Bigfoot: The Invisible Variety

[Bitter Monk]

I think it's a vegetable medley. Some are formerly banned members, others taking on different personas from different forums, and some running multiple accounts. Then you have the trolls, reverse trolls, tactical trolls, etc.

 

[William Parcher]

Check out this BFF dude.

 

[Bitter Monk]

That dude was totally a reverse troll.

 

[William Parcher]

Yesterday natalie revealed that Bigfoot is an interdimensional traveler living mostly in the 4th dimension. Today she says it will eventually end up in biology books. One way or the other science is buffoonish and Bigfooters are correct... well, correct if they think it's a dimension-hopper.

IMO Science takes too long to catch up. Bigfoot will probably make it into biology textbooks in 50 years and we'll be rolling our eyes like "yeah we knew it all along". Either that or they'll mention how "superstitious" we were in the 1900s for thinking their might be a big hairy creature running around the woods...ah well.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Whoa, is anyone else getting a Beckjord moment...
(or worse Historian)?

 

[arthwollipot]

Woah... Necropost.

 

[William Parcher]

Do you have some kind of nutjob radar or something?

Maybe I do. Did you notice that Bigfoot newbie natalie suddenly switched to all lower case? Also note that there are some commas but no periods. I've seen this kind of thing before. Dramatic changes in how a person uses the keyboard within a short period of time. This could be seen with makaya325. Many proposed that it was more than one person sharing a single registration. It's really bizarre and it intrigues me. That interest runs contrary to this forum's credo: Attack the argument, not the arguer. Well, I'm not attacking the arguer, I'm just far more interested in studying the arguer than the argument. The argument itself is almost always boring and is no longer even worth paying attention to. The arguer is the true subject of inquiry. WTF is going on with this person?

i'm saying that just cause we might not see it now doesn't mean they were wrong...we're thousands of years in the future, all we can do is dig in the dirt and look at carvings trying to guess what life was like back then lol

we can't even figure out how the pyramids were made imo it's a little bold to assume they were wrong about religion, especially when they had some obvious advancements on us modern day folk

Cryptozoology is no longer about animals (if it ever was); it's about human fantasy and creativity. The "leading Cryptozoologists" are actually propagandists and purveyors of simple basic human intrigue. Some guy says that he saw a giant wolf-thing with glowing eyes and webbed feet and holy cow I just have to read everything I can find about this and holy cow there is a forum talking about it now and holy cow there are other people all wrapped up in it just like I am and holy cow holy cow holy cow...

Natalie is probably not a female and certainly not a newbie. This is a guy having fun with a subject and forum that he is already quite familiar with. This is a game. Some would call it a troll thing.

Again, note that natalie has essentially abandoned (or put aside) her conviction that Bigfoot is a paranormal dimension-hopper. How can you engage in typical Bigfooter talk in all the different threads when Bigfoot is actually something like a vapor with lots of hair?

Natalie is a fabricated persona with a fabricated interest. Just another day on The Bigfoot Forums.

 

[William Parcher]

This is why natalie is not The Burg...

I'm prepared to argue that natalie is The Burg.

 

[The Shrike]

Maybe I do. Did you notice that Bigfoot newbie natalie . . .

No. I think I max out at following 3 threads at a time; and even 1 can be challenging. I don't think I've encountered "natalie" yet.

Cryptozoology is no longer about animals (if it ever was); it's about human fantasy and creativity.

Indeed. It's fascinating to me - someone who has spent a lot of time trying to design surveys for rare and elusive wildlife - to consider the conditions under which some species have evaded detection. Thylacines, Ivorybills - even bigfoot - I think there's a proper place in modern biology for investigating such things. Field work devoted to them is not necessarily "woo." Where cryptozoology crosses the line into fantasy is where its practitioners fail to admit, "we looked into this, and found nothing."

I don't know enough to make that conclusion about Thylacines - I assume they are long gone based on everything I've read, but maybe there's some work that can still be done there. Ivorybills are officially "there." Even Fitzpatrick et al. have acknowledged that there's no "recoverable" population. The bigfoot ship sailed long ago. I see no reason why it should be actively pursued as legitimate scientific inquiry.*

*ETA, except, I suppose, to demonstrate the holes in the flimsy "evidence" cherished by rapt believers, e.g., "dermal ridge" debunking.

 

[William Parcher]

Ivorybills are officially "there."

No they aren't.

Even Fitzpatrick et al. have acknowledged that there's no "recoverable" population.

Wrong way to paraphrase Fitz. Here... If the IBWO still exists, then the population is unrecoverable.

The bigfoot ship sailed long ago. I see no reason why it should be actively pursued as legitimate scientific inquiry.

Yet you treat it as if it has scientific legitimacy almost every day on BFF. You are the crack to the junkies on BFF. Even when you try to explain that it's no good for science you give a little dose of heroin and they smile as they say you are the best skeptic. You know something is wrong when the believers don't detest you. I'm not talking about as a person. I'm talking about your schtick. Your argument should be acid to them.

Bigfoot might exist = another fix of heroin to the vein.
Bigfoot does not exist = cold turkey rehab for the deluded addict.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm prepared to argue that natalie is The Burg.

I know you will return my volley.

Actually, if I had a BFF membership and more interest, I would look up those 30 posts natalie has made to confirm natalie is not The Burg. Alas, I have neither. Neil isn't quite that subtle.

 

[Crazyfish]

Mike Greene on BTR tonight.
Oh ye of little faith, listen and you will believe.

 

[William Parcher]

Mike Greene on BTR tonight.
Oh ye of little faith, listen and you will believe.

Wrong thread, newbie.

 

[LuvGodzilla]

I'm prepared to argue that natalie is The Burg.

I don't want to argue but, I think Natalie is a fellow who goes by the screen name "Multiple Encounters".

 

[The Shrike]

No they aren't.

I didn't mean "there" as in "out there in Arkansas." I meant "there" as in they've now crossed the line into woo cryptozoology.

Wrong way to paraphrase Fitz. Here... If the IBWO still exists, then the population is unrecoverable.

In your eyes maybe, but I was paraphrasing Fitz as Fitz. I've not read anything from him indicating that he would put an "If" in front of that statement.

You know something is wrong when the believers don't detest you.

It couldn't possibly be that I treat people with respect even when I disagree with them. Have fun with the search function finding all those times I've told the bigfooters there was any greater than 0.00 probability of a flesh and blood bigfoot.

 

[Redwolf]

I'm almost positive he did/was but I can't remember a specific username for him. Vol might know since he was a former moderator. I also agree that a lot of the current crop of noobs at BFF aren't noobs at all.

Neal has posted at the BFF under the following names:

Sledhead19
BignLittlefoot
bigfootmagnet

There might be other names, but those are the ones I sure of.

Redwolf

 

[Volsquatch]

Just off the top of my head, I believe "JBH" was another one.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't want to argue but, I think Natalie is a fellow who goes by the screen name "Multiple Encounters".

I was ready to argue that I saw nothing to rule out The Burg as natalie. But what is it that makes you think it's "Multiple Encounters"? Could that person be The Burg?

 

[William Parcher]

It couldn't possibly be that I treat people with respect even when I disagree with them. Have fun with the search function finding all those times I've told the bigfooters there was any greater than 0.00 probability of a flesh and blood bigfoot.

I can't search at BFF as I'm not registered. 0% probability means that it doesn't exist. That's what I think and say. But do you actually tell them over at BFF that Bigfoot does not exist, or do you put it a different way? When somebody says they saw a Bigfoot do you tell them they could not have - because there is no Bigfoot - because the probability is zero?

I mean, you can't even say "maybe" when you put the number at 0.00. It's the same situation as with flying fire-breathing dragons, right? 0% for the dragon too, right?

 

[rockinkt]

It couldn't possibly be that I treat people with respect even when I disagree with them. Have fun with the search function finding all those times I've told the bigfooters there was any greater than 0.00 probability of a flesh and blood bigfoot.

I think it is because you refuse to plainly state that the "heros" such as Meldrum and Bindernagel and Fahrenbach are either poor excuses for scientists or intellectually dishonest.

Or, do you actually think that these people are good scientists and that you would recommend their work in the sasquatch/bigfoot field as examples of good science?