Merged Bigfoot follies

[Northern Lights]

What are their credentials?

 

[carlitos]

 

[dmaker]

Double post deleted.

 

[dmaker]

Ditto, a true skeptic is one that recognizes the existence of bigfoot as a possibility even if that potential grows dim exponentially over the years. At some point, one has to accept that the possibility is extremely unlikely. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of faith.

I don't necessarily think denying the existence of bigfoot makes one a pseudo skeptic, I believe it makes one rational/logical. However, going over to a pro bigfoot forum, and beating that dead horse relentlessly, does put a JREF member into the troll category with some other agenda. It's unnecessary since most BFF members lurk here anyway as if we were a train wreck that they can't look away from

What would that agenda be, in your opinion? Is there a reasonable role for the bigfoot denialist at a place like the BFF? Is any participation there going to be seen as teasing the slow kid in class, so to speak?

I find, more and more, I engage more often when blowhards like DWA start spouting about how scientists that do not believe in bigfoot are lazy, irresponsible, short sighted, tools of the powers that be or just plain traitors to the scientific method. He ignores basic tenets like falsifiability, verification, repeatable evidence, inherent weakness of anecdotal evidence and just plain old common sense constantly. He is a loud mouthed paragon of pseudoscience who yells out his diatribe standing on the shoulders of accomplished scientists while urinating in their faces. This annoys me to no end. He cranks out logical fallacies faster than belches at a fraternity keg party. And the faithful lap it up. If ones agenda is to be act as a potential foil to that constant stream of stupidity, is that irrational or unreasonable? Or would you see it as merely a personal rivalry?

I don't really care or get involved in the threads where people discuss the psychic bigfoot, or are bigfoot and the dogman buddies, or bigfoot burial rituals, or all the other ridiculous threads. But I do find myself constantly countering wildly incorrect and misleading statements from a handful of individuals. It is most likely time to quit as I don't imagine any good really comes of it.

 

[William Parcher]

Pretend wolf experts just like pretend Bigfoot. I should have known.

At least I hope your Bigfoot believer son reads JREF and laughs his ass off at the skeptics. Go get 'em Dad, ROFL.

 

[comncents]

Don't forget to scroll down to the comments.

One of the comments is from someone who has, or is about to start, a "research project". He mentions not making their research "public." I guess this is the next step in the evolution of Bigfootery. It used to be that you went camping and made up all of your near-miss BF stories - and then tell them to everyone. Now you go camping and say "We almost got him, but I can't tell you about it because its a secret" (wink wink..nod nod)

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Battle of Arnhem was the end of a British advance in WWII against the Germans. They were trying to reach the strip club just over a bridge into the Dutch city of Arnhem.

The British over-extended their lines and could not make the strip club. They were forced into retreat. It was the first real stand-and-repel defense by the Germans after Normandy and the advance through France, etc. The girls at the club had a lot of intelligence from German officers the Allies were hoping to get their hands on.

So Brian Brown met his battle of Arnhem with the two-foot butt healthy tree that bigfoot snapped off.

 

[EHocking]

Ditto, a true skeptic is one that recognizes the existence of bigfoot as a possibility even if that potential grows dim exponentially over the years...

I totally disagree.

I can see absolutely no reason to give bigfoot more credence than any other modern folkloric invention.

Let's replace bigfoot with some other invention, say fairies.
Would you say that this statement still a valid description of, or stance taken by "a true skeptic"?

A true sceptic is one that recognizes the existence of fairies as a possibility.​

 

[Drewbot]

Battle of Arnhem was the end of a British advance in WWII against the Germans. They were trying to reach the strip club just over a bridge into the Dutch city of Arnhem.

The British over-extended their lines and could not make the strip club. They were forced into retreat. It was the first real stand-and-repel defense by the Germans after Normandy and the advance through France, etc. The girls at the club had a lot of intelligence from German officers the Allies were hoping to get their hands on.

So Brian Brown met his battle of Arnhem with the two-foot butt healthy tree that bigfoot snapped off.

Exactly, but the most important point, is that Monty was hoping the Armored Division could fight across the open fields and relieve the encircled Paratroopers. Just as Bipto was hoping that his fans and the Mods at BFF would save him when he took his story a Bridge Too Far. Neither Monty or Bipto took into account the effectiveness of the Eighty-eights however.

 

[Jodie]

I totally disagree.

I can see absolutely no reason to give bigfoot more credence than any other modern folkloric invention.

Let's replace bigfoot with some other invention, say fairies.
Would you say that this statement still a valid description of, or stance taken by "a true skeptic"?

A true sceptic is one that recognizes the existence of fairies as a possibility.​

First, let me point out that you have committed the logical fallacy of quoting me out of context. Without the rest of the post you have removed the clarification of that statement.

However, from a technical standpoint, the possibility of fairies existing is probably just as likely as bigfoot. True skepticism is a process of questioning versus disbelief, a crucial distinction, and one that I happen to agree on with BB when it comes to some of the JREF members that haunt both the BFF and JREF.

As far as fairies or bigfoot are concerned,I fall under the category of disbelief, which one do you fall under? Disbelief doesn't make one a pseudo skeptic, it simply means that you acknowledge the probabilities of bigfoot's existence being low and the other factors ( Bigfoot drama and hoaxing) as making it even more unlikely that the creature exists. That's a logical conclusion, but it doesn't make us right.

 

[Correa Neto]

I know that.
I was here when he was calling us all out, that is why I make the Black Ops reference regarding Bipto.

Yeah, I know.

Just pointing out there's nothing new in bigfootery. Ye same ole s-word, repeated again and again and again. Sometimes refurbished, but deep (deep?) down the same ole s-word.

Predictable, circular...

Turtles Hoaxes all the way down...

 

[William Parcher]

Why do scientists tell us that Tyrannosaurs are extinct instead of telling us that there is a very high probability of them being extinct?

 

[HarryHenderson]

Why do scientists tell us that Tyrannosaurs are extinct instead of telling us that there is a very high probability of them being extinct?

Tyrannosaurs are extinct? I didn't even know they were sick. I heard tell once of a loose Tyrannosaur in an OK Indian casino. Care to explain that smart guy?

 

[The Shrike]

True skepticism is a process of questioning versus disbelief, a crucial distinction, . . .

To build more explicitly on WP's excellent point regarding the extinction of Tyrannosaurs, who gets to decide when that questioning has been sufficient to make a conclusion? Do I get to do that and consider myself a euskeptic or do I need to keep questioning until Mulder or DWA or Huntster are satisfied that I've fully explored this to avoid being labeled a pseudoskeptic?

 

[Slowvehicle]

To build more explicitly on WP's excellent point regarding the extinction of Tyrannosaurs, who gets to decide when that questioning has been sufficient to make a conclusion? Do I get to do that and consider myself a euskeptic or do I need to keep questioning until Mulder or DWA or Huntster are satisfied that I've fully explored this to avoid being labeled a pseudoskeptic?

You will be labeled a pseudoskeptic by anyone whose Fla-vor-aid you decline to imbibe. No amount of preparation on your part can prevent it. It has not to do with you, but with them.

 

[Castro]

A pro-kill footer writes about no-kill footers:
http://www.bigfootcrossroads.com/2014/07/the-great-bigfoot-debate-kill-or-no.html

...There's always an excuse as to why they don't have photographs. Why they don't have video. Why they don't have any samples of hair or tissue to submit for DNA analysis. It has nothing to do with protection of the species, or keeping them hidden. It's because they are most likely lying about their relationships and interactions with these creatures...

...The reason these type people are in the bigfoot community has nothing to do with the creature, it's so they have a place to socialize. It's so they have a place to be someone important, someone special, an escape from their real life. Without this fantastical delusion to live within, they would no longer serve any purpose in the bigfoot community. They would no longer be "special". The fairy tale would come to an end, and the book would be closed. By grouping together, supporting one another's stories, following the guidelines they have set of what these creatures are, and what they do, sticking with the script so to speak, they can keep the fairy tale going, and remain the Kings and Queens of this fantasy world they have built up around them. They feed off the attention and admiration they receive from their peers, like ticks growing fat on a dog, remaining just out of reach of it's teeth and paws. In this case, the teeth and paws being reality...

Brian Brown's comment:

Awesome.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Why do scientists tell us that Tyrannosaurs are extinct instead of telling us that there is a very high probability of them being extinct?

Stupid question. We have their bones. So they're dead. We don't have any dead bigfoot bones. So therefore, they aren't dead.

Not only was that a good point that T-Rex has been accepted as extinct, but it was actually alive at one time and dominating the earth - not a fairy tale like bigfoot. Like the coelacanth. Something that was alive at one time actually has some chance of being found alive again.

We should probably heap scorn on anyone saying t-rex is extinct. A reasonable skeptic would admit to some nonzero probability, right? Instead of being an extremist. Can you believe those scumbucket closed-minded lazy scientists declaring extinction?!

 

[HarryHenderson]

There's just as much "evidence" that T-Rex still lives among us as there is for Bigfoot.

In the following clip, world renowned T-Rex hunter Sir Steven Spielbergmanstein shows some of his latest (and most incredible) footage from downtown Tibet. Apparently the gas station ran out of gas and somebody wasn't happy.

 

[clayflingythingy]

As far as fairies or bigfoot are concerned,I fall under the category of disbelief, which one do you fall under? Disbelief doesn't make one a pseudo skeptic, it simply means that you acknowledge the probabilities of bigfoot's existence being low and the other factors ( Bigfoot drama and hoaxing) as making it even more unlikely that the creature exists. That's a logical conclusion, but it doesn't make us right.

Jodie,

Even tho you left bigfootin' behind you can't put the woo behind you can you?

There is zero chance that BF exists. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.

To say that there is even a slight chance that BF may exist undiscovered in NA means you've never left the woo train.

 

[Jodie]

Why do scientists tell us that Tyrannosaurs are extinct instead of telling us that there is a very high probability of them being extinct?

Because they are speaking in a lay person's terms. Technically they aren't extinct, they evolved to be chickens. Every time you order KFC you are eating a TRex descendent.