What Are The Best Online Sources For Bigfoot Information?

[WSA]

I'll just stick with "more likely than not." It has served me well for many decades.

 

Very few things, if any, are certain in this life.  If your err on the side of entertaining outlandish possibilities, I'm just here to represent...you are going to have a much more enjoyable life. Try it. All you have to lose is your ego, which is probably (like mine) sort of like a houseguest who came for a short visit and wound up sleeping on your couch for weeks and drinking all your beer. Kick him to the curb and things will go much easier.  If you have the ability to say, "Hmm...these reports sure are intriguing to me. I would like to know more", I for one will commend you for your circumspection and you gosh-almighty big boy perspicacity of the kind that won the war for the Allies.  

Edited May 22, 2014 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Laugh and a plus.

[WSA]

Thanks DWA, I know you enjoy yourself here, and I'm certainly invested in not hammering all the joy out of this adventure either. I think when we stop playing, "What would happen if we.....?" we're dead (or might as well be).

[Rockape]

 

For some reason bigfoot enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge that people lie all the time for many different reasons. Everyone except bigfoot witnesses.

 

What exactly do you consider a "bigfoot enthusiast" to be? Because I consider myself a "bigfoot enthusiast" but I certainly know people lie and I certainly don't believe ever sighting report.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Ah yes, but in this instance it serves to lump everyone together as one and then no nuanced argument is required: all are 'other' and stupid and wrong etc etc etc...yawn.

[Guest DWA]

Its own Newspeak, for sure.  What's open is closed; what's closed is open.  Reviewing evidence = Going Over To Dark Side.  Possibility = woo-woo certainty.

 

Does get tiring.  And I don't mean listening to it.  I mean maintaining it...and compartmentalizing it separately from Real Life, which operates by totally different rules.

 

When you are someplace quiet and miles from nowhere, and letting your omnipotent self accept that you really don't know what's around that next bend....well that thing about variety and spice?  That's it.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA

[Guest keninsc]

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

 

Please, pass that along.

[dmaker]

^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).

How can the same be said for the other side? It's objective fact that the truth of an anonymous anecdote cannot be determined. There is no dishonesty in that, it's a simple fact.

I'll just stick with "more likely than not." It has served me well for many decades.

 

Very few things, if any, are certain in this life.  If your err on the side of entertaining outlandish possibilities, I'm just here to represent...you are going to have a much more enjoyable life. Try it. All you have to lose is your ego, which is probably (like mine) sort of like a houseguest who came for a short visit and wound up sleeping on your couch for weeks and drinking all your beer. Kick him to the curb and things will go much easier.  If you have the ability to say, "Hmm...these reports sure are intriguing to me. I would like to know more", I for one will commend you for your circumspection and you gosh-almighty big boy perspicacity of the kind that won the war for the Allies.  

I don't find reports intriguing. I find them laughably bad examples of amateur fan fiction. The fact that anyone can read a substantial amount of them and come away thinking there is some great truth in them and that they should be highly valued as evidence truly, truly boggles my mind. 

Thanks DWA, I know you enjoy yourself here, and I'm certainly invested in not hammering all the joy out of this adventure either. I think when we stop playing, "What would happen if we.....?" we're dead (or might as well be).

I get it, you like the make believe, not so much the reality. That's cool. You are probably like the majority of proponents. You dig a cool campfire story and don't really care to think about it much beyond that. You like the world better where mysteries like bigfoot can remain at arms length so that we can all pretend that maybe, just maybe they really are out there. I understand.

What exactly do you consider a "bigfoot enthusiast" to be? Because I consider myself a "bigfoot enthusiast" but I certainly know people lie and I certainly don't believe ever sighting report.

Allow me to re-phrase:

 

Bigfoot enthusiasts refuse to accept that a combination of lying and failures of human perception can easily account for ALL of the reports. For some reason bigfoot witnesses are immune to the frailties of human perception and almost never tell lies. 

 

 

 

 

 

...better?

Edited May 22, 2014 by dmaker

[Cotter]

How can the same be said for the other side? It's objective fact that the truth of an anonymous anecdote cannot be determined. There is no dishonesty in that, it's a simple fact.

 

 

Hi dmaker!  I know you and I have been back and forth on this in the past, so I'm gonna make it short.

 

The 'default position' of (some) proponents being that all reports are factual is indeed laughable.  

 

However, equally laughable is the default position that all reports are NOT factual (for whatever reason).

As you stated earlier, you cannot properly vet all reports, thus the truthfulness of all reports cannot be determined either way.

 

We both can speculate as to WHY a report is truthful or not (real BF vs mistaken/lying/etc).  But in the end we simply don't know.

 

And somewhere, in all of this mess, lies the truth.  

 

WSA and DWA do make good points IMO in that through the noise, some good signal may be there.  To not continue to attempt to locate, isolate, and hone in on the 'good signal' and dismiss em all out of hand isn't the way to get to the bottom of this.

[Guest DWA]

The biggest problem this field has is that those of us who are serious have to constantly puncture the fantasy balloons of the extremists - who aren't at all - on both sides.

 

Bigfoot skepticism isn't skepticism.  And most bigfoot proponents are smh.

 

But using this - for 3,742 posts, a number I'm just chuckin' up there off the top of my head - as one's excuse for rejecting even the possibility of a signal through the noise doesn't even begin to qualify as intellectual engagement, on any level.

Even though it might qualify as a really nice hand exercise, there would be better ways to employ those hands.  I could think of thousands off the top of my head.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

Hi dmaker!  I know you and I have been back and forth on this in the past, so I'm gonna make it short.

 

The 'default position' of (some) proponents being that all reports are factual is indeed laughable.  

 

However, equally laughable is the default position that all reports are NOT factual (for whatever reason).

As you stated earlier, you cannot properly vet all reports, thus the truthfulness of all reports cannot be determined either way.

 

We both can speculate as to WHY a report is truthful or not (real BF vs mistaken/lying/etc).  But in the end we simply don't know.

 

And somewhere, in all of this mess, lies the truth.  

 

WSA and DWA do make good points IMO in that through the noise, some good signal may be there.  To not continue to attempt to locate, isolate, and hone in on the 'good signal' and dismiss em all out of hand isn't the way to get to the bottom of this.

True, unless one is convinced that the bottom of this, i.e. the truth, has already been reached. And that truth is that bigfoot is a myth, a social construct. Then there is no truth to suss out of the eye witness reports whatsoever. Other than for entertainment purposes there is no point in reading any more of them. 

 

 

 

You are wrong, DWA, the biggest problem this "field" has is the complete and utter lack of a bigfoot.

Edited May 22, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^3,473.

[Rockape]

Allow me to re-phrase:

 

Bigfoot enthusiasts refuse to accept that a combination of lying and failures of human perception can easily account for ALL of the reports. For some reason bigfoot witnesses are immune to the frailties of human perception and almost never tell lies. 

 

 

 

 

 

...better?

 

Not really.

[Guest DWA]

Not even close to beginning to smell the beginnings of a tiny taste of what "better" even looks like.

 

The bigfoot skeptics, on the other hand, refuse to do the somewhat intellectual work of calculating the statistical probability that all these random lies and perceptual failings are imitating biology on a scale and with a precision never observed before in our species' history on the planet.

 

'Easily?'

 

That's laughable, if the thinking has been done.

[dmaker]

Oh, please show us the formula you used to calculate the statistical probability you speak of. Otherwise you are just making noise that sounds like math. 

 

 

Also, if you don't mind, please illustrate the intricate details of primate behaviour and biology that are consistent in the reports and would rise well above what the average person could get from visiting a zoo, browsing the web, or watching Tarzan.

 

These should be easy things for you to do since you like to boast about them all the time.   I would think that you would relish the opportunity to point out your expert observational skills and share with us the gems you find when you dig through bigfoot reports.