georgerm Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) I wonder with the skeptics on this forum that continually make their points to why they think there is no BF but yet it appears they are obsessed with it as much as any proponant or fan would be and possibly more. They are here everyday using their time and effort and for what? Are they so obessed with it but yet in a denial that they really want it to be real but won't admit it? Feel free to blast me , I don't mind The skeptic can't turn a believer to a non-believer and the reverse seems true too.. Just another thread here. Happy Friday Eve and Welcome Fall tomorrow !! Yay Oh... the skeptic the hectic.....should we despise them? Skeptics are an important component to research since they force the enthusiast to examine evidence. The skeptic desires to keep the scientific process pure, and will not allow the standards to drop. If the forum was full of "yes men" then we might be pleased with our studies, but far from the truth. A good skeptic can save enthusiast from from being fooled by hoaxers. Now hoaxers are the third element to research of BF since they can fool the "yes men" easily and with great joy, but they dread the skeptic. If the forum eliminated the skeptics, then the group would be easy prey for the hoaxers. Most hoaxers don't realize they are part of research. All three elements keep the machine wheels turning until the truth is spit out. So the next time you meet one of your opposites, treat them as part of the team destined to find the truth. We are after truth and nothing short of it. Public opinion plays into this scheme. If the researchers begins to turn up truths then public money becomes available. The public enters the game and wants the truth. If the hoaxers continue to fool the researcher since the skeptics failed to do their job, then the entire project begins to implode. This is happening to some extent especially when Biscardi was fooled. The public now equates the truth of BF with fantasy, and they don't want money spent on fantasy research. On the horizon we have the Olypic Project and the Erickson Project and if truths are turned up, then the public may warm up to BF research. The search for truth is a 3 bladed fan that can blow the winds of truth. However, did both project leaders get rid of their skeptics or do they treat them as part of the team? Edited September 24, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Well this thread turned out better than I hoped. Lots of good points and appreciated. I am obsessed myself but do appreciate the scepticism that is needed in everything we do. We had fun out listening at a new spot last night, heard lots of different animals and some things that I can't say what it is with any confidence. Will share audio results from recorder when I go back today if its still where I put it. This is a fun hobby, obession or past time and mostly full of hope and maybe's but waiting for the aledged proof science may have in their hands to share with us soon. I am to the point of just working on a peronal face to face if I can make it happen and not so much on proof. Friends and family and all can just take my word or not if and when it happens. Wish me luck, see my cell phone vids about peanut bait station at my GEARMAN1969 youtube channel from yesterdays outing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I spend a lot of time in the forest here on Vancouver Island, or "Ape Island" as MonsterQuest dubbed it. I spend zero time worrying about violent encounters with Bigfoot. It's the number of documented Bigfoot attacks being zero as well that does it for me. I do take precautions for real animals that are dangerous like cougars, bears, etc. I would be thrilled to see a Bigfoot, but I have no expectation this will ever happen. The Isl is one place i never made it to when out west Sure regret not taking a weekend and having a look around over there. There's some reports out there of them being aggressive. Take a trip over to Golden ears PP and maybe you will get some action? or Sasquatch PP. People have gone missing in what i call the triangle between Stave and Pitt lakes. good luck! happy hunting, tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Hoaxers should fear me I hate a hoax, nothing good will ever come from a hoax and it's a waste of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Oh... the skeptic the hectic.....should we despise them? Skeptics are an important component to research since they force the enthusiast to examine evidence. The problem with the role of skeptics is that whether here or other forums, many maintain a visible hypocritical stance, and have never really tried to hide it. This is a common theme and subtext expressed by them: "Show me some REAL evidence of bigfoot and I'll honestly consider and examine it." Then they go on to post later statements such as: "There IS NO SUCH CREATURE as bigfoot, so it doesn't matter what these believes come up with, it can't be real." That's not critical thinking. It's simple bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted September 25, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2011 Oh... the skeptic the hectic.....should we despise them? Skeptics are an important component to research since they force the enthusiast to examine evidence. The skeptic desires to keep the scientific process pure, and will not allow the standards to drop. If the forum was full of "yes men" then we might be pleased with our studies, but far from the truth. A good skeptic can save enthusiast from from being fooled by hoaxers. I agree with this statement,And i do not think that we should despise them at all since they play a important role.They keep the study honest and to the point. But on the other hand: A good argument is won by that argument no longer being argued.If the evidence is clear and the facts are straight then the skeptics should be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Interesting observation, georgerm. I agree that the honest application of skepticism adds value to most any endeavor. If the evidence is clear and the facts are straight then the skeptics should be happy. (Emphasis mine)And therein lies the rub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Hoaxers should fear me I hate a hoax, nothing good will ever come from a hoax and it's a waste of my time. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I merged the two current skeptic topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Honestly, I don't think about Bigfoot too much. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Maybe part of their interest is because they see and hear credible witness after credible witness describe the hairy giants that they got a really good look at. Then maybe they ask themselves: "How can this be when I know that Bigfoot can't possibly exist?" So they come here to try and find out what drives this 'purely social construct'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 And maybe not. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 'Maybe' implies 'maybe not', that goes without saying (sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I guess I don't understand why some people are put off by someone like me stating that "there is no bigfoot." That is my conclusion based on an examination of the evidence. If some new evidence was produced that was of sufficient quality to revisit that conclusion, I would. Gladly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts