Current State Of Affairs

[Guest]

Hey Norse,

    I don't take them personally, I just get tired of reading that every other post. I came on here because there are certain subjects I am interested in and I have to wade through a bunch of  skeptic comments, most of which are not constructive and add nothing. I have no desire to shoot one to prove anything to anyone. Yes that is what it will probably take, but I will leave that to someone else. 

 So "got monkey?" does not motivate me to get monkey, it's just a way to be inside the forum boundaries, IMO. There are other forums that don't put up with that stuff as it's inflammatory not skeptical.

  If a "skeptic" really wanted to ask a intelligent question it would be longer than two words. If I was a High School debate teacher it would make for a great topic every year.

  

   

Edited July 10, 2013 by Hellbilly

[Guest]

Saskeptic.

   Thanks for that reply. Since you don't believe in BF or ghosts, do you spend this much time telling Josh Gates or some ghost forum there are no such thing as ghosts. I am new to posting on here but have been reading alot of the stuff for a while and I am trying to understand why people who don't believe would want to spend so much time(several thousand posts) poo pooing the existence of BF.

   Skeptics please feel free to reply.

[Incorrigible1]

Not a skeptic, but why question their motives? Let's face it, there's precious little physical evidence of bigfoot.

[Airdale]

Partial quote from guillaume on 7/7/13

“Generally speaking, skeptics are informed by scientific consensus, because both are driven by evidence, both are provisional (for example, at what point can we say that we have all the evidence?), and both seek objectivity.â€

 

I would posit that the term “scientific consensus†is a contradiction in terms. To quote General George S. Patton “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.†When there is consensus in science, it is because the people with control of the purse strings wish it so. Not many scientists are independently wealthy or otherwise completely free to pursue investigations in any direction their intellect may point them. They rely on grants from the National Science Foundation, private foundations, universities, etc., all of which have their own internal politics. Even among those who may be able to raise funding from other sources, only a small percentage are willing to risk the ostracism of the larger scientific community. So please don’t put the Jeff Meldrums of the world down for accepting fees for speaking engagements and panel discussions, research funding doesn’t grow on trees. To further illustrate my assertion, I direct your attention to the second part of my signature below.

 

And just for the fun of it, a quote from Albert Einstein: “Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions.â€

[Guest]

Saskeptic.

   Thanks for that reply. Since you don't believe in BF or ghosts, do you spend this much time telling Josh Gates or some ghost forum there are no such thing as ghosts. I am new to posting on here but have been reading alot of the stuff for a while and I am trying to understand why people who don't believe would want to spend so much time(several thousand posts) poo pooing the existence of BF.

   Skeptics please feel free to reply.

 

 

Hellbilly...

 

First off, welcome to the BFF.

 

As a new member, you will mostly likely find that things are a bit different here than some other sites/forums on the internet.

 

Regarding the bolded text in the quote above-   it's fine for you to be curious, and ask some of our more skeptical members why they choose to spend time here, as long as you don't travel down the well worn path of suggesting that they shouldn't, or aren't entitled too.

 

We welcome everyone here at the BFF, from the most passionate believers, to those who believe the idea of Bigfoot existing is simply ridiculous.

 

As long as they post within forum guidelines, and observe our rules, they're more than welcome to express their opinion.

 

You mentioned in an earlier post above, having to "wade through a bunch of skeptic comments".   Those members have just as much of a right to post here as you do, and while you may fail to find anything constructive in their comments, and believe they add nothing, I'm pretty sure they may feel the same way about your viewpoint.

 

It would be a good idea as a new member to take a few minutes and check out our forum rules and guidelines.  The opening paragraph of which spells out exactly how things work around here.

 

You can check it out here--->  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

 

Again, welcome to the forums, and if you have any questions, or need help, myself or one of the other members of staff would glad to help you.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I don't think skeptics ruin Bigfoot at all. Some may occasionally troll and get proponents riled up for the reason Bipto stated, but  in reality it's the fake proponents/hoaxers who do real damage.  So far it's been 45 years of continuous hoaxing.

[Guest Urkelbot]

I think most of the skeptics are on here because they are interested in the phenomenon and probably used to believe even if only as kids. They want to believe but can't. I think there is some good evidence for Bigfoot but the whole lack of concrete evidence that's been going onforever is too big of a pill to swallow.

I also don't understand why the believers say skeptics don't want the proof of Bigfoot to come out. Why would anyone be upset if Bigfoot was proven to exist? Wouldn't everyone in the whole world be amazed and excited.

[Guest]

Hey Norse,

    I don't take them personally, I just get tired of reading that every other post. I came on here because there are certain subjects I am interested in and I have to wade through a bunch of  skeptic comments, most of which are not constructive and add nothing. I have no desire to shoot one to prove anything to anyone. Yes that is what it will probably take, but I will leave that to someone else. 

 So "got monkey?" does not motivate me to get monkey, it's just a way to be inside the forum boundaries, IMO. There are other forums that don't put up with that stuff as it's inflammatory not skeptical.

  If a "skeptic" really wanted to ask a intelligent question it would be longer than two words. If I was a High School debate teacher it would make for a great topic every year.

  

   

 

While I've never used the term 'got monkey', I am on the skeptical side of the debate these days. Why do I bother to come here then? Why not? I've been following the BF mystery for as long as I can remember. I wasn't always a skeptic, far from it. I was all in at one time, I'll spare you the details because I've posted it before, but I used take BF quite seriously, and I used to correspond and mingle with others far more into it than I, and one or two of these folks are members here on these forums.

 

But when I came back to BF, after several years of concentrating on a career and other things, I stumbled here and joined this forum. I was anxious to see what had changed while I was away. What new evidence had come to light. When I got here I was still a believer, but over time I came to change my views...quite drastically! I suppose this was partially because nothing had changed at all while I was not keeping track, but more because I could no longer seem to convince myself that something real was going on. And it was reading what the skeptics were saying that made me rethink the whole idea of BF. Sure, I was headed along that road on my own anyway, but skeptical members here moved me along a lot quicker. It is too bad some of those members are no longer here because some of them had a lot to add...believe it or not.

 

I suppose now I am as annoying as an ex smoker, but don't take in personal, I'm not here to poke a stick at anyone, though once in a while, when someone is getting piled on, I do tend to poke in their defense. But I'm a skeptic, and I don't think I should go away just because I no longer believe the big hairy is real. I wish it was. I was out on some really sweet remote back roads tonight (Vancouver Island) and I was thinking how cool it would be if BF were real. I may be a skeptic, but nobody would be as pumped as I would be if something like solid evidence were to surface. Would I have to eat crow? Meh, I'd be too busy calling all my friends from back in my heavy BF years saying I told you so. I'd be feeding crow and eating crow I guess, and enjoying every portion...if that makes sense.

 

Peace.

Edited July 10, 2013 by summitwalker

[Guest]

I was a skeptic I guess, more correctly I didn't take this Bigfoot field seriously at all. Never even thought about it unless some thing on tv or such. And then i made fun of it and the people involved in it. Bigfoot was a joke. I put the people who believed in it in the same boat as the nuts roaming around these hills looking for gold with their little gold pans and a shovel. Experience has shown me that both groups were in fact not crazy at all. But only  by my five senses did I come to the right conclusion about both lol.  And yes military trained observers are better than the average untrained person at observing and correctly identifying or at least describing things they observe. And S.F. guys are pretty much all real good at it. And the lying part is something each individual has to decide for themselves. And not everyone has had to go through this life with no one they could trust. Or believe. And not everyone is so inexperienced or cynical to think that there are no others who can be trusted to speak the truth or describe or explain what they have experienced. Trust among honorable men and women is not a character flaw in my opinion.

[Guest DWA]

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.

 

Plussed.

 

I have talked with skeptics who aren't well versed in the evidence (in my opinion, if you come down an unequivocal - or even probable - negative on the animal's existence, you aren't) but ask good questions.  They've come to the topic from a bad angle.  They're not outdoorspeople; they don't know much about animals; or they just got the paranormal-silliness barrage up front and haven't gotten past it yet.  It's good helping them past it.

 

Others don't want to think about it; their minds are made up.  They're the ones I don't get.  When I feel that way about something, I'm utterly done with it.  You'll never hear a thing from me other than "well, when you get proof give a shout."

[Guest DWA]

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.

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.

  For me, the word "believe" when it comes to scientifcally-resolvable subjects became fingernails on a chalkboard, long ago.

 

I like Grover Krantz on this.  I don't believe.  I am in receipt of evidence that leads me to conclude.

 

That's where you can put me.

 

And you can also put me a plus on that last paragraph.  The single thing people seem most unable or unwilling to grasp about this is that the field time that has been devoted so far is ...well, it's not like playing the lottery.  It's like saving up to play the lottery at a penny-a-month pace.

 

We are precisely where a reasonable man should expect us to be on this topic.  And field time is why.

[Guest]

Thanks for the honest, objective replies. I believe there is room for skeptics here(and as I stated earlier, I am one when it comes to certain things) because there is always more than one way to look at any issue.

[Guest]

First of all – excellent thread Old dog.  I have waited for some time before replying.

 

I am fairly new to the forum and joined with the hopes of engaging in dialogue regarding this enigmatic topic.  I’m disappointed when these posts digress to name calling and caricature.  The mederators do a noble job of policing, but they can’t prevent disrespect.  It seems to me that our struggles in this forum are indicative of a systemic condition in our society in which we have difficulty facilitating civil discourse.  This forum’s rules explicitly forbid discussing religion and politics – for one reason to keep us focused – but also because we (as a society) seem incapable of cordial discussion on any topic.

 

Effective forums contain posts stating perspectives of the person writing the post, not presumptuous assertions regarding others’ perspectives.  Conflicting viewpoints should serve to enrich one’s own opinion – not threaten it.  I remain an optimistic skeptic regarding Bigfoot, but that doesn’t preclude me from engaging the discussion from different perspectives.  I really like Bipto’s scale and would put myself in category #3 – at least that’s where I am today.  Something might happen tomorrow which could move me to #1 or #5, but no one on this forum can place me in a category – each of us must do that for ourselves.

 

So what is the “Current state of affairs?† It’s messy.  There seems to be more open discussion in our society which is good, but we don’t seem to be much closer to ending the debate.  I for one am committed to having fun until such time as the question of Bigfoot’s existence has been answered – in whatever way that answer may come.

[Guest]

RJM, nice way to end the thread, but I wanted to post a article about Higgs Boson particle and some cool pics of the LHC since Cervelo had posted  a somewhat similar article.. It relates to BF for me because it blows me away that something you can not even see exists so why can't a large unknown primate? And to think of the amount of time and money spent to prove an invisible particle when Higgs theory had been rejected fora bout 50 years!!

Edited July 19, 2013 by Hellbilly

[Guest Crowlogic]

The topic of evidence has been a hotly contested debate now for decades.  We've just gone through a DNA fiasco with Melba Ketchum and CO. and the Georgia hoax and any number of others.  There is only one form of evidence that should be entertained now by everyone in the field and it is either the living breathing animal or the full body of one.  Something that could be run  through the Smithstonean, or the White House Lawn or the halls of any university or lab and it would be universally accepted as the real thing period.  I say this because every single shred of evidence of every other type has been the null set.  If I was the evidence police (and I'm not) I'd say to everyone and everything to date "Very nice but come back when you have the body of one of these things you say you heard or saw.