Guest Crowlogic Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 ^^^No. What I think is what is correct; and it is because I am paying attention and you aren't. And I'm in the light of day, and you're in the dark with no willingness to come out. And you keep providing nothing to back up what you say...while every single scientist who demonstrates attention to the topic *agrees with me." You offer nothing except verbosity. I can't give you bigfoot because it does not exist. You claim you have all this proof but you sit on it like it's a throne. However sitting on a throne of bigfoot proof is tantamount to being a lord of the flies. That said it's up to the proponent ton prove it to the opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Crow: You can't even throw me any scientists' opinions who agree with you! You know how that's playing, I know you do. It's not what the vast blankness of the ignorant world *thinks.* Never is in science. It is what the evidence *says.* Why bother Edited July 14, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Bigfoot on the Brain: The tendency to attribute to Bigfoot things that are, in fact, not at all attributable to Bigfoot or highly unlikely to be attributable to Bigfoot. BFOTB is a real syndrome for those of us who are open to the existence of this creature. I know BFOTB is a real syndrome 'cause I had it and still fight the tendency to this day. Rocks being thrown at my wilderness cabin turned out to be a squirrel dropping pine cones from a tree high above the rooftop. Bowling ball sized rocks being thrown at me, narrowly missing my boat, while night fishing on remote wilderness lakes turned out to be a territorial beaver. Blood curdling screams in the middle of the state forest late at night, well, who knows for sure, though probably produced by an animal very common to the area, most likely a bobcat. In each case, I was convinced these were full fledged BF encounters. However, upon further rational investigation found there was absolutely no cause for any sort of alarm. I simply was suffering from 'bigfoot on the brain', concocting a narrative that fit with similiar stories commonly found in today's BF media. BFOTB syndrome is not rational and causes us to reach conclusions about things which are attributed to BF circumstantially, with the dismissal of far more plausible explanations. Not sure the psychology underlying BFOTB syndrome, but fear it's very common in the BF community. I continually fight it myself. So, who else here believes in the thing called Bigfoot on the Brain? Are you aware of its effects on perceptions, your own included? Do you guard against it? MNSkeptic Bigfoot on the brain is a very real issue that overtakes MANY bigfooters and even the general outdoorsman. Beating the issue is only possible if you study wildlife biology and ecology to understand that Sasquatch is likely the very last thing you are encountering. Beyond this, the mind has to be trained to overcome fear to evaluate things in the moment logically. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNskeptic Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 Worrying about whether somebody on the internet will say you have a made-up syndrome takes precious energy away from learning and experiencing. Don't let the empty pronouncements of random people drag on your energy and enthusiasm. You can't cripple yourself to make someone else happy. It won't actually make them happy, and it won't make you happy, either. Huh? Guessing I'm the random person with empty pronouncements to which you refer. All I'm saying is that we might be wise to continually check ourselves against the brain's tendency to process data in a way that is consistent with a persons belief systems. Never said to stop wasting energy looking and exploring and learning about this creature. The brain can fool you and I used my own examples to illustrate that point. Nathan summed up my point very well. Wasn't intended to discourage folks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Huh? Guessing I'm the random person with empty pronouncements to which you refer. All I'm saying is that we might be wise to continually check ourselves against the brain's tendency to process data in a way that is consistent with a persons belief systems. Never said to stop wasting energy looking and exploring and learning about this creature. The brain can fool you and I used my own examples to illustrate that point. Nathan summed up my point very well. Wasn't intended to discourage folks. Check the PDR (Physician Desk Reference) and there is no such syndrome called BOTB. To call it a syndrome is to imply some sort of medical or psychological condition for something that does not exist. Perhaps a better way to address your point would be asking why some people can aptly deny their own instincts, senses and reasoning while others do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Trog/Rock, surely you'd go outside the tent and initially work out if it was rocks or pine cones being thrown in the first place ? ...... BobbyO, Definitely not disagreeing with you - you, I, and many others would go out and try to puzzle things out. Some however, would remain in the tent and assume that the unseen objects hitting the outside of their tent are rocks. Or go out in the morning and assume that all the rocks that were there, but unnoticed, yesterday when they pitched their tent were thrown at them through the night. That's quite different than seeing a stone arcing over your position in broad daylight. I don't think that there's that much conflict for most - the OP just notes that some people jump to conclusions that every jumping fish in the dark is a Bigfoot throwing rocks at them. I don't read it as broadly saying that every encounter is a miss-apprehended, or miss-identified encounter with a known animal. Keep up the good fight & ignore the nattering nabobs of nattering nothingness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 All I'm saying is that we might be wise to continually check ourselves against the brain's tendency to process data in a way that is consistent with a persons belief systems. I don’t agree that it’s wise. It's not wise to second-guess yourself about what you think is around you (unless you’re scared, and need a way to calm down). A wise action is one that’s intended to prevent a negative consequence. What is the negative consequence here? That you’ll think you heard (or saw) a BF when you didn’t? Never said to stop wasting energy looking and exploring and learning about this creature. The brain can fool you and I used my own examples to illustrate that point. Nathan summed up my point very well. Wasn't intended to discourage folks. I appreciate that it wasn't your intention, but I think it does discourage people. By inventing a syndrome called Bigfoot On The Brain, you’re teaching people they are not in a position to judge their own experiences. You imply it’s necessary for them to doubt themselves. On top of that, by encouraging them to doubt themselves, and giving them a name for a “condition†that could cause them to be “wrongâ€, you imply there’s something shameful about being wrong -- which there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Trog/Rock, surely you'd go outside the tent and initially work out if it was rocks or pine cones being thrown in the first place ? Then you break down what has happened in the most logical and rational way possible, which for many level headed person would highly likely not be Sasquatch related 99% of the time anyway, and rightly so. But if it was rocks being thrown at your tent, in the middle of a forest and you can be certain of that, for me it brings the probability of it being Sasquatch related a lot, as it should, as to be bake to throw a rock you need an opposable thumb. Correct me if I'm wrong but rocks would be from the ground and squirrels are not in the habit of locating them and then throwing them, because they can't. Most definitely would Bobby. The time I thought someone was throwing small stones at me (pebbles would be a better description) I immediately rose to my feet (I was sitting under a large tree) and started looking around trying to find someone who was doing it. It was only after I was reasonably certain no one could have been close enough to me and also there was no one else around to throw them that I decided it must have been birds dropping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) I don’t agree that it’s wise. It's not wise to second-guess yourself about what you think is around you (unless you’re scared, and need a way to calm down). A wise action is one that’s intended to prevent a negative consequence. What is the negative consequence here? That you’ll think you heard (or saw) a BF when you didn’t? For a lot of people, Leaf, that is it: being O.M.G. WRONG!!!! Which, well, science never went anywhere without people majorly risking that. The biggest misconception in science, at least held by people posting here, is that Science Parades A Body Around before pronouncing something real. That's why most here can't understand John Bindernagel's cogent point: that sasquatch is a scientific discovery, right now, that just hasn't been popularly acknowledged yet; and that this has happened, in science, many more times than once. I appreciate that it wasn't your intention, but I think it does discourage people. By inventing a syndrome called Bigfoot On The Brain, you’re teaching people they are not in a position to judge their own experiences. You imply it’s necessary for them to doubt themselves. On top of that, by encouraging them to doubt themselves, and giving them a name for a “condition†that could cause them to be “wrongâ€, you imply there’s something shameful about being wrong -- which there isn't. Right. This thing skeptics do about Our Problem being people saying, for years, and even decades, that a horse or a bear was a bigfoot, is ...well, it is patently ridiculous. Seven billion people live their daily lives by NEVER - in any really significant way - being fooled by their brains, EVER EVER. Think about it: we'd have 35 million traffic fatalities, per day, if that were something People Just Did. Never mind all the people breaking their noses walking into closed doors...which come to think of it might cut those traffic fatalities somewhat, so let me re-calc here. There is virtually zero chance that a significant percentage - much less a majority - of all the bigfoot reports I have read are lies or mistakes. Why? THAT IS THE WAY THE REAL WORLD WORKS. Anyone thinking otherwise has put this topic in a separate universe from the one in which they live their daily lives. Which IS Our Problem here. Edited July 15, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Yeah. Scientists shouldn't let fear drive their investigations. And the rest of us shouldn't let fear drive us, either. It's hard though, I admit, when the culture around you threatens to ostracize you if you don't buy what it says. The culture tells you not to trust yourself (because it's easier to control you that way). But nobody is honest about wanting control. They just say, "We're suggesting you do this because it's smart to do this." And who wants to look stupid? They rely on shaming tactics to get us to accept the ideas that give them more control over us. Somewhere we know we've been conned out of our freedom, but we feel shame about that, too. So instead of admitting we've been conned, we foist the twisted logic used to co-opt us on the next generation. It makes us feel more authentic to ourselves. So I really do understand why some people (including me, sometimes) have a hard time recognizing it when they've become the controllers. We think we're just going along. We think we're just being good citizens. Bucking fear (and the system) is hard work and doesn't result in a lot of accolades. It does have its own rewards, but not a lot of us get to find out what those are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 “Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.†–George Bernard Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Borne out over and over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCBFr Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Optimistic, but still a great quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted July 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 16, 2015 Bigfoot on the brain is a very real issue that overtakes MANY bigfooters and even the general outdoorsman. Beating the issue is only possible if you study wildlife biology and ecology to understand that Sasquatch is likely the very last thing you are encountering. Beyond this, the mind has to be trained to overcome fear to evaluate things in the moment logically. Nathanfooter I pluss you on this, It was well written and thought out. We have to rule out every thing else out before you can even declare that it is Big Foot. Being in the dark and knowing that their might be some thing large stalking you can overtake your senses. It is not a natural feeling to have after you have seen these critters. But once you get use to the forest and the natural noises that it makes, the issue of bigfoot every where is gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 A real BF encounter is unmistakable. You can't mistake pine cones on the roof with rocks hurled at significant speed. BF interaction is more than visual and that part usually escapes ignorant people. You are wasting your time with a video camera and stupid habituation sites. I saw some youtube video of chain smoker voiced women leaving them pies. I guess I needed some entertainment that night. You have to ask yourself if you really want to experience contact. If they are throwing rocks at you that means they don't want you around. It's not a cause for feeling you have accomplished anything. If they want to know you on friendly terms they will let you know. It's not your choice to make. The faster you accept that the easier the field research will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts