sheri Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Good research jerrywayne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I will be happy when I find a dead BF, retrieve his head, arm with hand, calf with foot, and private parts, and sell them to a Japanese buyer for 3 million dollars. Only THEN will I truly believe, and NO, I won't be posting the pictures. 3 million cashola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 And that's what 4. sounds like. Kudos, amigo. I just want the explanation, whatever it is. You have your leaning and I mine. But the answer's what we both want; and you take a lot of time laying out what you think here. Props for that. You forgot/deliberately omitted a category. The informed skeptic: The one who also has read all the relevant monographs. And by relevant I do not include things like the 411 books, or the crypto anthologies. I mean the monographs by the leading academics. And I only include the monographs because there are actually no peer reviewed papers dealing with the existence of sasquatch ( surprising, I know) So monographs are what we are left with. Monographs do not have to pass peer review, so you can say basically anything you want. The one who has also read quite a few bigfoot witness reports, but also correctly puts this entire body of evidence into the " nice story, but what do you have to back it up" category. I like fan fiction just as much as the next guy, I just don't call it a "body of evidence" and pretend that it indicates anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) I have to say yes, "there is an informed skeptic" category. There are people that are not convinced, and who have done a good deal of reading on the topic. Most don't want to engage on a point-by-point analysis of the evidence because they deem it illegitimate in the first place. I mean, why would they want to do that if they view it that way? They wouldn't. What I agree with is....if you find yourself there...keeping the fire lit and keeping on the lookout for patterns, threads and common outcomes that smell like evidence that may sway. But, I don't agree with their present conclusions, no. The purpose for starting this thread though was to really explore what the pay-off would be for people in this category, according to them. What is getting them up early in the morning, and staying up late at night to post here? I see a lot of energy going into this purely academic exercise. The effort is considerable, and I don't minimize the dedication to do it. How is it likely to end for them, or is it likely to end at all? Short of the ultimate confirmation of the error of their point of view as embodied by a BF corpse, what milepost marks the end of their trail? Is just everyday a BF is not confirmed a victory for the skeptic....until maybe one day it most definitely isn't? As I've said, going toe-to-toe on evidence? Yawwwwn. Those who care to show their work are commended, but I appreciate those who don't see that as an open invitation to write a reply brief. Truth is, anymore I just scroll right through those, be they pro or con. I'm sure I"m not alone. Edited January 20, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) I'm more impressed by those that "show their work" through peer review, not in paperbacks only. If the work was so solid to be begin with, then why no peer review? Why book sales only? I think I know the answer to that one. Edited January 20, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 Dmaker, I think we could pile up arguments on both sides of that observation without half trying, you know what I mean? But generally, I think we all would like to read only peer-reviewed monographs. I think the disagreement lies only in why there is this perceived lack of peer-reviewed monographs, or serious discussion in scientifc circles in general. You know my arguments, and I know yours, but an independent reviewer still could not tell us,choosing between the chicken and the egg, which took first place, and which took runner-up. My ultimate take is: Better to be without peer review, than not at all. The conversation has to start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 There are people that are not convinced, and who have done a good deal of reading on the topic. Most don't want to engage on a point-by-point analysis of the evidence because they deem it illegitimate in the first place. I mean, why would they want to do that if they view it that way? If they were true Skeptics they would want to do that. But if they aren't true Skeptics then they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 I think I really had the topic of the sighting reports in mind when I wrote that. Not saying I think it makes sense to me (because it doesn't), but some categorically refuse to consider any sighting report as having any legitimate value. So, when we acknowledge that position, you can't blame them for refusing to engage on that topic. If I can presume to speak for them, they don't consider them even to be evidence of any kind, so naturally they feel they can still be a true skeptic and avoid that discussion at the same time. But, the proponents' argument is bolstered tremendously (we say) by those reports and what we tease out of them. How would it be possible for these two views to be reconciled? They can't be....simple as that. Best to just acknowledge that and save our energy for other things. It is not up to me, I say, to tell anyone what they should accept, or not, or what I think it means if they do, or don't. I'm only just curious about what they are shootin' for here. We proponents can easily define our thoughts by the evidence we find significant. That is not so clearly defined for the skeptic as he is defined by the opposition to the affirmation of existence. Much different thing. Like the sighting reports.....POOF!, and they are gone. Ditto as to the PGF. Footprints be gone too! (And understand, I'm not wanting to debate if that approach is sensible or scientific. It just is, from their perspective) So, yes, there are other sources or things to identify yourself by if you are a hard boiled opponent of this thesis of BF. They are not so obvious though, I don't think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) I'm married to a lawyer. I know a game of LawyerBall when I see one. This thread is an open invitation to play LawyerBall. I don't set personal success goals for myself wrt Bigfoot. But I do find it very amusing each and every time Bigfootery fails to deliver the goods. 2013 was a great example. Edited January 20, 2014 by Squatchy McSquatch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, there is one thing I know doesn't exist and that's this unified "Bigfootery." Might be a cool word to link up everything regarding the topic, but it does not represent for any human being for any period of time outside a few days at most here and there a search for anything. NAWAC is an occasional exception. But more time is spent on zorillas annually than has been spent on sasquatch total, ever. If anybody asked me what the search for sasquatch was, I'd reply "a good idea anytime anyone wants to start." So in other words there really is nothing going on to be amused about unless nothing amuses one. And I guess that's another way of saying "there's really no reason to be here if one feels that way." Also no such game as LawyerBall. But it is illustrative that no one has answered WSA's question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well Squatchy, so am I! We could have a whole 'nother thread on that experience, probably. But I'm not sure what you mean by Lawyerball. Amusement is not a bad goal in my book, if that is what you are primarily going for here. If somebody has a personal issue with that concept, then I'd say it is, well, a personal issue. And I disagree DWA, plenty here have answered my question, and I continue to appreciate that. Really, no ulterior motive on my part. I just am curious is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, WSA, if this helped me understand why there's no way in Heck I'd camp out on a fairy site, or get any sustained amusement out of reading the same assertions over and over and posting the same responses...maybe. But not. So no, for me. They haven't. But as you say, that may be just me. This is the richest vein of evidence - by far - for anything that remains unproven, and richer than for most things we accept as real. To continue to see that demonstrated and to continue to simply not even address the assertion...weeeelllll, if "I am just a one-trick pony and love to indulge that" is what's floatin' yer Merrimack, just, you know, um, OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 ^^^ Yes, yes, we understand. You adore bigfoot stories. Must you repeat that every time you post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Let me just say we have plenty of threads here on the BFF to address those positions if any are unclear on where one stands at present, but I was hoping this would not be one of those. But in a larger sense, and to your point DWA...right, nobody here has to justify their motives for doing what they do if they are staying within the stated boundaries, least of all to me. Nobody has to even share them if they don't care to. I do think it does promote insight and understanding to fellow enthusiasts on this topic, so I count it as progress when somebody does care to do it. Edited January 21, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, WSA, if this helped me understand why there's no way in Heck I'd camp out on a fairy site, or get any sustained amusement out of reading the same assertions over and over and posting the same responses...maybe. But not. So no, for me. They haven't. But as you say, that may be just me. This is the richest vein of evidence - by far - for anything that remains unproven, and richer than for most things we accept as real. To continue to see that demonstrated and to continue to simply not even address the assertion...weeeelllll, if "I am just a one-trick pony and love to indulge that" is what's floatin' yer Merrimack, just, you know, um, OK. This penchant for dressing unsupported claims up as science and implying they should take the place of proof is disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts