ShadowBorn Posted June 4, 2018 Moderator Posted June 4, 2018 Dmaker It will always be undetermined for some since there is no clear proof of these creatures existence. Unless one has been dispatched and brought in for study or one has been able to get a great clear picture and was able to get DNA of that creature photographed. There will never be no happiness for no one except for those who have seen them in person. And we will always question the evidence that has been presented as evidence of these creatures existence. These arguments will always exist until positive proof is brought in so that there will be no longer any negative remarks towards these creatures existence.
norseman Posted June 4, 2018 Admin Posted June 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, dmaker said: So, there is only one truth? Bigfoot exists? Many here claim to be undecided on the question--you included, Norse. That would seem to indicate that the truth is undetermined for some, no? In Nathan’s eyes....yes. Im undecided....correct, but lean in favor because of my own experience. But either way? Nothing anyone says on a forum is going to cement me one way or another. That only happens in the woods.... Are you suggesting Nathan is fabricating Bigfoot lore to sway people’s minds? People generally come to the BFF to talk about Bigfoot, correct? So if their wheels were not turning in this direction in the first place? Why would they come? If they think the subject is stupid from the git go? Why not join the ISF? Nathan is a witness and researcher. His “truth” is different than yours or Squatchy. Surely you understand this? And here at the BFF? He has the right to hold that position without needing a type specimen to prove it. Yes? So what is the beef here? Added... If this was just a general camping/hiking forum? I could see the problem of claiming bigfoot real without proof. 1
dmaker Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, hiflier said: So........you really DO care what people think then? In spite of your statements of record? You are asking questions want opinions so you care, yes? For Petes sake, I said I don't care what YOU think. 52 minutes ago, norseman said: Nathan is a witness and researcher. His “truth” is different than yours or Squatchy. Surely you understand this? No, and that is my point. There is only one truth. Bigfoot exists as a real animal, or it does not. No single subjective experience is going to change that objective fact. Nathan said "the truth". I take that to be different than "his own personal truth". That is as far as we (you and I) overlap in your statement. When someone says the truth, I take the wider, objective meaning of the word, not the more narrow subjective approach where the truth basically means whatever that one person perceives it to be. Nathans truth could very well be wrong. This would be a surprise to him, but that does not matter to the objective fact that his sighting could be a fabrication or a delusion of the mind. His truth could be different than the objective truth. People seeking the truth should not aim to align that with someone else's experience, but should aim for the objective, demonstrable truth instead. Edited June 4, 2018 by dmaker 3
hiflier Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, dmaker said: For Petes sake, I said I don't care what YOU think. "For Petes sake" your comment track record say you care not for what ANYONE thinks. Say what you will and make it about me if you want but your history says it is way more general than just me. OR it must be true now that you care what everyone else thinks all of a sudden? I'm only trying to get this clear.
dmaker Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, hiflier said: "For Petes sake" your comment track record say you care not for what ANYONE thinks. Say what you will and make it about me if you want but your history says it is way more general than just me. OR it must be true now that you care what everyone else thinks all of a sudden? I'm only trying to get this clear. Go bother someone else please.
Redbone Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 35 minutes ago, dmaker said: No single subjective experience is going to change that objective fact. Nathan said "the truth". I take that to be different than "his own personal truth". That is as far as we (you and I) overlap in your statement. When someone says the truth, I take the wider, objective meaning of the word, not the more narrow subjective approach where the truth basically means whatever that one person perceives it to be. Nathans truth could very well be wrong. This would be a surprise to him, but that does not matter to the objective fact that his sighting could be a fabrication or a delusion of the mind. His truth could be different than the objective truth. People seeking the truth should not aim to align that with someone else's experience, but should aim for the objective, demonstrable truth instead. truth is truth.... Your being oblivious to the truth doesn't make the truth any less truthful
hiflier Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 20 minutes ago, Redbone said: truth is truth.... Your being oblivious to the truth doesn't make the truth any less truthful QFT. Now that you have advanced across the line from propenent to knower you are well situated for saying what you said. I was careful also to not bring your video snippet into the quote. It was pretty danged good so I left it where it belonged- with its author.
dmaker Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 35 minutes ago, Redbone said: truth is truth.... Your being oblivious to the truth doesn't make the truth any less truthful You're being wrong about the truth does not change reality.
norseman Posted June 5, 2018 Admin Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, dmaker said: For Petes sake, I said I don't care what YOU think. No, and that is my point. There is only one truth. Bigfoot exists as a real animal, or it does not. No single subjective experience is going to change that objective fact. Nathan said "the truth". I take that to be different than "his own personal truth". That is as far as we (you and I) overlap in your statement. When someone says the truth, I take the wider, objective meaning of the word, not the more narrow subjective approach where the truth basically means whatever that one person perceives it to be. Nathans truth could very well be wrong. This would be a surprise to him, but that does not matter to the objective fact that his sighting could be a fabrication or a delusion of the mind. His truth could be different than the objective truth. People seeking the truth should not aim to align that with someone else's experience, but should aim for the objective, demonstrable truth instead. If it was different? Why would Nathan still be out looking?
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 23 hours ago, NathanFooter said: The word intended was " truth ". > Words don't have value if they can't stand the test of truth. The auto-correct feature ( device word history + my wife is a teacher = truancy ) plagues me every so often. Everyone should provide evidence that their case is legitimate. I have collected historic information, witness testimony, recorded unknown vocals and cast tracks in the area of my 09 sighting. None of that is enough, so I moved myself to a place where I can up the odds of getting more information to support my position. I am out looking more often than most to get the answers to the questions while respond here making assumptions about films, reports and even character. I have posted in response to others making assumptions/claims but I have found that you can't find a point of reason with some of the people involved. The people I gave mention in my above post are not the proponents or believers, I am talking about those who just want to educate themselves on the truth. If you post something and expect others to absorb the information then it is your responsibility to separate opinions from fact. That is what the entire point of discussion here, ask anyone reading. To paraphrase another skeptic (who also happens to be an accredited scientist): Each area of bigfoot ‘evidence’ (ie: prints, tracks, historic testimony, hair, vocals, etc...) has been PROVEN to have been hoaxed at one point or another. Bigfoot? Not so much as once. Ill respond to to the rest tomorrow. I’m busy making these crazy Mexican sammiches called Cemitas. They’re incredible you should try them sometime
Redbone Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, dmaker said: You're being wrong about the truth does not change reality. dmaker said "the reality". I take that to be different than "his own personal reality". That is as far as we (you and I) overlap in your statement. When someone says the reality, I take the wider, objective meaning of the word, not the more narrow subjective approach where the reality basically means whatever that one person perceives it to be. dmaker's reality could very well be wrong. This would be a surprise to him, but that does not matter to the objective fact that his word salad could be a fabrication or a delusion of the mind. His reality could be different than the objective reality. People seeking the reality should not aim to align that with someone else's lack of experience, but should aim for the objective, demonstrable reality instead. "Click" Ignore re-engaged... Edited June 5, 2018 by Redbone 1
norseman Posted June 5, 2018 Admin Posted June 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: To paraphrase another skeptic (who also happens to be an accredited scientist): Each area of bigfoot ‘evidence’ (ie: prints, tracks, historic testimony, hair, vocals, etc...) has been PROVEN to have been hoaxed at one point or another. Bigfoot? Not so much as once. Ill respond to to the rest tomorrow. I’m busy making these crazy Mexican sammiches called Cemitas. They’re incredible you should try them sometime I really love prawn fajitas.....with cilantro and lime. And a IPA to wash it down with. And just a FYI....? All it would take IS once.
dmaker Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, norseman said: If it was different? Why would Nathan still be out looking? If his sighting was a conscious fabrication then he is just continuing the game with a bit of wishful thinking, no doubt, mixed in. If a delusion, then why would he not continue to look?
ShadowBorn Posted June 5, 2018 Moderator Posted June 5, 2018 Quote Truth-Default Theory (TDT) is a new theory of deception and deception detection. This article offers an initial sketch of, and brief introduction to, TDT. The theory seeks to provide an elegant explanation of previous findings as well as point to new directions for future research. Unlike previous theories of deception detection, TDT emphasizes contextualized communication content in deception detection over nonverbal behaviors associated with emotions, arousal, strategic self-presentation, or cognitive effort. The central premises of TDT are that people tend to believe others and that this “truth-default” is adaptive. Key definitions are provided. TDT modules and propositions are briefly explicated. Finally, research consistent with TDT is summarized. If everything that has been found can be proven to be hoaxed then it must have been hoaxed. IF one has seen what made the tracks then that can only be explained to the observer which makes it true. The truth is then only to the observer but not to the rest. So how can they believe in some thing that they have not seen and expect to be told that it is real with out the proof. This makes it true to them who have not seen what the observers have seen with their own eyes. Anyone can go out and plant a footprint and say that it is bigfoot and the same goes with those tree formations unless one is there to observe it being made by one. I Have to go on assumption unless I have confirmation. But I cannot make some one believe that some thing is true that is just not how it works. This why we have free will. The free will to choose. I know what I saw and believe in it .But I cannot force one my beliefs on what I saw. Norseman Those Prawn Fajitas sound very good with some flour tortillas and a few shots of Suarte Tequila with some Modelo on Draft. Yum Yum
norseman Posted June 5, 2018 Admin Posted June 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, dmaker said: If his sighting was a conscious fabrication then he is just continuing the game with a bit of wishful thinking, no doubt, mixed in. If a delusion, then why would he not continue to look? I will try again. If Nathan thought his truth should be universal to all men? Why would he be hiking in the mountains looking for evidence? I think this proves that he understands there is unfinished business. Either way, this is a Bigfoot forum.....lots of people here believe Bigfoot exists. Yes? Make sense? And not every thread in this forum should be turned into a existence debate..... Do we need a sub forum set aside just for existence debates?
Recommended Posts