N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[dmaker]

^^ Exactly. 

 

I will never understand how DWA can constantly claim to being a skeptic and then say things like the below statement. That is the very antithesis of skeptical. According to that statement one should believe everything one is told or reads unless there is contradictory evidence. I'm sorry but that is not even in the same universe as skeptical. Especially when the claim in question has zero supporting evidence. So you don't need evidence to believe a claim, but you must have evidence before you question one?  Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

 

"There's no basis for questioning what someone says unless one has evidence that they're lying."   DWA

Edited July 3, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest]

Surely 'evidence' supporting the reports would either be refuted (pics and vids) or spend years in transit (DNA). If what they want is completely irrefutable evidence, such as a body (with hopefully most of a head left) why would you bother with anything else just to try and prove to others that what they think is happening is real.

I know that this forum needs it's sceptics to stop others flying too close to the sun. But personally, I don't see the draw.

Just my 2p

CC

Edited July 3, 2014 by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Material

[dmaker]

^^ Odd. On the one hand you claim to recognize the need for skeptical opinion here as a temper to the more outlandish claims, then on the other hand you question the behavior of anyone who would come here to fill that role. 

[Guest DWA]

But there are no hard questions to ask.  Bipto's take on what he's been getting from dissenters is utterly spot on.  There's no basis for questioning what someone says unless one has evidence that they're incorrect.  

 

There, fixed.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Bipto could have put me and all other 'dissenters' lmao on ignore. He could have kept the information train running for those who buy into what he's claiming.

 

But then even proponents began questioning his claims so he took his ball home altogether.

 

I predict this will be the beginning of an exit strategy from area x by year's end.

 

Unfortunate for those who follow his chronicles, but I think the 2ft oak tree will turn out to have been his own undoing.

[Guest]

Thanks, Bipto......good luck to you, sir!

[Guest]

^^ Odd. On the one hand you claim to recognize the need for skeptical opinion here as a temper to the more outlandish claims, then on the other hand you question the behavior of anyone who would come here to fill that role.

Yeah, I know. I just don't think I could spend my time doing it (no disrespect intended) letting sleeping dogs lie etc. I do appreciate your service though.

I sometimes visit ATS forums and some/most of their threads go pretty unchecked. Sometimes it gets quite out of hand.

Can you see what I'm getting at with regards to evidence?

CC

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Greetings! Having just recently returned from "Disneyland" refreshed and reenergized, I find myself presented with multiple warnings from various friends and acquaintances regarding what's been going on here in my absence. I have not read one post from my last to this (with the exception of the two immediately proceeding this one which I couldn't avoid) and I won't.

 

I participate here solely for the purposes of acting as a liaison between the NAWAC and the larger community of bigfoot enthusiasts. I have always felt it was an important part of our mission of education to pass along the things we've learned (or thought we've learned) to those interested in hearing them, even in the face of denialism and obtuse behavior. However, I've come to a couple of conclusions after a few weeks in the clear Dislandian air. 

 

First, I'm a much happier person not having to deal with the negativism of this group. I generally enjoy discussing this subject and am open to answering any questions respectfully asked, but I hadn't noticed until I wasn't dealing with it how much of a drain it is interacting with a annoying minority of the members here. Life is too short to deal with that.

 

Second, the BFF isn't as necessary a part in my outreach and education mandate as I thought. Back in 2005, the BFF was indeed the crossroads of the bigfooting world. Today, not so much. I can reach people through the NAWAC Facebook page, our website, or though The Bigfoot Show website and Facebook page. I even answer many questions through Facebook Messenger. Today, the BFF is less a crossroads as it is a sideshow.

 

I really don't know what I or the group have been accused of recently. And really, I couldn't care less. Being out in the woods doing what most of you only talk about has a way of resetting one's perspective. I'm going to log out of the BFF now and, as far as I can tell, I'll never log in again. I'm done here. It's unfortunate and not an inconsequential decision. I started this place. Well, not *this* place. And there are more than a few of you who are smiling right now.

 

Some will say this is proof I and the NAWAC won't answer tough questions. I say bull. I have more than 1,500 posts here and I'd wager north of 95% of them are related to the intersection of the NAWAC and Area X. It's not that I won't engage with critics. I won't engage in response to debased accusations rooted in willful ignorance. At the end of the day, nothing said here will do anything to to help bring wood apes into the light of science. The BFF is full of sound and fury. And that's about it. 

 

Goodbye.

 

Well, I had a big ol' post written up, but it was somehow lost. So, I'll be more concise with this one.

 

Bipto, I hate to see you leave, but I also hate to see you take pot shots at the BFF. Dude, we didn't make the claims that were made, you did. The members make the forum what it is, be it a sideshow, full of sound and fury, etc. Maybe that's about it because your claims are unsubstantiated.

 

Do you honestly expect everyone to believe you based on your word alone? Surely you wouldn't do likewise of others claiming to see some of the things you've claimed.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.

 

Don't blame the forum for your exit. You could present evidence to substantiate your claims at any time, as well as giving the skeptics something to chew on.

 

I want to wish you luck with your endeavors, and I hope that you find the evidence to accompany your claims. Science demands solid evidence, so no amount of conjecture or storytelling will bring the creature to light.

 

Whether it's here, on Facebook, or anywhere else, a tale with supporting evidence will hold up much better than a tale without.

[Guest DWA]

I think that the point a lot of us have made - and not just here - is that the reason some people, bipto prominent among them, post here is simply to share what's going on, in a field that the scientific mainstream ignores, and their comments show their ignorance.

 

I'd consider it obvious to the greater share of the enrollment of your average public grade school that this isn't gonna come with proof of every single thing said.  Nor is that the purpose.

 

But I allow that I may have gone to an exceptional - and no it wasn't public - grade school.  

[See-Te-Cah NC]

... and that's fine, but you have to expect questions from both the proponent and the skeptical. That's what a forum is all about, really.

[dmaker]

I think that the point a lot of us have made - and not just here - is that the reason some people, bipto prominent among them, post here is simply to share what's going on, in a field that the scientific mainstream ignores, and their comments show their ignorance.

 

I'd consider it obvious to the greater share of the enrollment of your average public grade school that this isn't gonna come with proof of every single thing said.  Nor is that the purpose.

 

But I allow that I may have gone to an exceptional - and no it wasn't public - grade school.  

I don't understand your dichotomy. You constantly claim to be a skeptic, yet you stand here proposing that claims--without any evidence--should go unquestioned.  Skepticism is about challenging claims. Asking for evidence to support claims that lack enough, or any, supporting evidence. How can you claim to be a skeptic while advocating at the same time that claims should go unchallenged and in fact chiding those that do challenge claims?

 

The only thing I have seen you be skeptical about is just about anything that challenges the bigfoot claim. Anything that remotely supports it you embrace fully with no challenge offered. 

Edited July 3, 2014 by dmaker

[Incorrigible1]

In his defense, DWA may have lost his "compass," Bipto. If anyone was wrapped up in and enthralled with all things NAWAC, it was the report-reading self-proclaimed scientist.

[Terry]

I think that the point a lot of us have made - and not just here - is that the reason some people, bipto prominent among them, post here is simply to share what's going on, in a field that the scientific mainstream ignores, and their comments show their ignorance.

 

I'd consider it obvious to the greater share of the enrollment of your average public grade school that this isn't gonna come with proof of every single thing said.  Nor is that the purpose.

 

But I allow that I may have gone to an exceptional - and no it wasn't public - grade school.  

 

Maybe the BFF should have a "SHARE" page designated.  Everyone could tell their tales and no one can comment...  

 

t.

[dmaker]

Well perhaps DWA is frantically searching the BFRO report database for claims of healthy two foot diameter trees being snapped at the base. I doubt it, though, because I asked him earlier to list all the North American animals that he believes to be capable of such a feat. He claims to believe that NAWAC are simply reporting behavior common to many known animals and that anyone challenging that assertion just does not know anything about animals. I have yet to see a response addressing that question.   

Edited July 4, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

CavemanChris:  I understand you as favoring skepticism.  Jeff Meldrum is skeptical.  Grover Krantz was skeptical.  John Bindernagel is skeptical.  When they have their scientist hats on, scientists are skeptical.

 

Your upset at the 'skeptics' you're encountering here stems from this:  they aren't skeptical.  Their entire 'position' is a tissue of assumptions.  What 'skeptic' means is someone who questions anything that isn't backed by evidence.

 

The reason you couldn't do what the 'skeptics' you read here are doing is that it's basically true belief:  a firm conviction repeated over and over and over, in the face of all the evidence that it is incorrect.  That's not fun; it's not particularly intellectually stimulating...and it sure isn't science, as my quote down there illustrates.

 

'Skeptic' is rarely more inappropriately used than it is when it comes to this topic.  Bipto is skeptical.  That's why he and NAWAC are taking the scientific approach:  it's based on evidence and the very diametric opposite of true belief that something can't be so because...it....can't...!!!!