salubrious Posted October 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You have to have that encounter to understand. That I can truly understand. What I fail to grok is the often associated tales of near-supernatural abilities, such as telepathy, disintegration, following a sightee 50 miles home, etc. I'm not the ogre portrayed by MIB, and grant witnesses full reasonable credibility and appreciate sharing their encounters. Forgive me if I draw a line at what I consider impossible tales and tend to question such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 21, 2014 Victory? How so? Legitimate researchers making claims should be able to provide evidence and shut up the chronic skeptics, no? A true victory would be for those making grandiose claims to provide compelling evidence to shut up the skeptical once and for all. All we hear is crickets insofar as evidence, but the stories are good, I suppose. Maybe those becoming reluctant to post their experiences are getting wise to the fact that not everyone will buy their story without evidence, will ask uncomfortable questions about the claims, and will become frustratingly persistent when those making the claims cop out by not providing answers, and deflecting from their lack of evidence by calling the skeptics "Meanies." Provable or not, all are welcome to post their experiences. While not provable, they can be good reads. While not provable, is a bit of evidence too much to ask for? A note to the membership - We will not moderate whether a claim is true or not. We moderate member interaction, not truth. We also allow you to make any claims you'd like, but you won't be protected because someone doesn't believe you, or wants evidence. Not always, no, a photo or a plaster cast is just that, evidence. But because science says no such creature exists, the skeptics have a field day with it demanding proof. Proof is certainly the brass ring, no doubt. But as a participant on a BIGFOOT forum? I want people to share this evidence with the forum........... and if they don't feel comfortable doing so here? Then we have a real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Inc, I agree but it is important to remember that the extraordinary stuff tilts strongly to a vocal group that is much higher represented in media such as internet forums, blogs and podcasts. So we get a lot of that, but at the source are a pile of reports in which such things are rarely mentioned, and under that an unknown pile of encounters that never get reported anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I'm on the fence about the 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence' thing. As humans we assign meaning to things- what is ordinary to one person might be extraordinary to another. I suspect as a result the claims simply require evidence to be supported. Yeah. I think that the most extraordinary claim in 'footery is that all this is a crock. No evidence for that; tons for the animal. I also know why evidence is so hard to come by: I sat in my truck's driver seat and looked at a BF that was no more than about 10 feet from me at the time. Its arms were bigger around and obviously more powerful than my legs and its legs were about as big around as my torso. Its appearance spoke of immense physical strength. Because of that, I did not want to take my eyes off of it. I felt relatively safe in the truck, but only because at any instance I could floor the gas and be gone. I did not feel comfortable taking a photo because it meant getting the camera on the same side of the glass as the creature itself, and it also meant taking my eyes off of it. Another reason I really get tired of people grilling one witness for his evidence, and assuming he's lying or otherwise mistaken if he can't produce it. It is, as WSA says elsewhere, a fool's errand, and meaningless. Besides which it probably discourages other people who would otherwise report a sighting. It's destructive and stupid, is what it is. I suspect many people have been in similar situations. With the current situation (BF = career suicide) its not likely there will ever be any truly serious research on the subject. So we should be prepared for the status quo for a long time! I'd love to know how many scientists have seen a bigfoot; and how many of those feign obtuse scofticism on the topic. Bet it would be highly educational. But the society's approach to the topic means we'll probably never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Not always, no, a photo or a plaster cast is just that, evidence. But because science says no such creature exists, the skeptics have a field day with it demanding proof. Proof is certainly the brass ring, no doubt. But as a participant on a BIGFOOT forum? I want people to share this evidence with the forum........... and if they don't feel comfortable doing so here? Then we have a real problem. I disagree. Point me to one clear photo or video that has been offered here. The "field day" as you put it has nothing to do with what "science" declares. Calling a blobsquatch a blobsquatch has nothing at all to do with scientific mainstream. Shadows and branches are what they are. If I decline to pretend that they are awesome pictures of bigfoot it's because they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) I disagree. Point me to one clear photo or video that has been offered here. The "field day" as you put it has nothing to do with what "science" declares. Calling a blobsquatch a blobsquatch has nothing at all to do with scientific mainstream. Shadows and branches are what they are. If I decline to pretend that they are awesome pictures of bigfoot it's because they are not. The PGF is no blobsquatch photo. But because you offer no possibility of this creature being a real flesh and blood creature? if the picture does show some sort of upright ape/proto human/whatever, then in your mind its obviously a fake. So every photo is either A) Inconclusive. B ) Fake Which one is this one? What about this one? How bout this one? Edited October 21, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted October 21, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Most of humanities experience with BF does not produce evidence. Like Norseman if a person has an experience I want to hear about it evidence or not. Then I can judge myself the validity of the report. If the militant skeptics (they are certainly that) make people too reluctant to post because they cannot provide supporting evidence, then as Norseman says we have a real problem here on BFF. Unsupported observations are not without value. In science, many unsupported observations lead to accepted theory. Darwin's theory of evolution is a good example of that. Unsupported observations can lead others to devise observational methods to support them with data. Is that why the skeptic tries to squelch such witnesses? The skeptic agenda is quite obvious: Ignore evidence that is presented, or declare that is not convincing, ridicule observation, challenge witness integrity, demand unquestionable proof, proclaim all evidence is hoaxed. That is not science, that is reminiscent of the inquisition, in that belief is trying to override legitimate observation and discovery in the physical world. That process stifles enlightenment. Edited October 21, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 ^^^Pretty much. In science, practically all we know started with an unsupported observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 21, 2014 I've resigned myself to the fact that no photo is going to solve this mystery. But skeptics complaining about "no clear photos" is a joke. There are tons and tons of them showing SOMETHING, that's definitely not a shadow, or a branch, or a bear for that matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 But as a participant on a BIGFOOT forum? I want people to share this evidence with the forum........... and if they don't feel comfortable doing so here? Then we have a real problem. I would be curious the numbers of those gentle flowers unable to stand the light of day versus those that have left in disgust or won't join in because of the constant "woo" factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Simple question Inc: Did the NAWAC leave this forum over too much woo? I think this is a much bigger problem.......... Edited October 21, 2014 by norseman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) The PGF is no blobsquatch photo. But because you offer no possibility of this creature being a real flesh and blood creature? if the picture does show some sort of upright ape/proto human/whatever, then in your mind its obviously a fake. So every photo is either A) Inconclusive. B ) Fake Norse, I was specifically talking about submissions by members here, since the gripe was that no one wants to share due to skeptical scrutiny. I am suggesting that if someone shared something that actually looked like something, then the discussion might be drastically different. Simple question Inc: Did the NAWAC leave this forum over too much woo? I think this is a much bigger problem.......... Really? You truly think that is the bigger problem? It's not the lack of evidence that is the problem, it's the failure of people who question the claims without the supporting evidence? There are more blobsquatches, pictures of branches and shadows, and stories that one could handle in this phenomenon. Why would you want more? What good will that do? 1,000 more unsupported stories, 1,000 more pictures of scenery with dark blobs will accomplish what exactly? Nothing. That is what. You would think bigfoot enthusiasts would be sick to death of this kind of meager evidence. You have more than you could ever want I would think. More of it will advance the claim not one inch. Mmmmkay... Edited October 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Really? You truly think that is the bigger problem? It's not the lack of evidence that is the problem, it's the failure of people who question the claims without the supporting evidence? That's exactly what he is saying; and anyone who truly thought for a minute - after, you know, learning something about the topic - would understand that (a) lack of evidence is not the problem; ( b ) failure to understand what evidence is, or how to parse it, before yelling NEIN for extended periods IS the problem; and ( c ) that is its own kind of very special woo. Edited October 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 21, 2014 Norse, I was specifically talking about submissions by members here, since the gripe was that no one wants to share due to skeptical scrutiny. I am suggesting that if someone shared something that actually looked like something, then the discussion might be drastically different. Do members not submit evidence they may have not collected on this forum? Really? You truly think that is the bigger problem? It's not the lack of evidence that is the problem, it's the failure of people who question the claims without the supporting evidence? Mmmmkay... There is no lack of evidence Dmaker...............there is admittedly a lack of PROOF. And unfortunately, if someone doesn't take the subject seriously? Then they contribute very little to the conversation at hand. I think it's pretty hard to promote a Bigfoot website and keep the lights on while giving both proponent and skeptic equal footing...................yes. The proponent that has stories, foot casts, audio files and blob squatch photos to share? No matter how weak sauce it is? Is still doing a lot more to promote this website than the denialist is. I think that is simple logic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts