It's stuff like this that makes people like me (relating to my own experiences with and interest in the subject) look like NyQuil-riddled sociopaths.
UFO Hunters are idiots!
- Thread starter Lookingglassman
- Start date
No "fail". (And where did you acquire your English skills?) I merely pointed out that he offered a (admittedly sarcastic/humorous) argument to the effect that you can't say "because they hide this they must be hiding that" to prove a point. Is there life in space or the universe at large? Statistically, it is highly probable. Has it grown to sufficient intelligence to identify us as an intelligent species, care enough about our fairly primitive society to want to visit and have the capability to find us and actually transport themselves here to pay a visit only to crash into our planet? Now we are pushing statistical probability to its limit. IMO.
As for debunkers failing to admit evidence that is inconvenient to their arguments-I never said true believers in UFOs were the only fanatics. Anyone with strong beliefs who allows their beliefs to color their study or refutation of a subject are equally guilty. This is totally about semantics when arguing the fine points of such a richly imbued subject. It goes back to what I said before-don't twist things to suit your preconceptions-see things for what they are. If you don't know how to read the actual meanings behind the words please refrain from lashing out at the writer. Lackwit.
First, I don't subscribe to the the idea that there is ANYTHING unusual in Loch Ness. I don't mean to dismiss the possibility of there perhaps being unusual or undiscovered animals in other places but Loch Ness has been turned upside down and inside out and NOTHING odd has been verified. I don't believe the "Loch Ness Monster" is possible.
Second, RE Bigfoot, I agree and it bothers me to consider the size and numbers of a breeding colony and the impact it would have on the environment and still manage to remain undetected. At the same time, no one has ever reported sighting large bands of Bigfoots the way you might come across a troop of apes. Reports indicate at MOST sighting 2 or three individuals--and these appear to be a male, mate and infant. It seems, if it exists, Bigfoot is a solitary creature, perhaps even territorial. Alpha male Bigfoot might have a domain wherein other Bigfoots are not permitted to forage. Given the fact of reports of VERY heavy odors associated with Bigfoot presence and extremely common reports of harassing behaviors such as hooting, hitting branches against trees to frighten human trespassers and throwing rocks and even boulders toward them, Bigfoot would appear experienced at protecting his territory through aggressive but non-confrontational behaviors.
I'm not an environmentalist or animal behavior specialist. I've read different estimates from such people and some say that any breeding colony would have to be too large to have gone undetected, as you suggest. Others say that small colonies numbering in the handful of members individually but totally into the thousands could go undetected--especially is Bigfoot was a creature intelligent enough to be actively avoiding detection. I don't have the background to take issue with either side but when professionals can't agree, I take the attitude that all they're offering is opinion at best and the fact are going to be the facts. I do think it's interesting that often times there will be a rash of Bigfoot sightings when a new road or community or new logging project goes into an otherwise remote area. There will be tracks found, encounters reported, the aforementioned harassing behaviors of rock-tossing and stick banging and then it quiets down. It's almost as if Bigfoot just moves out of the area when humans encroach. This "community" behavior would be consistent with the behavior in the vast majority of individual sightings--when Bigfoot and humans encounter one another, Bigfoot--apparently instinctively--hauls ass outta there.
I agree, the math bothers me. As does the fact that NO incontrovertible remains have ever been discovered. At the same time, the traces, the hair samples, the spore samples (yes, there have been findings of apparent Bigfoot "poo"), physical evidence like tracks and tree branches twisted off at heights beyond the reach of tall humans--all these remain compelling. When you consider the incredible DETAIL in the casts made from the prints, dermal ridges on the toes and soles of the feet, sweat pores, mats of hair that would be enormously difficult for someone to fake, you have to address the WHY of it. WHY would someone go to so much incredible time, trouble and EXPENSE to do this and then spend years creating a "hoax". How did such a hoaxer manage to master such abilities even BEFORE forensic analysis caught up with the quality of the tracks? There have been fake footprints. And they've been outed. You can't just carve a couple big foot prints and strap them on your feet and go walking in the mud and fool anyone anymore. A researcher--the late Grover Krantz of U of WA, I believe--had an example of a cast of a footprint that was FAR too large to be human. What was unusual about this print and extremely compelling was that whatever left the track STEPPED on a rock and the pad of the foot GAVE way and acted as a cushion against the rock. A hard "fake" would not behave in such a way. Whatever left the track acted in a way consistent with SOFT TISSUE. Also the DEPTH of the track in the surface material indicated that whatever left the track made they impression with the force of approximately EIGHT HUNDRED POUNDS. Dermal ridges were seen under microscopic examination of the toes and mats of hair were visible only the edges of the cast. WHO in the world is making FLEXIBLE fake "feet" with heel pads that "give" around rocks consistent with the behavior of real soft tissue, and that have microscopically accurate details and takes these fantastic models and goes plodding around the Pacific Northwest and STAMPING fake tracks into the ground with a force of 800 pounds per STEP? THAT'S what you have to explain away if Bigfoot is not real.
'
The forensic analysis is sound. It is valid and can be examined by any scientist who wishes to view it. Very few will because there is apparently in Academia there is a stigma attached to publicly considering the possibility of Bigfoot. Prof Krantz, who I mentioned earlier, was a professor of anthropology at the University of Washington and was, by all I've read, considered an embarrassment by his colleagues and to the school because of his interest in Bigfoot. They wouldn't even look at his research. But you HAVE to. It exists and it is REAL. IF Bigfoot is NOT real, one must somehow account for ALL of the evidence otherwise. And there are mountains of it.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe Bigfoot is a real animal. It SEEMS the more reasonable avenue for explaining ALL the evidence. I just can't make sense out of the idea of someone rendering professional quality tracks with the rich details so many show, details that fool microscopic analysis and are consistent with emerging biomechanical science, for years on end as a HOAX. It's not even a question of HOW someone could do it but whether it could be done AT ALL or not, even given unlimited time and budget. The "Why" of someone going to the time and effort and expense is also inconceivable to me because some of these unique tracks have been showing up for DECADES. This "project" would have been no WHIM for a hoaxer and has, so far, been a generation-long gag to maintain. In spite of the lack of physical PROOF (not "evidence, but PROOF--there is plenty of physical EVIDENCE), it just makes more SENSE to me that Bigfoot is real. That said, I'd position myself as an 80/20% agnostic on the subject of Bigfoot--feeling it is most likely real.
See, that's annoying too. You make a cogent argument that requires something more than scoffing, knee-jerk responses and the skeptics scatter like bugs and vanish. There's more to "skepticism" than just scoffing, ya know.
Still here.
While fascinating, the argument about Bigfoot cites no sources, no photos or forensic studies. I can say such things exist, too, but it doesn't make it true. Where's the study on the hair, the footprints(with dermal ridging and psi tests) the poo, even? I'd like to see that.(psi=pounds per square inch)
Last edited:
Still here.
Here ya go. Your LUCKY day.
(are you gonna ask me to READ them to you, too?)
Last edited:
This is where "doing your own research" comes in. Zachary did cite a source, Prof Krantz, this should be enough to get you started, check his book out at your local library, or just look him up on the web, it's not that hard.
Oops, I see Zachary beat me to it.
Oops, I see Zachary beat me to it.
This is where "doing your own research" comes in. Zachary did cite a source, Prof Krantz, this should be enough to get you started, check his book out at your local library, or just look him up on the web, it's not that hard.
Oops, I see Zachary beat me to it.
Because I am familiar with who he was and his work, it never occurred to me before to look up Professor Krantz on Wikipedia, but there is a rather nice page about him and you can review some of the information I discussed in the above posts with a click of your mouse.
Prof. Grover Krantz on Wikiepedia. Now the skeptics have NO excuse. It's free!
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Maybe we just left.
Once people start talking about Bigfoot and Loch Ness too then I know it's time to leave.
How come we never find someone who says " I believe in aliens visiting the Earth, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster and ESP, but life after death? No...I'm not convinced on that one."
It seems like some people want the universe to be,well, a lot more like a TV show than it really is.
Checkmate
Commodore
Sorry, my bad.
They just get spotted on a regular basis by all kinds of people out in the wilderness, but, yanno, their habitats and shit just, like, evaporate into thin air or something all by itself.
(Or maybe the aliens take a break from blackening out all that text to swing by and scoop it up for them. They have to have a hobby, too, I imagine.)
Anyone else having flashbacks to that moment in Ghostbusters when Janine is interviewing Winston for a job?
Well, yeah, Heaven forbid you stick around and find yourself confronted with something that might force you to re-think an aspect of your comfortable little world-view. did you miss the part earlier where I said I do NOT believe ANYTHING unusual exists in Loch Ness?
Here ya go. I'll give you a quick run-down of what I believe (not "know" but BELIEVE) in descending order of likelihood IMHO.
I believe 99% chance life exists elsewhere in the universe.
I believe 99% chance Oswald acted alone killing JFK.
I believe 99% that Jesus Christ did NOT "resurrect" from the dead and, if "He" existed at all as a single individual and was not actually an amalgam of several different people, he had NO "divinity" or unusual abilities to work "miracles".
I believe 99% that NOTHING unusual lives in Loch Ness.
I believe 99% that many species of unknown animals await discovery on THIS planet, particularly in the oceans.
I believe 99% that the Theory of Evolution is fact.
I believe 95% that INTELLIGENT life exists elsewhere in the universe.
I believe 95% that the "legends" concerning "Atlantis" rise from the destruction of the advanced Minoan civilization on the island of Thera due to a volcanic eruption in approximately 1500 BC. The community on Thera was extremely advanced for a Bronze-age culture, with multi-story buildings, complicated community planning and common amenities in average households including toilet facilities and hot and cold running water (possible in part due to the volcanic nature of the island). They did NOT have "flying cars" or "crystal power sources" or any of the other metaphysical nonsense usually associated with tales of Atlantis but they DID DEMONSTRABLY have facilities 3500 years ago that many homes in Western World did not have until the dawn of the 20th century--two thousand four hundred years later. They were extremely advanced but WITHIN the confines of a Bronze-age culture. And the community was destroyed when the volcano at Thera erupted and the caldera dropped into the Aegean sea. The community there DID "drop into the sea" in a single cataclysmic event. That is historical FACT. Whether they are the source for the tales of "Atlantis" is the only aspect open to debate.
I believe 95% that ALL elaborate crops circles are the work of human beings. I also think the vast majority of simple ones are also done by humans with a slim possibility that a small percent of the very simple ones are the result of weather-related phenomena.
I believe 90% there is NO such being as "God".
I believe 80% that Bigfoot is likely to be a real animal.
I am 80% certain that the Majestic-12 papers are the result of a program of disinformation or other clandestine operation by elements of the United States Government working as a group or independently for reasons I cannot guess. I think there's maybe 5% chance some of those documents are real and about a 15% chance they are a hoax perpetrated by amateurs.
I believe 80% chance that SOME of the "post-loss" distress messages attributed to Amelia Earhart were genuine and therefore due to the technical limitations of the plane, she MUST have set down on land someplace rather than crashing into the ocean. I think there's a 50% chance Nikumororo (aka Gardner Island) was the site of landing and I think there is 2% chance she was "captured" by the Japanese.
I believe 75% that Martin Luther King was killed as the result of a conspiracy (though not one necessarily with complicity by the government or any federal agencies or local law-enforcement).
I believe 50% in the possibility of "life after death" "past-life" memories, "out-of-body" experiences and the existence of the human "soul". I do NOT subscribe to any religious or Judeo-Christian mythos concerning these matters but I think that the nature of Consciousness is such that a self-aware being exists primarily as an energetic construct on the quantum level and uses the physical body to interact with the "everyday world". The "soul" may be created when the body is born and the brain develops to a stage where the mind becomes "self-aware" and "sentient", at which point that awareness may be able to survive the "death" of the body as an independent and cohesive field of "self-aware" energy. This would also be the source for "ghosts" IMHO. No "God". No Heaven. No Hell. But PERHAPS a NATURAL explanation for some of the reported phenomena which is compliant with the known laws of physics. Mind you, I give ZERO credence to the "psychics" who speak for the "dead". "Psychic" John Edwards and Sylvia what-her-name are FRAUDS.
Conversely, I believe that it's a 50/50% bet that when you're dead, YER DEAD--light's out! Buh-bye!
I believe 30% chance that advanced, intelligent aliens MAY have visited the Earth at some point. I think there is about 5% probability that the US government has knowledge or "proof" of alien visitation in the past and about 1% chance there is any kind of relationship or established communication between our civilization and "visitors from out there".
I believe 20% that alien abductions are "real" in the sense that alien activity is the cause of them. I DO feel that there is a genuine phenomenon associated with them but that it has more to do with human psychology than anything else.
I believe 10% in the possibility of "ESP".
I believe 10% chance that Sirhan Sihan was working with accomplices in the assassination of RFK.
I believe 5% chance that Roswell was a crashed spaceship or that the US or any other government has an artifact or other relic that would PROVE alien visitation to the Earth.
I believe 5% possibility that "psychics" can foretell the future in any meaningful capacity.
I believe 1% chance that devils, demons, angels or other purely supernatural "beings" exist (please note: this does NOT include the possibility of "ghosts" or the human "soul", which were addressed earlier.)
So, REALLY are my beliefs so unorthodox? Mind you, in virtually every case above I have made some EFFORT to make a study or otherwise become educated on the matter. NONE of those examples in based on superficial guess-work or intuitive but uninformed opinion. I've LOOKED into these matters. Studied them. Talked with people. Read books and papers. Look at the list and I'll just bet you're going to find yourself an advocate for something that I think is unlikely or false. But you never know unless you CONSIDER the arguments and look at the evidence. And THAT doesn't happen if you "leave" when "people start talking" about a subject. When people start "talking", you might just LEARN something.
Checkmate
Commodore
Yeah man, THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE GUYS! EDUCATE YOURSELF! OMG! Aliens and sasquatches are among us! We... uh, kinda sorta have proof of a lack of proof, so, yeah! TAKE THAT SKEPTIC GUYS! Nevermind, again, the invisibile domes surrounding Bigfoot's house or the instantly evaporting dung and stuff. Or, like, the fact that aliens have some super power science thing that destroys a camera's ability to focus. That's not the kind of proof we go by! We only adhere to a LACK of a LACK of proof! Double negatives! That's our gig! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE! DON'T BELIEVE ME! QUIT BEING A DUMB OLD POOPYHEAD SKEPTIC AND GO EDUCATE YOURSELF! OMG OMG OMG!
Don't worry Zachy, I got your back now. I believe.
Yes, but Zach -- do you believe in the following?:
1. The Tooth Fairy
2. Santa Claus
3. Gremlins
4. Demons
5. Angels
6. The Mothman
7. The Ogopogo Monster
8. The Firebird
9. El Chupacabra
10. Ghosts
11. Pixies
12. Banshees
13. Leprechans
14. Vampires
15. Werewolves
If I think of something else, I'll let you know...
1. The Tooth Fairy
2. Santa Claus
3. Gremlins
4. Demons
5. Angels
6. The Mothman
7. The Ogopogo Monster
8. The Firebird
9. El Chupacabra
10. Ghosts
11. Pixies
12. Banshees
13. Leprechans
14. Vampires
15. Werewolves
If I think of something else, I'll let you know...
Yes, but Zach -- do you believe in the following?:
1. The Tooth Fairy
2. Santa Claus
3. Gremlins
4. Demons
5. Angels
6. The Mothman
7. The Ogopogo Monster
8. The Firebird
9. El Chupacabra
10. Ghosts
11. Pixies
12. Banshees
13. Leprechans
14. Vampires
15. Werewolves
If I think of something else, I'll let you know...
I think you are being unfair to Zach. He stated that much of the supernatural, paranormal and religious phenomena people subscribe to falls below the 50% threshhold on his believability scale. With the exception of Bigfoot, those things he ascribed a high belief in are plausible at the very least. To disparagingly dismiss his well-founded commentary is foolish and infantile. I still don't buy the Bigfoot thing, though, as the area the creature is usually associated with has been crawling with hunters and outdoor freaks for the last 50 or so years with very little substantive evidence to support the idea of a large creature with a viable population existing therein. But I'm open-minded enough to state I could be wrong on this point.
/facepalm
The point of Zacahary's post was that he doesn't believe %100 in these things, he just finds them an interesting subject of discourse and does not rule them out completely. I have a similar view in regards to the paranormal.
In fact your entire post seems to bear little resemblance to any actual ideas presented in the post prior, it's like you are responding to something else entirely ...
Yes, but Zach -- do you believe in the following?:
1. The Tooth Fairy
2. Santa Claus
3. Gremlins
4. Demons
5. Angels
6. The Mothman
7. The Ogopogo Monster
8. The Firebird
9. El Chupacabra
10. Ghosts
11. Pixies
12. Banshees
13. Leprechans
14. Vampires
15. Werewolves
If I think of something else, I'll let you know...
I think you are being unfair to Zach. He stated that much of the supernatural, paranormal and religious phenomena people subscribe to falls below the 50% threshhold on his believability scale. With the exception of Bigfoot, those things he ascribed a high belief in are plausible at the very least. To disparagingly dismiss his well-founded commentary is foolish and infantile. I still don't buy the Bigfoot thing, though, as the area the creature is usually associated with has been crawling with hunters and outdoor freaks for the last 50 or so years with very little substantive evidence to support the idea of a large creature with a viable population existing therein. But I'm open-minded enough to state I could be wrong on this point.
I respect Zach...
I'm just being a smartass as I am want to do on occasion...
Let's ask ya something, Chuckles. Have you EVER read a scholarly book or paper on any of the subjects I've been making mention of? Have you EVER studied any of them? Ever CONSIDERED anything about any of them beyond the tabloid headlines you've seen at supermarket checkout lines?
Do you know what INFORMED opinion is?
Do you understand the basic difference between informed opinion and intuitive response based on superficial familiarity with a subject?
If you DO understand the differences; I have one more question for you--WTF are you basing your judgments on regarding these subjects--INFORMED opinion or superficial familiarity?
Don't try to tell me there aren't intelligent scholarly materials available examining all of these subjects because there ARE. I've read a hell of a lot of them. There's a TON of shit on them too so it's a job to sift through it all. But I have to ask, HOW MUCH material on ANY of these subject have you studied AT ALL? WHAT are you basing your snotty and arrogant opinions on? HMMmm? Think about that while you're laughing so hard that snot bubbles pop in your nostrils.
Another point here for you to think about--for a couple of you here to think about. You're being fucking rude. Whether I'm right or wrong, crazy or sane; regardless of whether my opinions have any validity or not, I HAVE tried to engage you in serious, intelligent discussion with a reasoned point of view. I've acknowledged faults I see and that others have pointed out in some of my positions and admitted points that DON'T count in favor of my POV. I've also written lengthy posts trying to share what I think, believe and know and cite the reasons for my positions and the sources for the knowledge base and materials I have drawn from in my studies.
The response from you has been a series of weak-ass wise-cracks. Feeling good about yourself for that much?
Dude, it's clear that you think you're a smart motherfucker and that I'm a crackpot. But I want to you go back over this thread--you and your chuckling cohorts here--go BACK over this thread and look at the posts. SEE which of us has been presenting reasoned arguments--regardless as to the position being offered--take a look at who has been using logic and reason and science and citing sources and referencing outside work. And see which of us has been nothing more than a cackling detractor, offering NOTHING substantive, presenting NO reason or justification for WHY you believe your position to be true beyond "it'd all be A'KNOWED already if'n it twere a'true".
It really IS fucking rude. I've tried to share my opinions with you and demonstrate to you WHY I hold some of the ideas I have and all you've offered in response is lame wise-cracks (and I DO mean LAME--I'd admit it if I thought any had been funny) and scoffing. Dude, scoffing is NOT debating. It's not even reasoned discussion. As I said a LONG time ago, if the topics here offend your sensibilities so much GTF outta the thread. Me? I like to SHARE information and exchange ideas. I actually ENJOY debating with others who hold opinions different than me because it forces me to THINK about why I hold the opinions I have and not just have "attitudes" about shit I haven't really given any thought or study toward. Whatever the topic, you might do well to consider a similar approach. There's nobody walking the Earth you can't learn something from and there's no subject you can't learn something ABOUT. Unless all you wanna do is be an asshole about it all.
Congrats. That's all you're managing to do here. You don't come off as smart. You don't come off as clever. You don't come off as intelligent. You don't come off as discussing or debating ANYTHING because you're NOT presenting any alternative point of view. You're just being a heckler.
In other words, an asshole. If that's ALL you want out of this-nice job; you got it--you're an asshole!
Similar threads
