Belz...
Fiend God
So that's where that face comes from. What game was that, again ?
Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters
- Thread starter desertyeti
- Start date
- Status
So that's where that face comes from. What game was that, again ?
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,493
It's Zero Wing. Possibly the most iconic bit of Engrish to be found.
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Human societies create a kind of insanity. It's sometimes called the rat race. Yet there is a peaceful serenity in the PNW forests. A sense of each moment, unquestioned purpose and the need to act. An alpha male Bigfoot reclines in the dappled sunlight hearing only a chickadee. His foot rests on a rock, and wraps around it as if it were his hand. He raises the lifeless ground squirrel to his mouth to take another bite...
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Human societies create a kind of insanity. It's sometimes called the rat race. Yet there is a peaceful serenity in the PNW forests. A sense of each moment, unquestioned purpose and the need to act. An alpha male Bigfoot reclines in the dappled sunlight hearing only a chickadee. His foot rests on a rock, and wraps around it as if it were his hand. He raises the lifeless ground squirrel to his mouth to take another bite...
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
You are perfectly correct. The implausibility of bigfeet being real creatures is shown not only because there are mundane, run-of-the-mill alternatives for some of the their alleged anatomical features and behavior. It also becomes clear because they would be counter-productive or unlikely for such animal.
From what I've seen (here and at the bigfoot forums I lurked for a while) for most pro-bigfoot posters, if its part of the lore and was said by Krantz, Meldrum, Glickman and Green, then it must be true.
Rock and pine throwing are similar examples. Imagine you are a 2 to 3 m tall ape. How would you try to drive the puny human away?
(a) Let him/her see clearly how big and strong you are while screaming something like "Thou shall not pass!" in bigfoot language.
(b) Remain hidden in the bushes and throw some pines or rocks.
Of course, they will have some rationalization like "bigfeet are shy"... Or bigfeet know option (b) would be more frightening...
Mid-tarsal breaks and "bigfoot perfume" are also characteristics that make little -if any- sense.
Stereolab
Massager of French
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2002
- Messages
- 3,372
I'm sorry.
There are people here who believe in Bigfoot?
Christ, I have been called a "woo woo" numerous times here, for thinking there is a CHANCE that there is something to telepathy.
But there really are people who believe in Bigfoot?!
There are people here who believe in Bigfoot?
Christ, I have been called a "woo woo" numerous times here, for thinking there is a CHANCE that there is something to telepathy.
But there really are people who believe in Bigfoot?!
I have not read any of the 104 pages of discussion, so forgive me if I retread old issues. It seems to me that if Bigfoot did exist, we would have, after all this time (a) a body, and (b) clear photos. Nature photographers with commonly available telephoto lenses routinely capture crystal clear images of rare/furtive animal life from thousands of yards away. And surely after some decades of interest, we'd have seen evidence of bodies/remains of lone Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) who had died accidental or sudden deaths away from their supposed clan. Yet there are no bodies, only tantalizingly vague tracks and hazy inconclusive images.
Belz...
Fiend God
CLD, you don't know what you're talking about, obviously. Bigfoot doesn't leave traces of any kind. Ever. Why ? Er... ask SweatyYeti. He'll tell you. After calling you an idiot. [/sarcasm]
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Sorry to be the one to break it to you but yes, you will have to read all 104 pages of this thread as well as 136 pages of this one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523
You will then know how there can be a healthy breeding population of
these animals, with no verifiable evidence, whatsoever..
Rather than me reading 136 pages of aquabbling, can someone summarize the alleged proof that a healthy breeding population of
these animals exists?
RayG
Master Poster
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Is kitakaze shakin' things up at cryptomundo? Haaaaaai doubt it. But hey, it was nice of Mr.Coleman to put this up:
Is 'scoftic' a useful term?
My posts are still being quarantined but many have made it through... it just takes a day or two. Still no answer from them after reporting the problem.
Is 'scoftic' a useful term?
My posts are still being quarantined but many have made it through... it just takes a day or two. Still no answer from them after reporting the problem.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Bigfoot...
...it's too smart and elusive. It specializes in avoiding humans though it often does the opposite. Qualified people aren't looking for sasquatch, those who are devote hardly the kind of time which is required. Those scientists who are searching for something where bigfoot's at are not searching for bigfoot so they miss it. Sightings should held as evidence of significance by their numbers and consistency, proximity to waterways, and bell shaped curve. I'll ask those at cryptomundo for a better summation as mine is lacking.
Belz...
Fiend God
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
K, that thread at cryptomundo seems to be compatible with my feelings regarding how believers react to skepticism. I found particularly interesting the responses saying the "scoffing" is an emotional response to something that somehow is against the skeptics' world view.
Now, what I've seen here an at other forums is that proponents/defenders of fringe subjects tend to react with emotional responses and name-calling as soon as they realize the evidences/reasonings they presented to back their claims were examined and found not sufficient or necessary. Bigfootery is a textbook on believer's modus operandi. If I were an undergraduate on social sciences I would probably have enough material for a thesis on the subject.
Its good, however, to see that some people at cryptomundo noticed that name-calling and prejudice will only help sinking their causes. I've been trying to expose this for the bigfoot proponents the showed up here and it seems so far I obtained little if any success.
Defenders of fringe subjects seem to have a preconceived idea of what a skeptic is. A skeptic, in their minds, is someone who "does not believe" and the disbelief exists because the person has not has not yet evaluated the evidences and reasonings and debated with the proponents. You are still labelled skeptic if you evaluate it and say something like "I don't think [add fringe subject here] is real, but who knows, it may be". There's still hope for you seeing the light! Its interesting to note that a similar position on the opposing field is very rare. How often we read something like "I think [add fringe subject her] is real, but who knows, maybe it is not"?
K, you wil also notice that "I don't think [add fringe subject here] is real, but who knows, it might as well be" is better described as fence-sitting instead of skepticism...
Scoffics would be those who think the fringe subject is not real but have not dug deep in to the evidences/reasonings. And here's where their labels start to crumble, since at least here ar JREF, most skeptics know a lot about fringe subjects, quite often more than their proponents.
This brings us to the third and worse of all types, the person who made his/hers homework but still considers the fringe subject as not real- the denialists, those who refuse to see the light. I think this happens because in their minds, the evidence/reasonings are uncontestable. Their conclusions just can not be wrong. And they ask skeptics to be open-minded...
I also noticed some proponents are very thin-skinned and a joke might be enough to trigger a negative reaction. They are already on the defensive, expecting and actively looking for what they would consider as ridiculing of their claim. This is typical of those who defend positions that are beliefs instead of conclusions reached after impartial evaluation of avaliable information.
Skeptic's behavior is always OK? Unfortunately, no. Quite often we also cross the line. Not as fast and frequently, however, as some of the proponents.
They should understand, however, that this happens because we are presented over and over with the same arguments/evidence. Most of the new defenders of fringe subjects that come here seem to think he/she is bringing brand-new unconstestable evidence/reasonings/lines of approach that will make skeptics see the light. They also have a tendency of thinking skepitcs here are ignorant about the fringe subject of their prefference. In both cases, this is not true.
Yes, I am aware that they probably are already familiar with the counter arguments. But in both cases, personal attacks will not help.
Well, I guess that's all I had to write about the "scoffic" issue.
Now, what I've seen here an at other forums is that proponents/defenders of fringe subjects tend to react with emotional responses and name-calling as soon as they realize the evidences/reasonings they presented to back their claims were examined and found not sufficient or necessary. Bigfootery is a textbook on believer's modus operandi. If I were an undergraduate on social sciences I would probably have enough material for a thesis on the subject.
Its good, however, to see that some people at cryptomundo noticed that name-calling and prejudice will only help sinking their causes. I've been trying to expose this for the bigfoot proponents the showed up here and it seems so far I obtained little if any success.
Defenders of fringe subjects seem to have a preconceived idea of what a skeptic is. A skeptic, in their minds, is someone who "does not believe" and the disbelief exists because the person has not has not yet evaluated the evidences and reasonings and debated with the proponents. You are still labelled skeptic if you evaluate it and say something like "I don't think [add fringe subject here] is real, but who knows, it may be". There's still hope for you seeing the light! Its interesting to note that a similar position on the opposing field is very rare. How often we read something like "I think [add fringe subject her] is real, but who knows, maybe it is not"?
K, you wil also notice that "I don't think [add fringe subject here] is real, but who knows, it might as well be" is better described as fence-sitting instead of skepticism...
Scoffics would be those who think the fringe subject is not real but have not dug deep in to the evidences/reasonings. And here's where their labels start to crumble, since at least here ar JREF, most skeptics know a lot about fringe subjects, quite often more than their proponents.
This brings us to the third and worse of all types, the person who made his/hers homework but still considers the fringe subject as not real- the denialists, those who refuse to see the light. I think this happens because in their minds, the evidence/reasonings are uncontestable. Their conclusions just can not be wrong. And they ask skeptics to be open-minded...
I also noticed some proponents are very thin-skinned and a joke might be enough to trigger a negative reaction. They are already on the defensive, expecting and actively looking for what they would consider as ridiculing of their claim. This is typical of those who defend positions that are beliefs instead of conclusions reached after impartial evaluation of avaliable information.
Skeptic's behavior is always OK? Unfortunately, no. Quite often we also cross the line. Not as fast and frequently, however, as some of the proponents.
They should understand, however, that this happens because we are presented over and over with the same arguments/evidence. Most of the new defenders of fringe subjects that come here seem to think he/she is bringing brand-new unconstestable evidence/reasonings/lines of approach that will make skeptics see the light. They also have a tendency of thinking skepitcs here are ignorant about the fringe subject of their prefference. In both cases, this is not true.
Yes, I am aware that they probably are already familiar with the counter arguments. But in both cases, personal attacks will not help.
Well, I guess that's all I had to write about the "scoffic" issue.
OK, thanks. It sounds a lot like the arguments of parapsychologists.
RayG
Master Poster
.
Not always. For example, Roger Knights, originator of the term scoftic, applied his 'scoftic' label to Benjamin Radford, in reference to Radford's Skeptical Inquirer article [SIZE=-1]Bigfoot at 50: Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence[/SIZE][SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]
Radford certainly seems familiar with bigfoot stories, claims and arguments.
Labels seem to be used in this manner:
1. scoftic = someone who pooh-poohs any claim regarding bigfoot
2. skeptic = someone open to the possibility of bigfoot, who remains unconvinced by the existing evidence
3. proponent = someone open to the possibility of bigfoot, who is sufficiently convinced by the existing evidence
4. credulist = someone who accepts any claim regarding bigfoot
Labels like romantic, fence-sitter, or denialist seem to fit in there as well.
There seems to be a tendency by some to view skeptics as scoftics or proponents as credulists, just because they have a difference of opinion.
RayG
Last edited:
- Status