Annie Nore Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 3 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Well, you guys better get started now with cleaning up Facebook. While you guys handle that, I am going to actually be in the woods. Let me know when to expect mainstream science to show up. They need to bring their own tents, though. 7 minutes ago, Huntster said: A government lid slammed down so hard that I don't want to be in the vicinity. "Nevermind." - Anna Roseannadanna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Nore Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 Just now, Annie Nore said: "Nevermind." - Anna Roseannadanna oops! sorry, didn't mean to leave that first BlackRockBigfoot quote in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 42 minutes ago, Annie Nore said: We need to compartmentalize each for what it is. Is it research? Is it entertainment? (Hmmm...entertaining research?) Foremost, what is the intent? Agreed. Entertainment is fine. But it shouldn’t be passed off as serious research. Finding Bigfoot, Small Town Monsters, and God forbid… Nick Redfern are not legitimate research. And their attempting to present themselves as such is harmful to legitimate scientific cryptozoology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 40 minutes ago, Annie Nore said: Ah, a soothsayer in this group! I am a realist. The paranormal has not been proven to exist. One should never attempt to explain an unknown with another unknown. Flesh and Blood animals on the other hand, are known to exist. That is where any rational cryptozoological investigation should begin. And ideally, where it should remain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CelticKevin Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 2 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said: I am a realist. The paranormal has not been proven to exist. One should never attempt to explain an unknown with another unknown. Flesh and Blood animals on the other hand, are known to exist. That is where any rational cryptozoological investigation should begin. And ideally, where it should remain. THANK YOU! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Nore Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 1 minute ago, Wooly Booger said: Agreed. Entertainment is fine. But it shouldn’t be passed off as serious research. Finding Bigfoot, Small Town Monsters, and God forbid… Nick Redfern are not legitimate research. And their attempting to present themselves as such is harmful to legitimate scientific cryptozoology. Do they present themselves as researchers? Actually make that declaration? Or are they perceived to be researchers? I don't really know because I haven't watched that many and, depending on whether I want to watch research or entertainment, I may turn it off or just not go there. I don't like the presentation style of most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 (edited) I had a discussion with some of my non-cryptozoological friends about this topic today, and they all say the Woo Woo, paranormal side of the discussion seriously turns them off as it is about all the information you are exposed to about Bigfoot. Channels like Bob Gymlan give them hope though, and I've been able to further interest some of them into the topic that way. Edited April 5, 2022 by Marty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said: Agreed. Entertainment is fine. But it shouldn’t be passed off as serious research. Finding Bigfoot, Small Town Monsters, and God forbid… Nick Redfern are not legitimate research. And their attempting to present themselves as such is harmful to legitimate scientific cryptozoology. Since when did Seth Breedlove portray himself as a ‘researcher’? He is very upfront about being a documentarian. Only recently has he began to dabble in field investigations himself, as opposed to presenting the efforts of others. Even then, he is very upfront that he is just trying to satisfy his own personal curiosity and does not consider himself a researcher. Please be specific on when and where he has called himself and his documentaries ‘research’. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Nore Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 9 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said: I am a realist. The paranormal has not been proven to exist. One should never attempt to explain an unknown with another unknown. Flesh and Blood animals on the other hand, are known to exist. That is where any rational cryptozoological investigation should begin. And ideally, where it should remain. If cryptozoology is understood to be a pseudoscience, wouldn't the phrase "rational cryptozoological investigation" be an oxymoron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, Marty said: I had a discussion with some of my non-cryptozoological friends about this topic today, and they all say the Woo Woo, paranormal side of the discussion seriously turns them off as it is about all the information you are exposed to about Bigfoot. Channels like Bob Gymlan give them hope though, and I've been able to further interest some of them into the topic that way. And this is exactly my point! Thank you for posting this. You clearly illustrated in two sentences what I have been trying to get across for months. But it seems to have been falling on deaf ears. 1 minute ago, Annie Nore said: If cryptozoology is understood to be a pseudoscience, wouldn't the phrase "rational cryptozoological investigation" be an oxymoron? It is only understood as a pseudoscience because of the subject’s unfortunate association with the paranormal thanks to charlatans like Nick Redfern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 7 minutes ago, Marty said: I had a discussion with some of my non-cryptozoological friends about this topic today, and they all say the Woo Woo, paranormal side of the discussion seriously turns them off as it is about all the information you are exposed to about Bigfoot. Channels like Bob Gymlan give them hope though, and I've been able to further interest some of them into the topic that way. Yes. Thank god for a rational and serious researcher like Bob Gymlan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 2 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Since when did Seth Breedlove portray himself as a ‘researcher’? He is very upfront about being a documentarian. Only recently has he began to dabble in field investigations himself, as opposed to presenting the efforts of others. Even then, he is very upfront that he is just trying to satisfy his own personal curiosity and does not consider himself a researcher. Please be specific on when and where he has called himself and his documentaries ‘research’. All I know is, everytime my wife and I try to find a good old fashioned Bigfoot documentary on the youtubes, Small Town Monsters is the only thing that comes up. It is extremely irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 Just now, Wooly Booger said: All I know is, everytime my wife and I try to find a good old fashioned Bigfoot documentary on the youtubes, Small Town Monsters is the only thing that comes up. It is extremely irritating. That is not what you said. You said that it shouldn’t be passed off as serious research. Which is it? Is he passing himself off as serious research or not? Also, his latest efforts have involved the Olympic Project and before that the NAWAC. Do their efforts not constitute serious research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 Just now, BlackRockBigfoot said: That is not what you said. You said that it shouldn’t be passed off as serious research. Which is it? Is he passing himself off as serious research or not? Also, his latest efforts have involved the Olympic Project and before that the NAWAC. Do their efforts not constitute serious research? He seems to be trying to pass himself off as serious research. If he wasn’t, then surely there would be other options available for online Bigfoot documentaries. The fool must have a monopoly on YouTube or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Nore Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 5 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said: And this is exactly my point! Thank you for posting this. You clearly illustrated in two sentences what I have been trying to get across for months. But it seems to have been falling on deaf ears. It is only understood as a pseudoscience because of the subject’s unfortunate association with the paranormal thanks to charlatans like Nick Redfern. I don't know who Nick Redfern is. So before YouTube and this flood of so-called documentaries, cryptozoology was not a pseudoscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts