Leaderboard

We're all believers and we're all skeptics. And our positions vary by topic - bigfoot, climate change, pro wrestling, etc. Here's the spectrum as I see it: Fanatic belief - "I believe x, and you should too". Subjective belief - "I believe x, and you can't convince me otherwise". Objective belief - "I believe x, but am willing to listen to counter arguments". Knowledge - "Proof, personal or otherwise, trumps belief or disbelief". Objective skepticism - "I don't believe x, but am willing to listen to counter arguments". Subjective skepticism - "I don't believe x, and you can't convince me otherwise". Fanatic skepticism- "I don't believe x, and you shouldn't either". Notes: 1. Disbelief is simply another form of belief, i.e. "I believe bigfoot exist" vs. "I believe bigfoot do not exist". 2. Fanatics attempt to impose their belief system on others against their will.

If they claim to be a knower and are just a believer? Then they are a liar.

Bipto, just a quickie. If ( i know, i know ) Sykes study is positive and, for want of a better term, it all completely checks out and he brings the animal to Science and to the general public, would you Guys abandon what you're doing there or would you continue ?

JDL you use the word belief, which means to think something true without the proof. We are not all believer's. There are many of us who know they are real and don't just believe. I also don't really care if anyone believe's me or not. I know what i saw.

It's amazing how much they sound just like the animals they're mimicking.

So then, why did/do you jump to that conclusion above? People make all sorts of unsubstanciated claims. So, sure, you're going to get people to answer your question with "yes, they do and I've experienced it"... so then that will give you permission and freedom to assume you did too. Eventually, you'll tell people that "bigfoot definately imitates other sounds out in the woods because I've experienced it"... with nothing more than confirmation bias because someone else believes they have too. This is how the legends and myths associated with BF become larger than life. It's unfortunate. Stick to what is verifiable.

Allow me to make a comment... unofficially, of course. Personally, I'm a skeptical proponent. I know that's sort of on the fence, but it's where I am. I have never seen a Bigfoot, but I feel certain that they may exist. I base this opinion on my own review of the evidence that's been presented by others - anecdotal or otherwise, reports from creditable witnesses, and by my own ability to come up with my own conclusions based on my own cognitive reasoning skills. I know without a doubt that it is entirely possible that this creature can exist. My own mother claims to have seen one, and I certainly take her account as a creditable one. In fact, that claim is the reason I'm here on the BFF. I stumbled upon this forum in my effort to research the subject and I've been here ever since. My interest in the subject has led me to do investigation not only online, but in the field. I've researched some areas reputed to have activity. While I have no conclusive evidence that can be interpreted as proof, I have been privileged enough to stumble upon things that have bolstered my belief that the creature does indeed exist. I myself have heard wood knocks in the wee hours of the morning, had an experience with a "fluttering" sensation in my ear that I could not explain, and heard a scream that prompted me to brandish a .45 handgun as quickly as was possible. I have interviewed residents that lived around one of my research areas and listened to their accounts, many of those accounts over a period of years. These people were good folks with no reason to lie to anyone. In fact, many of them were reluctant to share their accounts with me initially. It was only after gaining their trust over time that they told me what they'd experienced. We're talking people that had good public standing, community leaders, civil servants and housewives. I found these accounts to be creditable and the people telling me these accounts to be sincere. Admittedly, being on this forum in my present capacity has some benefits. Sometimes folks I correspond with tell me things they've experienced. Sometimes they share things with me, such as photos and videos. I must say that some of it is quite impressive. Just recently, I had a researcher share a photo taken with a game camera that was very compelling. Is this evidence concrete proof? No, it isn't in and of itself, but when you compile the evidence presented it's obvious that there is something there that isn't considered "normal." Much of this photo and video evidence is taken by landowners and provided to researchers. Some of it is taken by the researchers themselves. I always have to promise confidentiality because these people don't want the evidence shown for any number of reasons, which leads me to my next statement. People are naturally skeptical for the most part. I find skepticism to be a healthy component in the attempt to discover the creature, so I personally don't mind it. However, skeptics are often dogmatic, and they can express their opinions in a manner that can present the allusion that anyone that doesn't agree with them is crazy. I find this attitude to be unhealthy for discussion, as opposed to a healthy skepticism that can lead to discussion that can be of benefit to all. I myself am skeptical to a degree, which sometimes makes it hard to discuss some of the attributes that proponents ascribe to the creature. I always try to be as respectful as I can regardless of the subject matter of the discussion, but there are those that, unfortunately, are not. Conversely, there are those proponents that are also as bad as the skeptics. EVERYTHING that happens in their environment is attributed to Bigfoot. A tree found leaning at a 45 degree angle in the forest? That's a Bigfoot territory marker, never mind that there was a line of severe windstorms that came through the area a few days ago. That crashing limb that was heard in the woods behind their house? That was a Bigfoot, not a dead limb falling from a tree. A deer kill? Bigfoot did it because they've never seen a bear or a cougar around here. Then there are the grandiose claims of some proponents. Such attributes as using Morse Code, smoking cigarettes, following humans home over extreme distances to leave items in their truck beds, and claims of the like do nothing to promote healthy discussion of the creature. When you start anthropomorphizing Bigfoot to such a degree, it tends to bring out the worst in skeptics. Then there are those that claim the extraordinary, like Bigfoot cracking lake ice with its roar, calling people by name, and such remarkable claims - presented without proof. Admittedly, these claims border on hoaxing, in my opinion. I've said all of that to say this - At this point NOBODY knows for sure unless they've had a personal experience with the creature. There's no way to substantiate a sighting without evidence. I get that, but that doesn't mean that the witness didn't see what they saw. You don't have to be a zoologist to know the difference between a bear and a seven foot tall bipedal ape. You also don't have to be a scientist to evaluate presented evidence or accounts. The same is true with skeptics and their ability to evaluate the claims of proponents. While accepted science is a useful tool to allow the skeptical to dismiss the claims of proponents, it's also going to be the very thing that vindicates these witnesses and proponents whenever proof of the creature is provided. As much as I hate to say this, I agree with norseman - A slab on a table doesn't lie. I believe that until one is provided by whatever means, this debate will continue, along with the posturing from both sides.

While I get where you're coming from, isn't this what science does when it doesn't have all of the pieces to the puzzle, such as with "The Big Bang" and Evolution? No video evidence of macro-Evolution or the "bang," just a consensus viewpoint based on an interpretation of evidence presented. In fact, most who take this point of view haven't even interpreted said evidence for themselves, they've merely believed what others have interpreted before them. They gathered, made up stuff - forming a consensus based on interpretations of others - and propagate their stories? I suppose that there are other elements that don't exist based on this opinion, such as nothing that explodes to create all things by random chance. Evolution in and of itself, being unobservable during our very short lifespans - even over numerous generations, is pretty far-fetched based on the ability to observe it. Funny, those holding a skeptical viewpoint in the name of science are free to postulate, speculate and any other "late" they care too so long as it's a consensus viewpoint, but not those who are proponents of anything this consensus disagrees with. It's not my intention to spur a debate on the topics used as examples. Just stating my observations on the matter. All of those who have sighted the creature are either lying, mistaken, hallucinating or under the influence because scientific consensus says it isn't possible. However, it's perfectly acceptable to promote scientific consensus without providing the very same that's expected of those making claims to the contrary of the majority. Why is that?