Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by polomontana
Vance, I'm actually glad you posted because your post shows a good example of pseudoskepticism.

It's basically using skepticism as a crutch to what you already believe instead of a tool to search for the truth.

Polomontana, NephraTari, and Teratoma are mischaracterizing what Vance said, ignoring the context in which it was said, and at the same time, proving his point.

Yes, he did say you are using the unprovable to prove the unproven. He also says: "Let's prove one or the other or both or something lol!"

That is not pseudoskepticism, or whatever non-sense buzzword you want to employ. You are engaging in pseudoscience, "proving" the existence of something unsubstantiated via the unsubstantiated*. You are not forwarding a theory, a hypothesis, or anything of the sort. You are using baseless speculation and circular logic.

What Vance and I are both saying is that instead of using the unsubstantiated to prove Bigfoot's (or any other anomalous phenomena) existence, you should use the observable and verifiable. That is a far-cry from your accusations of pseudoskepticism or from your employment of pseudoscience and circular logic.

(*yes, I believe in the existence of Bigfoot. However, I concede the evidence suggests but does not prove, its existence)

Complex,

Your posts doesn't make sense.

First, you talk about unproven.

Again, things like time travel, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum loop gravity, quantum braids, holographic principle couldn't be discussed according to your standards because their isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF.

You and Vance would wipe out entire fields of study in a SINGLE BOUND with that logic.

Secondly, things within ufology are not unsubstantiated claims.

In my mind these things are proven beyond any reasonable doubt based on my own sightings and the direct and circumstantial evidence that supports things within ufology.

Did you or Vance read the title of the thread?

It seems pseudoskeptics feel the need to turn every thread into a debate on wether these things exist because they are theatened by the mere discussion of these things in the context of logic and reason.

If you want to debate wether bigfoot is a myth, then go to the proper folder and start a thread about it.

Look at threads on this board. You will notice the pseudoskeptic trying to start a debate that has nothing to do with the thread.

They fear things that go beyond their 3 dimensional view of reality. They want the universe tied up in a box and everything has to be explained in a context that fits their pre-existing belief system.

So please, if you want to debate wether bigfoot is a myth go to the proper folder and start a thread about it.

I thank the other posters for their intelligent responses and please excuse Vance and Complex need to try and turn threads into debates about their personal beliefs.

That's truly a COMPLEX .

[edit on 14-7-2008 by polomontana]

While I don't have too much faith in the few I've read...there is a slight history of "Bigfoot-like" beings in connection with UFO sightings and CE3K cases.

Then again, there are also cases of "robot-like" aliens, etc.

The majority of reports tend to stick with the "Greys", "Greens", "Oranges" or "Nordic types, but there is at least some small number of cases which fall outside of this....

My personal feelings are that Bigfoot-like creatures are or were simply surviving members of a past mankind relative....and not aliens.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by polomontana
Good find Tallwhites, I will have to check out that book.

Do an Amazon search for "Huyghe" and "field guide", there you'll find the book he wrote.
Very interesting read

Originally posted by polomontana
First, you talk about unproven.

Again, things like time travel, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quantum loop gravity, quantum braids, holographic principle couldn't be discussed according to your standards because their isn't ABSOLUTE PROOF.

You and Vance would wipe out entire fields of study in a SINGLE BOUND with that logic.

Quite o the contrary. This proves you have no idea how science works. Many of those things are theoretical; being is that there is evidence, verifiable and observable, that allows us to make predictions about the unobservable. There is no comparion between story about UFOs (and that's all it is, a story), unsubstantiated I may add, and that of scientific theories of the above.

Secondly, things within ufology are not unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by polomontana
In my mind these things are proven beyond any reasonable doubt...

Enough said. Your opinion is neither scientific theory or law.

Originally posted by polomontana
It seems pseudoskeptics feel the need to turn every thread into a debate on wether these things exist because they are theatened by the mere discussion of these things in the context of logic and reason.

And you turn every thread into a debate on what types of skepticism are allowed. If one does not agree with you, you tell them their posts are "pseudoskepticism" or "unintelligent."

Originally posted by polomontana
If you want to debate wether bigfoot is a myth, then go to the proper folder and start a thread about it.

Look at threads on this board. You will notice the pseudoskeptic trying to start a debate that has nothing to do with the thread.

So please, if you want to debate wether bigfoot is a myth go to the proper folder and start a thread about it.

No child. You are not the arbitratior of what happens here, or what we can discuss. And we are on topic. Neither of us are debating the existence of Bigfoot.

Debate our theories. Not us. You are attempting to distract by attacking us.

Originally posted by polomontana
I thank the other posters for their intelligent responses and please excuse Vance and Complex need to try and turn threads into debates about their personal beliefs.

You are the only one doing that. We were debating the theory. Debate the theory, not us. Do not turn this into a debate about is.

Complex,

Again you miss the ball.

If you knew anything about theoretical physics, you would know that many of these theories are unproven yet they are debated everyday.

Read Physics of the Impossible or The Physics of Immortality. I can go on and on but in your mind these things can be debated using reason and logic but things like ufology and the paranormal can't be debated in this way because of your pre-existing belief system.

I can prove that you don't exist. I can show through simulation theory thay you are just a simulation of another universe that has attained advanced quantum computing and this is why the universe behaves like a quantum computer because it is a quantum computer.

Prove me wrong.

This is why your post doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread.

When Vance posted on the thread, other posters responded because it was silly.

What does bigfoot being a myth have to do with the price of tea in China?

The debate was about could bigfoot be an extraterrestrial.

If I wanted to debate wether bigfoot was a myth, I would have started a thread about it.

I'm skeptical of bigfoot, but I can discuss these things in the context of reason and logic.

Pseudoskeptic feel they have to inject their belief on the subject of bigfoot in order to "bring some reality to the debate."

This is because they are threatened by anything that's outside of their pre-existing belief system.

If you want to debate wether bigfoot exists, then start a thread about it.

These things are not unsubstantiated, they are only unsubstantiated in your mind.

What you are talking about is opinion, I'm talking about evidence.

How do you know that gravity wasn't mathematically inputed into a quantum computer and you are a simulation and you don't even know it?

The fact is you don't know. This is what's wrong with pseudoskepticism.

They are scared to say they don't know. In a universe that we don't fully understand, you can't know.

The pseudoskeptics goes a step further and they say other people can't know about some of these things. Does this make any sense?

They speak in ABSOLUTES about life after death.

They speak in ABSOLUTES about ufology.

They speak in ABSOLUTES about paranormal events.

This is because they have a desire to define the universe in the context of their pre-existing belief.

They are not comfortable in their beliefs so they want you to accept their view. This is why they want these threads to descend into a debate about the existence of these things.

I'm fine with that, because it helps me to illustrate how illogical pseudoskepticism is.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by polomontana]

Yes, there have been notions (not really "theories," because how can you test them?), that Bigfoot and aliens and a lot of this truly paranormal stuff is all kind of linked together.

The overall thought is that reality is not quite as solid as it seems to our little minds, and it's influenced by all kinds of things like:

1. our consciousnesses interacting with spacetime on a quantum level
2. random and perfectly natural fluctuations in time, space, and reality
3. intelligent entities that are creating this reality via consciousness
4. and so on.

So while it's impossible for Bigfoot or UFOs to maintain themselves for long periods of time in our reality, they occasionally "filter through" into our reality from someplace else (who knows where?), and then float back out of it. Which is why UFOs and Bigfoot and other similar things seem to just vanish without leaving behind much in the way of physical traces. Because they only partially exist in this reality.

It's a notion. Like I said, pretty hard to test.

Could big foot be an Extra-Terrestrial?

No.

I think he is a big monkey with lots of hair!

A primate!

Very smart and very elusive!

Listen, There is a guy in Ontario, Canada who studies Wolverines. He does this for the Canadian goverment.

Guess what? He has never, ever seen one. The closest he has gotten is
FRESH tracks. And thats a big weisel.

I have seen Wolverine's. In La Ronge Saskatchewan!

So...if Big Foot is smarter then the average weisel then yea it would be very hard to find him!

[edit on 14-7-2008 by whiteraven]

Originally posted by Nohup
Yes, there have been notions (not really "theories," because how can you test them?), that Bigfoot and aliens and a lot of this truly paranormal stuff is all kind of linked together.

The overall thought is that reality is not quite as solid as it seems to our little minds, and it's influenced by all kinds of things like:

1. our consciousnesses interacting with spacetime on a quantum level
2. random and perfectly natural fluctuations in time, space, and reality
3. intelligent entities that are creating this reality via consciousness
4. and so on.

So while it's impossible for Bigfoot or UFOs to maintain themselves for long periods of time in our reality, they occasionally "filter through" into our reality from someplace else (who knows where?), and then float back out of it. Which is why UFOs and Bigfoot and other similar things seem to just vanish without leaving behind much in the way of physical traces. Because they only partially exist in this reality.

It's a notion. Like I said, pretty hard to test.

WE know there is a consciousness so great that it was able to create all the potentialities of the universe in one thought, in that First 10 -43 second.. in the beginning."

Consciousness is the basic building block of the universe....

Bigfoots are Et's. And they're tightly allied with Nordic alliens. Both of those Et's get physical, ya dig.

Originally posted by polomontana
With only 4% of the universe known, how can you speak in ABSOLUTES? This happens when a belief system clashes with reason, so your threatened by the mere discussion of topics that threaten your pre-existing belief system.

Should we stop all discussion about the universe because we only know what 4% is?

I dont mean to be a pickle, but stateing that we only know 4% of the universe just isnt true. We dont have any clue how big it is. And until we do know exactly how big it is, you cant say that we know any percentage of it.

To contribute to the thread, When I saw the title, I immediatly clicked on it to post a smart-ass remark about how "Ive been on ATS for w decent while now, and this is the most ludicrous thread ive seen yet." Until I read it, its very logical, and although I have never seen a bigfoot, or a UFO, ill buy your theory. God i would die a happy man if I saw a UFO.

Well you can say that bigfoot doesnt really exist but wat about all the other animals humans keep on finding is it posssible they are smarter than any other animal and realise that we are dangerous?

How many of you here debating the origins of Bigfoot have actually seen one? Been close enough to see the lines on it's face?

I've been face-to-face with a Yowie, the Australian equivalent of Bigfoot / Yeti / Abominable Snowman. I believe, after what I saw and smelt, that they are an intelligent primate not that dissimilar from ourselves. They are very knowing and although seem to be very animalistic, have an air of intelligence about the way they act.

They may be 'the missing link', a being that evolved alongside humans but was beaten to the mark by the homo-sapien and eventually pushed further and further from development that they now live in obscurity, rarely making contact with the human race.

They've had thousands of years to master avoiding detection, knowing that their only chance at survival is avoiding run-ins with us.