A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

Agreed, else you might get fooled by an April's Fool video.

 

Which I didn't.  Did you read that thread?  The way you think gets fooled, every day.

 

 

What color is the sky in your world? Are there two suns? Two moons? Is everyone else there as smart as you?

 

Obviously you do or you wouldn't carry on this incessant babbling about how everyone else is stupid and you're smart.

 

Yes, you are the only one here who does that.

 

There might be a reason for that.  And it might be backed by *evidence*.  Raise yer game, son.

 

 

You realize it was a scientist who informed you about those 125,000 gorillas, don't you, or had you already got out there and discovered them yourself?

 

It was a *scientist* or six or seven who found out how ****** wrong they were.   (And yes.  I *knew* already.  Nothing like that *ever* surprises me.  It's knowing how to think, son.)  Are you gonna challenge Cotter's point?  Or what?

As this thread evolves the thought process of the proponents exposes the kind of intellectual slurry that keeps the drums beating with ever more vapidity.  

 

Crow:  here.  Napkin.  Use it.  Ignorance coming on as arrogance is sooooooooooooooo corvid.

Would you care to look at the thread that talks of the money invested in bigfoot research.  The oh money is never applied is tired and hollow .  How much did it take Roger Patterson to get his film?  How much did it cost Paul Freeman to get his video and his track casts?

 

No it's backed by *evidence* which you never ever ever present do you.  How many times does Patterson have to get explained to you, son?  Who cares about Paul Freeman?  CATCH.UP!

 

 

I MIGHT BE GETTIN' A LEEETLE TIREDER OF THE SAME OLE THAN THE AVERAGE POSTER HERE, HUH!?!?

Edited July 31, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

I'm very new to this forum, so I'm sure I've not read enough to have much to say yet. But, I do have one question that keeps popping up in my head. Why do skeptics come on these boards and repeatedly post argumentatively? I'd understand if it was a particular point they wanted to make refuting a point about evidence or a subject. But, to seemingly make it their life's purpose to convince others that Bigfoot isn't real seems sort of sad. I don't believe in werewolves, but I don't find it useful or rewarding to lurk on the werewolf forums telling those people again and again that they're wrong. 

 

It seems a case of "thou dost protest too much"...meaning the habitual skeptics on this forum are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe in BF, or maybe they've chosen this subject to exercise their sense of self-superiority. It's like that guy from Skeptic Magazine (Shermer?) I think he's the most negative, condescending, shallow, sad caricature of a closed-minded man I've ever seen. He, like many overly-vocal skeptics, seems to get his joy from telling others that they're wrong, rather than from proving the actual truth. Who would start a magazine that's sole purpose is to say, "I DON'T believe this and I DON'T believe that or that or that or THAT!"

[southernyahoo]

 

 Send in a group to collect DNA just as has already been done. I understand that there would be expense involved here BUT we are talking about the biggest discovery in biology in maybe, ever. I think the expense can be justified after the many years the NAWAC group has already expended without hitting a homerun?

 

I agree with the DNA approach as I'm not prokill, not just because I think they are a hominin but also that I don't believe anyone would be able to retain possession  of the specimen. I often hear the argument that without a body, you wouldn't be able to tell what the DNA is from. This is born from a lack of understanding how DNA is studied / matched to knowns or it's similarity to knowns.

 

So far the problem seems to be that it is too close to human. Below is a link to how it would be done at a minimal expense provided it's NOT human. 

 

http://ibarcode.org/hajibabaei/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/benchmarking-dna-barcodes-an-assessment-using-available-primate-sequences.pdf

Edited July 31, 2015 by southernyahoo

[Rockape]

 

Agreed, else you might get fooled by an April's Fool video.

 

Which I didn't.  Did you read that thread?  The way you think gets fooled, every day.

The entire free worlds know you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Deny all you like

 

 

 

What color is the sky in your world? Are there two suns? Two moons? Is everyone else there as smart as you?

 

Obviously you do or you wouldn't carry on this incessant babbling about how everyone else is stupid and you're smart.

 

Yes, you are the only one here who does that.

 

There might be a reason for that.  And it might be backed by *evidence*.  Raise yer game, son.

 What might be backed up by evidence? That your world has two suns? Two moons? You'd think someone with such high intelligence as yourself could quote properly. 

 

 

You realize it was a scientist who informed you about those 125,000 gorillas, don't you, or had you already got out there and discovered them yourself?

 

It was a *scientist* or six or seven who found out how ****** wrong they were.   (And yes.  I *knew* already.  Nothing like that *ever* surprises me.  It's knowing how to think, son.)

I'll just quote that as an example of ego run amok.

 

 

Are you gonna challenge Cotter's point?  Or what?

I have no problem with Cotter. If you have some problem with Cotter, challenge him yourself.

 

 

I MIGHT BE GETTIN' A LEEETLE TIREDER OF THE SAME OLE THAN THE AVERAGE POSTER HERE, HUH!?!?

Not as tired as the average poster here is of you and your inflated opinion of yourself. Tell us all how stupid we are again. We just love that.

[Guest DWA]

I'm very new to this forum, so I'm sure I've not read enough to have much to say yet. But, I do have one question that keeps popping up in my head. Why do skeptics come on these boards and repeatedly post argumentatively? I'd understand if it was a particular point they wanted to make refuting a point about evidence or a subject. But, to seemingly make it their life's purpose to convince others that Bigfoot isn't real seems sort of sad. I don't believe in werewolves, but I don't find it useful or rewarding to lurk on the werewolf forums telling those people again and again that they're wrong. 

 

It seems a case of "thou dost protest too much"...meaning the habitual skeptics on this forum are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe in BF, or maybe they've chosen this subject to exercise their sense of self-superiority. It's like that guy from Skeptic Magazine (Shermer?) I think he's the most negative, condescending, shallow, sad caricature of a closed-minded man I've ever seen. He, like many overly-vocal skeptics, seems to get his joy from telling others that they're wrong, rather than from proving the actual truth. Who would start a magazine that's sole purpose is to say, "I DON'T believe this and I DON'T believe that or that or that or THAT!"

 

Welcome!  Great to have you on board, and I have rarely seen an introductory post hit harder, actually.  Nice shot.

 

Many of us wonder this, and note that we spend zero time trying to discourage people on conspiracy-theory, fairy, unicorn and bend-spoons-with-mind forums.  For one thing - and no institutional skeptic will ever wrap mind around this - a truly open mind simply *never does that*; there is too much in the world to discover to spend a SECOND! on such travesty.  There can be no bigger black hole of bandwidth waste than the skepticism one sees here - it isn't skepticism! - in human discourse.  I wonder why Psychology Today has never tackled this topic; it is one of the more intriguing pathologies out there, and severe drogue chute on human knowledge that it is, one of the more important to address and correct.  Of course, the mainstream of modern science and its camp followers in the mass media are leading sufferers, so that might have something to do with it.

 

Join us as we delve deeper into this Alice's Rabbit Hole of mental instability, and answer the question:

 

How could anyone be so against finding out new stuff!?!?!?

The entire free worlds know you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Deny all you like

 

Say what you want; the evidence is right there on the thread.  But see.  This is the problem; you don't know how to think about topics like this, or about science; and you will eternally be stuck on The Daily Bigfoot Follies, which will never tell anyone anything.  Promise:  I'll know before you.  (Pssssssst:  I DO NOW.)

 

 

 What might be backed up by evidence? That your world has two suns? Two moons? You'd think someone with such high intelligence as yourself could quote properly. 

 

It was very clear (but count on you to miss clarity):  that you guys need instruction sometimes in conducting thought paths out of a wet paper bag.  I just try to help.

 

I'll just quote that as an example of ego run amok.  <<<<Actually, that is.  Consider the source.

 

I have no problem with Cotter. If you have some problem with Cotter, challenge him yourself.

 

You'd think someone with such high intelligence as yourself could quote properly.   YOU CHALLENGED COTTER!

 

Not as tired as the average poster here is of you and your inflated opinion of yourself. Tell us all how stupid we are again. We just love that.

 

You know what?  I don't have to.  You are doing a fine job.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I'm very new to this forum, so I'm sure I've not read enough to have much to say yet. But, I do have one question that keeps popping up in my head. Why do skeptics come on these boards and repeatedly post argumentatively? I'd understand if it was a particular point they wanted to make refuting a point about evidence or a subject. But, to seemingly make it their life's purpose to convince others that Bigfoot isn't real seems sort of sad. I don't believe in werewolves, but I don't find it useful or rewarding to lurk on the werewolf forums telling those people again and again that they're wrong. 

 

It seems a case of "thou dost protest too much"...meaning the habitual skeptics on this forum are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe in BF, or maybe they've chosen this subject to exercise their sense of self-superiority. It's like that guy from Skeptic Magazine (Shermer?) I think he's the most negative, condescending, shallow, sad caricature of a closed-minded man I've ever seen. He, like many overly-vocal skeptics, seems to get his joy from telling others that they're wrong, rather than from proving the actual truth. Who would start a magazine that's sole purpose is to say, "I DON'T believe this and I DON'T believe that or that or that or THAT!"

Hello welcome aboard.  There are skeptics who have always had a negative view of the topic and simply badger folks for their own entertainment.  Then there are others who are steeped in knowledge of the subject and have chosen to reject the subject as being a real animal.  As the title of this thread I started says we're a half century into the modern hunt for true proof of this animal.  I was a firm believer for 46 years and a skeptical believer for 2 years then a non believer for 2 years.  I've read the books, I've seen the movies, I've been to exhibitions and lectures.  For me belief was a lot easier when communication and information was not so easy to come by and not so easy to cross reference.  But I am a veteran of the bigfoot wars so to speak and now a member that's fought from both sides.  Some people will say that the skeptic non believer simply does not know what the believers know and that is flat out wrong.  The tipping point for me  was the realization that  the more  subject of bigfoot changed the more it remained the same.

 

 

I MIGHT BE GETTIN' A LEEETLE TIREDER OF THE SAME OLE THAN THE AVERAGE POSTER HERE, HUH!?!?

That's too bad.  Since when do you call the shots around here?

[Guest DWA]

For me belief was a lot easier when communication and information was not so easy to come by and not so easy to cross reference.  

 

There are many tomatoes to throw; I'll focus on that one.  Loose but adequate translation:  the less I knew, the more certain I was.  That's still happening, Crow.

[Martin]

Welcome!  I wonder why Psychology Today has never tackled this topic; it is one of the more intriguing pathologies out there, and severe drogue chute on human knowledge that it is, one of the more important to address and correct.  [/b][/i][/color]

Since you mentioned it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19642883

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Paranormal-Beliefs-and-Brain-Chemistry.html

"Under the influence of L-dopa, both groups had difficulty in distinguishing real faces and words from the scrambled ones—but interestingly, the skeptical individuals developed a greater ability to interpret the jumbled images as the real thing.

Brugger theorized that the improvement in the skeptics' performance suggests that paranormal thoughts are associated with high levels of dopamine in the brain. The dopamine allows people to see patterns and to become less skeptical regarding the perception of relationships between events."

[Guest DWA]

Since you mentioned it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19642883

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Paranormal-Beliefs-and-Brain-Chemistry.html

"Under the influence of L-dopa, both groups had difficulty in distinguishing real faces and words from the scrambled ones—but interestingly, the skeptical individuals developed a greater ability to interpret the jumbled images as the real thing.

Brugger theorized that the improvement in the skeptics' performance suggests that paranormal thoughts are associated with high levels of dopamine in the brain. The dopamine allows people to see patterns and to become less skeptical regarding the perception of relationships between events."

This is addressing hallucinations and paranormal thought.  It's not addressing seeing North American wildlife in its natural habitat.

 

(Anyone who has read the reports and attributes them to "hallucinations and paranormal thought" is, I would aver, subject to same oneself.)

Plus, of course, I am talking about a "skepticism" that repeats its lack of information over and over and over, to the point of pretending that nothing of the opposing position has ever been uttered.  Don't think this study even touched that (unless ....hmmmmmm....bigfoot skeptics are hallucinating our reactions to them, which...now that you mention it...)

[Martin]

It's addressing people misinterpreting things they see....

Try reading it.

[Guest Crowlogic]

There are many tomatoes to throw; I'll focus on that one.  Loose but adequate translation:  the less I knew, the more certain I was.  That's still happening, Crow.

Well sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug.  However come sunup bigfoot is still going to as much as a myth as it was when the sun went down.  So windshield or bug?

[Branco]

Post deleted.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Branco

[Guest DWA]

It's addressing people misinterpreting things they see....

Try reading it.

 

I.DID.

 

READ WHAT I SAID.  AGAIN.

Edited July 31, 2015 by DWA

[Rockape]

The entire free worlds know you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Deny all you like

 

Say what you want; the evidence is right there on the thread.  But see.  This is the problem; you don't know how to think about topics like this, or about science; and you will eternally be stuck on The Daily Bigfoot Follies, which will never tell anyone anything.  Promise:  I'll know before you.  (Pssssssst:  I DO NOW.)

 

LOL, you said the same bs there, that none of us know anything, we don't know how to look at evidence, etc, etc. Here's what you said about it.

 

When I see backstory like that...you got my attention.

 

First thing I thought:  bogus website.  I got tired of working that angle, very quickly.  Backstory will do that.  (Edited to add:  so will finding so many legit links that you gotta be kidding me working that angle.)  So will a track of the kind the video would lead one to expect, and a video of the kind the track would lead one to expect...plus over *300 meters* of such tracks...going right to the camera.

 

Edited to add:  plus a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes; plus these scientists looking for other evidence, and how 'bout, finding hair that no one can match with anything known.

 

To anyone tossing the usual scoff brickbats all I can say is:  the denial is strong in that one, Luke.

 

That's what they refer to as being hoisted by your own petard.

 

 

 

It was very clear (but count on you to miss clarity):  that you guys need instruction sometimes in conducting thought paths out of a wet paper bag

There you go, calling everyone else stupid again after you yourself did something stupid. Does it make you feel better about yourself to think you are so much smarter than everyone else? Does it ease the sting of that April Fool's Day video you fell for?

 

 

YOU CHALLENGED COTTER!

Horse Hockey! I never said anything to Cotter or about him. Are the voices in your head saying I did? Don't listen to them.

Well sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug.  However come sunup bigfoot is still going to as much as a myth as it was when the sun went down.  So windshield or bug?

No, no. Haven't you been paying attention. DWA knows bigfoot exists and the rest of us are stupid. The world is his big windshield and we are the bugs.

[Guest]

I'm very new to this forum, so I'm sure I've not read enough to have much to say yet. But, I do have one question that keeps popping up in my head. Why do skeptics come on these boards and repeatedly post argumentatively? I'd understand if it was a particular point they wanted to make refuting a point about evidence or a subject. But, to seemingly make it their life's purpose to convince others that Bigfoot isn't real seems sort of sad. I don't believe in werewolves, but I don't find it useful or rewarding to lurk on the werewolf forums telling those people again and again that they're wrong. 

 

 

Except you won't find these same people rocking up to bigfoot symposiums and conventions to mock and snicker face to face. They would rather do it anonymously over a keyboard.

They are merely internet warriors mocking what they perceive to be the afflicted. They have admitted as such that believers are afflicted. We already have had assertions by cynics in this thread (who repeatedly claim they aren't doing anything wrong, like Crowlogic and Bhodi) insulting people with their "unhinged" and "tin foil hat" jibes and people needing to "grow up". Then they protest about being "attacked". This is the amazing thing. It's funny when you think about it. 

Just wish these types had the bravery to go to symposiums to argue and snicker but of course they don't. They wage their war on an internet forum.