Guest Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) Man, this routine of a skeptic starting the "they don't exist, no proof" bit on every thread irregardless of the topic is so predictable it's pathetic. It's also getting very, very old... I will add (JMO) this may be done purposefully as with out folks rebutting this type of post no new info regarding Bigfoot is gained. This is something I have thought long and hard about. I have noticed the majority of the posters under the guise of skepticism have had no new information to add to Bigfootery, yet gain much by reading the responses. The post by Bogger being a good, and typical example( in the "why has No One Shot a Bigfoot Thread). This seems curiously strange to me and slightly selfserving. I also have noticed when someone makes a skeptical assertion they are not doing their own information gathering and it is up to the poster being challenged to provide proof. I find that a bit backward as folks with direct experience of BF's not only are providing most of the new info on the forum here, but googling to provide yet more!! Something is not quite right with all of this, it seems to be BF phishing or data mining as I think of it....and before I provide any more new info it will take quite a lot more thought on my part. Now this is strictly my opinion on this, and just putting it out there....just saying. Edited May 18, 2011 by grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted May 18, 2011 Google certainly is an equal opportunity "friend". Sometimes it's good just to lay back and watch things develop. Fifteen or twenty new threads with a question that has a single answer is always entertaining in regard to seeing how many people will tweak the same answer multiple ways. Keeping the forum honest might be one way of looking at it however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Grayjay, I agree and some days I just read and shake my head while doing so. For quite some time I've suggested that those who want proof or validation of them go to the woods. In the meantime it's very difficult to explain an experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Google certainly is an equal opportunity "friend". Sometimes it's good just to lay back and watch things develop. Fifteen or twenty new threads with a question that has a single answer is always entertaining in regard to seeing how many people will tweak the same answer multiple ways. Keeping the forum honest might be one way of looking at it however. This post came in, while I was composing my planned response to the OP -- to some extent, superseded same. I have to feel that Chairman Mao had a point, in principle, with his “hundred flowers and hundred schools of thought†– not that he greatly made good on that, in practice. It would be good if everyone could just – courteously – submit what they’d got to submit, and all concerned – courteously – made what they could of same; but humans don’t seem good at acting thus – and as far as we know, sassies are not articulate enough to manage the feat, even if they’d wish to be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Google certainly is an equal opportunity "friend". Sometimes it's good just to lay back and watch things develop. Fifteen or twenty new threads with a question that has a single answer is always entertaining in regard to seeing how many people will tweak the same answer multiple ways. Keeping the forum honest might be one way of looking at it however. :D While I'm all in favor of "keeping things honest" and having hard questions lobbed, in fact by asking answering some questions I've been forced to re-think my first assumptions and impressions of some BF encounters I've experenced, there comes a point where to answer an inquiry more info necessarily has to be divulged and that presents a quandry. Whether that is a moral dilema for a poster or a privacy issue or sometimes just a "I know more than you do" issue it's still difficult to process. My concern is there are a lot of independent folks here, who are not affiliated with an organization and they have provided quite a bit of BF information. None of which in some cases has ever been brought formally to BF researchers. By not being as familiar and mindful of what is general info and the other type, things an organization might prefer to keep "in house"? They in replying to skeptical comments are supplying quite a lot of inportant BF info. There is a huge difference in my mind between general BF discussion and the siting of particular instances by posters here. Call me overly cautious but it sends up a red flag that some of us contribute to a far greater degree, while egged on by folks with very little practical (boots on ground) Knowledge. In fact It is a very subtle form of Phishing and Information gathering. Is it deliberate or malishious? I have no clue. I do know via info relayed that some folks are singled out on the internet and more info is requested to be used by researchers. What I don't know is that all the folks thinking they are innocently and maybe naievely volunteering what they know are aware of it. Or the potential for that to happen. My question is to those who have volunteered info "How do you feel about this?" Not to merely vent about skeptics, but the deeper issue of unintended Data Mining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 18, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 18, 2011 I don't see a problem with Data Mining at all. I'm here to learn what i can when i can & where i can about this subject.. I have no real interest in the Skeptical side of it even though i do at times let it/them get to me but overall, personally, they just bore me with their repetitiveness & i'll be amazed if that isn't the same for others who don't " believe " in the existence of Sasquatch, but " know " that Sasquatch exists. However, that doesn't mean that i am completely " Pro Sas " & never skeptical as that would be incredibly naive. I think this Subject needs people to share information, who you share it with however is down to the Individual, as, as i've learnt directly in the past, you can pass on certain information only for it to be repeated word for word by the " receiver " in some kind of psychotic way ( it's the only word i can think of to describe the specific incident i'm talking of ) that i never really understood but won't lose any sleep over. I regulary share information on teh Subject where & when i can both on the Foprum & via PM's & Email & am pretty open with it, if people want to use that information in a negative way then that's their problem not mine, it's their Life & they choose to live it & behave how they want. My belief is that the encouraging of information sharing may lead to myself indeed learning soemthing more about the Subject & that's what i'm all about, so i'll continue to do so i guess until the day i die.. This Subject needs this Forum & it's information ( it also badly need 1.0 but that's another story ), it needs the BFRO Database, it needs the TBRO Database, the Oregon BF Database too & it needs Bigfoot Encounters etc etc etc as without them, we don't really have a lot else unfortunately.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 It might be that some volunteer information because they would like to see this mystery solved and don't care who does it. It's a wicked plan, but potentially the most effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 ....and before I provide any more new info it will take quite a lot more thought on my part. Yeah, I think if they are phishing for information, it's backfiring on them. I have talked to several people who could offer a lot of information, & they flatly refuse to even register here because of the attacks on "habituators". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted May 18, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 18, 2011 The phishing for information idea presupposes that there is value in such data. From what I've seen, that's not the case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Here's some information for the Phisherman! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlLPV2BWrCE&feature=player_detailpage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I think if they are phishing for information, it's backfiring on them. I have talked to several people who could offer a lot of information, & they flatly refuse to even register here because of the attacks on "habituators". You have to wonder what motivates an individual skeptic. If someone doesn't believe in something, why would they bother to join a forum that discusses it? You'd have to think that they would have something better to do that does interest them. But they're here, and that says something. Perhaps they're not interested in getting behind a team and rooting for it - perhaps they're more interested in sitting in the opposing team's section and insulting that team's fans. If so, it's sad for everyone. Some, I think, are just looking for attention. When I participated in the IVBC in the mid 90's, there was a guy with the initials EB who dogged the forum and attached himself to me for a while. He really turned what could have been a gratifying exchange of information into a hassle, dogging and dissecting every post I and others made, posing the contrary argument simply for the sake of being contrary - and for the attention it drew. Sometimes I wonder if I attract that type of individual in this type of setting. I guess others might see themselves as self-appointed traffic cops. If that's their motivation, we're really giving them too much regard. They're simply self-important, no more. Hopefully there is the rare skeptic that is actually objective, who questions without criticizing - who doesn't dismiss sincere contributions out of hand and keeps a portion of his mind open to the possibility that he may be surprised. Edited May 19, 2011 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I'm skeptical of habituation claims. I'm skeptical of those that state they have encounters with bigfoot/sasquatch on a regular basis. I'm more than skeptical, I think those claiming such are attention seekers, and in their own way, as much a detriment to this forum as confirmed skeptics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I'm skeptical of habituation claims. I'm skeptical of those that state they have encounters with bigfoot/sasquatch on a regular basis. I'm more than skeptical, I think those claiming such are attention seekers, and in their own way, as much a detriment to this forum as confirmed skeptics. You see, I don't understand why you would be skeptical of habituation claims. You, yourself, have clearly become habituated, haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Here's some information for the Phisherman! Good one, SY!!! Don't ya just love it when things like that happen? Kinda reminds me of the coyote video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) You see, I don't understand why you would be skeptical of habituation claims. You, yourself, have clearly become habituated, haven't you? Your point is clear as mud, but I'll add this. We're all on a forum devoted to an undescribed, upright hominid. It's a creature only reputed to exist, and is not recognized by science. (I, myself, am not a skeptic of the possibility the creature may exist.) Yet we have posters that claim extraordinary events, such as double digit population living within a short distance from their home and those that claim occasional, regular encounters, be they heard, seen, or otherwise determined. There are those here that seemingly dote upon every word posted of such encounters, and good for them. To each their own, pardon me if I don't join in the adulation. Me? I subscribe to the notion that extraordinary claims require a modicum of evidence. (Notice I didn't say "proof.") Hell, anyone can come upon this forum and claim anything they wish, and evidently garner a fan club for doing so. For those folks, it's probably sacrilege I should doubt habituation claims and ask for something/anything as evidence of such outlier tales. Edited May 19, 2011 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts