Active Skeptics Where Is Your Evidence

[norseman]

You act like the PGF is the only film we have of a unidentified biped, surely films like these are MORE worthy of understanding than a bunch of obvious stumps and bushes?

And I'm not directing my skeptic critique at you.

Here is a film that predates the PGF that was taken by a BSA leader.http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/1962-colorado-mystery-film-footage/

 

I think that evidence is more in line with my position on Bigfoot than it is with yours. It looks and moves exactly like a regular person but is sincerely believed to be Bigfoot. It's not like scout leaders have never had fun by telling stories to the kids - they would be less likely to sneak out of camp unsupervised if they suspected some dangerous mysterious creature lurking in the woods...

---------------------------------------

Except they usually do not keep film around for 50 years afterwards.....that was a BSA troop prank.

You can explain it away all you want, but there is plenty more were that came from......and they are not stumps and bushes.

My point being is that in the spirit of this OP, where is your EVIDENCE that the BSA film is a hoax? The PGF? The memorial day video? etc?

[JDL]

Its going to take a body or a portion thereof to get them to budge.....

 

 

 

Its going to take a body or a portion thereof to get them to budge.....

 

Aye, and on that day, history as we know it will have to be re-written.

 

It's odd.  I don't believe in all this alien stuff, but I don't hang out on sites of UFO/Alien groups, and practice my skeptic comments.  It seems a contradiction in my beliefs.  I don't go there because I don't believe that, and therefore, I have no interest in even wasting my time there.

 

Methinks some are trying too hard.

 

 

When it happens they won't just budge - they'll dash.  They'll become experts on all of the evidence that they've been throwing out all along and seek to stay in the middle of the action - to have some relevance, any relevance to what comes next.

 

You act like the PGF is the only film we have of a unidentified biped, surely films like these are MORE worthy of understanding than a bunch of obvious stumps and bushes?

And I'm not directing my skeptic critique at you.

Here is a film that predates the PGF that was taken by a BSA leader.

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/1962-colorado-mystery-film-footage/

 

 

I think that evidence is more in line with my position on Bigfoot than it is with yours. It looks and moves exactly like a regular person but is sincerely believed to be Bigfoot. It's not like scout leaders have never had fun by telling stories to the kids - they would be less likely to sneak out of camp unsupervised if they suspected some dangerous mysterious creature lurking in the woods...

My direct encounters were nothing like the photos above. 

 

In 1972 I, my brother, and my friend were directly confronted by an adult male bigfoot.  It came out of a dry wash where it had been concealed and stood directly in front of us for over 45 seconds.  There was nothing between it and me but sagebrush that was shin high on the bigfoot.  My friend, David was within arm's reach of it, rooted to the ground in shock looking up at it with his mouth wide open.  My brother was 20 feet from it.  I was thirty feet away.  Middle of the afternoon, middle of August, not a cloud in the sky.  I was closer to it than Patterson was to Patty.  It was standing still.  I was standing still.  There were no shadows from any forest canopy, no trees at all within a quarter mile.  And we stood there staring at each other for 45 seconds.

 

In 1974, the pregnant female wasn't as close, maybe forty yards away across the end of a small lake.  Middle of the afternoon, middle of June.  Bright sunny day, but she was not in direct sunlight on the other side of the lake from me.  Still, she was clearly visible and I could make out her facial features, she clearly had facial hair and her chest anatomy (I was 14 and quite impressed by its size) was visibly covered in hair.  She was crouching on the edge of the bank watching me fish and she was more than ten feet from the closest tree.  Not a single bit of vegetation or any other object obstructed my view.  I viewed her directly for over thirty seconds before waving at her, saying "Hi" and attempting to approach her across the small dam at that end of the lake.  That was when she turned carefully (she was gravid), and went straight up a deer trail that came down to where she was watching.

 

You can't assume that all encounters are at a distance where the bigfoot is mostly concealed.  I know that this assumption neatly fits your rationalizations, but this is not always the case.

 

 

Memory, too, is not infallible. It does not work like a video recording where you can go back and faithfully review what happened unchanged for ever more. Memory is a creative process that can be greatly influenced by external events and images. We are often unaware at how much particular memories have been altered over time because often all we have to compare them with are those very same creatively reconstructed memories. That is why it is important to write down the details of any significant event as soon as possible... preferably within 24 hours...

 

Your sightings happened over 40 years ago. When did you get around to documenting these sightings in writing? I'd be interested to read your original thoughts on these...

 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_county_reports.asp?state=nv&county=Washoe

[norseman]

^^^

 

I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion.

I think from your pov your leaving out a third option D, hoaxed.

I've watched Mike Dodge on TV dress up in a Bigfoot ish hairy "suit" and whoop and holler and scare campers to death. Lucky he hasnt been shot.

[Guest Crowlogic]

You need to get a little less prickly Dmaker, I'd suggest. I think the point is pretty clear though. And no, you missed it. It being this: The internet and all associated with that has continued to give us the (I would say mistaken) impression that most things, even "every"thing is reported to us, and if not, it didn't happen. I say this is skewing our perception more than a little, and will continue to. This is hardly an original thought on my part, but if you've not considered it, I think you might mull it for a minute.

Be a little less picky?  That's like asking "Oh come on let us have some fun we aren't hurting anything"  If bigfootism actually practiced as much critical analysis as skepticism requires then the while circus would close down in short order. 

[FarArcher]

If professional skeptics would get off their butts, get into some really remote areas for extended periods, there would soon be no skeptics.

 

It's their incompetence, incapability, and lack of awareness that prevents their graduation.

[dmaker]

 

^^^

 

I tar anyone with the same brush that lays claim to detailed, up close bigfoot encounters. There are only two possible explanations: dishonesty or delusion.

I think from your pov your leaving out a third option D, hoaxed.

I've watched Mike Dodge on TV dress up in a Bigfoot ish hairy "suit" and whoop and holler and scare campers to death. Lucky he hasnt been shot.

 

Dishonesty includes hoaxing, but I get your point. The hoaxer or the hoaxee could be the dishonest party.

[norseman]

Yah, the witness could be innocent to the sighting and reporting what they saw truthfully.

[FarArcher]

Well.

 

That disappeared.

[JDL]

I'll PM you.

[WSA]

 

You need to get a little less prickly Dmaker, I'd suggest. I think the point is pretty clear though. And no, you missed it. It being this: The internet and all associated with that has continued to give us the (I would say mistaken) impression that most things, even "every"thing is reported to us, and if not, it didn't happen. I say this is skewing our perception more than a little, and will continue to. This is hardly an original thought on my part, but if you've not considered it, I think you might mull it for a minute.

Be a little less picky?  That's like asking "Oh come on let us have some fun we aren't hurting anything"  If bigfootism actually practiced as much critical analysis as skepticism requires then the while circus would close down in short order. 

 

Prickly.

[Rockape]

^Oh, the fun I could have with that. Let's see, do I want to get suspended? Hmmm, I think not, so I'll just shut up.

[Guest DWA]

If professional skeptics would get off their butts, get into some really remote areas for extended periods, there would soon be no skeptics.

 

It's their incompetence, incapability, and lack of awareness that prevents their graduation.

Bigfoot skeptics are some of the more incurious people I have come across.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^You mean if were were to open our hearts and minds we'd see the wonder of bigfoot mythology?  Of course in order to say that skeptics are closed minded you conveniently discount that skeptics have never assessed the evidence.  Well I was in this carnival long before you were and so far it hasn't required any special dances or pleading to conclude the obvious that bigfoot isn't out there.   You see I've walked in your shoes but you are unable to walk in mine.  I'll see your admonishment and raise you with Gee if only bigfooters weren't so willing to buy into nonsense then we'd all be on to more important natural science.

[FarArcher]

I wasn't given a choice in admission to the Bigfoot camp.  You might say I was formally introduced.  

 

Your 'obvious conclusion' that they're not out there is neither obvious, nor conclusive to me.  

 

And if you're so fed up with "bigfooters  .  .  so willing to buy into nonsense then we'd all be on to more important natural science," then why are you not onto other, more important natural science instead of here?  Since it's nonsense?

 

Mind me, I don't mind, but I think thou protests too much.  Especially over something you've concluded doesn't exist.  If that were really true, you'd lock it up and move onto other things as you've already concluded this subject is not worth another moment's further consideration.

 

I don't understand.

[salubrious]

^You mean if were were to open our hearts and minds we'd see the wonder of bigfoot mythology?  Of course in order to say that skeptics are closed minded you conveniently discount that skeptics have never assessed the evidence.  Well I was in this carnival long before you were and so far it hasn't required any special dances or pleading to conclude the obvious that bigfoot isn't out there.   You see I've walked in your shoes but you are unable to walk in mine.  I'll see your admonishment and raise you with Gee if only bigfooters weren't so willing to buy into nonsense then we'd all be on to more important natural science.

 

I asked you before on a different thread what you think I saw. I provided a link to a thread on my encounter. I noticed you didn't answer. Like Far Archer, I wasn't given a choice. I'm still really curious what you think I saw. It might help to know I have an engineering degree, hold two patents, run my own company, don't do drugs, don't drink, not prone to hallucinations, nor was I fatigued at the time. IOW all was normal until I came across BF. If not BF, what were they??