Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[hiflier]

Hello Roguefooter,

You could always just create new forum categories that would separate the head clashing, by maybe creating general categories like 'evidence supported' topics and 'anecdotal' topics.

 

That way one area could focus on the presented evidence pertaining to a video/encounter/whatever, and discussion/conclusions would be expected to adhere to backing of claims, etc. The other area could focus on purely an anecdotal viewpoint, knowing, etc., with no fear of having to provide evidence to back any claims.

 

It may not satisfy the scoftic issue completely but will at least give people a more suitable area to stand on their soapbox. Just an idea anyways.

^^^This, or a form of it I think is going in the right direction. Could be a bit complicated and as you say not foolproof but could have some positive limiting factors. I mean it's pretty obvious when two hardliners start in and ignore everything and everyone but the debate between them. Even with requests to stay on topic as I've suggested they will still get their licks in. But again perhaps in a more limited way.

I'm wondering if by now the denialists and proponents are starting to get the message here. I'm actually amazed the Admins and Mods have let this thread have such a free reign. Probably because they may be of the opinion that it's something the members need to work amongst themselves?

[norseman]

^Just to add to what I'm thinking about would be the two areas:

Evidence/Science- based Area

(Theme would basically be 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence')

subforums:

- General Discussion

- Film/Videos/Photo/Audio

- PGF Film

- In The Field

- Conferences, etc

Anecdotal Area

(Theme would basically be a free/uninhibited Bigfoot discussion area)

subforums:

- General Discussion

- Sightings

- Media

- Paranormal

That's just my idea of how it could be laid out. I think it would require mostly reorganizing.

This would not make it any better.

The only "extraordinary" evidence Denialists will accept is a bloody corpse. Which is to say they need proof before they will accept ANY evidence people associate with a mythical creature.

Which of course from a proponents view this is putting the cart in front of the horse. Because if its a real animal and it leaves behind footprints, tree breaks and howls at night? Then they need to dicepher the evidence and put themselves into a good area to take a picture or shoot it. (lets face it, the vast majority of researchers run around with a camera and dental resin, and not a rifle)

The frustrating thing for the proponent then becomes thus......... I posted my picture of my foot print up and denialists tell me its everything from a Bear to a hoax. So am I recieving honest feedback or not?

Denialists must be self aware that IF there is a real creature out there? Then the feedback they give to a proponent that is getting close to the prize could very well be detrimental to the search. Which is why its so important to come to this forum skeptical but not without some room that this animal could exist.

Edited August 27, 2015 by norseman

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

[/color]...On the vast majority of topics here, "no, because these aren't real" constitutes trolling and should be reported.

"no, because these aren't real" is a conclusion or at least an opinion and so should not be stifled. It's when the statement initiates and sustains the all to frequent existence debates which fly in the face of the topic that measures to stop the snowball should be taken. When "dmaker" was here YOU and he were the absolute worst offenders! How is it you're on the other side of the fence now? If "dmaker" was back the two of you would be having your debates once again on every thread available- reducing them all in the end to the same arguments about existence. I said this thread wasn't for bashing denialists; didn't say a thing about proponents Nothing personal my friend, just telling it like it is...or WAS.

[Drew]

 

 

Either the mods must grab - or WE must REPORT - the first post that goes off the rails on a topic.  On the vast majority of topics here, "no, because these aren't real" constitutes trolling and should be reported.

 

But zoologically speaking, they are not real, until a type specimen is produced.  

That is why the ICZN has strict rules about this.  Rules that have been around for 500 years, in some form or another, and apply to every animal classified since that time.  There are no special rules for Bigfooters, that are being bandied about.  

 

You want to report basic logic as trolling? go ahead.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I am just throwing this out here, can we all try to act like adults? Is there any reason for a skeptic not to have an open mind? Is there any reason a know-er can't be skeptical of claims. Just like the things stated about Dr. Matt J..  Can't we at least consider maybe he saw something that might have done a number between the ears? Maybe we should feel sad for the guy and not ridicule him. I am standing in the middle on the BF issue and I get mad when folks know BF doesn't exist simply because there is not one single person or group of people that can be everywhere and see every creature in existence. You would have to know all and see all to make a claim that BF isn't real. If you base the existence of BF on hard evidence then skeptics and proponents agree things need to improve. Tonight I am headed to Northern Wisconsin and the U.P. of Michigan for some night driving with a dash cam. Call me a fool if you will, but I am trying to find out an answer for myself. We all should consider giving more input from our own unique perspectives without all the hardliner dogma. Take this for what it's worth - both sides also agree hoaxers and money grabbers are crippling the subject.  Who wouldn't love to go on a search of the woods along with Crow and  DWA  - that would be both fun and funny!  

Excellent points.

 

 If a person was to present the case of Mathew Johnston to a psychiatrist there's an excellent chance that a diagnosis could be rendered as to the nature of his affliction.  He is a mental health professional himself and  they are as susceptible to their own mind games as is an obvious fruitcake.  From the very beginning he's been operating from having been traumatized.

 

It can't be over stressed that the bigfoot issue is nothing new.  It has a long history to draw conclusions from.  In almost every other endeavor of search and knowledge the issue would have been put to bed after the first quarter of a century.  I can't speak for every skeptic but I can speak for myself.  The issues going against bigfoot's existence are  deep and longstanding.  There is a contention among modern proponents that the long time interested person somehow has missed the boat by not accepting the state of the art as it stands now.  But it is the long interested individual who is best equipped to determine the pros and cons of the issue.  The sad fact remains is that the issue has not moved forward in half a century.  It has acquired some flash and gloss in the form of "big science personalities" but we are right where we started .  Knowing the history shapes and confirms the state of the present.

[Guest DWA]

This would not make it any better.

The only "extraordinary" evidence Denialists will accept is a bloody corpse. Which is to say they need proof before they will accept ANY evidence people associate with a mythical creature.

 

 

Which of course is not how science works.  

Which of course from a proponents view this is putting the cart in front of the horse.

 

From science's view as well.

 

Because if its a real animal and it leaves behind footprints, tree breaks and howls at night? Then they need to dicepher the evidence and put themselves into a good area to take a picture or shoot it. (lets face it, the vast majority of researchers run around with a camera and dental resin, and not a rifle)

 

Mystifies me how anyone thinks a specimen will be procured if evidence isn't followed.  Which is why all the back-and-forth about individual pieces of evidence is a fool's exercise.  You look at the pile...and search on the peaks of the normal curve.

The frustrating thing for the proponent then becomes thus......... I posted my picture of my foot print up and denialists tell me its everything from a Bear to a hoax. So am I recieving honest feedback or not?

 

What you are receiving, my experience here shows, is utterly uninformed feedback.

Denialists must be self aware that IF there is a real creature out there? Then the feedback they give to a proponent that is getting close to the prize could very well be detrimental to the search. Which is why its so important to come to this forum skeptical but not without some room that this animal could exist.

 

No possibility?  Really?  No way a rational person could think this was real, huh?  Then one needs to navigate away from this link and start taking better care of oneself.  Because one is hurtin' one's life being here.

 

Edited August 27, 2015 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello Crowlogic,

...It can't be over stressed that the bigfoot issue is nothing new.  It has a long history to draw conclusions from.  In almost every other endeavor of search and knowledge the issue would have been put to bed after the first quarter of a century.  I can't speak for every skeptic but I can speak for myself.  The issues going against bigfoot's existence are  deep and longstanding.  There is a contention among modern proponents that the long time interested person somehow has missed the boat by not accepting the state of the art as it stands now.  But it is the long interested individual who is best equipped to determine the pros and cons of the issue.  The sad fact remains is that the issue has not moved forward in half a century.  It has acquired some flash and gloss in the form of "big science personalities" but we are right where we started .  Knowing the history shapes and confirms the state of the present.

Good points. At the risk of sounding like I'm splitting hairs here though the issue is the chronic taking over of threads to debate those existence issues. It's not about the debates themselves; it's about the frequency of where they take place which is on threads where the topic becomes secondary to those debates. I've been attempting to separate out the difference and I'm hoping that members are beginning to understand that dynamic. A thread has a topic. After a few posts are tossed in arguing existence the topic gets forgotten and the thread devolves. That's the point of all this. The pattern is what's in the crosshairs here. At least that is what we should be discussing. It's a fine point I know but then again maybe it isn't all that fine?

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

Do you ever read what you write Drew?

Those animals that were classified SINCE that time? Did any biologists discuss the possibility of those animals existence before going out and looking?!?

In your "logical" world view? How is anything new discovered?

Why does NASA look for life in the vaccum of space?

Edited August 27, 2015 by norseman

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Bueller – Do you think it would be helpful to acknowledge, in the rules and/or in each forum header, an expectation of what the forum considers evidence and proof? It seems to be what most of the disagreements are about. Definitions in the paranormal section and the general forum could be different but maybe we could agree we shouldn’t be having debates over whether or not sighting reports are proof in the general forum? Could we ever agree that without DNA or a body recognized by scientists we all have to admit that biggie is possible but not proven to the world? Maybe we could even agree to the expectation that evidence like a footprint is evidence like the track Adam brought forward today? Then maybe we could talk about what made it rather than whether it is evidence or proof.

 

  What do the mods think will make things better? They see it from a whole different perspective.

 

 

Firstly, the forum's stance on the creature is clearly expressed:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

The CFZ (including the BFF) has no official stance on any single aspect of the Bigfoot debate. The CFZ does not 'believe' that Bigfoot exists, or 'believe' that it does not exist, but that the evidence makes it worthy of discussion and further investigation. The members and Moderators may take a different view. That is entirely up to the individuals concerned. That being said, and while it is very difficult to pin any one opinion on a site with members as diverse as ours, there are some generalizations that can be made regarding the feeling of the board (assuming Bigfoot exists):

Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

 

We, as a forum, cannot, and will not, make a determination on what constitutes evidence or proof. I can assure you that if/when sufficient evidence is presented it will stand up to scrutiny.

 

Sighting reports, IMO, are circumstantial evidence at best. Although exciting to read, they're nonetheless baseless as compared to the PGF, as an example. Whether or not you believe the film depicts a real Bigfoot, it's what I'd consider evidence. Imagine if Patterson/Gimlin had come back and told everyone that they'd seen Patty... it would have nowhere near the same effect because it's a report - Unsubstantiated. Heck, we can't even agree on the authenticity of the film after decades of debate. Why then should we consider a report to be empirical evidence? Circumstantial evidence? I can go with that, especially when there are large numbers of them.

 

I always try to allow the membership to determine what constitutes evidence. It's not my forum. It belongs to the membership.

 

I'm afraid that as long as the creature remains elusive, perhaps even being non-existent, we'll never really agree as to what constitutes proof. Unfortunately, it will take a specimen to prove it without dispute, and even then there will be those that doubt the cold body on the slab.

 

My $.02.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

What you are receiving, my experience here shows, is utterly uninformed feedback.

I disagree. I've seen both skeptics and denialists who are very well informed. "Where's the body?", "Where are the bones?", and "Where are the fossils?" are all good questions and no one can deny it. But what I truly, truly, don't understand is why folks JUST AREN'T GETTING that those questions, even though they may appear on threads, don't mean that proponents need to weigh in and become a party to the inevitable, unwinnable debate about existence to the extent that the original topic of the thread becomes all but obliterated.

Hardline denialists or hardline proponents are NOT the problem or the issue; where, when, and for how long they end up conducting their debates IS the issue. Is ANYONE capable of understanding this one very critical point?

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Old Dog]

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong.  When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.  It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance.  And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore or even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.

[Guest DWA]

One cannot come up with a definition of what specific things constitute evidence and proof.  Because it differs, not just from science to science but case to case.

 

Astronomy allows all kinds of "proof" that isn't accepted in zoology.  Paleontology considers animals to be proven that no human will ever see.  Okapi tracks in the Virunga National Park were proof that the animal had returned; sasquatch tracks are considered proof of something for which no one even has evidence.  (No, I mean "hoax.")  (And no, that's wrong.  "There are hoaxes" has nothing to do with most of the tracks that have been found.  Or most of the sightings.)

 

Sorry, gang.  In science no one does one's work for one.  One has to sift the evidence oneself and use science to come to conclusions.  No shortcuts...which are almost universally believed to exist on this forum.  There are no shortcuts in science.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Honestly, reread your post and tell me what it has to do with this thread. If you can't then I'll tell you- it has NOTHING to do with this thread or the point of this thread. Why did you even bring it up? addressing someone else's post that was also off topic is not a valid excuse either just so you know. The incongruences are almost unfathomable. What to do about members that bring existence debates onto threads that are not about existence is this thread's topic. Are you not able to see that or are you purposely being disruptive?

Again, me, the broken record: THIS THREAD IS TO DISCUSS WHAT TO DO ABOUT EXISTENCE DEBATES THAT COMMANDEER THREADS. There's absolutely NOTHING difficult about this. Good grief this is like herding cats LOL!

Bonehead74, where are you?

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Hello DWA,

 

What you are receiving, my experience here shows, is utterly uninformed feedback.

I disagree. I've seen both skeptics and denialists who are very well informed. "Where's the body?", "Where are the bones?", and "Where are the fossils?" are all good questions and no one can deny it. But what I truly, truly, don't understand is why folks JUST AREN'T GETTING that those questions, even though they may appear on threads, don't mean that proponents need to weigh in and become a party to the inevitable, unwinnable debate about existence to the extent that the original topic of the thread becomes all but obliterated.

Hardline denialists or hardline proponents are NOT the problem or the issue; where, when, and for how long they end up conducting their debates IS the issue. Is ANYONE capable of understanding this one very critical point?

 

 

I think there is a feeling of futility when reasons have been given for why bodies, bones and fossils are rare/non-existent and the same questions are brought up ad nauseum, or the reasons are ignored.

 

It's as though people think if an animal or plant falls down a ravine, it will become fossilized, when the process of fossilization is dependent upon factors such as soil pH, soil mineral content, humidity, temperature, etc. Ditto for bones. And even when these basic geological and biological facts are brought up, they are ignored or worse, mocked.

 

As for bodies, I agree with you. There is a lack of bodies, but a growing number of undetermined tissue samples. Which brings up a general pet-peeve regarding scientific papers: people interpret phrases such as "undetermined at this time", "more studies needed at this time", as "no evidence (or "proof") case closed, moving right along" when these phrases mean by using the current technology or current body of data they can't conclude if something is true or false, iow, the case isn't closed.

 

And the futility leads to frustration to the point that posters either leave or begin to quarrel. Note that I use the word quarrel, because what happens is not argument.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[norseman]

That is why we need to make the case for ourselves.