norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 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. I missed this part, and while I agree with you 100 percent even though I'm on the other side of the fence? You have to stop thinking about this subject like its a battle ground. With ground to be gained or lost, or points on the board. Cliff Barackman flat out told me in a email that he doesn't give two hoots about proof. For him it's an experience that he wants to share with other proponents. And believe me? Much to my frustration? Most proponents agree with him. The bottom line is? Is what is best for the BFF? I would say meager evidence is better than nay saying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but it cannot shout down the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 ...One by one legitimate researchers get tired of the crap and leave. Is that the chronic skeptic tactic? Silence those that contribute evidence? Note to administrators: That sort of thing will kill this website. I can see that people are becoming reluctant to post experiences because they get pounced on by the skeptics. Much of what happens in the field does not lend itself to being provable. Provable or not I want to hear what others experience. This. There is a strain of thought here that says that witnesses must be grilled one by one to determine whether their observation is proof or not. No such thing applies in science, where this never happens, and scientists with their wits about them would recognize it as unenlightened garbage if it did. It is USELESS to go on and on and on about one person's story! Of all the "things" with skeptics, this is the worst; it quashes thought and assumes there is no such thing as a trail of inconclusive evidence leading to proof (e.g., science, the way it is almost invariably practiced). Imagine if 250 million people came out - by, say, signing a petition or 'liking' and posting on a Facebook site or some other socially recognized way of garnering 250 million opinions - saying bigfoot's real, I have seen one, **** your evidence I have the evidence of my eyes. 250 million people. None offering the evidence of anything but their own two baby blues, evidence that most of us on most topics take as essentially proof of what someone else saw. (Yes you do, and you don't examine your life in any meaningful way if you think otherwise). That would mean NOTHING? Anyone who says yes, it would mean nothing, would be excused from further participation in this intelligent discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Define please naysaying. Also, where does blind support fit in your scale of contributions? 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 WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THOUSANDS ARE A LOT SAY THEY HAVE SEEN SOMETHING AND DESCRIBE IT CONSISTENTLY IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE EVIDENCE. Disagree, and I honor your right to be wrong, which in the scientific sense you certainly are. 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. ^^^This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Despite your use of ALL CAPS, you remain incorrect on your point, DWA. Anecdotes, despite how many there may be, remain outside the realm of scientific testing. They are neither repeatable nor falsifiable. We have been through this and you are wrong. Maybe stamping your feet while screaming in all caps might make you feel less wrong next time? So, proponent and skeptic should not have equal footing? Could I please have half of my premium membership back now? I await the cheque in the mail. What sort of inequality do you imagine, Norse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Define please naysaying. I think Brian said it best: If you do no think bigfoot is real, cannot possibly be real, and believe anyone who thinks it is has a hard time telling fact from fantasy, you have no place among those interested in discussing the topic. Period. If, on the other hand, you can’t accept the set of evidence that’s been collected so far but still allow there’s the possibility that an animal like bigfoot could be real, then fine. Open minds only. Closed minds should be shown the door. Also, where does blind support fit in your scale of contributions? While I see it as something akin to a denialist, because it revolves around a closed mind, that will not keep possibilities open. (In this case, the creature may not exist) I also have to look up at the top of this website and look where I'm at...........it's a Bigfoot Forum, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 By all means purge all skeptics if that is what you want. Create an environment where the only acceptable response to certain posts is: "That's a lovely photo of a bush. I don't quite see the juvenille sasquatch and family hiding in there, but thanks for sharing! Also, when can we expect another exciting installation in your ongoing tales of telepathic bigfoots and their backyard antics! So exciting!" Is that what you want? Making a claim is acceptable. Questioning one is not? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 By all means purge all skeptics if that is what you want. Create an environment where the only acceptable response to certain posts is: "That's a lovely photo of a bush. I don't quite see the juvenille sasquatch and family hiding in there, but thanks for sharing! Also, when can we expect another exciting installation in your ongoing tales of telepathic bigfoots and their backyard antics! So exciting!" Is that what you want? Making a claim is acceptable. Questioning one is not? Your grand standing......... In the case of the NAWAC thread? No one was claiming lightning bolts fired from Bigfoots belly button brought the tree down. There was nothing there being claimed that was woo woo. I said this earlier...........maybe you missed it: The bottom line is? Is what is best for the BFF? I would say meager evidence is better than nay saying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but it cannot shout down the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 By all means purge all skeptics if that is what you want. Create an environment where the only acceptable response to certain posts is: "That's a lovely photo of a bush. I don't quite see the juvenille sasquatch and family hiding in there, but thanks for sharing! Also, when can we expect another exciting installation in your ongoing tales of telepathic bigfoots and their backyard antics! So exciting!" Is that what you want? Making a claim is acceptable. Questioning one is not? Nice strawman. Sorry, but denial contributes nothing. Way it is. Anyone who can't imagine what this board would be like if the extremes of the discussion were tamped down in favor of focusing on the bell curve is just demonstrating, in yet another way, an inability to understand how the scientific mind operates. Way it is. Define please naysaying. Denying the possibility contrary to a mountain of compelling evidence, insisting there is no evidence. You give thousands of good examples of this. Also, where does blind support fit in your scale of contributions? Blind support of the nonexistence of something backed by a mountain of compelling evidence? Just wondering why it's bothering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 In the case of the NAWAC thread? No one was claiming lightning bolts fired from Bigfoots belly button brought the tree down. There was nothing there being claimed that was woo woo. Maybe not woo woo, but taking down a 2ft healthy diameter tree rates at least a single woo... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Despite your use of ALL CAPS, you remain incorrect on your point, DWA. Anecdotes, despite how many there may be, remain outside the realm of scientific testing. Wrong. Didn't read your Bindernagel, didja. Funny how when *I* read about testing the great ape hypothesis, *my* immediate reaction was: Exactly, John. What I like about science. There. No caps, just facts. You.Are.Wrong. Factually.Scientifically.Wrong. Arguing not only against evidence but against plain fact. Naysaying. Defined. Edited October 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Maybe not woo woo, but taking down a 2ft healthy diameter tree rates at least a single woo... Not really. Brian is from Minnesota...........not Oklahoma. The tree appeared healthy to him in photos. No one anywhere was claiming something supernatural. (Unless your a denialist, in which case an undiscovered ape in a tree in Oklahoma IS supernatural) Any number of real nuts and bolts factors could be at play, including that the Sasquatch happened to simply be residing in the wrong tree at the wrong time. Also? SOMETHING brought the tree down, right? It's right there..............on the ground. No chain saw marks, No axe marks? It must not be as healthy as it appears, right? It's all very simple from the big picture......... People are going out into the woods to look for Bigfoot, if we as a community would like them to share their stuff with us? Since we are a Bigfoot community right? Then we may want to attempt to be nice to them when they do share something with us. We don't have to necessarily agree with them. But I think we do need to be cordial and accepting as a community if we are to survive. Edited October 21, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Vortexes? (did anyone notice any crop circles in the area?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Vortexes? (did anyone notice any crop circles in the area?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Maybe not woo woo, but taking down a 2ft healthy diameter tree rates at least a single woo... Actually, no. Bipto's observations were obsessively gainsaid by people who weren't really paying attention to the responses; who, well, weren't there; and ... ... The tree appeared healthy to him in photos. No one anywhere was claiming something supernatural. (Unless your a denialist, in which case an undiscovered ape in a tree in Oklahoma IS supernatural) Any number of real nuts and bolts factors could be at play, including that the Sasquatch happened to simply be residing in the wrong tree at the wrong time. Also? SOMETHING brought the tree down, right? It's right there..............on the ground. No chain saw marks, No axe marks? It must not be as healthy as it appears, right? It's all very simple from the big picture......... People are going out into the woods to look for Bigfoot, if we as a community would like them to share their stuff with us? Since we are a Bigfoot community right? Then we may want to attempt to be nice to them when they do share something with us. We don't have to necessarily agree with them. But I think we do need to be cordial and accepting as a community if we are to survive. Really folks. I was listening to all the fool commentary on that treefall and thinking: if only some people here knew when something was really woo-woo. I-wasn't-there-and-I-know is about as woo as woo gets. Edited October 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts