Top 5 Incredible Photos From Mulder's World [11/29/2013]

Read more: Decomposing Whales Are Dangerous and Disgusting!

Here are some fascinating photographs from MuldersWorld.com, the front page of the strange and unexplained:

Read more: Holy Crap... Bigfoot is an Alien from Mars!

Read more: Police Helicopter Crashes Into Glasgow Pub: 120 People Inside

Read more: May Require A Triple Take

Read more: Kuldhara — Rajasthan (Ghost Town)

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. "He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... He saw a bear... ... ... !!!!"

      Delete
    2. Hey Travis! Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. The rules of civility are a wonderful framework to use in exploiting conscientious people. What that does is create an infinite set of opportunities for what the science calls the "double bind".

    I had no appreciation for how important the double bind was for manipulative personalities until gradually I began to see it played so incessantly. The double bind is where the manipulator places you in a lose-lose situation.

    In the discussion board iteration of this play, they say something so idiotic that letting them "get away with it" is something you don't want to do. You feel that you lose if their comment goes without a response. But on the other hand, responding to them is also a losing proposition.

    On a discussion board it is a repeated play game theory context. If you respond to them then they simply repeat the play again with another idiotic statement. The game will continue in perpetuity so long as you keep responding to the chain-yanking.

    Lying is not against the rules nor is playing dumb, selective attention, and most of the other manipulative tactics. But all of these work on the emotions of conscientious people, which is the intent of the double bind. Conscientious people recognize all of these tactics as dirty, underhanded and unfair play. But for most people it is at the subconscious level. They feel it inside of them but are confused about it intellectually because they are working from the wrong premise: that they are dealing with a conscientious person like themselves who would not do such things.

    The Holy Grail for the manipulator is to keep pressing the emotional buttons until the target explodes and breaks the forum rules by correctly calling the manipulator an A-hole. Although it is a correct assessment, it is against the rules. If they could get any of us banned it would be a huge victory.

    A disordered personality or character is not crazy. It is not a mental illness. The primary feature is lacking a conscience. They use your conscientiousness against you while having none themselves. They view others as stupid for being conscientious.

    Unbeknownst to you, if the manipulator has chosen you as a specific target he is watching very carefully for how you respond to various plays. These plays are emotional, not intellectual. So they may be working guilt, anger, flattery or whatever and can figure out how to push that specific emotional button in almost any context. They catalogue you, for example, not by your height if you are short, but instead whether you are insecure about it and will respond defensively to being called short. Being short is not relevant to them if it has no manipulative use.

    You are at a huge disadvantage if you think that they are playing with you on the level of biological sciences.

    By the way, the authors do say that one of the best means of dealing with them is to indicate that you know exactly what they are up to. Like "you want me to be angry", or "you want me to feel guilty", or the statements made in this thread to the OP. They will try to play dumb like they don't know what you mean - in which case you call them on playing dumb. It is no fun for them being exposed like that. They will also exit the game when they have said too many contradictory things or have gotten so bizarre that it is pretty clear anyway that they are just chain-yanking.

    - this is just perfect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Methods of double bind?

      Claiming that all theories of early hominids are not set in stone and then using the same theories in the next breath in order to counter debate.

      Claiming that Bigfoot cannot be human because of mid tarsal break and then referencing examples of us having such morphologicalities of the foot.

      "Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.

      Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist."

      ... Totally perfect.

      Delete
    2. So do you have a guilty conscience or an inflated ego?

      Delete
    3. Thanks for spreading JREF ideology on BFE Dan.

      For the record I didn't read it.

      I'm toying with idea of joining the aforementioned forum. The BF discussions could do with a bit of balance don't you think?

      I Wonder if I'll be afforded the same cordial, warm welcome that Bill received?

      MMG

      Delete
    4. It's only a matter of time till you join since you surf it regularly.

      Delete
    5. I do have the odd glance admittedly Dan.

      Some decent stuff on there of course, but there is enough skepticism from footers (the non tinfoil hat variety) on my regular haunts to ensure the subject is policed properly.

      MMG

      Delete
    6. I've been to BFF and the vast majority of the posters wear elegant tin foil hats. Several are masters of calling you an asshole without ever bluntly stating it.

      I highly doubt you could make a week straight of posting in the BF threads on JREF.

      Delete
    7. "Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism ... or denial," Mann told LiveScience.

      Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.

      "All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the 'self-correcting machinery' of science," Mann said.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words&page=2

      ... Let's look at the JREF idea of skepticism shall we?

      Delete
    8. Speaking of Carl Sagan, how about the classic Venusian Dinosaur Fallacy:

      "I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus.
      Why not?
      Because it's covered with a dense layer of clouds.
      Well, what are clouds made of?
      Water, of course.
      Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it.
      Therefore, the surface must be wet.
      Well, if the surface is wet, it's probably a swamp.
      If there's a swamp, there's ferns.
      If there's ferns, maybe there's even dinosaurs."

      Observation? I can't see a thing!
      Conclusion? Dinosaurs!"

      Pseudo logic as it were.

      "If A is true, then B might be true, if B is true then maybe C is true and if C is true then D might be true, if D is true that must mean E is true!!!"

      Ancient Assonauts therefore exist and built half of the stone megaliths in the world, with the help of bigfoot of course...

      Delete
    9. ... And with that... We're back to double bind methods.

      Delete
    10. What emotional button am I hitting then, PJ?

      You are the one whom took exception to this post like it singled you out, so do you have a guilty conscience over something or just an inflated ego?

      Not all posts are about you, PJ.

      Delete
    11. It has nothing to do with me... You are on a Bigfoot blog that I frequent. I am at liberty to do whatever I like, just in the same way that you are at liberty to name drop me on every thread.

      You call out other people for 'thinking of Bigfoot for more than one minute a day', and then proceed to suggest others have an ego? Your ego is so significant it seems that it blinds you from the fact that nobody thinks of Bigfoot more than you. You are here because of what people think bothers you... And you ask me what buttons you are hitting?

      Don't name drop me and then get upset and suggest I take exception... Because we both know we look out for each other every time we hit this blog. I'd be far happier conversing maturely with you like has almost happened on this thread, but you have way too much to change in your ways before that will ever happen.

      Delete
    12. Please show me where I name dropped you at all today? I'll be waiting.

      You should probably learn context, btw.

      A poster calls me crazy, I say anyone who thinks about bigfoot more than a minute a year is crazy, myself included. I think you'll find I call myself an asshole and crazy more than anyone does.

      Yes, anyone who thinks about bigfoot more than a minute in a year is crazy.

      Still doesn't mean I name dropped you today, doesn't change the fact you seem to have taken exception to the psychological analysis, and certainly doesn't take away from your level of crazy.

      Delete
    13. Dan, this Alaska Bush Pilot you are quoting sounds like he comes from the end of the footery spectrum that is the flip side to the believer wing that thinks: "government is hiding evidence because civilization will end if the world knew the truth"...

      I can't believe a practical sounding guy like you thinks there are people on the forums consciously and intentionally playing this manipulative "double bind' game...Its paranoid shit akin to the "footers are destroying biology" spiel Bigfoot is Bullshit use to spew...

      ..Lighten up, dude...The fact is, some skeptics constantly try to tell people their hobby or interest is crap, but minds never get changed... What does happen sometimes is the skeptic gets frustrated and calls names and gets banned..The End...

      Delete
    14. You haven't named dropped me day no, but look at the thread... Notice where the conversation got markedly lowered... And I think you'll find with the exception of the last comment I made, I've made relevance every time... Ask yourself who's buttons got pressed.

      For the sake of others who frequent this blog, I will of course leave you have the last word.

      Delete
  3. Is this site becomine "whales-evidence"?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story