So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest HairyGreek]

ROFL!!!!

"This 'shake-n-bake' is nonsense!"

Edited September 23, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest bsruther]

Maybe.....just maybe we need one another, in order to bring out the best in our arguments and "discussion", doesnt matter which side of the debate you're on.

Jean Girard: NO! I will battle you with the entirety of my heart and you will probably lose. But maybe, just maybe. You might challenge me. God needs the Devil, The Beatles needed the Rolling Stones. Even Diane Sawyer needed Katie Couric. Will you be my Katie Couric?

Ricky Bobby: Wow I feel like I'm in Highlander.

I like to think of Bigfoot like a shapeshifter, or a changeling, like that guy-You ever hear of that TV show Manimal?

I like to think of Bigfoot like a dirty old bum. He's comin' up to me, and I'm 'bout to sock him one, cause, you know, he's a dirty old bum, but then I say, "Wait a minute, there's something... I don't know, special about this guy."

[Guest HairyGreek]

LOL...the second time today I have spit soda on my screen thanks to this thread.

[Guest]

I think the skeptics enjoy "poking holes" in others bigfoot theories. The "no evidence would be compelling except a slab monkey " says a lot about the skeptic mindset. The OP asks why that mindset is represented by many here.I haven't noticed that being answered adequately.

Now I seem to hear those Champagne Music Makers droning out Kum Ba Ya and all the scoftic/skeptics are singing along while waiting for the next pig pile.

edited for spelling...

Edited September 23, 2011 by John T

[Guest]

This is the kind of thread that makes it fun to come here.

People of different philosophies engaging one another in polite, interesting conversation....

Wish they were all like this...

Art

[Guest HairyGreek]

Now I seem to hear those Champagne Music Makers droning out Kum Ba Ya and all the scoftic/skeptics are singing along while waiting for the next pig pile.

Totally over my head. I have no idea what this means...

[Guest]

Translation:

The scoftics/skeptics are being nice on this thread, and waiting for the next thread where they will dump on some "less than conclusive evidence". The problem is, ALL evidence to them is less than conclusive. So the OP question is still dangling out there.

I'll add this similar question. Given that to the majority of skeptics there is no convincing evidence of bigfoot, why the high level of interest and scrutiny of things discussed here? Another good question is: Why the continual disclaimer, posted in threads, stating that "bigfoot/sasquatch has not been proven to exist" (or variations of this statement)?

[Guest]

Conclusive evidence is proof. Conclusive evidence is no longer merely evidence. All evidence can be thought of as less than conclusive; because, at the point it becomes conclusive evidence it becomes proof.

edited to add:

There is no universal proof of bigfoot. There is evidence, but evidence is not proof. They are not the same thing. Because something is not proven it does not keep people from being interested in it. I would posit that many people are more interested in things unproven than proven. So, a person interested in a subject, a skeptic or anyone else, does not have to consider something proven (they don’t even have to consider evidence) in order to have an interest.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Ace

[wolftrax]

The same reason that someone who believes it is real is obsessed with it. The same reason someone is obsessed with comic books, or video games, or music, or stamp collecting, or watching TV.

The reason people come here every day, whether they believe it is real or not, is because they are interested in it.

[Guest]

I like to think of Bigfoot like a shapeshifter, or a changeling, like that guy-You ever hear of that TV show Manimal?

I like to think of Bigfoot like a dirty old bum. He's comin' up to me, and I'm 'bout to sock him one, cause, you know, he's a dirty old bum, but then I say, "Wait a minute, there's something... I don't know, special about this guy."

"I like to think of Bigfoot as a figure skater, who does an interpretive ice dance of my life's journey"

[Guest]

I doubt Bigfoot exist. I know that I do not know everything. Hence, I leave Bigfoot as an open issue, while maintaining my doubts.

I read and post here because Bigfoot phenomena is undoubtedly real. What can we make of the phenomena; what do we make of the phenomena? If we have an open issue, then we need and ought to consider the reasonable spectrum of possible solutions to Bigfoot phenomenon. This is where the skeptic enters, to challenge the idea that the Bigfoot issue is essentially solved in favor of existence and to propose consideration for the alternative of non-existence.

For me, Bigfoot is a mystery. I'm interested in looking at mysteries. I enjoy different approaches and solutions to mysteries. Some solutions seem more credible than others, to me.

I'm not obsessed, but I do keep up and post --- maybe from habit. I used to believe in Bigfoot. Back in the day of Sanderson, Roe, Patterson, Green, etc. Back then, almost no one had even heard of sasquatch or Bigfoot.

Then a funny thing happened. The Bigfoot proponents succeeded in selling the idea of Bigfoot. It became a mass consumed entity. And with that, Bigfoot's territory expanded and expanded, more and more people told of seeing Bigfoot, and Bigfoot behavior became mysteriously codified. Only then, I began harboring doubts --- the story of Bigfoot was like the Titanic: taking on too much water and eventually sinking, over hyped.

We should be open minded. And that open-minded attitude should extend also to the True Believer. Else, we tend to embrace dogma, with imagination but no real thought.

[Guest]

I think the skeptics enjoy "poking holes" in others bigfoot theories. The "no evidence would be compelling except a slab monkey " says a lot about the skeptic mindset. The OP asks why that mindset is represented by many here.I haven't noticed that being answered adequately.

Now I seem to hear those Champagne Music Makers droning out Kum Ba Ya and all the scoftic/skeptics are singing along while waiting for the next pig pile.

edited for spelling...

I enjoy discussing Bigfoot. I do not enjoy some of the replies my posts cause. I know there are some True Believers here that think it is their duty to "refute" any and all expressions of skepticism that may arise. Should I reply: "I think the True Believers enjoy 'poking holes' in other's skeptical theories?"

The "slab monkey" position of skeptics is a reasonable, rational, and dare I say scientific position to take. Why this seems outrageous or ridiculous to True Believers is beyond me.

I guess the bottom line is that doubt irritates the True Believer.

[Guest bsruther]

"I like to think of Bigfoot as a figure skater, who does an interpretive ice dance of my life's journey"

I like to think of Bigfoot as a mischievous badger.

[Guest Forbig]

Reliable evidence will return me to accepting Bigfoot as real.

What would you consider reliable? Would it have to be an earth shaking Sasquatch in a cage, or would just a clear photo from a reliable cameraman work?

[Guest tracker]

The "slab monkey" position of skeptics is a reasonable, rational, and dare I say scientific position to take. Why this seems outrageous or ridiculous to True Believers is beyond me.

I guess the bottom line is that doubt irritates the True Believer.

Doubt too funny lol

Hey I got to ask. What risks are the skeptics prepared to undertake to prove it either way for themselves? Are they willing to risk their lives attempting to kill one at close range in the dark? Or will they settle with a sighting at a safe distance and say forget the skeptics I am not getting any closer to that?

Yea that's what i thought. See you on the forums.

JMO Tracker