Re: Why do "skeptics" troll on Bigfoot Forums?

[StankApe]

g

[Virgil_C]

The initial post in this topic is very confused. It seems I AM Blobsquatch does not know what a skeptic is. It is gratifying that he has now had this explained to him/her. Most true skeptics would openly admit to being fascinated by the possibility of bigfoot. I think many confuse 'skeptic' with someone who just plain ridicules the idea of bigfoot. Skepticism is not a position it is a process of analysing and assessing information. Skeptics require evidence to conform to certain rules. Only by doing this can we make a valid observation based on that evidence.

[Virgil_Caine]

I have just read page 2 of this forum. OK. Closet beleivers. The simple fact is Blobsquatch et al do not know what a skeptic is. Go away and find out and then come back for a chat. You have invented your own menaing of the owrd skeptic and it is you who are behaving like trolls as you clearly can't stop yourselves trying to infer some sort of inferority to people who don't share your views.

Just for the record I posted the above as Virgil_C and my real name is gareth. I post on the BFE blog regularly and I hope this forum is a better place for more meaningful discussoins. Sad to see anonotrolls already putting in their oh so hilarious comments. YOU ARE NOT BILL HICKS guys so forget the ad hominem comedy routines.

[CMcMillan]

I have just read page 2 of this forum. OK. Closet beleivers. The simple fact is Blobsquatch et al do not know what a skeptic is. Go away and find out and then come back for a chat. You have invented your own menaing of the owrd skeptic and it is you who are behaving like trolls as you clearly can't stop yourselves trying to infer some sort of inferority to people who don't share your views.

Just for the record I posted the above as Virgil_C and my real name is gareth. I post on the BFE blog regularly and I hope this forum is a better place for more meaningful discussoins. Sad to see anonotrolls already putting in their oh so hilarious comments. YOU ARE NOT BILL HICKS guys so forget the ad hominem comedy routines.

Virgil,
I am kinda offended that you say et al, that we don't know the definition of skeptic. I am not going to bash a skeptic for not seeing what I may see. I think we all can learn to be objective on both ends by communicating and sharing Ideas. Not just bashing each other and making jokes and saying on either side we don't know things. I understand the Skeptics I understand how Ape believes that the foot prints are not enough evidence. I don't think they are either. But the mass % of them and that many are not faked makes me say well something is out their. Is it an APE, some ancient human like creature I don't know but in my opinion something in the woods is making them and not just a bunch of barefoot human being running all over the globe making them.

In the end we must stop trashing each other. because in a good discussion we can learn from each other. Critical eyes on both sides is what is needed.

[Virgil_Caine]

You're right and maybe et al was a bit inprecise. Sorry. You are also right about not ragging on each other. The internet is not a great tool for succinct and focussed communication and sometimes its impossible not to offend someone.

I guess I am fed up with people sayting 'skeptic' without seeming to know what the word means. Below is from skeptoid.com - dunno about the site but the definition is quite good.

'Skepticism is not a position; it's a process.

The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them.

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.'

I think you know this but some here should take time to read this...then read it again...out loud.

[SasquaiNation]

You're right and maybe et al was a bit inprecise. Sorry. You are also right about not ragging on each other. The internet is not a great tool for succinct and focussed communication and sometimes its impossible not to offend someone.

I guess I am fed up with people sayting 'skeptic' without seeming to know what the word means. Below is from skeptoid.com - dunno about the site but the definition is quite good.

'Skepticism is not a position; it's a process.

The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them.

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.'

I think you know this but some here should take time to read this...then read it again...out loud.

Well that's interesting. Quite a few people know I don't like the term "believer", and it's for good reason, but that's personal preference.
By the definition you presented, I would be considered a skeptic. So what would you call a skeptic who thinks Bigfoot exists?

[Kel]

Stank, SN and GBP ~
Can't we define ourselves as "Hopeful Skeptics"? Show us the goods! We WANT to believe! BTW, GBP, I don't think religion is required for one to have hope. It's a wonderful quality, and certainly not limited to humans ~ I'm laughing here thinking of how my dog stares at me, HOPING I'll get her message to break out the treats. It's all we have to get through the day many times, and if we're lucky, we'll still wake up with it tomorrow.

[StankApe]

g

[StankApe]

g

[Kel]

Stank, SN and GBP ~
Can't we define ourselves as "Hopeful Skeptics"? Show us the goods! We WANT to believe! BTW, GBP, I don't think religion is required for one to have hope. It's a wonderful quality, and certainly not limited to humans ~ I'm laughing here thinking of how my dog stares at me, HOPING I'll get her message to break out the treats. It's all we have to get through the day many times, and if we're lucky, we'll still wake up with it tomorrow.

I didn't say religion was required. I wanted to be clear that it was a shared human expression. There is nothing between the lines. But I probably could have worded that different. I don't write as well as I used to and the last few days have been rough. Well... no ill intent.

Allow me to do some hoping for you then. Take care

[Kel]

I prefer the nomenclature "incorrigible smarta$$" but I can go along with your's if you'd like!


as I said before, I'm not holding my breath on the Bigfoot being "proven" any time soon. That being said though, I think the biggest problem in footery are the buffoons who seem to be "running the show". Lot's of self promoters, charlatans and hoaxers at the forefront and the sooner you get those people out of there the better. They really don't want Bigfoot proven, it takes away their meal ticket, cuz very few of them would be allowed anywhere near a legitimate scientific research area.

Man, did you ever nail it! Whether they are writing books, promoting themselves on YouTube, selling phony "native" crafts, or making the rounds with speaking engagements at BF conventions ~ too many have a profit motive and with that comes a pressure to always engage their "customers" with fresh material. Do what you want, but DON'T FN LIE!

[StankApe]

g

[CMcMillan]

Yeah , but the dadburn squeaky wheels get all the grease and have made the community akin to the UFO people and such. TV shows like Finding Bigfoot just add to the problem as they never find anything and appear to be making half of it up as they go along.


I'm hoping they have the robot bodies ready for my brain transplant before 2050 , then I can live forever!

I think a show like Finding Bigfoot helps brings the idea of Bigfoot out more. Are they scientific NO its entertainment. Do they spend enough time in the area's NO. They are subject to the editors. I find it entertaining. For Me in Cliff is the most credible in the show. Bobo is a character as well. But you do have to admit at least they have some funding behind them to do these things.

[I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH]

Guys, skeptical thinking is absolutely necessary for the advancement of science. The reason I put the word SKEPTICS in quotes on my original post was to question why trolls, POSING as "skeptics", bother to haunt these blogs! I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. Great discussion, anyways!

[I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH]

Panda, God Bless you. Sorry for your situation. I will pray for you, my friend! I think this is coming out soon, the study, I mean, so you WILL get to see it! Take care of yourself!

[anon]

Skeptics don't troll bigfoot forums, Bigfoot believers troll bigfoot forums. The skeptics are here trying to have a rational discussion about an unknown large primate and the believers start shouting about no evidence like a bunch of doo-doo heads.

[TimeTunnel]

Then you're a Bigfoot believer, are you?

[CMcMillan]

Skeptics don't troll bigfoot forums, Bigfoot believers troll bigfoot forums. The skeptics are here trying to have a rational discussion about an unknown large primate and the believers start shouting about no evidence like a bunch of doo-doo heads.

Really,
So far several of the "skeptics" have been going Haven't you learned or your just wrong and only looking at 1 persons review and assuming it is all fake. While the people who have a "Skeptical Belief" in bigfoot are the ones who are anaylizing the information. I haven't seen any of the big foot believers in here yet jumping up and down demanding yout believe us.
We seem to be looking at the films and the evidence and answering and counter questioning things.
Example I was showed that it is Scientifically possible that female bigfoot can have hairy breasts. Its possible so you can't just deny the film is fake by that evidence alone.

[StankApe]

g

[anon]

like I said The skeptics have evidence like footprints, hair samples, eye witness accounts but you believers just poo-poo it all. The other day I saw a video a a man wearing a gorilla suit walking through the woods. It was cleary a suit, you could even see muscle definition under the hair. totally fake, but the believers were shaking their fists that its the real deal and the muscle definition was not muscle but padding under the suit. The believers claimed it was a bigfoot dressed in a gorilla costume so it could travel through the woods undetected.

[jerrywayne]

The OP premise is that skeptics at pro-Bigfoot forums are trolls. I reject that premise. I've had an interest in Bigfoot phenomena since I was a youngster back in the day (and my day goes back some). I no longer believe that a real biological entity explains the phenomena. This does not mean that I hold any contempt or looking-down-nose attitude towards people that do believe in a real Bigfoot. I enjoy looking at the issues and trying out different ideas of explanation concerning the phenomena. It is a mystery, and I like mysteries.

As far as "anger," I think that is in the nature of blogging, no matter what side of an issue you are on. The only postings I find myself disliking are the ones that try to shut down your discussion by phony appeals to "logical fallacies" or try to dismiss your comments by simply complaining you are a skeptic (or a believer, on the other hand). Some folks believe they have a mission to protect folks from doubt concerning whatever it is they personally believe in -- and they treat skeptics accordingly.

[CMcMillan]

Believers often take a small bit of knowledge and blow it up into an assumption that they know everything. Scientifically possible and probable are two thins often widely separated. One must actually look at the rest of nature and work inward before just making excuses for everything that doesn't seem to add up.

No Believers do the same. They take a few of the Hoax's and assume that all of the rest are hoax's. Its a double edge sword with Skeptics/No-Believers/Belivers.
I will not run with something with a small bit of knoweldge and say this is fact. I like to say it is Possible within the realm of Science as we know it. The other issue is we have that this creature may not be completely Animal not completely Human it may be a blending.

[StankApe]

g

[jpwooden]

Come on, Really?

You've met these people before...they are the smartest people in the room (or at least that's what they tell themselves).

They jump at every opportunity to correct other people on the most minute detail...

A general look of scorn and disdain are permanently etched in the creases of their face...

They are your average every day A@@hole...

Since when does an A@@hole need a reason to be one?

A true skeptic may be interested and will debate topics with you (like Ranae Holland, or SWP) but they can agree to disagree, but the trolling skeptics are looking to get their kicks by throwing out shovels of dispersions on people's intelligence and mental stability because they project that if we don't see things the way they do, we're idiots.

Honestly don't give them a second thought, they're not worth the time.

[CMcMillan]

blending? no, it's either part of the human family tree or it isn't.... even if it was once a hybrid (that was able to reproduce as som hybrids cannot) of an ancient ancestor of ours, they have been breeding with each other for hundreds of thousands of years and will be a unique animal by now.

I have a statement I stick by, if you open your mind too much ,you brain falls out... Possible isn't really worth the paper it's written on. Lots of things are possible. But only a small amount of things are likely.

Really Possible isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Your beloved Physics works alot on the Possible.
Its possible to use the Eisenstein bridge to travel from point a to b.
Sorry science is all about Possible.

[Sponsored content]