Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's my opinion.
I think that like many proponents, DWA has convinced himself that they are real and like many proponents, he doesn't have a lot of confidence in that belief. That is why he falls for such amateur hoaxes and so easily dismisses skepticism. Skepticism and religious beliefs simply don't go together.
 
Since you have followed this person then it should be pretty obvious whether, for example, he professes true belief in a population of bigfoots around the Ouachitas.

A person who has real belief in the beauty of the Ouachitas, the birds, the trails, etc. merely drives there and enjoys it. The people who believe there are deer to shoot go with their rifles. By the millions.

So it is perfectly obvious that all these people have real beliefs. They act on them. If this person you are speaking of professes belief in Area X but like all the rest of the pretend-believers doesn't act upon it then he is proving he doesn't believe.

Like you. :)
 
Your interpretation of Bigfooters and their motivations is not quite accurate. Nearly everything you've posted in these Bigfoot threads has been far from it. Your deep hatred of proponents is making you blind to their motives, never mind the existence of this animal. The way you show how Bigfooters are guilty of your own insecurities shows just how much you like them.

This is why forums implement a rule on attacking the argument instead of the arguer. Not everyone can accurately interpret individuals.

I could easily claim that I've gone there to Area-X and have seen a wood ape somewhere, but I haven't. Neither has DWA. Doesn't that tell you something?

Nice gaming in the other thread by the way ;)
 
To ABP's specific point, there is no place so consistently providing the kind of tripe that passes for Bigfoot evidence as the Ouachitas of Oklahoma. Forget the NAWACkies for a moment, and consider all of the hopeful and true believers out there. If they're sincere in their beliefs they too should be spending their time in that region in the hope of catching a glimpse or perhaps a million-dollar photo. That's what all the ivorybill believers did a few years ago - they descended en masse on the White/Cache river basin.

Why don't bigfooters do the same? Prime example - Moneymaker. So what if he can't get access to a measly 10 acre inholding, he's got enough money to gain access to any adjacent property he likes, in addition to the abundant public land. Why aren't they there right now, you know, finding bigfoot? Speaks volumes to me.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Your interpretation of Bigfooters and their motivations is not quite accurate.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I believe ABP is on to something.

I've seen this pattern before: people professing beliefs yet simultaneously refusing to behave as though they take it seriously. If you witnessed a person being dragged screaming into a white windowless van which zoomed off, you'd immediately call 911 to report a kidnapping. Yet, strangely, you're not expected to do the same when he's pulled by tractor beam into a flying saucer. In a similar vein, Bigfoot researchers never make a serious attempt to find Bigfoot.

The motives behind this sort of bizarre compartmentalization of competence are obscure; BLAARGing is a good theory to explain this sort of objectively weird behavior, but I personally suspect it is flawed. I get the impression it assumes intention on the part of the participants, but I doubt that is the case. I'm inclined to a sort of Orwellian doublethink explanation, where the believers do genuinely believe but intentionally or unintentionally cannot see the contradictions so obvious to others.

There are about 5000 tigers left in the wild, yet a total wilderness doofus like me can go to India and take a picture like this after a few days in a national park.



How is that remotely possible? How can a American city boy with no wilderness or photography skills go to a different continent, and within days take a picture of an elusive predator that clear, when armies of Bigfoot hunters can't produce anything better than a blob?

The correct answer is that tigers actually exist.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Your interpretation of Bigfooters and their motivations is not quite accurate. Nearly everything you've posted in these Bigfoot threads has been far from it. Your deep hatred of proponents is making you blind to their motives, never mind the existence of this animal. The way you show how Bigfooters are guilty of your own insecurities shows just how much you like them.

This is why forums implement a rule on attacking the argument instead of the arguer. Not everyone can accurately interpret individuals.

I could easily claim that I've gone there to Area-X and have seen a wood ape somewhere, but I haven't. Neither has DWA. Doesn't that tell you something?

Nice gaming in the other thread by the way ;)
Click to expand...

I have lost track...do you consider yourself the pot, or the kettle?
 
John Nowak said:
Possibly, but I believe ABP is on to something.

I've seen this pattern before: people professing beliefs yet simultaneously refusing to behave as though they take it seriously. If you witnessed a person being dragged screaming into a white windowless van which zoomed off, you'd immediately call 911 to report a kidnapping. Yet, strangely, you're not expected to do the same when he's pulled by tractor beam into a flying saucer. In a similar vein, Bigfoot researchers never make a serious attempt to find Bigfoot.

The motives behind this sort of bizarre compartmentalization of competence are obscure; BLAARGing is a good theory to explain this sort of objectively weird behavior, but I personally suspect it is flawed. I get the impression it assumes intention on the part of the participants, but I doubt that is the case. I'm inclined to a sort of Orwellian doublethink explanation, where the believers do genuinely believe but intentionally or unintentionally cannot see the contradictions so obvious to others.

There are about 5000 tigers left in the wild, yet a total wilderness doofus like me can go to India and take a picture like this after a few days in a national park.

[qimg]http://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By-Year/2009/i-c7TPxTG/2/M/20090124%20174045-M.jpg[/qimg]

How is that remotely possible? How can a American city boy with no wilderness or photography skills go to a different continent, and within days take a picture of an elusive predator that clear, when armies of Bigfoot hunters can't produce anything better than a blob?

The correct answer is that tigers actually exist.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
The Shrike said:
To ABP's specific point, there is no place so consistently providing the kind of tripe that passes for Bigfoot evidence as the Ouachitas of Oklahoma. Forget the NAWACkies for a moment, and consider all of the hopeful and true believers out there. If they're sincere in their beliefs they too should be spending their time in that region in the hope of catching a glimpse or perhaps a million-dollar photo. That's what all the ivorybill believers did a few years ago - they descended en masse on the White/Cache river basin.

Why don't bigfooters do the same? Prime example - Moneymaker. So what if he can't get access to a measly 10 acre inholding, he's got enough money to gain access to any adjacent property he likes, in addition to the abundant public land. Why aren't they there right now, you know, finding bigfoot? Speaks volumes to me.
Click to expand...
Because they have better things to do like telling bigfoot stories/trolling on the internet, having fun in their backyard, or making money with TV shows?
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
^You might want to add that it's DWA who said that. One thing I can say about DWA, is he is a true believer and not a BLAARGer. I think you're overlooking the fact that the majority of proponents are truly believers.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say in post #3472 that DWA didn't have confidence in Bigfoots existence?
Now one page later he's a true believer?
 
John Nowak said:
In a similar vein, Bigfoot researchers never make a serious attempt to find Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Correct. It goes with my ideas of footers leaving the area just when they are close to a bigfoot, or claim to be.

I think it is a fairly common tendency. Get near a bigfoot, and then bail out.

They will claim, either individually or in an "expedition", to have been very close to, or on the track of, a bigfoot. Yet no effort is made to finish the job.

Typically, they end the hike or "expedition", and we hear no more about the bigfoot.

The first example where this thought occurred to me was the skookum cast expedition.

We have Northern Lights, with a bigfoot within candy throwing distance of camp, and no real effort is made to find the bigfoot throwing the candy. Or even to track it the next day...

Normally, if you are searching for an animal, and you believe it is nearby, or you hear that it might be nearby, you go and see if it is nearby.

If you don't want to go and see at night, then you go to the area the next morning, and you will see sign of the animal, and you can begin tracking from there.

Unless it's a bird, or a small animal, the signs and tracks will be there.

I'm not sure, but I can't recall anyone tracking a bigfoot from any of the close encounter type claims.
Unless you believe the PGF claim...
 
Cervelo said:
Didn't you just say in post #3472 that DWA didn't have confidence in Bigfoots existence?
Now one page later he's a true believer?
Click to expand...

Exactly so, and these contradictions are a hallmark, not an exception to, his BLAARGing.

SlowVehicle - a student of doublethink understands that it is carried out with such precision that it is very conscious, detailed planning mechanism. It is not that they "can't see" their contradictions - they are specifically constructing those contradictions in the service of an objective. So with Orwell's writings or studies of cults that practice groupthink, etc. it is very obvious what purpose the doublethink is serving; its strategic importance. It isn't an aimless capacity to believe random contradictory things at the same time.

In the instant case of asserting DWA does not have faith, but is a true believer, is it because he believes both things simultaneously? More generally, does he have this highly integrated system of contradictions that he must keep memorized at all times? Or is it mere lazy gaming where you just make stuff up as you go along with every skeptic point?

This is a good study item from OntarioSquatch below - he had to think a while about how to respond to the contradiction that none of these BLAARGers bother going to the Ouachitas where they profess to believe all the nonsense coming out of the Area X buffoons:

I could easily claim that I've gone there to Area-X and have seen a wood ape somewhere, but I haven't. Neither has DWA.
Click to expand...

This is not an expression of belief bigfoot are there. In fact, it is announcing that he would only be able to CLAIM a sighting, not actually HAVE one. So he isn't holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. He has confirmed for us that he knows he won't have one.

It isn't an explanation for why a believer would not go there. Like "it costs too much" or "I don't know where it is" or "I could get shot", etc. All he says is that he could go there and lie, he has not, so we should figure out for ourselves why that is a reason not to go there. He doesn't even HAVE two contradictory beliefs for us to point to as doublethink.

What you have trouble with is understanding why people BLAARG. Because it isn't something you would do yourself. We don't understand how people can rape, torture, or like duck egg fetuses and that ghastly shrimp paste my wife eats. A lot of people cannot accept that gays love each other the same way heterosexuals do, or that mixed racial couples can love each other or a teen hottie can love a dirty old man. But they do, and with wild abandon.

BLAARGing is fun for them. It wouldn't be for you, but that is the very thing used against you. That is why extremely bright PhD's can argue for years with them on the BFF or here, all in vain. Because they are working from the wrong premise. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with having no conscience about being deceptive. That is the requirement for playing the game. People who have a conscience can't flippantly contradict themselves from one sentence to the next. It makes them feel bad. So they can't empathize with those who can.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Exactly so, and these contradictions are a hallmark, not an exception to, his BLAARGing.

SlowVehicle - a student of doublethink understands that it is carried out with such precision that it is very conscious, detailed planning mechanism. It is not that they "can't see" their contradictions - they are specifically constructing those contradictions in the service of an objective. So with Orwell's writings or studies of cults that practice groupthink, etc. it is very obvious what purpose the doublethink is serving; its strategic importance. It isn't an aimless capacity to believe random contradictory things at the same time.

In the instant case of asserting DWA does not have faith, but is a true believer, is it because he believes both things simultaneously? More generally, does he have this highly integrated system of contradictions that he must keep memorized at all times? Or is it mere lazy gaming where you just make stuff up as you go along with every skeptic point?

This is a good study item from OntarioSquatch below - he had to think a while about how to respond to the contradiction that none of these BLAARGers bother going to the Ouachitas where they profess to believe all the nonsense coming out of the Area X buffoons:



This is not an expression of belief bigfoot are there. In fact, it is announcing that he would only be able to CLAIM a sighting, not actually HAVE one. So he isn't holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. He has confirmed for us that he knows he won't have one.

It isn't an explanation for why a believer would not go there. Like "it costs too much" or "I don't know where it is" or "I could get shot", etc. All he says is that he could go there and lie, he has not, so we should figure out for ourselves why that is a reason not to go there. He doesn't even HAVE two contradictory beliefs for us to point to as doublethink.

What you have trouble with is understanding why people BLAARG. Because it isn't something you would do yourself. We don't understand how people can rape, torture, or like duck egg fetuses and that ghastly shrimp paste my wife eats. A lot of people cannot accept that gays love each other the same way heterosexuals do, or that mixed racial couples can love each other or a teen hottie can love a dirty old man. But they do, and with wild abandon.

BLAARGing is fun for them. It wouldn't be for you, but that is the very thing used against you. That is why extremely bright PhD's can argue for years with them on the BFF or here, all in vain. Because they are working from the wrong premise. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with having no conscience about being deceptive. That is the requirement for playing the game. People who have a conscience can't flippantly contradict themselves from one sentence to the next. It makes them feel bad. So they can't empathize with those who can.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
LTC8K6 said:
Correct. It goes with my ideas of footers leaving the area just when they are close to a bigfoot, or claim to be.

I think it is a fairly common tendency. Get near a bigfoot, and then bail out.

They will claim, either individually or in an "expedition", to have been very close to, or on the track of, a bigfoot. Yet no effort is made to finish the job.

Typically, they end the hike or "expedition", and we hear no more about the bigfoot.

The first example where this thought occurred to me was the skookum cast expedition.

We have Northern Lights, with a bigfoot within candy throwing distance of camp, and no real effort is made to find the bigfoot throwing the candy. Or even to track it the next day...

Normally, if you are searching for an animal, and you believe it is nearby, or you hear that it might be nearby, you go and see if it is nearby.

If you don't want to go and see at night, then you go to the area the next morning, and you will see sign of the animal, and you can begin tracking from there.

Unless it's a bird, or a small animal, the signs and tracks will be there.

I'm not sure, but I can't recall anyone tracking a bigfoot from any of the close encounter type claims.
Unless you believe the PGF claim...
Click to expand...
I think the term that covers all the problems these guys have finishing the job is called premature squachasm. Once they climax, all they want to do is have a smoke and go to sleep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom