I have documented my experiences in our Bigfoot threads that I am at to point of repeating myself multiple times.  

We bumped,fought,meme'd,posted to get this forum for a year!!!!
Start a bigfoot thread for folks to post experiences.

Well said WildBoar. If the previous trends of posting up "facts" without evidence other than "go find your own its out there" this forum will sure become a silly echo chamber.

The very definition of critical analysis. If your claims don't stand to scrutiny they are not fact.

A critical review would require a competent examiner with relevant domain experience.

Just found out about this sub forum today and seriously stoked about it

I’m definitely on board with cutting the GD-ness out of this forum. Same goes for any other tech forum.

My only concern with the above is whether it equates to an outright restriction on challenges seeking facts and evidence. Now, hear me out...

In one corner, say you’ve got someone who relates an experience. Dogman, Bigfoot, aliens, whatever. They recount the details of what they saw, smelled, felt, etc. Perhaps even draw a conclusion that they absolutely witnessed one of those entities. I’d completely support slapping down any replies that equate to “pics or it didn’t happen”, calling bullshit, demeaning or otherwise harassing the poster over lack of evidence.

In such instances, the only “challenges” I could forsee getting a pass would be friendly alternative theories for the described events. Even then, there’s a line to be crossed. Saying, “No you’re wrong. What you actually witnessed is x,y, or z” would be a no-go. On the other hand, it’d seem reasonable to grant some latitude for a reply like, “Interesting. Have you ever considered x, y, or z? I had a similar experience and believe it to be...”.

In short, being able to press someone on their personal story would, and should, generally be frowned upon.

Now, we get to the meat of my concern. There’s a big difference between sharing a personal story, and presenting statements as if they are verifiable facts.

Let’s take aliens as an example. If someone interjects explicit details/claims like, “Oh yes, those particular ETs hail from planet Nibiru. They visit earth primarily on Fridays in October, and camouflage themselves as taxi drivers. Their primary targets are young, socially awkward outcasts in the Pacific Northwest. Striking in packs of 3, they’ll telekinetically paralyze victims, harvest dna from their pituitary gland, and ditch them near medium sized bodies of water. Ultimately agents of some unnamed agencies will swoop in to ensure the victim is discredited.”

Ok, it’s a pretty outlandish scenario. But I crafted it that way hoping no one takes it as a callout. It’s not. The point being, is it unreasonable for folks to reply by saying, “Hold on one second. Where exactly have you gained all this information, and what can you share to verify it’s veracity”?

It’d be like someone in the reloading forum claiming a dash of bisquick and ajax is the key to achieving single-digit extreme spreads. Surely I’d hope that someone comes along and asks where they’re getting that info and what data they have to back it up.

In short, if a poster is introducing details stated as fact, it shouldn’t be unreasonable to politely challenge how they can be stated as such.

If legitimate and friendly challenges are more or less outlawed, it’ll frankly stand in the way of this forum seeing its true potential. If dissent is verboten, it may come across as one camp having a license to “troll” the other. If proported factual details are permitted to go unquestioned, it’ll detract from those who come to simply share their own accounts.

@DV8

I hope the above makes sense. If you happen to soldier through the full post, I appreciate it.

I wont hide that I’d be labeled a “skeptic”. However, I truly enjoy these topics. And am perfectly open to the idea that these things could be real. But for folks like me, there are instances where the burden of proof matters. And I’d hope engaging in that type of discussion isn’t wholely viewed as off-limits. Assuming the circumstances warrant such interjection, and it’s done in a respectful manner.

Thank you!

I am surprised there isn’t more support here since many on this forum hold a talking penguin in very high regard.

You can believe, it’s ok.

I think it’ll pick up. Probably settle in with a regular ebb and flow of engagement.

While they may not have definitive answers, a lot of people have stories to tell. Which is good for guys like me who, unfortunately, don’t have much to relay. But, after hearing some folks experiences, I’m OK with my life being paranormally uneventful.

I just found this forum! ( after you and I went back and forth in the other bigfoot thread, lol)  Im ready to be made a believer! lets see the squatch fossils and physical proof of the bigfeets!

You can certainly acquire physical proof of their existence, but you need to do that in the field, not in an Internet forum.  The problem when you start out is that you don’t know who or what to trust.  Experience is the solution to that problem; however, If that is not in the cards, then you need to read and listen to everything you can.  The truth will keep emerging from the cacophony of bullshit and you will have to discover it through pattern recognition.

Count me among the believers (though I firmly believe at least 95% of all paranormal claims are B.S.) Cool to have a forum of our own on the subject.  

I've been hooked on this stuff since watching "In Search Of" as a kid in the 70's.

That's the one that was narrated by Leonard Nimoy right ?

He's an

I loved that show growing up.

The creepy ass synthesizer music help make it extra freaky

QFT

This is probably the most insightful and truthful comment so far on this forum.

"The problem when you start out is that you don’t know who or what to trust.  Experience is the solution to that problem"

My only addendum to that is to read, listen, and absorb as much as you can in addition to your time spent in the field.  Don't believe everything that you hear, but file it away.  You may be surprised that some of 'crazy' encounters ring a bit more true the more time that you spend looking for strangeness.

Makes sense.

FWIW, I’m one who is content to exercise the nuclear option fairly often. Even in GD. Basically, whatever COC changes are pending will have no affect on me.

Good to know that those who post outlandish claims with no substance are not imune from reporting; and will be dealt with.

Thank you for the reply. Looking forward to seeing this forum develop.

I thought that it would take me another couple of years to reach 1000 posts.

Then this forum came along....

LOL. I wondered why GD was so boring lately.

Good luck.

Theres a UFO thread right now in GD, there was a bigfoot/ghost one a week or so back.
GD is more focused on neckbearding 556 at walmart....and panic buying because a Democrat said " im gonna take your gun ".
Talk about fantasy