Skeptics

[See-Te-Cah NC]

^Are you posting as a Moderator? Because if you are you are actually using your position as a moderator to limit rebuttle by those being attacked in this thread. How is it a thread can be started blasting skeptics for not being reasonable or for being denialists and use preposterous and crazy claims and we cant call the kook a kook?

 

 

Yes, Darrell - I was posting as a moderator. That would be why there's a red, underlined "Moderator Statement" above my comments.

 

I have read the initial post in this topic. In no way did I find it to be in any violation of our rules. In fact, it was pretty well worded. In the event that I might have missed something, feel free to PM me and advise me of my error.

 

All the member did was post his opinion concerning skeptics and varying degrees of skepticism. Is that blasting skeptics for not being reasonable?

 

You evidently feel the need to get personal with others. I'm afraid that works from both ends of the spectrum, but since you saw a need to call me out for my post, I'm addressing your particular quandary.

 

You have read the rules by now, I'd think. In those rules, you've got a pretty straightforward statement about what's allowed here and what isn't. You agreed to those rules, as did everyone on here, skeptic, denialist, proponent, habber, and non-believer alike. Therefore, I can only assume that you feel that the rules are wrong. Since this may or may not be the case, perhaps you feel the need to be able to post according to your rules. Personally, I'm all for you being able to express yourself in any manner you see fit, but it's not up to me. I enforce the rules in question. I didn't make them, nor do I agree with all of them. In fact, I don't.

 

If you'll notice in my Mod Statement, I addressed both sides of the subject, proponents and the skeptical alike. For some reason, you seem to think I was attempting to limit your ability to "call the kook a kook." While it's true that I was attempting to quell the back and forth name calling in the thread(s), it was nothing personally directed at you. You obviously feel that I was picking on skeptics. If this is the case, perhaps you should dust off our rules and guidelines and report my actions to the Director of the BFF.

 

With that said, let's discuss being "insulted." Funny, but the skeptical appear to have no issue whatsoever insulting people that claim to have had sightings, those that have supposedly habituated with the creature, and any and every other proponent angle. When they fail to present evidence, or the evidence they do provide is deemed as inadequate, they're "kooks, crazy, drunks, uneducated," and any other claim you may care to put out there. You seem to believe that since they cannot substantiate their claims that allows you to belittle them. Well, it doesn't.

 

I know it's a dangerous position to take, but I make the assumption that everyone on this forum is fairly intelligent, of a fairly sound mind and has a genuine concern for following the forum rules. Apparently, some of our members don't meet at least one of the assumptions I've made. The only assumption I'm actually concerned with is that they follow the rules. It's no skin off of my nose if they're not intelligent enough to state that they disagree or don't believe the claims others make according to the rules, nor do I personally care if they're of a fairly sound mind. All I care about is posting according to the rules. Personally, I don't care if someone makes a claim that Bigfoot is an alien from Jupiter with a red balloon up their rear, nor do I care who thinks they're a kook.

 

You are perfectly free to state that you disagree or that you don't believe the claims of others. But, you must be smart enough to do so according to the rules. Others do it, and I'll bet that you and others can, too. You've got to be smarter than the keys on your keyboard. I know that you are, which is why I find it so baffling as to why you'd feel the need to call others names, which is getting personal, which is against the rules.

 

With that said, you choose to be here, but you don't get to choose to post as you wish. Oh, you can, but remember the rules? That's what will potentially bite you and others that choose to post outside of them.

 

If you can't debate and discuss with others without being condescending or insulting, that's not my problem or the forum's problem, it's your problem.

[Terry]

This much I can tell you with absolute certainty, Terry.

 

When they want you to see them, they're impossible to miss.

 

I'll keep my eyes open Larry.  All the best!

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

I did want to note this, from the Forum rules:

 

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

The OP makes it plain that he encounters that a lot here.  So do I.  It kills intelligent discussion.

[Guest Darrell]

See Ta Cah NC, I do not see in any of my posts in this thread that I have attacked any member. I have called a conclusion that only certain people can see bigfoot kooky.

[MarkGlasgow]

Good point well made DWA.

The skeptic has their place but the 'got monkey' and 'doesn't exist' stuff gets old very quickly and offers little to the debate.

I find myself siding with the skeptics on many BF topics as I'm sure many 'footers' do. However I find much of the skeptical input moot as proponents of the subject on this forum at least tend to question and query sightings, footage, claims etc as much as any non believer.

The bulk of us are here because we are either open to the possible existence of Sasquatch or been lucky enough to have encountered one. There is little the skeptic can do to educate us in this respect, but bless them they don't give up easily...

[dmaker]

I did want to note this, from the Forum rules:

 

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

The OP makes it plain that he encounters that a lot here.  So do I.  It kills intelligent discussion.

By intelligent discussion you must mean any discussion that does not challenge the evidence or your opinion on the evidence? I have had many intelligent discussions on this board. Despite the fact that my position on Bigfoot is one of non-belief. 

Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Nope. You are tripping into the bigfooters reality now. Not every person that gets eaten, missing, or killed in the woods is the work of bigfoot, if they exist. We have wolves, mountain lion, and bears all over the woods and they do thier part in reducing the human population, yet we still have tems of millions of people camping and hiking all over. I think the biggest rift will be right here, in the bigfoot shire. All those people who claim the paranormal experiences, the habituation stuff, seeing bigfoot all over the US, will probably be shown to be frauds or just crazy. They you all will drift right back into your in fighting and fueds. Of course science will study them and document their behaviour, which will counter most of the claims of what everybody thinks they know now. Then you all will accuse science and the govt for covering up the real truth about them. Kinda just like it is now.  All the while people will still go to work, watch sports, make babies, buy cars, commit crimes, start wars, Society and religion will trod forth and life goes on.  

 

 

^So now you need to have some sort of special ability to see bigfoot in photos? Does that seem even remotely rational to anyone? claims like that resemble a wood Barvian clock with a bird that pops out.

 

 

^Are you posting as a Moderator? Because if you are you are actually using your position as a moderator to limit rebuttle by those being attacked in this thread. How is it a thread can be started blasting skeptics for not being reasonable or for being denialists and use preposterous and crazy claims and we cant call the kook a kook?

 

 

*Emphasis mine.

 

See Ta Cah NC, I do not see in any of my posts in this thread that I have attacked any member. I have called a conclusion that only certain people can see bigfoot kooky.

[Terry]

Well, in my view it's all good. I admire the admin who have to keep us in line, the skeptics who refuse to admit that we should all fall for the goofy stuff and for sure, the folks who insist that what they experience is the real deal. It appears to me that all are good folks and if we don't agree, well that's life. I for one appreciate this forum and the people who are brave enough to post. Good for you and I look forward to all you have to say in the future.

 

That being said, if you're a person who thinks we're gonna fall for your claims that your own friends won't even believe, give us a break..

Terry

edited to add a comma :-)

Edited November 27, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
GG 1-4; Rules 1 A, 2 A

[Guest]

I'm sure it gets frustrating, as a believer, constantly hearing (or reading in this case) the skeptical view.  It is equally as frustrating being a skeptic who seeks to find the truth by:

• Asking questions
• Offering ideas for evidence gathering
• Offering ideas for testing evidence
• etc

to the believers/habs/knowers/etc, yet these ideas either fall on deaf ears.  Very few people, in a position to, seem interested in obtaining physical evidence (see responses from the habs in this thread).  We need to do things other that whoop/tree knock and supply blobsquatches and recordings - that is not going to cut it.

[Terry]

If I saw a for sure, no question, couldn't be anything else but a bf, I would shout it to the world.  I wouldn't care about the skeptics and I would understand completely their skepticism.  My mission would be to have them believe me and if they didn't I would understand and move on to the people who would.  Saying you walk among bf and their children, giving them names and then say you're not going to post any more because people don't believe you is an old ploy among the folks who think we're stupid.  These folks have been feeding us the same lines for years and they will continue to come out of the woodwork unfortunately.  We've seen it here lately and we'll see it again.  Man up and  convince the skeptics that what you're saying is the real deal no matter what the response is.  Stop acting like oh woe is me, no one believes me.  I'm tired of people who think everyone will believe their outlandish claims and then take their ball and go home when we question or take them to task.  If you want me to believe bf animals cloak, are from another dimension, disappear, speak a language, send you mind messages, have orbs as pets, only appear to some folks and not others, wave hello and say they'll help chase your escaped bull home...discuss it in a respectful way with the skeptics and not just the folks who believe every word you post.  That being said, I love you all.

 

Terry    

Edited November 27, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
GG 1 - 4; Rule 1 A

[Guest DWA]

I'm sure it gets frustrating, as a believer, constantly hearing (or reading in this case) the skeptical view.  It is equally as frustrating being a skeptic who seeks to find the truth by:

• Asking questions
• Offering ideas for evidence gathering
• Offering ideas for testing evidence
• etc

to the believers/habs/knowers/etc, yet these ideas either fall on deaf ears.  Very few people, in a position to, seem interested in obtaining physical evidence (see responses from the habs in this thread).  We need to do things other that whoop/tree knock and supply blobsquatches and recordings - that is not going to cut it.

 

Well, I don't know.  A lot of us seem to negotiate this terrain with great ease.

 

The reason:  we know that "proof on my schedule NOW" is a patent non-starter, and that, this being a "Bigfoot House," as the forum rules explicitly state, it provides a place for all kinds of discussions to go on absent the "nuh-uh nuh-uh" that gets no one anywhere.

 

I don't ask habituators to give me "proof on my schedule NOW" as that is not what they are here to do.  Sorry to say this, gang, but if bigfoot's real then it's a fact that multiple habituation scenarios are going on.  We have habituated dang near everything else; there is no reason anyone will be able to provide me and back it up that these animals should be the exception.  If that sticks in people's craw, I can't help that.  If people are frustrated that others know and they don't - and I honestly think this drives a lot of the attitude - then, well, I'm certainly not frustrated, and I'd advise that a close working relationship with evidence and how to parse it helps big time with this, and you shouldn't be either.  Knowledge comes to those ready for it ("When the student is ready, the teacher arrives"), and if you aren't ready, well, you aren't.  I don't get involved in the habituation discussions except as opportunities for my own peculiar insight become available; "proof on my schedule NOW" isn't why I'm here.  It's to learn from, and teach, other people how to think about topics like this.  (Trust me; most people, with emphasis most scientists, are clueless how to think about topics like this.)  And "proof on my schedule NOW" ain't the way.  If people are not here to provide proof; do not consider the hecklers up to the heavy lifting; and are not interested themselves in providing proof but in simply conversing with the like-minded:  This is a "Bigfoot House," as the forum rules explicitly state, and what is the hard thing about simply leaving them alone!  It is easy.  Gotta say, I would have not the slightest interest in giving a heckler what he wanted from me:  and "proof on my schedule NOW" is simply heckling.

 

 

This is a "Bigfoot House," as the forum rules explicitly state, but it is a rare thread - I can come up with ONE - on which I see the fixed, immovable attitude of the scoffer called out as what it is, an impediment to intellectual exchange.  The fixed, immovable attitude is overly present here; and it, not the habituators, is clogging the plumbing.  Bipto and Derek Randles are very clearly up to here with trying to engage in cutting-edge "open science" and getting the usual nuh-uh nuh-uh from the unsophisticated who do not understand what "open science" means.  Bipto has openly discussed just stopping posting; that alone would take the right ventricle right out of these forums.  What is frustrating is the threat to the actual intellectual inlets here from people who just don't want to engage the thinker in any ways but those the cynical world has taught.  (Ways which have virtually strangled mainstream science, particularly in biology.)

 

You create the forum you want here.  I like what I see.  (With exceptions noted.)  If you don't...you're doing it wrong.  Just my two cents.

By intelligent discussion you must mean any discussion that does not challenge the evidence or your opinion on the evidence? I have had many intelligent discussions on this board. Despite the fact that my position on Bigfoot is one of non-belief. 

And that's the point:  evidence-free naysaying does not challenge either the evidence or my opinion.  A challenge would be greatly appreciated.

[Incorrigible1]

If I'd captured a "blobsquatch" image, I'd not whine that others can't make out the bigfoot captured within, but rather double down on my personal efforts to improve the image captured.

 

I'd not blame those failing to see the supposed subject in the marginal proffered image, but would attempt to improve the images captured. But that's me, sorry if my personal standards don't meet with yours.

[Guest]

You quoted me, and then put in quotes, five times, the words "proof on my schedule NOW."  Please point out to me once where I said that, in ANY of my posts.  I stated, if you were to really read it, that I have asked clarifying questions, offered different ideas on gathering evidence and offered to vet the evidence that exists.  Isn't that what we should ALL be doing?  Yet when I do those three things, it all falls on deaf ears - yours included.  I'm not saying my ideas are perfect, even good or even all that well thought out - but I bring ideas to the table.  Is that the wrong thing to do on this forum?  Should I not do that?  If this forum does not want to members to ask clarifying questions, offer new ideas on gathering evidence or test the evidence that we do have - then perhaps this is the wrong place for me.  Feel free to pat yourself on your collective backs and make no progress. 

[Terry]

If I'd captured a "blobsquatch" image, I'd not whine that others can't make out the bigfoot captured within, but rather double down on my personal efforts to improve the image captured.

 

I'd not blame those failing to see the supposed subject in the marginal proffered image, but would attempt to improve the images captured. But that's me, sorry if my personal standards don't meet with yours.

 

Yep, me too.  We seem to be a minority though Incorrigible.

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

You quoted me, and then put in quotes, five times, the words "proof on my schedule NOW."  Please point out to me once where I said that, in ANY of my posts.  I stated, if you were to really read it, that I have asked clarifying questions, offered different ideas on gathering evidence and offered to vet the evidence that exists.  Isn't that what we should ALL be doing?  Yet when I do those three things, it all falls on deaf ears - yours included.  I'm not saying my ideas are perfect, even good or even all that well thought out - but I bring ideas to the table.  Is that the wrong thing to do on this forum?  Should I not do that?  If this forum does not want to members to ask clarifying questions, offer new ideas on gathering evidence or test the evidence that we do have - then perhaps this is the wrong place for me.  Feel free to pat yourself on your collective backs and make no progress. 

All I am saying is that continually asking proof of people disinclined to provide it is a dry hole.  They don't sound like they came here to engage folks who want them to substantiate that, buddy!!!!!  They are allowed that and I generally don't participate in their discussions, except when an opportunity comes to contribute from my angle.  I go where I think the gold lies:  with the people going for proof.  The habituators generally just want to talk to other habituators, and that is their right in a - once again, the BFF rules explicitly say it - Bigfoot house.

 

I think it silly to just grind on habituators.  When I see it directed at people like bipto and Randles is what makes my blood boil.   That is killing progress.  Again, I seem to be doing fine here.  Show one example of what you are doing falling on deaf ears.  Just one.  And let's talk about it.

If I'd captured a "blobsquatch" image, I'd not whine that others can't make out the bigfoot captured within, but rather double down on my personal efforts to improve the image captured.

 

I'd not blame those failing to see the supposed subject in the marginal proffered image, but would attempt to improve the images captured. But that's me, sorry if my personal standards don't meet with yours.

Um, I just walk away from blobsquatches.  That easy, that quick.