Skeptics

[Guest]

I'm a skeptic in the classical sense (David Hume).  If you cannot demonstrate or show me then it may or may not exist, but with out proof I cannot say that it exists.  Science is based on observation.  Observations are dependent on the human senses so science is a bit flawed.  If you are making extraordinary claims then you need to come up with some way of showing them to other people.  If not then it is just a belief.

[Guest LarryP]

 Observations are dependent on the human senses so science is a bit flawed. 

 

Science is far more than a "bit flawed".

 

Especially if the person making the observations is laboring under the false premise that we only have 5 senses to depend on.

Edited November 25, 2013 by LarryP

[Guest Llawgoch]

STINGY????? I've posted almost every bit of evidence I have on here in the last three years except a couple of videos & some pictures that nobody would understand anyway. Almost nobody understood most of what I did post, just people that had their own & knew what they were seeing. And the skeptics had their fun mocking & insinuating that I'm either more or less insane or outright lying. I put some good recorded vocals on Soundcloud for anybody that's interested. Skeptics listen to them, call them "nothing but coyotes" or whatever & go on to demand something else. Knowers say "Yep. That sounds like what's going on around my place". I put a pretty decent picture of what looks like a BF on the Habituator thread, & the silence from the skeptics was deafening. I guess their theory is "If you can't say something bad, just don't say anything."

 

I can't provide proof of everything I've seen because I didn't GET proof. There aren't cameras behind my eyeballs, & I can't carry one around, ready to take a picture on a second's notice. Do you think they just stand around out there in the daylight, waiting for their picture to be taken? Everything I've said is already true, & I have no desire to be a hero or see anybody eat crow.

 

Those of us who have encountered these beings & come here to share what has happened to us are met with disbelief & ridicule by the skeptics, who are apparently in a constant contest to see who can be the first to dehoax & disgrace a new "experiencer" & send them packing.

 

Maybe some of us do act as bad as the most rabid skeptic. We have had excellent teachers.

 

 

The photo you posted, if it is the photo I am thinking of, wasn't even open to debate, which is why the silence.  it was a distant blob that could have been anything and there was no point in arguing about it because there was no way of telling.  Now, I'm not saying it was or wasn't Bigfoot.  I am however saying it wasn't evidence of anything, which is also fine.

 

I am not sure why people think you claim you have better evidence you will not post.  Unless you have said this in the past I think they may be confusing you with other people who have said this.

I find it funny that we can dedicate a thread to psychoanalyzing the skeptic, but once we dissect believers it's suddenly accusations and required proof.

 

You asked the "hard question" and I gave you a hard answer you probably didn't want to hear. It's not a claim it's only a possibility, and as I said just my own suspicion based on what I've seen.

 

 

 

it's become standard on this forum  to offer a theory with no proof at all and then sit back and claim that any alternative explanations need to be 'proved'  or you have to accept the first proffered explanation without dispute or doubt.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest Llawgoch]

I think there should be sections of the forum that do not allow discussions about the existence or lack there of, of Sasquatch.

Simply because someone is wanting to discuss food sources or vocalizations or whatever and the discussion quickly devolves into a argument about the existence of the creature. It's unfair to the posters in the thread looking for a meaningful discussion.

But there should also be sections of the forum where it is allowed as well......

 

Despite being convinced of the non existence of Bigfoot, I have to agree.  It avails nothing simply to say that Bigfoot doesn't exist at every turn.  I am perfectly happy in people who choose to accept the existence of Bigfoot based on whatever they feel has convinced them.  My annoyance tends to be at those who tell me I have to accept something simply because they have chosen to when the alternative explanations make much more sense to me.  

 

My contention is strongly that on the available evidence, anyone who does not have access to non publicly available information (that is, who has not seen or experienced something personally that t hey have no corroboration of and thus cannot share publicly) should not believe Bigfoot exists.  I'll argue that until the cows come home, because it is the correct position.  If someone tells me they have experienced things I haven't, I can't really have a conversation, either I believe them or I don't, and that's a fruitless argument.  

 

It's complicated though by the fact that it is a mistake to believe there are two sides, skeptics and believers.  You for example allow for the existence of Bigfoot, but do not allow for the fact that Bigfoot is somehow supernatural (unless I mistake your position).  If in the separate section there is a thread about mind talking with Bigfoots, should you as a 'Believer' (or at least open on the subject) be allowed to say you don't think that happens?  Should I, as a skeptic?  Can anyone claim any crazy thing without being contradicted? Which Bigfoot of the many different Bigfoots that the believers believe in or knowers know of do I have to accept to get into that section?

[Guest DWA]

Despite being convinced of the non existence of Bigfoot, I have to agree.  It avails nothing simply to say that Bigfoot doesn't exist at every turn.  I am perfectly happy in people who choose to accept the existence of Bigfoot based on whatever they feel has convinced them.  My annoyance tends to be at those who tell me I have to accept something simply because they have chosen to when the alternative explanations make much more sense to me.  

 

I'm not really sure who's doing that here.  Where the evidence points is a matter of fact.  It may (conceivably, but not very likely) turn out that an unlisted animal is not actually what the evidence points to, in the same way that the guy who is the killer based on misinformed eyewitnesses is exonerated by DNA evidence.  But it points that way.  My annoyance tends to be with people who don't think that the evidence points that way, when they can't support their contention; when my read of publicly available information says it does; and when the only scientifically-relevant people who have shown me their work agree with me. 

 

I definitely agree that people who jump onto threads that are not about that to say "this ain't real" are talking out of turn.  There should be places on the forum to discuss existence, and places on the forum where people who agree with what the evidence seems to represent should be able to discuss search protocols without getting catcalls from the uninformed.

 

My contention is strongly that on the available evidence, anyone who does not have access to non publicly available information (that is, who has not seen or experienced something personally that t hey have no corroboration of and thus cannot share publicly) should not believe Bigfoot exists.  I'll argue that until the cows come home, because it is the correct position.  If someone tells me they have experienced things I haven't, I can't really have a conversation, either I believe them or I don't, and that's a fruitless argument.  

 

As I noted, the information pointing to the existence of the animal is, all of it that counts, publicly available.  And again, it's a matter of fact, not conjecture.  Anyone who thinks it's conjecture hasn't put in the time reviewing it, or thinking about it, two things that must be done to enter a salient point in a scientific discussion.  Pleading that one doesn't have to do that is, well, admitting the lack and undercutting any points one attempts to make.  I've gone into what makes it compelling times too many to count here, and I am disinclined to do it yet again.

 

It's complicated though by the fact that it is a mistake to believe there are two sides, skeptics and believers.  You for example allow for the existence of Bigfoot, but do not allow for the fact that Bigfoot is somehow supernatural (unless I mistake your position).  If in the separate section there is a thread about mind talking with Bigfoots, should you as a 'Believer' (or at least open on the subject) be allowed to say you don't think that happens?  Should I, as a skeptic?  Can anyone claim any crazy thing without being contradicted? Which Bigfoot of the many different Bigfoots that the believers believe in or knowers know of do I have to accept to get into that section?

 

Well, I don't think anyone should be stating conclusions of any kind about something that isn't proven (except that the evidence points to an animal science hasn't catalogued yet).  Observations aren't taxonomy.  What this critter is, or can do, will not even begin to be addressed until we confirm the animal to which the evidence clearly points.

Edited November 25, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

" My annoyance tends to be with people who don't think that the evidence points that way, "

 

This is why threads that you are in often end up with moderator statements or temporary locks. You refuse to acknowledge any opinion that differs from yours. People can examine the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. Yet you do not allow for this. In your mind there is only one conclusion.  Just because you find the evidence compelling does not mean that someone else will. And your dismissal of those people as incapable of proper thought or reading comprehension because they did not arrive at your conclusion leads to a lot of angst around here imo.

[Guest DWA]

No, actually, that's not what I do; and that is what the OP is posting about.

 

The constant injection of "this ain't real" into conversations people are trying to have is what puts those locks on.

Edited November 25, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

it's become standard on this forum  to offer a theory with no proof at all and then sit back and claim that any alternative explanations need to be 'proved'  or you have to accept the first proffered explanation without dispute or doubt.

 

That is true on both sides of the fence I've noticed. As long as one can recognize it and file it appropriately, one can still gain information and perspective.

[Guest LarryP]

Llawgoch, it's important to understand that based on experience one persons "supernatural", "paranormal" or "extraordinary" is another persons natural, normal, and ordinary.

 

That's not to say that initially the experiences were considered normal. But once you reach a certain point in the experiential learning curve, what at first was extraordinary, eventually becomes ordinary. 

 

Extraordinary phenomena can exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

 

Which is why I give no credence to the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

Despite being convinced of the non existence of Bigfoot, I have to agree.  It avails nothing simply to say that Bigfoot doesn't exist at every turn.  I am perfectly happy in people who choose to accept the existence of Bigfoot based on whatever they feel has convinced them.  My annoyance tends to be at those who tell me I have to accept something simply because they have chosen to when the alternative explanations make much more sense to me.  

 

I'm not really sure who's doing that here.  Where the evidence points is a matter of fact.  It may (conceivably, but not very likely) turn out that an unlisted animal is not actually what the evidence points to, in the same way that the guy who is the killer based on misinformed eyewitnesses is exonerated by DNA evidence.  But it points that way.  My annoyance tends to be with people who don't think that the evidence points that way, when they can't support their contention; when my read of publicly available information says it does; and when the only scientifically-relevant people who have shown me their work agree with me. 

 

I definitely agree that people who jump onto threads that are not about that to say "this ain't real" are talking out of turn.  There should be places on the forum to discuss existence, and places on the forum where people who agree with what the evidence seems to represent should be able to discuss search protocols without getting catcalls from the uninformed.

 

My contention is strongly that on the available evidence, anyone who does not have access to non publicly available information (that is, who has not seen or experienced something personally that t hey have no corroboration of and thus cannot share publicly) should not believe Bigfoot exists.  I'll argue that until the cows come home, because it is the correct position.  If someone tells me they have experienced things I haven't, I can't really have a conversation, either I believe them or I don't, and that's a fruitless argument.  

 

As I noted, the information pointing to the existence of the animal is, all of it that counts, publicly available.  And again, it's a matter of fact, not conjecture.  Anyone who thinks it's conjecture hasn't put in the time reviewing it, or thinking about it, two things that must be done to enter a salient point in a scientific discussion.  Pleading that one doesn't have to do that is, well, admitting the lack and undercutting any points one attempts to make.  I've gone into what makes it compelling times too many to count here, and I am disinclined to do it yet again.

 

It's complicated though by the fact that it is a mistake to believe there are two sides, skeptics and believers.  You for example allow for the existence of Bigfoot, but do not allow for the fact that Bigfoot is somehow supernatural (unless I mistake your position).  If in the separate section there is a thread about mind talking with Bigfoots, should you as a 'Believer' (or at least open on the subject) be allowed to say you don't think that happens?  Should I, as a skeptic?  Can anyone claim any crazy thing without being contradicted? Which Bigfoot of the many different Bigfoots that the believers believe in or knowers know of do I have to accept to get into that section?

 

Well, I don't think anyone should be stating conclusions of any kind about something that isn't proven (except that the evidence points to an animal science hasn't catalogued yet).  Observations aren't taxonomy.  What this critter is, or can do, will not even begin to be addressed until we confirm the animal to which the evidence clearly points.

 

 

 

And, this is the whole problem.  No matter how many times people tell you they disagree with you, you think the evidence points to an undiscovered animal so everyone else has to too.  I have no issue with you thinking that.  but you can't tell everyone else they have to think it and expect them not to argue with you.

 

And don't give me the "haven't looked into it enough" thing.  It doesn't warrant looking into, in my opinion, and in the opinion of 99% of scientists, because mistake and fabrication can explain all the sighting reports. I do not have to 'prove' that as I am saying it CAN be true, not it IS true..  That's why scientists who don't believe it warrants looking into don't spend as much time looking into it as those that do.  Kind of self-fulfilling.  if you can't see the flaws in logic in your assumptions here by now, you're never going to be able to.

 

I do not wish to have this conversation with you again though so I shall not respond to you any more.  I know what you think, and was not addressing this to you as I am really uninterested in hearing your opinions reiterated for the thousandth time.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Llawgoch

[norseman]

Despite being convinced of the non existence of Bigfoot, I have to agree. It avails nothing simply to say that Bigfoot doesn't exist at every turn. I am perfectly happy in people who choose to accept the existence of Bigfoot based on whatever they feel has convinced them. My annoyance tends to be at those who tell me I have to accept something simply because they have chosen to when the alternative explanations make much more sense to me.

My contention is strongly that on the available evidence, anyone who does not have access to non publicly available information (that is, who has not seen or experienced something personally that t hey have no corroboration of and thus cannot share publicly) should not believe Bigfoot exists. I'll argue that until the cows come home, because it is the correct position. If someone tells me they have experienced things I haven't, I can't really have a conversation, either I believe them or I don't, and that's a fruitless argument.

It's complicated though by the fact that it is a mistake to believe there are two sides, skeptics and believers. You for example allow for the existence of Bigfoot, but do not allow for the fact that Bigfoot is somehow supernatural (unless I mistake your position). If in the separate section there is a thread about mind talking with Bigfoots, should you as a 'Believer' (or at least open on the subject) be allowed to say you don't think that happens? Should I, as a skeptic? Can anyone claim any crazy thing without being contradicted? Which Bigfoot of the many different Bigfoots that the believers believe in or knowers know of do I have to accept to get into that section?

At this point I see the whole existence argument as the most distracting. Obviously there will be other debates as well, but hopefully those will follow more on topic as opposed to each thread no matter what the topic becomes a existence debate.

[Guest DWA]

And, this is the whole problem.  No matter how many times people tell you they disagree with you, you think the evidence points to an undiscovered animal so everyone else has to too.  I have no issue with you thinking that.  but you can't tell everyone else they have to think it and expect them not to argue with you.

 

And don't give me the "haven't looked into it enough" thing.  It doesn't warrant looking into, in my opinion, and in the opinion of 99% of scientists, because mistake and fabrication can explain all the sighting reports. I do not have to 'prove' that as I am saying it CAN be true, not it IS true..  That's why scientists who don't believe it warrants looking into don't spend as much time looking into it as those that do.  Kind of self-fulfilling.  if you can't see the flaws in logic in your assumptions here by now, you're never going to be able to.

And once again with the "It doesn't warrant looking into, in my opinion (hhhhmmmmmm...and your credentials, please...??), and in the opinion of 99% of scientists, because mistake and fabrication can explain all the sighting reports."

 

I can't help it if you are technically disqualifying yourself from the discussion and discrediting relevant experts who disagree with you.  This is precisely what the OP is talking about; thanks for the illustration!

 

A clearly uninformed "consensus" on anything simply does not interest me.  Intellectualy (demonstrably) vacant; toss.

 

While we are on "flaws in logic in your assumptions":

 

You have to prove that mistake and fabrication explain all the sighting reports; or you have to wait while serious people figure this out.

Edited November 25, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

Extraordinary phenomena can exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

 

 

 

I came across gage block wringing.  'They' still do not know exactly how it's done, just that it happens.  'They' have factors they feel contribute, but no exact mechanism has been identified.

 

In this case, we have what some would call 'extraordinary phenomena' without the 'extraordinary evidence'.

[Guest Darrell]

The skeptic, the enemy of all things unsubstantiated. Politics, religion, consumer poducts, miracle cures, bigfoot. Any and all belief systems. Un-Rational thought. Un-Common sense. The skeptic. 

[Sasfooty]

The photo you posted, if it is the photo I am thinking of, wasn't even open to debate, which is why the silence. it was a distant blob that could have been anything and there was no point in arguing about it because there was no way of telling. Now, I'm not saying it was or wasn't Bigfoot. I am however saying it wasn't evidence of anything, which is also fine.

And there you have the answer to why we don't post more of our pictures here. It's as good as any blobsquatch I've ever seen. Very little foliage in front of it, squinted eyes clearly visible in the enlargement, big, muscular arm & shoulder in clear view....

Why certain people either can't or refuse to see what's there is beyond my understanding. There are still people who claim Painthorse's baby BF (which is not a blobsquatch, btw) is a guinea hen.

What possible reason could we have to continue to try to help this kind of people? They are obviously beyond our help.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Sasfooty