Current State Of Affairs

[Guest Grifter9931]

 

^^^ Someone compared Meldrum to Einstein... 

 

As all of these opinions are individual and people tend to have passionate view points on this subject of BF.

A reasonable view of all the sightings alone should tend to the idea that something Bipedal and very big is out in the forest.

And then you throw in the footprints, habitats structures, folklore etc.. And then the possibility of such a creature has a "small" amount of traction. The reason I say "small" amount is because of environmental factors. How does a 7-1000 lbs land creature remain undiscovered in this day and age? No skeletons that are attributed to BF is out in the fossil record that I am aware of, I could be incorrect. I could go on and on, but lets leave it at that.

 

Some of the skeptics aren't so much skeptics of BF as much as they are skeptics of some of the interactions that some folks claim to have with this creature. There are of course some folks on the far right and some on the far left, and finally some who try to be neutral to BF's existence and the evidence surrounding the creature.

 

It would be foolish to discard every single piece of evidence as folly or hoax or misidentification. As would it be foolish to believe everything some people offer up as proof that BF is out there. But thats why we try to look at anything and everything available or that is being presented to "us", as the community that has an interest in BF. Now why would anything you have to present or say about BF be important to "us"? Absolutely no reason. You can't "vet" folks on the internet. Its to big of a community and no one has the time to invest in having personel relationships with all of you. On the other hand why are we to believe "you" for any evidence, observation BF related. But we try via things like photo's or video's or first hand accounts etc. 

 

That's the main divide between "Believers and Skeptics". There is almost no middle ground between the two factions. If you questions any of the evidence you are considered to be a troll. If you believe every branch break or tree knock then you are a fanatic. There is a reasonable middle ground on the topic. Getting there on the other hand is even more difficult than being far left or right, because now you have both sides sniping at what ever stance you take. And what may seam like a reasonable request or question ends up becoming a personal attack. 

 

We basically deal with the BF lobbyist, there are no real answers to any of the questions. Each side isn't willing to give ground and the arguments/opinions are circular or rhetorical. We have the "Show me" crowd vs the "Believe me" crowd.   

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

I find your position astounding and offensive on many levels

 

How so?

Please start with why you found what I wrote "offensive" and then explain why it's "astounding" to you?

Not starting with anything...ya can go pound sand for all I care

 

 

You already started.

 

So I'll take that as your finish.

[hiflier]

Hello Grifter9931,

If I may interject a thought. It didn't really take form until I read your post so thanks for that. As you brought out any position on the issue of our "Hairy Friend" will be scrutinized (as it should be). So perhaps defining the lines a bit more is in order. I don't think it's so much skeptics vs. believers as it is Believers vs. Non-believers with skeptics being the fence sitters in the middle. Skeptics are like agnostics in that the true stance is a lukewarm "I don't know". Neither hot nor cold on the existence of Bigfoot. Skeptics are not hard-liners. They will argue believers who believe across the board everything. BUT they will also argue NON-believers because of the availabity of eveidence, not unequivocal evidence granted, but evidence nonetheless.

Skeptics it seems are mpre likely to get lumped into the non-believer camp because of their debates for proof. In my way of thinking it's a bit unfair and I think skeptics have battles on that front as well, trying to keep from being pidgeon-holed into a non-belief position. Just my two rocks.

[Guest]

Proof of bigfoot would be as unequivocal as proof of zebras, to continue with that example from earlier. By any objective criteria, we lack that proof of Bigfoot.

LarryP, do you agree with the above statement?

[Guest Cervelo]

Here are your very words again LarryP!

I think my postion on your comments is very clear as well.

Again if you care to demonstrate or clarify it would be most enlightening.

Your tactic of asking a question about something that is clearly addressed below is pretty lame

LarryP,

Here's exactly what you said,

"Their phony proclamations of "bring me a body and I will believe" are complete BS. That's because their entire materialist worldview would be shattered, so the cries of "HOAX" would begin immediately after someone produced a body. Nothing is going to change their stance that you're either a lying hoaxer or a delusional nutcase if you claim to know something that falls outside of their perception of what is normal and crosses over into their personal fear based definition of the "paranormal"."

I don't see how anything you've said so far explains the part about me or anyone else claiming only a Bigfoot body will suffice as proof is being phoney or BS....first just as discussed you may as well have said anyone making this claim is lying just to make a point...but of course you can't...hence the skirting of the rules well done!!!....second you state that its a BS claim, so once again how can this be anything but dismissive and condescending ironically the same thing you accuse the skeptics of being!?!

I find your position astounding and offensive on many levels as well as the true definition of a hypocritical postion.

But again I'm use to it from a "knower" nothing really new!

If you have an explanation that better states your postion or can clarify your statements in some way that differs from what they appear to be, I would love to be able to apologize for my misinterpretation, but for you to insinuate that it's out of context I find rather disingenuous.

I hope I've made you proud Mulder!!

[Guest]

   Pretty sure I did NOT compare BF to the Higgs particle. Just made a stated fact that his theory was rejected in 1964 and on July 4  2012 was finally proven. You made the inference. A familiar story through the ages to be sure!

   As for BF evidence there have been hundred's of eyewitness testimony from special forces and  other members of the military, as well as Law Enforcement. Tell one of them you don't believe them. My favorite is of a team of special forces on a training mission in Alaska in the middle of nowhere that came across a long line of tracks.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Hellbilly

[Guest Cervelo]

Ahhh...not quite yet on HB...right now it's no more than the scientific vesion of quacks like a duck

http://news.discovery.com/space/to-be-or-not-to-be-thats-the-higgs-boson-question-130705.htm

I'll gladly tell them I don't believe them,

I don't believe you saw Bigfoot....yep I'm still here all good.... any other silly stuff you need done I'm your go to guy!!!!

Edited July 7, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest]

   Pretty sure I did NOT compare BF to the Higgs particle. Just made a stated fact that his theory was rejected in 1964 and on July 4  2012 was finally proven. You made the inference. A familiar story through the ages to be sure!

   As for BF evidence there have been hundred's of eyewitness testimony from special forces and  other members of the military, as well as Law Enforcement. Tell one of them you don't believe them. My favorite is of a team of special forces on a training mission in Alaska in the middle of nowhere that came across a long line of tracks.

 

Really? What makes someone in the military any more reliable as a witness as anyone else? Nothing, that's what. 

Edited July 7, 2013 by summitwalker

[Guest Grifter9931]

Hello Grifter9931,

If I may interject a thought. It didn't really take form until I read your post so thanks for that. As you brought out any position on the issue of our "Hairy Friend" will be scrutinized (as it should be). So perhaps defining the lines a bit more is in order. I don't think it's so much skeptics vs. believers as it is Believers vs. Non-believers with skeptics being the fence sitters in the middle. Skeptics are like agnostics in that the true stance is a lukewarm "I don't know". Neither hot nor cold on the existence of Bigfoot. Skeptics are not hard-liners. They will argue believers who believe across the board everything. BUT they will also argue NON-believers because of the availabity of eveidence, not unequivocal evidence granted, but evidence nonetheless.

Skeptics it seems are mpre likely to get lumped into the non-believer camp because of their debates for proof. In my way of thinking it's a bit unfair and I think skeptics have battles on that front as well, trying to keep from being pidgeon-holed into a non-belief position. Just my two rocks.

 

Hey Hiflier,

 

From a glancing view point it seems that most "Non Believers" used to be "Skeptics" and are no longer due to what ever circumstance.

The lines will always be muddled due to folks who are passionate on either side and will be unreasonable no matter what the argument/discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

It depends on the mos, but many people in the military are trained observers.

So I would definitely disagree summit, unless u mean they could be lying ?

[Guest guillaume]

I don't think it's so much skeptics vs. believers as it is Believers vs. Non-believers with skeptics being the fence sitters in the middle. Skeptics are like agnostics in that the true stance is a lukewarm "I don't know". Neither hot nor cold on the existence of Bigfoot. Skeptics are not hard-liners. They will argue believers who believe across the board everything. BUT they will also argue NON-believers because of the availabity of eveidence, not unequivocal evidence granted, but evidence nonetheless.

 

 

I've noticed that there's some confusion here about what skepticism entails, especially how it's manifested by self-described skeptics on the internet (which would include me).  Skepticism is not agnosticism at all, it's more like "show me."  Generally speaking, skeptics are informed by scientific consensus, because both are driven by evidence, both are provisional (for example, at what point can we say that we have all the evidence?), and both seek objectivity.

 

I've been reading a lot here, and posting not so much.  I've seen that issues related to evidence are a big problem, as are issues related to the authority of cryptozoologists.  Skeptics (and for that matter, scientists) don't accept anecdotal stories as good evidence because they are subjective and highly prone to error.  I've read untold first-hand accounts of people who fight with demons, talk to spirits, read minds, and have sex with aliens.  Am I supposed to believe everything I read, even if the writer seems sincere?  In Psych 101 I learned that human perception is not reliable, and that's just the survey chapter on Cog Psych.  When I got to Soc Psych, I learned how eager people are to lie to themselves and others, given even light motivation.  I hardly want to mention Ab Psych, but let's face it, it happens.

 

If I did flashing neon letters in forum posts I would do it when I say:  Anecdotes are not reliable.  Seriously, considering how much discussion is wasted on this, can the proponents not finally understand that anecdotes are not good evidence, insofar as they prove absolutely nothing?  People have been telling tales since the dawn of time, and it will never, ever stop.

 

The other issue is more complicated in some ways, yet more simple in others: how much authority can one confer to the pronouncements of qualified scientists who dabble in cryptozoology?  Probably the shortest and clearest answer is that authority is not what drives science--evidence is.  If these cryptozoologists can actually establish unambiguous, objective evidence for bigfoot, which would have to be something a whole lot better than pontificating on problematic plaster casts, then there's nothing left to argue about.  Until then, their work is not convincing to anyone who is not a faithful believer, and really carries no weight.

 

Sorry if it seems that I dumped on you, hiflier, but this was just where I found it convenient to speak up.

 

I think that the people who seem opposed to the existence of bigfoot in a hard-core way are just tired of the circus, the hoaxes, the bigsploitation, the endless pranks, and the complete lack of objectivity.  Many if not most are probably just skeptics who would be very interested to see some good, unambiguous, objective, establishing evidence for the existence of bigfoot, of which to this date there is none.

[hiflier]

Hello guillaume,

Aw shucks, no offense taken here. Any efforts to clarify a subject is always welcome and as far as I'm concerned the floor is always open for such purposes. I'm not an authority here that's for sure so don't ever worry about stepping on my toes my friend. I'm here to learn like everyone else. Vetting sources and intent isn't easy to be sure so good points there. I predict that within a year all will be moot anyway. We will have a type specimen and a new chapter will begin.

Then we can all come together and fight for protecting the Big Fella's domain.

Edited July 8, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest guillaume]

I predict that within a year all will be moot anyway. We will have a type specimen and a new chapter will begin.

 

That would change everything.  But until that happens, I remain skeptical

Edited July 8, 2013 by guillaume

[Guest]

 I predict that within a year all will be moot anyway. We will have a type specimen and a new chapter will begin.

 

Another "Year of the Bigfoot" proclamation.  And when, inevitably, there is no bigfoot specimen procured by the end of said year, what then?  Will you question the existence of the animal?

[norseman]

What does your Soc Psych class tell you about a soldier that is painting a target so that a 2000 lbs laser guided bomb can eviscerate what the soldier has been tasked to destroy?

 

Where this line of reasoning loses me is that humans should not be able to discern a goat farm from a SCUD missile launcher. Do mistakes happen? Absolutely. But if you plan on coming out on the winning end of the engagement those mistakes better be a small minority. Because the enemy I'm sure could withstand the loss of millions of goats. SCUD missiles? Not so much........

 

This line of reasoning also reminds me of a story I read:

 

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0804110239

 

 

Lt. Col. Lee's 3rd Force Recon teams had reported trucks in the Ashau valley. Their reports were immediately called into question. Quite simply these reports by 3rd Force were called lies by the higher command. And these reports and backlashes by their superiors continued on for some time. Until after a airstrike wiped out a few of the trucks and 3rd Force was able to recover a truck axle. Which they immediately slung up and helo'd it into the HQ and dropped it in their parking lot.

 

Trucks being used in the Ashau valley was simply unthinkable to I Corp command. And yet those Recon teams were dutifully doing what they were taught to do.........observe and report. They could have cracked under the strain and simply started leaving out trucks from their reports. Which would have made command much happier and also dangerously blind and vulnerable.

 

And I think that many parallels can be drawn from this to the Bigfoot phenom. 

 

1) Not all humans are poor observers.

2) Physical evidence is the proverbial nail in the coffin.

3) People in positions of power can make it uncomfortable for underlings to report what they saw.

4) If you want to be a good observer......do not assume anything. Just report what you saw, heard or smelled and then stand behind it.