norseman Posted April 8, 2015 Admin Share Posted April 8, 2015 Crowlogics beard is gray? So he is a man!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) There is Bigfoot denial, except it's not what is being suggested here and it's a rather small minority. It seems like proponents don't understand that the evidence for Bigfoot just isn't convincing for most regular people. Thoughts about why the animal hasn't been found yet are going create doubts. That to me isn't denial. The problem that a lot of us have is that a lot of the negative pronouncement comes with no effort to even figure out why the discussion is continuing. I totally get people whose mommies and daddies told them bigfoot isn't real, and haven't bothered investing any effort. I'm that way with unicorns and fairies. If you have the proof, cool. If you have evidence, please just give me the management summary and I await the proof. What I never will get is people who have posted here as many times as I have; have had the case put to them every which way; and act like they haven't read or absorbed anything said. *That's* denial. To hang out on a website like that, and say nothing but no proof yet no proof yet *for years* - with no evidence that they have paid the scientific proponents any mind at all - denial. And this is very easy to tell, as is the general ignorance of the mainstream, from the very things they say, things that are directly contradicted by the evidence. So you might be right about this: bigfoot denial is pretty much restricted to bigfoot websites. Edited April 8, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) I think a lot of people are open to the idea of Bigfoot being real, but they don't spend much time thinking about it. The people who devote much of their time to saying that Bigfoot doesn't exist are often ex-proponents who are actually in denial. They call themselves skeptics, even though there is really no such thing as being a "skeptic" as skepticism is just a method, but these people somehow think it's a position. Denialism is certainly a position though. People have varying degrees of skepticism. Whether one believes in Bigfoot or not doesn't have anything to do with how skeptical they are. There's nothing skeptical about saying Bigfoot doesn't exist as that is a hard conclusion that is based on a supposed lack of evidence instead of evidence. IMO, a reasonable person wouldn't devote their time to telling people that there is no such thing as Bigfoot. Edited April 8, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I buy that. Particularly the part about skepticism. The proponents are the only ones in this field that I have seen consistently applying the *methods* of both skepticism and science. For the bigfoot skeptics (the phrase separates it, in my mind, from true skepticism), skepticism is a *position,* and science is a static *state* which cannot change until something is proven, when in fact science is constantly adjusting and moving forward based on *leads* which themselves are not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 What John Q. Public wants is a result. Johnny don't want no stinkin' process. Call him only when you have press release. Science, done right, is a process, and it hurts JQ's noggin. Our reality denialists on this board have a very comfortable and easy niche. They get to deny evidence for the sake of a lack of proof...or at least they think they do. Each of their "can't exist" posts is another spade full of dirt out of their holes. This will remain true even if BF is never confirmed. Systemic failures to address reality will always be an intellectual and evolutionary dead end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) What John Q. Public wants is a result. Johnny don't want no stinkin' process. Call him only when you have press release. Science, done right, is a process, and it hurts JQ's noggin. Our reality denialists on this board have a very comfortable and easy niche. They get to deny evidence for the sake of a lack of proof...or at least they think they do. Each of their "can't exist" posts is another spade full of dirt out of their holes. This will remain true even if BF is never confirmed. Systemic failures to address reality will always be an intellectual and evolutionary dead end. Because Green Quote below. There is evidence; it is voluminous and consistent; and coming on over and over here acting like it doesn't exist is not exercising a truly adult choice. When it, you know, comes to this. JQ doesn't need to know better. Anyone here for half as long as I've been? Should. Edited April 8, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 The Bigfoot mystery is interesting on so many levels. I often have to wonder why I'm so interested in the subject because I tend to question most things and never just take things at face value. I've never seen a Sasquatch, nor has anybody close to me seen one. I'm a hunter and fisherman but prior to becoming interested in the subject, had never noticed anything that would indicate the existence of a bipedal North American ape. I can't say that I believe in the existence of them because I have not seen enough evidence. However, I strongly believe in the possibility of one. In my mind, there's enough great evidence to prove the possibility of existence but not enough to prove the existence as conclusive. Either way, it's really fascinating and I hope one day they're proven to be real. In the mean time, the process of discovery, good or bad, is entertaining as hell! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 My wondering why I've never seen one stops at the evidence; I can't use my lack of a conclusive experience to wish the evidence away. I've had three encounters with what could have been evidence. The tracks I don't think could have been something else. The sound, not sure, but sounded like an animal, and if it was, no known one. The trees: humans could have done it, but hard to say from what I could discern how, or especially, why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Folks like Cisco in this endeavor give me hope. Exac-ackly. Does anyone really doubt that the default settings of mankind are inertia, fear and dullness? If looking around you won't convince you of that, read a history of any human endeavor you care to pick. This is absolutely what is hindering progress in this field, and will likely be for some while more. This and many others. The ability of Sasquatch to stay in the shadows is in direct proportion to our own stupidity, I'm convinced. Don't be like the denying Rob Lowe. Get direct evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 "I believe we are going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth in the next decade and definitive evidence in the next 10 to 20 years," Stofan said at a panel on Tuesday, according to the Los Angeles Times. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/04/08/why-nasas-top-scientist-is-sure-that-well-find-signs-of-alien-life-in-the-next-decade/?tid=pm_pop This is sooperdooper exciting but not for that reason. It's sooperdooper exciting because it shows people who badly need the lesson that scientists recognize the difference between evidence and proof. For MOST things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I've totally missed your point. What were you equating to bigfoot evidence in an article about microbes on other planets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 No, please, I can field this one DWA...because the confusion of evidence and proof is best illustrated by pointing out how to NOT do that. Do we need to slow down here? C'mon man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm not picky, anyone can answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Lizard Brain says: If I can't fight it, eat it or mate with it, it's got no use. Mammal brain says: Food, Safety, Sex. Childhood teaches: I must tolerate inappropriate behavior/lies of adults or else. There are more variations but I won't bore yall. Oh, I like this one: The older I get, the less I know. It's a comfort to know that by the time I die, I won't know a darn thing. Edited April 17, 2015 by diana swampbooger language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts