Featured Sponsors

Featured Post
Latest Post
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts

Long before Todd Standing's film, Discovering Bigfoot, came out he was somewhat of a controversial figure in the bigfoot community. Now, that his film is out and it is fairly popular, the debate about the evidence he presents has once again become a hot topic.  Many people think his variety of Sasquatch are real while others think it is just a hoax. Most of what is in the film has been available to view for a number of years. But it was all packaged with some new footage and formed into a documentary.

The film does have a couple of very well respected names attached to it. Namely, John Bindernagel, and Jeffrey Meldrum. Both are heavily respected in the filed of bigfoot and having them on board for the film is a major drawing point.

Of course, there are many who are still questioning and doubting the Standing film and footage.


Is It Time To Scrap Darwinism? 
A Controversial Question Of Humankind
By Dorraine Fisher
   
  There are strange things going on in the human story. Anyone who’s following new anthropological data that’s being reported around the world has to admit that the story is getting stranger and stranger the more scientists keep digging. And there are some that believe this is shooting a lot of holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. The math and the fossil records just don’t seem to support the theory.
   To preface this, evolution is not fact. That’s why they call it a theory. Just because an idea is widely supported and largely believed to be substantiated by science still doesn’t make it a fact.

My previous post featured a viral image of a Mystery figure from Arizona which caught fire and sparked debate. There is another image, actually a game camera picture, that is also getting a lot of attention. The above picture was taken by a game cam in Pennsylvania. The picture was posted to facebook by James Bobo Fay of the hit TV show Finding Bigfoot. He stated the picture came from Clara County, but I don't think there is a Clara County. What I think he was referring to was Clara Township which is in Potter county,PA. 

If it was indeed Clara Township, then this is a very small place with a small population of around 200 people. Clara Township is only about 20 square miles in size.

Now, lets get back to the picture, is there evidence of a bear or a bigfoot?


Belief In Bigfoot: Why Debate Is Pointless

By Dorraine Fisher


I'm going to tell you something you may not want to hear. Will you change the way you think based on what I say? The odds are against it for lots of scientific reasons, but you know I'm going to say it all anyway.

I no longer debate the existence of bigfoot...or anything else for that matter. And people often ask me why. Citing that debate is healthy thing. But I strenuously disagree for reasons about which I've spent a lot of time thinking.


When I was still new to bigfoot research, I was easily pulled into debate after debate with skeptics. I knew what I knew and no one was going to try and tell me otherwise. But I've since learned that ANY debate about Bigfoot with ANYONE is pointless. And I'll tell you why. But this story can't be told without delving into basic human nature. Yes, here I go again

First of all, what is a debate? It's basically an argument, right? Perhaps it takes place in a controlled environment and both sides are given a chance to speak. But it's still an argument nonetheless. And an argument is a conflict of sorts, or a fight...without guns or fists. But still a fight at its core.

And in the event of a conflict, we, as humans, are hard-wired to try and accomplish one objective: winning. We can't help ourselves, really. Instinct is a powerful thing. And when instinct takes over, logic and reasoning inadvertently go right out the window. It's not about finding the truth. It's about winning the argument. And just like any competition, you'll basically do whatever you can get away with in order to achieve that goal.

But why is that? Don't the “facts” speak for themselves?

They do, but only if others are really listening to what's being said.

The facts can get lost in the midst of all the preconceived ideas of the debaters. But what preconceived ideas could these debaters possibly have, you ask? The same preconceived ideas that all humans (yes, everyone) are guilty of harboring. And that is the idea that the other side of the argument has some hidden agenda. The belief that everything coming out of their mouth is a blatant lie. You see this in social-political arenas all the time. Even the soundest reason won't change the view of the opposing side, because you are the enemy. You have to be wrong.

If we believe they're lying about everything, the facts won't matter. All the work and frustration it took to collect all those facts is moot...because they're hard-wired to NOT believe them anyway. The opposing side is the enemy. And the enemy is ALWAYS wrong. Right? That's what we all think.


And, of course, you may agree with a lot of what I've said here, but you'll feel sure it doesn't apply to you. Right?

Sorry. Everyone is guilty of all this. No one is exempt. We ALL have this entrenched, burning need to be right and will fight literally to the death to prove it. Why? Because being right is the most important thing in the world. The person who's right gets all the perks; sometimes even gets to be king or queen. Being right is everything. No one wants to hang out with the person who lost the fight. And fear of isolation in a social species like humans is a pretty powerful thing. We don't want to be alone. So in order to be elevated in stature, we need to be right. Or, at the very least, we need to make the other side look wrong. Very, very wrong.

You see, science has this thing called the argumentative theory of reasoning. And the idea behind it is that we humans didn't take up debate about a subject in order to discover some universal truth. We did it to try and exert authority over others. It theorizes that humans didn't evolve the ability to reason so they could find the truth or make better decisions. We evolved reasoning skills in order to convince others or to be cautious of what they try to convince us.

In a nutshell, we're suspicious by nature. It was a very important survival mechanism. And as much as we'd all like to think we've evolved as a species, we're still animals after all. Maybe it was designed to help us be wary of strangers and to preserve our own lives. So, it's at least easy to say it's not really our fault. We're flawed human beings.

But that, my friends, is why I don't debate Bigfoot or anything else any more. How often do you see someone's opinion being changed by a solid point that was raised? They don't really hear that point or comprehend because maybe their basic human instincts of suspicion have kicked in. It's mostly about winning. And they're in safety mode. Maybe that skill has outlived its usefulness in the modern world, but it's still there nonetheless. Not to mention again that humans are naturally competitive and have to win the argument at all costs.

So how much do you really think sound reasoning and truth really matter?

And you can tell yourself Dorraine is crazy and she can't possibly be talking about me. But you're guilty. We all are. We're hopelessly human. And it's a hard pill to swallow that we may have advanced ourselves, survived, and even thrived as a species by actually ignoring facts and truth in favor of winning an argument.

So the next time you feel this burning need to build your case and put all kinds of facts together to support your argument, remember I said to not waste your time and energy. It won't get you anywhere but the land of frustration. ******DF




This Post By TCC Team Member Dorraine Fisher. Dorraine is a Professional Writer, a nature, wildlife and Bigfoot enthusiast who has written for many magazines. Dorraine conducts research, special interviews and more for The Crypto Crew. Get Dorraine's book The Book Of Blackthorne!



This post sponsored in part by
(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!)
bigfoot evidence
Bigfoot on trial


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.


Bigfoot - Evidence, No Evidence and Debunkers

When talking about Bigfoot one can expect to get some raised eyebrows and maybe a few smirks. But mention that you have actually encountered the elusive creature and/or found evidence to support it and many people will quickly start calling you crazy, delusional or ask what drugs you are on. In other words they really bring into question your character.

The Bigfoot research field is full of lovable, but wacky people who have good intentions but see 92 bigfoot in every photograph. So the label of delusional might fit in some cases. I think some of them know there is nothing in their photos and they just do it to cause a stir or get attention, or maybe it's just for kicks.

The Skeptic
 



By TCC Team Member Dorraine Fisher
Professional Writer, a nature and wildlife enthusiast who has written for many magazines.

 
Bigfoot: A New Address To The Skeptics
By TCC Team Member Dorraine Fisher
            There are still far too many skeptics in the world of Bigfoot. The idea of such a creature existing doesn’t seem to fit into a logical framework of what some believe about the world. So they simply refuse to see what’s right in front of them: overwhelming proof.  And they’ll conclude “logically” that the creature doesn’t exist and the rest of us are exercising some twisted fantasy.
 But those of us who believe in Bigfoot don’t do so on blind faith alone. Most of us who believe without having actually seen one usually do so in the face of thousands of sightings and piles of sound physical evidence. From that, we can logically conclude that it’s entirely possible there is some unknown great ape living in the forests all over the world. It’s managed to stay hidden all this time so it’s much smarter than we are in its own world. And it’s probably not seriously dangerous to humans. Attacking humans over the centuries probably would have drawn too much attention to it and assured it would have been tracked down and killed years ago. But we have footprints, blood, hair, and DNA that tell the story. So we have to conclude there’s something out there. 
 So what about all the skeptics? Why can they not see the evidence like we can? Do they really think the physical findings and thousands of credible witnesses are all crazy?
            Most of us are not psychologists or psychiatrists so it’s hard to delve into their minds, but it’s possible they don’t see the evidence because of fear; fear of the unknown, fear of monsters possibly lurking in the shadows, fears that stem from childhood like the fear of the boogie man, fear of being helpless, or even the fear that there’s something lurking out there that has managed to stay hidden from us for a very long time. It’s pretty scary to think of a large, imaginably dangerous animal that could be that intelligent hiding behind a tree in our back yard. So they’ll block that image out of their minds and simply not believe.
            How many reports have been taken by investigators in which the eyewitness was terrified and traumatized and needed firm reassurance that these creatures are not really dangerous? The great percentages of witnesses are sane, credible people, who feel very sure of what they saw. And many of them didn’t believe in the creature before they saw it. They may have been afraid to believe before, but are now faced with a new reality of what was right before their eyes.
            And then there are the “active” non-believers who spend a great deal of time, effort, and often money to prove that all the evidence is inaccurate or contrived. Do they lie awake nights trying to think of ways to debunk all the proof that’s been put out there by qualified researchers and even a few scientists?
            And how does logic really weigh in here?
            When you really think about it, logic is open to interpretation. If you don’t believe in something, you can find many “logical” reasons not to. “Where’s the body? Why hasn’t someone hit one on the road? Why hasn’t a hunter shot one?” Etc., etc.  Some people get downright angry about the subject.
 Bigfoot didn’t seem logical to anyone before they actually saw it. But when a creature walks out in front of you or shakes your car or throws rocks at you, that becomes very real and logical to you, even if it’s not logical to all those who haven’t had that same experience.  It’s easier for skeptics to say you saw a bear because a bear fits into that logical framework of what we know is out there. But logically speaking, a bear doesn’t throw rocks and a bear isn’t four feet wide at the shoulders.
            And what about those skeptical scientists?  If there’s so much real evidence for Bigfoot, why are scientists still so skeptical?
            Some scientists are bigfoot believers, but scientists are trained to be skeptical and to, in the interest of gathering facts and obtaining concrete knowledge, often exercise a principal called Occam’s Razor. That’s the idea that, within a group of varying explanations, we must choose the one that makes the fewest assumptions and leads to the simplest, albeit most logical answer.  In other words, bigfoots are not proven to exist by science, so technically they don’t exist. And maybe there is no physical evidence in the area for Bigfoots. So the conclusion is it was not Bigfoot you saw.
 But bears are proven to exist. All conditions may be right for a bear to have been there. There may be physical evidence in the area for bears, and many people have seen bears there before. So science concludes the dark, hulking figure you saw in those woods was probably a bear. Science looks for cold, hard, plainly visible facts, and we can’t blame it for that. It doesn’t validate itself to the world by guesswork. The only trouble is, science didn’t see what you saw that day. You did.
“If Bigfoot really exists, we’d have found him by now,” is often heard. And this would be a true statement if we humans were as smart as we think we are. But very often we’re not. This goes back to fear. It’s more comforting and less scary to think we’re the smartest creatures and that nothing on the planet could ever put one over on us.  It’s less scary to believe we humans are the superior beings and that we have complete control. 
            But the truth is we don’t.
            Life is still a mystery. There are many things we still don’t know and many things out there we haven’t discovered yet. And that’s okay. We’re human, were fallible, and we can’t know everything.
            But we can understand that to dismiss another person’s experience is folly. We need to be cautious about the information we accept, be we also need to be very careful about what we DON’T believe. How often have we been proven wrong?  And how often have you argued with another person about something you believe to be true? They didn’t believe you because they hadn’t had your experience. They didn’t see what you saw which made it impossible for you to convince them otherwise. You knew what you were saying was true. How dare they not believe you!
            It’s the same with our hairy friends. All the evidence can’t be dismissed. Thousands of people have seen them. Thousands of footprint casts have been obtained. Blood, hair, and other samples for DNA study have been secured with the result of an “unknown primate” existing in our forests.
            They’re out there. They’re real.          
[*TCC - Dorraine Fisher is a freelance writer and nature and wildlife enthusiast who has written for many magazines.]
[* Copyright The Crypto Crew ]

[Partial Source: Stan Courtney ]
The Crypto Crew - Submit Sighting - TCC Team
Interactive Sightings Map

SPONSOR LINKS: Situs slot online terbaru
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Help Us!

Help Support
The Cyrpto Crew

[If interested in licensing any of our content,Articles or pictures contact us by Clicking Here]

.
"..you’ll be amazed when I tell you that I’m sure that they exist." - Dr. Jane Goodall during interview with NPR and asked about Bigfoot.

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material and is presented in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, of US copyright laws.


Contact Form

The Crypto Crews blog is protected under the Lanham (Trademark) Act (Title 15, Chapter 22 of the United States Code)

Site Stats

Total Pageviews