Guest RayG Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 There ya go making misinformed unsubstantiated statements again. While a slab monkey would be the ultimate evidence, a tooth, bone, tissue, saliva, or blood sample would do. Actual DNA is kinda hard to ignore. Oh, and it's not 'concern trolling' to point out your lack of said samples, it's called 'reality'. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Apply this statement to everyday life and look at it. Every single one of us is "Just someone who said something" LOL!!! Your friends & family as well as mine have numerious times been told an experience by us....story about flat tire, Saturday night conquest at the corner bar, fishing stories, what stunt someone in the office pulled. Are those experiences less valid or invaluable to you, or me? Don't we expect to be taken at our word? grayjay, Don't know about you, but on any given day I find stories told me suspect in one way or another. I do not trust casual conversation. It often misrepresents the truth. An example. One time our plant manager asked me to go outside with him because he spied something interesting through his window. We went outside and on the lawn was a red-tailed hawk sitting atop a squirrel. The bird tried to carry away the squirrel, but could only carry it a few feet and had to land with it. Then it would try again, only to have to land a few yards away with its prey. This went on till the bird gave up, maybe a hundred yards away. It was causing folks to stop in their cars to look and apparently the attention made the bird leave the squirrel behind. The plant manager and I were both excited to see this little nature drama take place before our eyes. However, I was surprised when we went in and I heard the manager describe what we had seen. He said the squirrel had put up a great struggle with the hawk, and fought the bird the entire time. What I saw: the squirrel was very dead by the time we went out side. All I can think of is that the manager saw the floppyness of the freshly dead squirrel as it was being moved by the hawk and mistook the movement for a living struggle. In any event, if we had only his word for it, we would have been misinformed as to exactly what had happened on our yard at that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 A "scoftic" is a word coined by a believer to dismiss skeptical opinions out of hand. If the word means anything, it would be as a combination of skepticism (usually of the closed minded sort) and scoffing. Ray G is less likely to be closed minded and a scoffer than many pro-Bigfoot posters here are when they address skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Ray G is less likely to be closed minded and a scoffer than many pro-Bigfoot posters here are when they address skeptics. As much as I want to yell " Link please" and "Can you provide documentation?" With great enthusism....( I'm KIDDING!!! I swear!!! LOL!!!) Ray's info is none of my business....I admire you pointing out there is more to him as a poster than what he posts. The point I was trying aiming for is in Bigfootery, especially in forums we forget in our enthusiam of the subject matter that there is always some kind of common ground to be discovered with even someone we disagree with. Someone can push my buttons all day everyday, but in the end give us a umbrella drink, a lawn chair and 10 minutes & I bet behind the Avatar's and posts I hate there is someone I can still shoot the breeze with about Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 As much as I want to yell " Link please" and "Can you provide documentation?" With great enthusism....( I'm KIDDING!!! I swear!!! LOL!!!) Ray's info is none of my business....I admire you pointing out there is more to him as a poster than what he posts. The point I was trying aiming for is in Bigfootery, especially in forums we forget in our enthusiam of the subject matter that there is always some kind of common ground to be discovered with even someone we disagree with. Someone can push my buttons all day everyday, but in the end give us a umbrella drink, a lawn chair and 10 minutes & I bet behind the Avatar's and posts I hate there is someone I can still shoot the breeze with about Bigfoot. Good post, grayjay. I did notice the "posts I hate" part. Since the existence of Bigfoot is an open question, it is open to considering Bigfoot as a real biological mystery as well as to the consideration of the phenomena as best understood as a cultural myth or folk lore (and thus not a real animal). Why advocates and true believers truly seem to "hate" skeptical posts, I cannot fathom. We are all trying to "solve" a mystery that interests us immensely. I'm annoyed by a certain poster or two who seem to think they should rebut everything stated by skeptics, even the "ifs," "ands," and "buts" of such posts. Yet, "hate" is too strong a word to aim at anyone's posting, IMHO. Of course, I hope I've taken you too literally. If so, my apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Good post, grayjay. I did notice the "posts I hate" part. Since the existence of Bigfoot is an open question, it is open to considering Bigfoot as a real biological mystery as well as to the consideration of the phenomena as best understood as a cultural myth or folk lore (and thus not a real animal). Why advocates and true believers truly seem to "hate" skeptical posts, I cannot fathom. We are all trying to "solve" a mystery that interests us immensely. I'm annoyed by a certain poster or two who seem to think they should rebut everything stated by skeptics, even the "ifs," "ands," and "buts" of such posts. Yet, "hate" is too strong a word to aim at anyone's posting, IMHO. Of course, I hope I've taken you too literally. If so, my apology. "Posts I hate" was just a figure of speech. No offense intended (by me) or taken. I believe quite strongly both BF researchers & skeptics belong to a elite club...the "Bumfuzzled Club". (we need T-Shirts) Skeptics are incredulous regarding BF reports, behaviors, vocalizations, locations ect....Researchers are equally incredulous when they see, hear, or find BF out in the woods and observe BF behaviors, Laypeople equally so. (Non-researchers). BF, Sasquatches, Boogers, Skunk-Apes, Dogmen....whether you are questioning the reports or reporting the event everyone is in the same boat. Standing around with our mouths open catching flies. Whether we're trying to answer a skeptic's questions or trying to explain "What the heck was THAT!" to ourselves... LOL!!! :D The biggest obstacle I've seen is that BF react individually to each situation with humans. This results in varied reported experiences, and the lack of constancy drives folks with hard questions wild. News Flash....the researchers aren't any happier about it. For example...some BF's are caught out possibly using their own language....if we could record them doing it nationwide everyone's life would be easier. Since they won't cooperate this leaves everything up in the air....both for skeptics & researchers. I seriously think the quandry should be BF versus Us as humans, rather than the default Skeptics/believers paradym playing out over & over....but hey, I'm an optimist. The skeptics are looking for answers their way, and researchers their way. Like you said everyone is in this together. Trying to get everyone to look at BF from that perspective is whole 'nother can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 grayjay, by george, i think youve got it. imo, if all the players would cooperate & work together ,perhaps some headway could be made. good posting such as what you & jerrywayne have just done show it might not be impossible, if ,in fact, proof and/or evidence was the common goal (as opposed to never ending debate) .as you said,achieving that perspective would be "'nother can of worms" nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 grayjay, by george, i think youve got it. imo, if all the players would cooperate & work together ,perhaps some headway could be made. Couple of nice, optimistic posts here!! This would all be really wonderful, if it wasn't for human nature getting in the way so many times. So the first thing we need to do is figure out why one part of the group of humans feels constantly compelled to attack & ridicule the other part of the group. I have a theory, but would like to hear some others. Maybe they just need a big group hug to help get them over their anger & exasperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Sasfooty, could you elaborate? I'm guessing you're referring to skeptics, but as I'm skeptical, and I try not to attack or ridicule others, (I'm not perfect so I don't always succeed), I want to be clear that's who you mean. Some would say the infighting between proponents is worse than anything the skeptics are capable of. Try getting John Green and Peter Byrne together in a room for an interview and see what happens. Unless John has pulled a complete 180, it's not going to happen. I base that on personal communication with John, not second-hand information. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Strange as it may seem, I'm not referring specifically to skeptics. Some of the worse attackers & ridiculers claim to be believers, so it would be unfair to put all the blame on skeptics. As I said, I have a theory as to why some are constantly in attack mode, but I would like to hear other views, if Grayjay doesn't mind having her thread going in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I am thinking it's jealousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Strange as it may seem, I'm not referring specifically to skeptics. Some of the worse attackers & ridiculers claim to be believers, so it would be unfair to put all the blame on skeptics. As I said, I have a theory as to why some are constantly in attack mode, but I would like to hear other views, if Grayjay doesn't mind having her thread going in that direction. Skeptics are not part of the BF community IMHO, unless they are actually doing some sort of research. Most of them are just scofftics, though, and I don't see how scofftics can be considered part of the community. The community consists of folks who more or less believe in BF, or at least they do on good days. The infighting in the community is extreme, but I own a Yahoo group and we had a lot of trouble with infighting there too. Politics just seems to be part of the human condition. It's made worse in the BF community because BF is a cryptic. As such, the most sane and normal people don't believe in it. There are reasonable folks who are believers, like me and you, but the fact that it is paranormal attracts all sorts of lunatics, idiots, kooks, whackjobs, sociopaths, narcissists, publicity hounds, fools, liars, and just generally not very stable people. IMHO, this is the reason why the field is so nutty. I cringe every time I see BF thrown in with all sorts of other seriously WOO stuff, because to me, BF is not WOO, BF is real and my evaluation of the science shows it to be real. When BF is finally discovered, we will get a lot more of a normal crowd studying it and interested in it, sort of like the folks who study grizzly bears, mountain lions, white sharks, or gorillas. But until then, we are in a fringe field which will attract a Hell of a lot of fringe people. Fringe people are not that stable, and they have less political sense than even normals, who don't get along too well anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Strange as it may seem, I'm not referring specifically to skeptics. Some of the worse attackers & ridiculers claim to be believers, so it would be unfair to put all the blame on skeptics. As I said, I have a theory as to why some are constantly in attack mode, but I would like to hear other views, if Grayjay doesn't mind having her thread going in that direction. I probably accidently opened that door with the "Bumfuzzled" theory. LOL!! In discussing EVERYONE's frustration with the time it's taking to get answers on Bigfoot and the lack of consistancy in their behavior. I don't think "attack mode" would be the way I'd say it either. I think maybe discussing it more in different terms. Most of the folks who are skeptical of the whole bigfoot thing are also in their private lives to different degrees involved professionally with jobs that are science dependent, or science based. So due to the way info is handled in that environment the way some folks phrase things seems possibly abrupt. But is completely normal in that arena. Now since BF is popping up all over and doesn't care what your day job is...LOL!! A large percentage of folks each with their own frame of terminology and ways of interacting at their professions communicate in what is the norm for them. A friend of mine writes technical spec's and meshes agencies policy for a federal agency...if she talked to me the way she does at work, or sent me the kind of emails she does routinely at work between dept heads I'd slap her.It's just how info is passed back and forth rapid fire between agencies, depts and outside parties. Now for the folks who got randomly BF'd ..they equally have their own frame of reference as to what type of communication is appropriate. They're Plumbers, Mechanics, LEO's, School Teachers ect....So while I may request more info from someone regarding something they posted, it by the law of averages is 50/50 they will be able to relate to it in the spirit it was intended. I do think as boring as my post is... that those with a science backround forget not all of us have the same backround. They legitimately didn't notice they may have slipped into "work" mode and it could be construed as abrasive when it wasn't intended that way at all. Also on the flip side as folks who have had a BF sighting or related experience I will say due to the ridicule in general we have a chip on our shoulder. Yes we do... by the time some folks get to a BF forum they are both looking for answers and a place to sort out what the heck just happened, researchers are trying to network and share what they've found to see if it's happening or has happened to other researchers, new folks with no backround either way have difficulty phrasing questions, the list is endless. Between all these groups and styles of communications add passion for the subject of Bigfoot and it's easy for misunderstandings to take on a life of their own. So I don't see it as an adversarial issue as much as one of communication. (JMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Skeptics are not part of the BF community IMHO, unless they are actually doing some sort of research. Define 'research'. I hope you don't mean that people can't contribute unless they spend three nights a week out in the boonies looking for twisted tree-tops and indistinct impressions in the ground. And what exactly would spending three nights a week in the boonies contribute anyway? If you see some shadows, or hear a few noises, and attribute them to bigfoot, is that research? So even though I've been following this mystery since the early 70's, met and talked with John Green in the early 80's, participated in the IVBC in the early 90's, created a bigfoot website in the mid 90's, was interviewed for a newspaper article in the late 90's, held EB's toes in the fire for longer than I care to remember, and been a long time contributing member of the BFF, because I actively engage my skepticism when discussing bigfoot, and don't do sufficient 'research', you get to determine whether I can or cannot be part of the BF community? Just curious, but what BF 'research' do you do Fox? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 31, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 31, 2011 Strange as it may seem, I'm not referring specifically to skeptics. Some of the worse attackers & ridiculers claim to be believers, so it would be unfair to put all the blame on skeptics. Absolutely, i'd go one further & say they're not just believers, but knowers.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts