Incorrigible1 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Curious, DWA. Are you skeptical of anything bigfoot? That is, of anything claimed or discussed here upon BFF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 If they claim to be a knower and are just a believer? Then they are a liar. Or fell victim to a hoax or misidentification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Curious, DWA. Are you skeptical of anything bigfoot? That is, of anything claimed or discussed here upon BFF? All of it, and that should be obvious. Problem is, to bigfoot skeptics either you are deluded or you think they aren't real, no in-between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This is the fundamental problem with bigfoot skeptics. They accept a priori that this cannot be real; they preface every sentence for all intents and purposes with "Since this cannot be real..." and they interpret everything through that filter. How could someone who has simply seen something with their own two eyes be a "fanatical" anything? Most witnesses were hardline scoftics. Then they saw one. What is so fanatical about that? If you have seen something - regardless what it is - with your own two eyes, you know you did. This is one of the very few things on this board that everyone verifies through personal experience numerous times per second. Anyone who thinks anything else is presuming you crazy, deluded or impaired. I'd like to see the evidence (that nasty word again!) they used to come to that conclusion. There is no problem. This is an open forum and they.......... skeptics ask for proof. They are not obliged to believe a witnesses story. I only chafe at the notion that a witness is being lumped in with believers. JDL has seen a Sasquatch, where as I have not. I cannot tell Darrell or anyone on this forum that they exist. I can only tell them why I believe they exist. That is a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 ^^^No, there's a problem; and the reason so many - including most scientists - don't understand the problem is because most scientists don't understand how to treat topics like this. See, most scientists - indeed the vast majority of all scientific practice - is repeating, with minor variations, the work of one's predecessors; of taking one thing one knows; combining it with another thing one knows; and coming up with a third thing one now knows. That won't work when all the subject matter is something about which one is in denial, and one cannot get past that denial to deal with the evidence. This is what I mean when I say that bigfoot skeptics start every sentence with an implicit "Since this can't be real...". They can't help it; they don't even know they're doing it. Everything they've learned says that one doesn't even have evidence unless that evidence emanates directly from something proven. This of course isn't the case, as those who have thought about the evidence in this field - like Meldrum, Napier, Bindernagel and Krantz - well understand. There is a problem when one has described something very basic to a bigfoot skeptic a few dozen times and on Time Few Dozen And One, one sees no progress. Oh, there's a problem all right. Ignore is a good way to stop having to deal with it, though. I'm tired of being bothered with people who can't be bothered. I mean, sure, everyone who is saying anything positive on this topic is just wrong. Oh sure. The evidence for that outlandish statement, please...? I have yet to see a scrap. Those who trumpet over and over things for which no evidence exists...well, we have a name for them; and "fanatical" wold be somewhere in the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Dmaker, speaking of evidence, I am refraining from submitting anything more that does not stand up to objective analysis from a skeptic like yourself. If I can produce such evidence that transcends an anecdotal nature, I will be happy to post. You, see I have no vested interest in proving bigfoot true, actually I would be on your side of the fence, happily if it was not for experiences that forced me to my current position, and do not allow me to turn back. I may get ticked off at these enigma's from time to time, as I am currently, but I know that what I heard in July is not explainable without a primate roaming the continent. Yet I feel stupid for suggesting the same, that is our frustration, we might know that what we heard or saw is convincing to us, yet we may never be able to reproduce that experience for some one else to decipher. Yet we press on, maybe Sykes can shed some light on the DNA soon, and this will become a bit clearer, but I am doubtful of any gestalt moment from the scientific community regarding bigfoot. Norseman, are you currently, or have you in the past done any field research regarding Sasquatch, forgive me if I have not read enough to determine this. I think you are in the pro-kill camp, which I do not hold against you. If you are aware of any more good video's like the one you posted of Bindernagel explaining his book, or anything of that nature, please do post, as I have enjoyed those a great deal. I have spent the last two years reading on the subject, so I guess I am a pure novice, which I do not pretend not to be, only that I have thought through matters as well as begun to conduct my own field research, any advice would be helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 ^^^^^^^^ I saw a set of tracks in snow with my father that were quite compelling. I've been on the look out all of my life as a mule packer, hunter and outdoorsman. But I didn't really get serious until a few years back. And yes, I've started a group called "Project Grendel" that is pro kill, trying to become more organized, get some help and spread the word. My goal is the discovery of the species, I don't pack dental resin with me, or pack expensive camera equipment around, nor do I whoop or do any of the things they do on Finding Bigfoot. I feel that the mountain of trace evidence we already have and presented to science has not amounted to a hill of beans, from the perspective of a skeptic. I pack a rifle, think like a hunter and get out as often as possible. Any evidence I find is just a stepping stone to a type specimen....... I understand that it is in and of itself is worthless to most of the world. My advice to you if your more of a conventional researcher and not pro kill? Grow very thick skin. The trace evidence you present in the form of foot casts, pictures, video and audio recordings are going to be met with stiff resistant, and even scoffed at by members of your own clan. If your a pro kill proponent you can check out my "Kill Club" thread in "in the field" section. And grow thicker skin. Skeptics will call you foolish, and fellow proponents will call you a blood thirsty savage........and then to top it off, fellow pro kill proponents may call your methods and tactics into question as dumb and irresponsible. Just remember this, all of the skeptical opinions of nay sayers do not sway nature one iota. It's either out there or its not. If you feel called to go look, and you enjoy it? Then no body has anything to say to you, nor should you feel beholden to answer for your self or your motives. It's a personal quest that each of us must make up our minds about........ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Glad that DWA can set us straight, and keep us from the perils of what most scientists evidently believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Thanks Norseman, I appreciate your approach, and the approach your suggesting, I am currently not capable of killing anything, due to a past as a hunter that vanquished me of that ability, as well as having to answer to a very pro life animal loving wife who has set me on a gentler course. However, that being said, I am rooting for someone with a pair to get the job done, besides myself, and if it is possible to produce the specimen, then by all means do so. I know that this is not my real desire, but I relinquish this to fate and circumstance, and I wish that we could produce conclusive evidence of the species, regardless of the cost. The protection of the rest of the specie then becomes an all important task, as I feel them to be the ultimate wonder of creation, not deserving of our efforts to eliminate them, though we may find them distasteful in that they so resemble us..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Problem is, to bigfoot skeptics either you are deluded or you think they aren't real, no in-between. There's a lot of black and white thinking in all matters from elements of that camp. They won't admit possible things are possible when it appears to "whiten the grey" some for the big fella. Gets annoying trying to separate thoughtful criticism of evidence, from the "definitely a hoax" and ridicule of it from the oft unstated "they're not real, period" viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This is the fundamental problem with bigfoot skeptics. They accept a priori that this cannot be real; they preface every sentence for all intents and purposes with "Since this cannot be real..." and they interpret everything through that filter. How could someone who has simply seen something with their own two eyes be a "fanatical" anything? Most witnesses were hardline scoftics. Then they saw one. What is so fanatical about that? If you have seen something - regardless what it is - with your own two eyes, you know you did. This is one of the very few things on this board that everyone verifies through personal experience numerous times per second. Anyone who thinks anything else is presuming you crazy, deluded or impaired. I'd like to see the evidence (that nasty word again!) they used to come to that conclusion. First of all, bull puckey on the " most witnesses were hardline scoftics". I've seen more reports that show that either the person was simply neutral or was actively engaged with the topic prior to their sighting. Hard line scoftic indeed! And will you please stop vilifying anyone who simply offers an alternative explanation for a sighting that does not involve a Bigfoot? Seriously! You sneak this jab in every chance you get and it is getting very old. Believing someone to be simply mistaken in what they saw is not an insult. People make perception mistakes all the time. It is hardly calling the person " crazy, deluded or impaired". Your agenda shows loud and clear every time you do that, you realize? " Those who trumpet over and over things for which no evidence exists...well, we have a name for them; and "fanatical" wold be somewhere in the definition." - DWA The irony is strong with this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 And will you please stop vilifying anyone who simply offers an alternative explanation for a sighting that does not involve a Bigfoot? Seriously! And will you please stop vilifying anyone who simply offers an alternative explanation for a sighting that does not involve a Bigfoot? Seriously! Anyone got a mirror? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) After looking closely at this evidence/no-evidence false binary equation for a long while, my conclusion is that challenging every person who comes forward to "put-up or shut-up" only accomplishes one result. Namely, the evidence goes underground, and those who shout the loudest for proof get less and less information. It fulfills itself. As harsh as it may be for some here to consider, there is a large group (and getting larger) who have no interest in sharing their information with someone who only wishes to point out how deluded they are. Just a fact. In my line of work I've seen hundreds of cocky lawyers think the way to draw out information in a deposition is to let the witness know how disdainful you are of what they are telling you. Instead, they should be doing everything but that. Flies & honey v. flies & vinegar. You tell me what works best. So, if your interest is in drawing out more evidence, coming on strong with the ol' extraordinary evidence bromide isn't going to advance the field one little bit, or get you that. The transparent attempts to claim even neutrality on this topic fool nobody, I can assure you. Those that operate in this fashion might want to ask themselves, "What am I really trying to accomplish?" If you are more interested in appearing clever to a bunch of anonymous strangers, well, crack down on it. But, if you want to see what other evidence there might be, you might want to reconsider your approach. Edited October 2, 2013 by WSA 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted October 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2013 WSA - Plused ya. What you say should be so obvious that it leads me to wonder if the people employing such approaches are really after evidence or at some subconscious level they're afraid of evidence and out to discredit what they can and suppress the rest. It really is that counter-productive. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 ummm if you really want flies... vinegar actually works better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts