SWWASAS Posted October 21, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted October 21, 2014 Rereading the additions to this thread by the forum administrators I can see why researchers are leaving. We like anyone would love to lay your extraordinary proof on the table. That is hard to get and takes time to gather. In the mean time I am expected to sit on my hands and not post my findings? I do get those now and then. A picture of a footprint is not extraordinary evidence so I suppose that has no place here? I could care less if some witness has proof of his experience. Let me be the judge of that. If the only thing welcome is extraordinary proof to support a claim there will be nothing here of interest to read because little of that exists and if it did, this forum would be superfluous because BF would be accepted by science. If the reason for allowing witnesses and researchers to post is to provide fodder for skeptics to argue with, then not only will witnesses and researchers leave because they have better things to do but the concept behind the present forum policies seems to support skeptics rather than promote knowledge about BF. If that is the case, like MIB maybe I don't belong here either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Randy, could you please link to some examples here where alleged bigfoot evidence was presented and " shouted down"? I'd like to see some examples of this heinous behavior everyone keeps complaining about. Surely, there must be many, many examples? The NAWAC example is a favorite of Norsemans. The claim seems pretty ridiculous on the face of it and may here, proponent and sketpic both, were right to challenge it, imo. But what about some examples of other threads where something was presented and shouted down , or unreasonably questioned? Could you, or anyone, provide examples of such please? 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 Nope, the NAWAC thread is sufficiently stupid, no other examples required. Period. Class dismissed. OK, the habituator thread, that's another one, and also sufficient itself. Tell you what, try sitting outside a scientist's office yelling "no proof? LIAR!" every minute, or doing the Hitler Ten-Minute Thing, and see how quickly security comes for you. NAWAC thread was precisely that. Once again, it is irrational behavior to treat every observation as if it must come with proof sufficient for you. Completely irrational behavior. You have gotten pages of explanation why. Not reading again, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 DWA, I'm not reading you today. Rant on if you feel like it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 ^^^ And that's the deal with skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Randy, could you please link to some examples here where alleged bigfoot evidence was presented and " shouted down"? I'd like to see some examples of this heinous behavior everyone keeps complaining about. Surely, there must be many, many examples? The NAWAC example is a favorite of Norsemans. The claim seems pretty ridiculous on the face of it and may here, proponent and sketpic both, were right to challenge it, imo. But what about some examples of other threads where something was presented and shouted down , or unreasonably questioned? Could you, or anyone, provide examples of such please? 1) The NAWAC thread has more than one example in it...........the tree break was just the last episode. I invite you to read all the way through it first. 2) This is an important point I wanna make. For example, I like the Oakland Raiders, (yes you can feel sorry for me) so do I have a fundamental right to get on a Kansas City Chief website and nay say or trash talk? What about if I was to go onto a Rugby site and was to nay say or talk trash about their sport? Could you imagine a hunting forum in which animal rights activists have an equal voice to hunters? So on and so forth.......... Where does the line get drawn? I don't think skeptics should be able to ask for DNA every time some one claims to have observed something. When almost every single thread in the General Forum turns into a debate about existence? I think we have a problem. I'm NOT saying that a person is obligated to go along with a claim........but I do think that it's a Bigfoot website, that's what we are here to discuss, and if people think that they are just going to get eaten alive every time they open their mouth, they are not going to participate any more. And that's something we sorely need right now, is membership. We also have to remember that we old battle axes are all jaded........pick a topic and a username, I bet we could all respond in kind for each other. That's how long we have been going at this........ To someone that is naive and bright eyed? Yah, we can come across as jerks............ If we like this website? All of us? Then I think some things are gonna have to change to ensure we attract people who wanna talk about Bigfoot. Or keep people around longer than a week before they flee........ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Norse you offer sensible advice as usual. I can't see anything changing though. We all hear and get and understand the old 'extraordinary evidence...' mantra cos we hear it all the time, usually when someone gets frustrated at the stifling negativity of the pseudo sceptics (cue sarcastic jibe about meanies etc etc...). I prefer to view the BFF as somewhere where one can go to discuss matters that one would not ordinarily get the chance to do in civvy street. I like to discuss sasquatch. Simple as that. I relish the discussion. I don't believe most of what I hear but I don't feel the urge to start making a fuss about that normally. Just so happens that certain individuals are hell bent on showing off their intellectual janglies just to make others look silly. They add nothing. Have no credentials. Bring not one jot of valid experience or expertise to the discussion. Their presence is a sap on energy of the forum. Others though (e.g. kitakaze) at least have the decency and nouse to have acquainted themselves with the relevant details and, no matter how one disagrees, should be welcomed as they have valid points to make. Shame that can't be said of this thread. It's all rather depressing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 DWA, I'm not reading you today. Rant on if you feel like it. ^^^ And that's the deal with skeptics. Wow. Slammed by a bird-of-a-feather. Don't see that much. Dmaker: I don't ask educational tackling dummies to read me. Other than the other things you don't read... The claim seems pretty ridiculous on the face of it and may here, proponent and sketpic both, were right to challenge it, imo. No you weren't, and no you never are. The only way a claim can be challenged is with evidence that it is wrong. Yours? Right. Never was, never will be.... ...you didn't read the multiple posts where I explain to people that I'm not responding to you; I'm pointing out stuff about you. (As here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 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. Here ya go. This one was taken at the end of the day, which was overcast, in August a year ago. You will see immediately why I am not really interested in presenting more photos! http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41702-footprint-in-minnesota/?hl=%2Bfootprint+%2Bminnesota I got taken to task because the photo was not perfect. I challenge anyone with an iPhone 4S to get a good closeup that does not have focus/blurring problems. 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. Yup. Me too. Maybe not woo woo, but taking down a 2ft healthy diameter tree rates at least a single woo... There is a lot of misunderstanding about this. The tree was not taken down. A branch on the tree was. That's a lot lot different! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Rereading the additions to this thread by the forum administrators I can see why researchers are leaving. We like anyone would love to lay your extraordinary proof on the table. That is hard to get and takes time to gather. In the mean time I am expected to sit on my hands and not post my findings? I do get those now and then. A picture of a footprint is not extraordinary evidence so I suppose that has no place here? I could care less if some witness has proof of his experience. Let me be the judge of that. If the only thing welcome is extraordinary proof to support a claim there will be nothing here of interest to read because little of that exists and if it did, this forum would be superfluous because BF would be accepted by science. If the reason for allowing witnesses and researchers to post is to provide fodder for skeptics to argue with, then not only will witnesses and researchers leave because they have better things to do but the concept behind the present forum policies seems to support skeptics rather than promote knowledge about BF. If that is the case, like MIB maybe I don't belong here either. No one expects you to sit on your hands or to not post your findings. On the contrary - Post away, but I'm assuming that findings are accompanied by evidence of some sort. A picture of a footprint is not extraordinary evidence so I suppose that has no place here? I certainly hope it does, as I myself have posted such evidence - http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48757-interesting-footprint-find/ Look, let's cut the drama - If you make a claim that isn't easily substantiated (the majority aren't, admittedly), you have to expect questions and doubts. Also note we're discussing extraordinary claims, not the sharing of evidence, such as footprint photos or experiences had by the members. No one has ever said that all encounters, experiences, or claims have to be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. However, extraordinary claims do. The current forum policies haven't changed. Maybe the proponents have felt the need to soften said policies to shield themselves from any type of critique. As a proponent, I find that to be sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Well, this misses the point, a point a number of us are making, which is: a large and growing pile of consistent encounter reports is compelling evidence, a tap which bad form and incorrect procedure will shut off. To continually harp on individuals for their proof is simply moving us nowhere and discouraging people whose understandable response will be: let 'em wallow in ignorance. At least I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Well, if those making extraordinary claims would offer evidence to support them, we wouldn't have a problem, now would we? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Maybe. But if they are offering only that they saw this too...well there are a lot of those; and the more there are the more pressure is put on the mainstream to find out why all these people are saying this. That, to me, is the problem. There is sufficient evidence right now to make it incumbent upon science to find the answer. Problem is, most scientists don't seem to understand this, and I'm using as my criterion for judging the things they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I want to be on the record for believing that the numerous reports of the creature are certainly compelling. However, without accompanying evidence, they're just reports, and aren't evidence in and of themselves. If they are, it's circumstantial based purely on the sheer numbers. I'm here because I was investigating a report by my own mother. She has no evidence to prove it happened, but I believe her. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than for someone to bring forth extraordinary evidence to prove that she indeed could have seen what she claims to have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 No one expects you to sit on your hands or to not post your findings. On the contrary - Post away, but I'm assuming that findings are accompanied by evidence of some sort. A picture of a footprint is not extraordinary evidence so I suppose that has no place here? I certainly hope it does, as I myself have posted such evidence - http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48757-interesting-footprint-find/ Look, let's cut the drama - If you make a claim that isn't easily substantiated (the majority aren't, admittedly), you have to expect questions and doubts. Also note we're discussing extraordinary claims, not the sharing of evidence, such as footprint photos or experiences had by the members. No one has ever said that all encounters, experiences, or claims have to be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. However, extraordinary claims do. The current forum policies haven't changed. Maybe the proponents have felt the need to soften said policies to shield themselves from any type of critique. As a proponent, I find that to be sad. I'll work backwords.......... 1) I don't find it sad at all. This forum should be about people sharing experiences and ideas concerning the topic of Bigfoot. What's sad is that people seem to be unwilling to do so because of ridicule. Or announce they are leaving because of said conditions. 2) The complete subject of Bigfoot is one giant EXTRAORDINARY claim, correct? So would denialists like it better if we just shut down the forum until a femur bone pops up? Or? 3) The NAWAC tree break debacle was complete with member testimony and a picture...........of a broken tree. So I think the sharing of "evidence" is also completely fair game to skeptics at this point. And they are free to draw stick figures with crayons of Sasquatch in trees to show you how dumb you really are. 4) What he is telling you is that he is uncomfortable with sharing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts