...........

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Shhmeat]

Originally posted by polomontana
Complex,

Again you miss the ball.

Again, instead of talking about the theories, you attack anyone engaging in any sort of skepticism personally. You focus on us as personalities, instead of focusing on what we have said.

Originally posted by polomontana
I can prove that you don't exist....Prove me wrong.

You are engaging in a thought-exercise that really has no bearing on the conversation, other than to attack me personally, instead of debating what I said.

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

Did you bother even reading my first post in this thread? No one is debating the existence of the creature. Go back and read my first post. You haven't. You saw that I did not agree with the OP, and so you attacked me personally; you HAVE NOT bothered discussing why my opinion is wrong, other than the fact you don't like skeptics.

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

No, you are not. You only consider "reason and logic" to be those opinions which agree with your's; anything outside of that you do not consider reason or logic. "Reason and logic" is not attacking people based on their personalities. "Reason and logic" is not ignoring what they have said, instead focusing on them personalities. No one attacked you, and yet you attack other people, then have the audacity to say you are the only one employing reason and logic. In fact, the OP is not "reason and logic" at all, but rather circular reasoning.

We are discussing it with reason and logic. You would see this if you had bothered reading my original post. We are saying instead of focusing on the speculative as a way to explain Bigfoot, we should focus on the verifiable.

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

You are attacking us for daring to insert our beliefs about the subject, but that is what EVERYONE does in a forum; they insert their beliefs. You have a problem with beliefs that do not match your's, and thus attack anyone who does not agree with you as a "pseudoskeptic," which to you means any sort of skepticism. You want to control what the debate can and cannot be, what is acceptable and not, so that no one can disagree with you.

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

Once again, you are not the arbiter of what can and cannot be talked about in here; this topic is about the existence of Bigfoot, using UFOs as an explanation. Our point, which you have chosen to ignore, is that we should focus on the verifiable and quantifiable.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

Pot, meet Kettle. You cannot handle that we inserted a bit of skepticism, that we should focus on what we can observe, verify, substantiate, instead of speculation on where it comes from. So, you want the conversation to descend into an attack on our personalities, not what we have contributed to the conversation., not our views on the subject.

Please, instead of attacking me or Vance constantly, debate what we have said, not us. If you feel I or anyone else is off topic, please get yourself a moderator, and let them handle it. Stop trying to shut down debate because someone dares disagree with you.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Okay, this is a Six Million Dollar Man episode from the '70's and this is silly. No proof just speculation. Okay that's fine, but don't be mad at me for pointing it out.

Wasn't there some story about an island with these aliens like that??

I swear I remember something.

Complex,

We can do this all day, because it really highlights the pseudoskeptics dillema.

Here's what Vance said.

"Lol, this read exactly like this too me. "Could this as yet unproven myth actualy be this unproven myth?" See what I mean? Let's prove one or the other or both or something lol! This actualy came up in the 70's if I am remembering right. It came up about bigfoot and ET when no one had nothing but "pics" and stories of both these "boogie man deals".
Thanks,
Vance"

This is the nonsense you agree with.

What does this have to do with the title of the thread? Could Bigfoot Be An Extra-Tetrrestrial?

Just about every post on this board is about things that people are speculating about.

People speculate about bigfoot being a creature all the time. I have speculated and been on boards that talked about bigfoot maybe being the missing link. This is just a thread designed to look at these things from a different angle.

So why come on a board where just about every post is speculation on different theories and talk about bigfoot being a myth?

There's countless discussions about bigfoot being just a creature connected to evolution.

People have argued that point on this thread.

It seems you and Vance want to try to belittle the discussion by calling it an unproven myth and you want people to discuss these things on your terms. You don't want people to speculate and discuss other possibilities that you don't accept.

You are also upset that I call you on it.

I will continue to call out people who are insecure about discussions that speculate and talk about things that they might not agree with.

So, I'm fine with you or Vance or anyone else entering the debate, just know that I'm going to call you on posts that are obviously designed to belittle the discussion.

This board is for ideas about things you may not agree with.

Why would I title the thread,"Could this as yet unproven myth actualy be this unproven myth?" like you and Vance would like?

This is a board about all kinds of different ideas.

You should just shut the board down if we have to discuss everything in the context of what you and Vance deem is real.

Do you or Vance know what board you are on? It's called ABOVE TOP SECRET. People here discuss different ideas and different possibilities about varius subjects.

If I wanted to discuss wether Bigfoot is a myth, I would have went to the mythical beast folder and started a thread titled,"Is bigfoot a myth."

I have been debating pseudoskeptics for awhile and there's a big difference between them and skeptics.

A skeptic will say:

"I don't think Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial. If he exists, then he's would be a creature that's part of the evolutionary tree."

That's a skeptic commenting on this thread titled, Could Bigfoot be an Extraterrestrial.

You can see posts like this on this thread.

A pseudoskeptic will say,"Could this as yet unproven myth actualy be this unproven myth?"

This is what Vance said and what you obviously agree with.

This is designed to belittle the discussion because the pseudoskeptic doesn't want you even debating the topic outside of the context of his or her pre-existing belief.

I remeber debating about psychic ability. A pseudoskeptic will enter the debate and bring up Miss Cleo as an example of a psychic and they will call the discussion silly. This is because they don't want psychic ability debated in any serious way, they want it belittled in order to satisfy what they already believe.

This is what pseudoskeptics do when they can't debate the subject at hand. They try to belitlle the subject.

I have had many reasoned debates with skeptics about all kinds of subjects and I think we both got something out of the debate. I'm a skeptic on alot of issues, but I don't need to belittle discussions that I don't agree with in order to feel better about my position.

You can't debate a pseudoskeptic, because they don't want to debate. They want to make a statement that belittles everything so that they can feel better about there beliefs. I just call them on it.

I was just on a thread titled, Guardian U.F.O.'s. The pseudoskeptics were in full force trying to belittle the OP not add to the discussion.

This happens alot on here and I think it's importanant to highlight the difference between skepticism and pseudoskepticism.

To me pseudoskepticism is a belief system, skepticism is a tool used to seek out the truth wherever it may lead.

I have seen a couple of Vance posts on my threads and it's the same thing everytime. It's pseudoskepticism. If you agree with this, then you are in the same boat.

It's like that old saying,"If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck."

Pseudoskepticism can be clearly seen.

By the way CHEWBACCA of StarWars is Bigfoot, right there in plain sight for everybody to see, cool hugh.

Once again, you have not said a single thing about my argument. All you have done is focus on me as a personality. Please, debate my arguments, not me.

Originally posted by polomontana
"Lol, this read exactly like this too me. "Could this as yet unproven myth actualy be this unproven myth?" See what I mean? Let's prove one or the other or both or something lol! This actualy came up in the 70's if I am remembering right. It came up about bigfoot and ET when no one had nothing but "pics" and stories of both these "boogie man deals".

And there is absolutely not a single thing wrong with it. We should focus on what we can verify and substantiate, if we seek to prove the existence of such creatures, not rely on circular logic.

Originally posted by polomontana
You can't debate a pseudoskeptic, because they don't want to debate. They want to make a statement that belittles everything so that they can feel better about there beliefs. I just call them on it.

You talk a big game when attacking "pseudoskepticism" (ie: those you do not agree with), yet have ignored my original post, showing how your "evidence" does not the majority of Bigfoot reports. But you never wanted debate, you wanted people to agree with you. That is when I did not agree, you have attempted make the debate about my personality, not my argument. So do not lie to us and say you are open to debate.

Originally posted by polomontana
you want people to discuss these things on your terms.

Pot. Kettle. Black. That is what you have been doing this entire thread; you want to frame the debate so that people can only agree with you.

Originally posted by polomontana
I will continue to call out people who are insecure about discussions that speculate and talk about things that they might not agree with.

Again. Pot. Kettle. Black. That is why you have not once discussed my arguments, but have attacked me personally. The only insecurity here is your's. I've repeatedly asked you to debate my argument and position, and you've repeatedly refused. Why is that?

Originally posted by polomontana
This board is for ideas about things you may not agree with.

Do you or Vance know what board you are on? It's called ABOVE TOP SECRET. People here discuss different ideas and different possibilities about varius subjects.

The only person here who needs to learn that is you.

Originally posted by polomontana
You should just shut the board down if we have to discuss everything in the context of what you and Vance deem is real.

The only person attempting to frame any debate is you.

Originally posted by polomontana
This happens alot on here and I think it's importanant to highlight the difference between skepticism and pseudoskepticism.

To you, there is no such thing as a skeptic. To you, there are only people who agree with you, and those who don't. If someone disagrees, you attack them, and want to define how the debate can be conducted.

Originally posted by polomontana
A skeptic will say:

"I don't think Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial. If he exists, then he's would be a creature that's part of the evolutionary tree."

Again, you want to define what is acceptable and unacceptable. A skeptic can say a lot of things, not just what you deem acceptable forms of skepticism.

Again, please. I will ask you one more time: discuss my arguments; do not discuss me as a personality. You have not once said why argument as wrong; you have just focused on me.

Complex,

It seems you or Vance and other pseudoskeptics don't understand.

You just said:

"Again, please. I will ask you one more time: discuss my arguments; do not discuss me as a personality. You have not once said why argument as wrong; you have just focused on me."

This thread is not about your argument being right or wrong. This is the problem.

The debate is about, Could Bigfoot be an Extra-Terrestrial?

The thread is not titled, Is Vance And Complex arguments right.

I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong or trying to prove to you or anybody else that bigfoot is an extra-terrestrial.

It's just a question.

This is where pseudoskeptics go wrong and I pointed this out at the start of this. Your last post proves my point.

You an Vance think every discussion should be about wether these things exist in order to prove or disprove them.

Sometimes a discussion is just that. It's not trying to prove anything. That's why I started this thread in the form of a question.

I didn't say, Bigfoot is an Extra-terrestrial.

I started with the word "Could" for a reason.

So I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything.

Originally posted by polomontana
The debate is about, Could Bigfoot be an Extra-Terrestrial?

No. There never was a debate. it was either people agree with you, or you attack them. I never once tried to make the debate about me; YOU have done that. All I asked was that if you do not agree with what I have said, you discuss why it is right or wrong, instead of making the discussion about me.

It is obvious, from your constant refusal to acknowledge the fact I submitted an answer, at least in my opinion, that you never had any interest in "debate." You think even acknowledging a difference of opinion is "distracting" from the debate. Because of your immaturity, attacks and refusal to accept that people may have differing opinions, I have no choice but to ignore you.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Complex,

Ignore me if you wish, but I think you see were I'm coming from.

I'm just irked by the logical fallacy of pseudoskepticism.

You talked in your posts again about proving you right or wrong. I havn't tried to prove or discuss why anyones posts is right or wong on this thread. You said:

"All I asked was that if you do not agree with what I have said, you discuss why it is right or wrong"

That's because the thread is speculative in nature, so the debate is open to all kinds of ideas. If you read the thread, you will see different takes on the subject. Some that say bigfoot could be an alien and others that say he probably isn't an alien.

The only one that wants to be proven right or wrong is you.

There's a difference between a speculative thread and a thread that starts with a statement of fact.

For instance, I started a thread titled, U.F.O.'s exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

This debate is about right and wrong because I'm making a statement of fact that others might disagree with.

What pseudoskeptics do is try to turn every thread into a debate about wether something exists or not because they don't want anyone debating these issues in a serious way.

They want you to have ABSOLUTE PROOF of the underlying subject matter before you can even speculate about it.

If that's the case, they might as well close down the ATS board. Alot of the threads here are speculative in nature.



[edit on 16-7-2008 by polomontana]

To those who say a skeleton of a dead Bigfoot has never been found, I heard biologists say they never encounter dead Grizzly bear skeletons either, in 30 years of roaming the forest.

Originally posted by Swingarm
About 70 % of the surface of the the globes land is unsurveyed.

You sure about 70%????
Sounds a bit high, doesnt it???

Originally posted by TallWhites
To those who say a skeleton of a dead Bigfoot has never been found, I heard biologists say they never encounter dead Grizzly bear skeletons either, in 30 years of roaming the forest.

Good point,

The thing with that is, we have pictures and videos of Grizzly Bears. We don't have alot of these things with Bigfoot.

Do you think if Bigfoot was just a creature, that we would have more pictures and video of him?

How can this creature escape modern technology?

If he was caught on tape by Roger Patterson in 1967, we should have alot of videos and pictures today with the technology we have now.

If some bigfoot sightings were extraterrestrials mistaken as bigfoot, this could explain this.

Originally posted by TallWhites
In my field guide for aliens book there's a species that closely resemble those statues on Easter Island.

Actually, other than having a large jaw, that alien does not resemble a Moai. The head of the Moai are typically 3/5 the size of their bodies. They have a very pronounced nose and very long ears. Your alien features neither of these.

Originally posted by TallWhites
I wonder if they perhaps were visiited by aliens, and assumed they were their Gods

The Rapanui are quite clear on their purpose and their craftsmanship. The Moai do not represent gods, rather the embodiment of deceased ancestors, each Moai a specific person. They were built in the relatively recent past (within the last 800 years), and nothing in the Rapanui myths or histories would even suggest they were inspired by aliens.