A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

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?

 

How many people do you think you will "prevent from succumbing to belief" this coming week, Crowlogic?

[Guest DWA]

^^^Maybe one or two.  There are always people who will do something that isn't backed by common sense or evidence; a certain exemplar is under discussion here.

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.

This, pretty much.  At the 2009 Texas Bigfoot Conference...not one skeptic.  (Who.Said.Anything.)

 

Bigfoot skeptics are engaged in constant demeaning of people who straightforwardly - and consistently and compellingly - describe seeing something...and, clearly braver than they, assert it, many of them using their real names.  You can bet your bottom dollar I would never reveal my true name on any of these forums...because the motives of bigfoot skeptics clearly don't stop at (actually don't even consist of) argument.  They're nasty; and what they do with people whose names they know, one can glimpse by looking at what they've done to Patterson and Gimlin.  They're trolls, and Ignoring them perpetuates their ignorance on a forum that really shouldn't be catering to it.  Let them go rant on JREF.  That approach amounts to pollution here.

 

I have never seen such an egregious waste of bandwidth.  But they're clearly no match for me; they let me get in touch with my inner bully.     And they ask for it. 

Edited July 31, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

How many people do you think you will "prevent from succumbing to belief" this coming week, Crowlogic?

92.  How many bigfoot are you or your cohorts going to deliver to science this week Neanderfoot?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

We're not.  We're leaving him alone.  Science has confirmed him, you know.  You've had this explained as many times as you've gotten that mandatory-to-be-taken-seriously reading list.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^Maybe one or two.  There are always people who will do something that isn't backed by common sense or evidence; a certain exemplar is under discussion here.

This, pretty much.  At the 2009 Texas Bigfoot Conference...not one skeptic.  (Who.Said.Anything.)

 

Bigfoot skeptics are engaged in constant demeaning of people who straightforwardly - and consistently and compellingly - describe seeing something...and, clearly braver than they, assert it, many of them using their real names.  You can bet your bottom dollar I would never reveal my true name on any of these forums...because the motives of bigfoot skeptics clearly don't stop at (actually don't even consist of) argument.  They're nasty; and what they do with people whose names they know, one can glimpse by looking at what they've done to Patterson and Gimlin.  They're trolls, and Ignoring them perpetuates their ignorance on a forum that really shouldn't be catering to it.  Let them go rant on JREF.  That approach amounts to pollution here.

 

I have never seen such an egregious waste of bandwidth.  But they're clearly no match for me; they let me get in touch with my inner bully.     And they ask for it. 

Bigfoot skeptics are not likely to waste time and money at a bigfoot conference.  Exactly what did skeptics do to Patterson & Gimlin?  Bob Gimlin has continued to live a healthy and long life showing no signs of checking out any time soon.  He makes a few $$$$ from his appearances too.   Roger has been dead for decades.  Roger got what he wanted out of bigfoot, he didn't get his cure for Hodgkin's which is what he really wanted.,   Sorry your straw man has just burst into flames DWA.  If you think rational people have to kneel down and worship at the alter of a myth steeped in hoaxing and tall tales you're as mistaken as you are about your belief in this subject.

[beerhunter]

Crowlogic,  today I feel like the bug but it's nothing a few pain meds can't fix LOL. Bigfoot is an addiction for both side in this argument as witnessed by the many pages of responses here and I have jumped off the argument loop for now as I have better things to do with my time. Carry on.

[Old Dog]

I live in Washington State, we have an abundance of deer here.  Some people put out feeding stations for these vermin, and they flock to it because they know they will get their fill.  I, on the other hand, prefer to not feed the vermin and they don't bother me or my property.  Oh, an occasional ignorant one will stray through once in a while, but after he finds that he won't get what he needs to survive from me, he moves on to the next area that has the feeding station and he gets more than his fill from them.  I find internet trolls to be of the same ilk.  Don't be a feeding station for trolls and they will soon migrate to another area to get their fill.  Bon Appetit !

[Guest DWA]

Well, I look at it as a street that never gets cleaned; the trash lies there and accumulates.

 

I'm not even sure I'd wish they'd leave; what I say about them justifies what I do to them.  But my feelins wouldn't be hurt if they were more stringently policed.  I am not sure how going "the earth is flat" over and over and over lends anything of redeeming value to any discussion.  What - in the HELL - could be going on with *anyone* who says, over and over and over, that if something is not proven right now, it never will be?  (Particularly when very serious consideration must be given to that it HAS been proven?)  A nonsense position if ever I read one; yet it gets promulgated and encouraged and coddled.

Edited July 31, 2015 by DWA

[Bodhi]

Hi Bodhi, what hasn't been mentioned yet is the fact that well organized and funded Bigfoot research organizations do not publicly share any evidences. They also do not share evidences procured with other research organizations. I know for a fact the BFRO adheres to this policy and all of it's investigators are required to sign a NDA. If there has been progress made it's being held close to the vest by such research organizations until the time proof is aquired.

I know and it's a shame that groups do not share evidence publicly. Understanding that releasing information prematurely causes huge issues, (ketchum), holding onto research results indefinitely is also a problem. At some point, results should be released so the claims/results can be reviewed and replicated by peers. If this doesn't happen research groups will continue to needlessly duplicate effort and struggle.

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

yup, you are correct southern - DNA is all that is required and if that comes first then great. NAWAC considered trying to use DNA darts but then decided against them, I believe, because of the density of the terrain. Brian thought that a dart wouldn't make it through the foliage, I believe, thus they are going with a prokill approach.

 

I understand the no-kill stance though, one of The Bigfoot Show hosts was vehemently no kill and listening to the hosts debate back and forth was always entertaining. I miss that show, they seemed so reasonable it is a shame that their voices are no longer out there to tamp down some of the crazier woo that is now infiltrating into the sasquatch common culture.....

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."

already maxed my positive votes but ^^PLUS!!

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.

 

 

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?

 

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.

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.

Excellent work Rock. The antisocial posts by that person are simply nonstop. Good work on pointing it out.

[Martin]

I know and it's a shame that groups do not share evidence publicly. Understanding that releasing information prematurely causes huge issues, (ketchum), holding onto research results indefinitely is also a problem. At some point, results should be released so the claims/results can be reviewed and replicated by peers. If this doesn't happen research groups will continue to needlessly duplicate effort and struggle.

 

Every once in a while someone goes off of the reservation and we get a glimpse into the inner circle of evidence. Moneymaker touted "Matilda" as possibly the best ever and even assigned his bigfeet to have canine facial features. 

 

Then we all got a look at "Matilda" which was actually a Chewbacca mask and thanks to Bill M. was quickly debunked. 

 

As long as "Matilda" was held in confidence by a small group they could all tout the woo about what they had been priviledged to see.... They use inner circle infomation as a carrot to build loyalty within their groups. People feel special when they are have "inside information".  

 

When things become public the con-men lose control of the narrative. That's why bigfoot almost always boils down to unverifiable or secret evidence.

 

All of these groups have different standards in acceptable evidence and attract like minded people. 

 

We see claims of multiple species. This seems to primarily come from the various group-centric unverifiable evidence they accept.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Martin

[Guest DWA]

But that's nothing but a silly sideshow, a who-cares.

[Guest WesT]

I don't watch Finding Bigfoot very often. But the times I have I couldn't help but notice that anytime they would capture evidence, they never let the viewers hear, or see, what was captured. Then it dawned on me that when they do get something interesting it becomes the property of the BFRO. It's hard to say for a fact what evidences they've accumulated over the years.

[Guest DWA]

FB just looked baldly like Silly Bigfoot Teevee from the gitgo.  One wouldn't even have to see a trailer; one would only have to look at the program schedule.  Arkansas!  Vietnam!  Vermont!  California!  Rhode Island!  Nepal! ...shoot, stick around a bit, you might even see a fox somewhere.

[WSA]

As we say, there ain't no cure for the dumb a_ _.

 

Carnie barkers got to eat too, and this field has more than its share, I grant you that. If those who do this are also capable (with your cooperation) of killing your ability to reason for yourself, it is doubly a shame.  

[Guest DWA]

Truly.  You gotta Build Yer Own Bigfoot, because the society is pretending it ain't there and the teevee has got it mainly wrong.

 

It's science.  Thought required.