Thursday, March 16, 2017

Top 5 Incredible Stories From Mulder's World [3-16-2017]

Watch: Butler school

Here are some fascinating stories from MuldersWorld.com, the front page of the strange and unexplained:
Watch: Parent with choking baby asks for help

Watch: Guy commits arson on video

Watch: Robin Williams cooks

Watch: A little help




25 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. "Let's face FACTS! I will be back commenting,when AC Collins Gives me the "GO AHEAD"-Joe Fitsgerald.

      Delete
    2. Moldy world. You can find this place at a book store in willow creek it's the lamest mold collection on the planet. Heard there has been many Gollum sightings amongst the moldy book attractions too.

      Delete
  2. It was refreshing to have a skeptical discussion with Curious yesterday without a certain someone butting in and throwing his toys out the pram

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ I agree - t`was a pleasantry the blog has been denied for far too long...that certain person is an attention seeking fool with more than his fair share of psychological issues...to be free of them for a while here is a time to be cherished.

      Delete
    2. I heard IkkyJoe had a tantrum and took his ball back home and is threatening to come back when he`s finished sobbing it all out to his mommy.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps strange to some but I have no problem with lktomi but his habit of using the same old arguments over and over do little to move the ball favorably in his court. Rehashed stories, blurry images, indistinct sounds and vague tracks in the snow will just not cut it. It doesn't encourage serious people when the those believing in Bigfoot come across as irrational as well. I'm certainly not saying all are like that but those that do give the whole field a bad image.

      Personally I thought the Sykes DNA study was the best chance the advocates had to be taken seriously and it did just the opposite. I have seen nothing forthcoming from him and have to wonder if he has now moved on. Those who want mainstream science to further investigate will have to do more than complain about it at Bigfoot conventions.

      Delete
    4. "CuriousThursday, March 16, 2017 at 8:08:00 AM PDT
      Now it seems like fifty percent of the time it comes from one of these radio podcasts such as Bigfoot Eyewitness, Bigfoot Outlaw Radio, Sasquatch Chronicles, Brenton Sawin Mysteries, Dark Waters and a myriad of others. They relate stories that range from what some would consider believable to the absolutely ridiculous and bizarre."
      Curious... Are you stating that you have taken the time to listen to all these radio shows (which is probably more than what enthusiasts find the time to do), and have actually spent a very significant amount of your time looking at something that you find disagreeable? Don't you think that's a little bit of an unhealthy interest that requires a genuine emotional investment? Forgive me, but it's difficult for me to swallow the claim that you "don't have an issue with anyone"? Time and time again, the notion of Bigfoot "sceptics" having more of an obsession than its believers is very much substantiated. Bigfoot pseudosceptics are clearly way too invested in what other people think about this subject, and that's a far more fascinating area of psychology than anyone being able to understand the frequency of evidence and invest enthusiasm upon it. And on that note... And a VERY genuine question... Do you actually know what physical evidence constitutes?

      And to your "balls & courts" sentiment. It's hard to ignore an air of narcissism in your comment which is due to a very typical pseudosceptical pedestal of not having to provide when the tables are turned. Time and time again, I keep reading pseudosceptics maintaining that the subject is pretty clear cut, yet I keep reading the same efforts at giving themselves a head start which amounts to gross special pleading. Isn't it ironic that for a group of people who religiously hide behind Scientism, a quasi-religious-like mindset that (according to them) propels them to a pedestal where they (feel like) they don't have to abide by very basic scientific principles (ironic huh?). Isn't it ironic that they should need such an uneven playing field to achieve that, for something so "clear cut"? For example, when presented with the innumerable track impressions that are found sometimes 20 miles into wilderness areas, the general pseudosceptical response is that hoaxers must have put them there. Is this the rational thinking that you suggest enthusiasts lack? Now times that occurrence by a few hundred... Is the assertion that hoaxing is prevalent in line with this rational thinking you speak of? There is no better example of this in your comment, Curious, in that after being presented with the facts of innumerable track casts that are sometimes sourced many miles into wilderness areas, that you divert to, "vague impressions in the snow", like it's the best researchers have to offer. I don't think I need to elaborate any further on that prime example of special pleading. The head start you NEED.

      Delete
    5. And like that pseudosceptical head start... "Rehashed stories" will be offered up as a supposedly rational response for three databases of eyewitness reports from people who have nothing but ridicule waiting, that lend to anatomical and behavioural consistency. "Blurry images" will be offered up as a supposedly rational response regarding a moving image that when paused can be successfully compared to recognised biological tissue of the elderly. "Indistinct sounds" will be offered up as a rational response to sounds that are so rich in data, that can be shown to have frequencies both above and below normal human-primate capabilities. "Vague tacks in snow" will be offered as a response to track impressions that yield detailed forensic sign. It's easier for a pseudosceptic to deny the existence of a creature like "Bigfoot" when it is repeatedly asserted that there is no physical evidence for it, no matter the double standards or cost in logic. And it seems that while maintaining that enthusiasts believe in things that have no evidence, that they will sacrifice scientific prudence by attempting to disprove physical data with no data; a mere hoaxing conspiracy that you'd have to be as gullible as anything to believe in. The alleged intent of an illogical amount of human beings, explained away by the alleged intent of an illogical amount of human beings, MINUS the actual physical data for the antithesis.

      "Those who want mainstream science to further investigate will have to do more than complain about it at Bigfoot conventions."
      It's funny... Pseudosceptics don't even have conventions where they can get together and exchange ideas after spending significant time in the wilderness. They get their sense of community from behind their desktops in their cosey houses while obsessing about YouTube channels, blogs & forums like this to express their complaints... After spending all their time following something they don't believe in, of course. And lastly, if there is forensic evidence from 20-30 years ago, if there is a footage source for 50 years ago, if there is an audio recording from 40 years ago, then it merely shows that there is a steady flow of good evidence over a duration from which amateur research began, generally encompassing the last 60 years. There is nothing in scientific theory that states that scientific data lessens the longer it isn't investigated further. That's just embarrassing Scientism logic for you.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    6. LOL - lktomi is back with a vengeance! Now I promise to address all of your points in future posts however it is St. Patrick's Day over here in the US and I do wish to partake in some of the festivities tonight. I will take a few minutes to address a few of your points however.

      "Are you stating that you have taken the time to listen to all these radio shows (which is probably more than what enthusiasts find the time to do), and have actually spent a very significant amount of your time looking at something that you find disagreeable? Don't you think that's a little bit of an unhealthy interest that requires a genuine emotional investment."

      LOL - my friends would certainly call it an unhealthy interest and there is some merit to that statement. I actually have listened to portions of each of these podcasts and find them more amusing than disagreeable. It certainly interests me that there are those out there who are crazy enough to spin these tales and other gullible enough to accept them as fact. I could also turn around and call anyone who spends almost everyday here virtually stating the same thing over and over about things mainstream science has not recognized an unhealthy interest as well. There's no questioning of your genuine emotional investment however since you defend it to the point of fanaticism. I have stated many times here my interest is in the psychological aspects of Bigfoot belief and there is no better place to read about that then all the stories presented here. In addition it's just a fun pastime and since my life doesn't revolve around it like some (cough) I see no harm in it. As far as physical evidence - isn't that what they use to prove something? How's that working out for you?

      My, that's just covering the first paragraph! How time passes! I'll address your other points in the future under new stories so all can see. Happy St. Patrick's Day to all!

      The trolls can have their fun with you now. ;)

      Delete
    7. Ha ha Curious, I think Joerg already started imbibing for St. Pat's, given his drunken and incoherent rant above!

      Delete
    8. Of course you would approach the assertion that mainstream science hasn't investigated the subject with words like "unhealthy". Firstly, it's the standard pseudosceptical approach to anything that exposes a version of events of this subject as fragile. Secondly, it's an attempt on your part to steer you away from your own shortcomings, in failing to grasp the simple fact on too many occasions to count. More evidence of this head start you need. I've yet to see a mainstream study in using the physical evidence to track "Bigfoot"... Have you? Facts are, mainstream science is too preoccupied with "not recognising the subject" (your words) to investigate, remember?

      Oh but it appears you DO have the time to revolve your life around these "stories", Curious, as you said so yourself. I don't even listen to these radio shows, so how could you use these mediums as a means to pigeon hole someone like me in that respect? I'm at least preoccupied with what can be measured by science. Maybe this is more evidence of that head start you need? There's a troll around here who likes to focus on the sensational woo, bypassing the scientifically measurable because it's easier to ridicule the subject. Is there any difference in what you're doing? A bit of a futile effort when the "stories" you're scoffing at are based on a creature already being shown to be leaving its sign on the environment of North America? Are you really all that concerned with the psychology of belief? Surely you could appreciate why someone might invest enthusiasm in something that can at least be pointed to, when your conspiracy is nowhere to be seen in any single of documented example?

      "Real evidence, physical evidence, or material evidence is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on the object's demonstrable physical characteristics."
      A track impression, something that can be cast and presented as a physical impression of a particular biological entity, is physical evidence. Maybe "Haints" can provide you with that head start & finally get around to explaining just why such data shouldn't be considered?

      With actual data this time please, conspiracy theories don't count.

      Delete
    9. That's good because it will take someone that long to decipher any meaning out of your meandering and disjointed babbling!

      Delete
    10. It's a shame you can't string together a bunch of those pretentious words to TRY and make yourself look a bit cleverer with the actual subject, "Haints".

      Delete
  3. Weep, weep, all the Irish are wearing skirts with no undies today and I'm stuck in my mother's basement
    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Total tossers like Fake joe ^ here wont be able to handle green beer today.
      stick to your mountain dew toddler !

      Joe

      Delete
    2. I ate a whole jar of craft miracle whip with Henry May
      Joe

      Delete
    3. I'll be reaching under those skirts to handle a few green sticks today
      Joe

      Delete
    4. I think you'll find that's Scotland you're thinking of fake Joe xx

      Delete
    5. I love all the skirted lads
      Joe

      Delete
  4. My son ate a whole jar of craft miracle whip with Henry May

    ReplyDelete
  5. I eat a lot of jars of craft miracle whip

    ReplyDelete