dmaker Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Here are some articles and papers: Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence Article Ben Radford Volume 26.2, March / April 2002 http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence Bigfoot or Baloney? Confessions of a Bigfoot Hunter by Jonathan Blais http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-01-15/ Bigfoot DNA? It’s Playing Possum! BY DONALD R. PROTHERO http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-07-24/ “You are Not Entitled to Your Own Bigfoot Facts†Sounds Sciencey Sharon Hill April 25, 2012 http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/you_are_not_entitled_to_your_own_bigfoot_facts/ Science and Footprints Article Michael Dennett Volume 32.6, November / December 2008 http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_footprints Bigfoot Files: Science, Skepticism and the True Believers Sounds Sciencey Sharon Hill November 22, 2013 http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/bigfoot_files_science_skepticism_and_the_true_believers Cognition and belief in paranormal phenomena: gestalt/feature-intensive processing theory and tendencies toward ADHD, depression, and dissociation. Sharps MJ, Matthews J, Asten J. http://graduatestudent.ucmerced.edu/jmatthews/media/Papers/paranormal_2006.pdf 1
Rockape Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Skeptics - what say you? Any good websites out there that debunk or what have you? This site is best in my opinion. Every subject gets a healthy dose of skepticism. People can chose which viewpoint they think is correct and usually be given good reason why.
Cotter Posted May 21, 2014 Author Posted May 21, 2014 Thanks Dmaker (for the article and papers, not the Captain Obvious post above!)
WSA Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 You know what I really conclude on reading most all of the more outlandish arguments/suppositions, both pro and con? Too many folks on both sides are waaaaaay to eager to claim something they "know" about BF. Very unscientific on both sides of it. You don't know. I don't know. Until definitive proof is offered, I'm not even willing to concede anyone who has an encounter truly "knows" anything about this subject. What I DO have is a probability, and a thirst to stay curious about it. It would seem that would be a small thing to ask of science and proponents too, but I'm often surprised. Re: Sighting reports. Not proof. They don't tell me I know anything on this subject for certain. Do they keep me thirsty and curious? Oh yeah, got that in spades. You too, if you choose. G'on....won't hurt a bit. 1
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 ^^^^Right. If you've seen one, you've seen something I haven't. But don't go telling me where it fits in the phylum Chordata, much less the order Primates. I'll await taxonomy done on the specimen, thenkewveddymuch. And if you are telling me that you just know that this is all a crock, that's a nice world you got spinnin' in your head there. For you.
dmaker Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 "Until definitive proof is offered, I'm not even willing to concede anyone who has an encounter truly "knows" anything about this subject. " WSA Using this logic is what keeps this myth going forever. In fact, the longer that nothing conclusive is offered the longer the lifespan bigfoot has. In your argument, and the argument of many, many people here, there is no breaking point at which logic has to concede that there is no definitive proof coming--ever. That is why things like this endure forever even when there is not one speck of real evidence to support them. Because everyone is always waiting for the proof to arrive. There is always another generation willing to sit on the bench and wait for Godot.
WSA Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Forever=Verrrrrrrry long time dmaker. I'm betting not. A long time? Possibly. So what? My investment is very, very small, but the possible return is HUGE. "Me" does not = Bigfoot confirmed, or not.
Rockape Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Thanks Dmaker (for the article and papers, not the Captain Obvious post above!) My post might be obvious, but if they truely want a pro-con debate on the issue they will only get one side of the issue at those sites. They'll also read things like this... Ketchum’s credibility faded fast upon the reveal, even though she kept promoting more and more ridiculous events, like the “Matilda, the Sleeping Bigfoot†press conference. If the Ketchum team had sought assistance and advice from knowledgeable scientists, they would have been told in no uncertain terms this is the absolute worst way to appear trustworthy. Science should not be done by press conference, especially if your Bigfoot looks an awful lot like a Wookie (from Star Wars). The underlined part is straight from Bill Munn's opinion posted HERE at this forum. They would do well to use those sites to educate themselves about BF, but when it comes to dissecting the argument they should reference the discussions here, where both sides are presented in depth.
Guest Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Blogtalk Radio is one of the best online source for BF information. Real people, real interviews. You cross-compare to see similarities in stories. Lots if info, at least 5 or 6 good really shows out there, hundreds of interviews. And it be free.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 You're not going to find a BF [blog/forum/or other] that's not filled with opinion, speculation, disinformation and premature conclusions. BigfootEncounters was/is as good as it gets. Remember everything is subjective and NOTHING has been proven. That's why we have these little talks. Btw I know of a BigFooT site where you can speak your mind openly, regardless of belief
ohiobill Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 So, I guess we can take that as a "I've not bothered to read them" response from you Bill? Got it. As usual, you are wrong when it comes to sassy reports. Not only can you not determine the truthfulness of an encounter by reading an anonymous report - you can't determine how many reports someone has read. It boils down to the limitations inherent in adhering to "critical reading" rather than applying critical thinking. 1
See-Te-Cah NC Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Btw I know of a BigFooT site where you can speak your mind openly, regardless of belief You can do so here if you follow the rules. Maybe you meant that you can do so elsewhere without any rules, which you have an option to do here, as well. We welcome skeptics here, and it's obvious that proponents are here in droves.
dmaker Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 As usual, you are wrong when it comes to sassy reports. Not only can you not determine the truthfulness of an encounter by reading an anonymous report - you can't determine how many reports someone has read. It boils down to the limitations inherent in adhering to "critical reading" rather than applying critical thinking. This exactly. You can never determine the truth of an anonymous report. Yet many people here take the default position that a report must be true otherwise why would it be in the database. For some reason bigfoot enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge that people lie all the time for many different reasons. Everyone except bigfoot witnesses. They are the most honest people on the planet. All those anonymous honest people just simply sharing their bigfoot stories for the betterment of mankind. Yeah, sounds legit...
Cotter Posted May 22, 2014 Author Posted May 22, 2014 ^I usually don't comment back on posts like this (already have, and we know where it leads), but the same could be said for the other side of the argument. Like most things in life, somewhere in the middle is the truth (which, in this case, leans toward existence - IMO).
Recommended Posts