Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[WSA]

Dmaker...how do we know you really saw a dog?

 

See, that was an unnecessary comment on my part. You don't need or want me to say that to you. You don't care if I believe you saw a dog, or not. You know it was a dog. You were there. I was not.  What would be the point of me saying this to you? (Glimmer here, maybe....?)

 

A much better response might be: What else can you tell me about the dog you saw? Then I'll sit on my hands and think about what you told me.

Edited October 2, 2013 by WSA

[Painthorse]

@Dmaker, that's all fine and Dandy, congrats on debunking what you saw. But there are many instances where people including myself have seen one of these things, in clear daylight unobstructed by anything.

 

So, ruling out "misidentifications". My question to you and other skeptics is " Do you label people who claim that they have had clear unobstructed sightings as liars, hoaxers, suffering from cabin fever, hallucinating, on drugs or just looking for attention.

 

Or is there some other label I may have forgotten to add?

[dmaker]

@WSA, I think I understand the point you are trying to make WSA, but it only really hits home if I had of said a unicorn came bounding out of the copse, not a dog.  No one cares to confirm a dog sighting.  

 

 

@Painthorse, I don't know you, so I cannot even begin to guess at your personal credibility.  But let's assume it is rock solid. That would rule out hoaxing/lying. That still leaves a fairly long list of other possibilities. Most of which forum rules prohibit me from suggesting. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I have to do a double take at the smugness of somebody who tells me that oh sure, this is all a crock, it's a combination of let's see lies hoaxes bad weed dengue fever...did I miss something...Jack Daniels Biologists in Cahoots etc....and it's all sounding like each one of them checked in first with all the others...

 

...and then says to me that no, I can toss anything at the wall I want to, without even examining it for Eyebrow Quotient...but you need to show me proof.

 

If thousands of people are seeing something as clearly, and describing it as consistently, as seems to be the case here, I have the base humility level required to say that I may just not know the answer to what's up.  And anyone who demonstrably doesn't care to find out confuses me as to the basis on which I should simply accept what they say and go back to sleep.

[dmaker]

For Pete Sake, how hard do you think it is to be consistent with something as simple as a Bigfoot sighting?  You have the Finding Bigfoot crew on TV every week giving you a guided tour of how to get your Bigfoot sighting on the map! 

 

The consistency is not a serious indicator of anything in my opinion.  

[chelefoot]

And another thing...

If someone comes on here and claims to have proof, then I do expect them to show proof of their claims. But if someone is just sharing an encounter, perhaps because they have no one else they feel comfortable telling, then I am not going to demand proof.

 

It all depends on how they present it, IMO.

[Guest]

alien abductions

[WSA]

Oh right Dmaker, forgot, you always first decide, before asking to know anything else, if the thing being reported is real, or not.  So, you conclusion would always have to be "unreal", right? I mean, if it were outside  of your own personal feed-back loop? Which for me includes quite a bit of things. Lots of stuff I read in books, for instance. And every experience anyone ever related to me about something I'd never seen before. Quite a lot of stuff, now that I think about it.  Even though I found it difficult to accept at first, and which later was proved to be quite true. 

 

(sigh) At this point in our conversations, I typically find myself running into this wall of yours yet again. Done. Again.

[dmaker]

"... it's a combination of let's see lies hoaxes bad weed dengue fever...did I miss something.." DWA

 

Of course you did, you missed a great deal of things actually. But you know this, you do this daily. Your short list is another example of your ongoing campaign to vilify anyone who disagrees with you. You, of course, forgot to mention pareidolia, apophenia, sub-clinical pathologies such as ADHD, non intoxicant induced hallucinations, the general fallibility of human memory, etc.     Yes, you tend to forget the clinical explanations and head straight to the skeptics are mean bullies and here are some derogatory things they like to say about all you nice, honest folk.  

[WSA]

Chelefoot...I get your point, and I agree, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone show up here and say, "Here. Done." Some evidence advanced is naturally more compelling than other evidence, but.

[dmaker]

" Even though I found it difficult to accept at first, and which later was proved to be quite true. "  WSA

 

(My bold)  Hey, if Bigfoot is ever proven to be true, I will happily admit the error of my ways in doubting the ape-man's existence. 

[Painthorse]

1. 1.

   speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.

   "he has been vilified in the press"

   synonyms: disparage, denigrate, defame, run down, revile, abuse, speak ill of, criticize, condemn, denounce; More

   malign, slander, libel, slur;

   informaltear apart/into, lay into, slam, badmouth, dis, talk smack, crucify;

   formalderogate, calumniate

   "the press has eagerly vilified Smith and her attorneys"

   antonyms: commend

@Dmaker, I find it amusing that you used the term "vilify" in your post to DWA. If you read back to some of your own posts, may I say that fits in with "the pot calling the kettle black".

 

There is such a thing as common courtesy, I don't care if it's in person or on an internet forum, how you present yourself to others is how your more than likely going to be reacted to.

 

There is no way to prove a sighting unless someone carries a camera 24/7 and that probably would not be good enough anyway for many. So why can't there be discussions on this subject without the "derailings demanding proof?". Digs, barbs and the sarcasm that always seems to be there when someone recounts what they witnessed. There's nothing wrong with asking questions but it all comes down to how the questions are asked. If the answers are not acceptable to your beliefs what's wrong in saying just you don't believe instead of throwing in sarcasm. "Period".

[kbhunter]

OK ALL, I had to look back at the topic title, then go back and read the OP's 1st post. We are OFF topic concerning his comment for discussion. For the sake of this thread, the comments should be directed towards discussions regarding Urban Bigfoot instead of personal battles of who believes who and the who's right and who's wrong debate.

Thank you!

KB

[Guest]

WSA and Chelefoot - I have seen people here claim to have proof.  When asked for it, they decline.  Now whether those people are confusing evidence and proof - that is beyond me, because they provided nothing.  And those people are still around posting in this very thread. 

 

I think, to me, what it comes down to is there are 4 types of folks.  We are all here because we have in interest in this phenomenon, for varying reasons.  I'm going to use names to demonstrate, not to call people out.  I respect each of these folks for different reasons, but this is only to give examples to my thoughts.  If mods don't like this, then please delete my post....

 

1)  Those who have had an experience - saw one up close and personal.  JDL comes to mind.  And no offense to them, but to me that means their perception of that event led them to know.  Many of these people have expressed specifically that they don't care if it's proven or not.

 

2)  Those who say the evidence is enough.  Chelefoot and DWA (even though he claims to be skeptical) fit here, in my mind.  No personal encounter, but the evidence, whatever it is, has led them to believe. 

 

3)  Those who believe they do not exist.  dmaker is one.  He can write off evidence as this and/or that.  Non-existence is his belief.

 

4)  Those on the fence, such as myself.  We want to believe, but we haven't been "lucky" enough to have an encounter.  Some evidence is hard to write off, other evidence can be tossed out with the trash.  So we try to purge through what we have available to us.  When we do that, we are lumped with the scoftics or they try to ride us out of town for asking further questions about it.  I'm here because I want to learn more, must I ask every question with a pretty-please? 

 

In the ever ensuing debate between 2 vs 3 from above, and the expressed non-interest in discovery by 1, the 4s get left in the cross fire and left in the dark.  Thank you to the 1s who in the past have shared your experiences with me, I'm sorry if I have offended any of you with my questions.

[Guest DWA]

it's useful to know what skeptical means (which is the sense in which I use it).

 

It means that one never assumes, and always requires evidence in support of a position.

 

I got where I got on this because proponents have put forward copious and consistent evidence supporting their position...and bigfoot skeptics (which I tend to say to highlight that their brand of 'skepticism' isn't, in fact, skepticism but belief) have shown me nothing to make me believe that their position holds water. 

 

I have examined what would have to be true for bigfoot skeptics to be right.  And it is so much wackier a world than the one in which the animal simply exists that  I go with ...well, what the evidence tells me.

 

Like Grover Krantz, I don't 'believe.'  I have examined evidence which leads me to conclude.