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

[Guest DWA]

Let me just take a minute to step back from the role playing I'm typically doing here. It is really just that, because I have no personal identity bound up in Sasquatch being real, or not. I enjoy poking the incurious, no matter the subject, and this is just one outlet for that. Guilty pleasures I suppose.

 

I'm not confusing my own ongoing self-indulgent exercise of free expression with anything that approaches productive discourse, or even with believing such is even possible.  If I did have that that idea once, I certainly don't anymore.  For all the possibility and promise that a discussion board like this holds, in practice it becomes apparent over time that substantive progress on an issue with this many hot-button feelings held by so many is not going to happen.  After a point, you either just go away, or join in the fun.  

 

Across the internet, this realization has dawned on any number of communities who started with the idea of forming a consensus through reasoned discourse. If any have succeeded, I'm not aware of them. If they have, the issues must not be of much import.  We here are especially vulnerable to this devolvement. When there are periods (like lately) where the pace of events have slowed, all that is left is to rehash past ones.  This gets tedious quickly, and the merry-go-round cranks up.

 

For the time being, I'm predicting the animus displayed lately will tail off.  I am definitely resisting the urge to stir it up, and I think others have as well. Self-regulation is the only strategy that works in the long run.  Imposing external  limits on what should be a free-wheeling scientific discussion seems to me to be the last thing you'd want to do.  

All of this.  The bolded especially.

 

And still the idea that there is no one like this on the Forums:  the person who has not seen one, but who knows for a fact that anyone with his exposure to the evidence is a scientific advocate for the existence of the animal, and that this makes it, prima facie, a full-time scientific endeavor.  Period.  As long as there are people out there who don't understand that one does not need either a body or a sighting to be persuaded that the evidence points to the reality, as a scientist, because that, gang, is how scientists work...then we aren't getting anywhere.  There are few if any here who do the homework and I am sorry but the posts make that screamingly obvious.

 

The moderators hold the key.  This isn't a "bigfoot house."  It isn't.  Cool concept, though.  I wouldn't mind seeing work in that direction.

 

I'm sort of the opinion if you are vulnerable to being punked by one of these jokers, you might need to tighten up your thinking anyway. Mainly I found them amusing for their lack of knowledge on so many topics, which didn't seem to limit their ability to pronounce some pretty ill-informed opinions.  It only qualifies as being "trolled" if you think it is anything other than what it is. I responded to those like Saskeptc and dmaker only because it was a lot of fun to see them chase their tails and stumble over the things they didn't ever consider. Really, they just didn't get out much as far as I could tell.  My description of them would be, "Often mistaken, but never in doubt." One thing I never, ever, did was treat them with any degree of seriousness.  At most, what they will do only is bore you to death, and you'll need to go looking for a greater intellectual challenge. That, and you learn to sort of feel sorry for them  for the world they live in.

 

And look besides. Who is still here discussing this topic with intelligence? That's right, we are. (O.k. some of us at least)

...and this, the bolded especially.  I like bashing people who come on obviously unarmed and start thinking they are throwing their weight around.  Sue me.  It's fun.  Fun enough that I lift the Ignore veil to bash occasionally.  But like WSA says, [underlined].  Again, the moderators have the key.  I don't think we see enough "we aren't going to have that they-aren't-real on this thread, gang.  We aren't going to have vacant denial on another thread, gang."

 

The BFF is open to anyone who can follow the rules and conduct themselves in a respectful manner. If you feel a member(s) is personally annoying, use the ignore feature. If you feel someone is violating a rule, use the report feature at the bottom of each post. The staff on this forum do an outstanding job but they are not mind readers.

 

And let me say this-  If you are an individual who believes that Bigfoot does not and cannot exist, you log on for the sole purpose of reading the content and mocking the membership here and elsewhere....I can tell you that there is a growing intolerance to that mindset on this forum. 

I won't name names...but there are multiple of them.  (Pages.)  Peruse my Ignore list.

 

[beerhunter said] The atmosphere has become such that fence sitters and folks who search for the truth are scoffed at as much as the knowers,. Newbies most likely won't join the forum to discuss as the BF subject has evolved into "crackpot theories" and proponents are label as delusional - as some are allowed to clearly assert here.

 

Very.Much.So.  Never mind that, in the strictly scientific sense, no opinion exists, on any topic, that is more crackpot than bigfoot skepticism, which defies reason science and human experience.

Edited August 25, 2015 by DWA

[Bodhi]

I'd say anybody can take whatever position they believe in, as long as they can manage to do so with some amount of respect for the views of others. Labeling something as a 'crackpot theory' suggests that there is little respect for the person with the opposing view. 

Redbone:

So, the woman who claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet, that should be given the same level of consideration as all other claims?

 

Dr. Matthew Johnson is talking about sasquatches hanging around portals and speaking to him in his dreams. Dr. Matt is a "knower", should I respect his claims? He isn't a nobody, he is a SPEAKER at sasquatch conferences who is claiming to have had these experiences. What about these claims by the doctor?

 

Feel free to respect these claims if you wish Redbone but to me these crackpot claims do great damage to the whole field of study. One should be polite to Dr. Matt, to be certain, but his claims are just poison. If the rationalists in the field do nothing to refute these sorts of claims they shouldn't be surprised when mainstream science ignores the search for the monster.

[Rockape]

Yes I'm a skeptic but as Norse said about predictability it's possible to predict which way I'll go.  To understand the skeptical position that might tilt in favor of bigfoot is the occurrence of something that defies a predicted outcome.   There haven't been too many challenges like that of late.

You are not a skeptic on the subject of Bigfoot. You said yourself your mind is made up, Bigfoot does not exist. A skeptical approach might have taken you to that decision, but you are not looking at anything presented without bias anymore. That makes you a scofftic.

 

I'd say anybody can take whatever position they believe in, as long as they can manage to do so with some amount of respect for the views of others. Labeling something as a 'crackpot theory' suggests that there is little respect for the person with the opposing view. 

Redbone:

So, the woman who claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet, that should be given the same level of consideration as all other claims?

 

No and they aren't by the majority of the people here. The problem there however is that stuff gets brought up in threads that have nothing to do with it.

[chelefoot]

 

 

The moderators hold the key.  This isn't a "bigfoot house."  It isn't.  Cool concept, though.  I wouldn't mind seeing work in that direction.

 

^^Why we need more volunteers.

[Bodhi]

 

Yes I'm a skeptic but as Norse said about predictability it's possible to predict which way I'll go.  To understand the skeptical position that might tilt in favor of bigfoot is the occurrence of something that defies a predicted outcome.   There haven't been too many challenges like that of late.

You are not a skeptic on the subject of Bigfoot. You said yourself your mind is made up, Bigfoot does not exist. A skeptical approach might have taken you to that decision, but you are not looking at anything presented without bias anymore. That makes you a scofftic.

 

I'd say anybody can take whatever position they believe in, as long as they can manage to do so with some amount of respect for the views of others. Labeling something as a 'crackpot theory' suggests that there is little respect for the person with the opposing view. 

Redbone:

So, the woman who claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet, that should be given the same level of consideration as all other claims?

 

No and they aren't by the majority of the people here. The problem there however is that stuff gets brought up in threads that have nothing to do with it.

 

Sometimes a question is asked in a post, the to which can take an "off topic" turn. I see no way around this. The answer to a post may be off topic but other than replying in a PM I'm not sure how to avoid it.

[Rockape]

But statements like that get interjected in discussions where they have no business and are not in response to the subject at hand nor having been solicited by other members posts.

[Redbone]

 

I'd say anybody can take whatever position they believe in, as long as they can manage to do so with some amount of respect for the views of others. Labeling something as a 'crackpot theory' suggests that there is little respect for the person with the opposing view. 

Redbone:

So, the woman who claimed to have seen a sasquatch fly from out of the bed of her pickup truck for more than a thousand feet, that should be given the same level of consideration as all other claims?

 

Dr. Matthew Johnson is talking about sasquatches hanging around portals and speaking to him in his dreams. Dr. Matt is a "knower", should I respect his claims? He isn't a nobody, he is a SPEAKER at sasquatch conferences who is claiming to have had these experiences. What about these claims by the doctor?

 

Feel free to respect these claims if you wish Redbone but to me these crackpot claims do great damage to the whole field of study. One should be polite to Dr. Matt, to be certain, but his claims are just poison. If the rationalists in the field do nothing to refute these sorts of claims they shouldn't be surprised when mainstream science ignores the search for the monster.

 

Please read what I said again. I was talking about respecting people, not agreeing with claims you feel are untrue.

[hiflier]

Hello Bodhi,

May I wade in here? We are Human. Sometimes when reading in a thread one may come across a post that triggers a thought and many simply have that need to get the thought out there so that it doesn't get forgotten. Sure, a question may cause some temporary drifting off the topic but it was either the topic itself or the post within that was on topic that created the question in the first place. That question may source from a new member in which case some leeway should be given. In that case it would be more gracious and welcoming to try to address the question. Maybe by mentioning the the question as well as the answer may be off topic.

I still think that some tolerance and judgment is needed is cases where comments might tend to steer a topic in a different direction. I also still think that if the OP is on the ball and focused on the point that initiated the topic in the first place then steering things back on point can easily be done and done respectfully. I am of the opinion that all members have seen many threads devolve and throw up their hands and leave the discussion. What I haven't seen is much in the way of the OP requesting that the discussion move back to the thread's topic. I've started doing that and in the last two threads I've started there has been almost NO drifting off the subject.

We all can do this and as soon as a real/not real head butt begins it's perfectly OK to remind the posters of what the topic is and ask that the discussion return to it. It may take more than one posted request but I was nicely surprised to see a fairly decent and quick realignment to the subject matter. In general I think members enjoy things more when discussions are narrower; mostly because threads may play out quicker and not go pages ad nauseam while posters try to stay on track amid a debate on existence.

Really, we can all do this. I simple timely request sends the message that the circular hardline debates need to be shelved so that a topic can smoothly continue. It won't take long for the proponent/denialist camps to understand that every thread isn't just a fresh staging ground for sparring.

Edited August 25, 2015 by hiflier

[Bodhi]

I have read your post. If I state that Dr. Matt's theories are crackpot poison, does that mean to you, that I have little respect for Dr. Matt?

 

But statements like that get interjected in discussions where they have no business and are not in response to the subject at hand nor having been solicited by other members posts.

 

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest?

[Guest Crowlogic]

I have read your post. If I state that Dr. Matt's theories are crackpot poison, does that mean to you, that I have little respect for Dr. Matt?

 

But statements like that get interjected in discussions where they have no business and are not in response to the subject at hand nor having been solicited by other members posts.

 

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest?

 

I remember seeing my first video of Matt Johnston and he seemed like a credible guy.  It was refreshing to see someone that articulate.  Then to have it go from where it began to demons and portals was a bit much to bear.  Since the idea of portals as portrayed is so incredibly  "out there" I must conclude that he is the case of being a crackpot who was able to pass himself off as a man of reason only to fall prey to his own foibles.  Yet he saw something but how sound is his mind in the first place after inventing portals?  Does not bode well for the community. 

[Faenor]

Since 'crackpot' theories are being discussed, along with 'conspiracy' theories.

 

I wanted to share a list of crack pot/conspiracy theories that *GASP* were shown to be true.

 

http://listverse.com/2013/05/02/10-nefarious-conspiracies-proven-true/

 

Government lying, hiding, and covering up....it happens......

That list demonstrates that conspiracies are usually busted open relatively quickly. Its a pretty weak list as well some not even really being conspiracies at all. How long do you think a list of all the unfounded popular government conspiracies in the last 50 years would look?

If you take an unlikely, but possible, variable like bigfoots existence and combine it with another unlikely variable, the government purposfully supressing/hiding bigfoot for 50-100 years. Thats a crackpot theory.

Again bigfoots existence combined with the evolutionary adaptation like mind speak or ir vision, not seen before in mammals, gets you on the crackpot scale.

Could the government be covering up for an ir vision mind speaking undiscovered by the general public for 100 years. Sure its possible. Its also possible most of obamas policies come from the advice of Lincoln's ghost or aliens started the water fluoridation program to eliminate our psychic powers and make us weakened for their future invasion.

[hiflier]

Hello Faenor,

The real bottom line in all of it? None of those issues no matter how passionately discussed, believed, or disbelieved will solve the BF mystery. The discussions will be sometimes interesting but for the most part only succeed in letting other members know where one stands in their THINKING about Bigfoot. It doesn't put the phenomenon to rest and never will. Because it's just talk.

It's why there's so much focus on activities in the field. That's where the front line is. Sitting at my computer and debating or discussing conspiracies, while possibly entertaining, is just mental gymnastics. The issue is in the woods- not on the computer. It just boils down to whether or not one is serious about the BF problem enough to do what amounts to the only thing available to someone, even a skeptic, who seriously wants to end the controversy; and that would be field work.

Of course if one absolutely doesn't think BF exists then this all falls on deaf ears. But for those who think the creature exists or is even on the fence but leans towards existence then there's plenty of work to do.

Edited August 26, 2015 by hiflier

[Yuchi1]

Opinions are like hineys, everyone has one and some are more "noticeable" than others.

 

So far, existence of BF/UHS, in the general sense is just a theory.  Those that have had encounter(s) with "something" that defies current paradigms of explanation possess a knowledge which for those that haven't, is incomprehensible. IMO, the most strident of those fitting the OP topic definitely are in the former group. The most decent thing they could do is to try and refrain from letting their lack of experience become ignorance that manifests itself as negative feedback.

[Redbone]

So when Redbone makes a claim in his post that I feel should be challenged what do you suggest?

That guy is always right...

(That's a claim should be challenged)

 

By all means you should be free to challenge what you disagree with. Can you do it with using the word crackpot?

If Matt J was posting his claims directly on this forum you should respectfully disagree with him.

[Guest DWA]

I wish I understood what was so hard about ^^^that.

 

And no one who has had his every assertion shot down, conclusively, repeatedly; his every mistake meticulously and firmly corrected;...and continues to come back, as if the wreckage isn't all about him telling him what happened...well, that person really isn't equipped to come on talking about *anyone* as a crackpot, because it is *he, in fact,* who is doing the most damage to this field of study.