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

[Rockape]

Reason for the smell is discovered...

 

 

That's the spirit.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

BING-GO.

 

You score no points with me moving from raging bleever to raging scoffer; you just show me that you aren't letting thought lead the way, which it always must.

 

Yup. They're denialists hiding behind the label of skeptic. I first realized this when I saw how they made personal attacks against Sharon Hill after she suggested that the NAWAC's experiences may be legit. That was what convinced me that these people have their own belief system. The crappy thing is that it's one that allows them to pose as skeptics. 

 

Someone who's convinced that there's no such thing as Bigfoot, wouldn't spend much time thinking about it. They wouldn't spend any more time on it than they would on other topics like UFO's and sea monsters. It's always funny when these people label themselves as critical thinkers. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

Didn't someone manipulate photos of the Jacobs creature to "prove" it was a bear and get busted? That goes beyond interest in the subject and is ponderous.

As odd as it may seem there was a bear that was manipulated into being a bigfoot and got busted.  

[Guest]

" Sorry friend but there are absolute knowns in the world."

 

One of these, according to Crow, is that bigfoot isn't real because the proof hasn't been accepted - YET - by the community at large.  First, that's the way it always is at scientific frontiers.  Second...by this very thinking, we must all be dead because the rest of our lives haven't happened yet.

 

Never mind which the existence of something does not care what we find or what we think.  Crow's belief that Science is God is, well, not shared by most scientists.

If I turned on the news tonight and the lead story was "Scientists have now begun to accept anecdotes as evidence and declare Bigfoot real!!". I wouldn't change my stance one bit.

What changed my mind from proponent to naysayer was the common element in all things Bigfoot. That is the excuse, you are busy analyzing the evidence for patterns but choose to ignore the one commonality, the excuse. There is always a reason why not.

"My memory card was full"

"My batteries ran out"

"The landowner wont let me show the video"

"I have no desire to prove Bigfoot to anyone"

"We don't care about pictures or DNA, just a body but were not allowed to shoot one"

Etc...

Etc...

It all ads up to no such thing as Bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

If I turned on the news tonight and the lead story was "Scientists have now begun to accept anecdotes as evidence and declare Bigfoot real!!". I wouldn't change my stance one bit.

What changed my mind from proponent to naysayer was the common element in all things Bigfoot. That is the excuse, you are busy analyzing the evidence for patterns but choose to ignore the one commonality, the excuse. There is always a reason why not.

"My memory card was full"

"My batteries ran out"

"The landowner wont let me show the video"

"I have no desire to prove Bigfoot to anyone"

"We don't care about pictures or DNA, just a body but were not allowed to shoot one"

Etc...

Etc...

It all ads up to no such thing as Bigfoot.

nAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.  But people do that.

 

Here's what scientists do:  analyze large quantities of data for consistencies.  Them over you, every time.  Particularly when all you are doing is cherrypicking INconsistencies.  (Most reports involve no "excuses.")

 

The excuses aren't.  Those in the know know that they're how field work happens.  Problem is that most people don't have the exposure, understanding and in-depth immersion in data that characterizes people doing science.  They think that any species known can be filmed or shot within hours.  Television, as usual, ruining minds.

I mean, I will take the scientific proponents every time over people debunking stuff they haven't even read.

What converts people from flaming believers to flaming deniers is impatience compounded by lack of understanding.  No, we get it.

Edited June 19, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

If I turned on the news tonight and the lead story was "Scientists have now begun to accept anecdotes as evidence and declare Bigfoot real!!". I wouldn't change my stance one bit.

What changed my mind from proponent to naysayer was the common element in all things Bigfoot. That is the excuse, you are busy analyzing the evidence for patterns but choose to ignore the one commonality, the excuse. There is always a reason why not.

"My memory card was full"

"My batteries ran out"

"The landowner wont let me show the video"

"I have no desire to prove Bigfoot to anyone"

"We don't care about pictures or DNA, just a body but were not allowed to shoot one"

Etc...

Etc...

It all ads up to no such thing as Bigfoot.

I remember back on the old BFF there was a thread about hair samples where the lab absconded with the samples and the submitter never got the results back.  It clicked because I had read similar bigfoot stories where the samples were lost or damaged or any number of things.  Having been in a position to submit numerous samples to laboratories I knew how careful labs are with samples.  So it raised a red flag, one of the first in my path away from belief.  Now when a new bigfoot enterprise makes the rounds there's a sort of menu that can be chosen from as to why it's not going to succeed.   

[Faenor]

In the bigfoot field one doesn't have to reach too far to cherry pick inconsistencies. Its what the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields recognize and why they consider the odds of existence incredibly low.

The vast majority of decent scientists over the paltry few mediocre misguided bigfoot proponent scientists everytime!

[Guest Crowlogic]

nAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.  But people do that.

 

Here's what scientists do:  analyze large quantities of data for consistencies.  Them over you, every time.  Particularly when all you are doing is cherrypicking INconsistencies.  (Most reports involve no "excuses.")

 

The excuses aren't.  Those in the know know that they're how field work happens.  Problem is that most people don't have the exposure, understanding and in-depth immersion in data that characterizes people doing science.  They think that any species known can be filmed or shot within hours.  Television, as usual, ruining minds.

I mean, I will take the scientific proponents every time over people debunking stuff they haven't even read.

What converts people from flaming believers to flaming deniers is impatience compounded by lack of understanding.  No, we get it.

Consistencies?  Well sure lots of people report tree breaks, stick structures and tee pee structures it's pretty common these days.  But not one has ever been  directly observed them being made by bigfoot.  Now we even have stone piles and yup they are a regular item on the researchers list of show and tell.  But without the direct observation and most importantly documenting their construction by bigfoot it's a constancy without a cause which counts for exactly what?

[Guest]

DWA,

Scientists analyze looking for Consistencies. That's what I did and found: "the excuse". I'm not talking about the average Joe who submits a report because he wants to mess with Matt Moneymaker or meet BoBo. I'm talking about the Researchers and habituaters, who are claiming contact with Bigfoot.

Crow,

Good one, I forgot about "the lab never got back to us"

[Night Walker]

Someone who's convinced that there's no such thing as Bigfoot, wouldn't spend much time thinking about it. They wouldn't spend any more time on it than they would on other topics like UFO's and sea monsters. It's always funny when these people label themselves as critical thinkers. 

 

I disagree. If Bigfoot doesn't really exist then the whole subject actually becomes much more interesting... 

 

I think it's more about what floats one's boat - Bigfoot? UFOs? Sea monsters? They're all good...

[Guest DWA]

DWA,

Scientists analyze looking for Consistencies. That's what I did and found: "the excuse". I'm not talking about the average Joe who submits a report because he wants to mess with Matt Moneymaker or meet BoBo. I'm talking about the Researchers and habituaters, who are claiming contact with Bigfoot.

Crow,

Good one, I forgot about "the lab never got back to us"

I don't care about habituators; they offer me neither evidence nor proof.  They're off the table. They're not part of my considerations any more than the hoaxes are.

 

We have copious consistent forensic evidence that cross refers almost perfectly with both copious consistent encounter reports and a film that could not tie the two together more perfectly.  I care not about any excuse against that; and every scientist demonstrating attention to the evidence agrees with me.  That's where the money goes in science.

And as far as "the lab never got back to us":  isn't that on the lab?  Counting that as evidence against is grasping at straws.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I disagree. If Bigfoot doesn't really exist then the whole subject actually becomes much more interesting... 

 

I think it's more about what floats one's boat - Bigfoot? UFOs? Sea monsters? They're all good...

Exactly!  It is why I continue to observe bigfootism.   I particularly enjoy the Thunderbird and pterodactyl sightings contingent.  So why can't pterodactyls still exist?  The world is huge and there are vast jungles as yet uncharted.  The Thunderbird has as good a chance as bigfoot to exist.  There are canyons and valleys galore through the range of Thunderbird sightings.  Why can't a 30 foot wingspan feathered bird be lurking out there?  They didn't find the Mountain Gorilla until very modern times and the coelacanth wasn't discovered alive until 1938.   It's a very mysterious world we don't know everything.  However  with the Ceolanath people were not creating ceolanath fakes because it was rumored to exist.  A real one was brought up and science had the chance to acquire it.  It has never been a cryptoid.  Nobody has ever hoaxed about it.  Actually considering the rareness of the ceolanath and the depth it generally inhabits it is a wonder that one was ever found at all.  But full circle to bigfoot it is right here where we people live and does not have the luxury of ocean depths in the southern ocean running cover for it.  It has a big fan base though.

[salubrious]

If I turned on the news tonight and the lead story was "Scientists have now begun to accept anecdotes as evidence and declare Bigfoot real!!". I wouldn't change my stance one bit.

What changed my mind from proponent to naysayer was the common element in all things Bigfoot. That is the excuse, you are busy analyzing the evidence for patterns but choose to ignore the one commonality, the excuse. There is always a reason why not.

"My memory card was full"

"My batteries ran out"

"The landowner wont let me show the video"

"I have no desire to prove Bigfoot to anyone"

"We don't care about pictures or DNA, just a body but were not allowed to shoot one"

Etc...

Etc...

It all ads up to no such thing as Bigfoot.

 

FWIW, I've no beef with anyone that is put off by the items above- they put me off too. I find it even more frustrating having had a close-up encounter, and since that time 25 years ago really not seen much since (although may have had a couple of class B encounters...). My problem is that I can't deny what happened and I know there was zero chance of mis-identification, so I'm stuck. But I share the frustration with the constant hoaxing, excuses, lies, etc. that seem to be so common.

[Guest]

The vast majority of decent scientists over the paltry few mediocre misguided bigfoot proponent scientists everytime!

The vast majority of scientists don't know much about the subject and haven't even looked at it. They'll even tell you the PGF is a fake despite knowing nothing about suit technology.

By the way, no matter how much mainstream science rejects bigfoot, it's not going to make the subject go away. It won't. It's here to stay.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I disagree. If Bigfoot doesn't really exist then the whole subject actually becomes much more interesting... 

 

I think it's more about what floats one's boat - Bigfoot? UFOs? Sea monsters? They're all good...

 

I'm not convinced that's the case. If you look at the IS forums, the Bigfoot ex-proponents over there are trying hard to convince themselves that Bigfoot doesn't exist. They use the social aspect of phenomenon as an excuse to justify their continued obsession with the topic. If some of those people were truly convinced that there's no Bigfoot, they wouldn't spend another second on it. I'm sure of it. 

 

The idea of Bigfoot being out there really messes with these peoples heads. One of the guys on that forum got angry and scared when I posted high quality frames from the PGF. That's not normal.