they are issuing a challenge, it's nothing personal, they play for the opposing team..........they are daring us to cross that goal line. It's up to US to decide if we are up to the challenge and push forward or if we want to simply whimper about how unfair things are. 

 

I don't like whimpering.........I'd like to see them eat crow.

[Guest]

I love Halloween. I don't believe in ghosts.

@Norseman: well-said, Sir. You get it.