What's The Deal With Proponents?

[norseman]

Here is the deal.

 

We proponents may not always get along, but the reason this website exists is because of US. Denialists contribute nothing to this forum because they give no chance for this creature to be real. You guys? Even the ones I may disagree with or not believe a word they say? Whatever? Are the reason we still talk about this subject. You guys create dialogue and make this website interesting.

 

So keep that tucked away in the back of your mind.

[Guest DWA]

1 report ? really I don't care if he missed 30 reports, even 50 or 100 . There are thousands of report's.

I have never been more emphatic on anything than about this:  30, 50 or 100 reports, total, would have me at:  unicorns.

 

Thousands?  Please stop talking about one, hiflier et al, when there are thousands.  Explain.The.Thousands.To.Me.  And no you must prove it, not just say "a few people do this once a year or so, so they all must be doing it always."  Scientists never get away with that and you won't either.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

You have so missed the boat on this. YES, it's about this one report. This one tiny report. The new thread is now up.

[Guest DWA]

I think, and I have pointed out how, YOU are missing the boat.

 

ONE.

 

Who cares, other than:  if there is no prima facie reason for me to believe you are lying or mistaken, then I withhold judgment and put it on the pile if it's under the bell curve?  Bingo, done.  Next report...!

[Guest Stan Norton]

I'm intrigued as to how one report is so meaningful. Statistically it could very well be an outlier, meaning that it does not fit within the normal distribution of purported encounter features and is thus meaningless. Are you saying it is made up? Fine. Say so. I thought that the whole point of the sightings database was that, once you have enough of a sample, you are able to look for statistically valid patterns. Why the focus on one report if not just to get one over on a fellow member who you seem to dislike? Seems a bit like self satisfaction to be honest.

I may not agree with everything DWA says (and why on earth should I, or anyone else anyway?) but to go to such lengths to win some kind of imaginary intellectual masturbatory competition is just silly. Is this the PGF section?

[salubrious]

You don't have to be certifiable to see or not see something that is there in plain sight. If these creatures were there they would be leaving a large proverbial footprint on their environment and that isn't happening, at least it seems that way from what I've read so far.

 

I keep thinking back to the stories of the conquistodors, it depends on what version you read whether it occurred with South American Natives or Australian Aborigines, but the primitive tribes on those continents didn't acknowledge the existence of those large sailing ships when they first approached their lands.

 

Some of the sailors thought the natives didn't see them because they had no frame of reference for a large boat in their past experience upon first contact. I'm not sure how researchers determined this so many centuries after the fact, but they concluded that unless the object was a recognizable threat to the natives it simply wasn't acknowledged because their focus in life was on survival. They didn't have the luxury of time or energy to be curious about novel things.

 

Aren't we fortunate that we live in an age and place where we can afford to explore these kinds of topics like bigfoot? I doubt the West Africans are concerned about bigfoot right now. Whether you are a proponent or a skeptic here on the forum you should count yourself lucky that there are numerous venues available where you can question and reflect upon a topic that isn't crucial to our survival. It's called having fun, if it isn't fun then why do it?

 

The way I understand it is that the size of the ships was so far out of the norm that quite literally they could not see them, although they could tell something was there. As I heard the story, it took the most aware individual of the tribe (a medicine man) to finally parse out what was really there. A fascinating story about how our mental perception of reality can influence our physical perception as well!

Here's the link to hiflier's thread BTW:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49217-trouble-in-grassmans-paradise/?p=868270

[Guest]

I've never had the opportunity to view a great white shark anywhere, wild or captivity. That does not mean that I, for one millisecond, doubt their existence.

 

 

It was then it hit me that this guy just wanted to argue,

[Guest Divergent1]

The way I understand it is that the size of the ships was so far out of the norm that quite literally they could not see them, although they could tell something was there. As I heard the story, it took the most aware individual of the tribe (a medicine man) to finally parse out what was really there. A fascinating story about how our mental perception of reality can influence our physical perception as well!

Here's the link to hiflier's thread BTW:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49217-trouble-in-grassmans-paradise/?p=868270

I believe it takes a special person, or someone trained to notice minor details in their environment, to be able to pick up on the unusual. Most of us can only see what our brain believes we will see.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Divergent1

[salubrious]

When I had my sighting, my brain was saying it was a pile of dirt in the middle of the road, like a truck had lost its load. As I got closer, I thought 'that looks like its alive!' but then went back to the lost load, then back to 'its alive!'...

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

Some of the sailors thought the natives didn't see them because they had no frame of reference for a large boat in their past experience upon first contact. I They didn't have the luxury of time or energy to be curious about novel things.

 

 

With regards to the Spanish coming to the New World they weren't met with primitives.  The Mayan/Aztec cultures were in some ways more advanced than the Europeans.  If there hadn't been cultural myths about the invaders and the deceases they brought with them the New World could very well have remained in the hands of the indigenous cultures.  They had more than enough time to speculate on novel things.

[dmaker]

Here is the deal.

 

We proponents may not always get along, but the reason this website exists is because of US. Denialists contribute nothing to this forum because they give no chance for this creature to be real. You guys? Even the ones I may disagree with or not believe a word they say? Whatever? Are the reason we still talk about this subject. You guys create dialogue and make this website interesting.

 

So keep that tucked away in the back of your mind.

I disagree. I contribute to this forum. I happily pay fees for premium membership and I contribute my opinion, just like anyone else does. That you do not agree with my opinion, or understand why I would want to share it here, does not negate my contribution.  

 

Why, in your opinion, must one believe in bigfoot to participate and contribute, or even simply find it interesting?  The history of man and his myths, particularly wildmen of the woods, is of interest to many people that don't believe in bigfoot. So, in your books interest without belief is fine, just don't come here to talk about it? 

 

 

Here's an excellent presentation by a scientist who clearly has an interest in the topic, is familiar with the topic, even mentions bigfoot forums and websites, but also does not believe bigfoot to be real.   People can be interested in bigfoot as it ties in to man and myth. Some of them even visit bigfoot websites.  Perish the thought.

 

 

 

http://fora.tv/2009/01/13/Eugenie_Scott_Bigfoot_and_Other_Wild_Men_of_the_Forest

Edited October 22, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest Stan Norton]

I think the point Norse is making is that there is a difference between participating and contributing. The little cabal of smug scoffers contribute nothing in my opinion (I cannot bring to mind any relevant knowledge, experience or skill that would serve the topic or be considered constructive scepticism) but their participation is a sap on the energy and openness of others. I might disagree wholly with the bulk of the knowers too, and express that in a tetchy manner, but at least they have the excuse of being in line with the spirit of this forum and bring purported evidence to the table. There are plenty of us here who are more than ready and capable of tackling them head on without repeatedly professing in a condescending manner how very empirical and superior we are.

Yet again here we have another little flurry of self-indulgent existence/non existence posts which add nothing to the forum.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I personally do find it hard to believe in Sasquatch, although I am convinced of the probability.  Almost every day I come up with some reason

to further doubt their existence, only to be tripped up by reason that tells I cannot dismiss what I know is factual.  If only I could rid myself

of honest inquiry I would be back on the other side of the fence scoffing at the possibility and living a more carefree life, instead I am plodding through

hours of audio, looking for prints, and hoping beyond hope for a sighting.  What is the benefit of being a proponent, none I can tell, only a burden

to prove the seemingly impossible for what end?  I envy the person who cares nothing at all for this discussion.  Many of us are here not by

choice, but rather by constraint...not to prove to you anything, but to come to terms with what we need to know.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[dmaker]

I think the point Norse is making is that there is a difference between participating and contributing. The little cabal of smug scoffers contribute nothing in my opinion (I cannot bring to mind any relevant knowledge, experience or skill that would serve the topic or be considered constructive scepticism) but their participation is a sap on the energy and openness of others. I might disagree wholly with the bulk of the knowers too, and express that in a tetchy manner, but at least they have the excuse of being in line with the spirit of this forum and bring purported evidence to the table. There are plenty of us here who are more than ready and capable of tackling them head on without repeatedly professing in a condescending manner how very empirical and superior we are.

Yet again here we have another little flurry of self-indulgent existence/non existence posts which add nothing to the forum.

Sounds very much like a certain proponent around here.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Moderator Statement:

 

OK - It's getting personal in this thread, as well. Say goodnight to the troublesome "What's the Deal with..." topics, as it's obvious that no good will come from any of these.

 

It's a shame that things can't be discussed in a civil manner.