Why Would Denialist Waste Their Time On This Or Any Other Bf Website?

[Rockape]

You hope you are wrong about being interested in bigfoot and other cryptids?

[Old Dog]

Agreed completely. That's why I say the BFF is the only place that matters when it comes to discussing bigfoot. There is a good mix of all viewpoints.

 

As long as there is a discussion rather than outright dismissal.  I'm always up for a healthy and spirited discussion, but when some of the members get on and make claims, then when challenged, and I mean both side of the coin, they just ignore the questions and deflect, that is when I lose interest and move on.  And I have to add, either side demanding that you prove a negative is just not discussing, it is a cowards way out of a confrontation.  A victory in their minds, but a false one.

[Rockape]

<As long as there is a discussion rather than outright dismissal.>

 

Agreed, and I would add outright belief is just the opposite side of the coin. Both sides need to learn that sometimes you are not going to convince the other and at some point you just need to drop it and move on. When it becomes clear you are not going to get the answer/response you want, you just have to consider your point made and let it go.

[Guest]

.. Or they actually want and hope BF is real?

.....

.

That fits me to a T. I think it would be awesome if it were real I want it to be real.  I don' consider myself a "denialist" though. I consider myself a skeptic that is open to the possibility but I demand better evidence than others.

[Guest]

This question has been asked and answered many times.

 

I have an interest in Bigfoot.

 

This is a forum about Bigfoot.

 

Not too hard to connect the lines.

 

Do you have an interest in bigfoot or do you have an interest in telling people there is no such thing as bigfoot?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

You hope you are wrong about being interested in bigfoot and other cryptids?

No. I hope I am wrong  that  Bigfoot does not exist. I think it would be rather cool if they did. I am 99% sure they do not. Proably, not that high after coming here. Mainly, The Patterson film I can not explain away.

[Rockape]

^ LOL, I knew what you meant, I was just giving you a hard time.

[NCBFr]

They are paid by those that have an interest in discrediting the subject.

 

I kid, I kid......well maybe not.

 

I have termed these types "Professional Denialers" to differentiate themselves from the standard run-of-the-mill troll type that are just looking for an argument.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

^ LOL, I knew what you meant, I was just giving you a hard time.

Thanks . That made me smile. You got me.

[Guest DWA]

I've dealt with denialists for a while. Many of them were Bigfoot proponents, but have switched beliefs at some point if you know what I mean. Unlike most people who don't believe in Bigfoot, a denialist's belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist is actually pretty fragile. Some of them will throw insults or say hurtful things if you post something that challenges their belief system. They pose as skeptics, but if you read some of their stuff, you'll see that they're actually lacking in skepticism. The subject attracts them, but their focus is on things that'll help them believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Pretty messed up huh

Very.  We want them to admit why they're here, and of course they can't do that.  But really, we all *know* why they're here.

Do you have an interest in bigfoot or do you have an interest in telling people there is no such thing as bigfoot?

Obvious:  B.

There's also a tonne of stuff they jump all over claiming to debunk but not really having anything smoking gun apart from the worn out "Well it can't be real, because they don't exist". Though actually, I remember skeptical proponents doing a lot of the legwork on actual debunkable photos, (Mis-IDs, demonstrable hoaxes) 

Skeptical proponents do *all* the legwork on whatever legitimate debunking has been done in this field.

 

The same attitude that brings the denialist here cripples understanding beyond usefulness.  They can't debunk; the knowledge base is missing, because they don't know it's necessary.

[Guest DWA]

Your last sentence says it all, OS. Took me a few months on the BFF to figure it out and start to put certain members on ignore. The irony is, those who continue to engage them in fruitless conversation simply encourage them to stay. I strongly believe that if 80 to 90 percent of serious active members, including knowers, believers and honest skeptics, used the ignore feature on the same group of a dozen or fifteen people, those folks would bail in short order. That would leave the BFF a tiny bit leaner but a vastly improved forum for serious discussion of all things Bigfoot among people who, regardless of their current position, are truly interested in advancing their knowledge of the subject. This stratagem however, would work only if the majority of members who seem to enjoy tilting at windmills manage to restrain the impulse. I am not sanguine that such will happen anytime soon.

OK, self-indictment coming.  I agree with you.  And I tilt at windmills.  (Now one of the alltime champion windmill-tilters, SweatyYeti, c'mon Sweaty, admit it, you and me need the same twelve-step program...)

 

I have a long list on Ignore, and I ignore them.  Most of the time.  But I do occasionally "lift the lid" to bash 'em on the head and replace the lid; and if they are quoted, I'll respond to that.  

 

I tell myself I am educating the ones here that want to understand how science works, and why scientists aren't by and large using it when this is the topic.  But I admit I like to joust.  And if all of us swore off it, for all the folks we had on Ignore, the problem would go away.  I mean, it would...even if *they* didn't.

 

(And *they* would, if we simply ignored the scoffthreads they started, and used that Report function every time they tried to change the subject.

Plenty of bigfoot proponents do that. It is certainly not the case here that most proponents accept all stories. Most proponents are sceptical about many things.

The true skeptics in this field are proponents.  I say this over and over because I like facts, and that is one.

I agree with OldDog, they do it for same reason other people troll on the Internet, I'm just not sure what you get out of trolling

Any forum I would troll...I would simply never visit.

As a staunch denialist and certified scofftic i once attempted to put all the proponents,believers,knowers,and inbetweeners on ignore so i wouldn't have to listen to their opinions. It got real lonely

As opposed to...never coming here and never having to introduce that labor into your life?

 

I'm a denialist about mental spoon-bending.  <<<<You just saw all the Ignoring I ever need to do, lifetime, on the topic.

[Doc Holliday]

I think gigantor and others summed it up nicely.

 

yes, maybe some trolling goes on and the whole JREF thing surfaces some, but not as much as when a few of the old regulars like saskeptic and Parnassus racked up billions of posts against all things BF.

 

I posted a similar thread , iirc, not long after joining BFF 1.0........ and have found that the presence of the skeptic / scofftic provides a little balance to help keep it real,  and a lot of discussion , lol.

 

.... fwiw, forums thrive on discussion and die with out it .

 

if everyone agrees things go  silent fairly quick,  I've seen it myself. 

 

luckily here many proponents don't mind debunking a claim which really helps with self policing and overall credibility.....even for BF

[Guest DWA]

Nah, the 'skeptics' in this field add nothing and derail the discussion rather than enhancing it.  They aren't needed to keep anyone honest; their basic premise is dishonesty embodied.

[Doc Holliday]

that would be the case, if there was no bull fertilizer involved in this BF business..

 

problem is, BFery has a much higher ratio of crap : substance  and the facts as well as history proves it.....{ Georgia hoax, Standing, biscardi, "he who shall not be mentioned" Wallace etc }

 

case in point, notice how some of the most skeptical questioning of some claims comes from proponents of BF...... I don't think that's an accident, most have been there, done that.

 

now, denialists ( for lack of a better term) may be a different story.......

 

but, as for discussion, if everyone agrees the forum turns into the equivalent of a couple folks talking and everyone else sitting around nodding "yes" with out saying much....... a real snoozzzzzzzzer.

 

of course, the best way to shut them all up might be putting up something solid evidence wise ........

[Guest DWA]

It would be one thing if anyone in the skeptic camp had a good reason to put up for considering *all the evidence* a false positive, but they don't.  The bull fertilizer aside..well, that's just it; I've set it all aside...and the evidence that's left clearly points to the reality of the animal.  It just isn't realistic to consider the possibility that everything I am looking at, after setting aside the bad stuff, is also bad.

 

This is why people with serious scientific chops are backing this horse.  That their arguments stand unaddressed is the shame; that happens because of fear; and the fear is legitimate, because those people have to feed their families, and the people paying them aren't as smart as they are...and easily swayed by dishonest people who aren't skeptical at all, but just think what they want to think, and deny what they don't.