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

[Drew]

Nothing could be further from the truth Drew. It's about people who ridicule, not criticize.

 

Unfortunately, that is not a concrete term.

 

Waiting for the BFF version of the McCarthy Hearings.

[Rockape]

You are misunderstanding my intent Bohdi. That post you cite I know wasn't directed at something Redbone said. I'm speaking about something that happens in other threads. Often someone will bring up teleporting, mindspeak, etc when it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth Drew. It's about people who ridicule, not criticize.

 

Unfortunately, that is not a concrete term.

 

It's like that definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it". We have too many folks who post like their life depends on convincing others that their opinion is the only correct one.

 

 

Waiting for the BFF version of the McCarthy Hearings.

 

I'll just ignore that bit of hyperbole, though I'm sure it makes you feel better to think you are being persecuted.

[Bodhi]

 

 

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.

There are a tonne of other words better equipped to describe this Guy other than a "knower" and I don't know any rationalist in this field that accepts this guys claims.

 

So, Crackpot is unacceptable according to one member and you object to knower as well. My understanding is that people self identify as knowers and the good doctor has done so in interviews. With regard to the rationalists here, what you call rational I might call woo. It's subjective, it's ALL subjective at this point. Height,color,progenitor species, range, diet, etc.... I'd love to see a list of what the rationalists here agree on with regard to the monster. I would bet that there is quite a lot of variability in what is considered reasonable to include.

 

 

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. 

 

 

Interesting the Matt J. portal deal is new to me.  Hadn't come across that.

 

Cotter, youtube has a bunch of videos of his talk at the conference. Squatchers lounge have discussed the claims of Matt and why the others on the expedition have kept pretty quiet on his claims in the news portion of a number of their podcasts. Both are well worth the time if for no other reason than to know what is going on in the sasquatch zeitgeist....

[SWWASAS]

 

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. laims?

 

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.

 

Only a skeptic could call someone a crackpot and then say we should be polite to them in the same paragraph.    Those two things are mutually exclusive.   

[WSA]

As I said up-thread, I'm all about lively discussion about the state of the evidence. I have all the time in the world to listen to somebody who is prepared to tell me why a particular sighting is suspicious because, "That river don't flow that way", or, "There are no ruffed grouse in that area that time of year", or "That species of tree does not grow at that elevation", etc., etc... Tell me you have studied the morphology of primate feet and bipedal locomotion was your minor in college, or that you were trained in linguistics at Langley, and I will be all ears if you feel the evidence is not genuine. Instead? We have a contingent who will not even concede the evidence IS evidence. Now, how do you form a civil and productive conversation around that precept? You just don't.

 

Believe me, there are many here like me who have yet to have the first conversation of that kind with some of our learned members.  Instead, when I'm confronted with something like that... when I'm not in the mood to ignore you...I'm going to call you to task to give me something other than "Nuh-uh!"  Frankly, you deserve no better treatment when you think you can woof your way through a conversation that does require at least an entry level of understanding of the natural world and all the disciplines that touch on this issue.  You say you have that knowledge? Fine. Prove it with your analysis and we'll all be much better off. Cracking wise like Jack Horner with a plumb on your thumb when you haven't voiced one intelligent science based rebuttal to the specific evidence proposed is, again, a pathetic waste of our time. 

 

I am not for limiting the participation at all. I am saying, "Bring something to the party or kindly just shut up and leave." 

[salubrious]

 

Indeed a belief in bigfoot based on stories and descriptions alone is no different from a belief in angels.

This statement is incorrect, and if you really believe it you do not understand the nature of the subject. People have experiences, that is where the knowledge of BF comes from, not from people who simply believe. IOW the persistence of the BF phenom over the years is due to experience, not belief.

 

And if I may: it is obvious that you have a belief, not a knowledge. But in watching your posting behaviour as that is part of what I do here on this site, it is readily apparent that you are treating your belief as if it is real. Here is something to chew on, which is nothing more than a simple fact: belief is not real. What is real is reality.

 

Sorry, we are not going to discuss angels here other than to mention that they will not be discussed. See the Forum Rules if you have any questions about that.

[Drew]

Cracking wise like Jack Horner with a plumb on your thumb when you haven't voiced one intelligent science based rebuttal to the specific evidence proposed is, again, a pathetic waste of our time. 

 

 

The single most scientific rebuttal to any Bigfoot claim: Please provide evidence. 

 

If you want to say that's not scientific, then that is your opinion.  But don't tell me to shut up and leave because you don't like it.

 

[WSA]

Umm yeah. Thanks for making my point Drew. 

 

There is no evidence. At all. Ever.  Got that y'all?

 

And this is the starting point of a conversation, how, exactly?     

Oh, and Drew? You might want to go back and bone-up on the mission statement there on the first page. To wit: 

 

"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."

 

(emphasis mine)

[Guest Stan Norton]

We could draw him a picture...

[WSA]

^^ :-)

 

Believe me, I have no problem with anyone voicing his opinion, no matter how disconnected they are  from actual events.  Guys like Drew, and we have a few around here, are pretty fun to bat around on a slow day. What they don't do is further the investigation and the bandwidth gets dumbed-down substantially when it is steered in that direction. When somebody like our Drew confesses to what we all knew to be true anyway...in his world, there is not the first sign of a BF...on a site dedicated to discussing that evidence, I really don't see how these two ideas are compatible. I would trust the Moderators to realize this too.

[Guest DWA]

 

 Rockape I have relieved myself of the burden, although I sense the burden is still being carried about by many folks.  I have presented a parallel that echos  many of the bigfoot arguments.  Indeed a belief in bigfoot based on stories and descriptions alone is no different from a belief in angels.  Now there are folks who swear they have had encounters with angels.  Right now we don't have that long awaited  piece of evidence that nails bigfoot to the catalog of known and confirmed species.  .

 

See, there is not a possibility of a rational discussion with this viewpoint.  "The Cadillac Eldorado, contrary to what one might think, is a musical instrument," may actually have more truth to it.

 

I have been posting and reading less on the BFF because of the silly argument loops that seem to go on page after page. 

Me too.  Much less.  It has gotten so that the people it is worth talking to are drowned out by the people who aren't.

 

All those pretty blue lines that Ignore has put on the screen I see are DAMAGE to the field; it is not possible for a rational person to come to a different conclusion.  Who has actually thought about this, that is.

 

Believe me, I have no problem with anyone voicing his opinion, no matter how disconnected they are  from actual events.  Guys like Drew, and we have a few around here, are pretty fun to bat around on a slow day. What they don't do is further the investigation and the bandwidth gets dumbed-down substantially when it is steered in that direction. When somebody like our Drew confesses to what we all knew to be true anyway...in his world, there is not the first sign of a BF...on a site dedicated to discussing that evidence, I really don't see how these two ideas are compatible. I would trust the Moderators to realize this too.

Me too; this...although the bolded part is more a hope than anything else.

 

Were I a moderator here...I couldn't be.  Because I would operate according to the posted rules of the BFF...which would ban my entire Ignore list in three days.

And they're still here.

[Guest Stan Norton]

There is no persecution happening here. Quite the opposite in fact. The sceptical view had always been at the heart of the BFF: the most rewarding discussion comes from that healthy sceptical view. It may comfort certain minds to believe they are among a put-upon minority.

[Rockape]

^^ :-)

 

Believe me, I have no problem with anyone voicing his opinion, no matter how disconnected they are  from actual events.  Guys like Drew, and we have a few around here, are pretty fun to bat around on a slow day. What they don't do is further the investigation and the bandwidth gets dumbed-down substantially when it is steered in that direction. When somebody like our Drew confesses to what we all knew to be true anyway...in his world, there is not the first sign of a BF...on a site dedicated to discussing that evidence, I really don't see how these two ideas are compatible. I would trust the Moderators to realize this too.

In Drew's world "bigfooters" are either over medicated or under medicated.

 

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10840466&postcount=931

[SWWASAS]

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 am one of those with a growing intolerance.    I have no problem with a skeptic fence sitter because at one point I was one,  before I started doing field work to find out for myself.  These people are for the most part healthy for the forum by questioning evidence,  giving their opinion where the truth could go either way,  and serve to balance the true believers who don't seem to have any evidence.     I do have a problem to those that never seem to remember proponent posts,  blow off evidence,   name call,  constantly quote mine,   post graphics with no connection to the thread topic,   and dance around the rules with false accusations.   They are not here to learn anything or contribute but by their own admission seek to convert people to their denialist view or get some sick thrill out of mocking those that believe differently.      Mocking, degrading  and conversion attempts are hostile actions directed at other members and have no place in a fair and equitable forum.    

[WSA]

Yes Rockape...Ain't he precious?.

Edited August 26, 2015 by WSA