Will Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) ^^^^At some point you two have to get bored with all this ? Edited September 5, 2013 by will
hiflier Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Hello will, One would think so eh? I just might have to wander back into the Tar Pit my friend
Incorrigible1 Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 ^At some point there has to be more than footprints and sightings. Have to agree. Respectfully channeling Clara Peller, "Where's the beef?"
Will Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Hello will, One would think so eh? I just might have to wander back into the Tar Pit my friend That's wonderful, I can't wait.
hiflier Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) Hello will, Thank you my friend! Sunday I'll be taking off for two weeks camping with my spouse and my six year old Golden, Eddie. Maybe talk before then but definitely after. Take care. Edited September 5, 2013 by hiflier
Guest Loomy Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 So native Americans don't like their pictures taken.I know it sounds crazy but ,I feel there is a parallel here.Some believe sasquatch is a lost tribe.sounds farfetched I know. Mabe they have passed that knowledge down generation to generation. As far as eyewitness credibility,lie detector tests won't work because the skeptics will say "we'll,they were not lying,but they were probably so scared their minds eye said Bigfoot because we humans need a boogeyman to satisfy what we can't explain. Humans have been saying Wildman for hundreds of years." And as you all know skeptics know it all.
Guest Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 guys being skeptical of things is not some horrible personality defect
Guest DWA Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 No. Problem is, these days, it's considered cool to toss off judgments without information. Proper skepticism is informed. It's the lack of information that can get people upset with one's "judgment."
Guest Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Then don't use the term skeptic as a negative constantly. Come up with something else.
MIB Posted September 7, 2013 Moderator Posted September 7, 2013 Then don't use the term skeptic as a negative constantly. Come up with something else. If you feel so strongly about it, direct your ire toward those responsible: convince the scoffers to stop calling themselves skeptics. OF course, in doing so you're asking them to be forthright about their agendas and intentions ... um ... best of luck with that. Nobody else has had any success, I don't expect you will either. MIB
Guest DWA Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 whoosh Was ist das "whoosh"? If you feel so strongly about it, direct your ire toward those responsible: convince the scoffers to stop calling themselves skeptics. OF course, in doing so you're asking them to be forthright about their agendas and intentions ... um ... best of luck with that. Nobody else has had any success, I don't expect you will either. MIB I am always careful - OK, almost always - to use "bigfoot skeptics." It points out something here that isn't really skepticism. I guess there has always been this very strong strain of cynical non-belief in our species. (Wait. [deep breath of pure freedom and righteousness] it is SO GREAT to have this tired discussion of believer/skeptic, evidence/not, proof/evidence...and have it be on topic!) Not sure what the biological basis is for it. But it's kind of dangerous; denying cars makes the street a slaughterhouse. Science has shown up this pure uninformed unbelief time and time and time again. When thousands of people are seeing something and finding its tracks, well, what reason could anyone have for thinking that it has to be so elusive that no one sees one? One knows that, for any phenomenon like this, the encounters will far exceed the reports. One only has to think about that for a minute. (Particularly when people know what happens to anyone reporting one.) So LOTS OF PEOPLE are seeing these. I'd want to know why that was, and why despite all the denial, the sightings keep happening. And no, I don't want an anecdote or an assumption. I want PROOF. See, bigfoot skeptics don't just get to sit on the sidelines and toss crap. In science, you have to play. Tossing off an assumption is hitting the "Ignore me" key. Science doesn't play that way. (That scientists seem to think it does highlights that many of them are actually no more than tolerably-accomplished technicians. That know one little fragment of one little corner of one little discipline.) The bigfoot-skeptic thesis - something they don't seem to think they have, and never pause to consider - makes the proponent thesis look like, well, seeing a squirrel. If it isn't a real animal, it is one of the oddest cases of mass psychosis in human history. (Sure. Show me your elf or fairy or unicorn database.) And there are people who don't want to know what's causing it? I would want to study them.
Guest Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 ^^^^ Hope you don't mind but a piece of that wisdom just became my signature. Glad my post is stirring debate!
Recommended Posts