So. What Happens When Sasquatch Is Proven, And We All Know The Skeptics Were Wrong All Along?

[norseman]

It may work........

Omnivores all like the same things, the general rule of thumb baiting bear is "if you like it so do they". So why not a giant Ape as well?

[southernyahoo]

No bigfoot where I live.

We do have stick formations, wood knocks, weird growling sounds and bumps in the night though..... maybe I'll leave some Zagnuts on the sidewalk.

 

Are you in the south Martin?

[Guest DWA]

Hello All,

 

 

Just like that? dismiss everyone?. Not everyone out there in the woods is such a hardcore mercenary that if they saw an extant Woodape they would just keep it to themselves.

 

And they don't.  See woodape.org; see bfro.net.  And here we are.

 

 

 

[Martin]

Are you in the south Martin?

Yes but suburbia.... we have had few bigfoot flaps around here... we also had a werewolf flap. Bigfoot turned out to be a perverted neighbor peeping tom and the werewolf was a guy in a costume.... Funny thing was once people started reporting the number of reports grew exponentially. The power of suggestion kicked in. Someone reported seeing a were wolf climbing the wall of our local hospital.

[Guest DWA]

 

Hello All,

 

 

Just like that? dismiss everyone?. Not everyone out there in the woods is such a hardcore mercenary that if they saw an extant Woodape they would just keep it to themselves.

 

And they don't.  See woodape.org; see bfro.net.  And here we are.

 

 

 

Oh, and I had to add to this.  DISMISS EVERYONE!!!!?!?!?!?!  Bigfoot skepticism dismisses the consistent experience of thousands, with no good reason whatever.  Copious evidence tells me to dismiss "I've never seen one" as a blanket proof that something isn't real.

[norseman]

Yes but suburbia.... we have had few bigfoot flaps around here... we also had a werewolf flap. Bigfoot turned out to be a perverted neighbor peeping tom and the werewolf was a guy in a costume.... Funny thing was once people started reporting the number of reports grew exponentially. The power of suggestion kicked in. Someone reported seeing a were wolf climbing the wall of our local hospital.

I agree whole heartedly about urban people and mass mania. Sometimes I wonder if city life hasnt rewired their brains to act like a school of fish.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

 

 

 

Hello All,

 

 

Just like that? dismiss everyone?. Not everyone out there in the woods is such a hardcore mercenary that if they saw an extant Woodape they would just keep it to themselves.

 

And they don't.  See woodape.org; see bfro.net.  And here we are.

 

 

 

Oh, and I had to add to this.  DISMISS EVERYONE!!!!?!?!?!?!  Bigfoot skepticism dismisses the consistent experience of thousands, with no good reason whatever.  Copious evidence tells me to dismiss "I've never seen one" as a blanket proof that something isn't real.

 

 

Ok. Then maybe it's time to clear the air a bit and zero in on the issue. It starts with the misuse of Skepticism. You apparently like to use the word to mean the group that ignores evidence. Why? Haven't a clue honestly. Perhaps the thing to do is to NOT use the word for that. I think using a word like "opponents" might end the confusion with truthfully describes your arguments. Sure implying that skeptics deny evidence sounds good but in truth it's incorrect. Opponents and denialists deny evidence. Skeptics weigh both evidence and non-evidence but, depending on their own personal mindset, may be more (or less) at least open to existence. 

 

Your lumping of skeptics in with opponents isn't working and in error sorry to say. Although, as far as rankling skeptics, you've done a pretty fair job. As far as this thread goes I stand by my post #2. If my being a skeptic, even though I go into the field and lean towards BF being real, groups me with opponents in your eyes, and therefore you see me as someone who doesn't read reports or who ignores the evidence just like opponents then there's only one thing I can say......you constantly skew the definition of skepticism and for what purpose to which you do that I haven't a clue; I just know that that's what you've always done- but it's a flawed viewpoint. Always has been.

 

I appreciate your being a hands down proponent for an extant North American ape, DWA, I really do. And this isn't personal in the least but there are THREE camps when it comes to the subject of Sasquatch, NOT TWO: Proponents, Opponents, and Skeptics. Your fight is with the Opponents' camp.  

Edited August 6, 2015 by hiflier

[MIB]

Ok. Then maybe it's time to clear the air a bit and zero in on the issue.

It starts with the misuse of Skepticism. You apparently like to use the

word to mean the group that ignores evidence. Why?

Because that is the word THEY choose to use to describe themselves.

Your beef with DWA gets in the way of your otherwise clear thinking.

If you wish to call someone out for misuse of the term "skeptic", start

with the denialists and scoftics who hide their activities behind it.

They're the ones misusing it and challenging others to respond on their

terms.

MIB

[hiflier]

Hello MIB,

 

Nah, I'm pretty clear here. It doesn't matter what the denialists call themselves. It's up to us to make the final distinction. We should be the ones pushing for clearing up the misconceptions instead of perpetuating the error.

[Guest DWA]

Because that is the word THEY choose to use to describe themselves.

***

If you wish to call someone out for misuse of the term "skeptic", start

with the denialists and scoftics who hide their activities behind it.

They're the ones misusing it and challenging others to respond on their

terms.

MIB

Right...except that I NEVER use the word "skeptic" to mean the group that ignores evidence.  I use the word "denialist" or the phrase "bigfoot skeptic" to set them apart.  That isn't skepticism.

 

Denialists call themselves "skeptics" ...and most unfortunately, *so do the proponents,* who practice all of the salutary skepticism in this field.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

...except that I NEVER use the word "skeptic" to mean the group that ignores evidence.  I use the word "denialist" or the phrase "bigfoot skeptic" to set them apart.......

OK. Let me get this straight. You don't use the word "skeptic" but you do use the phrase "bigfoot skeptic". In truth the line is too blurred for your defense. A skeptic is one not entirely convinced of BF existence. To me, specific to the subject of Sasquatch, that would be a Bigfoot skeptic. But you're saying you use the term as a description of a denialist. Am I correct in that this also is your definition for "opponent" then? I just think that blurring the line between "skeptic" and "bigfoot skeptic" allows for too much leeway when debating from a staunch proponent's viewpoint. Sure I'm splitting a hair here but I think it to be a very important hair.

Edited August 6, 2015 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I think it may be too late to add the "Bigfoot" qualifier to the word "Skeptic" in the thread's title line. That may have effected a more clear-cut discussion now knowing the OP's distinction in terms. So skeptics are off the hook it would seem and the "bigfoot skeptics/opponents/denialists" camp is the one targeted by the thread's title. That's a good thing right?

 

IMHO though, the term "bigfoot skeptic" is synonymous with "skeptic" so just the term "bigfoot" added in should in no way shift the understood meaning of the word skeptic into the opponent category. I still say that the OP's focus should clearly state "opponents" or "denialists" and leave the term skeptic out of the equation altogether.   

Edited August 6, 2015 by hiflier

[Cotter]

I think if BF is real then "they" already have a body. They're hiding it from you,

 

^This.

I agree whole heartedly about urban people and mass mania. Sometimes I wonder if city life hasnt rewired their brains to act like a school of fish.

 

Take a peek into flouride additions to drinking water, subliminal messaging, and the constant inundation of propaganda and you'll start down the right road.

 

:-)

Edited August 6, 2015 by Cotter

[hiflier]

Hello Cotter,

 

Been there.......and you're right. But then Humans for the most part are pack/tribe creatures down deep. Even here on the Forum the anecdotal evidence  points to a large hairy wood being and many fill in the blanks. Me? Guilty as charged. But even still I leave open the possibility of no such wood being. Skeptics do that dance and in that regard I dance with all the rest. An opponent to existence really kinda has it easy IYAM because sitting back and letting others do the work is a typical by-product of non-belief. It's a normal approach for non-believers though and as such I have no issues with it.........until......uh.....well.....folks are out there looking . Let's just leave it at that shall we?

 

ETA: For many on both sides of the fence it's a done deal. For true skeptics nnnnot so much.

Edited August 6, 2015 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

While we're in the realm of pointless hypotheticals, 

 

((And this is all hypothetical))

 

Bob Gimlin passes away.  Among his estate is a sealed envelope which is not to be opened until 10 years after his death.  The executor of his estate places the letter in a safe deposit box in a bank in Seattle.  The years pass.  The night before the 10th anniversary of his death, the Cascadia subduction zone finally gives away, creating a tsunami that devastates Seattle and leaves no trace of the bank.  What will the proponents say then?

 

Wait a minute.  That doesn't work.

 

10 years after his death, the executor opens the envelope. Inside is a short, notarized statement that reads, "Sorry, folks, it was Bob in the suit.  The suit's over at Al's place."  

 

What will the proponents say then?