Jump to content

A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.     

 

I'll agree with that. Good post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm giving that one the Phantom 1000 Plusses too.

 

Come on.  Where else in this your I hope rational life are you saying someone made something up; they invite you to look at the evidence; you say they made it up; they go into the evidence:  you say they made it up; they go into more evidence and elucidate with cogent explanations; you say they made it up; they provide more examples; you say they made it up; more examples...you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; you say they made it up; ...

 

Am I giving you an approximate idea how you sound?

 

Trust me; I couldn't come close.


You are, as this suggests...a weetad "loop."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

And they appear to be having a whale of a time doing it. They are out there experiencing nature and are having fun. They aren't sitting at home frothing at the mouth and experiencing nothing except four walls of a room while obsessing over something they are adamant doesn't exist.

I have come across plenty of unhinged unchilled rabid angry non believers foaming at the mouth at the idea of bigfoot. The internet is full of them.

Nobody in my house is frothing at the mouth.  Everybody in my house experiences nature in many forms. Hiking, camping and astronomy.  Nobody in my house ponders grand conspiracies of a secret ape in government hands etc.  Along with wisdom comes a certain dispassion about a lot of things.  I don't know why bigfooters always seem to react as if the person disagreeing with them is crazy or enraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

 

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. 

 

 

To the former, yes, I agree with you, to the latter, you failed to address the question- the broken record response does not address it.

 

 

That's a possibility but not a probability. 

 

On that you would be mistaken. I'm investigating several research areas where I have had encounters or found evidence. In any event, given my experience (to which I posted on one of your other threads) I will not be likely to reveal much of what I discover, if anything. I think you knew this though prior to making this post- to me it seems disingenuous as it was explained in spades to you on that other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr...."Bigfooters?"   Start there. 

 

Most folks I know who are engaged on this topic with some degree of intellectual detachment could most aptly be described as "interested in natural history", or try even just "outdoor recreational enthusiasts with questions."   It is only one thing most of us here do, or have an interest in, as far as I can tell.  The crazy investment on both sides of this question should be studiously avoided.  Those who want to proselytize for BF get a wide berth from me.  Those who (like, ahem, you Crow) who think the natural world and all others owe them some kind of accounting for whatever it is you think you should be informed of (NOW!!) are also suspect.  Way too much investment, way too many ultimatums, way too much rigidity.  It comes off as slightly cracked, as I said. 

 

Plus, as I've often said, adopting this attitude is not likely to get you anything remotely like what you claim you want. If it is just about spouting off so that all know your position..O.K....we get it...stop already. OTOH, if you truly want more information, this is not the way to get it.  Or as I was told as a child, "Don't talk just to hear your head roar."     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

Does it seem a bit strange that religion cannot be referenced but we have believers as well as skeptics who seem to have made a religion of BF with apposing views? Belief systems are not exclusive property of religion.

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr...."Bigfooters?"   Start there. 

 

Most folks I know who are engaged on this topic with some degree of intellectual detachment could most aptly be described as "interested in natural history", or try even just "outdoor recreational enthusiasts with questions."   It is only one thing most of us here do, or have an interest in, as far as I can tell.  The crazy investment on both sides of this question should be studiously avoided.  Those who want to proselytize for BF get a wide berth from me.  Those who (like, ahem, you Crow) who think the natural world and all others owe them some kind of accounting for whatever it is you think you should be informed of (NOW!!) are also suspect.  Way too much investment, way too many ultimatums, way too much rigidity.  It comes off as slightly cracked, as I said. 

 

Plus, as I've often said, adopting this attitude is not likely to get you anything remotely like what you claim you want. If it is just about spouting off so that all know your position..O.K....we get it...stop already. OTOH, if you truly want more information, this is not the way to get it.  Or as I was told as a child, "Don't talk just to hear your head roar."     

 

What is really baffling to me is all the insistence on evidence proof evidence coming from people who should - strictly as members of the species Homo sapiens - know, I mean know, that they have loudly announced the only kind of evidence that will matter to them, and are surrounding themselves with a steel bubble that anyone intelligent who is applying said intelligence will know, I mean KNOW, will deflect anything other than the very specific (and scientifically wrong wrong wrong!) thing they have said they want.

 

When one is constructing one's own ignorance shield, one's approach can be characterized as more than slightly "cracked."

 

If Crow cannot understand that his own approach flat ensures he will never know what's up until long after we do...he can't really be helped, can he.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

[1,709 posts]

[see my previous post]

8,274 posts and you've racked up that in was less time than I have.  So us that all you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  But unlike you...I have something to talk about.


And remember:  none of us are using Logic One Would Expect Better From a Crow as our standard of discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Does it seem a bit strange that religion cannot be referenced but we have believers as well as skeptics who seem to have made a religion of BF with apposing views? Belief systems are not exclusive property of religion.

True but No, its not that strange. Religion can be discussed in depth the in Premium Section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr...."Bigfooters?"   Start there. 

 

Most folks I know who are engaged on this topic with some degree of intellectual detachment could most aptly be described as "interested in natural history", or try even just "outdoor recreational enthusiasts with questions."   It is only one thing most of us here do, or have an interest in, as far as I can tell.  The crazy investment on both sides of this question should be studiously avoided.  Those who want to proselytize for BF get a wide berth from me.  Those who (like, ahem, you Crow) who think the natural world and all others owe them some kind of accounting for whatever it is you think you should be informed of (NOW!!) are also suspect.  Way too much investment, way too many ultimatums, way too much rigidity.  It comes off as slightly cracked, as I said. 

 

Plus, as I've often said, adopting this attitude is not likely to get you anything remotely like what you claim you want. If it is just about spouting off so that all know your position..O.K....we get it...stop already. OTOH, if you truly want more information, this is not the way to get it.  Or as I was told as a child, "Don't talk just to hear your head roar."     

 

So when, as in, how many years post the PGF will it be okay to ask the question:

"Why hasn't there been progress, (defined as tangible proof that the animal even exists), in this field?

75? 100?

 

How many years after the first reports of mountain gorillas reached Western Europe, did it take before there was tangible proof?

 

That animal became known to science Oct. 17, 1902 and I believe Du Chaillu first brought a report to W.E. in 1847.

So that's 55 years between first report to a Western European audience and final proof. That's going from Europe to Africa via a steamship or sailing vessel, hiring men or animals to physically carry gear and then walking/riding animal into unknown country, finding and documenting the animal for science. 55 years in the late 1800's.

 

 

Now, as large as the widlerness of north america might be, there are still reports of this animal in every state (except Hawaii) and all of the Canadian provinces. There are many, many reports near human habitation/roads. So with all of that purported range and so many reports near habitation in all the time since the PGF after 50 years not only is there no type specimen, there's been no scientific proof of the existence of the animal.

 

And it is your opinion that Crow is out of line for asking a question about this lack of progress?

I see a lot of attacks along the lines of "we don't have to work to Crow's timeline or why do we need to prove this on your schedule" or the post quoted here where Crow is accused of all manner of things.

 

It's seems like obvious avoidance of the question by attacking the questioner.

I believe an honest person looks as the reported progress since the PGF and is at least frustrated.

For those who posit that "private" or "secret" or "non-reported" research is bearing non-reported evidence, my response would be that until that evidence is made public and has gone through the same rigorous investigation of any other science discovery it has zero value to anyone other than the person/closed group who is conducting the research.

Scientific claims of any breakthrough go through rigorous reviews and are challenged from front to back. It can take many months/years and numerous revisions before a claim is accepted. Breakthroughs which are not reported are, by their very nature, immaterial to the greater research community. The same would apply to sasquatch research advances which aren't brought forward, until they withstand scrutiny they have very little value.

 

I think the question is valid. I think being frustrated by the variability in the reported range, behavior,and types (dogmen, etc.) is valid. I don't agree with the various charaterizations of "frothing", "fixated", "loopy", "cracked" and so on which are directed at those who dare ask questions; I think it's just a way for those who write such things to avoid dealing with the core of the question honestly. It's too bad but it is reminiscent of many other belief systems which rely on dogmatic answers to uncomfortable questions just as swwas mentions.

Edited by Bodhi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when, as in, how many years post the PGF will it be okay to ask the question:

"Why hasn't there been progress, (defined as tangible proof that the animal even exists), in this field?

75? 100?

 

Who said that question was taboo?  It's just that some of us know the answers and have discussed them, at excruciating length and in agonizing detail...right here.  And no!  Progress is not to any reasonable person defined as proof.  One of the most common misconceptions about science is that nothing moves forward without proof...when in fact science does that ALL THE TIME.  The evidence says the animal is real; that is all; and those not knowing this need to do what those knowing this have done and do not need to do for others, or to explain, to others who don't want to think about this or read about it, for the 16,854th time:  read up.  And THINK.

 

 

How many years after the first reports of mountain gorillas reached Western Europe, did it take before there was tangible proof?  Irrelevant question.  Next!  But for those who want the answer:  somebody went to Africa funded to get proof and did not stop until he got it.  He got lots (and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots) of help from locals who knew that the animal was real, and weren't getting laughed down by their society at large.  Know who is set up like that for sasquatch?  no one.

 

 

Now, as large as the widlerness of north america might be, there are still reports of this animal in every state (except Hawaii) and all of the Canadian provinces. There are many, many reports near human habitation/roads. So with all of that purported range and so many reports near habitation in all the time since the PGF after 50 years not only is there no type specimen, there's been no scientific proof of the existence of the animal.

 

Because NO ONE IS PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THE REPORTS who has the leverage and funding to take this mainstream!  Do try to keep up.  People are seeing them.  You're saying they aren't?  Them over you.

 

And it is your opinion that Crow is out of line for asking a question about this lack of progress?

I see a lot of attacks along the lines of "we don't have to work to Crow's timeline or why do we need to prove this on your schedule" or the post quoted here where Crow is accused of all manner of things.

 

Crow is CONVICTED of operating on personal, in-his-head 'analysis' unencumbered by external fact.  Not reading his posts, are you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh.  And since WHEN is  "we don't have to work to Crow's timeline or why do we need to prove this on your schedule" an ATTACK??

 

That's a different kind of ACK:  a FACK.  (Sorry, FACT.)


We need to prove this on no one's timeline or schedule.  What they need to do is get informed.

Edited by DWA
Removed trolling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bodhi, let me clear that one up for you: You stop looking when the evidence stops.

 

If anything about that is not clear, get back to me.   Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...