Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[dafydd]

Yes, it's been my experience in nearly 50 years afield that oudoors enthusiasts never tell tall tales.

In lieu of real evidence bigfooters have to rely on campfire stories.

 

[Correa Neto]

Whaaaat?

Bigfoots? Rare to see?

What about the thousands of sightings at BFOR database and Mangani's sightings map?

Following footer lore, the frakking critters are living almost everywhere, some may even be just by your backyard!

 

[DennyT]

Yes, it's been my experience in nearly 50 years afield that oudoors enthusiasts never tell tall tales.

nor do they ever prank each other.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

There is a difference in wanting to believe, and actual buy in, the only story I ever thought was completely true was my father's.

Its perfectly reasonable to want to believe a story that your father tells you.

 

[Jodie]

Well, I can't obviously read through every single page on here, but from what i've read of her comments, she doesn't seem to be able to completely disregard the idea of Bigfoot being real, hey, my opinion of course.

I think you are reading too much into what I'm posting. I don't think any of it is real, it would take an awful lot at this point for anyone to prove me wrong. Do I hope? Yeah it would be cool to have the big ones in the PNW be real, I'm not sure I would be thrilled with the idea that skunk apes might be in my area.

 

[AttorneyTom]

No BF or Skunk Ape sightings this week yet.

I am hoping that on Saturday our luck might change.

We are planning on placing some Zagnut Bars on one of the stumps in the back yard and have recently acquired an extremely large refrigerator cardboard box container ... It had a stainless steel double door model in it originally.. anyway.. the stick and rope will be ready for Saturday !

 

[rockinkt]

Don't forget to smear some Vaseline on the lens of your camera so the pictures look authentic!

 

[musketsatdawn]

Dad looked him right in the eye and said, "Prove it."

It might have been more satisfying to read the guy got beaten within an inch of his life, but with an ******* like this, hitting his pocketbook is probably more effective. My guess is the dogs in the neighborhood were pretty safe after that.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

 

[musketsatdawn]

I grew up in Eastern Washington, outside of Spokane. No one I knew ever saw a Bigfoot. More than that, with as much hunting as occurs out there, someone would have shot one accidentally long before now if they existed.

This argument by the way is just as baseless as the argument from people that say Bigfoot must exist because there are so many legends and sightings from people. It's an argument based on probabilities stated as fact.

This statement is just as factual: If all of these hoaxers existed, someone would have accidentally shot one long before now if they existed.

I'm not saying Bigfoot exists, but let's keep both sides of the argument honest and call B.S. when warranted, shall we? Group-think and self-backpatting of skeptics can be just as foolish and dangerous as it is for the believers - just ask Galileo.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I think you are reading too much into what I'm posting. I don't think any of it is real, it would take an awful lot at this point for anyone to prove me wrong. Do I hope? Yeah it would be cool to have the big ones in the PNW be real, I'm not sure I would be thrilled with the idea that skunk apes might be in my area.

I think we'd all like them to be real, it'd sure make a walk in the woods seem more exciting, especially in the UK, besides possible big cats and rapists our woods are pretty tame.

 

[AttorneyTom]

This argument by the way is just as baseless as the argument from people that say Bigfoot must exist because there are so many legends and sightings from people. It's an argument based on probabilities stated as fact.

This statement is just as factual: If all of these hoaxers existed, someone would have accidentally shot one long before now if they existed.

I'm not saying Bigfoot exists, but let's keep both sides of the argument honest and call B.S. when warranted, shall we? Group-think and self-backpatting of skeptics can be just as foolish and dangerous as it is for the believers - just ask Galileo.

Dangerous ! How so ?

What is dangerous is that a generation of Americans are being fed a biological lie and a fraud and they believe it. A generation of people are lacking in basic intellectual life skills and passing it on to their children.

I think if you go through the threads on this topic you will see that the members of the forum generally do not "group think" . Have you looked ?

For the most part the folks here are some the most inquizical and intellectually curious people I have ever seen.

From what I have experienced if you have your facts wrong or cannot present a basis for your thoughts and argument on this topic.. you will be called on it to explain.

That does not seem to apply to other forums that discuss this topic.

Finally, your reply that it is as baseless as those that see them everywhere just goes to prove JH's point.. Dead BF ! What he posted was a fact and not a "probablility". I am guessing you also might be from another Organization ?

 

[Jodie]

This argument by the way is just as baseless as the argument from people that say Bigfoot must exist because there are so many legends and sightings from people. It's an argument based on probabilities stated as fact.

This statement is just as factual: If all of these hoaxers existed, someone would have accidentally shot one long before now if they existed.

I'm not saying Bigfoot exists, but let's keep both sides of the argument honest and call B.S. when warranted, shall we? Group-think and self-backpatting of skeptics can be just as foolish and dangerous as it is for the believers - just ask Galileo.

I think it is a fair claim. I'm not so sure about how dangerous it is because from what I've seen of people, you simply can't cultivate critical thinking skills if the latent ability isn't there in the first place.

 

[AttorneyTom]

I think it is a fair claim. I'm not so sure about how dangerous it is because from what I've seen of people, you simply can't cultivate critical thinking skills if the latent ability isn't there in the first place.

You think it "is a fair claim"? Explain that if you would. Critical thinking is based upon life experience, interaction with others, and being lied to repeatedly.. and getting that. It is part of maturity as an adult.

 

[River]

This argument by the way is just as baseless as the argument from people that say Bigfoot must exist because there are so many legends and sightings from people. It's an argument based on probabilities stated as fact.

This statement is just as factual: If all of these hoaxers existed, someone would have accidentally shot one long before now if they existed.

I'm not saying Bigfoot exists, but let's keep both sides of the argument honest and call B.S. when warranted, shall we? Group-think and self-backpatting of skeptics can be just as foolish and dangerous as it is for the believers - just ask Galileo.

Hows this for honest? It has been proven that humans fake "bigfoot evidence." It has never been proven that bigfoot exists, or leaves anything. It is not unreasonable to consider that the next "bigfoot evidence" claim may be either hoaxed or misidentified with the history of bigfoot laid out on the table. Exactly which bigfoot claim has EVER panned out into authentic? (I'll be waiting over here with the guitar in my hands)

 

[Jodie]

For exactly the reason he states; it's an argument from probability stated as facts.

There is no difference in saying if they were out there someone would have shot one versus they must exist because the NA have legends.

Technical arguments tend to be a trend around here and I think this is what he is doing. I just got through arguing over "innate artistic ability in mentally deficient people and can that be cultivated?" to "is rape a sexually motivated crime."

Now a technical argument is just a technical argument. Critical thinking skills involve other components that you just listed and I see that as a different thing altogether based on my short experience here at the JREF. To me critical thinking skills trump debate or rules of argument every time. Using the later seems to function as a defacto position here when faced with an argument that has no resolution.

 

[Jodie]

Is it me or is this forum glitchy? I keep getting the duplicate post phenomena here.

 

[DennyT]

One of the most amusing aspects of bigfootery is that they go after the blobsquatches and the the youtube blursquatches with sharp sticks, but if you submit that hoaxing is frequent, they will totally deny it.

go figure.

 

[musketsatdawn]

Dangerous ! How so ?

I am guessing you also might be from another Organization ?

Dear Tom,

I agree, there’s a lot of evidence of excellent intellectual reasoning here. There's lots of evidence of poor intellectual reasoning as well. I’ve enjoyed reading the threads.

I'm not from "an organization".

By suggesting I am from “an organization”. I suspect you think I am a ‘footer. I'm not a believer in Bigfoot and have never said as much.

It does not mean that I think the logic that was applied by jhunter was sound. Just because I also do not believe in Bigfoot does not mean that I should ignore his dubious logic.

Having read a couple hundred posts so far, I suspect that had someone used similar logic to argue the point that Bigfoot does exist, they would have had their ass handed to them. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt it. Let’s review it again:
“…with as much hunting as occurs out there, someone would have shot one accidentally long before now if they existed.” Why MUST that argument be true? Please explain.

There are 1,000 valid arguments why Bigfoot does not exist. The above is not one of them. Yes, it increases the possibility that they do not exist, but it is one piece of evidence and circumstantial at best. On its own, that statement does not prove that they do not exist. That is my point. I hope that is clear.

Group think happens when logic like jhunter’s goes unchallenged because it agrees with your line of thinking. I saw no one challenging his logic. You did not challenge his logic. I thought someone should.

When is this kind of behaviour dangerous? When a person who points out a flaw in the popular argument is associated the unpopular opinion, just because they didn’t like the logic being used against it.

[Quote from you]
“Finally, your reply that it is as baseless as those that see them everywhere just goes to prove JH's point.. Dead BF!” [End Quote]

I’m sorry, your sentence above doesn’t make sense to me. It’s as if I am reading half a sentence. Or half an argument. I THINK you are trying to reiterate that because there are no recorded killings of Bigfoot in Washington State, Bigfoot cannot exist. That argument is no better than some of the ‘footers arguments I have seen on here. If I misinterpreted what you were getting at, please clarify.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is it me or is this forum glitchy? I keep getting the duplicate post phenomena here.

It's not just you. The board is frequently claiming I double posted when I didn't.

 

[AttorneyTom]

For exactly the reason he states; it's an argument from probability stated as facts.

There is no difference in saying if they were out there someone would have shot one versus they must exist because the NA have legends.

Technical arguments tend to be a trend around here and I think this is what he is doing. I just got through arguing over "innate artistic ability in mentally deficient people and can that be cultivated?" to "is rape a sexually motivated crime."

Now a technical argument is just a technical argument. Critical thinking skills involve other components that you just listed and I see that as a different thing altogether based on my short experience here at the JREF. To me critical thinking skills trump debate or rules of argument every time. Using the later seems to function as a defacto position here when faced with an argument that has no resolution.

Yes.. but you believe in BF !

and your reply will be it will take a "woods dragging out" event.

But you appear to really believe in a mythical creature.(see your last post)

It is funny to watch you say that they do not exist.. and then maybe they do.. and they dont, Jodie ?

Just my observation ?