Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
...the beautiful and rugged wilderness of the Cascades and includes the statement "This is why a body has never been found." I agree: it would be very difficult to find a bigfoot body in such an expansive wilderness.
Click to expand...


We don't care about any one particular Bigfoot body. Establishing the existence of Bigfoot has only ever required any Bigfoot body.

It's really a game of probability/statistics. It's sometimes described as a (Bigfoot) needle in a haystack problem. They don't go on to say that the needles are breeding; hundreds or thousands have had the needles peek out at them from the haystack and that millions of folks have been going all through the haystack for centuries. Probability theory demolishes the image of the vastness of the Cascades.

There is absolutely no rational or reasonable excuse for why any body has never been presented by any person at any point in North American history. The whole of Bigfootery is rested upon fantasy and pure hope. It is an intellectual insult to present a photo of the Cascades with the suggestion that "here be monsters". Bigfootery is an insult to the residents and visitors of the Cascades. Bigfootery is anti-intellectual. These people think that Bigfoot somehow expands the human and worldly realm - that Bigfoot shows just how little we all know as a society and how the country bumpkin Bigfoot witness actually knows something very important and transcending. What Bigfootery really does is shrink the realm of exploration and understanding to the mundane and depressing point that if you don't have your own scary monster you aren't worth paying attention to.
 
Vortigern99 said:
That's the nature of hallucination, WGBH: it seems real, feels real, looks real, but isn't.

And of course, what you saw was not "standing right in front of you in broad daylight". It was fifty feet away, according to your own account of the event, and was among trees and shrubbery.

You were isolated, anxious and sleepless in the wee hours of the morning. These are all known and documented elements of hypnagogic hallucination, your refusal to accept objective reality notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


Vort, were you with WGBH when he had his sighting? I assume you must have been, to keep insisting that he hallucinated the whole thing otherwise would be...well silly.
 
Ambermae said:
Vort, were you with WGBH when he had his sighting? I assume you must have been, to keep insisting that he hallucinated the whole thing otherwise would be...well silly.
Click to expand...

What a marvelous argument!

"You must have been with this person when he witnessed a mythological animal for which no evidence exists, in order to put forward the alternate explanation that the person experienced a hallucination, a phenomenon of the human mind for which ample evidence exists in scientific literature, the elements of which are fully satisfied by the person's own account of the event, which you have read in detail!"

Exchange the subject "bigfoot" with the subject "unicorn", "purple dragon" or "flying spaghetti monster", and you'll begin to understand, I hope, the unmatched absurdity of this line of argumentation.
 
I wasn't arguing with you, well at least that wasn't what i was trying to do.
I was just trying to make the point that you keep insisting he hallucinated and as you were not there with him, there could be any number of explanations for what he saw, which doesn't necessarily make you right.
 
By "argument" I mean "an exchange of views" or "a position taken by a participant in a rational discourse". The word does not always mean "a heated or contentious debate".

I have never "insisted" that WGBH hallucinated. I have put the idea forward as a more rational explanation than that he saw a mythological animal for which no evidence exists. I have read WGBH's account in detail, in his own words, and as I happen to know a few things about hypnagogic hallucination (having researched it for an unpublished novel), I could not help but notice that several elements of his sighting fulfill the requirements of the term.

Among these are isolation (he was alone for hours in a deer blind up in a tree), anxiety or stress (he had never been in the woods before, nor had he handled a rifle, both of which made him anxious) and sleeplessness (the event occurred during normal sleeping hours, from pre-dawn to after sunrise).

Ambermae, let me ask you this: If a person claimed to see a unicorn, or a purple dragon, or a flying spaghetti monster, under circumstances normally associated with a known phenomenon of the human mind, would you accept the person's account as factual?

Would you think that, in order to suggest an alternate explanation, you personally would have had to have been there with them during the sighting?
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
By "argument" I mean "an exchange of views" or "a position taken by a participant in a rational discourse". The word does not always mean "a heated or contentious debate".

I have never "insisted" that WGBH hallucinated. I have put the idea forward as a more rational explanation than that he saw a mythological animal for which no evidence exists. I have read WGBH's account in detail, in his own words, and as I happen to know a few things about hypnagogic hallucination (having researched it for an unpublished novel), I could not help but notice that several elements of his sighting fulfill the requirements of the term.

Among these are isolation (he was alone for hours in a deer blind up in a tree), anxiety or stress (he had never been in the woods before, nor had he handled a rifle, both of which made him anxious) and sleeplessness (the event occurred during normal sleeping hours, from pre-dawn to after sunrise).

Ambermae, let me ask you this: If a person claimed to see a unicorn, or a purple dragon, or a flying spaghetti monster, under circumstances normally associated with a known phenomenon of the human mind, would you accept the person's account as factual?

Would you think that, in order to suggest an alternate explanation, you personally would have had to have been there with them during the sighting?
Click to expand...

Having had several, and researched them as you have, I came to the conclusion the phenomena not only explained my "paranormal" experience, but seemed to explain those of others as well, though many choose to cling to the paranormal explanation.

"I know what I saw . . ."

Not really.
 
Resume said:
"I know what I saw . . ."

Not really.
Click to expand...

It is not the hallucination itself that drives people to other extreme explanations. It is the inability to come to terms with these being a normal occurrence in perfectly normal people.

The thought in some would be that PEOPLE WILL THINK I'M CRAZY IF I TELL THEM I HAD A HALLUCINATION, therefore they cope with this by turning to a readily available explanation, which is reasonably more acceptable, to those whom they believe will think they are cuckoo, than the truth. Now they not only have a built in support group, but are also interested, as a whole, to make sure that they are making an effort to prove the entity's existence, even through extraordinary argument positions.
 
If you say you do not 'insist' thats what he saw then i'll leave it there, its just that was the impression i got from your posts.
I'm sorry if i upset you and to be honest i've just had surgery and can't really be bothered, its my fault i started something i can't finish.
 
Ambermae said:
I wasn't arguing with you, well at least that wasn't what i was trying to do.
I was just trying to make the point that you keep insisting he hallucinated and as you were not there with him, there could be any number of explanations for what he saw, which doesn't necessarily make you right.
Click to expand...

Whatever the correct explanation is, we know what it isn't.
 
There is no need for that. You know the story. Centuries of time. Millions of people including natives. The sum total of all people who have ever entered "Bigfoot places" wherever that may be. Bigfoot bodies or parts that are accounted for is zero. You know the story. You know why we should have had one by now. You already know all of this.

You play the game. Isn't it silly? The Sheriff and Gfoot. :D
 
Ambermae said:
If you say you do not 'insist' thats what he saw then i'll leave it there, its just that was the impression i got from your posts.
I'm sorry if i upset you and to be honest i've just had surgery and can't really be bothered, its my fault i started something i can't finish.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's no need to apologize, not in the least. You haven't upset me. I know I can be assertive in my posts, but I'm not angry. I'm sorry you're in pain, and I hope you get well soon. :)
 
I LOLed...

Ace said:
Huntster, you are so good at presenting the skeptical side of arguments that I have to assume you don't believe in bigfoot at all. You're most obviously the biggest skeptic on the board.
Click to expand...

Ace said:
Skepticism is not, "<subject> does not exist". Pretty easy to understand, right ? Many people misconstrue what skepticism is and use examples like "Bigfoot does not exist". Whether you believe bigfoot exists or does not exist you can and should be skeptical. Skepticism allows for a proper path to the truth, if there is truth. So, if you truly "would very much like any (or every) one of you to make me (as well as anyone else here that shares my question) understand how you can stand so firmly and flatly state that 'Bigfoot does not exist'" then you have to realize that statement would be a statement of fact, a conclusion, and not the process or philosophy of skepticism. A skeptic does not deny fact, but uses skepticism as a process to realize truth.

It is annoying to me personally to see skepticism linked to a statement of fact such as "Bigfoot does not exist". Hardcore skeptics do not believe that (I mean not all skeptics believe that). I am a hardcore skeptic, but it doesn't mean Bigfoot does not exist. They don't have anything to do with each other.
Click to expand...


So skepticism is not "Fairies do not exist" or "Unicorns do not exist"? Skeptics aren't supposed to think or say such things?

Hardcore skeptics do not believe that Bigfoot does not exist? :boggled:
 
I invite Ace to compare the following statements:

"It is highly improbable that unicorns [white horses with single golden horns protruding from their heads] exist." vs. "Unicorns do not exist."

"There is no concrete evidence that you have a purple dragon in your garage." vs. "You don't have a purple dragon in your garage."

"In all likelihood, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist in objective reality." vs. "The FSM does not exist."

The first statement in each comparison uses careful, cautious, skeptical language. The second skips over that step and makes an assertion which, while it might possibly one day shown to be false, concludes that any such possibility is vanishingly small.

With that context in mind, the following statements are equally plausible:

"There is no concrete, unambiguous, non-hoaxable evidence that bigfoot is a real, non-human animal." vs. "Bigfoot does not exist."
 
Last edited:
Crackpot Russian Hominologists (Bigfooters) are going out to look for Bigfoot again.

Taking part in the expedition will be the director of the International Center for Hominology, Igor Burtsev (Bourtsev), deputy president of the public association Kosmopoisk, Vasily Dovgoshei, History Doctor Valery Kimeyev and other experts.

"During the previous expedition a year ago I saw markers (half-broken branches) the creature uses to mark the controlled territory," Burtsev said.

"...I reckon the Bigfoot likes to go fowling. In the woods I have found several artifacts to confirm my theory of mine. This time I plan to find the Bigfoot's shelter and even try to contact the creature."
Click to expand...

Igor, I can guarantee that you are going to find half-broken branches again. More on Igor at Post 52.
 
Breaking News: BFF Moderator can tell if a Bigfoot encounter story is fake or real.

Splash7 said:
Yeah, I have had my own experiences with bigfoot type creatures, so I am not a virgin to this community. Been going on for about 40 something years now. That is why it is easy to discern when someone is blowing smoke. Spend enough time reading all of the reports and then talking with folks that have had encounters makes one aware of what is real and what is fiction. Especially after dealing with these creatures myself.
Click to expand...
 
More of the old "my fantasy creature is real; your fantasy creature is fake because it doesn't look or behave like my fantasy creature" line of argumentation.
 
William Parcher said:
...

So skepticism is not "Fairies do not exist" or "Unicorns do not exist"? Skeptics aren't supposed to think or say such things?

Hardcore skeptics do not believe that Bigfoot does not exist? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Skeptics can choose to believe or choose not to believe. A hardcore skeptic can believe in Bigfoot. Skeptics can make any statement or say such things, but at that point it's a conclusion. A conclusion is after the thought process and skepticism is the thought process, not the conclusion. That's the difference. If you'd made the conclusion, the statement of fact, you're no longer being skeptical. There is no argument, so there is no longer skepticism. Skepticism is a way of looking at an issue or argument, but once you've made the conclusion (either way, either bigfoot exists or does not exist) you're no longer being skeptical. If a bigfoot were struck by a log truck next to your house and you walked outside, touched it, looked it over and determined it was in fact a bigfoot you would no longer be skeptical related to whether bigfoot exists or does not. It's only prior to making any conclusion that you're using skepticism.

So, skepticism is not "fairies do not exist". Skepticism is I do not believe fairies exist. There is a difference. Tell me fairies exist, or tell me fairies do not exist and I will test what you show me related to the existence of fairies. It is that process of pondering the evidence, it's not the conclusion or statement of fact.
 
Vortigern99 said:
I invite Ace to compare the following statements:

"It is highly improbable that unicorns [white horses with single golden horns protruding from their heads] exist." vs. "Unicorns do not exist."

"There is no concrete evidence that you have a purple dragon in your garage." vs. "You don't have a purple dragon in your garage."

"In all likelihood, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist in objective reality." vs. "The FSM does not exist."

The first statement in each comparison uses careful, cautious, skeptical language. The second skips over that step and makes an assertion which, while it might possibly one day shown to be false, concludes that any such possibility is vanishingly small.

With that context in mind, the following statements are equally plausible:

"There is no concrete, unambiguous, non-hoaxable evidence that bigfoot is a real, non-human animal." vs. "Bigfoot does not exist."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you want. The first statement is a skeptical statement, a statement from a skeptical point of view. The second is not.
 
It amounts to the same fact-based conclusion. If I say, "Unicorns and purple dragons do not exist," will you counter that this is not a properly skeptical assertion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom