sheri Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Wow you have hallucination's antfoot ? I don't and never have. It is not a common thing, unless the person is using drugs wheather illegal or legal. Perhaps you should seek medical help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Hi Sheri, yes I hallucinate and it is not nearly as rare as people think it is. I do not do drugs and I do see my therapist and doctor regularly. Drug use is responsible for the smaller portion of hallucinations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It is not common . I have never known anyone to just hallucinate. My mother use to because of all the crap the doctor had her on. Needless to say that stopped when she changed her doctor and we found out she was being treated for something she didn't even have. There was one other lady, she was mentally unstable because she went through a hysterectomy and wouldn't take hormones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Agreed, sheri. I'm simply not seeing "hallucination" as being an explanation sufficient to dismiss sasquatch sightings...unless, of course, it can be proven. If no direct evidence supports it, it is perforce discarded as a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well of course not DWA, because the idea is ridiculous. People can't fathom the notion of bigfoot so they have to come up with ideas to suit their belief of reality. I do understand it, but their idea of reality isn't real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Laughing Out Loud. Because you can't fathom how someone might hallucinate without the benefit of drugs does not mean that I lack the ability to fathom a large bipedal ape and how it might or might not be approached scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Approaching it scientifically means ruling out, out of hand, any alternatives for which no evidence exists...including that hallucinations are in any significant way responsible for this. Right now, approaching sasquatch scientifically can be done in only one way: following up evidence that points to an unlisted primate. Any other approach is not following evidence, which science always does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Wow, Sheri and DWA. Way to show sympathy and kindness toward a forum member that admits to having hallucinations. That the condition isn't common is no excuse for your faux pas. Edit: Curious if you give more credence to those that believe bigfoot is somehow not a flesh and blood creature? That they disappear at will, and can commune telepathically with a different species, humans? Mmmmkay. Edited July 23, 2014 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's okay incorrigible. I'm used to it around here. I do like their selective approach about who can fathom something though. Very droll. I rest easily knowing they are wrong and that hallucinations are far more common than they believe. That they are wrong there makes me suspect they could be wrong elsewhere in their thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well, yes, droll. I would think. This is the only field I am aware of in which 99.99999% of the talking explicitly avoids the evidence. I'm used to it around here. I do like the selective approach. I rest easily knowing they are wrong...only I rest easier because I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Approaching it scientifically means ruling out, out of hand, any alternatives for which no evidence exists...including that hallucinations are in any significant way responsible for this. Right now, approaching sasquatch scientifically can be done in only one way: following up evidence that points to an unlisted primate. Any other approach is not following evidence, which science always does. DWA, I have long come to the conclusion that you do not understand how science is done. Science doesn't just go trampling around the woods looking for a beast. Science poses questions and works out possible ways to answer said questions. Posing questions as to the veracity of witnesses is a perfectly valid option. You and Sheri seem to have no problem questioning my veracity here. Why the sour responses when someone questions a witness' veracity? Science does not rule out alternatives because there is no evidence. An alternative is ruled out because the evidence contradicts the alternative. Well, yes, droll. I would think. This is the only field I am aware of in which 99.99999% of the talking explicitly avoids the evidence. I'm used to it around here. I do like the selective approach. I rest easily knowing they are wrong...only I rest easier because I'm right. Ah yes, and this begs the question: which evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) The evidence that someone who knows how science is done has read, digested, squared with long experience in relevant areas such as wilderness travel and wild animals, and understands. The evidence that most who haven't done so reveal they haven't with the first words they say. I mean, listen to you. "hhmmmmhmmmm, they will never understand just how prevalent hallucinations are." Really. You will never, EVER, understand just how freemly the Tfldfhatd have made your Urrdrrr. I just made an equally provable statement. Please. Science follows the alternative backed by the most evidence. THAT evidence. It's read-up time. Hallucinations could be the problem you're having with focusing on it...according to precisely what you are saying to us. I am not utterly certain that people who admit to hallucinations are the best people to lecture others on how science should be conducted. Upon what? The evidence, or upon what one has hallucinated is the case? Serious question. Edited July 23, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I didn't say anything about approaching this scientifically. Antfoot you have given reasons for seeing a bigfoot and one was hallucinating, using yourself as an example in that you hallucinate. It is unreasonable because hallucinating is not common. wheather you do or not, I really don't know. Because I don't know you. If you do then maybe that's how you see life and expect people to be like you. I can say that's not the norm. You Incorrigible, have said not so nice things and even mocked people on this forum, so you have no room to talk. Not one skeptic on here has shown sympathy for believers or those who know they exist. Did I ever say that what I saw wasn't flesh and blood ? Did I ever say I talked to it telepathically ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Antefoot if you would be willing to share, I would like to know what you see that you say is not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 "The evidence that someone who knows how science is done has read, digested, squared with long experience in relevant areas such as wilderness travel and wild animals, and understands." I'm curious about this so called evidence as you describe above and the "someone who knows how science is done" part also. To the best of my knowledge from reading this forum and my readings elsewhere, there is none of the above. I have read many reports myself. You are not an authority on science on this forum. Some on BFF claim to be scientists and I have no way to verify what they claim but I am not required to believe someone just because they say so. The way you talk about science tells me you do not understand how science works. "I mean, listen to you. "hhmmmmhmmmm, they will never understand just how prevalent hallucinations are." Really. You will never, EVER, understand just how freemly the Tfldfhatd have made your Urrdrrr. I just made an equally provable statement." Science isn't really in the business of proving statement but disproving them. Disprove enough statements and you approach the truth more closely. Precise language is also preferred in science. This reduces confusion. Evidence is the best reason to back an thought or idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts