DWA

So. What Happens When Sasquatch Is Proven, And We All Know The Skeptics Were Wrong All Along?

144 posts in this topic

I just needed to hear this.

 

Pretty obvious, to most of us, boy I would hope, that no one on the planet has to know about something for it to be real.  When you find out scientists have discovered something, you have just found out that our species has shared the planet with it time out of mind, usually for the entire existence of hominid species on Earth...and we are just learning that.

 

Bigfoot skepticism, however, does not seem to subscribe to this.  Not having proof = there is no way we will ever.

 

Any proponent want to guess what they're going to say when the thing the evidence points to is proven to the planet's satisfaction?

 

Any skeptic want to tell us what ...well, what he'll tell us then...?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello DWA,

Not all skeptics are the same so it's not so easy to discuss? It really depends of whether or not you pigeon-hole skeptics into one kind of mindset. For me it would depend on where each individual's center of neutrality lies. A skeptic can lean more toward non-existence with room for entertaining possibilities or lean more toward belief with room for non existence. I think the degree to either side of neutral is quite variable person to person.

Other than out and out belief or disbelief skeptics enjoy a kind of safe zone that would allow surprise rather than an egg-on-the-face result. For myself I lean toward an extant creature but wouldn't be surprised to find out there's nothing out there, even in the face of the many anecdotal reports on the books. It's because there are those I trust that have information I see as credible because I see the people as credible.

Edited by hiflier
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the skeptics will become overnight experts, painting themselves as the only individuals to take a restrained, measured approach to the topic. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will say that their individual stories that they challenged were hoaxes but not the overall subject of sasquatch. In other words, those who think the PGF was hoaxed will still say it was a hoax.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the skeptics will become overnight experts, painting themselves as the only individuals to take a restrained, measured approach to the topic. 

 

This, 100%.  They will take pride in having actually taken an interest in the topic while most people did not even consider the subject at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the skeptics will become overnight experts, painting themselves as the only individuals to take a restrained, measured approach to the topic.

  

This, 100%.  They will take pride in having actually taken an interest in the topic while most people did not even consider the subject at all.

Oh yes, monster ego's do that kind of thing to people.

That is however until I burst their bubble and bust out my list of quotes from the past 5 plus years by the usual suspects that are safely locked in my dropbox account haha..;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^Just emceeing here, just emceeing here...but BobbyO might have just entered something in that last sentence there that should be fun...


I believe that the skeptics will become overnight experts, painting themselves as the only individuals to take a restrained, measured approach to the topic. 

To which I suppose one could respond by asking how a restrained, measured approach included ignoring evidence that amounted to flat whack to explain any other way...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello DWA,

 

...To which I suppose one could respond by asking how a restrained, measured approach included ignoring evidence...

It serves no good purpose to slant the discussion. A "restrained, measured approach" by definition doesn't ignore evidence; it weighs it against what's been proved. You, rather conveniently I might add, forgot to include "anecdotal" as the evidence qualifier as well. For a novice on the Forum it paints a pretty negative picture of what being a skeptic means. It doesn't mean debunker. Debunkers ignore the anecdotal evidence. To say skeptics do is not really correct although your gives the impression that skeptics dismiss everything across the board which isn't really true.

Edited by hiflier
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't think we're going to have to consider those ramifications any time soon.  After all I pointed out that there's a half century of nothing to show for hard proof and the proponents told me I was rushing things.  So sure give it another 50 years we'll all be dean and it won't matter to the current generation of either side.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with hiflier regarding the fact that skeptics differ in their beliefs. I am fine with open-minded skepticism, as that is what science is all about, while I cannot stand the type of skeptics that you mention- those who cannot even admit in the possibility of bigfoot. I believe that the species will probably be proven with a body, which is found accidentally, as opposed to someone actually going out with the intent of finding evidence. This is a probabilistic scenario, seeing as how the majority of people who enter or live within sasquatch habitats are not going to be bigfoot hunters or researchers. Thus it is more likely that some random hiker or camper will stumble upon an earth-shattering find. If that does occur we can only hope that the body ends up in the right hands. I do not trust certain individuals/organizations when it comes to being altruistic in the event of the discovery of a sasquatch body. A governmental wildlife organization may perhaps wish to study them in secret, or perhaps a private collector would have the body stuffed and mounted. These are possibilities, whether one believes in such a scenario or not.

 

There are just a variety of things that must happen in order for the species to be proven in such a way. What will likely happen when someone stumbles upon a bigfoot body is that they will contact the police. It just depends on how fresh the cadaver happens to be, and how knowledgeable the person making the discovery happens to be where anatomy is concerned. Hopefully they would either think the body human, or would realize that the remains are quite unusual and then contact the authorities. Someone who is a bit more dense will just say "bear," and leave it at that. I don't know how someone could confuse the two, but it is possible. The main indicator would likely be the large, human-like bones, if the body is badly decomposed. Which it is likely to be, due to scavengers, acidic soil, insects, etc...

 

An even more probable scenario is likely to be one in which a single bone is discovered. There is a greater chance of overlooking such an object as opposed to a whole body, but given that scavengers will scatter any remains, such remains are unlikely to remain in a single area. Whether that will be enough to prove the species I do not know. I do know that there will be a lot of "I told you so" type comments around the world. Unfortunately however, those people who were not even open to the idea of sasquatch will all of the sudden begin saying that this is not the case. They are not going to come out and admit that they were closed-minded and wrong. Those who do will have my respect for sure.

 

You know what I really hope will come out of proving the species? I hope that scientists and people in general will look at the countless pieces of evidence that were touted for decades before the species was proven, and just see that the existence of bigfoot should have been obvious- and then I hope they apply this lesson to other things where there is so much circumstantial evidence, but little physical evidence, and then actually expend the energy and resources necessary to study the particular topic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic DWA! If that much foot in mouth doesn't slow down DWA I'm confident skeptics will be fine.

 

Crow - Depending on who you believe about when humans first made it to North America we can say that we are somewhere between 4,930,875 (13,500 years) to 7,305,000 (20,000 years) days and counting without proof of Sasquatch. I'd like to be alive to see it but another 18,262 (50 years) days of waiting isn't much in comparison. Imagine the technology the squatch will learn to evade to exist another 50 years without being classified! In the past hundred years they've learned to evade cameras, cell phones, wildlife censuses and satellites while never losing their close connection to certain humans. Dodging Amazon delivery drones, Mountain Monsters style traps, BFRO raves and increasingly widespread use of security and game cameras will probably pose no problems but what happens if folks like Sasfooty or groups like NAWAC decide to collect evidence like scat rather than rely on storytelling to document their findings like scientists studying other primates have been doing the last century or so? Skeptics won't have anywhere to hide either if that day of reckoning comes! 

 

Personally I plan on visiting whichever megawoo psychic dogman-squatch hybrid vs Seal Team Six or equivalent thread is most popular at the time and issuing my most sincere and hearty public congratulations on a job well done without commenting on the obvious inconsistency inherent in obtaining a psychic squatch. I will also have a piece of cake, nothing says celebration better than cake! Seriously, how many here actually think skeptics will be overwhelmed if squatch are classified? Do you envision droves of skeptics leaping from buildings or jumping in front of buses? Most skeptics would be thrilled.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^

We dont have alot of problems coming up with camera trap or iphone photos. Or plaster foot, hand, butt or body casts or unidentified hairs uncut and lacking a medulla.........thats not the problem. Thats called evidence.......which cannot rule out misidentification or hoax.

The problem is that none of that is considered solid PROOF. Big difference!

Which nullifies many layman researchers methods because they are out there with a camera and dental resin.

We need a body, part there of, a fossil (to at least prove an extant species IS possible) or somebody needs to get lucky with some sort of passive collection of DNA.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would high five everyone of you and buy the first 3 rounds at the Bluff Creek Bar and Grill.....

I would tell you you all have been so right and I can't believe I was so hard headed.

Now get busy.......

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In another thread I said I would buy premium passes for every active poster on bff if-sasquatch-is-proven-and-we-all-know-the-skeptics-were-wrong-all-along.

 

I'm not a welcher.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites