Leaderboard

If it weren't for skepticism and the "prove its" we wouldn't have been able to weed out the hoaxers in this field. Those people would still be here destroying any credibility that the field might have. You could hate and insult them all day long but they're a necessary part of this field, and a welcome one. Also I would never assume that anybody on this forum is wasting their time. For anyone to act like their time is somehow more worthy or contributing than someone else's is just childish. You're asking people to prove a negative- that's not how things work. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. All of the evidence points that you made have been shown to be highly subject to hoaxing and misidentification. Anything that fallible will never be indication of existence, it's going to take something much more definitive. Even the testimony of scientists and experts have been shown to be fallible (like dermal ridges), so where does one draw the line for credibility and authenticity? When I think about Bigfoot going into urban areas I don't see any real evidence for it or anything that would even make sense for it to be there. Urban areas usually run 24 hours and don't close for the night, are usually full of surveillance systems, and provides no natural cover or camouflage. There is a perfectly good reason why people are skeptical of claims like these and it doesn't mean that people are being mean or condescending.

Seriously? Is that what this has devolved to? A kiddie fight?

Any time one steadfastly proclaims the absolute fallibility of men, one must also consider the absolute fallibility of self.

"Saying they cannot exist, and that those who have seen them are delusional, or mistaken, discounts the absolute consistency to descriptions spanning the continent that point to a very real creature." Well once one says that one believes they do not exist, one must provide a source for all the sighting reports. Hence the list of possibilities. And contrary to what it seems you feel, but the global distribution of Sasquatch actually decreases the likelihood of it being real, not increases it. You have to look no further than Bigfoot Phd, Grover Krantz for support for that statement and about the reliability of eyewitnesses in general: Sasquatch Believers vs. The Skeptics by Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D The true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics. Reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one as being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each sighting, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source! My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable; if I hear it from an intermediary its likelihood drops to 25%, third person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight, and so on. Many believers pay no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth. Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been.

Wow, dmaker, can you really digest what you are saying, that thousands of honest individuals holding respected positions in society, by no fault of their own happen to experience something you obviously have trouble accepting. I know there could be hoaxers, and people seeking attention , or simply delusional. I am a Golf Professional, church worship leader, and I have no business talking about such a creature, in fact I am ridiculed to even bring it up in conversation, but having researched the possibility, as well as having a personal encounter, I am left with no other choice than to defend their existence. I feel a kinship with nature having been born in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, that respect and wonder that I possess from childhood and beyond has lead me into inquiries into the natural sciences including, studying weather, birds, fish, and other secretive animals. I suggest this in not simply a group of overly amped nature enthusiasts, or people wondering about in the night drugged up on sleeping pills, or anti-depressants. Most are highly rational people like yourself, who, having encountered the creature in some fashion have had to adjust there own perception of what can be real or imaginary. You cannot discount the eyewitness evidence in this fashion without yourself becoming truly suspect of delusion. I would find an agnostic approach to the subject more rational, simply say I do not know if they exist. Saying they cannot exist, and that those who have seen them are delusional, or mistaken, discounts the absolute consistency to descriptions spanning the continent that point to a very real creature. You might want to address how this hysteria has lead to such consistent accounts describing the creature, and how people who have nothing to gain and everything to lose, come forward to share what has happened to them, searching for others who will accept them.

When considering suitable habitat realize that there are subtleties involved. Is there and adequate food source, is there an area of remoteness, is there a connection to other areas that are usable, is there a stream or water source nearby, and lastly can travel to the area via the greenways be possible. Realize that the greenway may be something that runs right through civilization, a bike path, railroad tracks, stream, or power lines, or simple geographic features like tree lined ridges. I think they use all these things in combination and explore areas to see there potential, not leaving any obvious sign of their presence, because there instinct is extremely strong in this type of situation, to avoid detection at all costs! Some of you may realize my habituation attempts, well the jury is still out on whether they stay long enough for that possibility in these more populated areas. I have had some interesting circumstances, a tree crashing down, branches being snapped, a possible rock thrown, I will occasionally update that progress at the habituation thread, which I recommend highly for those already in the camp of accepting the creature as real....

LCB I have enjoyed your thread, in fact am somewhat envious- not of your possible BF activity, but of waking up the BFF with a thread that hit 9 pages, drawing out the proponents, the skeptics, the mod warning and even the angry mod follow-up threat! Seriously though, I appreciate how you handled the pressure here and just followed up on the posts with more information, sharing, and the promise of more research. There are a lot of extraordinary claims made in the BFF, and frankly I do not find your claims to be that extraordinary. Your title might have attracted the skeptics somewhat, but really a more accurate description may have been "non-wilderness BF" or something. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

Why would this scientist call them "wood apes?" There is no official name that I'm aware of and I find it pretty arrogant to decide for him/herself to throw that term around when it's not been proven. They look somewhat like gorillas, somewhat like hairless humans so what's up with this "wood ape" connotation?

I paid the same 49 bucks for the same book pal. I'm just not as impressed as you. I've read it, twice now. Yep, still not impressed. There is evidence behind skeptical position. There is a en ever growing evidence of absence argument that pretty much sinks the SS Bigfoot dead in the water. And that just grows with every day. There is lots of evidence of hoaxes. Would you like a large, grand list of them all? And some of your evidence charges are just ridiculous. Every other day we have to argue about the non falsifiability of your favorite body of evidence-- the reports. They are just stories and no one can do anything with them to falsify them. That's a simple fact but you pretend that it isn't constantly. And would one bring evidence to prove an implausibility? Many people find the notion of a semi-urban Bigfoot unlikely. Now how would one go about bringing evidence for that? Shall I produce pictures of urban areas with no Bigfoots in them? No, the evidence burden is on the people making the claim. You constantly try to turn that around and claim victory. Which is simply put wrong and deliberately misleading.