A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

 

Lately I've stated that we've been chopping away at the bigfoot question for a half century now.  The earlier epoch is not really significant since there are no living memories to reference about it.  Yet a hlf century is a significant block of time in any pursuit.  Here is just such an article concerning this time span,  I'm not alone in appreciating the time span.

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

 

 

 

 

 

Crow Logic,

 

Bigfoot is here to stay. It isn't going away. The sooner that people like you deal with that fact the better it will be for your health. The subject matter is clearly disturbing you a great deal lately so why don't you just shrug your shoulders and get used to it?

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow Logic,

 

Bigfoot is here to stay. It isn't going away. The sooner that people like you deal with that fact the better it will be for your health. The subject matter is clearly disturbing you a great deal lately so why don't you just shrug your shoulders and get used to it?

There are a lot of non verifiable things and belief that are here to stay.  Heck  somebody has a Bigfoot Campground and a Bigfoot Cafe and a Bigfoot burger. Yes indeed it has gotten far enough that folks can leverage the idea into commerce and that's the ticket to staying power.  I understand Santa isn't going anywhere either.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest]

Which is why I said it will be far better for your piece of mind to just shrug your shoulders and don't let it concern you. You and people like you aren't going to stop people 'believing' in bigfoot. In fact the concept of bigfoot is bigger now than it has ever been. It's not going anywhere.

[WSA]

And there you are Crow, the PGF sitting like a steaming elephant turd in the middle of your careful construct. Explain it or risk being as compromised as the entire assortment of hoaxers you like to beat your drum about. The thing is, as we all know, you can't. So, you submit us all to this elaborate drama about the evolution of the skeptic and all the other claptrap that surrounds it. I mean it when I write it is very amusing to me....sort of like seeing a witness on the stand just sinking lower in the hole he's made, when everyone else watching knows he should just stop digging. Try that.

 

Here's another flash of insight I wish for you too...you probably won't get  the answers you think you are entitled to get, on the schedule you think you are entitled to get them on. Neither, probably, will any of us here. We deal with that. Try that too maybe.

 

Forgive me my abruptness, but I think I've just read one too many whining posts from one too many entitled, whining so-called skeptics with a back-bend aversion to what the world tells them "is."  

[Guest Crowlogic]

Which is why I said it will be far better for your piece of mind to just shrug your shoulders and don't let it concern you. You and people like you aren't going to stop people 'believing' in bigfoot. In fact the concept of bigfoot is bigger now than it has ever been. It's not going anywhere.

But it also might prevent a few people from succumbing to belief.

[beerhunter]

Which is why I said it will be far better for your piece of mind to just shrug your shoulders and don't let it concern you. You and people like you aren't going to stop people 'believing' in bigfoot. In fact the concept of bigfoot is bigger now than it has ever been. It's not going anywhere.

 

I would say less concerning to him and more consuming him. Folks understand your position whole-heartedly, but certain life happenings have me scratching my head and still trying to understand what it was that I and another person saw while out in the river on my boat. I still to this day won't reveal the "story" which happened 5 years ago as it is after all just another story. In my instance, I still have a difficult time wrapping my mind around it.

[Guest Crowlogic]

And there you are Crow, the PGF sitting like a steaming elephant turd in the middle of your careful construct. Explain it or risk being as compromised as the entire assortment of hoaxers you like to beat your drum about. The thing is, as we all know, you can't. So, you submit us all to this elaborate drama about the evolution of the skeptic and all the other claptrap that surrounds it. I mean it when I write it is very amusing to me....sort of like seeing a witness on the stand just sinking lower in the hole he's made, when everyone else watching knows he should just stop digging. Try that.

 

Here's another flash of insight I wish for you too...you probably won't get  the answers you think you are entitled to get, on the schedule you think you are entitled to get them on. Neither, probably, will any of us here. We deal with that. Try that too maybe.

 

Forgive me my abruptness, but I think I've just read one too many whining posts from one too many entitled, whining so-called skeptics with a back-bend aversion to what the world tells them "is."  

Thunderbirds, Pterodactyls, Nessie and Bigfoot= cut from the same cloth.  They are as real as bigfoot is to you  to the folks that subscribe to those ideas.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Crowlogic

[WSA]

Well Crow, as predicted, you can't make those dissonant ideas jibe. If you don't come to grips with what is on that film, you'll continue to pull yourself apart over it.  Like I said too...don't sweat it. You are in plentiful company.  Just own it and you'll feel much better, I'm promising. Nobody will try to force you to take a BF loyalty oath or make you buy all of Rick Dyer's videos.  You'll just be another poor schlub like most of us here who are waiting on additional information, and who might someday be enlightened, or not.  If you persist in making absurd comparisons like that one though, you'll continue to marginalize the very point (you think) you are making.

Edited June 19, 2015 by WSA

[salubrious]

 

Are you all so invested in this that you cannot even consider that a campfire story is all that it has EVER been?

 

Its not a campfire story when it happens to you. It happened to me; that is why I am here. I do accept that many of the stories are indeed fictional, but I also accept that not all are. I've seen them close up.

 

I can accept the possibility of an 8 - 12 ft, bipedal, animal of some type whose territory is apparently all of North America but which, through whatever means, has never been documented by science nor has any physical trace of said animal been positively identified. There is a possibility.

 

But, the majority of the posters here seem unable or unwilling to accept the other side of the argument. The possibility that it's all a myth. To me, that is unacceptable. It is more likely to be a myth than it is to be real. It just is.

 

I know the arguments for existence what I'm asking is can you not accept the stronger possibility, given the time/lack of evidence/claimed range of habitation, that this animal does NOT exist?

 

In the face of no evidence or experience your argument is perfectly logical. But you might want to try on the idea that some people have had first-hand experience that is not so easily discounted. What about them?

But it also might prevent a few people from succumbing to belief.

Belief is different from knowledge.

 

An example of belief is that the PGF is fake. An example of knowledge is that Patty's joints don't line up with the joints of a human. That is the 'miracle' of the PGF...

An example of belief is that BF is real. An example of knowledge is that a person experienced one from no more than 8 feet away in good lighting. That sort of knowledge can't be taken away and is not subject to the whims of often made-up stories that comprise the foundation of belief. The two are quite different!

[Guest]

But it also might prevent a few people from succumbing to belief.

 

What is the problem with 'believing' and why are you hoping to try and stop some people from going down that road? There are far far worse things in life to get involved in than 'believing in bigfoot'. It's not really a big deal is it? If it is to you then it really shouldn't be. 

 I still to this day won't reveal the "story" which happened 5 years ago as it is after all just another story. 

 Too bad that. But I won't badger. That's your decision.

[Bodhi]

Its not a campfire story when it happens to you. It happened to me; that is why I am here. I do accept that many of the stories are indeed fictional, but I also accept that not all are. I've seen them close up.

 

I understand that, but unless you've some evidence your story is just another story. Regardless of how profound the experience was for you.

 

In the face of no evidence or experience your argument is perfectly logical. But you might want to try on the idea that some people have had first-hand experience that is not so easily discounted. What about them?

Belief is different from knowledge.

 

I understand that, but unless you've some evidence your story is just another story. Regardless of how profound the experience was for you. 

[WSA]

You inhabit a very strange world Bodhi. Apparently it is full of people who show up on a website year-in, year out, to merely engage people on an incident that they made up. And one they recite with unwavering consistency. Oh, and they do that anonymously, so, you know, they get the maximum mileage from the effort. 

 

You've considered your premise is completely loopy, I'm hoping?  

 

You know people first-hand who do that kind of thing do you? Are you expending that kind of effort with anyone, anywhere? (If so, it says far more about your motivations than much else). Frankly, such a POV is absolutely crackers to rational people everywhere, and I'm just holding out hope you at least have a good handle on that behavior.   

 

Wait, don't tell me. I'm sort of afraid for you, and I also don't think I can put up with any more cra-cra just now.     

[roguefooter]

Why do people here always resort to ad-hominem attacks? Is it that difficult to debate the actual arguments?

[WSA]

Because sometimes you are just full-up with nuts. The idea of the animal, or not, doesn't get debated by many of our esteemed members with the least regard for, you know, how people actually behave in the real world. This is a great case in point. This special dispensation allows a lot of intellectual dishonesty hereabouts, and a whole lot of whining about it too, I might add. Somebody give me some science on their side of the equation and I'll guarantee I'll shut the &(^* up. Until then, sorry, it is only whack.

[roguefooter]

Unless you know the person then you have no idea how they are in the real world, you're only making assumptions to please yourself.

 

The idea of the animal gets debated all the time by skeptics here. Certain believers just don't like how it's debated, so they concoct their own rules of acceptable debate and expect others to adhere, or they resort to ad-hominem attacks thinking it'll make things just go away.

 

Bohdi was stating that stories without evidence are just stories. What's not science about requiring evidence?

Edited June 19, 2015 by roguefooter